AGRICULTURE (FARMER'S CLAIM) (Hansard, 17 July 1962)

§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House the sad and distressing case of Mr. Holmes, of Hominghold. Before proceeding (to elaborate this sad story, I offer my sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I am privileged to have this opportunity of addressing him on his first appearance on the Front Bench. May I remind him that it has been the tradition of previous holders of his illustrous office to pay particular and sympathetic attention to such cases as hon. Members might seek to liaise in Adjournment debates?

390 The case of Mr. Holmes is, indeed, a sad one. To put it bluntly and briefly, he has had a raw deal. He farms in the middle of Leicestershire what one might call a typical Leicestershire mixed farm. He keeps a few cows, grows some corn and does some grazing. As I say, he is a typical Leicestershire farmer who carries out a mixed farming programme.

My sad tale begins on 11th May, 1960, when Mrs. Holmes, acting in a secretarial capacity for her husband— and it is more than ever necessary now for medium-sized and even small farmers to have secretarial assistance to deal with the complexity of the forms which it is their lot to have to fill in— completed for him and submitted for his signature a form known well to Ministry officials, and one with which my hon. Friend will probably be acquainted. This is form CDP.1/60, which is a claims form relating to cereal deficiency payments and records the acreage sown to wheat, oats, rye and barley. Mrs. Holmes, for her husband's benefit, also completed a copy of the form which the Ministry is good enough to send to busy farmers. The original having been completed, it was dispatched to the Ministry's Office in Northampton.

The next chapter in this sad story begins on 10th June, 1960, when, after Mrs. Holmes bad completed for her husband another large form, namely, the June return, this document was signed by her husband and submitted to Northampton. The June return is slightly more elaborate than the CDP.1/60 document in that it requires a fairly detailed assessment of the farmer's enterprise, the crops growing, the number of people employed by him, details of stock on the land and other matters.

Mr. Holmes recorded on this form for her husband the fact that a certain amount of ground was sown to oats and a certain amount to wheat. It might be as well to record that on both these forms she entered that 27 acres were sown to oats, 74½ acres to wheat and none to barley or rye. The year continued and on 19th September, when in the course of harvesting this field of 27 acres, Mr. Holmes noticed in the 391 Farmers' Weekly a statement to the effect that by that date fanners should have received a form known as CDP.2/60, which is a declaration of harvesting. It had to be completed in connection with the oats shown on form CDP.1/60.

Mr. Holmes had not received this form, and, rather mystified as to the reason for the non-receipt of this form, telephoned the Ministry offices in Northampton and, not unnaturally, asked where it was. This was on 19th September. He received a promise that the officials in Northampton would look into his question and try to find out where this form was and why he had not received it. Having had no reply, he wrote to them on 23rd September, again calling their attention to the absence of CDP.2/60 asking that it be sent to him forthwith. It was only a day or two later, still in September, about 25th September, that he learned that, by a very unfortunate accident, on CDP.1/60 which had been submitted, and which had been completed by his wife for him, all reference to oats had been omitted.

Now, it is a very easy clerical error to make. The fact that oats had been sown was correctly recorded in the June return; it was correctly recorded on the copy of CDP.2/60 which Mrs. Holmes had made; but for some unknown reason it had not been included on the original form sent in. Mr. Holmes immediately asked that an inspector be sent out from the Ministry to see the field, which was then still uncut—indeed, he had only just started to cut it—so that there could be no doubt whatsoever that it had been sown.

The form CDP.1/60 which Mr. Holmes had eaxlier submitted without mention on it of the field of oats had been submitted on 11th May. As my toon. Friend knows very well, the final date for submission of CDP.1/60 is 31st July. So when Mr. Holmes telephoned and asked the Ministry officials to ascertain for themselves that this crop had been sown he was only six or seven weeks out of date. The reply which Mr. Holmes got from the Ministry at Northampton was that there was no point whatsoever in their sending out officially to look at the field; the deadline of 31st July incorporated in the form in question had to be adhered to; it was immaterial so far 392 as the Ministry were concerned whether he had sown oats or not, and whether his wife had made a mistake in completing the form or not; the regulations were there and they had to be conformed with.

In this regimented and regulated world regimentation and regulations are very necessary, and it is even very necessary to have many regulations under the complex system of support which our agricultural industry enjoys at the moment, and that if a form has to be submitted by a particular date—in this case, 31st July—to keep the system ticking over, it really should be in by that date, but what I want to ask my hon. Friend tonight, and what I was referring to a little earlier, when I asked him to follow the illustrious example set by his predecessors who have been noted for the compassion and sympathy they have shown in such instances as this, is: why cannot we temper this rigidity with a little justice?

Did Parliament, when it passed the regulations in the first place, really mean to penalise to this extent? To Mr. Holmes the cost will be about £200 in loss of cereal deficiency payment. Did Parliament really mean to penalise a farmer who does not notice, when submitting a form, that an item is missing from it—a busy fanner who returns home in the evening to attend to his book work, including the P.A.Y.E. forms for his employees, and countless other hard clerical jobs? I wonder whether Parliament really meant that these regulations were to be conformed with so strictly.

I submit that this is an error which it is easy for a clerk sitting at a desk in the City of London to make. Moreover, such a clerk, far more accustomed to figures than a farmer in Leicestershire, would not discover next day that he had been fined £200 for the error. Also, he would be trained in bookkeeping, which is not one of the natural accomplishments of the average farmer.

Why could not a Ministry official have gone to see that the crop was really growing in the field when the telephone message was made? Why could not an adjustment have been made to the form at that time? Even now, possibly, it is not too late. I have seen Mr. Holmes, 393 I have visited the field, and I have talked to independent witnesses who saw the crop of oats growing in the field. My hon. Friend will agree with me that the object of the deficiency payments scheme for oats is to assist those who grow oats. That is Parliament's intention. I, personally, am quite satisfied that Mr. Holmes grew the oats.

The previous Parliamentary Secretary wrote me a letter in which he said that only exceptional circumstances would permit a form to be altered after submission or the acceptance of a form which was submitted too late. I ask my hon. Friend to be kind enough to tell me what those exceptional circumstances a,re. In conclusion, I ask him whether he would not agree with me that the object of the scheme is to see that justice is done and to pay farmers who grow oats, and, bearing that in mind, could he not possibly temper the rigidity, firmness and inflexibility of the scheme with a little give and take?

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for the very kind words with which he began his speech. I am very grateful to him for this opportunity to explain the general principles which have governed the case referred to by him and which have made us adopt what he obviously considered to be a rather unhelpful attitude.

I think that, first, I should explain the general principles governing these payments. I need hardly remind my hon. Friend that deficiency payments on cereals last year amounted to approximately £60 million, and I am sure that he will agree that we have a responsibility to administer the deficiency payment scheme not only efficiently and economically but also fairly among farmers. This is a serious responsibility, and we must, therefore, be satisfied that the conditions of the scheme are being complied with.

This means that there must be—I think that the House will see the need without elaboration on my part—a fixed date for the acceptance of claims. Without a time limit, it makes it very difficult to administer schemes efficiently. 394 That is why the closing date of 31st July, which applies to these acreage payments schemes, was adopted, because it is the latest practical one to give sufficient time for the necessary field inspection of the crops. When my hon. Friend is thinking about this, I would ask him to bear in mind that there are large numbers of inspections involved if one is to carry out the scheme correctly and the need to dovetail them with the other work of the field staff is important. This work involves 130,000 claims for barley, oats and mixed corn acreage deficiency payments annually. The Ministry usually tries to check at least one-third of the 130,000 claims, or about 40,000 a year.

A request to add acreages of barley, oats or mixed corn to a claim under the 1960 scheme constituted a fresh claim and, therefore, had to be received by the closing date of 31st July, as my hon. Friend has explained. Claims received after that date could be admitted only if for some reason the grower had been prevented by circumstances beyond his control from completing or submitting a form in time. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the point, because, obviously, it is of importance, particularly in the present case, as it will be to other people in similar circumstances.

The special circumstances to which my hon. Friend asked me to refer are an administrative fault on the part of the Ministry or another Government Department, on the one hand, and, on the other, ill-health of the farmer concerned or domestic hardship to the farmer or his family. An example of illness would be a small farmer running a farm on his own who falls ill and is unable to complete his form. An example of circumstances beyond his control would be if the farmer posited the form by recorded delivery service or registered mail, but it was not delivered in time. Proof of having posted it would be regarded as evidence of circumstances that were beyond his control and he would, therefore, be eligible for payment if his form was received late.

We do a great deal to ensure that farmers know about our insistence on a fixed closing date for the submission of acreage claims. This was the case in 1960, to which my hon. Friend referred, just as it is today. Farmers are reminded about it on their original 395 claim form which is sent to them in the spring, in about April, and we also have a system whereby growers who look like failing to submit their form in time are sent a postcard reminder to take action. Over and above this, there are radio, television and Press announcements. The farming Press, in particular, publishes particulars to farmers reminding them to submit their claims. So much for the general arrangements.

I turn now to the case of Mr. Holmes. My hon. Friend brought this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister in correspondence some time ago and I have today looked carefully into it. As far as I can make out, the facts are similar to those given by my hon. Friend tonight. Briefly, at the end of April, 1960, a claim form, CDP.1/60, for cereals deficiency payment for the 1960 harvest was seat to Mr. Holmes. It was received and accepted from him in the Northampton Division, after he had completed it, on 12th May, 1960.

The form declared a wheat acreage of 74.5 acres and showed specifically that there was no claim for barley, oats or mixed corn as the word "nil" had been written by hand in all the columns appropriate to those cereals. I have seen the original form and I assure my hon. Friend that that is a fact.

On 23rd September, 1960, Mr. Holmes wrote to the divisional office saying that he had not as yet received a form CDP.2/60. This is the form which the grower signs to declare that he has harvested the acreage previously claimed as grain. My hon. Friend made a point about the quarterly June return, but it cannot be, and has never been, the practice to admit this as an alternative or substitute for a claim for a cereal deficiency payment. To make an exception in this one case would create a precedent which it would be almost impossible to follow.

Mr. Holmes was told that as he had shown only wheat on this form, that is CDP.1/60, which is paid on a tonnage harvested basis, no CDP.2/60 was necessary since an acreage payment was not involved. In reply, Mr. Holmes informed the Ministry that entered on the copy of form CDP.1/60 which he had retained for his record was 27 acres of 396 oats, and that he felt sure that this was entered on the original claim form sent to the Ministry, and not a wheat acreage only.

Mr. Holmes was informed that no acreage of oats had been entered on his original claim form, and that the last day for receipts of claims on barley, oats and mixed corn was 31st July, and that under the provisions of the Cereals Deficiency Payments Scheme bis supplementary claim in respect of 27 acres of oats could not be accepted.

Mr. Holmes appealed against this decision and his case was taken up by the secretory of the Leicester County Branch of the National Fanners' Union. This was given careful consideration, but a ruling had to be given that amendment of the original claim form to include a supplementary claim for 27 acres of oats could not be accepted. In the course of the correspondence on the case it was represented that the difficulty had arisen through a mistake on the part of the person completing the form for Mr. Holmes which, as my hon. Friend said, was his wife.

This type of mistake cannot be deemed to fall into the category of either illness or something beyond his control, or, indeed, a mistake on the part of any Government Department, and, therefore, falls outside these provisions. My hon. Friend has said that 27 acres of oats were, in fact, grown, and I accept this. Therefore, I am sure that everybody in the House will agree that this is a most deserving case and that Mr. Holmes is deserving of the sympathy of the House. Although there has been a genuine error, and however unfortunate the circumstances, in fairness to others the rules of a scheme of this sort must be complied with.

Subsequently my hon. Friend raised this matter with my right hon. Friend on two occasions in correspondence and represented that the decision taken in the case was unreasonable, as he has said again this evening. When these further representations were received, another careful look was taken at Mr. Holmes' case, but although we have ever sympathy with him in this unfortunate predicament, my right hon. Friend, after full consideration, decided that there was no way of setting aside the normal rules in Mr. Holmes' favour.

397 I assure my hon. Friend that we do appreciate that farmers nowadays have a lot of forms to complete, but our rules are not drawn up, as my hon. Friend implied, with the intention of preventing anyone from obtaining deficiency payments. The opposite is the case. We want to encourage this. This is the object of the payments and the scheme. We all have more clerical work to do than we would like, but, bearing in mind the sums of money involved in these schemes, it is clearly very much in the farmers' own interests to see that the paper work is done correctly.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any wish to penalise farmers for errors, but the rules of the various support schemes have to be complied with, and we expect farmers to play their part. Most farmers do this, and we are grateful for their co-operation, which greatly assists the administration of these schemes. It seems quite clear that in this case it was Mr. Holmes' responsibility to submit his claim correctly and on time.

Having said that, I recognise that my hon. Friend has focused attention on a point of some difficulty in the rules of this scheme. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that a case of this precise kind can no longer arise. In the light of our experience of the working of this scheme since 1959–60 we have varied its conditions so that a mistake in the acreage originally claimed can be rectified at the time of sending the 398 declaration of harvesting, that is, about the end of October, so there could not be a repetition of Mr. Holmes' case. This change did not take effect until 1961, and, unfortunately, cannot be applied in the case of Mr. Holmes.

I know that this will seem very hard to Mr. Holmes, but the position is that we cannot apply the new rules retrospectively. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have been into this matter thoroughly, and that, much as I would like to be able to help Mr. Holmes, to make an exception in his case would create considerable unfairness to those farmers who, for one reason or another, did not apply at that time, in 1960, for a cereal deficiency payment—because they knew that they were too late, or did not know the regulations, or were told that they had missed their opportunity.

I hope that my hon. Friend will take comfort in the fact that the rules have now been eased, and that the kind of case which he has raised tonight should not occur again from now onwards.