§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]
§ 2.42 p.m.
§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)At a late hour last night we were discussing the question of small farmers, but a great many hon. Members found that within the narrow confines of the Scheme they were unable to raise the various matters which they felt were perhaps relevant to a full discussion of the subject. It is for that reason that I have brought the Parliamentary Secretary back to the Dispatch Box for the third occasion in his first week as a Minister, and I apologise for so doing because I know that Friday afternoon is not the most convenient time for those who live in Cornwall and who have a constituency there.
The observations which I want to make this afternoon follow, therefore, the few matters that I raised last night. Perhaps I may remind the Parliamentary Secretary of one or two things which I then said so as to lay the foundations for the other matters that I wish to draw to his attention. I gave two examples, one of a dairy farmer and one of a man who has specialised for the whole of his working life in beef, people who have benefited from the Small Farmer Scheme and who, as a result of the present level of prices and other difficulties in which they find themselves, make it clear that they find life increasingly difficult.
It is because of those difficulties and because I have discussed them with many farmers in my constituency and elsewhere that I have sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment today. Last night I indicated one or two figures just to show the position of the small farmers. I first referred to a report, which comes from Aberystwyth by D. H. Evans, which gave the figures for 1960 and 1961 on acreages of between 20 and 99 and which stated that the average weekly income of those on better land was £6 2s. 4d. and that the average weekly income of those on poorer land was £2 18s. 10d.
I then referred to the figures of the National Farmers' Union for 1949–60 899 which gave the lowest return of £4 10s. per week in 1950–51 for those on acreages below 50 and the highest return during those years of £10 10B. a week for the year 1957–58. So that for a period of eleven years, on acreages below 50 the farmers who made returns to the National Farmers' Union had weekly incomes of between £4 10s. and £10 10s. These are men who have put up their capital, who are hard-working, responsible people and who make their families join in the enterprise. I do not think that any of us would feel that they are being overpaid.
Then I made reference to the recent report of the Land Settlement Association which gave the figures for 1960. Of those who were Land Settlement Association tenants, 58 per cent. were making over £600 a year and 28 per cent. were making over £1,000 a year. The average holding of Land Settlement Association tenants is five acres so that they are indeed very small fanners.
I am not asking the Minister to extend the Land Settlement organisation because I know that it is only a very small organisation. I know that it is a pioneer in this field and that it is not designed to give birth to a further offspring of a similar nature. The land is owned by the Minister and there is Treasury control. Ail I am asking the Minister to do is to look at the reasons which underlie the great difference in weekly incomes which Land Settlement Association tenants receive as compared with those who are operating on a larger acreage but perhaps on different principles.
One hon. Member last night indicated that my comparison between the Land Settlement Association tenant and the ordinary small farmer was not valid. He suggested that there were, in fact, many real differences between the way in which a tenant of the Land Settlement Association was working as against the ordinary small farmer. It is precisely because of those differences that I have thought it worthwhile to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at them to see whether there might be some indication in them which would be of assistance to us in trying to solve the problems of the small farmer.
900 One of the things which I always try to say to fawners is that as far as I can see it is not much use grumbling that the price of milk is not as high as they would wish or that they do not get a proper return from their acreage because of the prices of the products which they are producing. To go on producing a product which the market is not anxious to buy and at a price which is uneconomic is to go along a road which is not going to provide a very satisfactory future.
I want to set out under five headings the principles at which I thought we might look today. The first is that if we are going to have a viable economic unit—it does not matter what it is producing—it must have adequate marketing arrangements. I would say that the first thing that the small farmer needs above all else is a method of seeing that his produce reaches the market in a satisfactory manner. It does not matter whether we look at the way in which small farmers in Denmark market their bacon or the way small horticultural producers in Holland market their produce or, indeed, whether we look at the methods by which Canadians have been tackling their problems. They ail show that once we get satisfactory marketing arrangements, then we can obtain the advantages of dealing with the large buyers who are becoming increasingly numerous these days.
Unless we have an organisation which can produce large quantities of a particular commodity that can be properly graded and that can be provided throughout the year at times when the purchasers want it, it means that we are weak sellers and are not going to got the best prices. In addition to that, a proper marketing organisation can tackle the problems of grading and providing standards on which the public can rely. None of those things are available to the small farmer as we know him today unless he happens to have a local co-operative or some other arrangement That is the first thing which I think we might look at, because under the Land Settlement Association all the marketing is done for the tenants, and that organisation is then able to make far better arrangements for selling produce than any individual farmer would be able to do.
The second point at which I wanted the Parliamentary Secretary to look is 901 the question of financial loans. I know that many people feel that if it is made easy to obtain financial assistance, the result is that some will find themselves with a millstone of debt round their necks from which they are unable ever to escape. But one of the things with which the small farmer finds it very difficult to deal is an alteration in the rate of interest on a loan.
If a small man thinks that he has secured a loan at a particular rate of interest and then finds that the interest rate is considerably higher, it means, with his small budget, that he is faced with grave financial difficulties. Therefore if there were some method by which a small farmer might be able to obtain the financial assistance which he needed at a rate which would remain steady throughout the period of the loan, that might prove another method of providing real assistance to the small farmer. The Land Settlement Association loans available through that organisation are related to the Public Works Loan Board rates for local authorities. The interest rates on the loans made to its tenants by the Association are fixed for the whole period of the loan.
The third point is the question of buying, because if it is possible to buy at one time what is required by a number of people, better terms may be obtained for the purchasers. But, quite apart from obtaining better terms, the Land Settlement Association advises tenants on what is suitable for them to buy. Advice is given about the right seed for their land or indeed for the markets which the Association is able to provide for its tenants. There is also the question of machinery suitable for a smallholding. We all know of the successful machinery syndicates in Hampshire and elsewhere. These are matters which might be looked at to see whether they provide methods of giving assistance to small farmers. If a small farmer is able to obtain advice about what he should buy when purchasing his seed or his machinery, and is able to buy what is necessary at advantageous rates, that would be a help for him.
My fourth point may not command itself readily to all small farmers. I refer to the contract which the Land Settlement Association demands that its 902 tenants should sign. The contract makes it necessary for the tenants neither to buy nor to sell elsewhere. That, of course, is fundamental to any organisation of this nature. Unless the small farmer is prepared to enter into some sort of arrangement with a larger body of similar farmers and is prepared to play according to a set of rules which will be binding on them all, he will have to go on arranging his own affairs in Ms own way. I believe that, however unattractive such a proposition as this contract might appear, it is the cornerstone of any activities which may evolve along the lines I have suggested.
The fifth point which I should like my hon. Friend to look at arises where there is an organisation, and some small fanners have decided that they want to tackle their problem on a wider basis. The time might come when it ought to be possible, at least in some parishes— or even over wider areas—for a survey to be made in order to ascertain whether the small farmers in the parish wore producing the things best suited for each of them to produce in each part of the parish. In one parish of which I know there is a farm of over 100 acres; there are three farms with an acreage of between 50 and 100 acres and the rest of the farms are under 50 acres. If each of the smaller fanners decides that he is going to produce a crop which is not wanted by the market I do not think that he is in a position to grumble if at the end of the year he finds that he has not done very well.
In the Province of Quebec, for example, this problem has been dealt with in a serious manner. It was decided that the best solution for those farming a small acreage and not getting an adequate income would be a survey of the whole area to find out what could usefully be produced on the different farms in the area. An opportunity was given to small farmers to turn over to a different variety of production which would fit into what was required by the markets and by the country. In the area which I have in mind livestock producers have been encouraged to turn to the production of vegetables to be converted into frozen food in factories which have been set up for the purpose.
No one who knows the difference in climate between the Province of Quebec and this country would have any doubt 903 that there would be no direct parallel between the example which I have given and what it might be possible to do here. But if we did examine wider areas and made such surveys to find out what it might be possible for small farmers to produce more economically, we might find that they could avoid the problems which they so frequently encounter, and get away from the idea that there are only two or three commodities which small farmers can produce.
Those are the five points which I wanted the Parliamentary Secretary to look at. In his speech last night he intimated that the National Agricultural Advisory Service was not the organisation to undertake such an enterprise. If N.A.A.S. is too busy with the Small Farmer Schemes and other responsibilities to do this work, it might well be that, with some encouragement from the Ministry, a solution along the lines which I have suggested could be arrived at in some other way.
When I discussed this problem with some of the small farmers in my constituency I found them confident that among their number were people who would be able, and in whom they would have enough confidence, to run for them an organisation such as the one I have envisaged. I am not able to give an opinion as to whether this is so. But if it is not the answer, and if it is impossible to put this additional burden on N.A.A.S., it may be that a training scheme could be started for managers to be recruited from some other source, or from among local farmers who would be prepared to take on additional responsibilities. It would be necessary in some way to find someone who could manage the business affairs of several small farmers.
The reason I have raised this problem at this moment is that those of us who are reasonably closely in touch with the agricultural community are aware that it is those on small acreages who are perhaps most anxious at this time. If they are in that frame of mind, this may be the auspicious moment to put to them some ideas which might provide a practical solution to their problems. If the total result could be that their incomes would be related more to the Land Settlement Association's standard than that indicated by the National Farmers' 904 Union farm accounts, I think we would find some very satisfied small farmers.
Finally, I should like to read to the House part of a letter I have received from the chairman of a branch of the National Farmers' Union at which I discussed these problems, among others, not many weeks ago. He writes:
I feel that perhaps something could be achieved with Government help and direction along the lines of the Land Settlement Association.In areas such as this where the small farmer predominates I think it might just be possible for a number of farmers to employ, if you like, a business manager. The whole thing could be co-ordinated possibly through the present N.A.A.S. machinery. I know it is often said that the small men like their independence, but I think that many of them do begin to see the tide moving rapidly against them and I am fairly sure would be more ready to consider such a thing than they would have been five years ago. As I see it, in a way similar to this the small man would be able to reap any advantages there may be in group buying and selling which are at present not open to him.I think, too, in this way it might be possible for them to avail themselves of any grants on packing sheds etc. for the better marketing of their produce. There are I feel quite a lot of possibilities opened up by such a scheme, and it does I think differ from the present syndicates etc. in that it would be possible to plan production on the smaller acreages rather than as at the moment when production just happens. I am certain that a good many small farmers would be very happy if they obtained anything like the income which the Land Settlement Association publish for some of their holdings and this perhaps is the greatest thing to be said in favour of giving the whole thing further thought.The key words of that letter are "production just happens". If we allow production just to happen on very small acreages, for a considerable period in the future there will be small farmers in even greater difficulties than they are in today.
§ 3.3 p.m.
§ Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)I hope that the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) will not be embarrassed by an hon. Member on this side of the House congratulating him on a very constructive speech. Last night we had a debate on the Small Farmer Scheme. I joined in and there was some controversy. Today, in the quieter atmosphere of an Adjournment debate on a Friday afternoon, the hon. Member has made many constructive proposals which I 905 know will be carefully considered by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I think that all hon. Members on either side of the House will agree with the hon. Member that we must offer something constructive to deal with the small farmers' problems. We all know that the problems may become acute. There are signs in many parts of the country that small farmers are experiencing difficulties. On a previous occasion I quoted the problem of small farmers in upland areas who may have quite large acreages. It is not always the man with a small acreage who can be classified as a small farmer. It depends on the type of farm. Even a large holding in certain circumstances may provide a very small living for the individual concerned.
I have also pointed out the difficulties of milk producers in the North of England, especially in the suburban Pennine areas. The hon. Member for Rye speaks from experience of the South. He knows that difficulty faces many small producers. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said. His five points are admirable, and they should become the basis of discussion not just this afternoon in this debate but within the Ministry. A careful reply should be given to them.
To take one of the items which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I regard marketing as the key. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has read the survey just published by a group of representatives of the National Farmers' Union who toured France, Western Germany, Holland and Italy.
§ Mr. Godman IrvineI have read it.
§ Mr. PeartIt is an excellent document prepared, in the main, by representatives of the horticulture section of the N.F.U. From it we can see how we are lagging behind. In France, for instance, under the impetus of the Monnet plan, new market organisations have been created. I am not speaking now just in terms of marketing but of the whole system of market organisation. The French are setting about creating in various parts of France efficient markets to which the produce can go, with lower transport costs, easier handling and the application of modern methods and mechanisation, all of which benefits the small producer.
906 What a contrast is displayed by our own higgledy-piggledy marketing arrangements for fruit and vegetables. We have had arguments about Covent Garden. Recently, I paid an unofficial visit to Brentford Market. The site is a good one and the market is controlled locally. Compared with what happens in other parts of the country it is efficient. In Sheffield a new structure has been created. But all over the country there is chaos in marketing. In France and in other Western European countries the creation of more modern markets is a top priority. We have no such priority here.
We have our new Horticultural Marketing Council, but it has no executive authority to decide on new markets and the new methods of efficient distribution which are so urgent. I trust that the new Parliamentary Secretary will regard it as one of his first tasks in the Ministry to inject life into the sections of his Department concerned with marketing. I am not thinking of a wider meat marketing organisation. This will inevitably flow from the investigations into meat distribution, marketing and so forth carried out by the committee of inquiry recently set up. I am thinking now purely of horticulture, and it is horticulture which so much affects the small producer. There should be a new spirit in the Ministry on the subject of marketing. The hon. Gentleman should win his spurs by injecting into the Ministry a desire quickly to catch up with our European competitors.
This is why I am so worried about the Common Market. If we join the Common Market—I shall not argue the merits now; we shall have an opportunity to do that on a later occasion, no doubt—our horticultural producers and small farmers will face the blast of competition from people who have during the past few years very rapidly improved their marketing arrangements. Whatever our views about the Common Market, and whether we go in or not, there must, as a matter of high priority, be a drive in marketing in order to help the small farmer. This should be one of the major priorities of any Government dealing with the problem.
The hon. Member for Rye referred also to the subject of loans and credit 907 arrangements. In Italy and in Holland the horticultural producer can have better credit facilities than can producers in this country. If our producers are to compete with those two producer countries, they will inevitably be at a disadavantage. I want the Government to look very carefully into the whole question of loans, rates of interest and credit arrangements. As the Parliamentary Secretary must know if he has read his own party's documents over the years, this was one of the strong points of the Tory Party in its famous charter which—although it was as dead as the dodo as soon as it came off the printing presses—promised cheap credit. Nothing has been done over the years. We have raised the subject in many debates and we have always had a dusty answer. The Chancellor has promised to look at it and the Minister of Agriculture has promised to look at it. That is all.
The time has come for the Government to fulfil the promises they have made over the years. If our small farmers and producers in horticulture or anything else are to compete, they must have some form of cheap credit arrangements. The whole subject of credit, rates of interest and loans must be gone into thoroughly.
I will not inject any more controversy into the debate. I agree with the hon. Member's constructive approach and I hope that today the House will be able to say that we all feel that the small farmer must be catered for. I am glad that comments were made about the Land Settlement Association. It is doing a fine job. It gives security to producers and the ability to have efficient marketing with long-term contracts. The organisation is first-rate. We want all that and, as the hon. Member rightly said, we also want more cooperation.
This is a vital issue in agriculture and I am proud that in Cumberland we have the best and largest agricultural producers' co-operative organisation in Western Europe in the Western Cumberland Farmers. I want to see that kind of organisation developed elsewhere. It is the only way to give the small farmer some protection in earning his livelihood. It is essential that the small farmer should play his part in a larger 908 unit, because more than any other producer in agriculture he makes the most important contribution. It is wrong and immoral that the small farmer should be squeezed out by economic and financial pressures. He is the backbone of British agriculture and for these reasons I not only want him to protect himself by mutual co-operation but I also want the State to help him by providing the essential leadership.
§ 3.12 p.m.
§ Mr. Aidan Crawley (Derbyshire, West)I am not entitled to the indulgence of the House, but perhaps I may hope for some generosity from hon. Members for one who addresses the House after a long interval, particularly since this is not a controversial subject and it affects my constituency. There are a great number of very small farmers indeed in west Derbyshire, and I feel grateful to my ban. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) for raising this subject again.
I want to make one or two general points and, I hope, some practical suggestions. The Minister kindly supplied me with one set of figures. There are in England alone nearly 174,000 farmers farming less than 50 acres. In 1960 their average income was £740 a year. I find that townsmen still hold very generally the view that all farmers are richer than they appear, and in some mysterious way have hidden reserves and neither need nor deserve the subsidies which we as a community pay them. These figures surely dispose of those ideas.
The truth is that not only are two-thirds of the farmers of England small farmers, but their average net earnings are about the level of the average net earnings of manual workers, that is £15 a week. Because this is an average, as my hon. Friend said, many of them earn a great deal less. Although some have capital and a few a quite considerable amount, a very much larger number have borrowed a great dead to carry out their farming and are heavily in debt. Far from having hidden reserves, therefore, they are in the reverse situation.
We are also apt to forget that farming entails far more financial risk than any job token in any industry. In a bad year—and in paints of Derbyshire last year was a difficult one—small farmers earn practically nothing. If they have 909 two bad years running it is almost in-comprehensible how they carry on. Without the help that Parliament has given them, a large number of farmers in Derbyshire would have gone out of business already. My fear is that unless there is further discriminatory help, perhaps along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend 'the Member for Rye, a great many will go out of business quite soon.
I know that a lot of economists would welcome that. One has read many reports by people expressing the hope that a county like west Derbyshire will be simply ranched by a few people on a large scale. As is the case with many people who deal with figures, however, that attitude totally ignores the social revolution which that would bring about and to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) so rightly referred.
Nobody who loves the countryside can conceivably want whole villages to disappear. In my constituency, there are small villages of 20 or 30 houses inhabited by nothing but small farmers. They would go to ruin. Nor can anybody who loves the country want to curb the spirit of independence which prompts a man to leave a wage or salary-earning job and try to work on Ms own, accepting all the risks and responsibilities of being a small farmer. He is not only the backbone of British agriculture, but of a lot of the character of the country, too.
I should like to make two suggestions. The main problem in my part of the world is milk. Although the west Derbyshire farms are hilly, most of the small farmers have gone in for milk, not because the land is particularly well suited to it—very often the soil is too shallow, the climate bleak and the grass comes late in the spring—but because of the monthly milk cheque.
Because of the way that the Price Review works—I know that this is not now directly the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, although he must take a great interest in it and, perhaps, give a lead —the income of the small farmer is gradually falling. If something is knocked off the price, the large farmer, particularly in the South, steps up production, introduces more cows to his herd and increases the production of 910 milk. The small farmer cannot afford such extensions and, consequently, has a falling income. Many people have thought that this position might be tackled by a quota system, but I, like other hon. Members, have discussed this aspect with many farmers' organisations and institutions. Nobody seems to think that a quota system which might limit the degree of expansion which farmers can undertake would really work.
If the tendency of the price of milk to fall continues, we must try to help the small farmer with less than 50 acres to change over to another form of production. The great difficulty is his need of capital. It is not entirely a matter of credit. We should try to think on other lines. Many of these fanners hesitate to borrow at the rate of interest which they are charged. I wonder whether it might not be possible, if they were to change over to livestock production, for example, to devise some sort of system of futures payments, by which I mean quarterly payments at least on stock on the land, striking a balance at the end of the year. This would solve the problem of the small farmer having to go through most of the year without anything coming into his banking account and it would enable a check to be kept on the way that he was producing his livestock.
That could be done in many ways, perhaps through the Fatstock Marketing Corporation or a meat marketing board, if we have one, or conceivably some form of insurance. I am, however, sure that we will not be able to persuade small farmers of the type of whom I am thinking to make this drastic change in their methods if they have to borrow a lot of money at high rates of interest. Something else is needed.
My other suggestion concerns cooperatives. As the hon. Member for Workington has said, we are a long way behind many Continental countries in our development of co-operatives. Some people, however, underestimate the difficulties. I think more of what I call machinery or producer co-operatives than marketing co-operatives. In Holland or Denmark, the country is flat and farm after another are of the same kind, separated only by a small ditch, and everybody produces much the same thing in much the same way. Most people can easily share their 911 machinery and other things. It is a different question in a place like West Derbyshire, where the whole country is steep hills and narrow valleys.
A small farm at the bottom of the valley may have a totally different sort of soil and farming technique to its neighbour, 1,000 feet above it, although the two fanners are next door to each other and only 50 acres apiece. There may be no means of communication and one may have to go five miles round to get from one to the other. Co-operation is not easy in those circumstances. Nevertheless, it is of very great importance. I know there is a considerable resistence to it, and I doubt if in this area the idea of a single manager managing many farms, as my hon. Friend suggested, would yet be acceptable.
If we are to get farmers of this kind, living next to each other but remote from each other in many ways, to consider co-operation, we shall have to consider introducing some form of pilot scheme. The Minister must forgive my ignorance if any such schemes exist in other parts of the country, because I have not been back long enough to have that information, but I am pretty sure that no such scheme exists in my constituency or in neighbouring constituencies.
I think that if we could get a small group of four or five farmers in different areas to accept the idea of a pilot scheme, survey their needs and possibilities, and then, while the scheme is running, have the constant help of somebody from the advisory service, we might get something going which would set an example that other small farmers would then consider. I am sure that we will not achieve practical cooperation merely through exhortation. It is only when these very independent minded men, who are living a fairly hard life and working enormously long hours all through the week, actually see that it works and pay off that they will consider it.
I hope that the suggestions not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Rye but those, too, which I have made will commend themselves to the Minister. It is infinitely worth while doing more than we are doing to help the small farmers. 912 Because not only will he be with us for a long time, but here and in other European countries he will remain the backbone of agriculture during the rest of our lives.
§ 3.23 p.m.
§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)May I say how very much I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Crawley) whom we welcome back to the House and how much we shall look forward to his contributions in the months and years ahead? It is only because of what he said about the villages and farms in Derbyshire that I am speaking in the debate. I should also like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his new appointment.
On this question of co-operatives, I am sure that in the long run if the farming community of this country is to receive the support of the masses of the people, farming will have to be productive and profitable. I wonder if my hon. Friend has considered sending a delegation to the State of Israel to look at the type of village co-operatives called Moshavims where there are about 25 farms which seem to be of a similar description to the one which my hon. Friend described in Derbyshire and where each individual farmer farms as an independent person but all the produce of those farms is brought centrally into the village. Their marketing is cooperative, their machinery is co-operative and their on-cost of production per acre is much less than that of the average farmer in Britain. I think that a survey of this system in Israel, where the farmers are very dynamic in their approach to agriculture, would be a sensible approach to this problem of the small farmer.
If we could take an ideal village and start a pilot scheme of this kind and, because it is pilot scheme, guarantee its security by Government funds over a period so that we could show the rest of the farming community that it would be worth while, I am sure that we should get a great many from other villages wanting to do the same thing. If we could produce such a pilot scheme through the Ministry of Agriculture, we should go a long way to overcoming this problem of the small farmer.
913 I go back to what I started with and say that the nation as a whole will not for ever go on giving ploughing grants, and subsidies for this and that, to produce for the individual farmer an income which is lower than the amount he is drawing in subsidies. The public will eventually realise this, and when they (realise it they will say to the Government of the day that they must bring it to a stop.
Before that happens we have to evolve some efficient system, and we could profit from the lessons which could be learned by a real study of how the problems were tackled in Israel. The farmers there had extremely difficult problems. Look at their land. They even had to spend years moving boulders by hand, to get at the soil from which to produce crops. I am certain that the problems of the Derbyshire farmers could be solved if their problems were to be tackled as Israel tackled hers.
I say to my hon. Friend, let him go down in history as the man who solved the problems of the small farmer.
§ 3.26 p.m.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins)Let me first of all say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) for raising this extremely important subject on the Adjournment this afternoon. I do not mind a bit forgoing the pleasures of Cornwall to discuss such a very important subject as this one, even though we were talking about it, to a certain degree, last night. As my (hon. Friend will undoubtedly know, I have the very greatest sympathy for the small farmers, because I was myself a small farmer, albeit many years ago. I was engaged in farming by myself, the one person on my farm, so I realise and understand only too well the problems Which small farmers have to face.
However, I think that perhaps the picture Which has been painted by my hon. Friend and various other of my hon. Friends and the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is just a little bit too over-gloomy. There are no two ways about it. The small farmer does have by far the most difficult time of all the farming community at the moment, but the House will remember that only 914 as recently as last night we were discussing measures Which the Government are taking to help the small farmer. We appreciate that the small farmer needs help. Last night we discussed the help that we have given through the Small Farmer Scheme and the improvements to that Scheme. It is for the very reason that the small farmer has been lacking in capital, which is one of his troubles, that we made an injection of capital in the once-for-all grant last night, for the very purpose of helping him to make himself more productive, more efficient, and to get into a position to face the changing conditions of the future.
I expect that my hon. Friends will remember the speech which was made last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) when he made extremely interesting and constructive suggestions to the effect that small farmers, amongst others, must keep up with Che times, and with modern improvements and all the new things Which are happening, and which science brings us; they must take every advantage they can of these if they are to keep in the race. Of course, this is only just one side of it. My hon. Friend put forward five interesting points, and I am sure that everybody in the House will agree that they are extremely useful and interesting.
The hon. Member for Workington mentioned a point about marketing, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Crawley), whose very interesting speech I was delighted to hear. I am glad that he has joined us here. The Government recognise the fact that the marketing position needs looking into and, indeed, needs reorganisation and, perhaps, changing in some of its aspects. It is for that reason that after the Price Review at the beginning of this year £1½ million was allocated by the Government for research into new methods of marketing to bring the marketing systems of this country into line with modern techniques and improvements so that this country can compete with whatever changing circumstances may bring, even those mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington, and whatever happens in the future. This is the responsibility not only of the Government but also of the N.F.U. and other farming organisations. I am sure that 915 advantage will be taken of it and something worth while will emerge from it.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Workington also spoke about capital provision and loans. It is rather difficult to deal with this matter in respect of the small farmer in isolation. The matter of credit for the farming industry must be considered as a whole. The Government have provided an injection of capital amounting to £29 million for the small farmer alone when the present scheme comes to an end, and that is no small sum. The structure of capital and credit for the farming industry cannot be broken down but must be looked at as a whole, and, if possible, improved.
My hon. Friend also raised a point which covers buying syndicates, selling syndicates and machinery syndicates. This is an extremely important issue. Small farmers, and large ones as well, must be encouraged to go more and more into this sort of thing. The greater the co-operation which can be achieved between farmers, the better it will be. That is one of the reasons why after last year's Price Review the Government allocated money for grants to be paid to syndicates for the erection of buildings for grain drying, storage and the housing of machinery. For this purpose, £250,000 has been made available over the next seven years.
My hon. Friend also talked about the Land Settlement Association. He pointed out that this is a compulsory get-together and that farmers cannot become tenants unless they sign a contract to buy and sell all their products through the Association. I do not think that it is the right approach to have a compulsory get-together of small farmers. It should be done on a voluntary basis. The small farmers should be shown the advantages of such an arrangement, and once together, they can be encouraged as they have been by the recent grant. Except in this instance, I do not think that compulsion can be said to work on a nation-wide basis. The work that the Association has done, and the success that it has achieved, has been extraordinary, but the work is on a very limited basis, and I think it must stay that way.
One thing which my hon. Friend did not make clear when talking about the 916 Association was that the tenants do not pay any interest on the capital which the Association uses for buying and selling the produce and the general running of the scheme. A certain amount must be set off for this from the profit which the ordinary tenant receives at the end of the year. The Association has done extremely well, and I hope it will continue to do even better in the years ahead.
My hon. Friend also spoke about help from the National Agricultural Advisory Service for small farmer groups. He may slightly have misunderstood what I said last night. I did not say that the N.A.A.S. would not help at all—it will—but it is not its function to act as business managers for a buying group, a selling group or a farm machinery syndicate. Its job is to advise. If farmers want to get together —and I hope they will do so—they can then ask the N.A.A.S. for advice and help in working out their plans. It will give advice as to what groups should produce, and so on. That is the kind of service the N.A.A.S. would be only too delighted to give to the farming community, particularly small farmers, but, as I have said, it is not its function to act as business managers.
Many of the buying associations employ their own full-time managers. In my part of Cornwall a buying group has been started by a small branch of the N.F.U., and there is a fully paid manager to look after the groups in the county. This is a very good small scheme started under the N.A.A.S., whose main functions must be to advise and help small farmers to get together and to increase their production.
I understand the difficulties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West. His area has farms scattered among the dales and hills and it is difficult to get the farmers together to co-operate on a reasonable basis. The N.A.A.S. can help in showing them how it is possible. That applies to the production side, of course, but on 'the marketing side also the more association and co-operation between farmers there is, the better it will be for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) made a very interesting suggestion when he talked 917 about the State of Israel. By sheer coincidence, a farmer friend of mine has just returned from there and has told me about this work. It sounded fascinating and I shall do what I can to hear more about it.
§ Sir D. GloverIt is not a village. It is a type of village, and there are hundreds of them.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsThere are several of them, some successful and some not so successful. Nevertheless it is a very interesting suggestion worth looking into, and I am sure it will be considered.
The main point brought out in this debate is the great concern we all feel for the small farmer in seeing, on social grounds, that he is able to stay on the land with a reasonable standard of living and that he is able to thrive in future. Whether he can thrive alone on his own farm with his old standards and practices, I do not know. Surely he must move with the times and, by using modern methods and combining where possible with his neighbours—but on a voluntary basis—he can hope to give himself a higher standard of life.
The Government are fully alive to the difficulties of the small farmer. We intend to see that he is neither left behind nor squeezed out. This is the object of what the Government are doing, and have done in the past, as has been proved. I hope that small farmers will continue to co-operate with each other more and more in future so that they can get together in strength and face the future, no matter what it may hold.