HC Deb 29 June 1964 vol 697 cc1088-96

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)

I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions about this Scheme, because, like the last Order we discussed, it is extremely important. The White Paper we have been discussing shows that the subsidy under this Scheme has been running at about £9 million a year, a considerable sum indeed. For 1962–63 it was £10 million, the latest forecast for 1963–64 is £7.8 million, and it is estimated that it will be about £9 million for 1964–65. For many years it has been about £9 million.

What alterations, if any, are the Government now making in the Scheme? As we all know, this subsidy flows from an Act of 1937, which authorised the payment of a contribution towards the costs of occupiers of agricultural land in applying lime to improve the soil. The Scheme has been amended from time to time and tonight we are dealing with further changes. It is because the Scheme is so important to agriculture that we deserve an explanation from the Government on the latest changes proposed in it.

I have with me a considerable amount of information. I have a memorandum issued by the Lime Committee of the National Association of Agricultural Contractors. It was handed to the Ministry some time ago. Is the trade satisfied with the proposed changes? I understand that unfortunate instances have occurred in the past, and it is to be hoped that under the new or altered Scheme they will not happen again. In view of the importance of this matter, it is vital that there should exist a partnership, so to speak, between the Government and the trade, particularly since the contractors are anxious that the Scheme should work well.

I can assure hon. Members opposite that there is no controversy here. I hope, therefore, that they will not gibe my hon. Friends and I about merely supporting what the Government are doing. Nevertheless, we are entitled to an explanation from the Minister about the Scheme. In this connection, the Minister may have seen an interesting bulletin produced by the North West Limestone Association. Produced earlier this month, it has been sent to me bcause it contains details of the use of lime in various counties.

I also have information about the way in which this sort of subsidy is paid by some Common Market countries to their agricultural industries. Such subsidies are also paid by some E.F.T.A. countries. In Germany, for example, there is a scheme covering all fertilisers, including lime. Another, for Denmark, is listed. This is normal practice, and we want it to work well here. It helps to improve soil fertility. We would like to know the Minister's views, and what progress has been made in improving the scheme.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Aidan Crawley (Derbyshire, West)

Whether we regard this as part of long-term or short-term policy of the Government seems to me to depend on how long we expect this Government will be in power. The Order means an extension for five years, and I should like to regard it as a short-term measure, but I am sure that we all agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) that it is a good thing that the Scheme should be extended. There have been some alterations in it recently, both as to methods and payment and as to its general working, which improve it, and will cut out the various abuses to which reference has been made.

One of the changes under the extension is that the Scheme will in future be worked by an Advisory Committee on which the various bodies connected with the Scheme will be represented. The two points that need to be particularly stressed are, first, that the Advisory Committee should meet at regular intervals and, secondly, that it should have an independent chairman. Both seem to have considerable force. An Advisory Committee that meets only occasionally is unlikely to be effective and one that has as its chairman someone from my right hon. Friend's Department is only too likely to give the Minister the advice he wants to get. Has the composition of the Advisory Committee been settled, and has it been decided, with the agreement of the various bodies that are to be represented on it?

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark (Antrim, North)

I have three points that I want to raise with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The first relates to transport subsidy. Can my hon. Friend tell us clearly why we in Northern Ireland should get a lower transport rate between 20 and 30 miles? We fully accept that we are fortunate in the distribution of lime throughout Northern Ireland and that no subsidy should be paid at over 30 miles, but though in some parts of the country a rate of 4d. a mile is paid for distances from 5 miles to 30 miles, that rate is paid only for distances from 5 miles to 20 miles in Northern Ireland, and only 2d. a mile thereafter.

The Minister will almost certainly tell me that because we have good distribution the payments have been scaled down. If so, will he say why they have not been scaled down in the same way in Montgomeryshire, Cardiganshire and Merionethshire, Cornwall and the west of England? If we scale down in Northern Ireland, why not scale down in other places—or scale up for the more distant places? That does not seem to have been done.

The second point is, perhaps, a constituency one. The Scheme has special provisions for hard, white limestone, and the north-eastern part of Northern Ireland has the hardest and whitest limestone in the world. Special provision is made elsewhere for this material, as it is a good deal more difficult to grind. Can my hon. Friend say why no special provision has been made for the hard, white limestone of Northern Ireland?

The third and much the most important point is that related to burnt lime This has been discussed at very considerable length between the Lime Association of Northern Ireland and the Ministry officials there. It is fully appreciated that the subsidy there will be £1 less under the new scheme than under the old, and there is no question that this will hit the burnt lime trade there very hard. I am told that the Ministry said that the burnt lime industry in Northern Ireland is a dying one, and quoted a very considerable reduction in sales in 1963.

The fact remains that ground limestone sales in 1963 were down considerably, and 1963 was a remarkable year for many statistics. However, the early part of the season when many farmers in Northern Ireland are distributing their lime is not a suitable time for shifting bulk commodities round the countryside or distributing them on the fields.

The burnt lime industry is not a dead one, though it may be slowly declining, but it has been hit a death blow. We shall create unemployment in quarries all over Northern Ireland, particularly round my constituency. I visualise five or 10 men being put out of work in a dozen small industries.

I am not asking the Minister to review the subsidy on burnt lime to bolster up a dying industry. The industry in Northern Ireland has been very go-ahead. It is developing new uses for lime, particularly as a concrete aggregate, fillers for plastering and other things. These are in the future and are expanding, but if the scheme is put through without assisting a little more the producers of burnt lime, we shall knock people out of the industry and out of employment before the new developments have come along to supply jobs.

I ask the Minister to look into this carefully. He will create unemployment. There can be no argument on his behalf. It is fully accepted by the officials in Belfast that the burnt lime will get about £1 subsidy less than before and will be far too expensive for the farmers.

11.17 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity when replying to elaborate a little on paragraph 41 on page 12 of the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, which warns us that this Order will be necessary in view of the present Order expiring in July this year. It says in the new Order that for a further period the existing percentage grant system will be replaced by a flat rate subsidy contribution which will bring the arrangements more into line with present-day conditions in the lime trade and lead to greater administrative efficiency and control. I should like my hon. Friend particularly to elaborate on what are the particular aspects into which we shall move more into line as a result of this operation.

In Appendix V we see what the cost is likely to be. I notice that this year the estimate is that we shall be spending £9 million in grants for lime. That will be £1.2 million higher than the latest forecast for 1963–64, but that still will not be as high as it was in 1955–56. I should like my hon. Friend to explain the assumptions on which that slightly below average figure has been decided. Is it a lower acreage, is it a smaller quantity of lime, or is it the fact that the new arrangements will ensure that the lime goes on to the farm cheaper than before?

I have always had some misgivings about production grants. These grants form part of a total of £105 million a year on all the farming grants and subsidies other than the implementation of price guarantees for the commodities produced. When considering the figure, it is sometimes worth remembering that, whereas before the war 12s. in every £ spent by the consumer went on food, today it is only 5s. 6d., or was on the basis of the 1962 figures, and that the subsidies themselves add only about another 6d. on top of that. Therefore, one could say that if only the consumers could be persuaded to pay for their food one half of the amount of every £ that they used to spend before the war on food, probably these subsidies would be totally unnecessary. I realise that if that were done, it would increase the price of food and that it is no good doing that unless we have the agreement of the trade unions. But we must recognise that so long as we pay less than we ought for our food, so long will these subsidies be necessary.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

I should like to follow the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) on the question whether people should have subsidised products or whether the prices of food should be increased. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the price of food should be raised, it would be interesting if he were to go before his electorate and tell them that the way to solve the problem is to increase food prices, for if that were done it would be bound to lead to a demand for increased wages. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman would do that.

The hon. Gentleman asked what was happening about paragraph 10 of the last Order, and the Minister replied that it had been in operation for 10 years. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman had not heard of that. One would expect from the hon. Gentleman a higher standard of knowledge than he displayed on that aspect of agriculture.

I want to say a few words about the lime subsidy, because it has come under the surveillance of the Public Accounts Committee. We on that Committee considered this matter seriously, because undoubtedly abuses had occurred. While the Public Accounts Committee, like the House as a whole, had no objection to the payment of the lime subsidy because of its contribution to soil fertility, we wanted an assurance that public money was being well spent—in other words, that certain abuses could be eradicated from its application.

I should like to know whether the new scheme will make it easier to have proper supervision of the distribution of these subsidies. It is important that we are able to reassure the taxpayer. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says about the payment for foodstuffs, whether the full amount is paid in the price or in the form of subsidies, the money has got to be found from the taxpayer's pocket. We should like an assurance that in this new scheme the Minister has taken steps to see that, as far as is humanly possible, these misdemeanours of the past will not occur in the future. We want to be assured that the money is properly spent and that the taxpayer's purse is safeguarded.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

For a time I wondered exactly what we were discussing tonight. As I understand it, we are dealing with the Agricultural Lime Scheme Extension period. I congratulate the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) on having made a speech that was entirely out of order, and nobody seemed to notice it. It shows how well up he is with events, because the Order to which he referred, I gather, was laid last Thursday and he still has 40 sitting days in which to put down a Prayer and keep us up for about three-quarters of an hour some night during which time he might get the explanations which he requested tonight. I can assure him that I will join him because I, too, am concerned with the question of transport costs in certain parts of Scotland.

All we are concerned about tonight is whether or not we shall extend the possibility of having a scheme for another five years. I do not doubt that the House will agree to this. Even when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Crawley) was a Labour Member he had no objection to it. I thought that he would have changed his mind by now. The fact is that the Scheme now in force would end on 31st July without the passing of this Order, so that, apart from any conditions which may exist, if anyone wants anything after that date the House must pass this Order tonight.

I do not think that there are any complications about the Order, but I am looking forward to seeing all the hon. Members from Northern Ireland here another night to make again the case which was made a little earlier this evening, although I suspect that the chances are that it will be on a Prayer put down by hon. Members from this side of the House.

There is little or nothing more to be said about this Order tonight. We are concerned only with a matter of timing. It is only a question of giving the Government extended time. We know that there is to be a new Scheme, and we could say that we would not agree to the passing of this Order until we had been given details of that new Scheme. I will not, however, exercise any back bench or Front Bench ingenuity in order to keep the debate going longer. We will await the discussion on a Prayer of the vital details of how this £9 million is to be spent in the coming year, when we hope that all the Northern Ireland Unionist group will be present and not just the hon. Member for Antrim, North to take part. As the hon. Member knows, time is limited on those occasions and I appeal to him to let stand the speech he made tonight and to give some others of us an opportunity to take part in that debate.

11.28 p.m.

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

We are discussing, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has just said, the extension of the agricultural lime subsidy and, as he also pointed out, it is an extension for a further five years of the payments which will end on 31st July if this Order is not passed tonight. I would point out that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) was just as clever in talking about a different Order as was my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark). Indeed, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) set the pace for this and the hon. Member for Leith followed it up.

It is a little difficult to talk about a different Order which we may have the pleasure of discussing at a later date, but what is relevant tonight under this Order is the point concerning consultation with all the interests concerned—the trade and the National Farmers' Union, and so on —in order to look into the workings of the Order after it has been in operation for a few months so that we can see if it is satisfactory. The trade and the National Farmers' Union agree with the Scheme and with this Order but in a change-over of the kind which we are making here it is not to be expected that everyone would be satisfied. So far as the point about the consultative committee is concerned, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said when answering the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), he does not think that a formal committee would be either necessary nor appropriate. We are more than ready to meet the interests concerned.

The Order which we are discussing tonight does not go into the details of the Scheme. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock has said, it merely asks for an extension of time by five years for the additional payment of the home subsidy and, on that basis, I commend the Order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.