HC Deb 02 November 1965 vol 718 cc962-84

7.22 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Cornwall, North)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Agricultural Lime (Amendment) Scheme, 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 1394), dated 13th July, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st July, be annulled. I congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the amount of research that he or his Department must have done in producing the various Acts which refer to this Statutory Instrument. He has produced four very important Acts, all of which have absolutely no bearing on our main discussions tonight, but he has not placed in the Vote Office the two Acts which bear on our discussions.

This is another example of the incompetence of the Ministry and is a matter which I find very hard to accept. The last time we had this difficulty—last week—I asked, Mr. Speaker, what protection one could get from the Chair. As I understood it, it was said that it was the Minister's responsibility to produce these Acts. I refer to the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, and the Fertiliser and Feeding Stuffs Regulations, 1960. These are absolutely vital to the points which I intend to raise during our short discussion. The Government have once again failed to produce Measures for the use of hon. Members. This again shows how incredibly incompetent this Ministry is, which is a great change from the days when I occupied the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's position, when I found that the Ministry was extremely competent and very helpful.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)

Mr. Speaker, your Deputy was in the Chair when the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) raised this point last week. I want to go back—I do not know if this is in order—to the Ruling given by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, on 12th December, 1961, at col. 221, that it is the responsibility of the Minister in charge of an item of business to place necessary documents in the Vote Office.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North said that this is a change from the competency which was shown by our Department when he occupied my position. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, without any reflection on the Ruling given by your Deputy last week, that the procedure followed by my Department when the hon. Gentleman was there was exactly the same as that which was followed last week and which has been followed tonight, except that we made an effort, in deference to the hon. Gentleman, because of his complaint last week, to give him at least a list of the documents which we thought were necessary. Two major Government Departments have considered that an Opposition Prayer or Motion against an Order is not Government business and is not in Government time and that it is the Opposition's duty to find the documents themselves. This has been the practice in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it was carried out by the hon. Gentleman when he was in the Ministry in my position. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?

Mr. Speaker

That was a very long intervention. I do not know why the Minister has brought the Chair into it. This is a matter which the two hon. Members must fight out between themselves. All I can say, to emphasise the Ruling of my predecessors, is that the Chair is not responsible for deciding which documents are relevant either to help the Opposition or the Government.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I was seeking to make, and which seemed to be underlined by the Ruling of your predecessor in years gone by, was that a duty was quite clearly laid on Ministers to produce the necessary Acts to which the Statutory Instrument being discussed by the House related. I was saying nothing further than that. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wishes to take issue, he is taking issue with the Rulings given by you, Sir, and by your predecessors. I wish to make no further comment on that, except once again to say that at the moment these two documents—the Act and the Regulations, which I shall be referring to in some detail later—are not available to hon. Members who may wish to consult them. I should have thought that the least the Minister could do would be to apologise to the House and to ensure that in future the relevant documents are available.

Article 2 deals with the amendments which are to take place to the 1964 Scheme. Under paragraph 9(11) somebody is to be appointed by the Minister to hear any objections or points which approved suppliers or producers with whom the Ministry is dealing and whose status is being queried by the Ministry may desire to put forward. What type of person does the Minister envisage appointing for this task? What kind of evidence will be given to him? Will it be on oath? What opportunity will the producer have of giving evidence before the person appointed by the Minister to hear complaints?.

The next point of detail arises on page 2, still dealing with paragraph 9 of the original Scheme. I have read this through half a dozen times. It still seems very confused. I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to explain exactly how he intends this to operate. Lines 4 and 8 seem to be very contradictory.

The only comment I have on Schedule 1 is that I do not intend to query the rates of subsidy laid down in column 4 or the deductions which have been made. I shall make some general points later.

According to page 5 of the Statutory Instrument, the additional contribution for non-returnable bags will be 4s. 6d. per ton of the lime delivered anywhere in the country, but there appears to be a higher rate of contribution, of 9s. 3d., for non-returnable bags where there is an island delivery. This is a small point and I may be wrong but I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to explain why there is this difference in the rates.

I do not intend to comment on the transport charges in Scotland as laid out in Schedule 2. My hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies will no doubt deal with these matters in detail later and I see that the Minister of State for Scotland is present. I hope that he will be competent to deal with any of their queries.

I note that in Part III the rates prescribed for Northern Ireland are 4s. per ton up to five miles, 4d. per ton for every mile over five and up to 18 miles, and 2d. per ton for every mile over 18 miles up to 30 miles. These are very different from the English and Scottish rates and I wonder why this is so. My knowledge of Northern Ireland is extremely sketchy but it seems to me that the distances there are less and I can only deduce that in its wisdom the Ministry has decided that the Northern Irish producers are much higher-cost producers than those in the rest of the United Kingdom and therefore some form of extra subsidy is necessary to keep them going. This is strange. The whole trend of the Ministry's thinking in matters of lime subsidy seems heavily weighted against the small high-cost production quarry and yet an exception to this rule seems to be made in Northern Ireland. I should like to know why.

These points of detail, I readily admit, are not of earth-shaking importance and I turn to other matters of great importance to the producers and to those who use line. The first point concerns sampling, the second concerns procedure for grading and sieving, and the third the method of testing and analysis. I raise these points because when we have a scheme such as this with a reasonably high rate of subsidy and a tremendous differential in that rate, it is essential to have the differences between the substances established beyond a peradventure. It is also extremely important to have an agreement between producers on what is meant by the various terms used by the Ministry in the Scheme and what are the methods of testing and analysis.

Lime producers are particularly anxious to see the Scheme working properly, but if they are not in a position to know these things how can they comply with the rules and regulations laid down by the Ministry to govern sampling and analysis and various other technical matters? If they do not know, formidable difficulties will arise. The regulations should lay down detailed descriptions of how the samples should be taken, where they should be taken, and at what period of time they should be taken. The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt refer me to the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926 and the 1960 Regulations which I have read with great care, but these are not sufficiently specific for the lime producers so that there may be no confusion between the Minister's technical officers, with whom the producers have no quarrel, and the producers themselves.

There should be no difficulty about laying down clearly how the samples should be taken. The Minister and the Association can get together and work out an agreed system of sampling. It is extremely important that they should do so. While I do not ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the Scheme on this ground, I ask that he should see what he can do to bring in regulations which lay down these requirements categorically.

The second point concerns the method of analysis and testing. Obviously, this is extremely important. There was a recent case where three samples were taken. One was given to the Government analyst, the second to an agricultural analyst and the third to the analyst employed by the Association of Lime Producers. All three used different methods of testing the neutralising value and all three came to an entirely different answer. There was no difference of opinion about the quality of the lime but the point is that at the end of the day each had a different answer on the question of the neutralising value.

As hon. Members will see from the Scheme, it is extremely important that the neutralising value should be established without question of contradiction, but if there are three different methods and the lime producers do not know which method will be used by the Government great difficulty will arise. Last year the Minister referred to this important Act and the Regulations, which I repeat are not available in the Vote Office. I am not an expert and therefore I cannot comment on these methods of analysis but the Minister laid down the method for eight types whereas there are 27 different types for which no procedures are laid down.

The Minister's comment in a letter to the lime producers was: For the purpose of this Scheme we follow those methods in taking and analysing samples of those materials. For those liming materials included in the Fertiliser and Feeding Stuffs Regulations where, for the purposes of administering the Act it has not been thought necessary to describe in the Regulations some of the details of the methods of analysis, and for those liming materials which are provided for in the Scheme but not scheduled in the Regulations, we have requested the Public Analyst and the Government Chemist that, for the purposes of the Lime Scheme, the methods used should in these particulars be the most suitable modification of the method described in the Regulations which is most appropriate to the physical condition of the lime. This means that the Public Analyst and the Government Chemist can use whatever system they like.

The lime producers do not quarrel with this. All they ask is that the Minister should lay down in the Regulations the exact form of the analysis and testing. There has been a certain amount of discussion and I am certain that an agreed method can be easily arrived at. If it is arrived at it can be written into the Regulations as it was in 1964 and brought up to date for 1965 and 1966. I would ask the Minister in all seriousness to get together with his officials and the lime producers to agree on a method of analysis and write it down so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind. That is the only way that we can be certain that the industry itself and the Government will be on the same lines. The industry is anxious to keep up to the standards required in column 2 of the Regulations for the various products in column 1.

The third point, which is of equal importance, is the procedure for grading, sieving and so on. Once again, there is nothing laid down statutorily. Should one take the sample, for instance, when the lime is dry or when it has been in a wet condition, and, if wet, for how long should it be allowed to stay wet? Then, how should the sieving be done? That is extremely important for the purposes of column 3 on page 3. Is it to be done by hand or by machine?

All these are points of detail, but they make a great deal of difference when one considers the intricacies of column 3, where a slight variation in the substance can change the subsidy from 18s. 6d. to as low as 11s. 6d., if there is no agreement whereby the tests are to be carried out. I ask the Minister once again with his officials to get together with the industry and agree on a method of grading and sieving and a method of procedure for all the important tests involved in columns 2 and 3. If that can be done, will he then bring forward Regulations? I am certain that the industry will be most co-operative with him, and we on this side will give every assistance that we can to bring the Regulations forward. I hope that the Minister will get on with it as soon as he can.

The next subject that I wish to raise concerns the transport contributions which are set out in the Second Schedule, It is quite clear that the reductions made form a very uneven pattern. The reductions have been made from the 1964 Schedule, and those who are further away from the user of the lime are penalised more than they were before. But that is not the main point, because there is no doubt that, running through the whole Schedule, there is the fact which has been brought out by what the Minister has said on a previous occasion, that the whole policy of the Government at the moment is to discourage the high cost small producer to the advantage of the lower cost producer who is covering a larger area. In a letter that the Minister himself wrote to the chairman of the North-West Limestone Association, Mr. Kerr, he pointed out: The advice of our specialists is that the general run of grades as covered by the new schedule of rates is adequate for 'maintenance' purposes. Before that, he had said: In the modern concept of the Lime Scheme as being encouragement to farmers towards 'maintenance' liming, there is really no case to provide extra subsidy for this very fine material. He was referring there to the particularly fine grades of ground limestone. It is quite clear that it is the intention of the Minister to discourage very high grade and expensive types of lime, because the "maintenance" type of liming is greatly to the advantage of the lower cost producer. I would like the Minister to tell the House that that is his policy so that we shall be able to assess whether he is right or wrong on his reply, because he has not so far made it clear to the House or to the agricultural industry. What is the Minister's policy about the use of this very important agricultural material?

When all these matters were discussed, there was no agreement between the Ministry and the Agricultural Lime Producers' Council, and I find it very odd that the Minister has been proclaiming that the Council was content with the rates for ground limestone and that those in the new schedule were actually put forward by it in the process of our discussions. To assert that the agricultural lime producers were content with the whole of the Statutory Instrument is not true, and I say that on the authority of the chairman himself. He refutes utterly the allegations that the Parliamentary Secretary has been making that the industry is content with the Schedule. It is not, and I have its authority to say so. The fact that it has put forward various compromises is true, and quite rightly, because it is its duty to negotiate with the Government on these important matters, and it has done that to the best of its ability. To a large extent, it has ameliorated the position which was proposed originally by the Government.

The proposal was that there should be only two grades of ground limestone, and the Council at least managed to extend that. Its proposal was for nine and not two grades, and the compromise that was arrived at is that shown in columns 3 and 4. It will be seen that this is an unhappy document which is the result, as all these things are, of a compromise between the Minister and the Producers' Council. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to admit that the lime producers are not satisfied and content with the existing system, because it would be utterly wrong to suggest that they were.

A scheme is needed which can be accepted by the producers and by those farmers who use it. Lime is a product which is of great use in increasing fertility and productivity on our farms. Quite obviously, there needs to be harmony between the Minister and those engaged in the industry at both ends. I have said many times in the past that I do not think that a statutory consultative procedure between the Minister and the Agricultural Lime Producers' Council is the correct one. Nevertheless, the movement of ideas and the meetings between the two parties should be much more frequent than they are at present. There is not enough getting together of minds between the Council and the Ministers' officials and, when they do meet, there seems to be a certain amount of inhibition, and difficulties arise.

I hope that the Minister will do all that he can, and say so this evening, to foster a better understanding between his Ministry and the Council so as to enable future negotiations to be conducted much more smoothly and for the views of the Council to be taken more easily on an informal basis, so that the two sides of the industry can work well together. Other industries have much better relations with the Ministries with which they deal than there are between the Agricultural Lime Producers' Council and the hon. Gentleman's Ministry. I hope that in the future he will do his very best to see to it that these conditions are improved, because great advantages will flow to the Ministry and to everyone who uses the product, as well as to the producers.

Having covered the main points, may I say, finally, that technical and general sub-committees between the Ministry and the producers might be of advantage if we are going to work out the various problems that I have raised this evening, mainly concerning sampling procedures and analysis. Those are technical matters, and I hope that the Minister will set up sub-committees to deal with them, because they will also improve co-operation. That being so, I shall look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say in reply to the queries that I have raised.

7.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon (Wells)

I endorse the criticisms of this Scheme made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I have been asked to do this on behalf of constituency interests, people who produce lime in Somerset, whose major criticism is really the last one raised by my hon. Friend, that of lack of proper consultation between the Agricultural Lime Producers' Council and the Ministry. The producers say that there has been discussion but not proper consultation. When there may be several informal meetings, it is difficult to draw the line between what is described as discussion and what can be described as proper consultations, but it is clear that, from their point of view, the producers have gone away very dissatisfied.

There is no reason why this should be so. The Ministry should pay heed to these people engaged in the important business of producing a material for our agriculture. There must, in future, be some attempt to make the exchange of ideas more like proper consultation and less like mere discussion, as the producers describe it.

Next, I emphasise what has been said about the importance of definition. We are here dealing with a chemical product, for that is what it is, and it should be clearly definable. There will be several different grades depending on the quality of the raw materials from which the lime is manufactured, but this is not an insuperable difficulty. In the Schedule already before us the various descriptions of lime products show that there are several different grades produced from different raw materials. But the definition must be far more precise. Full details must be given of how the definitions are arrived at and of how the sampling is to be done, together with a more precise definition of the raw materials from which the lime is produced. There must be a precise definition—at present, there is none at all—of what is the neutralising value and the proper means of ascertaining that neutralising value.

These are the main criticisms which have been put forward, and I shall listen with interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say. I hope that he will give due attention to these valid criticisms of the Scheme.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) concluded by mentioning the balance which must be struck between the Government, the farmers and the producers. In this case, the Government have come off best, as they have done throughout this year in all agricultural matters. The farmers have taken an 8.3 per cent. cut in the subsidy on lime, and this Scheme gives effect to it. As my hon. Friend said, lime is the key to agricultural production. No amount of fertiliser will overcome a lack of lime, so we should encourage farmers to use as much as possible. It is too early yet to say whether this new Scheme offers an advantage over the last one as regards operation because it has been a singularly wet autumn and many farmers have been unable to call in the lime spreaders because of ground conditions.

While I express concern for the farmers, I express equal concern for the Scottish producers. As my hon. Friend said, the high-cost small quarries have been hit particularly hard by the Scheme. In my constituency in the south of Scotland, one lime quarry has had to close because of the advantageous haulage rates from the north of England. I ask the Minister to take careful note of this situation because we are trying to encourage regional employment in rural areas.

I welcome the continuation of the one-sixth weighting in favour of Scotland. I hope that when the matter is considered at the Price Review next year, this advantage to small Scottish producers will continue.

The last point I make to the Minister—I hope that his hon. Friend from Scotland will bear it closely in mind—is that the Scottish limestone producers, who, incidentally, are against this Scheme, know that they can increase their production of lime very considerably. I hope that any further action taken by the Minister will encourage the Scottish producers.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

In the short time it has already run, this debate has shown the great dissatisfaction which lime producers particularly have about the Scheme, and it is on their behalf that I wish to make two points tonight. I am solely a user of lime. Hence, I have no brief whatever for the lime producers, but I consider that they have a reasonable complaint to make.

There has been reference already to the lack of notice given by the Ministry of this new Scheme compared with the 1964 Scheme. There was gross lack of consultation between the Ministry and the producers over the notice given to the producers of the change in the number of grades. The Ministry should have known this because the 1964 Scheme, brought out by the previous Administration, aroused quite bitter criticism by reducing the number of grades. To take the example of ground limestone, there was bitter criticism from the industry at the reduction in the number of grades to nine. On this occasion, the number of grades is further reduced to four. No one here tonight will contest the Government's right, if they think it proper, to reduce the number of grades of ground limestone to four—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, to two in the first place—but the industry should at least be given the consideration of some measure of consultation.

The history of the matter is that this was first suggested to the industry on 2nd June, 1965. No one knew anything of the change before that. The lime producers were told that they had to have their comments back to the Ministry by the end of June, which gave them only 28 days. This was grossly inadequate, and I hope that the Minister will see that the industry has more time to consider changes in the future. It was told about it on 2nd June, and the Minister signed the Statutory Instrument on 5th July. This is totally inadequate, and I hope that something will be done about it.

The industry was steamrollered in this matter. The Minister should understand that those who produce lime, to the great benefit of agriculture, have many thousands of pounds' worth of equipment and machinery which produce the various grades of limestone. It is not good enough to give the industry four weeks' notice to more than halve the number of grades which it has to produce.

My second point concerns the limestone producers in the north-west of England, where my constituency is. I hope that I shall not fall out with my Scottish colleagues and other Scottish hon. Members, including the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when I talk about this difficulty. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, the north-west limestone producers have had a great deal of correspondence over the years with the Ministry under this Administration and the previous one, and the reply which frequently comes from the Minister is that the north-west is a high-cost area. I submit that that consideration is totally irrelevant, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not repeat that argument because I do not believe that it has anything to do with the basic trouble.

The fact is that the Scottish farmers have a subsidy of one-sixth above the normal for using lime produced in Scotland. In correspondence the Minister has reaffirmed very frequently that this is a subsidy for the farmers and not the producers.

Mr. John Mackie

indicated assent.

Mr. Jopling

We seldom hear that, and I am glad to notice the Joint Par- liamentary Secretary nodding in agreement with the statement that the lime subsidy is a consumers' subsidy. I believe that that point makes my case totally. If one starts from the fact that the subsidy is a consumer subsidy and not a producer subsidy, I think that one can begin to get somewhere.

A letter from the Ministry on 5th August this year gave the reason for the extra one-sixth subsidy to Scottish farmers. It said: The reason for introducing the additional rate for lime of Scottish origin was to put the Scottish farmer using the domestic product on a reasonable parity with the generality of farmers elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This is all very well on the face of it, but the fact is that only 50 per cent. of the agricultural lime used in Scotland is produced there and in other areas, such as the one from which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) comes, south-west Scotland, one finds that 80 per cent. of the lime used comes from England. Therefore, it means that only 50 per cent. of the farmers in Scotland are getting the advantage of the one-sixth extra subsidy paid for Scottish-produced lime used in Scotland. The Minister cannot say at this stage that he can defend the policy of having a one-sixth extra subsidy for Scottish-produced lime if he is trying to make out that it is a farmer subsidy, because surely this leads one to believe that it is very definitely a producer subsidy. I hope that in practice it will be seen to be a consumer subsidy.

I believe that the Minister has two solutions open to him, and I should be glad if he would examine the facts and do something about the problem. One solution is to extend the area which gets the one-sixth extra subsidy to include those areas which traditionally supply lime to Scotland. If the Minister does not like that one, the second solution is to give the extra one-sixth subsidy to all lime of whatever origin which is used in Scotland, regardless of where it is produced.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary agreed with me just now that this is basically a consumer or farmer subsidy, but, judging by the way the Scheme works out, it is clearly nothing of the sort. It works out as a subsidy to the Scottish producers. I hope that the Minister will have a review and take these problems very seriously. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was most kind last week in another debate when I made a suggestion. He said that he would instruct the Cereals Marketing Authority to have a review of the point. I hope that he will do much the same tonight in terms of Scottish lime.

Perhaps I should end with a personal example. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has so many farms that I tend to lose count of them, but I am sure that among them he must have two farms in Scotland. One farm may use lime which brings in the one-sixth extra subsidy but the other may not be getting it. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is trying to make out that this is a farmer subsidy, that makes nonsense of what he agreed with earlier. I hope that he will look at these matters and see what can be done.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. George Y. Mackie (Caithness and Sutherland)

I am filled with confusion after the last speech. However, I have a simple constituency point to make. The new extension of the mileage will make a tremendous difference to the lime producers in Scotland and to social life in the Highlands. I should simply like to say that, on behalf of the Highlands generally, I am grateful to the Minister, and to add that he is acting far ahead of his usual form.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

In the West Country we know how important lime is to our fields. I suppose that Devon and Cornwall need more lime than any other counties, and particularly in a very wet year, such as we have had, when so much of the lime has leached out of the ground.

I have a complaint to make about the quality of the lime sold in certain parts, particularly, the South-West. I do not believe that it is up to the correct standard. I have seen fields which have been spread with so-called lime, but I think it was probably chalk, because there were such large flints and such large lumps of chalk over the ground. In such circumstances the subsidy is nonsense and a waste of the taxpayers' and the farmers' money. So I would make a very strong plea for stricter quality control of certain types of lime.

I believe that lime needs to be very fine. It should be fine enough to ensure that it will break down so that it will be available for the plants to absorb and for sweetening the ground, which is not always so. I have seen moss growing on the lumps, and moss is a sure sign of lime deficiency. It means that the money spent has been wasted. Why we should continue paying money to the quarries which produce this stuff I do not know. I repeat that I should like to see much stricter control of quality.

I favour the good lime—whether limestone or, which I personally favour, lump lime, kibbled lime, ground lime or hydrated lime because it is available to the plants in a much quicker form—about which my farm foreman says, "When you spread it, it is like a dose of salts, Maister. You can see exactly where it has gone." So I would make to the Minister a very strong plea that there should be much tighter and stricter control over quality. Some producers are doing their job very well, and all credit to them. Others are not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of this point.

8.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)

Perhaps I may begin by replying once more to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) in his complaint about documents. I reiterate that we have carried this out in the same competent way in which he carried it out when he was in the Department. It has been going on now for four years and I do not believe that he can have any valid complaint.

The 1964 Scheme switched the calculation of subsidy from percentage of cost to a series of flat rates. This was one of the last acts of the previous Administration and I am glad to say that their decision seems to have operated satisfactorily from the point of view of the majority of farmers, to whom the benefits of the subsidy are directed.

Many of the points made in this debate have concerned the producers, but I remind the House that this is a scheme to help any agricultural land that requires liming. The Scheme is a very important scheme to the farmers and from the point of view of the Department we have been able to make appreciable savings of manpower in administering it. No criticisms of principle were levelled at the 1964 Scheme and such criticisms as were made reflected particular interests or aspects.

This Order does not affect the basis of the Scheme. I believe that many points raised in the debate about the original Scheme were really not in order but, of course, I am prepared to answer them. The Order puts into effect a modest cut in subsidy and rectifies one or two matters in the original Scheme which, in fairness to the last Government, only experience could show to need rectifying.

The Scheme handles about 6 million tons of lime a year of various grades and qualities. The last Government made a major alteration by switching from the percentage of cost basis to the flat rate basis. Of course, there are bound to be difficulties and anomalies in some areas, particularly perhaps the North-West—areas where, whatever we do, it will be difficult to satisfy producers because they are high cost producers.

Mr. Jopling

indicated dissent.

Mr. Mackie

The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head. I can send him the figures. I am not suggesting that it is their fault. I am convinced that the principle of the Scheme is a good one and that these difficulties and differences will be forgotten in a very short time.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North, asked about the type of person to be employed by the Minister. It is up to the Minister to please himself on the matter. Generally speaking, what my right hon. Friend has done has been to employ a legal person and it is up to that person to decide whether or not to take evidence on oath.

Then there is the difficulty of understanding the revised sub-paragraph 9(11)(b). This had to be put in legal terms in order to provide that, where a producer's lime supplies are downgraded following the taking of a sample, thus qualifying for a lower rate of subsidy and where, during the time between downgrading and the lodging of an appeal, if any, a further sample shows the lime to have been corrected to a higher grade, it can, on appeal, be restored retrospectively to that higher grade for the purpose of payment. It seems a complicated way to do it but nevertheless it is the best way.

The question of 9s. 3d. extra for the bags in the Highlands arises because, in taking the bags to remote places and to the Islands, more handling is necessary. Stronger bags are required. A plea has been put in for the remoter areas and certainly on this issue I do not see why we should not give this help.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I am not clear whether this applies only to the Islands. My reading is that it applies to many counties in Scotland other than the Islands.

Mr. Mackie

I will confirm that in due course.

In Northern Ireland, the rates of transport were recommended by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Transport in the light of local conditions. They were not arrived at in comparison with conditions of farmers and producers in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North, also asked how sampling was done, about testing, analysing, grading and sieving and many other technical points. He pointed out that the trade was not satisfied with the means of getting together with the Department. But from 12th February last to 12th October we met the A.L.P.C. nine times. I met it once and my Department has met it nine times for discussion. The Council maintains that it did not get satisfaction but it is difficult to satisfy people who are determined not to be satisfied. That is what has happened here in some ways. We have always been willing all along the line.

The A.L.P.C. has asked for an advisory council, a statutory body, but we feel that consultation is much the better way. I do not agree that we have not got on fairly well. I know that there are some fairly minor matters outstanding but I see no reason why we should not settle these without an advisory council.

As I have said, 6 million tons of lime are handled each year and the number of complaints we have received from the producers, other than through the A.L.P.C., is not many and most of them have been easily resolved. I therefore do not see the extent of the difficulties that hon. Members have been trying to make out. The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) was very frank. He said that he wished to satisfy a constituent on the matter. The number of complaints has not been great and they have been easily dealt with. Some hon. Members have exaggerated.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North, wanted me to put down various conditions for sampling, grading, testing, analysing and so on. It is very difficult to lay down ways of taking samples, but the way our technical men do so seems to be eminently fair. Unless we have a tremendous amount of wrong sampling with sharp differentials, which so far we have not had, I do not think that it will be necessary to do what was suggested.

The hon. Member then commented on Schedule 2 and made a criticism about the lowering of quality. However, since 1937 when the legislation first came into operation there has been a tremendous amount of liming in Great Britain and most farms now have a policy of maintaining lime content. That is why we have shifted from using very fine quality lime to lime which will maintain already well-limed farms. This lime is lower in price, but it does the job. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) spoke about moss growing in his lime, but he is as good at complaining to his merchant as anybody else is and he can easily do so to put that right. I think that we have a good policy and I cannot understand the criticism of hon. Members opposite when we are getting lower costs than we had before.

I reiterate that we have consulted the A.L.P.C. on every occasion of a change of policy and I am willing to meet the Council at any time. I think that that answers what the hon. and gallant Member for Wells said about consultation and matters of definition and analysis. I emphasise that six million tons of lime are used and against that amount the number of complaints we receive is negligible.

The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) could not help mentioning the 8.3 per cent. cut, but I shall not go into that. The debates on these Opposition Prayers usually develop into Price Review debates, but I do not propose to follow that example tonight.

We have to strike a balance for the Scottish producers and there are consultations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on how that is done. I notice that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was not too keen to take part in this argument, for he knows that we cannot have it both ways, and it is because of this effort to strike a balance that one-sixths extra is allowed to the Scottish producers on account of higher costs in various ways in that part of the world.

I do not think that this matter of the lack of notice is as important as the hon. Member for Dumfries tried to make out. I am certain that the trade welcomes having fewer grades, as he should welcome it, and even if the trade thought that the notice was too short, the fact that it was something to be welcomed should have ameliorated that feeling. We do not steamroller people in the Ministry of Agriculture as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

I have answered the points about high-cost producers in the North-West. The hon. Gentleman said that I was always willing to take suggestions and of course I will put forward his suggestion that we should try to help Scottish producers and Scottish farmers even more. No doubt that will please the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West.

I was all prepared to be slightly cutting about the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) arriving late to take part in the debate, but I will have to withdraw that as he was the only person tonight to pay me a compliment.

I have done my best to answer all the questions and I think that I have done so fairly fully. Like all hon. Members, I am certain that this subsidy to British farmers has probably done more than anything else to help the fertility and cropping of farms in this country and I am sure that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will be very pleased to withdraw the Motion.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

With the very best will in the world and one founded on five devoted years of being the Parliamentary Secretary's steady and unflinching pair, I cannot congratulate him altogether on his reply this evening. I did not think much of his answer to the very reasonable complaint by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) about the lack of papers. I can well imagine the scene there would have been if the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Scotland had been on this bench and papers had not been available to the Opposition. We would have had a protracted debate. For the Parliamentary Secretary to fall back on the argument, "This is precisely what you did", even if it were true, is not what one would expect from a member of what we have been told to be the most dynamic Government ever to hold office in this country.

My hon. Friend referred to the matter of the person to be appointed by the Minister to hear any of these complaints. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would probably have a legal background. Can the Minister of State for Scotland say whether when a Scottish supplier of lime is involved he will be heard in Scotland and whether the person hearing him will be a qualified Scottish advocate or silk and whether the laws of evidence which apply to Scotland will apply in his case so as to safeguard the rights of the supplier? I am sure that the Minister of State does not require me to expatiate on the difference between the laws of evidence in Scotland and in this country.

My hon. Friend also asked about returnable bags and the difference in rates between the islands and the mainland. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the impression at least that preference was being given to the Islands. If that is so, why is there a bigger percentage reduction this year as against last in the rates for the Islands than in the rates for the mainland? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) voiced the sentiments about encouraging such things as the handling of lime and the need to get it to rural areas and remote districts. It seems extraordinary that the Government should have made a larger percentage cut in supplies in returnable bags to the Islands than to the mainland. The Minister of State is frowning and looks puzzled, but he has only to compare the rates for last year and this.

I am puzzled by something in paragraph (a) of the Explanatory Note. It says that the 1964 scheme is amended by a reduction of the maximum contribution from ¾ to 7/10ths. That is a cut of 5 per cent. from 75 to 70 per cent. Is there any single instance, because if there is I cannot find it in either Schedules 1 or 2, of a reduction that is not well above 5 per cent.? If I may ask the Minister to look at Schedule 1, he will find three examples of cuts varying from 9 per cent. to 12 per cent., a 9 per cent. cut, in hydrated lime, 65 and over, and a cut of 10 per cent. on the rate of shell sand, processed. There is a cut of 12½ per cent. on other waste or by-product lime, 23 to 30 inclusive. I cannot find a single cut of under 5 per cent. and I would be obliged if the Minister can explain how, if one has an overall cut of 5 per cent., there are cuts of up to 12½ per cent. but nothing to offset this of below 5 per cent.

In Schedule 2, and in Part II, subparagraph D, there is a lot about the rates of transport on lime from the mainland of Scotland to various Islands. Why is there nothing in the reverse direction? Why is there no rate of grant for lime produced in the Islands which might be sent to the mainland? It seems most extraordinary that, when one has lime kilns on the Islands, there should be no incentive to them to produce because they are denied the right of export from the Islands to the mainland. It is perfectly true that an island in the Hebrides is allowed to send to another island in the Hebrides. I think that it would be a healthy thing, and a step which I am sure would win the approval of the Minister of State, after all his peregrinations during the Recess round the Islands.

The Minister of State for Scotland (Mr. George Willis)

During the Recess?

Mr. Stodart

During the Whitsun Recess the hon. Gentleman was reported as having been in the Islands, even if he is not aware that he was there. Why is there nothing in the reverse direction? What is the present position of the production of lime in Scotland vis-à-vis consumption? In 1963 an answer was given to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), whose interest in this debate I see has been dissipated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The answer said that 52 per cent. of the lime used in Scotland was produced there. That figure had fallen in 1964 to 50 per cent. Can the Minister say whether the production from the lime kilns of Scotland is anywhere near its potential? How much more could they produce? It would be interesting if he had any figures of that nature. Many of my hon. Friends have urged upon the Minister the need for consultation with the industry on such matters as analysis. I am quite certain that it is right and highly desirable that there should be a sharpening of the grades and that this section should be made more precise.

I believe that if there is any dubiety about sampling methods, or if the Minister has come to a conclusion that certain sampling methods are right, he should write this into the Regulations. I hope that we shall get a more positive assurance that that will be done. Several of my hon. Friends have commented on the short time given for consultation. They have asked for an assurance that things will be better. There is little need for such an inquiry to be made of hon. Gentlemen opposite because it is highly unlikely that, by the time the next con- sultations take place, they will have very much responsibility for them.

Mr. John Mackie

Of course, the Scottish suppliers will be heard in Scotland by a Scottish legal gentleman who will presumably know the laws of Scotland. I did not say that there was any preference of 9s. 3d. The difference is due to the prices of the bags. The cuts are in proportion to the costs of the different kinds of lime. The figure is bound to be an estimate. It cannot be given accurately because farmers change their minds and buy more of one kind of lime than another, and it can be to their advantage or disadvantage. We have tried to make a cut of about £¾ million. It is the demand which results in lime being sent to the Islands. If producers in the Isles wish to export, naturally that will be taken into consideration. At present, the production for Scotland is about 50 per cent. of the requirements. I am sorry that I cannot give any figures now, but I will see if I can obtain figures of the potential. If we find that we require to write into the regulations a sampling method, we will do so, but we do not want to do any more work than is necessary. A need will have to be proved first.

Question put and negatived.