HORTICULTURE IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

HC Deb 11 July 1966 vol 731 cc1148-75

11.58 p.m.

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

I beg to move,

That the Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

I think that nobody can deny that we get variety in this House if nothing else at this time of night, and we now move from criminals to horticulture, which, if I may say so, is rather a pleasant move.

This is the third Horticulture Improvement Scheme to be made since the Horticulture Act, 1960. The first scheme, in 1960, was designed to encourage the better preparation of produce for market. The second, in 1964, the current scheme, went further and provided grants for the equipment needed to reduce the costs of production, as well as an extended range of equipment for preparing produce for market. We welcomed both these schemes when in Opposition and, so far as they go, they have proved their worth.

But experience has shown that they contain restrictions which seem to us to hamper the progressive grower and to put a brake on developments which are taking place in the horticultural industry. That is why we have prepared the new scheme which is at present before the House.

Now, before I describe the main changes which it introduces I should like to refer to some of the developments which have been taking place in the industry in recent years and which this scheme is designed to assist. I expect that many hon. Members have read the record of the examination of the industry which the Government carried out last year in consultation with the farmers' unions. This shows an industry very much on the move. To take one or two examples of recent trends, the importance of the Lea Valley in the glasshouse industry, though still great, is declining. The acreage fell from 965 acres to 632 acres between 1954 and 1965.

On the other hand, the importance of East Anglia as a centre for the production of vegetables and flowers expanded greatly in the same period. Norfolk now has over 40 per cent. of our carrot production, and the Holland Division of Lincolnshire over a quarter of our cauliflower production and nearly half of our product on of narcissi. In this short period new consumer demands have arisen, new specialist techniques have been introduced, and there is much more stress on growing in locations where soil and climate are suitable than in proximity to a local market.

The rate of technical change has been just as striking. In glasshouses, the importance is now appreciated of maximum light penetration and the precise control of temperature, ventilation and watering. In the sowing of seeds, whether inside or outside, the precision drill, by sowing seeds at set distances, can eliminate much of the pack-breaking work of chopping out. Control and precision are the keynote.

It is clear that in the past 10 years many progressive growers have built up their businesses, that some less suitable land has gone out of production and that other land has been brought into production. This fits in with the changes we should like to see as the industry adapts itself to modern needs and absorbs modern techniques.

The National Plan envisages a selective expansion of horticultural production to meet increasing demand. To achieve this, we intend to help the better grower to build up his business and to help all growers to acquire the equipment that will raise their efficiency and reduce their costs of production. The schemes of 1960 and 1964 have helped growers some way along this road. They have already committed themselves to investing some £15 million, of which a third will be Exchequer grant. Under this new scheme the rate of grant will be the same, and, as I have said, there will be some important improvements.

First, we are removing the provision of the 1964 scheme that land, to be eligible for grant, must have been used continuously for horticulture for at least two years. This will achieve two things: it will help established businesses to take in new land or to remove to more suitable sites, and it will permit grants to bulb growers and others who grow horticultural crops in rotation with farm crops.

Second, grants to vegetable growers are at present limited to land managed on intensive market garden lines, with a certain amount of double cropping. We are now extending grants to growers of vegetables on a farm scale, and to the growers of such crops as celery, who have not hitherto benefited under the scheme.

The scheme achieves these two results very simply. It omits the definition of eligible land in the 1964 scheme. A whole page of restrictive conditions has disappeared, and I am sure that hon. Members, as well as growers, will be glad to hear that.

The main condition which remains is that at all times during the two years preceding application the business must have occupied at least four acres of land, though not necessarily the same four acres. Where the land is covered by glasshouses, lights, and so on, the area will be calculated very much as in the existing scheme. The occupier of such a holding will be able, with the help of grant, to make it better or, if he thinks fit, bigger. But I think that we must retain this lower limit and avoid encouraging the creation of entirely new holdings.

Apart from these broad changes, the main new features are in the Schedule. The most important additions to the items eligible for grant are the erection of new glasshouses, mushroom sheds and other buildings in which produce is grown, as distinct from the replacement of existing ones. That is, we are dropping the requirement in the 1964 scheme that an acre of old glass must be demolished for every acre of new glass erected with the aid of grant.

I think that a word about this is called for. Many glasshouse men today are managing a larger business than they were 10 years ago, and the industry as a whole is benefiting. Yet during that period the national glasshouse acreage has contracted. It does not follow, therefore, that the change we are making in the scheme will result in an undue expansion in the size of the industry as a whole.

The cost of an acre of heated glass is substantial—up to £25,000—and the grower has to put up the greater part. We are satisfied that we can leave decisions to the commercial judgment of growers and should not impose arbitrary restrictions which could stand in the way of progress.

The new Schedule also includes several types of machinery that were excluded from the 1964 scheme because of the fear that they might be diverted to non-horticultural uses. These include forklift and similar trucks. I remember visiting a farm in Kent where the farmer had put in a new cold store. It was a tremendous height and was only stacked half way up. I asked him why. He said he could not afford a new fork-lift truck. I hope that this scheme will help him and others like him by including forklift trucks. In addition, precision drills and machinery for stapling, stitching, tying and strapping containers for produce are in the Schedule.

We have come to the conclusion that there is less risk than was once thought that such equipment might be sold for a profit by the grower who had received the grant. We shall, of course, satisfy ourselves before approving a grant that the equipment is needed and will achieve economies, particularly in the use of labour. We do not believe that any grower, having achieved these economies, will be tempted to dispose of the machinery and revert to his old methods. We do believe that it is of the first importance for the industry to have this equipment.

These, then, are the main changes which this scheme will introduce. Hon. Members will be interested to know that horticultural marketing cooperatives—which have made good use of the grants in the past—will continue for the time being to be eligible under the new scheme. When, however, the comprehensive system of grants to agricultural and horticultural co-operatives has been established, as provided in the Agriculture Bill now in Committee upstairs, no more applications will be entertained for grants to co-operative bodies under this scheme, as they will be fully provided for in other ways.

The maximum sum available up to the spring of 1974 for these and other grants under the 1964 Act remains unchanged at £24 million, and it may be increased to £27 million. Although, in the past two years, the response to the 1964 scheme has been good, the sum of money provided in the 1964 Act seemed likely to be more than adequate for that scheme. So £27 million remains our best estimate of the maximum response to all the grants and we are not at this stage asking Parliament to increase this figure. We shall see how we get on. But it is not our intention that this provision should be restrictive and I can give an assurance that, if the money provided looks like running out before the spring of 1974, we shall approach Parliament to provide additional money.

I have referred repeatedly to the technical progress that is being made. Some of the recent developments are reflected in the more extensive list of facilities in the Schedule. I should like to pay tribute here to the many groups of growers and scientists which are constantly fostering technical progress. This covers not only the Government-assisted and Government-owned research and experimental establishments, but also the part that growers themselves play in the development of these techniques.

Finally, I should mention that there has been full consultation with the unions over the changes proposed and I think I can say that we have their good will. I commend this scheme to the House as a contribution to the development of a progressive industry of benefit not only to the growers themselves, but to the national economy as a whole.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

We welcome the scheme as a useful extension of the schemes brought forward by previous Conservative Governments. There are, however, one or two questions on which I should be grateful for a reply. If the hon. Gentleman cannot deal with them all tonight, perhaps he will write to me when he has had time to consider.

The hon. Gentleman said there had been full consultation with the unions. I understand that the farmers' unions naturally welcome the scheme but have some doubt about the proposal to call it the Horticultural Development Scheme instead of "Improvement" Scheme. They also wonder whether the alteration of the rules about previous occupation of the land may not lead to a vast concentration of new glasses as opposed to modernisation and replacement of old glasses, despite what the hon. Gentleman has said about the declining acreage of glass.

With new glass costing, including all its accessories, between £18,000 and £25,000 an acre, it might well be an attractive proposition to some large industrial concern with little previous horticultural connections to take the view that this could be a good investment, as the Government will pay one-third of the cost of any improvements. The grower still has to find two-thirds of the cost of any improvements, of course. As this can involve a very large sum of money, before any individual grower is likely to undertake this expenditure or to find two-thirds of the cost, he wants to be assured of the future stability of the industry. It is to the future stability of the industry that I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to direct his mind.

The fact that there have been some 14,000 applications from growers that have been approved under the old schemes shows their value. The Parliamentary Secretary has drawn attention to the historic merit of the old schemes. At the same time, his colleague's Written Answer to me on 23rd June, in col. 130 of Vol. 730 of HANSARD, shows that there must be many more growers who might have taken ac vantage of the scheme who have not yet done so. Of our 25,000 to 30,000 growers, perhaps as many as 19,000 have not used the schemes to date. I am sorry that the Minister did not make special efforts to furnish me with better statistical information in answer to my Written Question, which was put down in the knowledge that this debate was coming.

We are not concerned only about existing growers coming in. We want to know what may happen in the future. Why are more growers not coming forward to take up their grants? Is it because they are anxious for the future of their industry? If it is, the Minister must state plainly tonight that he can give an assurance for its stability.

Alternatively, are they not coming forward because the grants are inadequate for their purposes? In particular, is the Minister satisfied that the grubbing up grant for old orchards is adequate? With the reduction in the level of the ploughing up grants elsewhere that the present Government have caused, there is a re- duction in the totals payable on improvements and reclaiming old orchard land.

There are at present, as the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said, many new technical advances. One which has been brought to the attention of the House, due to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), is the new technical developments in soil sterilisation following the grubbing of old orchards. These may well make the process of grubbing more efficient, but will also make it vastly more costly. Does the Minister consider the wording of the Schedule to be sufficiently flexible to include such techniques, which may become prevalent in the future?

We on this side of the House have long urged higher grants for grubbing up. Mr. Bullard, the former hon. Member for King's Lynn, my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) and I urged this strongly in Standing Committee B as long ago as January 1964. We were joined in this plea by the late Mr. Hayman, so that, although the plea came primarily from this side of the House, hon. Members on the other side joined us in seeking higher grants for grubbing old orchards.

A bolder policy of grubbing old grounds has long been seen as highly desirable by hon. Members on this side of the House. It should be possible to have a special programme for a limited number of years to encourage the total elimination of derelict fruit, which has an adverse effect on the market and not only the pocket of the individual grower. It is particularly the owners of such trees who are often not in a financial position to meet the remaining two-thirds of the cost themselves.

I do not want to present a picture of a struggling industry of small men, but there are many small men in it who do an extremely good and efficient job. They probably grow more high quality fruit and other food more efficiently than could any large group of financial giants who might be newly attracted to the industry. Indeed, 10 per cent. of the total value of agricultural output comes from the horticultural growers.

It is, therefore, essential that the scheme should be primarily to help the existing growers. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the National Plan included a proposal to give selective encouragement to horticulture. Surely, we want a more general encouragement to those growers who are already doing a good job rather than to attract large new concerns to the industry. If the small man is to make full use of the scheme, he must have stability.

The making and improvement of roads is one item included in the Schedule. Will the Minister give a clear assurance that a realistic standard of farm road will be taken when applications for grant are considered? For instance, a double concrete strip with a hard centre is frequently perfectly adequate for farm purposes, but his Department has a reputation for insisting on roads and hard standings made up nearly to motorway standards. I hope that a more realistic view will be taken. Further, not only in the matter of roads and hard standings but generally will suitability for the job be taken as the criterion for qualification for all the items in Part I of the Schedule?

We ask the Minister to give an assurance that there will be prompt payment of grants. If these schemes are to be really useful, when all points have been agreed and there is no real cause for substantial delay, prompt payment is very much appreciated by the smaller and the larger grower.

When we debated these matters on 15th June, 1964, I said that I was sorry that no provision had been made for bee keeping. One realises that bees are, technically, livestock, but the importance of bees in horticulture can readily be underestimated, and I hope that the needs of the bee keeper will be provided for in Part I of the Schedule when the scheme is next under review by the Minister. I am well aware that it is too late tonight, but I must remind the House that the present Minister of Agriculture gave a clear indication his words are reported in columns 1036–7 of HANSARD of 15th June, 1964—that he was in favour personally of including bee keeping in these schemes. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will take instructions from his Minister on the subject.

The facilities offered to horticultural co-operatives by Part II of the Schedule are very welcome, although, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, they will be overtaken by the Agriculture Bill now in Committee. But it is absurd to be providing new grants under this scheme and under the Agriculture Bill when, at the same time, the Chancellor—I am glad to see his representative on the Front Bench—is so drastically penalising growers' co-operatives with his scandalous Selective Employment Tax. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to draw his right hon. Friend's attention to this serious anomaly, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will convey our complaint to the Chancellor.

I particularly welcome inclusion in the Schedule provision for such handling equipment as fork-lift trucks. Mr. Scott-Hopkins, the former Member for Cornwall, North on this side of the House, gave a clear explanation of the difficulties which lay before the House two years ago, and we are very glad that it has been possible now to make the advance which he then envisaged.

The section dealing with facilities for use in markets in the last part of the Schedule is, of course, important, but one wonders whether it is sufficiently forward-looking in taking account of the almost inevitable moving away from traditional methods. Would not this scheme have presented an opportunity to encourage further progress in new marketing methods rather than harking back to the traditional methods which we still have in this country? It is essential, if British horticulture is to prosper, that the Minister should keep up with technical and commercial advances, and schemes such as this should be worded in as flexible a manner as possible if they are to help rather than perpetuate the out-dated. Flexibility has been the much sought after quality in the past six years when these schemes have been debated. Members on both sides of the House, and such people as the present Minister of Agriculture and the former Labour Member for Norfolk, South-West, now Lord Hilton, have asked for this quality of flexibility. In conclusion, may I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to see that this scheme is administered in as flexible a manner as possible?

12.20 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens (Epping)

The proposals in this scheme will be of very great help to those engaged in the horticulture industry. Horticulture is an important industry, accounting for one-tenth of the agricultural output of Great Britain. It is an important import saver, If not a major exporter, and it is important that we should give it some attention.

At present some sectors of the industry are in difficulty, and one such sector, the Lea Valley, is to some extent situated in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary quoted the decline of the acreage under glass in the Lea Valley. This results, to some extent, in foreign competition which is particularly undermining the production of cucumbers.

Last year we imported almost £3 million worth of cucumbers. This represents an increase over the figure for 1961 of £2 million. Other crops are also under pressure from foreign competition, and in my view there is no doubt that some of this competition is unfair. Although there may be a case for looking at the import situation, the true answer to the present position must be in modernising the industry. For this reason I welcome the proposals we are now considering.

Today, if larger glasshouses are built, if we have automatic ventilation and watering, if automatic efficiency is increased, it is possible for the industry to compete effectively with foreign competitors. If it is true that the Lea Valley growers did not invest enough in the past—and I am not saying that it is true—it is true that at present many are interested in investing a great deal and it is only right that the Government should give them assistance.

During the period that I have represented Epping I have visited a number of progressive firms, operating glasshouses and nurseries. It is very important that we should seek to do what this scheme is aiming at, to encourage the increased efficiency of these nurseries. One problem that has concerned people in the Lea Valley has been the threat of development. They have not known whether their land would be taken away from them for housing purposes. Many growers are prepared to move away and they need help to do so. My hon. Friend has already referred to the high cost of investment in glass. I understand from people engaged in the industry that it is certainly less than £20,000 an acre. The previous schemes restricted grants to land which had been under horticulture for two years and the Ministry promised a concession on this in answer to a Question which I put down on 1st November last year. The present scheme provides that businesses which occupy at least four acres for the previous two years, not necesssarily the same four acres, will qualify for the grant. I welcome this very much because it will encourage the progressive nursery owner. I know that many of the growers in my area are most hard working. Many who come to see me are men who work very long hours and they are deserving of the sort of encouragement which this scheme gives them. It provides for the erection of new glasshouses and other structures without there being the demolition of an equivalent area of glass or other structures in order that a grower may qualify.

I can tell the House that this has been welcomed by spokesmen for the horticultural industry, and the scheme is something on which we should congratulate the Government. At the same time, I would like to draw attention to this point. There is a great need for arrangements to be made so that growers can be informed that they will not qualify for approval of new plans if that approval is not given before purchases of equipment are actually made. I went to the Minister on one occasion when a constituent of mine had started work before full approval had been given, and that man did not qualify for a grant. It is important that we should see to it that growers are fully informed of the situation. When we are dealing with people who are often small men and who have a great deal of outside work to do and who tend to be pressed for time, it is extremely important that we should see they are fully informed about the facts of this or any other scheme.

We should also try to see that the process of giving approval is speeded up, because if an essential item of equipment suddenly breaks down it may be absolutely necessary—especially in the case of the small grower—to install other equipment quickly if his crop is not to he spoiled.

There have been many other improvements for the horticultural industry besides the benefits given under this scheme.

This Government has shown its faith in this industry by doing what it has done since it came into office. We need a thriving horticultural industry to help us, apart from anything else, solve our balance of payments problem, and this scheme now being considered will make a definite contribution to that end. It offers considerable assistance to the glasshouse men, and in reading the Newsletter of the Lea Valley Growers' Association I see that a great welcome has already been given to it. I want to congratulate the Government on the attention it has given to this important industry and I hope that, as a result of the operation of this scheme, this industry will become more prosperous and be able to make an increasing contribution to our national well-being.

12.27 a.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

It is nice to have a new recruit on behalf of horticulture, and I would say to the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) that there was a time when I was chairman of my party's horticultural committee and I knew a lot about the problems in the glasshouses. There is no doubt that where the hon. Member speaks of is not the most suitable part of England for a large glasshouse industry, and there were tonnages of tomatoes grown there in the course of the time of which I speak which were more comparable to some other industry and which in itself led to an imbalance of the tomato trade in Britain. That could only be rectified by the current tendency, referred to this evening, namely, a gradual reduction of acreage of glasshouses in the Lea Valley. I was interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that it had fallen by about 300 acres in recent years. In my view the best hope for the horticulture industry in that part of the world is for the green belt restrictions to be relieved. I think that when the Lea Valley Bill, which has just finished its Committee stage, is fully used we shall see a better future for the efficient growers, and perhaps not only in the Lea Valley, but in the whole market.

We have to admit that the need for this Order is really a confession of failure. Any necessity for granting aid to an industry must mean that something has gone wrong with the economics of the industry. There is no doubt that the need for this grant has come about because the profitability of the industry has not been sufficient to provide the capital to plough back into the industry, and therefore we have had to provide this artificial boost to it.

I believe that the right solution is for the public to pay the real price for food. It does not do so at the moment. It gets its food on the cheap, or thinks it does, and the price of thinking it does is to pay higher taxation to finance grants of this kind. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul the whole time.

Year after year we gull ourselves that this is sound assistance to the industry. Both sides of the House have done it. Both Governments have done it. I regard this as the economics of the lunatic asylum, and the sooner this country faces the real value of growing things, and the real value of marketing things, the sooner we shall get the economy sound. The more we employ artificial methods to try to boost one industry here, and another there, the more difficult it makes it for any Government, and most of all the Treasury, to make sense with the economics of this nation.

One of the criticisms which ought to be made about these schemes is that all too often they result in the people who could well afford the one-third grant, getting it when they could well afford it themselves without assistance from the State, and those who most need the grant not being able to provide the two-thirds which they have to provide to get a grant at all. To this extent this scheme is an improvement on the previous one because it brings in people who would not hitherto have come in, but I still say that the whole system is wrong. Nevertheless, if anybody is going to be helped in this matter, it ought to be those who have suffered most through no fault of their own from marketing policies and trade agreements which are unfairly damaging the industry.

What on earth does paragraph 3(1, b) mean? It says: (1) Payment of a grant under section 1(1) of the Act of 1960 to the person carrying on a horticultural production business, or to the landlord of land occupied for the purposes of such a business and being or comprised in an agricultural holding, shall not be made unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that … (b) the business would, after the approved proposals have been carried out, be capable of yielding an adequate return to any person carrying it on with reasonable efficiency and as a full-time occupation. How on earth can any Minister come to the House and say that he knows that this can be fully implemented? How can any Minister truthfully say today that he knows what will be an economic yield in the foreseeable future during the operation of this scheme? It must surely depend on the price of the market, on the tariff protection for the industry, if any, and on our progress in getting into Europe. In other words, this is a highly specious statement.

No Ministry can honestly say that it knows what would be an adequate return for reasonable efficiency in the next few years. Our economy seems to be on an ever-steeper slope with an ever more slippery surface and an ever-bigger precipice at the bottom. No one can tell where the economy as a whole is going, let alone that of the horticultural industry.

Whatever we may say about the Common Market, let us recognise that none of our industries is more at risk than horticulture. Many of our necessary reservations will have to be strongest about horticulture, if we are not to betray these people. Many of us with growers in our constituencies know that there are few people more hard working than these people, often with a wife and family, who run holdings on extremely small margins, and who learn by bitter experience, if I may use the metaphor, not to have too many eggs in the strawberry basket.

Their hours of work would put many other industries to shame. We alone can sometimes claim comparable hours. At this time, 25 minutes to one in the morning, they often get up in the winter, if there is a frost warning, to see that the heating appliances are working satisfactorily. We are dealing with some extremely honourable people, and we all recognise that as long as we have a policy of free trade, which I once described and do again as a vulture hanging over British agriculture and horticulture ready to take the pickings which are going, so long is horticulture in peril.

In my constituency, in the Wisbech area, apples and pears, and especially strawberries, are grown in large quantities. Because of Government policy—I do not blame only this Government—through the Restrictive Practices Court, wrecked any chance of the Wisbech strawberry industry continuing as it used to do because it ruled out a very sensible pricing agreement with the merchants. So many aspects of Government policy damage this industry, which makes it all the more important that we should recognise that unless we sooner or later provide the industry with a fair return from the market we shall have to have this sort of scheme year after year.

This is an entirely artificial means of supporting an industry. The sooner we get back to reality the better. The tragedy of the schemes will always be that the people who need them most will not be able to afford their share and the people who get the full benefit, would not, if they tried, need it. That is the damning with faint praise which I am forced to give to the scheme. As long as we have to have these schemes, this is probably as good a one as we shall get.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

Having listened to most of the previous debate and all of this one, I would say that it is a good thing that there are not many lawyers in horticulture. I have one general and one particular point to make.

When we were discussing the 1964 scheme, Mr. Scott-Hopkins, then the Member for Cornwall, North, drew attention to the strength of the N.A.A.S. In this scheme we are concerned with a wide range of new equipment, much of it highly technical. At that time Mr. Scott-Hopkins hoped that there would be an increase, which is very necessary, of 15 to 16 per cent. overall and about 10 per cent. in experts in glasshouse equipment, which is a subject with which we are concerned this evening. If the scheme is to work it is vital that the strength of N.A.A.S. and the knowledge and expertise required should be provided. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us how this campaign for recruiting has progressed and how it is matched in with the Scheme.

That is the particular point. I come to the general point. I second what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). I welcome the scheme as the logical extension of the 1960 and 1964 schemes—and it is an important extension. It means a definite intention to continue to expand support for horticulture and if it works it will result in increased production, which is the first important general point.

Valuable and useful as it can be, it seems to me that its value, if we accept that there will be increased production, can be largely affected by other legislation somewhere in the pipeline or by what I term the other half of a strong horticultural policy. I do not want to go into other legislation at depth, because I should be out of order to do so, but it is in order to mention three particular Measures which, granted the effectiveness of this Order, should be seen alongside it.

The first is the withdrawal of investment allowances. I know about the 5 per cent. supplement, but this will be valid only to those paying a low rate of tax, and therefore less likely to apply for grants. The second is the Capital Gains Tax. Anyone proposing to invest must surely have regard to the rate of inflation and to the knowledge that he will be faced with a 30 per cent. tax on his investment or his holding or on his wealth when he sells or passes it on. The third is the Selective Employment Tax, with particular reference to marketing organisations. I hope that very soon we shall have the chance to say a great deal more about this. It must run counter to the purpose of this Scheme.

Finally, I turn to the strong horticultural policy. The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) mentioned this—and, like my hon. Friend, I welcome him to the band of supporters of horticulture in the House. I refer to a realistic view about imports, for if we are to encourage increased production that is looking at only half the problem, if there is not at the same time a clear and intelligible view about imports. This does not exist in the Government's policy. Are we to continue to rely on tariffs and, if so, how can they be improved both in timing and extent, or are we to turn to the minimum price system, which is quite possible under the terms of the last Conservative Acts dealing with agriculture and horticulture? I have always felt that, with Europe ahead of us in some form or another, we are working this way whether we like it or not, and in a chronic balance-of-payments crisis which which we permanently live, it is crazy not to make provision for this in agriculture. Nowhere is it more applicable and relevant than in horticulture. It therefore seems to me that the question of tariffs versus minimum prices ought to pay a much more important role in the Government's thinking than it appears to have played in the two years for which they have been responsible. I hope to hear more about that in the context of the scheme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. Tariffs are a little wide of the scheme, which is concerned with improvement grants on building and other plant and equipment. I must call the hon. Member's attention to this point otherwise the Minister will be out of order when he replies.

Mr. Hastings

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point simply was that the scheme is concerned with an increase in horticultural produce; and to say that without turning an eye, if only a cursory one—I shall not take the matter further—towards the problem of imports is to look at only half the problem instead of the whole of it.

I am sure that growers in my area, as much as in the areas represented by all hon. Members who have spoken, will welcome the scheme. While we are doing it, however, we are entitled to draw a distinction between the logical and practical aims, as I see them, of the Ministry of Agriculture and the inconsistent and, indeed, contradictory policies of the Government as a whole.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that I am one of those tedious beasts, a horticultural lawyer. I agree, however, with every word of what my hon. Friend has said, even when he went out of order. The scheme will have fairly general support in the County of Holland, where some 20,000 people are engaged in various forms of horticulture as described in the scheme.

Modern methods have enabled a considerable growth in output to be achieved in that county. Ten years ago, only one-quarter of our field vegetables came from in and around South Lincolnshire. The proportion has now risen to one-third. There has been a similar expansion in bulbs. I am proud to say that the Holland in England can now rival Holland across the Channel in the quantity and quality of the bulbs produced. These strides forward have been made possible only because in that county there is some of the richest and most responsive land in the country, and because of that even a single acre can provide a livelihood.

There are quite a large number of smallholdings of only one or two acres which are an economic proposition. Some growers, with the aid of movable lights, are able to produce four crops a year. Last weekend, I heard of one grower who, with much ingenuity, succeeded in producing five crops last year. I am sorry, therefore, that in paragraph 3 the scheme stipulates that four acres is the minimum eligible for a grant. Even with a multiplier for glass, this may rule out some viable holdings on the very rich land.

My other criticism of the scheme is that the Government still do not realise the dangers of surpluses. I know that this warning was uttered in another place a few days ago, but during the last 12 months hundreds of tons of onions, for example, have been dumped in the County of Holland and yet we have imported vast quantities, even from the dollar area. One of the reasons is that we have still a lot to learn about grading, and much of the unsold produce was ungraded. The Government must remember that improvements in grading must keep pace with improvements in production.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

Representing as I do part of the South-West, which is vitally interested in horticulture, I feel compelled to take part in this debate. I welcome the fact that the grant scheme is now being considerably widened and that not only will the intensive market gardens be included, but also the semi-intensive and what I call the straightforward market garden. This will considerably benefit the area I represent, where we are not as intensive as some other areas but where there are very large acreages of vegetables and flowers.

The industry must take this scheme very seriously. It should take advantage of all that it has to offer, and so get itself up to date in order to meet ever-increasing competition from abroad With modern methods the transportation of vegetables and fruits is much faster and easier, and this affects our home growers to a great extent. Modern methods and mechanisation abroad mean cheaper and better production of crops. The Common Market will also mean severe competition for our own growers. The industry must therefore get its house in order and up to date in order to meet this very strong competition from abroad.

Paragraph 7(1, a) refers to … an application in writing for the approval of the appropriate Minister stating the facility which the applicant proposes to provide … There is a real danger here of a grower or farmer being persuaded or advised, possibly by the N.A.A.S., to do more than he can afford. These people are always trying to persuade me to do just that. I hope that the Minister will realise the danger of the small.grower, in particular, undertaking too elaborate a scheme, into which too much capital has to be invested. Capital is costly, interest mounts, and these modernising and labour-saving schemes can be overdone. I hope that this point will be noted.

We also have to bear in mind the grower who cannot afford to provide the other two-thirds, because he is the very man, especially in the South-West, whom we want to help. Many of the small growers face this difficulty. I want them to be helped somehow, and I hope that the Minister may have some ideas for doing so.

As I say, I welcome the scheme. I hope that the industry will take advantage of it, because I believe that as there will be very severe competition in the future it is vitally important that the industry should be brought up to date.

Mr. J. B. Godber (Grantham)

At this late hour, I only want to endorse what my hon. Friends have said in giving a modest welcome to this slight extension of schemes which we ourselves introduced in 1960, with an extension in 1964. I myself was concerned with the horticultural measure in 1960, which was a very valuable forerunner, and I am glad that the Government have now made these extensions, which are generally welcome.

Incidentally, I am glad that we have the presence of the Scottish Minister of State. Though no Scottish points have been raised, that does not mean that there are not a number of very important Scottish interests involved in horticulture, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.

As to the scheme, I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was right to call our attention to the examination of the horticultural industry, particularly in connection with the extension of the scheme to new greenhouses and mushroom sheds. This was a perfectly fair point to make. The really clear thing that arises from the table on pages 22 and 23 of the Report is that the two crops which show no improvement over the 10 year period are tomatoes and cucumbers, comparing home production with imports. Other crops show modest increases, but with regard to tomatoes and cucumbers possibly the extension of the grants for new glass other than for replacement may help in encouraging growers to instal the latest types of facility to assist them to compete with the European producers who are our main competitors.

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is as anxious as we are on this side of the House that growers shall make the fullest use of the newest techniques. I visited the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering at Silsoe and saw some of the developments in new glasshouses. The growers there were confident that with the use of these newest techniques we could do better than our European competitors. Therefore, I welcome this extension.

I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary included mushroom sheds in his remarks, and the appendix on page 17 shows that whatever has been happening with other crops, mushrooms have been booming. I give full credit for that fact. No doubt, it was necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary to include mushrooms in these remarks, but it will be seen that the amount devoted to mushrooms has trebled in the same period, so that the arguments do not apply to them to the same extent as they do to tomatoes and cucumbers.

Another point arises on paragraph 49 in the Report, which I would have hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would draw to the attention of the Treasury. I hope the Treasury representative will have read that paragraph because never have I seen a clearer justification for an industry to be included in the first category of the Selective Employment Payments Bill. It says that the cost of labour is a major item in production costs. It goes on to say, and this will gladden the heart of the First Secretary of State, that growers' prices for main crops have not changed much in the past 10 years, at a time when the cost of goods and services have risen substantially, and this is a reflection of the fact that the industry has absorbed its increased costs, including high labour costs. If that is not a case for saying that it is a manufacturing industry, then this is a distortion of words.

Here is a clear indication that if anyone is entitled to the premium on their labour costs, this industry is. This is stated in words produced by the present Government. Therefore, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will fight that battle. We shall be fighting it in the coming days, and I shall look forward to support from the Ministry of Agriculture and from the Scottish Office. If we can get their support I feel that the united efforts of the Opposition plus those of the Ministry of Agriculture and of the Scottish Office will help to defeat the machinations of the Treasury.

With those words, I endorse what my hon. Friends have said, that we welcome these proposals which are helpful and we are glad that the present Government have followed the wise course which we established previously.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. John Mackie

With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised in this debate. First and foremost I should say that I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) at the Opposition Dispatch Box. I am aware of his interest in horticulture and we look forward to hearing him again. The hon. Member raised many points, as did others. One point was the question whether a direct grant without requiring the scrapping of an acre of glass would increase glass to an extent that there might be over-production.

I really think we should leave this to the judgment of the industry. As some hon. Members have pointed out, £25,000 an acre is not going to give us thousands of acres of glass, especially as they pointed out there is the difficulty of raising the remaining two-thirds. I do not think we should think this is too dangerous a procedure.

I am glad many hon. Members opposite appreciated the value of the examination of the horticultural industry. This is a mine of information which gives a tremendous lot of figures and statistics on the industry which will be a great help and guide to any policy we care to look at in the future. On the question of capital investment and resources, we all know that the Government taking on guarantees of bank loans provided since 1964 is of material help to the industry, and will be for the next few years, so that should help a little.

The hon. Member for Maidstone and others emphasised that we should do something to create stability. This in itself should create stability. The fact that £27 million is going to be poured into the industry to help in new techniques, equipment and everything else, and the system of tariffs over the years until these techniques help the industry to become fully competitive, should help. I do not want to enter into the argument over the Common Market, but one of the things that does not help to create stability is debating whether or not we should go into the Common Market, and the hon. Gentleman's party are very keen to do that. Anxiety about stability may be created by this desire of one side to go in.

The hon. Gentleman brought up the point about there not being a sufficiently big grant for grubbing up old orchards. We feel that the grant of one-third should be sufficient for this and that as a general policy a one-third grant is the maximum that should be given except for drainage grants. I do not quite follow the argument that this should carry a bigger grant than anything else.

I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman, for it is not often that a Minister gets the opportunity of evading questions and replying by letter. But on any points I have not answered, or cannot answer tonight, I will see he gets an answer by letter. He asked us to keep our eye on new techniques and see that they were included in any Schedule, and I assure him that we will do that. He emphasised that it is the small man we want to help. We do this of course, but the small man must take his chance with the rest. We all know that the bigger man has greater facilities and more money to take advantage of these things. The same is true of agricultural support schemes, as well as of anything else.

I was asked what sort of roads come under this scheme. Farm road techniques, such as hard core and water bound and so on, if properly done all come under this scheme. I am not sure if two single tracks of concrete with weeds in between comes under it. But the hon. Gentleman can take it that in relation to roads the scheme is fairly flexible. I do not think we ask for motorway standards, or anything of that sort.

On the question of prompt payments, I have some figures of the various times it has taken over the years to make payments, and I do not think there have been any great delays. We who are farmers do sometimes delay things ourselves by not giving all the information required, by changing the plans in the middle of the application and so on, and all this can delay things considerably. But, roughly speaking, the proposals involve three stages, and approval takes an average of two months. The applicant carries out the proposal. How long it takes him depends on him. He applies for payment, and it should not take more than four weeks after that. I do not think anybody could ask for much better than that.

We have no powers to deal with beekeeping. I have never been fond of the brutes. They always seem to sting me. However, I appreciate the importance of bees to horticulture, but meantime there are no powers to help. I will not be drawn into an argument about the Selective Employment Tax.

The hon. Member mentioned Section 32. I have made a note "further progress and question caught". But I do not know where I am, and so I am afraid that is one which will have to be answered by letter—once I find Section 32.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) has very close connections in his constituency, as I have as I live in it and live at the head of the Lea Valley, with the question of cucumbers and imports. I know that this year the cucumber people have not done too badly in spite of the heavy imports. He was very pleased with the scheme and felt that it would help—and I think it will—the industry to compete with stuff coming from abroad.

My hon. Friend got on to the question of housing development again. This may be a little out of order, I think, but he knows what we are doing here. He knows that we are doing our best to get the planning authorities to come to decisions so that the Lea Valley growers are not kept in the air too long about it. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that these people are very hardworking. They work long hours. I looked at the clock as my hon. Friend was mentioning it and suggested that we worked just about as long. I agree about that.

Reference was made to occasional hard luck cases—there are such cases, and they often seem to be hard luck cases—where grant is not given because of starting before full approval is given and so on. When spending public money we must have rules and regulations to deal with it. It is stated in black type twice in the application form that grant will not be paid if the job is started before full approval is given. This is emphasised by all our officers. No grower or farmer can have any doubt about this if he can read or listen. We cannot do more than we are doing about it. I know that there are many hard luck cases, and farmers will just need to listen and read.

Mr. John Wells

The point made by my hon. Friend was where there was an emergency, such as a boiler blowing up on a frosty night. Clearly, this would be fixed up verbally with the officers of the N.A.A.S. first thing in the morning. Can there be an assurance that in special cases something may be done, though it is generally recognised by farmers and growers throughout all schemes that they cannot expect any grant if they begin without approval?

Mr. Mackie

Special approval can be given to start work in emergency, and our officers can give that. I mentioned the speed at which approvals are generally given. If farmers would get their plans finalised before they put them forward and not change them in the middle of the job, approval should come within two months.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said that the need for the order was a confession of failure. The hon. Gentleman wanted the public to pay the real price. I ask him—how? He said this was an artificial way of giving the price to farmers. But what is more artificial than an enormous tariff? That is also an artificial way of raising prices. It is not possible, in this day and age and in our present circumstances, with countries having different standards of living and so forth, to do anything except what we are doing—to give grants to growers. But the system in the Common Market is just as artificial. To put a huge tariff wall around an area means artificially to raise prices. I cannot, therefore, see any differences.

Mr. Godber

This is an extraordinary statement. The hon. Gentleman is as aware as we are that the basic method of supporting horticulture in this country is through the tariff. Is he now repudiating that system?

Mr. Mackie

I am saying that both systems are artificial.

Mr. Godber

The hon. Gentleman must not say we are doing away with it.

Mr. Mackie

I did not say that. I said that, whichever method we adopt, either is artificial. I was asking what was the difference between a tariff way of artificially raising prices and our present system.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

The big difference is that the tariff is paid by those who eat the fruit or vegetables, for example, whereas a grant of this kind is paid for by the taxpayers whether they eat fruit or vegetables or not.

Mr. Mackie

That does not alter the fact that both ways are artificial methods of raising prices. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of who is to provide the two-thirds. As I have mentioned, there are credit facilities. All of us can get hold of an order or an Act and read out a piece of legal jargon, as the hon. Gentleman did. But the piece of jargon he read out is not one that he can really take exception to. Indeed, it was put in by the Conservative Government in the 1964 order. He is a reasonably sensible person and he knows that there has to be a judgment at the time of grant about prices and conditions. Assessment has to be made of the standard of the business involved and its size.

That is all our officers will be trying to do. They cannot be expected to sit down and think about what may happen with the Common Market or whether prices will or will not fall next year and so forth. It will be a judgment taken perfectly sensibly in the circumstances of the time. The hon. Gentleman went on to speak of horticulturists as being hard workers, and again I agree with him. He said that we must go back to reality and again made the point about the prices people should pay.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked about the strength of the N.A.A.S. and whether this scheme would give it extra power. We are doing a lot to recruit, and have recruited, quite a number of new members. It is difficult, in horticulture, to get people with experience for this job but, in 1964, 30 people with lesser qualifications were recruited to help with the grant schemes and have proved their worth on the job.

The hon. Gentleman went on—but he was out of order—to suggest that other facets of Government policy atrophied the value of the scheme. I doubt that. The number of those taking advantage of it is considerable and so horticulturists do not seem to agree with him either. He went into the question of imports and tariffs, and no doubt he was out of order there, so that lets me out. I did not make that ruling, Mr. Speaker, but your predecessor in the Chair. But the hon. Member welcomed the scheme, though he again stressed that we should appeal direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), whose constituency has greatly increased its horticultural production, was worried about the very small acreages less than four, which were growing five crops a year. I should not mind a few acres of that kind of land, and I should not mind that sort of climate, but we have to have a standard somewhere. There are certain crops—rhubarb, mushrooms and watercress are mentioned in the scheme—where one multiplies to get the acreage.

The hon. Member said that onions weft rotting while we were buying onions from abroad. This question has been raised several times. Unless we get very good drying weather for home-grown onions they do not keep so well as Spanish onions. In a wet year there is difficulty for onions, and we have to import them. It was also emphasised by the hon. Member that grading and everything else was essential in marketing, and many of the things that we have in the scheme will help that.

I thought that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was going to have nothing but praise for the scheme and then sit down. He rightly emphasised that field vegetables came under it, and he has more of that kind of horticulture in his area. He hoped that the industry would take up the scheme. I hope that it will. It is all to its good, and it will help to put the industry's house in order if or when we enter the Common Market.

I have never felt that the N.A.A.S. tried to make farmers do more than they should or could. It tries to give farmers advice, and on the whole it gives very good advice. We all know how our businesses expand and how we put up a shed or buy something that turn out not to he big enough in a few years' time. Probably the N.A.A.S. people have had quite a lot of this sort of experience and that may be what the hon. Gentleman is thinking of. The hon. Member also mentioned the question of credit. Help on this is given it may not be sufficient, but it is some help.

The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) produced some grudging praise and made a party point or two at the last moment. He spoke about the increase in the glass on tomatoes and cucumbers. I think the statistics show that the figures for cucumbers have fallen and for tomatoes have risen. He also was out of order by mentioning the Selective Employment Tax. Nevertheless, he finished with slightly less grudging praise, for which I thank him.

In view of those answers, and the written answers that are to follow, I am sure that the House will accept the scheme with great gratification.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, 1966. a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.