AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS) (Hansard, 23 May 1966)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)
I beg to move,
That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
This Scheme carries on for 1966-67 the fertiliser subsidy which the House has approved each year since 1952. It differs very little from the 1965 Scheme. It provides for subsidy to be paid on fertilisers bought in quantities of 4 cwt. or more for use on agricultural land or for growing mushrooms, and the amount of subsidy payable depends—as it has in past Schemes—on the amount of nitrogen or phosphoric acid in the fertiliser. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will be pleased to hear that there are no changes in the rates of subsidy this year, and only one or two in the Scheme itself.
The most important of the changes empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to pay contributions to Scottish occupiers. Hitherto this power has been confined to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The change brings this aspect of the administration of the fertiliser subsidy into line with other subsidy schemes. Since 1964, when the responsibility for the initial checking of fertiliser applications was devolved to divisional offices in England and Wales and to area offices in Scotland, Scottish applications have been received and processed by the Scottish Department, whilst the actual payments have been made by my Department.
As a result of this change my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will now have responsibility for payment of the fertiliser subsidy, just as he has responsibility for paying subsidies under the other Schemes. The change is effected by altering the definition of "the Minister" in paragraph 2, while a new paragraph—paragraph 9—amends earlier Schemes so that the Secretary of State can make any payments outstanding under such Schemes after the end of the current financial year.
The only other significant change is the addition of a proviso to paragraph 184 3 to facilitate the proper application of the rules relating to late claims. I know that the House appreciates the need to have closing dates for subsidy schemes and the need to avoid uncertainties as to their administration. Without the proviso which we are now introducing in paragraph 3, it would be possible for an occupier in certain circumstances to avoid the consequences to him of putting in his application for fertiliser subsidy out of time—that is, more than three months from the date of delivery.
The particular circumstances in which this could happen would be where the fertilisers concerned had not yet been used. Some farmers and their suppliers might argue in such cases that, by simple book entries, they should be enabled to start a fresh transaction for exactly the same lot of fertilisers. In fairness to the vast majority of farmers who put in their applications in proper time—and who greatly assist the day-to-day administration of the Scheme by doing so—we do not see why a very small minority of farmers who do not abide by the rules should be able to avoid the results of their tardiness in this way, and the proviso I have mentioned makes it clear that there is to be no loophole on this point.
I am sure that hon. Members agree that this is a valuable Scheme, and I know that they will be interested in the effects it has had. The years since 1952 have seen constant expansion in the demand for fertilisers. In 1952, the consumption of plant nutrients—that is nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash—was 830,000 tons. The level of consumption is now nearly 1.5 million tons—an increase of 1¾ times. Of the individual nutrients, nitrogen has gone up nearly 2¼ times, phosphoric acid roughly 1⅓, and potash, although it is not subsidised as such, by just over l4 times. We would, of course, expect the use of nitrogen to advance rather more rapidly than that of the other nutrients, and we have no reason to suppose that these relative rates of increase are out of balance with each other.
I do not think that consumption is yet at its peak, and we can expect use to go on rising for some while yet, even if the annual rate of increase for nutrients as a whole might tend to diminish a little each season. The Government do not 185 dissent from the industry's expectation, in the National Plan, of an increase in expenditure on fertilisers from £125 million in 1964-65 to about £150 million in 1970-71.
There have been other changes in fertilisers since the introduction of the subsidy in 1952. First, more plant food than ever is now being applied in the form of compounds. In 1964-65 the proportion of total use for the first time exceeded 75 per cent. Secondly, there has been a steady increase in the concentration of plant nutrients. This was about 28 per cent, on average, 10 or 11 years ago, and today the average is 38 per cent. Finally, there is increasing variety in types and formulations of fertilisers, including developments in liquid fertilisers and in such forms as anhydrous ammonia. I should like to congratulate manufacturers, merchants and contractors on continuing to show a keen interest in developing the market and giving farmers what they want.
I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the importance of fertilisers to agriculture, and equally the importance of continuing the subsidy. Last year we had a small cut in the subsidy for fertilisers, but this did not have any effect on the increase in use; in fact, we had a considerable increase in use, contrary to the gloomy forecasts of some hon. Members opposite in this debate last year. I therefore ask the House to approve this Scheme.

§ Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
On a point of order. I want to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a matter which is a very serious breach of courtesy, and possibly a misleading of the House. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), in the debate on the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, quoted from paragraph 2(3), which provides that Any reference in this scheme to any other scheme shall be construed as a reference to that scheme as amended by any subsequent scheme, and if any scheme referred to in this scheme is replaced by a subsequent scheme the reference shall be construed as a reference to that subsequent scheme. The hon. Member was showing great discourtesy to the Minister of State for Scotland, because he blamed him for those words being in the Scheme. When I looked up the Ploughing Grants——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Manuel
I have not made my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I hope that the hon. Member will make his point of order. So far he has not indicated it.

§ Mr. Manuel
In the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1964, dated 27th May, there appears the same form of words as are used in this Scheme, and therefore it is a grave distortion to say that my hon. Friend wrote them in.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is still not a point of order.

§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
On a point of order. Since my good faith has been impugned in the course of raising what you correctly ruled to be a spurious point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should not I at least have a chance of replying to that scurrilous and monstrous attack?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am afraid I must deal similarly with the hon. Member's point.

§ Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)
I welcome this Fertiliser Scheme, for it continues the fertiliser subsidy for a further year. I am glad that the rates of subsidy have not been cut, and are the same as under the 1965 Scheme. That is something to be thankful for in these difficult times under a Socialist Government. The only significant change is as it applies to Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland will in future pay contributions to the Scottish occupiers. I am sure that that is also welcome, but I should like the Scottish Minister to explain the reason a little more fully and to tell us how much saving will accrue from this. Will it be of benefit to Scottish farmers? I feel that we should have an answer from the hon. Gentleman on this point.
Fertilisers have played a major part in the tremendous development of agricultural production in the last 20 years or so. Our agricultural industry can be proud of its record in increasing productivity. I believe that the increase is about 6 per cent. a year, which is something of which the industry can be proud. The fertiliser subsidy has been 187 of tremendous value to our farmers and to the country. Surely no one can criticise the part which these subsidies have played and will, I hope, play in the years ahead. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the total cost of these subsidies particularly as it applies to the areas. This is important so that we can compare results.
I also wonder if the Minister can give us the figures as to tonnage of compound fertiliser which is now used as opposed to straight fertiliser, and the tonnage of organic fertiliser on which subsidies can be obtained. I should like to know what is the trend in these compound fertilisers. Are they becoming more concentrated and is this wise? It would also be interesting to hear from the Minister the quantity of fertilisers used in this country as compared with that used on European farms and whether they have any subsidies.
There seems a strange reluctance on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to mention anything about European farmers. It would be interesting to hear what quantity of fertilisers they use and how it compares with the quantity used by our farmers. We may have to take very real notice of this in the years ahead and see how we compare with them.
I notice that paragraph 8 refers to the repayment of contribution due to failure to spread. I ask the Minister how many have had to repay the subsidy in a year. I also notice that the loophole has been closed where a farmer has not claimed a subsidy at the right time. I wonder how many cases are involved and how widespread is the practice? Does it vary according to the region or the county?
I welcome this Scheme and I am certain that most farmers will welcome it. It is indeed money well spent in the interest of our community and the production of home-grown food.

§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)
I do not want to delay the House for very long, but I want to raise two points which I think are of fundamental importance in the fertiliser Schemes. They are points which I have raised before but I am disappointed that no action has been taken on them in the last 12 months.
188 I again draw attention to the iniquitous state of tolerances allowed to fertiliser manufacturers to keep to the publicised analyses. There is an enormous loophole for unscrupulous manufacturers of fertilisers to cheat to a very large extent about the value of their fertiliser. This is increasing as compound fertilisers have become more concentrated in recent years. What discussions has the Minister had on this in the last year? How soon does he hope to tighten the tolerances and stop the present state of affairs by which farmers are taken for a very expensive ride by fertiliser manufacturers working to the bottom end of the tolerance limits?
Secondly, I ask the Minister a point which I raised with him before in a similar debate to this last year. The moment has come when we have a subsidy for nitrogen not to break down the subsidy into types and forms of nitrogen in the compound fertiliser or the straight fertiliser because there is a great temptation for some manufacturers to produce a very large proportion of their fertiliser in the form of urea. The Minister will know that urea is a very inferior form of nitrogenous fertiliser. I am convinced that all compound fertilisers ought to have stated on the bag what proportion of urea is contained in them.
I am disappointed to see that the Minister of State for Scotland is leaving. I hope that he will be back shortly because I am sure that many of my hon. Friend have most important things to say. None of my Scottish hon. Friends has yet spoken, and many of them are here. I am sure that they will all want the Minister of State's ear.
As I said, this specification must be provided because farmers are liable to be taken for an extensive ride by an unscrupulous manufacturer of fertilisers who includes a large proportion of urea—as some do—in the compound. This is certainly not money well spent. I should like an answer on this point from the Parliamentary Secretary or from the Minister of State.

§ Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)
I see no reason to welcome the Scheme, and I protest at the subsidy rate being kept 189 at this low level. It was reduced last year, and it is a shocking state of affairs that the Government have not raised it to the level which existed under Conservative Governments.
It is very significant and must be read in the same context as paragraph 58 of the annual determination of the Price Review in which fertiliser and lime subsidies are coupled. Lime is the key to fertilising, and if we do not use sufficient lime, half the value of artificial fertilisers is wasted. The reduction in the lime subsidy, which is very severe, will lead to a marked reduction in the application of lime and a serious effect on the lime quarries of Scotland.
I view with grave apprehension the proposal in paragraph 9 that the subsidy shall be paid by the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland, rather than by the Minister of Agriculture, because not one thing that the Secretary of State has done in the last 18 months for agriculture has given Scottish farmers one atom of confidence. I am certain that the Minister of State has at his fingertips all the figures on the amount of fertiliser applied in Scotland last year and its value. I hope that when he answers the debate he will at long last give Scottish farmers some good news.

§ Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)
I reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) about the Scottish aspect of the Scheme, and the precise reasons why the Secretary of State for Scotland is being made responsible for paying contributions under it. I am sure that there is a good reason for the change, but the Parliamentary Secretary did not explain to the House what it was. Is it for administrative reasons? Will it be cheaper? Is it to give the Department of Agriculture in Scotland more control over the Scheme? Or is it that difficulties and problems raised by Scottish farmers under the Scheme will be dealt with more quickly? We should be told the precise reason.
It is encouraging that in this debate, compared with the earlier debate, the Minister of State for Scotland has been getting himself briefed on these points I hope that it means that he will reply 190 to the debate. Having missed the other debate, it would be courteous to the House and to Scottish hon. Members who have spoken if he replied to this debate.
There are one or two detailed points which I should like to raise. The Parliamentary Secretary expressed great satisfaction at the rate at which fertiliser usage was increasing. His satisfaction surprised me somewhat, because the figures for 1964-65 show that the rate of increase in the use of fertilisers decreased from that in previous years. I quote from the Ministry's own figures. In the case of inorganic fertilisers the difference between the increase in consumption in 1963-64 and 1964-5 is only 6 per cent., an increase of 10,000 tons; whereas the increase in the previous years, between 1962-63 and 1963-64 was 67,000 tons, a very much greater figure. How is it that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied when the rate of increase has fallen so drastically?
The same tale is told when one looks at the consumption of compound fertilisers. Between 1963-64 and 1964-65 there was an increase of 2 per cent., 22,000 tons altogether. The increase in the two previous years 1962-63 and 1963-64 was 59,000 tons. Therefore, there was a very big falling off in the rate of increase in the consumption of fertiliser.
I should be interested to hear, when the Minister of State sums up the debate, as I hope he will, what his explanation is for this falling off in the rate of increase in the consumption of fertiliser. I appreciate that there are certain arguments, such as the poorer season that we had last year, and so on, but I would not have thought that such arguments, alone were sufficient to account for this great reduction.
As the Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, agree, there is still tremendous scope for increasing our consumption of fertilisers particularly in the case of grassland. One of the difficulties that concern many of us, particularly those of us in the livestock areas, is that whilst two-thirds of the total farmland acreage is under grass, only two-fifths of the total consumption of fertiliser goes on grassland. Therefore, in relation to the area 191 of grassland there is a far smaller proportion of fertiliser consumption in these areas.
I am reminded particularly of examples of intensive grassland management overseas, such as in Holland, where a recent comparison was made. If we in this country used the same rates of application as are used in Holland, we would use in a year an extra 250,000 tons of nitrogenous fertiliser which is equivalent to an increase of 50 per cent. over our existing usage. Obviously, the situation is not strictly comparable from the point of view of the type of grassland, the type of farming, and so on, but it gives some indication of the tremendous scope that exists for using fertiliser on grassland.
This is illustrated in our own country. At the upper end of the scale, on farms of high stocking densities and where intensive methods of grassland management are carried out, the rate of usage is seven or eight times the national average. This, I would have thought, would give some concern to the Minister, for surely one should encourage a far greater increase in the use of nitrogenous fertilisers on grassland.
There is no question but that if we can use more fertilisers we can economise in the use of imported feedingstuffs from overseas. It has been estimated that every ton of plant nutrient used is capable of producing 10 tons of food units in one form or another. Therefore, the scope for saving foreign exchange, apart from anything else, is very great indeed.
I should have thought that at this time of world beef shortage this would be a matter to which the Government would give more attention, particularly when one looks at the experiments conducted by such firms as I.C.I. in the use of fertiliser and a higher standard of grassland management in the production of beef. This is one aspect of farming to which much more attention should be paid and one to which the Government should give a great deal more encouragement. This is particularly true at a time when a grant like this is given to encourage efficiency in farming and production from our own farms to save imported foodstuffs from overseas. The Government ought to realise that there is a great shortage of money and of capital in farming as a 192 result of their policies, and, therefore, money given in this way as a direct aid to efficiency is in the best interests not only of British agriculture but of consumers as a whole.
I was struck by the tremendous satisfaction the Parliamentary Secretary took in saying that no cut had been made. This is an extraordinary attitude. It merely illustrates how accustomed the hon. Gentleman is to making cuts. He takes credit for making no cut, whereas, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) pointed out, there is a very strong case not for just maintaining the status quo but for restoring the rates of grant to what they were in previous years. I share the disappointment felt by my hon. Friends at the fact that the grants have been retained and have not been restored to what they were previously under a Conservative Government.

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
This is a most important Scheme affecting most farmers in Scotland, except for a few upland sheep farmers. I wish to raise a detailed point on the administration of the Scheme. I cannot speak with the knowledge which my hon. Friends have of agricultural matters, but it should be noted how we have on this side of the House Members who are prepared to stand up and fight for the interests of the farmer. We have not had from this Government the co-operation which farmers in Scotland enjoyed under past Administrations. I was appalled to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that this was a splendid Measure because there would be no cut. Is it not scandalous that that should be thought cause for satisfaction?
Planning in agriculture has to be directed to the long-term future, and it is quite impossible for farmers in Scotland or England to plan for the longer term when there are constant reductions in subsidy. The one cause for satisfaction which farmers have is that they have so many friends on these benches continually fighting for their interests.

§ Mr. Manuel
At the General Election, the Scottish farmers did not vote for the hon. Gentleman's party because it was pledged to do away with deficiency payments and guaranteed prices, which would 193 have swept away all the hocus-pocus the hon. Gentleman is giving us tonight.

§ Mr. Taylor
It is outrageous that the hon. Gentleman should say that. There is no question but that the farmers of Scotland appreciated our policies. There are many hon. Members on this side representing the farming community, and the important thing is that they represent its bests interests.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Scheme.

§ Mr. Taylor
Before coming to the point on administration, may I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for North Augus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) increased his majority considerably, and it was the farmers who gave him that increase.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to matters relating to the Scheme.

§ Mr. Taylor
Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point which I wish to raise relates to the transfer of responsibility for payment of the grant from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Secretary of State for Scotland. When I read the Explanatory Note, the matter seemed quite clear. Contributions may be made by the Secretary of State and not, as previously, by the Minister of Agriculture. In other words, it seemed that the Government were accepting that this could be done either way: if people wanted to get the money from the Minister of Agriculture, fair enough, and if they wanted to get it from the Scottish Office, they could do that.
This seemed to be a sensible arrangement so long as it did not cause a great increase in staff. The question of staff is vital. Precisely what increase in staff will this require? I do not make the point lightly. We found out last week that in the Scottish Office there has been an increase of 635 in staff since the Government came to power in October, 1964. That is outrageous. There has been no wide increase in the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. There have been only a few administrative changes similar to those in this Order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is completely out of order. If he cannot relates his remarks to the Scheme, I must ask him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. Taylor
I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having regard to the substantial increase which has already taken place, I thought it worth pointing out that the Scheme could involve an increase in staff. I will not press the point, but I hope that it will be answered.
The second point which should be clarified is the verification of applications. If someone wants to verify an application, a person authorised by the Minister may require reasonable facilities for the inspection of any fertiliser. I appreciate that someone might ask fox a grant who was perhaps not fully qualified for it, and, clearly, the Minister must protect the public purse and obtain full information, but the Scheme does not state what penalty is involved if these facilities are not afforded. It seems to me that the grant will have been paid before the inspection is called for. The Minister should state what penalty is involved, if there is one, and if it is in the principal Act from which the Scheme stems.
These points are worth considering. This is an extremely important Scheme which will affect almost every farmer in Scotland, except for a few upland sheep farmers. I hope that we shall have these points clarified. Clarification can come only from the Minister of State, Scottish Office, because one of the points is administration within the Scottish Office. It would be scandalous if we had a reply from someone not associated with the Scottish Office.

§ Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)
A number of my hon. Friends have made an excellent case for the restoration of the cuts made by the Government in the fertiliser subsidy recently. Earlier we debated the Ploughing Grants Scheme, and a number of my hon. Friends mentioned that farmers were suffering a cut in production grants in respect of the ploughing subsidy. Why could not the cut in the ploughing grants subsidy be given back by an increased fertiliser subsidy?
195 An increase in the fertiliser subsidy would not only be important from the point of view of return to the farmer but even more important from the point of view of good husbandry. Speaking on the Ploughing Grants Scheme, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary remarked that modern agricultural methods had removed to some extent the need for ley farming and that to a much greater extent than in the past we were able to have continuous corn growing. This is true up to a point. But the Joint Parliamentary Secretary must beware, because if we are to have fewer leys there will be a steady decrease in the amount of organic matter in the soil, and, therefore, the only hope of maintaining soil fertility will be by greater application of fertilisers. The Government are giving no incentives to farmers by this Order.
In addition, it is essential that there should be higher application of fertilisers on grassland. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said, grassland is a source of beef supply in particular and of all other types of meat as well. The cut in the ploughing subsidy will result in fewer leys and more grain growing. Surely, if beef production is to be maintained, it will be necessary to get greater output from a smaller acreage of grass and therefore there should be encouragement of more fertiliser use on grassland.
Alternatively, perhaps more beef could come from the hill marginal areas. It is pertinent to remind the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that, more often than not, it is more costly to spread fertiliser on such land, where the going is rough, costs are higher and there is more wear and tear on machinery. Here again, an increase in the fertiliser subsidy would be a considerable incentive to the farmers and would probably lead to increased production.

§ Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)
The Minister of State, Scottish Office, has abdicated his responsibilities tonight. On 15th June, 1964, when a similar Scheme was debated, I moved it from the Dispatch Box and the Government reply was given by Mr. Scott-Hopkins, then the hon. Member for 196 Cornwall, North. On that occasion, there was nothing of particular significance to Scottish fertiliser application or distribution.
But in this Scheme the only significant change made has to do with administration in Scotland. There is virtually nothing else to it. I therefore urge the Minister of State to revert, if not entirely to his previous ways of quite phenomenal verbosity, at least to let the farmers of Scotland know, as he always used to say that they wanted to know, what is going on and how he is looking after them. It may be that he is to reply but I am slightly concerned by the repeated shakings of the head by his Parliamentary Private Secretary who is sitting behind him and who has been gesticulating that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is again to reply.
I have only two points that I wish to put on this Statutory Instrument. In the application form for the subsidy, there is stated a regulation about those who can supply fertilisers. It says: In order to qualify for contribution. fertilisers must have been purchased from a supplier registered by the Minister or the Secretary of State for Scotland as the case may be. … Purchases from unregistered suppliers will not qualify for contribution. Is it, therefore, possible for a merchant who is not registered to get supplies of fertilisers from one of the manufacturers, sell them to a farmer and then subsequently to say, "I am sorry, but, because I am unregistered, although I sold you the fertilisers you are unable to get the subsidy for them"? Of course, this would be a case of "once bitten, twice shy", but I should like the point clarified as to whether it is possible for such a transaction to take place.
Secondly, I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) about the number of staff, if any, extra who will be involved in the Scottish Office in the administration of this new idea, to which I personally take no exception. We have this rather strange figure of 600 extra staff attached to the Scottish Office in order to make present Ministers into what has been described as the best team ever at the Scottish Office.

§ Mr. Manuel
Nothing to do with this Scheme.

§ Mr. Stodart
It may well have something to do with it. I presume, and hope for the Minister's sake, that he will be able to say that this extra number is caused by the transfer of these officers from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Scottish Office. It is very relevant.

§ Mr. Manuel
As the hon. Gentleman is making the issue so important can he, as an ex-Minister at the Scottish Office, give me any estimate of the number of extra civil servants who would be employed at the Scottish Office to operate the change in the fertiliser scheme?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
We cannot on this Motion embark upon a discussion of the increase in staff at the Scottish Office generally.

§ Mr. Stodart
With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a matter of administration which has been transferred to the Scottish Office. Is it not in order to inquire whether more personnel are required? This is exactly what I am seeking to establish from Ministers who have made this transfer. With the best will in the world, it is most unreasonable of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to answer a purely hypothetical question.

§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis)
I had no wish to be discourteous to the House, but in the former debate there was no particularly Scottish point except a request for one figure, which was supplied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has rightly pointed out, the only change in this Scheme concerns Scotland and it is that in future payments will be made from the Scottish Office. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should object to Scottish business being transacted in Edinburgh. I have never yet heard a Conservative in Scotland advocating that it should be administered from Whitehall. I do not know what all the complaint is about. I would have expected hon. Members opposite, who claim to be the spokesmen for Scottish farmers, to welcome this little bit of devolution.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I should be grateful if in making this accusation the 198 Minister would say which hon. Member on this side of the House objected. I do not think that one did so. We have been asking why it was done and we have been waiting all evening for the Minister of State to reply. Now he has risen to his feet, he is not even answering the question.

§ Mr. Willis
I shall answer. All I am saying is that the whole tenor of the debate has been that this change was very serious. The only Scottish Member who had the courtesy to suggest that he welcomed it was the hon Member for Edinburgh, West. I was rather impressed by that and grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He appreciated that this was being done in the interests of the Scottish farmer. I do not know what his hon. Friend thought. I am sorry that I did not answer the debate on the first Scheme, otherwise I would have knocked hon. Members opposite for six. That, however, is by the way.
Hon. Members have asked why this is being done. It is being done because we expect that it will lead to the more efficient administration of the grant in Scotland, that it will be slightly more expeditious in operation, that the farmers will get their payments rather quicker and also that there will be greater understanding of local difficulties. All these are desirable things in themselves.
I understand that the cost will not be any greater. More people will be employed at St. Andrew's House—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Oh:"]—two or three—but, of course, there will be less work to do in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. What is extra at St. Andrew's House will not require to be done in London. Therefore, I understand, there will not be any increased cost.
Shortly before this debate, because knew that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West was interested, I tried to get the exact number of the people to be employed. I am sorry that I could not, get the figure at short notice. I understand that it is difficult to give an exact estimate because of the computerisation of the methods of payment, but I will try again and let the hon. Member know the exact number. There are to be two or three additional people and there is cer tain other work to be done.
199 I do not think there were any other Scottish points——

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
Will the civil servants who are transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Scottish Office be permanently transferred to Edinburgh, which means that they will move their domicile, or will they travel from London to St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh, with all the additional travelling expenses that will be incurred by the Department? The House would like to know.

§ Mr. Willis
I do not know whether that is worthy of an answer.

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The hon. Gentleman does not know.

§ Mr. Willis
Hon. Members ask whether people will be transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We shall engage our staff in Scotland.

§ Sir D. Glover
Oh.

§ Mr. Willis
Certainly. We employ civil servants in Scotland, the same as they are employed anywhere else down here. I have just been handed a note——

§ Mr. Willis
Oh, dear.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) must resume his seat.

§ Sir D. Glover
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does that mean that some civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture in London will be discharged from their appointment and that other people will be engaged in Edinburgh, or does it mean that there will be a transfer?

§ Mr. Willis
There is no transfer of staff. There is to be a transfer of the job. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] Just exactly how the necessary civil servants will be engaged is a matter——

§ Mr. Charles Morrison
When the hon. Gentleman says that there will be a transfer of job but not of staff, is he inferring that there will not be a cut in 200 staff in either one Department or another, so that the net result will be an increase in staff overall?

§ Mr. Willis
That is not necessarily true. If there is additional work to be done in the Ministry I have no doubt that people will be employed there. What we are transferring is the work and not the staff. If I might answer the hon. Gentleman's question in the light of a note which I have just received, I understand that another 15 people will be required in administering the Scottish side of the Fertilisers Scheme. I will give the hon. Gentleman exact details. I do not think that there are any other points to be answered which have not been replied to by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

§ Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)
I wish to make one short point in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on the subject of tolerances. This is a serious matter. I have been on the County Council Public Protection Committee for 10 to 15 years and this subject has arisen on innumerable occasions. We have had cases where the tolerance of certain firms has been on the lowest rung time after time. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will take up this matter with the fertiliser firms concerned and make it easier for county councils, when they have these complaints, to institute prosecutions? We have found the greatest difficulty, when we have reported a case, in getting the Ministry to authorise prosecutions. It is a point which has caused us in Norfolk considerable concern.

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
I wish to make three short points—[Interruption.]—and they will be shorter if there are not so many remarks from the other side of the House. Firstly, I should like to ask the Minister to come clean with the House. He says that it will involve the employment of 15 additional civil servants in St. Andrew's House and at the same time he says that there will be no redundancies in the Ministry of Agriculture. What happens to the 15 people in the Ministry who are being replaced by those in St. Andrew's House?
201 Is this Parkinson's Law or are they going to lose their jobs? If they do not, there will be an increase of 15 people. Presumably, these 15 people are not being paid some part-time emolument, but full Civil Service rates, and this leads me to think that this is an increase in the overburdening of government by the present Administration.
The second point is that the whole of this Scheme is to do with fertilisers. In the National Plan the Government said that they wished to reduce the number of people employed in agriculture by 2.8 per cent. by 1970. The only way that they will achieve this is by increasing productivity in agriculture.
It seems a strange way to set about it by limiting the amount of fertiliser which is to be used. What is the view of the Government on this? The third point, which I find rather disturbing, listening to the debate—[Interruption.]—If an hon. member wishes to intervene I will willingly give way.

§ Mr. Ron Ledger (Romford)
We watched the hon. Gentleman crawl in about 10 minutes ago——

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Sir D. Glover
If the hon. Gentleman Intervenes in a debate he presumably knows something about it. I happen to represent an agricultural constituency. I am perfectly prepared to explain to the hon. Member why I was not in the House earlier. It is something that happens to all hon. Members from time to time.
The third point that I should like to raise with the Minister is the question of fertilisers being sold only by what I would call registered firms. From this side of the House, at any rate—though perhaps not from the other side—that seems to be putting an emphasis on monopoly; in other words, only certain people are allowed to be part of the scheme.
In our last year in office, we brought in the Resale Price Maintenance Bill, which resulted in a great deal more competition. Are we now reducing competition? If we are, in the long run it must be to the disadvantage of agriculture and to the disadvantage of the Government in their National Plan which they want to achieve by 1970. It is reducing competiion if we insist on the larger units in the 202 industry supplying agricultural undertakings with fertilisers at the most competitive prices. If the smaller units are to be debarred from participating, it is putting the emphasis of distribution into the hands of the bigger units.
I do not think that size automatically means efficiency. Very often, the small firm of today is the big firm of tomorrow, built up because it is more efficient than its competitors. The House has the right to know from the Minister whether the exclusion of small people stems from the desire, which I know is prevalent on the other side, to get the distribution into as few hands as possible and then say that, because they are incompetent, they are going to be nationalised. We on this side think that distribution should be in the maximum number of hands, because that leads to efficiency.

§ Mr. John Mackie
I will do my best to reply to all the points that have been made. I am not very sure what the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) meant by his last point about size. However, I will let that pass.
My hon. Friend has answered the Scottish point, which was the first matter raised by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), so I will leave that alone.
I agree that productivity in agriculture has risen, and that fertilisers have played a big part. That has not a lot to do with the point under discussion. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give detailed area figures. I will send them to him. They make up quite a long list.
He then made a point about the concentration of compounds. In my opening remarks, I gave some figures to the effect that 10 or 11 years ago the average was 28 per cent., and it is now 38 per cent., which is quite a considerable increase. He asked whether that was a good thing. Certainly from the point of view of the handling charges and carriage, it is a very good thing, and all experiments up till now show that the concentration of nutrients in smaller bulk has not done anything but good, because of ease of handling and everything else. I am sure that our researchers will keep us right if they should get to such a high a point that they are not doing their job.
203 The hon. Gentleman also asked for particulars about comparisons with European farmers, as did the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Such comparisons are not easy. I know that the Dutch use as much as 20 cwts. of sulphate of ammonia. Certainly on the dry side of England we could not use that amount. We might use a fair amount on the wet side of the country, however. But comparisons with foreign countries are difficult, and I doubt whether they have much to do with the Scheme before the House tonight, anyhow.
On the question of the tonnage in 1964-65, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there were 2,885,000 tons of plant nutrients, if that is the figure that he wants. I am sorry that I do not have the figure for organic fertilisers. I have said that the figure for concentrates rose from 28 per cent. to 38 per cent.
There are very few repayments. I am sorry that I do not have the exact figures now, but I shall get them and send them to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) referred to the important question of tolerances, and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) also raised this point. I was asked what we had done since this matter was last raised. This is a particularly difficult subject, and we have had long and involved discussions about it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to ask us to be autocratic about this. The discussions have not been completed, and we are having great difficulty in getting any agreement about tolerances, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, on the basis of all the analyses which have been made, the tolerance so far has been chiefly in favour of the farmer, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry about that. I am not suggesting that there have not been tolerances the other way, but up to now they have been mainly in favour of the farmer, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that if we can improve this tolerance question we will do so.
I was asked about the use of urea as a source of nitrogen. Up to now we have no evidence that urea is not as good a source of nitrogen as ammonia, and it is 204 therefore difficult to take any action until we get scientific evidence that it is not good enough.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked for an increase in the subsidy. We can all ask for more, but I would just draw attention to the emphasis that we have given to the provision of subsidies. These are not decided on arbitrarily by the Government. We have discussions with the N.F.U. on these matters, and in two Price Reviews we have given half as much again as was given over the previous nine years. These are exact figures, and hon. Gentlemen opposite can check them. We have put the emphasis on discussions with the Union, and the matter has been more or less agreed between us, and therefore it does not arise on the question of giving more for fertilisers.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns said that the use of fertilisers had not risen as much as it had in the previous two years. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that one can do almost anything with figures if one is prepared to take particular ones. If the hon. Gentleman had gone back another year, he would have found that under the Conservative Government the figure for nitrogenous fertilisers fell from 494 to 461. I do not think that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman mean anything at all. There has been a steady rise, and if the hon. Gentleman does not believe my first example he can check the figures for phosphate fertilisers for 1961-62 and 1962-63. He will find that they fell from 485 to 407.
I am not suggesting that those are bad figures while the Conservatives were in power, but I am pointing out that there has been a steady rise, and the small cut that was made last year had no real effect. There has been a steady rise in the use of fertilisers.
I mentioned the question of the Dutch use of fertilisers. The hon. Member made a very emphatic speech on the question of the productive use of fertilisers. I could not agree with him. There is nothing to stop a farmer increasing his use of fertilisers. The farmers who are making full use of fertilisers will continue to do so, and a further grant will not necessarily persuade those who are 205 not doing so to do so. If the grant was so great under his party's administration why were not they used then? Education is necessary in this matter, and we have increased the Ministry's staff for this purpose. We are increasing the National Agricultural Advisory Service, and the administrative staff behind it is being increased. Many hon. Members have appealed for that, but now they complain about the increase in staff. They cannot have it both ways.
We are all glad to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) take an interest in agriculture. Apart from this criticism of the Scottish Office he asked about the penalties. The penalties are that either the farmer has to pay back the money he has got, or he does not receive the subsidy. There is no other penalty, unless he has committed fraud.

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor
When the subsidy has been paid and it is found upon investigation that the necessary conditions have not been fulfilled, what kind of penalty is there?

§ Mr. Mackie
As I have said, he has to pay it back, or it can be taken from the various subsidies to which he is entitled. The money can be got back in that way.
The hon. Gentleman also made great play about my not encouraging agriculture. I made a speech in Scotland the other day, and my remarks there were given completely out of context, as usual. I pointed out to a farmer in the audience that he did not know the facts, and that increased production in Scotland was going on apace in nearly everything—cattle, sheep, pigs, cropping and everything else. It is ridiculous to suggest that Scottish agriculture is being held back.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), the Ministry would not let down a farmer who was misled in the way he suggested.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) came in at the last minute. If he had listened carefully he might have had the point about staff answered. I have answered for my Ministry. The hon. Member made the point that we were limiting the amount of fertiliser used. We are not. Every farmer can 206 buy as much fertiliser as he wishes. We are not limiting them in any way. The Price Review is fixed every year in this respect, and lays down the fertiliser subsidy for the future. The farmer can buy all the fertiliser that he thinks he use.
On the question of registered firms, it was absolute nonsense for the hon. Member to talk about nationalisation and monopolies, and goodness knows what else. He has only to fill in a form to become a merchant, and he can supply all the fertiliser he wishes.
I think that I have answered all the points that have been raised, and I now hope that the House will accept the Scheme.