HC Deb 23 May 1966 vol 729 cc163-7

9.51 p.m.

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

I beg to move.

That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the corresponding Scottish scheme at the same time: That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

I have no objection if the House agrees.

Mr. Mackie

Before dealing with the Scheme I wish to say how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who, I understand, is to take charge of the Opposition's affairs dealing with agriculture, on the Front Bench. He and I have something in common, for we are both practical farmers. When I say that we are both practical farmers, I am not casting aspersions on other hon. Members.

Hon. Members will recall that when the Part I ploughing grant was introduced in 1952 the aim was increase the acreage of tillage by the regular ploughing of grassland. In 1955, the rate of grant was put up to the very substantial level of £7 an acre—well above the actual cost of the ploughing itself—to offer a real incentive to take the plough round the farm. The grant remained at that level until 1963, when it was recognised that this particular form of husbandry no longer justified a subsidy of that size and the rate was reduced to £5 an acre.

This year we have decided that a further reduction should be made in the rate of grant. There were two particular changes or trends in agriculture which we had in mind when examining this grant. First, in the field of cereal production, the introduction of improved methods of mechanical cultivation and chemical weed control are tending to make a long break in cereals unnecessary. Where a break is needed, beans or some other crop can often be as suitable as a ley. Second, in the field of grassland husbandry, experiments have shown that the high stocking rates which are necessary today can in many circumstances be more readily achieved by the improved management of permanent grass, without necessarily making use of the plough.

I am not suggesting, of course, that ploughing and ley farming can be universally replaced, but I am sure that farmers should not be encouraged to follow a particular policy merely because of the attraction of a high rate of subsidy. If the ploughing grant were to remain at £5 an acre, it would provide a pretty powerful incentive to stick to the old ideas of three- or four-year-leys. This was why at the Price Review this year we decided that the time had come to reduce the level of the grant to £2 10s. an acre.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must continually re-examine the various grants and subsidies which are paid to farmers to ensure that they are justified in terms of modern developments. This is what we have done with the Part I ploughing grant. It may be that when we look at it again in a year or two's time, we will decide to make other changes, but we think that a cut of 50 per cent. now is right.

Turning now to Part II of the Scheme, this grant was introduced in 1952 alongside the Part I grant to encourage the reclamation of old derelict grassland which needed quite drastic and expensive treatment before it could be made productive again. Since then over 600,000 acres have so far been dealt with under this part of the scheme and each year an Extra 40,000 or 50,000 acres qualify for grant. It is clear that this is an important contribution to land being brought back into cultivation, when we lose so much to urban development. This grant does a lot to give us back what we have lost. It is clear that this grant is still serving a useful purpose, and we do not propose any changes in the rate of £12 an acre at present.

I ought, however, to draw attention to some changes that have been made to the wording of paragraph 6 of the Scheme this year. The first of these removes any doubts which may have existed about the propriety of taking account of the cost of preliminary operations in assessing the likely cost of the work as a whole. There was some doubt about this, such as the cost of stump clearing and other preliminary work before ploughing started. This point has been made quite clear. It is not a new departure, but the wording of previous Schemes on this point was not entirely clear.

The second point arises from the fact that the Scheme is an annual one but that the kind of operations which are grant-aided under Part II may be spread over more than one year. Under the previous schemes, farmers who had been given the Minister's approval to carry out ploughing operations but who had not completed the work by 31st May of that year had to apply for fresh approval on 1st June. The effect of paragraph 6(3) of the draft Scheme is to allow an approval given under the previous Scheme to re- main in effect for the current Scheme. I am sure that this change will be welcomed by all those who take part in this Scheme.

The House may wish to have the usual figures relating to the ploughing grants. For this purpose I shall take the financial year 1965-66 because it provides the latest available figures. During that year, in the United Kingdom as a whole, over 11 million acres of grassland was ploughed under Part I of the Scheme, attracting just under £7 million in grants. Of this total 59 per cent. went to England, 23 per cent. to Scotland, 9 per cent. to Northern Ireland, and 9 per cent. to Wales.

The sum paid under Part II grants during the same period amounted to £610,000 in respect of 54,000 acres.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

I welcome this opportunity to put forward the views of this side of the House on the Ploughing Grant Scheme of 1966 which affects England, Scotland and Wales. It gives us the chance to ask the Minister one or two questions. We know that the cut has been from £5 to £2 10s. and that under Part II the £12 an acre for old pastures is retained—and this I welcome, because I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that it is vitally important to clear up these odd patches of waste ground and bring them into full production.

I should like to pay tribute to the usefulness of these ploughing grants. Over the years they have had a remarkable effect on our farming scene. Even more than the financial gain in terms of these subsidies, it has educated farmers to regard grass as a crop and ley farming has flourished under these grants, which play an important part in encouraging good husbandry and grassland management. This provides farmers with a chance of a break in the continuous cereal cycle. This continuous cereal cycle is more and more widespread, but it has its dangers. I wonder how far these reductions in the ploughing grant subsidies will encourage this continuous cereals cropping, with the dangers of diseases such as take-all and loss of soil fertility. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.

What are the reasons for these cuts? It is true that a reduction in the ploughing grant will provide less incentive to plough up grassland for cereals, and, of course, other crops, but particularly cereals. Is this, I wonder, the real reason for the cut? Is the Minister concerned about our overseas supplies and does he wish to use this method to contain the production of cereals?

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.