HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc347-50
Mr. Stodart

I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 74, line 19, to leave out "kept" and to insert "approved and certified".

This Amendment deals with the new grant, to which I have paid tribute on two occasions, for the keep of farm records. Although we did not move an Amendment in Committee on this point, it will probably save time if I merely read out what I said on that occasion: It also appears that grants will not be payable if the occupier or one of the family keeps the records—it must be a farm accountant or someone like that who does that job. Is it really necessary, for administrative purposes, to make this restriction? Why cannot a farmer or his son complete the farm business record book and have it certified by an accountant? One of the very good things about agriculture in the last few years has been the way in which farmers have been getting much more account-minded. They are increasingly appreciating the need to keep records and to know what are the most profitable lines. There has been a great gain to the industry as a result of this.

In his reply, the Minister did not go very far. He said: The main thing is that records should be kept to a high standard … It is, of course, true that some members of a farmer's family know about keeping records, and find the time to do this additional work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th November, 1966; c. 1205–9.] That is as far as the right hon. Gentleman went. I do not see the point of this restriction, provided, of course, that the accounts are certified or approved by someone who is regarded as competent to approve them.

It is excellent for farmers or their sons to be encouraged to take a personal interest in the accounts and one cannot be as interested in the accounts if they are kept by someone else. That nobody will deny. Added to that, if the accounts are sent away, there is the time lag before they come back. One of the weaknesses about many farm accounts and farm statistics lies in the fact that they generally refer to a period which is out of date by at least a few months.

I therefore urge on the Government the wisdom of encouraging the keeping of accounts by those farmers who show an inclination to do so. There is no sort of sanction upon them to do so, but, certainly, if a grant is available only if the accounts are not kept by the farmer, then there is, naturally, absolutely no encouragement to go further along the road which has been most usefully travelled to the benefit not only of agriculture, but many people outside it.

8.0 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has said and I endorse particularly his point about records being kept by a member of a farmer's family. Obviously, if the farmer or a member of his family can keep the accounts properly, the more encouragement he gets to do so, the better.

I wish to raise the same issue which I raised in Standing Committee—the instance where the farm or estate has a proper office, something increasingly to be found in agriculture, and where the farmer employs a trained secretary or trained accountant. It seems an unnecessary duplication and unnecessary extra expense that in order to qualify under the farm business recording scheme not only has the farmer to employ his own secretary or accountant to keep the books in the normal course of events, but also to send them to an accountant in an approved agency. This is a matter with which Ministers did not deal in Committee and I would like to hear why this form of farm book keeping should be excluded, particularly when a secretary or accountant is employed on the farm and already trained in this type of work.

Mr. John Mackie

It will be difficult to accept the Amendment, much as we appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The arguments have been put sufficiently in Committee. First and foremost, the grant is directed to farmers who have yet to learn the value of farm business records as an aid to sound management decisions. This is the essential point. To be of any value the records must be kept up to date and be of a high standard. This requires a degree of skill and the regular allotment of time to record keeping which many farmers cannot spare, particularly when the farm business includes a number of different enterprises or lines of production.

Of coarse, we appreciate that there are farmers who employ people for keeping books and records. They normally do the early part of the keeping of records —keeping cheque stubs and so on. There is also the finishing-off process and the analysis of the figures, and in between there is that part of the record-keeping process which, we freely admit, could be undertaken by a farmer who has some knowledge of book keeping and who has an office and staff.

We are prepared to look into this and consider whether special arrangements would be practicable and reasonable in these exceptional circumstances. I think the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) would agree that even where farmers can do this themselves, it would be the responsibility of the record-keeping business to make regular checks and keep the last stage of the records, that is the management analysis summaries, and it is therefore important to retain "kept" in the Bill so I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment on the promise that we will look at it.

Mr. Jopling

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is trying to find a way in which the farmer's family can be brought in to do these duties? I have just started a scheme myself, in the last few weeks. We had some doubts about starting it. One of the great problems and pitfalls for a staff not skilled in keeping these records is the problem of the beginning and end of the year.

It is important that a farm should begin its year's business recording at the time of year best suited to that farm. For an arable farm, this time of year is much the best, when there is not much in the ground, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk South-West (Mr. Hawkins) knows better than anybody in the House. For a dairy farm, summer is best and for a hill farm, the autumn, when much of that stock has been sold and there is as little as possible to carry over from one year to the next.

I understand that Ministry officials are saying that, after an application has been made, there can be no retrospective recording. When agreement is made, a farm can begin, let us say, on the 30th or 31st January. If it were very convenient for the farm and for the farming year that it should start on the 1st January, it would be much easier for staff not so skilled as a professional accountant. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will look at this and see if he can allow a week or two of retrospective accounting which would make it much less complicated at the beginning and end of the year.

Mr. John Mackie

I will bear in mind what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Stodart

I could argue with the Parliamentary Secretary on this, but I will not. I think he is trying to be helpful. I agree that the sort of farmer I have described, who might take advantage of this, is almost certainly in the minority, but he should be encouraged. It looks as though the Minister might try to do something, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.