HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc376-82
Mr. J. E. B. Hill

I beg to move Amendment No. 122, in page 95, line 13, after "power" to insert "or gas".

After over 17 hours of continuous debate it may seem somewhat strange that I should seek to insert "gas", but my purpose is to put gas on the same footing as electricity in farm improvement schemes. Gas is already used in agriculture, mainly from mobile containers for heating boiler houses and for similar purposes.

Developments in the North Sea have promised a dramatic increase in the supply of this new indigenous fuel, but that increase will not be without cost to agriculture. The gas landfall installations and processing plants will take some good agricultural land in Norfolk and elsewhere permanently out of production, and the pipelines will cross some of the best corn-growing land in the country.

In certain areas gas may well become the cheapest fuel available for agricultural purposes, especially for grain drying. It may become cheaper than oil and would, of course, have the advantage of needing no cost in foreign exchange. Moreover, technical progress and invention may develop in the future new uses for gas applicable to agriculture far beyond our present expectation.

Since I put the Amendment down, I have obtained the new leaflet, "Agricultural Investment Grants", in which I see that Appendix 1(e) includes gas, for the first time, I think, in an agricultural pamphlet. The reference is to gas or electricity supply other than for dwelling-houses. As I understand, that is, at the moment, for fixed equipment attracting what was formerly the 10 per cent. grant, but which will now be the 12½i per cent. grant. If I am right in that, may I ask why gas is included only under Clause 31? It seems to me that it should be with electricity in Schedule 4 for farm improvement schemes, where, of course, it would qualify for a higher rate of grant.

I have consulted the N.F.U. on this matter, and I am authorised to say that this suggestion has its support. I do not think that it had previously occurred to the union that the economics of gas heating might be completely revolutionised.

In case the Minister should argue that gas installations are too expensive, may I remind him that all the farm improvement scheme safeguards would prevent grants from going on uneconomic schemes. It seems to me that the present omission of gas is discriminating in favour of one nationalised industry against another. Gas and electricity, where they are available for farm use, should receive the same rate of grant and encouragement from the Government.

Mr. John Mackie

I must declare an interest here. More than a year ago now, I applied for a gas supply from the bottom of the road to my farm, on the basis that a 2-ft. gas main went through the farm and out the other side and the gas board ought to give me an off-take. But I failed to get either. However, that is not the reason why we are prepared to be accommodating and include gas as the hon. Gentleman asks us to do by his Amendment.

At this hour of the morning, I need say no more. We all appreciate that, if gas gets cheaper, it will become more and more used on farms from mobile sources of supply for grain driers and in many other ways. We are very happy to include gas in the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Mackie

I beg to move Amendment No. 111, in page 95, line 27, at the end to insert: 13. Protection and improvement of river banks".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We can discuss, at the same time, the Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), at the end to add: construction of dams and culverts

Mr. Mackie

This Amendment would enable grant to be paid on work for the protection and improvement of river banks. Drainage authorities already have power under land drainage legislation to carry out maintenance, improvement and new works on rivers, and we should normally expect this sort of work to be undertaken by them. But there may sometimes be valid reasons why an authority would be unable or unwilling to undertake a specific piece of work.

It was argued in Committee that it would be unreasonable to object to farmers doing the work themselves in such cases with the agreement of the river authority, and we promised to consider whether grant could be allowed on this basis under the Farm Improvement Scheme.

There is always a danger of overlapping when grants are available from two sources for one class of work, but we do not want to be unreasonable about this. We are, therefore, prepared to admit for grant works carried out by farmers with the agreement of the river authority, subject to the usual tests of the Scheme and provided that they are technically sound.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

I am glad that the Government have decided to meet the case which was so ably argued in Committee, and my object is to ensure that, where appropriate, dams and culverts would be eligible as part of a river bank protection scheme. Normally, one would suppose that they would form part of either an irrigation scheme or a drainage scheme, but in unsuitable soil conditions quite small streams can cause serious bank erosion, and a dam can be a useful way of avoiding scar at the base of the bank and, incidentally, benefiting a fair amount of land by giving control of the water table. For a variety of reasons, that might be quite separate from an irrigation scheme.

Likewise, a culvert is usually part of a drainage scheme and, therefore, eligible for a land drainage grant, but there may be occasions when a culvert is the best means of avoiding bank collapse at a difficult spot. Culverts, though not dams, are now specified in the new explanatory leaflet on grant for fixed equipment as eligible for 12½ per cent. grant. I would prefer to see provision for them to be included in appropriate cases in a Farm Improvement Scheme.

9.30 a.m.

Finally, concerning the new explanatory leaflet, I would like to know from the Minister the relationship between the new fixed equipment grant of 12½ per cent. and the existing farm improvement, water supply and drainage grants. Will the Minister confirm that irrigation schemes, for example, will continue to be dealt with under the farm water supplies provisions for the higher rate of grant and that, in general, improvements will not, as it were, be downgraded into the fixed equipment category, thereby attracting the lower rate of grant? It is not entirely clear from the pamphlet except, possibly, with very careful study, and it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the fixed equipment grant is complementary to existing grant schemes and is not intended to encroach upon them.

Mr. John Mackie

The purpose of the Amendment is to establish that dams and culverts are eligible for grant under the farm improvement scheme. I would not question the eligibility of these items where they are connected with a land improvement scheme which passes all the tests of the scheme. Dams could be eligible, for example, in connection with the reclamation of land and culverts in connection with the improvement of roads and bridges. But to list these items specifically and in isolation might convey the quite wrong impression that farm improvement grant is available for land drainage works as such even when they were unconnected with land improvements in the farm improvement sense.

We shall continue to grant-aid dams in connection with land reclamation and culverts will continue to be eligible where they are part of or ancillary to any of the items listed in Schedule 3. Dams and culverts required for a purpose not connected with eligible farm improvement works are not, however, appropriate to this scheme and fall to be considered for grant aid, if at all, under the land drainage legislation.

With this assurance that improvements will be eligible when they are ancillary to other improvements, I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. I do not have with me a copy of the leaflet to which he has referred, but I will confirm in writing the position concerning any dubiety in it on the points which the hon. Member has mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 95, line 31, to leave out from 'below' to 'other' in line 33, and to insert: the provision and installation for agricultural purposes of static plant or machinery (including fixtures and fittings) and mobile equipment when it is a necessary part of a fixed installation'.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment we will take Amendment No. 115, in page 95, line 36, leave out from 'the' to is ' in line 37 and insert: 'said plant, machinery or equipment '.

Mr. Steel

At half-past nine in the morning, having waited through the night to move the Amendment, it is somewhat disappointing to realise that one could have been in bed all the time and come fresh to the subject.

I wish to persuade the Government to accept the Amendment, which I have brought forward as a result of representations which have been made to me by farmers in my constituency. The point is that Schedule 4 refers to fixed plant or machinery, and the substance of the Amendment is to amend "fixed" to "static" and to include as eligible for grant mobile equipment when it is a necessary part of a fixed installation.

I have in mind augers and blowers for silos or grain bins and also mobile drying equipment for floor drying of grain or ventilation of potato stocks. If a farmer has, say, three silos side by side and he decides to install three blowers and he concretes them into the floor or bolts them down in some way, they are eligible for grant. If, on the other hand, he has a more up-to-date method of having only one blower, which may be on small iron wheels and which is movable between the three silos, it is not eligible for grant. It seems, therefore, that we may in a sense be encouraging a less efficient form of farming by an absence of flexibility in the Schedule.

When this matter was first suggested to me, I took it up with the Minister who at the time was responsible for agriculture in Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who replied in a letter which, I thought, was sympathetic. He pointed out that my suggestion could not be implemented, except by amendment to the Bill. Being accommodating by nature, I have supplied a suitable Amendment to that end.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I support the Amendment, the purpose of which I, too, recommended in Standing Committee, when he Parliamentary Secretary expressed considerable sympathy for the idea, although he pointed out the difficulty of drawing the line between moveable and fixed machinery. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) illustrated the problem, as I did in Committee, although I will not delay the House by repeating my comments. Economies can be made when there is, for example, loading equipment for three silos. It can be moved about and it is not necessary to have an installation in triplicate.

Mr. Hawkins

I oppose the Amendment because it is not right to grant aid such things as portable augers and equipment which can be picked up and carried from place to place. The most satisfactory procedure is to grant aid fixed machinery and have the farmer supply his own augers and similar equipment. As I said in Committee, an Amendment of this type is not a practical proposition.

Mr. Ross

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) pointed out that he had been in correspondence with my noble Friend Lord Hughes, but I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that he construed the sympathy expressed in that correspondence too widely, for my noble Friend's letter concluded: …but we think the terms of the Bill are right". As the hon. Gentleman explained, the purpose of the Amendment is to depart from the fixed equipment idea—and not just in a limited way—with a view to admitting mobile equipment.

The Farm Improvement Scheme has, from the start, been related to long-term improvements. It is because of this that we recently took the step of introducing the grant for fixed equipment. It being a new step, it is too early to push this matter down yet another road, bearing in mind the difficulties that could arise. After all, the hon. Gentleman has in mind machinery which could be transported not just from one part of a farm to another, but from one farm to another, or elsewhere. If we are to deal with this matter in relation to the aims of the Farm Improvement Scheme, we must stick to the Bill as drafted.

I regret to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. At this hour I might only add that unless we get away from here quickly, we may become fixed equipment.

Mr. James Davidson

I should, perhaps, declare my interest—it is obviously an obsolete one—in that I have some machinery for which I stand no chance of getting the grant. I have aluminium alloy grain bins and I mention this equipment to illustrate how borderline cases can occur. There are bolts around the edges of the bins and these are grouted into concrete. They are, therefore, fixed and would qualify for grant. However, if the bolts were taken out the bins would no longer qualify for grant.

I mention this to show what could be done—I am not suggesting it should be done—with a portable auger. One could dig a hole in the ground, put in a sandy mixture of concrete so that, when the inspector came round, it would be a fixed installation. When the inspector left, the machine could be pulled out of the hole and moved about. I am not suggesting that a farmer should do this, but it illustrates in a practical way how borderline this matter is.

Mr. Ross

There is no question of borderline; it has to be fixed. Do not let us have any other kind of "fix".

Amendment negatived.