AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS) (Hansard, 11 May 1967)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)
I beg to move, That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.

§ Mr. Speaker
May I have the assistance of the House? Would it meet with the approval of both sides of the House if we were to take both the Ploughing Grants Schemes at the same time?

Hon. Members
Yes.

§ Mr. Mackie
Hon. Members will recall that in last year's debate I explained to the House that recent advances in methods of managing grassland had reduced the need for the special emphasis on ley fanning provided by the Part I grant. This year we have looked at this grant again, and hon. Members will know that it has been phased down from a maximum of £7 to £5 and then to £2 10s. Hon. Members will have noted that, as indicated in the recent Price Review, the £2 10s. grant has been discontinued, and the Scheme provides only for a grant of £12 an acre for ploughing up older grassland where the costs involved are higher than normal.
Given that there can be dangers in a number of circumstances in continuous cereal growing, the remedy is not necessarily a long break with a ley of three years or more. A short break in which some other crop is grown can often be equally suitable; and one of the crops which could adequately provide this is field beans, for which in this year's Price Review we have proposed to introduce a grant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I have never heard field beans called rubbish before.
Over the past 15 years, Part I ploughing grant has played a useful part in the agricultural economy, but agricultural practice does not stand still. Other methods are available for helping with rotation problems or for improving permanent grass, and it is proper that this grant should be discontinued and funds diverted to where they can be more effective. In the Price Review, arrangements were accordingly made to give 1841 assistance to the end products, that is livestock and dairy products, leaving it to the farmer to make his choice between the various technical methods open to him for managing his land.
We propose, nevertheless, to retain the grant of £12 an acre, known as Part II grant under previous Schemes. This grant plays a rather different rôle, and in these days, when so much land is being lost to non-agricultural development, it can still play a worth-while part in encouraging farmers to bring land into a fit state for production.
I need draw attention to only one minor change—and this is of administration—in the £12 grant. The Scheme is an annual one, but the operations required to clear this type of land may be spread over more than one year, according to when the farmer has the time and machinery available for the sequence of operations. This grant requires the Minister's prior approval before work is begun, and hon. Members may recall that an amendment was made last year which enabled an approval given under the previous Scheme to be valid for the current Scheme. The purpose of paragraph 3(3) of the draft Scheme is to extend this principle by allowing an approval given under either of the two previous Schemes to remain valid for the current Scheme. The change involves no loss of financial control, and should result in a saving of adminstrative costs.
The House may wish to have the usual figures relating to the ploughing grants. For this purpose, I shall take the financial year 1966/67 because it provides the latest available figures. During that year, in the United Kingdom as a whole almost 1¼ million acres of grassland were ploughed under Part I of the Scheme attracting £5.2 million in grants. Of this 53 per cent. went to England, 28 per cent. to Scotland, 10 per cent. to Northern Ireland and 9 per cent. to Wales. The total sum of Part II grants during the same period was £500,000 in respect of 42,000 acres.
With those figures, Mr. Speaker, I commend these Schemes for the approval of the House.

§ Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has gone through this Order with his cus- 1842 tomary brevity, but I think that he was a little casual about it, because it marks the end of the ploughing grant for ordinary temporary leys as opposed to the long-term and more difficult grassland problems, and I had hoped that he would tell us where he thought that the money saved was going in to maintain the income of arable farmers. In the past when it was said that this ploughing grant was perhaps no longer justified, the Government of the day retained it mainly because it served a purpose in channelling income into the industry, without at the same time providing an increase in guaranteed prices which might have altered the trend of production in a way that the Government did not wish.
From what the hon. Gentleman said, one would have supposed that in so far as the area of temporary grass contracted, the arable acreage would have increased, but the fact is that according to the Price Review—and I quote Appendix I Table A—the declining trend of temporary grassland is sharper than any corresponding increase in the arable acreage. During the three years 1964 to 1966, temporary grassland declined from 6,886,000 acres to 6,280,000, a decline of 606,000 acres. During the same period the arable acreage increased by only 102,000 acres, so it appears that half a million acres have gone out of temporary grass into what I suppose is classified as permanent grass.
This could mask, but I do not think it does, a general decline in the intensity of our agriculture, which probably resulted from the discouraging policy adopted by the Government during their first two years in office, and I would like to know whether——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am trying to keep the hon. Member on the narrow path, even if it is a grass path, of order.

§ Mr. Hill
I hope that I am not transgressing from the path of order, because I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that this Scheme will be adequate to check this undesirable tendency, and I hope he will see to it that steps are taken to reverse the trend which must militate against the productivity of British agriculture as a whole.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)
There are one or two questions I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman before 1843 we approve this Order. It he looks at the figures on page 39 of the Annual Price Review he will see that the ploughing grant for the coming year is £3.8 million. He gave us the latest figure for 1966–67, and according to that it is £5.2 million, plus £500,000, which is very nearly the £6.1 million which appears here.

§ Mr. Mackie
One year runs into another with ploughing grants. This figure of £5.2 million includes nearly a year at the old rate of grant. That is the reason for the difference. A year's grant is the figure shown in the Price Review, which is less.

§ Mr. Godman Irvine
Where is this Part II grant spread over the country? Is it spread all over the United Kingdom, or only in certain parts? It would be helpful to know where these half million acres are to be found, and whether this will be spread over the country or not.

§ Mr. Mackie
It is probably my fault. It is £500,000, and 42,000 acres.

§ Mr. Godman Irvine
The point remains the same. I shall be obliged if the Minister will tell us where we shall find those acres.
As a corollary to this, will those acres which obtain the £12 grant eventually find their way into forestry or are they always planted with an agricultural crop.
In deciding that this is the moment to provide that this Scheme shall deal only with Part II in the coming year, is the Minister satisfied that the original object for which the ploughing grant was formulated—to increase the tillage acreage—has no longer any validity? During last year we had 18,484 acres under arable. We are still not back to the level of 1946. The ploughing grant was started to increase the tillage acreage. The Government say that under the National Plan we should be increasing production and should be producing a major proportion of the required amount of food by 1970. Would it not be a good thing to ensure that the amount of tillage acreage continues to rise?
That is not the position. Page 31 of the White Paper shows that we have not begun to increase the figure. If we have not begun to do this two years after the plan was formulated, is this really the 1844 moment to take action which may have an adverse effect on the tillage acreage? My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) recently pointed out that if we are to keep to the target it is essential to increase production by 50 per cent.
Three things will be uppermost in the mind of the farmer in this respect. The Minister has already referred to the first, namely, a tendency for more permanent pasture. That may be all to the good, but is that what the Minister would like the farmer to have in his mind? That is not quite what he said. If the other idea of taking a plough round the farm and increasing the fertility of the farm by ley farming is not what the Ministry wants, is not this the occasion for the Minister to tell us why this conclusion has been arrived at?
I can remember when it was policy to take a plough round the farm and to put new leys down. In my dairy herd I ran into a period of infertility. After about 18 months, when all the experts had come along to see what was happening and we had been getting all sorts of advice, I had the idea that it might do no harm to put the cows on to the permanent pasture and leave them there for a while. It so happened that the infertility disappeared, and none of the disasters that the experts foresaw occurred. I feel that permanent pasture, if properly managed, has a very great contribution to make. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he agrees, or whether the conclusion to concentrate only on Part 2 of the Order has been arrived at by an entirely different route.
Modern farms are being maintained on a high stocking rate. Only the other day I was talking about a farm where 100 cows were kept on 90 acres. In such circumstances, the right thing may be not to use the plough too often. In any event, there is little opportunity to do so. The recent Price Review contained no encouragement for arable farmers——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hesitate to call one of my Chairmen to order, but the hon. Gentleman must keep to the Order under discussion. We are not talking about the Price Review now.

§ Mr. Godman Irvine
No, Mr. Speaker, but I was asking the hon. Gentleman to look at the arable picture as it relates 1845 to these ploughing up grants. If I have transgressed by mentioning the Price Review, I apologise.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the effect of the Scheme on the arable situation. It is taking away another part of the income of many arable farmers. I would refer him to what he said last year, about how, in Scotland, they managed to have 30 years' continuous barley growing quite happily. I am not sure whether he said it was on his farm or on that of some more fortunate Scot. I believe that the hon. Gentleman also farms in England, but do not know whether he has the same good fortune there. In my part of the country, particularly after last year's difficulties, many people would find this story of 30 years' continuous barley difficult to accept.
The hon. Gentleman referred to modern developments generally making the long break unnecessary, and said that the Scheme was to comply with the modern requirements. He said last year that the long break was unnecessary because of mechanical cultivation and chemicals for weed control. In my part of the country certainly, and many others, last year's experience would refute that. Many people would question that continuous corn growing was possible with only a short break. The findings of the research establishments are that a one year break makes the risk of disease worse in corn growing, that a two year break makes it little better and that it has to be three years to be of any use. Perhaps, with this Scheme, his suggestions about the short break will be given further consideration. It would be wrong for that message to go out from the Ministry on this Scheme or at any other time.
On continuous cropping, perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen the Paper recently delivered at the Farmers' Club, which set out the figures for continuous cropping, the increase in costs and the numbers of units of nitrogen necessary to maintain the yield. The burden of that discussion was to the effect that it was essential to find a proper break which would enable disease to be controlled and fertility maintained. Many people contributed to that discussion, but I would quote only what was said by Mr. John Green, the Chairman of the Agricultural Research Council: 1846 We have got, therefore, to find our way back somehow into grass, which is the natural crop for the greater part of the country. Later, he went on: We shall get no assistance from our politicians; because they only want what they want at the moment they want it. The greater the biological forces you can produce on the land you farm, the greater the legitimate surplus you will have to give to the politicians. However, if the politician thinks that he can increase that surplus by ad hoc subsidies that distort the balances and eat into the reserves of fertility that are natural to our geographical situation, he will be making an ass of himself as we have seen the Russians do in full measure. Was this why Lord Townsend once abandoned the highest office in the land to 'invent' the turnip? The Minister seems to be doing the exact opposite and is, perhaps, suggesting that we do not need the turnip, although he made a passing reference to beans and the subsidy on them. He will have to go a long way to persuade farmers that beans will be an adequate break, and the Scheme may be contributing to a wrong approach being adopted to arable farming.
Has the hon. Gentleman considered the Scheme in the circumstances which may prevail in the next year or two? In the debate which has just taken place, it was found to be not compatible to refer to the debates which have taken place in the last three days. However, has the Scheme been considered purely on an ad hoc basis, or has thought been given to the position that may exist in the coming year should our application to join the E.E.C. be successful?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman. I have even admitted the famous "Turnip Townsend", but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, he may not go beyond the Scheme.

§ Mr. Irvine
I appreciate the relevance of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to make, with great respect, was whether the Scheme will have to be worked out during the period in which the circumstances may be changing. I want the Minister to tell us what, if any, consideration he has given to those possible changes.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Scheme is for one year. We shall be discussing some other Scheme some other time. It is this one we are discussing now.

§ Mr. Irvine
If that is your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, then, of course, I accept it.
Will the Minister say how he feels the Scheme will affect various areas of the country; and in asking this question I have three types of area in mind. The first is that of the small man which, during last year's debate, was found to be concentrated more or less in the South-West. On that occasion, the Minister held the view that if one was removing a certain percentage from a grant, it did not matter whether the recipient was a small or large farmer.
That seemed to me to be an argument which completely missed the point, since 5 per cent. off an income of £500 or £700 a year is a much more significant factor than 5 per cent. off an income of £5,000 a year, and many of us represent small farmers. What position does the Minister envisage the small farmer will find himself in as a result of the Order?
I was in a parish of my constituency recently and found that one farm had 150 acres or more, that two had between 50 and 150 acres, while all the others had less than 50 acres. It is, therefore, on the small man that the Minister should indicate what he feels will be the effect of the Scheme.
The second area contains the group of arable farmers because certain difficulties are arising in the arable areas and I believe that the Scheme may contribute towards them. The third contains the hill farms and livestock-rearing areas, and these farms have particular problems. I ask the hon. Gentleman to see that the money that used to be paid out in this category will be put back into those three areas.

§ Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)
I am very sorry to be present at the funeral service of a grant that has served a very useful purpose over many years. I should like the hon. Gentleman to confirm that there will not be the necessity of the 21 days' notification following completion of ploughing, which has been an unnecessary burden on farmers in recent years.
Secondly, I should like clarification of paragraph 11 and of the Explanatory Note. Paragraph 11 says that if there has been a previous renovation grant the ploughing grant is not payable, while the 1848 second paragraph of the Explanatory Note refers to … the carrying out of the operations (together with any necessary preliminary operations) …". I quote this because a few years ago I cleaned out an area of scrubland, for which I received the appropriate grant. Then, to my great surprise and disappointment, I was told that because I had had that grant I could not have the ploughing-up grant, as I was not entitled to two grants towards the reclamation of farmland.
I am sorry that the grant is ending, as the ploughing-up subsidy has been regarded by 99 per cent. of farmers as most useful and valuable, because the three-year break and direct reseeding has become an important part of dairy farming. The Government are putting nothing in its place that will adequately recompense for the loss we are suffering tonight.

§ Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary went through his opening remarks rather quickly. I do not blame him for that, because the Government are here taking money away from the arable farmer and not giving it to him, so it has nothing to recommend it to the House. We have here a withdrawal of all grants for ploughing other than in exceptional cases. As far as I can see from the Explanatory Note, the land must have been under grass for 12 years —since 1st June, 1955. In my part of the world, and I would say in the great arable belt of eastern England, there will be very few exceptional cases—I know of few in my part of Norolk—that will qualify for the grant.
Many farmers would have welcomed this doing away of the ploughing-up subsidies if we were to draw closer to the European system and pay additional money to the arable land farmers, who now lose this part of their income. There is no recompense in higher prices, and the operation will mean a net loss to the arable farmers. As I have said before, farmers would like to be able to do away with many subsidies if they could see that the prices at the end were fair for what was produced.
I was not quite sure, and I hope the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the 1849 debate will make clear, how much money will be lost to the farmer in total. In what area will the vast majority be? Probably it will be in eastern England. How much will it be in total—half a million, or how much—which is saved in the cost of the scheme compared with the previous situation? This, of course, must be an estimate, because no one knows how much will be spent under the £12 an acre grant.
I am greatly concerned about the loss of fertility which is bound up with the use of grassland which is put down for a number of years and then ploughed into the soil. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that there are large areas of land in Suffolk and Norfolk which need a break. They need a break and also to have something ploughed back as humus into the topsoil. I cannot think that any large acreage of beans will be grown in the stretch of light land which will take the place of this grassland. It may be that on an Essex farm beans are very popular. Some years ago in my area one of the best farmers who was growing potatoes used to grow a crop of beans, roll them down, muck them on top, and then plough the whole lot in. That was very good preparation, but it was very costly preparation, with no income for a year, for a crop of potatoes.
The loss of ploughing-up grant may induce loss of fertility in the land. It may induce bad practices of continuous corn growing and reduce the production from our most productive area of England, East Anglia and the East Midlands where there is the vast majority of production of arable crops.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider very carefully in the next year or two the steps which can be taken to see that the income from these arable lands is not whittled away but that we have sufficient income to make sure that we can rest the land, and put back some humus into a part of the arable acreage of the lighter lands in East Anglia.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)
It would be wrong if I followed all the discussion there has been on this Scheme. At one period we had an extremely careful academic lecture on agriculture and even 1850 an historical reference to "Turnip Townsend". One thing which was missing from the references was that this cut in the ploughing grant has been made against a background of a very good and wise review. It would be wrong to deal with all the excellent aspects of the Review but that could be and should be kept in mind because it plays a very important part in this matter. As we said in another place this was almost the correct moment to finalise and end the grant.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I kept the Opposition from talking about the Price Review. The Minister must not talk about it either.

§ Mr. Buchan
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that and it will save me from answering some of the points which have been raised. This puts a different complexion on the argument. A great deal was made of the question of tillage acreage but tillage acreage has shown not a decline but a steady rise from 11,999,000 acres to 12,104,000 acres.
The £12 grant was limited to operations which clearly are costly but previous scrub clearance will have reduced the cost and rendered that work ineligible.
The total amount which will be saved as a result of the cut will be approximately £1 million this year and £2.8 million next year.
The question arose frequently of the consequences of this change on restoring goodness to the soil. Hon. Members forget that for a long time, before either the Annual Price Review or some of our modern farming methods were known, farmers in any case returned to grass. This change will not prevent those farmers who wish to do so from growing grass. This is particularly so in Scotland. It is a question of the reallocation of the money saved in other and more fruitful directions, in particular, by allowing farmers to decide on the basis of the other allocations what it is best to do with the funds which are then available.
The other aspect is that we have introduced the concept of the break crop and a grant thereon. Discussions will be taking place. It will not be merely the question of field beans under discussion.
1851 Other break crops will be under discussion.
Questions were asked about where the Part II grant goes. It is spent chiefly in the South-West, the West Midlands, the Northern Region, Wales and the hill land areas of Scotland.
I believe that we were right to say that this is the correct moment to finalise the ploughing grants, because good fanners have in any case adopted methods of improving the land surface which have in some ways rendered this grant redundant. It could be argued that it is not correct 1852 economic policy to be giving an incentive to a practice which in any case good farmers should carry out.
With these few words, I commend the Scheme to the House.