HC Deb 05 February 1968 vol 758 cc171-90

9.58 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 (Emergency Payments) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved. Many farmers who have suffered as a result of the foot-and-mouth epidemic will have set about reorganising and rehabilitating their farms, and some who have latterly had the disease on their farms will be considering how to reorganise and rehabilitate. It is our intention to provide special assistance to all those farmers in going about this task. In particular, we are anxious to ease the pressure for replacement stock. Hon. Members will be aware of the Register of Livestock being organised by the National Farmers Union, and of the special effort which the National Agricultural Advisory Service is making to advise farmers on how best to get on their feet again.

The special ploughing-up grant will supply assistance of a different kind. We hope that by offering farmers a material contribution towards getting a different kind of income for a season, the pressure for going into the market for replacement stock will be reduced, and any upward tendency in the level of prices will, we hope, be considerably moderated.

Hon. Members will have noted that the Scheme is applicable to England and Wales only, and will have appreciated that this is because the outbreak has spread no further.

We have every confidence that the measures which have been adopted will prevent any widening of the infected area and are encouraged by the declining numbers of new cases over recent weeks. I must add, however, that every fresh outbreak—and there have been two tonight—emphasises that great vigilance is still required. In spite of the decline in the incidence of the disease, I cannot emphasis this too much.

We at the Ministry are not infrequently accused of devising unnecessarily compli- cated schemes, but I think that right hon. and hon. Members are aware that the reason for this is usually the need to ensure that public money is spent wisely and where it is needed most. Particular care has been taken that the £10 ploughing grant, which is an emergency measure designed to help farmers in particularly difficult circumstances, should be as simple as possible to understand and with as few strings as possible. The only point which it has been necessary to set out in some detail concerns eligibility. We have had to be careful here in order to ensure that the grant is available to those for whom it is intended and that unreasonable advantage is not taken of it.

There are two main classes of farmer to whom the grant will be available. The first is the man whose livestock has been slaughtered on his holding due to the disease. This is the circumstance that will apply in the majority of cases. It will also take in the farmer whose neighbour has suffered an outbreak of the disease and whose stock has been slaughtered as a firebreak to prevent the spread of infection. Sometimes in this circumstance the stock is driven on to the infected holding before being slaughtered, but this will not debar land ploughed up on the farm where they were kept previously from receiving grant aid.

The other main category of farmer who will be eligible is the man whose stock had been sent on agistment or which was being grazed out on common or moor land associated with the main holding and there caught the disease and was slaughtered. Although the animals were destroyed away from the holding, their owner will still be able to plough up his fields and obtain grant, but if he has several holdings he will only be able to select one of these, which must be one from which the animals came before being agisted or grazed out, because we think it would be unreasonable for a farmer who had livestock on, say, the Welsh hills destroyed because of the disease to obtain grant for ploughing up several farms in, perhaps, Wiltshire or Norfolk, on the strength of the Welsh outbreak.

As I have said, the other conditions of the Scheme are simple, but perhaps hon. Members may wish me to run through them quickly. The land ploughed up must have been continuously under grass since before 25th October, 1967, which was the date of the first outbreak of the disease, and at the time of ploughing. The fact that it may have benefited under previous ploughing grants schemes will not render it ineligible, except for land which has been grant-aided under the 1967 scheme.

We thought it unreasonable to permit land which had been ploughed up and re-seeded since 1st June, 1967, to be ploughed up again under the Emergency Scheme, but considered that, since farmers may have to revise their planning drastically because of the consequences of the disease, benefit under earlier schemes should not debar them from this one. Prior inspection is not required. We wished to ensure that farmers who had already ploughed up following an outbreak were not thereby debarred from grant and also to avoid delaying those who wished to go ahead at once.

Hon. Members will note, however, that it is a condition of the Scheme that the land must be suitable for ploughing and cropping, and applicants who are in any doubt on this score are being advised to seek guidance from the N.A.A.S. immediately.

We are, as far as is practicable, arranging to follow up all inquiries with technical visits in order to ensure that farmers have proper advice and do not harm their own long-term interests by ploughing up unsuitable land. Grant is payable on completion of ploughing and one of the subsequent operations listed in the Schedule to the Scheme—for example, harrowing, discing or the spreading of lime or fertiliser. The subsequent operation is necessary because it is a condition of the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act, 1952, under which this Scheme is being made. There is no requirement to sow a particular crop, but the main emphasis of the Scheme will be to assist farmers to augment their incomes with a cash crop, and we hope that farmers will take advantage of that.

I do not think that I need take further time to explain other provisions of the Scheme, many of which will be familiar to hon. Members from earlier ploughing grants schemes. They include the dates during which operations may be carried out, the provision of adequate facilities for inspection, requiring applications for grant to be made in due form, and so on.

I am sure that hon. Members will join me in welcoming this special form of assistance for those who have suffered as a consequence of this disastrous epidemic, and I commend the Scheme to the House.

10.6 p.m.

Sir Clive Bossom (Leominster)

The Minister's action in giving additional ploughing grants has reassured the farmers and they are most grateful. It will especially encourage dairy farmers to delay restocking in order to ease the pressure in the market for dairy stock and thus avoid the creation of artificially high prices.

However, in Herefordshire we have a rather special problem, as the Minister is aware. There are many types of farmers, but we have two types, both small farmers, the hill farmers and the commoners, who feel that they have been slightly cheated as they are unable to take advantage of the additional ploughing grant. The Minister well knows that in England and Wales there are about 1,500,000 acres of common land, and in a small county like Herefordshire 89 pieces of common land had been registered by Hereford County Council by 31st December, last year.

As the Minister knows, some of these are commons of only half an acre. Eleven are of more than 100 acres, and there are several, like Bromyard Downs and Bircher Common, of approximately 300 acres. Most of them have stock on them and the commoners have little or no other land which they could plough. I hope that the Minister will look into these special cases again, as these farmers feel that they have been left out in the cold.

Past legislation provides for compensation at market value, which has been quite fair, because, generally speaking, there has been very little delay, but on this occasion market values have increased as the numbers of stock slaughtered have increased. There is also the problem of continuing inflation. That is why I want the Minister to try to persuade the Treasury to have a second look at exempting from Income Tax the compensation money paid for young animals and beef cattle—I understand that the Minister is now considering a scheme to restore some of the money in the form of a grant and he knows that that would be most welcome for those who are trying to buy young beef cattle.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss taxation exemption on this Order, which deals with giving money to certain farmers.

Sir C. Bossom

At the same time, I hope that during these next few weeks the Minister will consider raising the level of farm prices and grants for this year's Farm Price Review.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We certainly cannot discuss the Farm Price Review on this Order.

Sir C. Bossom

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I was trying to back up my hill farmers and commoners who do a good job in difficult conditions. I appreciate that it is difficult to help them under this Scheme, but I hope that the Minister will not forget them.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich)

I am sure that the overwhelming majority of farmers stricken by this terrible plague, and certainly the majority of farmers in my constituency, will greatly welcome the £10 ploughing grant which the Minister has introduced. The news came in those dark days before Christmas when the plague was only just past its height, and it brought a ray of hope for the future.

I want to show some of the difficulties which the Ministry will have in administering this grant with fairness and justice to all farms. I would like to give a particular instance which I have investigated in the last few days. On Saturday afternoon I called a meeting of my constituent farmers in a particular area, centred on the not inappropriately named parish of Wettenhall, to find out what their views were about the grant in view of the fact that it would be virtually impossible for them to make any practical use of it.

What I want to give to the Minister is the size and scope of their particular area. It is, in fact, about 4,500 acres, virtually in a ring fence. It represents 30 or 40 farmers farming on average about 150 acres, or something of that nature. During the war they did plough up their land and some of it has not yet recovered. It seems very unlikely that any of them will want to take advantage of this £10 ploughing grant, and there is nothing in that which can particularly help them.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has read out paragraph 4(b) which says: …in the opinion of the Minister, suitable for ploughing and cropping;". Is the Minister, in the shape of his advisers in the area, to allow an over-keen farmer to plough land which is obviously not really fit for ploughing, and if he does so what about paragraph 6(a) which says: the ploughing or any other operation in respect of which grant under this scheme may be made has been inefficiently carried out•"? Having been allowed to plough he may, as the hon. Gentleman knows, make a terrible mess of it. We are dealing with land which has a very thin top-soil, about 2½ to 3 in., and ghastly clay underneath. Something will have to be done to help here.

I know that you are watching me very carefully, Mr. Speaker, because you may be expecting me to make suggestions which might not be in order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is one of my Chairmen and would never get out of order.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

I was afraid that you might say that, Mr. Speaker, and I will do my best not to get out of order. If I may very briefly be allowed to make a suggestion, I promise that if you so much as lift an eyebrow I will cease immediately. If something could be done in the nature of the £10 grant to help with drainage and option given to choose this then those farmers could use that to the immense and permanent benefit of the countryside there and of the country in general. I will not press that now because to go any further, Mr. Speaker, would not meet with your approbation at all.

I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is an expert in this, quite apart from being a Minister, will know exactly what I am driving at. If he would say that he will, not necessarily give his sympathetic consideration, because that implies that I expect that he will do it, but if he will really consider the matter and see what can be done for these unfortunate constituents of mine, not only in this ring fence of which I have spoken, but as well as for farmers in other parts of the county, where ploughing is absolutely impossible, it will be the just, right and proper thing to do, I welcome this draft Scheme.

10.14 p.m.

Sir John Foster (Northwich)

I should like to ask the Minister whether, when he administers the Measure, he will have in mind the fact that it is a little unwise for him to be judge in his own cause. In paragraph 4(1)(b) he has the power to decide whether land is suitable for ploughing or cropping. In most Acts and rules and regulations there is a form of appeal, if it is only to an independent inspector who might be a member of the Ministry. Should we leave it to the Minister to decide whether land is suitable for ploughing and cropping? There might be a genuine difference of opinion. I hope that we shall have an assurance that the Minister will bear that in mind and that if it comes to a dispute with a farmer he will appoint somebody in his Ministry who can be regarded as independent to decide the dispute.

The same point applies to paragraph 6(a). There the matter is a bit more serious because the Minister may decide that ploughing has not been efficiently carried out. Having acted in a judicial capacity and decided that the ploughing has not been efficiently carried out, the Minister can withhold the grant or reduce the amount. I am surprised that one of the bodies which are meant to consider these Orders in Council did not make this point. One does not want to pray against the Scheme because it is for the benefit of the farmers, but I hope that the Minister will bear this point in mind and that we shall have an assurance that he wi11 deal with it in such a way that his judicial function is separated from his executive function.

In my constituency there is some land which would not have paragraph 4(1)(b) in its favour because it is unsuitable for ploughing and cropping. I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friends. It is not the farmer's fault that their land is not suitable for ploughing— it is in the nature of things—and some grant, perhaps for draining or some other agricultural improvement, would meet the case.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

Like my hon. Friends and others who have spoken, I welcome the Scheme. It will give some help in those areas which tragically have been afflicted by this disease in the last few months. Principally, it will allow a breathing space to farmers in these areas before they restock their land for animal husbandry, for which their farms and land is most suitable. To grow arable crops is a bit of a gamble and a bit of a hedge, but a subsidy of this sort will make it just viable.

Paragraph 2(2) of the Scheme provides that the land can be reseeded with grass. This I applaud. I do not want to go into the merits of grassland improvement, but the Minister knows that a great deal of the grassland in this country cannot be improved by reseeding. The breathing space which the Scheme gives will be enormously valuable and will mean that in years to come grassland will be very much more productive than it has been in the immediate past.

I wish to ask a specific question which has bothered me before. It bothered me particularly when we last debated Ploughing Grants Schemes on 23rd May, 1966. I asked the Minister—and I ask the same question tonight—why the 1967 Scheme could not be extended to include the new methods of grassland reseeding about which I know he is well aware because he referred to them in c. 176 of HANSARD for 23rd May, 1966. As the Minister knows, the new methods of killing off the old sward by chemical means and then, three weeks later, doing direct reseeding into the killed sward with a tool such as a rotor seeder can be extremely effective. I say that because I have done this on my own farm.

On the sort of land about which we have been talking tonight, particularly of the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. GrantFerris)—strong, heavy land—that type of husbandry for reseeding could well be effective. It may well be that that wet, strong, often ridge and furrow, land could be better reseeded by these chemical methods and that a machine such as a rotor seeder, which, in my experience, is very good at getting over uneven ground, could be an extremely effective method.

I ask the Minister, when he replies, to expand on something which has worried me and to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) has referred—that is, the meaning of paragraph 4(1,b), which provides that the grant can be paid only when the land ploughed up is suitable for ploughing and cropping". I hope that the Minister tonight will tell us exactly what criteria his officers will use when they say that land is suitable for ploughing and cropping. There is much land which is not suitable for ploughing but is suitable for spraying and rotary reseeding. I could find a number of the Minister's advisory officers who would agree with that view. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister tonight concerning appeals, to which reference has already been made, and what criteria his officers will use concerning suitability for ploughing and cropping.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

I, too, would like to echo the statement by the Minister that there is need for vigilance in this problem. It is always with us and there must be no relaxation.

In principle, of course, I accept the need for help for these farmers who have suffered so considerably. Emergency payments and help are vital to get them on their feet again. I accept that the Scheme tried to do this and tries also to ease the pressure on the buying of dairy stock. If everybody started to buy replacements, the cost would be enormous. I accept fully that in the Scheme that is what the Government are trying to do

I disagree, however, with my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I question whether the Scheme is the right way of helping those farmers in the problems which they are experiencing. The ploughing up of grass, which the Scheme encourages, has its drawbacks and its dangers. On farms with land which is suitable for ploughing up and for the growing of cereals, that is the right way of doing it, but I suspect that much of this land, because it has been used for milk production and dairy farming, is not really suitable for ploughing up. Therefore, I am sorry to say so, but I believe that although the Scheme has been brought forward to help those farmers, it will not do so in the long run.

When they plough up under the Scheme, many of these farmers will not have the necessary equipment to deal with the grain or whatever crop is grown. They will not have the ploughs, the combine harvesters or the storage facilities. It would certainly not be worth buying this equipment for one year. I question, therefore, whether the Scheme will bring the help that many farmers need.

I should like to raise one or two practical points about ploughing up. When ploughing up for cereals, there is always the danger that it will be difficult to get the land back into grassland. When the land is ploughed, ridges and depressions are formed and this is not helpful in reseeding when the modern grassland equipment is used. Certainly if in these unsuitable areas they do plough up, which is what this Scheme encourages them to do, we shall find that the yields will be low and the benefit of this £10 an acre will soon be wiped out.

Then I would submit to the Minister, too, that the cost of reseeding these days is so great that again the £10 an acre given under this Scheme will be wiped out. Personally, I feel that there ought to be some other method of helping these farmers rather than using this Scheme.

Although I do not want to appear to be difficult, I do not want to appear to be, as it were, stopping the farmers from having the benefits of this Scheme, I do believe for the reasons which I have given, that this is an unwise move. I would have thought it better to have provided for the raising of store cattle and Irish cattle and so on to use this grass and to provide the cash necessary for that, rather than ploughing up. It would mean the grass could be used and the stockmen could be kept, and it would not be necessary to have the purchasing of implements to do this ploughing up job. In the long run it would help with our beef supplies, and we must admit that too much ploughing up might produce more cereals than we require.

Therefore, although I do not want to run the Scheme down and I fully accept that the Government have brought it in with the best of intentions, I feel that there are some very real dangers here, particularly in the type of area and type of fields which probably will be ploughed up. I hope the Minister will be able to allay some of my fears.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester)

May I make it clear on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself that we welcome this Scheme as a very small piece of assistance to some of those who have suffered so much as a result of this foot-and-mouth epidemic. I emphasise that it is "some" of them because it is quite clear that not all farmers who have suffered will gain anything at all out of this scheme, and I emphasise as well that the money involved under he Scheme is not substantial. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, unfortunately, did not quantify either the acreage likely to be affected or the sum of money which will be expended. I think those are important points.

I would like to thank my hon. Friends who have taken part in this debate and I would say that they are some of the faithful Members who have spoken up in recent weeks and months on behalf of their constituents who have suffered so very severely.

I would emphasise that the farmers themselves, in taking up grants under this scheme, will be facing difficult decisions because they wish to get back into the livestock business as soon as possible. Passing reference is permissible, I believe, to the labour force. Today the labour force in agriculture is highly specialised and it is not possible to turn a herdsman into a ploughman and vice versa, at the drop of a hat.

Therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was perfectly right when he wondered will the farmers have the tackle? I would add, have they got the skilled men who can plough a field? Only this morning I was speaking to my foreman and he was saying how difficult it is to get men today to plough a field properly. When one is ploughing in grassland it takes a good deal of skill to plough in the grass in a satisfactory manner.

I should like to pay tribute to the versatility of the farm worker. It is amazing that we expect them to turn from being experts in one field to being experts in another almost overnight, and that is a consideration which is very relevant to the operation of this Scheme.

I am surprised that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not give any estimate of the acreage which he expected to be ploughed. I have seen one estimate of about 25,000 acres, and, if the ploughing grant is at the rate of £10 an acre, a sum of £250,000 will be involved under the Order. Put in the context of the total loss which the farming community has suffered, that is a very small sum. It works out at about 1 per cent. on the compensation values, and that in itself is less than the margin of error of an extremely competent valuer. So the assistance to the farming community will be extremely small, and the incidence of the help will be very uneven.

On 30th January, when speaking about the ploughing grant, the Minister was very fair. He said: … it will make some contribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1180.] He might have said that it will make "some small contribution". Nevertheless, we welcome it. Putting the matter in perspective, I calculate that some 2,400 farms will have been affected by the epidemic. Those holdings probably average about 100 acres, which means that the amount of land involved is about 250,000 acres. In other words, we are discussing a grant of the order of £1 for every acre affected.

Again taking an average, the grant will amount to about £100 per farm, and one of the aims of the grant is to ease the pressure on restocking and tide over these farms while they are not properly in business. I have consulted farmer friends of mine, and they estimate that, at best, they could not possibly be back in business to any extent for six months, and that they will not be back fully in business for a further 18 months, making two years in all.

Estimating the loss to them at just over £4,000 and putting it against the nominal £100 which, in theory, each could get, it means that the average farmer will lose some £4,000. In other words, the only supplementary grant proposed by the Ministry so far will be one-fortieth of the loss suffered.

The last debate on a ploughing order took place on 23rd May, 1966, when other ploughing grant orders were under discussion. To give the House some idea of the relativity of the proposed grant, for 1965-66 there was a £5 million ploughing grant order for England and Wales covering one million acres, and a £500,000 grant for some 40,000 acres under what was described as Part II of that Order. Those figures compare very favourably with the £250,000 which I postulate as the figure involved under the present grant. This is fairly small stuff, by any standard, and it occurs to me to ask the hon. Gentleman if this additional money is to come out of the Price Review or whether it will be an additional supplementary estimate.

The Minister has said that the prime object of the grant is to encourage cash cropping, and he mentioned grain. There is also the possibility of horticultural crops, but I rather discount that, because very little of the land involved will probably go to horticulture. On the other hand, there is direct reseeding, which I think will be used to an extent. However, in the counties which have been most affected, Shropshire and Cheshire, there are very limited drying facilities for grain. If another 50,000 tons of grain is to be grown, which is what we can expect from 25,000 acres, will the drying facilities be available for it, and will the combines be available to deal with it? We do not have an enormous surplus of combines in the livestock areas. Normally, there is no call for them. But this is an emergency operation, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say that his advisers are bearing this point in mind.

Again, will the standard quantities be altered because of this decision to put an extra 50,000 tons of grain on the market? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that when he replies. Those are my few thoughts on the grain side that may result from the operation of this Order.

Turning to reseeding, I was exceedingly interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said about direct reseeding as a result of rotovating a field which has previously been killed out by chemical spraying. I adopted this practice experimentally a few years ago and now use it as a regular part of the reseeding programme on my own farm, so I do understand it.

I took the trouble to look up the debate on the Ploughing Grants Order on 23rd May, 1966, and the Parliamentary Secretary made a very important statement about this matter: I know that the whole question of chemical treatment of grassland for reseeding—or, for that matter, cropping—is now on the cards. We have not included it yet, but, naturally, we are looking into every method of reseeding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 176.]. It seems surprising, as the Parliamentary Secretary knew about this nearly two years ago, that in fact this modern method of reseeding is not proposed at the present time. I cannot think of any method of reseeding which would be more suitable for much of the rather unusual land that was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) and Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). I shall come back to this point, because it is important.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in a letter to me of 31st January relevant to reseeding of the whole area of a field which in fact contained the graves of cattle in one part, said, Direct reseeding will not be prohibited. I have been in conversation with the Secretary of the Cheshire branch of the National Farmers Union and he tells me that at county level it does not seem that the Minister's advisers are very keen on direct reseeding. Would the Minister make it clear that his advisers are keen on direct reseeding and will advise and indeed encourage direct reseeding? I believe that in counties like Cheshire and Shropshire direct reseeding may be the most effective way of making use of this particular grant.

I now turn to a couple of points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster and Nantwich about those unfortunate farmers who are not eligible for this grant, because they have land whch is not suitable. Concerning the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich, I was a bit disturbed with the section that he brought to our attention, because I understood that farmers were able to get on with this job without approval of the Ministry. However, they may find at the end of the day that their operation has been one for which they will not get a grant. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this particular matter.

I do know that during wartime a certain amount of land was ploughed up which turned out to be a farming disaster, because the drainage on that particular land was ruined. If the method which I have described of chemical spraying followed by rotovating was carried out the drainage would not be affected. I cannot understand the present Ministry, knowing two years ago that this was a first-class method, not having got round to including it in an Order of this nature.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

I do want to assure my hon. Friend that in some places in the Nantwich constituency the top soil is even too thin to be available for rotovating.

Mr. Temple

I am surprised at that, because one can rotovate to the extent of an inch or possibly half-inch only and get a fairly useful seed bed. I take that from my hon. Friend, but I assure him that shallow rotovation is effective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster mentioned the special problems of those who have common land, and only common land. This emphasises what I said at the beginning, that only a certain number of people who have been affected by the foot-and-mouth epidemic will benefit from this grant. I think that this is most unfortunate, because they have the special difficulty of re-establishing their flocks. I believe that the correct terminology is the "hefting" problem, in that flocks are attached to the ground and they take many years to acclimatise themselves to a particular area. It is therefore doubly unfortunate that sheep farmers have been left out of the scope of assistance under a scheme of this nature.

When I heard the Minister explaining this grant on the radio or on television in. November, I thought that it was going to be a tremendous encouragement. It certainly sounded as though it was. I thought, "Here is a Minister who is determined to give massive first-aid", but it has turned out to be the first and last special aid that the industry has had. I am disappointed that this is not described as the first of a series of first-aid operations to help the farming industry which has gone through this unprecedented and devastating disaster.

I know that everyone in the House is sympathetic to all those who have suffered so much in this disaster. This grant will go a very small way to assist some. I hope that it will hold back the rush for restocking, but I emphasise that farmers who wish to take advantage of this grant will have to do so now, because the time for ploughing is at hand, and if it is left for only a few weeks the season for it will have passed. I hope that the message will go out from the House that although this measure is small, it must give encouragement, and I trust that the encouragement will mean that some additional grass will be ploughed.

I hope also that the Minister will be able to reply to some of the points which have been put to him, and that the grant will be of some real benefit to the farming community.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie

With the permission of the House, I would like to reply to as many of the points which have been raised as I can.

I am sorry that at least two hon. Gentlemen have suggested that this is a very small scheme. I do not think that it is. It may be small in comparison with the major ploughing schemes of the past, but it will be of considerable help to farmers. It will give help all along the line, and it will give direct help to some farmers. I know that advantage has been taken of it to a considerable extent, that not all farmers will rush in and stock, and this will give help to farmers who must stock because they cannot plough. It will provide general help all along the line, although it may not be of direct help to some who cannot plough.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) said that Herefordshire had a special problem. This applies to quite a few areas, to hill and common land, and I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the problems of areas which do not get the help of the £10 an acre ploughing grant will be considered. We are looking closely at the problem of how to help those who cannot plough. We are having discussions with the N.F.U. to see how it can be done, but it is not an easy problem.

The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) thanked us for what we were doing. He raised an interesting point about the wet areas. I noticed that hon. Members said "Hear hear" when two hon. Members referred to land having been ploughed during the war not benefiting from it, and still not having recovered. I am an arable farmer, and I have great difficulty in believing that. I am sure that today we have skills which we did not have 20 years ago or during the war. I am sure that if there is land in Britain which can be ploughed, this is the right way to do it. I should like to be shown some of this land. I am always willing to be educated—I have never said that I cannot be educated—and I am willing to go to see any land which the hon. Member feels could not be improved by ploughing, if it is possible to plough it.

He made an interesting point about assistance in drainage. 1 can see difficulties in this proposal. He should remember that we give a 50 per cent. grant for drainage, with another 10 per cent. if it is particularly difficult hill land, and I certainly could not promise to introduce a system whereby we looked at land and said that £10 an acre should be granted for that instead of for ploughing. But I will look at that interesting suggestion.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

What I had in mind was in order to administer this easily everybody should have the option of either £10 for ploughing or £10 for drainage.

Mr. Mackie

That would be a very wide option, but I will look at the interesting point which the hon. Member made.

I could not quite follow the argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). He is a lawyer. He said that the Minister must not be judge in his own court. I thought that a judge was always judge in his own court, but I may be wrong. He asked whether there was any form of appeal. There is always the opportunity of appeal to the county agricultural executive committee, and many appeals are made. The same right of appeal will exist under this scheme to the C.A.E.C. as under the normal ploughing scheme. I admit that if they disagree with the original decision the final appeal must be to the Minister and that he is the final judge, but somebody has to make the ultimate judgment.

The hon. and learned Gentleman also emphasised the need to help those who cannot plough, and I give him the assurance that we are looking at that matter very carefully, and that my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement about it, one way or another, sooner rather than later.

The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that we had to give these farmers a breathing space and that the scheme would be a help. He hopes, as I hope, that much of this land can be improved by ploughing. He also mentioned direct reseeding. With other hon. Members, he spoke of new methods of improvement by spraying, cutting into the grass and reseeding in that way. We are looking at that proposal. The hon. Member for the City of Chester is right; I said something about it two years ago. But he must remember that we were phasing out the ploughing grant scheme, although we still have the £12 an acre for difficult land. We had not got round to the point which he made. Indeed, we did not expect this kind of situation. But we will keep in mind the question of this modern method when we have an emergency such as this.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was so pessimistic, as were some other hon. Members, about the versatility of the farmer and the farm worker. I remind hon. Members that when he was Minister of Agriculture during the yar, the late Lord Hudson urged the Cheshire farmers to plough and plough and plough, and that the more they ploughed, the more milk they produced. We should learn that ploughing in what are considered non-arable areas is not as bad as it is made out to be. During the war these Cheshire farmers, no doubt with much less equipment than they have today, managed to plough up to 50 per cent. of their land, and the milk production increased, too.

We should not be worried about farmers not managing to do the job because of lack of equipment, because there are a great number of contractors available. The Minister will give all the assistance he can and, if necessary, he will encourage contractors to go into these areas. The National Agricultural Advisory Service will give advice in this way. But I think that we shall find that where they have the will, the farmers will find a way. I do not think that there will be any difficulty about combining, but there might be difficulty with drying if we have a very wet harvest. We shall need to watch that situation. I do not think that there would be any difficulty there—

Mr. Temple

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took up my point about grain drying. Few grain crops in Cheshire come off the thresher sufficiently dry to be stored immediately.

Mr. Mackie

I appreciate very well, since I come from the North of Scotland, the problems of drying grain.

One hon. Member was worried about the extra production of cereals and wondered whether this would affect standard quantities. We think that the area affected will be 25,000 or 30,000 acres, and the sum involved perhaps a quarter of a million pounds, and we do not think that the standard quantities would be affected

I doubt whether there would be any difficulties over labour. Some hon. Members were worried about fields not being levelled or ploughed properly. I am reminded of the story of the Royal Show held at Ipswich before the First World War, when Ransome's had a beautifully ploughed field bearing the notice "Ploughed by Ransome's ploughs", and the night before, Howard's flattened it all out and put up another sign, "Harrowed by a Howard's harrow". I think this illustrates that it is the subsequent operation which counts most so that we need not worry about the kind of ploughing about which hon. Members are worried. I said that there is no requirement to sow a particular crop as a condition of this Scheme. We would encourage farmers to sow a cash crop, but there would be nothing to stop them reseeding if this is the best way, to improve a bad ley but I cannot imagine that they will plough up a good ley to reseed

The hon. Member said the scheme represents a small proportion of the total loss to farmers. In answers to Questions 10 days ago, I said what we were doing to help farmers. The most important is augmenting the advisory services in the area to a tremendous extent. Many men are engaged there already and we are prepared to put in as many as are needed to give advice not only on arable farming but on buildings or anything else. That in itself is one of the main things which we are doing. We are also, of course, considering those who cannot get this type of assistance—

Mr. Temple

Will this amount of money come out of the Price Review?

Mr. Mackie

No, it will not. This is an extra for this emergency.

I am glad that the Scheme is generally welcomed, and I am certain that it will help farmers. I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Ploughing Grants (Emergency Payments) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.