HC Deb 18 July 1968 vol 768 cc1812-6

10.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)

I beg to move, That the Field Beans Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved. This scheme is intended to give effect to a Government decision announced in the 1967 Annual Review, to introduce a grant for growing field beans. It is intended to encourage the development of field beans because of their importance as a break crop for cereals, especially wheat, and also because they are a source of protein which saves imported feedingstuffs.

The rate of grant will be £5 per acre for field beans harvested as grain or available for harvesting as grain on the operative date. The scheme lays down the procedure for making application and for calculating the acreage of a crop. The use of the crop in a cereals rotation reduces the incidence of disease and improves the fertility of the soil, while at the same time the recent introduction of new varieties of beans, together with new methods of weed control, make it possible to grow field beans on a fairly wide range of farming areas. The new grant scheme is complementary to the Government's policy to expand the production of cereals to meet the growth of demand and is designed at the same time to make a direct contribution to import saving by increasing the supply of homegrown protein food.

Details of the scheme were announced in time for last autumn's sowing, and it has clearly had a beneficial effect on the acreage of the crop. The crop available for havesting this year is expected to be about 240,000 acres—an increase of 100,000 acres compared with 1967. I commend the scheme as a useful Measure, which has generally been welcomed in both Houses of Parliament and by all sides of the industry.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

I welcome the scheme on behalf of the Opposition. It is a worthy effort to help in the problem of a break crop in arable farming, plus the import saving rôle which it could play in our economy. The need for a break crop is of great importance in these days. I believe that cereals cannot be grown year after year without some trouble and difficulty. There is the problem of disease, and other factors. The bean break is one method of achieving this object. Some would recommend other methods—perhaps grass or other crops—but I believe that beans fit into the pattern of the arable man's scheme of farming. He can use his machinery, and he does not need to buy stock or fencing for cattle to eat a grass break. This is a worthy effort, and I hope that many fanners will take advantage of it.

It might in future be possible to extend this sort of subsidy to an oil-seed rape break crop if we had too many beans, or there were too many troubles in growing them. It might be possible to change to an oil-seed rape crop and get a subsidy on that.

There are many questions which spring to mind, one of which has already been answered by the Minister by his referring to the great extension in the acreage of beans grown this year. This is a most satisfactory response. It has been shown that £5 per acre is enough to tempt farmers, but I feel that the merchants could pay a little more for these beans if they wanted to. This is an important source of protein. Although the farmers have been encouraged, the merchants also need to be encouraged.

I hope that the Minister will be fairly lenient about withholding this grant if the crop is inadequate, this year possibly more than others, because of the storm damage and heavy rainfall which is bound to affect the crop. I trust that, in the first year, the Ministry inspectors will be lenient.

Paragraph 4(2) refers to a crop or part of a crop failing after 31st August. Does this mean that the inspectors will have to inspect the crop and that the full payment of £5 per acre will be given even if there is not much of a crop there? Paragraph (5) mentions unsuitability of the land. Perhaps that N.A.A.S. could make it clear before farmers start to sow beans on unsuitable land that they will not get a subsidy because the areas are unsuitable.

Is the Minister seeking to encourage spring-sown or winter-sown beans? The problems of the latter are well-known-birds and frost, for instance—but the problem with the spring beans is a much lower yield, of at least 5 cwt. an acre, I believe. I should be interested to know what research is being done and what guidance is being given on whether to recommend farmers to use winter-sown or spring-sown beans.

What is the Minister doing to encourage merchants to buy this crop? There is some reluctance to buy it. In some years, it might be difficult to sell the whole crop. I understand from the merchants that they are worried about continuity of supplies to warrant the new machinery which will be needed to process the beans to make them into protein in a suitable form for mixing. From my experience as a farmer, I know that it is easier to mix a number of beans every day after they are grown, because there is the problem of beans heating so much in the mixture. Therefore, the merchants need encouraging to use the beans and include them in their ration. These questions must be answered if the scheme is to succeed.

This is a traditional break crop for heavy land which has declined in importance since the Second World War, but the £5 per acre grant has certainly stimulated farmers to take an interest in it again. I wish it success, for, with the world shortage of protein and the possibility of a further shortage, as well as the effect of devaluation, the economic advantages of beans will increase, as, obviously, will the advantages of having it as a break crop.

I welcome the scheme. I hope that the farmers will use the grant and that the Minister will be able to convince the merchants of the need to use these beans in their ration.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Hoy

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). Some small matters of detail in the working of the scheme may need to be examined, but, on the whole, everyone thinks that it is first-class and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said so. The £5 is the attraction, of course, since otherwise we would not have had the response from the farmers. He would however, not want us to lay down the price which the merchants should pay. If he has any doubts, I would say that the Ministry has established liaison agreements with representative growers, merchants and compounders, so that any problems will be dealt with. We do not foresee any difficulty about disposing of the crop.

As to the N.A.A.S. warning farmers— it is in constant touch with the farmers on this issue and has issued advisory leaflets, even about the type of seeds which might be sown, so that there will be no aftermath of trouble. Farmers can go all the way with this.

I assure the House that the N.I.A.B. is doing a considerable amount of work in this respect, as is my Department. They are continually conducting research into these matters. When reference is made to the rate payable, it must be remembered that Exchequer must be protected when an adequate crop is produced. However, I assure hon. Members that attention will be paid when conditions reduce the yield.

Question put and agreed to.