HC Deb 18 July 1968 vol 768 cc1817-23

10.26 p.m.

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

I beg to move, That the Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

It has been suggested that this scheme, which is English, and the subsequent scheme—the Small Farm (Business Management) (Scotland) Scheme 1968—which is Scottish, be taken together. Is that convenient?

Mr. Mackie

That is convenient, Mr. Speaker, since these schemes implement the proposals made at the Annual Review this year to extend the 1965 schemes, which expire on 31st August, for a further 12 months.

The main provisions of the schemes remain unchanged. They apply to fanners occupying holdings of between 20 and 125 acres and where the size of the business is between 250 and 600 standard man-days a year. A grant of up to a maximum of £1,000 is payable over a period of three years for carrying out an approved programme which is designed to increase the efficiency of the business. An essential part of the programme is the keeping of specified records to be used as a basis for making farm arrangement decisions.

Programmes may be either complete, providing for the attainment of objectives in each of the three years of participation, as well as the maintaining of records; or basic with provision for record-keeping over the three years, but objectives for the first year only. Most basic programmes are subsequently modified to include objectives for the second and third years after the first year's records become available.

We have, however, made minor changes, mainly to deal with the relationship of these schemes with the Farm Business Recording Scheme which was not in being when the 1965 schemes were introduced. We have provided that grant cannot be obtained under these schemes and the Farm Business Record- ing Scheme at the same time, and that farmers who have received grant under the Farm Business Recording Scheme can participate in these schemes only if they undertake a complete programme. I emphasise that a complete programme must be undertaken.

It seems reasonable that, having once had assistance to keep records, they should be able to undertake the full programme. We have also, of course, had to provide against the possibility of someone obtaining double grant by participating in the 1965 and 1968 schemes.

I am sure that participation in these schemes can be well worth while, not simply because the cash grants are attractive but because they offer a great opportunity to farmers to improve their efficiency as managers and businessmen. Frankly, I am sorry that more farmers have not taken part in these schemes up to now, and I would certainly urge all those eligible for these schemes to take a look at the opportunities they offer.

I know that some farmers are worried about the question of the confidentiality of these records. I take this opportunity of repeating the undertaking given during the debate on the 1965 scheme; that except for the occasional need to look at samples of these documents for our own internal test checks—that is, to see that the Scheme is being properly administered—the records and the summaries derived from them will be treated as confidential and seen only by the advisory officers who are helping the farmer. We shall continue to take all necessary steps in the local offices of our Departments to ensure that all this information is kept secure. No farmer need have any fears on that score, and I hope that this aspect will receive some publicity.

The results of the current schemes show that those who are taking part are benefiting substantially. I said that the scheme could help a farmer to improve his efficiency, and it does so in a very practical and non-academic way. Participants in the scheme have been learning by practice and experience how to apply sound management techniques to their businesses. The N.A.A.S. estimates that two-thirds of those taking part would not have sought management advice but for the schemes, and this is encouraging. Those who are participating are, in the main, keeping records well and are expected to continue to maintain them when they have completed the period in the scheme. This is the main aim and object that once having had a three-year period they should continue for the rest of their farming career. This helps them to put into practice day-to-day business matters.

At the moment applications are coming in at the rate of about 1,600 annually in the United Kingdom. We shall keep a careful watch on progress and we shall consider the future of the schemes at the next Annual Review. The extension for a further year has been welcomed by the unions and I am sure that hon. Members agree that this is worthwhile assistance for small farmers.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

I welcome this scheme on behalf of the Opposition, indeed both schemes, although I may not be qualified to speak about the Scottish scheme as I am from the South-West.

The scheme in the past has been of benefit to the small fanner and with encouragement it can continue to help him to become viable and efficient. If the scheme is carried out on an increasing scale it can help many more small farmers. All agree that it is necessary to give them some help. The position of the small farmer is increasingly difficult in the world we live in. I know how difficult it is for some in the South-West to make a reasonable living. Only by efficient planning and keeping proper business records can they do so.

I hope that small farmers will take advantage of this sort of offer encouraged by the N.A.A.S. and get the last ounce out of their small acreages so as to make a reasonable living and to contribute to the good economic position of the country. The scheme helps farmers to help themselves. No one would deny that small farmers have problems, but they must make efforts to help themselves.

I ask the Minister if there is enough staff to continue to operate the scheme. I do not advocate more staff for the N.A.A.S., but this scheme should have high priority and perhaps staff should be diverted from other work to make certain that it works properly. I hope that, as the Minister promised, all records will be kept confidential. The scheme would fail if that were not so.

On the last occasion when we debated this scheme we were told that 40,000 units were eligible for the grant. That is a very large number. I wonder how many have taken advantage of it over the years. What have been the results so far? What has been the result in terms of increased efficiency? Is the N.A.A.S. confident that small farmers are becoming more efficient? That may be difficult to measure, but it would be interesting to know. What sort of pattern has emerged from the set plan for these farms? Has the N.A.A.S. had to advise farmers to increase milk production? Milk production may be the only profitable course for many of these small farmers. It will be interesting to hear what sort of pattern has emerged.

Has any cross-checking been done by the farmers? Have they compared their results with those of other farmers? It would be very unwise to disclose the names of farmers, but under codes it might be possible to compare one's own farm, its plan, and its results with those of one's neighbours and of other people.

Is the Minister happy with the scheme of standard man-days? Is the lower limit too low or the higher limit too high? Does it include all the small farmers whom he wants to come into the scheme?

Lastly, there is the subject of the standard man-days. A table of figures is given in the scheme. I notice that it has been reduced. Why? Was it to allow for the greater stocking rate on the farms, or perhaps the greater stocking rate which is being achieved on farms through this scheme?

With those few points, once more I confirm that we on this side welcome the scheme. I would advise my small farmer friends in the South-West, in Scotland, and all over the country, to take advantage of schemes such as this and help themselves to become more efficient and viable and to compete in the difficult agricultural world that we live in.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said in welcoming the scheme. My hon. Friend was right to stress the importance of keeping proper records. The Minister rightly stressed the importance of the central Government keeping a close watch on expenditure. He followed that by saying that he was a little disappointed at the small number of farmers who had come forward for the farm record service. I wonder if there is not here a slight conflict. Perhaps the reason for this sluggishness in taking advantage of the grants now available is the extreme difficulty of filling in the various forms and keeping the records to the standard required by the Ministry.

The forms issued by the Ministry may seem straightforward to an accountant, or even to a farmer who is trained in bookkeeping. However, many small farmers have not this experience. The sight of the forms and the books provided with the advice of the National Farmers' Union is somewhat overawing to many farmers. I hope that when the Minister brings forward the details of the scheme he will not only provide a simple guide for farmers as to how they are to keep these records but will also have a simple record book which can be understood by all farmers, particularly bearing in mind that the type of farmer who is running this small scheme is doing a great deal of the hard work himself, often late into the night, and has not time to sit down every evening and keep a check on the number of hours spent on this, that and the other.

From the Scottish point of view, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the agricultural colleges in Scotland will have sufficient staff to advise the farmers. I hope that he will take the point that perhaps it is a waste of the skilled advisers for them to be explaining to the smaller farmer what is relatively simple bookkeeping. A number of clerks trained in accountancy might well be employed to explain the details, this obviating the necessity to employ the specific skill of the Advisory Service on this.

In general, we welcome the Scheme and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington said, the more small farmers who join it the better.

10.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan):

There has been a general welcome for the scheme. Both sides of the House recognise the importance of such schemes for the small farmer, just as we recognise the importance of the rôle played by the small farmer himself in the agricultural economy of this country. The purpose of the scheme is not only to give advice in the sense of helping small farmers to help themselves but also positively to help with advice in order to make small farms viable.

I have been asked about sufficiency of staff. The N.A.A.S. in England and Wales and the colleges in Scotland have been coping with the problem. My only regret would be, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said, that more farmers have not come forward. We could certainly cope with more if we had more applications. In the United Kingdom as a whole, there have been 9,695 applications, of which 5,649 have been approved —a llittle over 50 per cent. I shall write to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), if I may, as he may well find it useful to have the complete figures. On the financial side, our commitment under the 1965 scheme has been £4,400,000, and grant paid has been £587,000.

The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance about the confidentiality of records, and I know the reason for his question. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, the purpose here is to help the industry and not in any way to create difficulties for the individual farmer. I reaffirm his assurance that these records will be entirely confidential, being used only for our purpose under the scheme in assisting the farmer in his own work.

Next, I was asked whether the level of acreage is too low or too high. One has to keep questions of this kind under review as farming methods and efficiency change. It seems to us that we have it about right at present.

The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked that the forms should be simplified. This is always a difficult matter. I suppose that one could give the usual answer and say that the forms call for the minimum information needed for the purpose, so that records may be studied and advice given. It is certainly no part of our function to make them more complex than need be, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We always try to simplify these matters as much as possible.

I have not so far seen evidence of the other problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumfries, that is, the overuse of our skilled staff in the colleges in Scotland on, so to speak, merely clerical matters. Here again, the function is to prepare the right kind of records, draw the right conclusions from them, and give the right advice rather than to spend time on clerical matters. However, I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point. We shall look into it.

There is universal agreement on both sides that the scheme is a useful adjunct in our assistance to British agriculture in general, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

The Small Farm (Business Management) (Scotland) Scheme 1968 [draft laid before the House, 4th July], approved.— [Mr. Buchan.]