SCOTLAND (WINTER KEEP SCHEME) (Hansard, 8 December 1969)

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)
I beg to move, That the Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved. This scheme, which applies only to Scotland, will enable us to continue to pay grants to Scottish hill and upland farmers for growing crops during the next five years for the winter feeding of their livestock. It replaces the present Winter Keep Scheme, which expires at the end of this year, and has allowed cropping grants to be paid for the last three years. The scheme now before the House differs in only two minor respects from the present one, apart from having a duration of five instead of three years.
In the first place, we have provided that an applicant shall, on request, give us such information as we may require to verify his application, which is a provision common to subsidy schemes. This is intended to give statutory backing to our present practice of asking applicants for winter keep grant to provide us later in the year with a statement of the crops they have harvested.
Secondly, we are bring the scheme up to date by extending the provisions which enables us to restrict grant where land has been improved with a grassland renovation grant to land which has been improved with a hill land improvement grant.
As I said earlier, the scheme allows grants to be paid on an acreage basis for the next five years. Powers enabling this to be done were taken in the Agriculture Act, 1967. In that year we introduced the alternative winter keep grants payable in the form of supplements to hill cattle and hill and upland sheep subsidies. Since then the number of applications each year for acreage grant has fallen, but we think that this decline has now started to level out. This year it is estimated that acreage grant will be paid in respect of over 4,000 applications, representing about 185,000 acres of crops and a total amount of grant of £680,000. These figures we consider to be a reasonable indication of the level 189 of demand for this type of assistance and justification for its continuation.
I commend the scheme for the approval of the House.

§ Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)
The early onset of winter this year, which I feel rather acutely, having just returned from a much warmer clime, underlines the need for an efficient Winter Keep Scheme.

§ Mr. Thomas Oswald (Edinburgh, Central)
Lovely weather.

§ Sir J. Gilmour
I returned on Saturday to see the whole of the Highland hills covered with snow, which underlines the fact that Britain's farmers need winter keep. We therefore welcome the scheme. However, as it is extended from three years to five years, we want to ensure that it will meet the conditions which the industry will encounter in that period. It may be claimed that the scheme has worked satisfactorily up to now. But, although the number of cattle has increased, the number of sheep has on the whole tended to fall.
Of the crops listed in the schedule, many of them in the crofting areas—from which the majority of the applications come—are decreasing. The figures for the last few years show that the turnip crop in the crofting counties is falling, the oat crop has fallen, and cabbage and kale have decreased. The only crop that has increased is barley—one of the crops not eligible under the scheme.
It is necessary to ensure, if the scheme is being promulgated for the next five years, that developments in livestock feeding, are being taken into account. If this is not done, will value for money be obtained from the expenditure of nearly £¾ million of the taxpayers' money?
When this matter was last debated the Minister of State, Scottish Office, said that a new crop qualified under the scheme, namely, fodder radish. Can we have some information about the amount of fodder raddish now being grown? I return to the question of barley and oats. If plant breeders are doing more to grow an efficient crop of barley in the areas where the winter scheme operates than they can for oats, 190 it may not be right to go on excluding barley.
The last two lines of the Explanatory Note say that the scheme provides for the obtaining of information to verify applications. This is new. As farmers have to make full returns on 4th June and 4th December, I hope that the extra information that is required will be dovetailed in with this if it is at all possible.
I notice that paragraph 6 of the scheme states: The total grant payable under this scheme for any year in respect of land comprised in an agricultural unit shall be restricted to the amount payable in respect of such acreage of land as would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have been reasonably sufficient to provide adequate crops for the winter feeding of the numbers of sheep and cattle likely to be maintained by the occupier on the unit throughout the following winter. This apparently means that one is not in any one year able to store any surplus. I wonder whether this is an essential practice. It may be that in a certain year, particularly in the making of silage, it should be possible to make more silage than the actual number of stock on the unit could consume. This would enable the farm to carry more stock in the ensuing year. This is surely the sort of thing that we wish to provide for.
The scheme is to continue for five years, and during that time we are committed once again to negotiations for entry into the Common Market. I take it that this scheme would fall within the requirements of the present rules of the European Economic Community, and in assisting marginal land this scheme might be thought to qualify better than some of the other schemes for helping production in the Highlands. If this is so, I hope that it will be possible to modify this scheme.
In general, I am sure that we can all welcome the scheme because it is in those areas of marginal land where the greatest assistance is needed if we are to get the maximum production from our hill country. I hope, therefore, that the scheme will be approved.

§ Mr. Oswald
Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, could he explain why there is such a fall as he said in the production of turnips, cabbage and other root crops, and why we should have this 191 scheme, providing a subsidy for barley crops?

§ Sir J. Gilmour
I think that this is probably a matter of what is the cheapest possible crop to produce.

§ Mr. Oswald
Oh, I see.

§ Sir J. Gilmour
I think that is probably how it comes about. The Under-Secretary said that what we need is an efficient industry, and an efficient industry produces feedingstuffs at the lowest possible feeding unit cost.

§ Mr. Oswald
Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)
Order. I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, East (Sir.J. Gilmour) to have resumed his seat.

§ Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie (Ross and Cromarty)
There is very little difference between this scheme and the previous one, apart from the fact that this one is to be continued for five years instead of three. This is a very good thing because it gives confidence to the farmer and it shows that the Government intend to support this sector of the industry, irrespective of whether we go into the Common Market or not.
Since the numbers of stock on upland farms and hill farms depend largely on the amount of winter keep available, I think that this sort of scheme has given a very good return indeed in relation to the amount of money involved. In the Highlands, in particular, it has certainly enabled the stock-carrying capacity of many of the upland farms to be increased substantially over the past four or five years.
At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that the acreage payments have not varied for a considerable number of years, and the Under-Secretary should bear in mind that where a scheme is designed for a four or five-year period the time has come to revise the rates per acre. Increases in the cost of seeds and fertilisers have continued year by year since the scheme was first introduced, and we are still working on the same figures of £2 10s., £3 10s. and £5. I hope that the Minister will bear that in 192 mind when a fresh Price Review comes along.
There is also a case for reviewing the classification of holdings. I know of several examples which show how necessary this is. There can be two holdings side by side, with land of more or less equal quality, but, because one is well farmed and shows a high degree of productivity due to good husbandry, that holding is excluded, whereas the neighbouring holding which is farmed in a much inferior way will be seen as a poor holding by the visiting inspectors and be brought into the scheme. This is to deprive the farmer who is industrious and has improved his holding of the benefit of the grants.
I know that many farmers have applied year by year to be included in the scheme, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will advise his technical officers, when applications come in and they deal with cases of the kind which I have described, that they should give the benefit to those who have farmed their land well all along and who are showing increased production even without the winter keep grant.
A good many farmers are not clear about the distinction between the two optional schemes. Those of us who are familiar with these things know that there is an option open to the hill farmer to apply for the headage payment, which gives him £5 additional to the cow subsidy if it is not claimed under winter keep. This is a good thing because on the hill farm where the amount of cropping land is limited, it is a much better arrangement to give the £5 additional to the standard rate of subsidy and so enable the farmer to buy the winter fodder from the arable areas. This aspect of the scheme should be explained further, as there is still some doubt in some people's minds as to which is the better way or which of the options is best suited to their area.
This scheme, which took over after the marginal agricultural production grant scheme, has done a great deal to increase production. There is still great scope for increased production, especially in the Highland counties. An extension of the scheme, by an increase in the rate per acre and the inclusion of many more holdings, would give a very good 193 return. However, I compliment the Under-Secretary of State on introducing the scheme at this stage and I give it a warm welcome.

§ Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)
I, too, welcome the scheme, but, first, may I say what a great privilege it is to take part in debate with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), who has such great knowledge of hill farming—perhaps on the Mound or even Arthur's Seat. It is a thrill to hear him speak on agriculture, with his great skill and knowledge.
I am interested to note the change to a five-year period for the scheme. But I hope that this does not mean that the rates will remain the same for five years: I hope that they will progress with the annual Price Review. With the heavy increases in costs in hill farming, this is essential. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary why the ploughing grants are being done away with under Clause 29 of the Agriculture Bill at present before the House, yet the Winter Keep Scheme is being retained as an individual entity—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)
Order. The Under-Secretary would be out of order if he answered that question.

§ Mr. Monro
I bow to your opinion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
May I reverse the question and ask why the scheme is being given a different status from other agricultural grants which are important to farmers, and why, when this and other schemes are side by side in the Price Review White Paper, this one has been singled out for individual attention?
I have always been pleased that the headage option was brought in, after great pressure from hon. Members on this side. It has been a very valuable addition to the income of hill farms. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman says that this has begun to level off. I think that most people now take the optional £5 headage payment, as more advantageous than the Winter Keep Scheme, particularly in the Grade C farms where there is little opportunity for cultivation.
194 Lastly, how frequent are changes from Grade C to Grade B or from Grade B to Grade A? Do farmers find such a move a penalty, after they have improved the drainage or pasture on their farms? This may be a very rare occurrence, but what proportion of winter keep farms get this "promotion"? I suppose farmers might feel that they had been demoted, because of the financial penalties.
Overall, of course, we welcome the scheme, and look forward to some much-needed financial benefits for hill farmers, who are having a very hard time at the moment.

§ Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked about the number of farms changing between the different grades. I should like to know how many farms, originally outwith the scheme, still have the opportunity to come into it? I have mentioned to the Under-Secretary in correspondence farms in my constituency which his officials decided were not eligible, and which, on appeal to the winter keep panel, which is independent and has discretion in these matters, have been turned down.
The Minister has said that, where there is a substantial change of circumstances, these farms can be reconsidered for eligibility. Where there has not been such a change, can a farm which was originally turned down as ineligible be reconsidered, after a period, and go through the appeal procedure? I am thinking of a particular farm in my constituency, which the Minister knows about, which has been turned down. Can such people ever reapply?
There may not be a tremendous change in the physical circumstances of the farms in these hill and upland areas, but, because of economic and other circumstances outside their control, they find it difficult to get a decent living. They would like to know whether, if they have been ineligible in the past, they can now become eligible. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that and reassure the farmers whom I have mentioned.
I welcome the scheme. It helps those areas of Scotland and those sectors of farming where help is most needed. It 195 is a good scheme, but I should like clarification of the matters that I have raised.

§ Mr. Buchan
I am pleased that the scheme is generally welcomed, both from the point of view of the extension to five years and the purpose of the scheme itself.
The question of fodder radish is a thorny problem. I have no figures available, but I shall look into this. I should not, however, like to predict a massive amount. I shall see whether we can find an amount for the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)
Does not the Minister remember the great case which his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made about the vital importance of fodder radish to the Winter Keep Scheme? It has not proved the success that he prophesied.

§ Mr. Buchan
It is not a matter of prophecy. I have been asked a question, and my answer is that I shall look into the matter and give the figures. This has nothing to do with whether predictions were accurate.
Barley is a crop which usually arises in these discussions. I think that the usual answer that is given is that this is a cash crop. I do not think that we can use the winter keep grant to encourage the growing of barley on unsuitable farms, and in general these are unsuitable farms. Also, they have the benefit of the cereals deficiency payments scheme. There have not been many representations about this problem, but it seems to be raised every time we discuss agriculture in the House.
I have been asked about the storage and carry over of crops. We interpret as reasonably as possible what constitutes an adequate crop, but the scheme provides grants for livestock likely to be maintained throughout the following winter, so there is that recognition for a carry forward.
I cannot go into the matters which have been raised about the Common Market, but I take the intriguing point made by the hon. Gentleman about whether the grant would be retained if we went into the Market. I think that, in effect, the hon. Gentleman is asking how we can extend it. This is an interest- 196 ing point, but it may be better if we do not follow it up now. However, I have noted it.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) raised the matter of options. I understand the difficulty that is sometimes created for people who are trying to work out how the scheme might help them. Most farmers know that if they are unlikely to get a reasonable crop yield from their own land, they are better off with the headage payment, but in the spring of each year we provide an explanatory leaflet for every eligible farmer.
This sets out the rates quite clearly and it also provides a comparative table from which farmers can work out the alternatives which might best suit their circumstances. There is no guarantee that they will make the right decisions in the long run. This is as far as one can go. The rest must be left to individual farmers.
Looking ahead to the Annual Price Review, the hope was expresed by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that the five-year period did not mean that the rates would not be changed. This is a problem for the Review, and should be left until then.
The hon. Members for Ross and Cromarty, North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Dumfries, raised the question of classification. There is a written-in safeguard in that winter keep appeals panels have practising farmers and also a farmer from another area on them to ensure some standardisation throughout the country. We believe that the panels are on the whole accepted as working reasonably and fairly in Scotland. It seems to be a good system. As far as I can understand from discussion with farmers, it is accepted as fair and just.
I take the point that promotion from C to B to A may be taken as demotion. It is rather curious that a farmer should so thrive as to move himself out of eligibility. I cannot say that I know of any such case because grading is based on the potential of the land rather than on competent husbandry. A farmer may make a further appeal against regarding, but unless there has been a change in circumstances, the appeal will not be likely to succeed.
197 The short answer to the hon. Member's question is, "Yes. It can be done", but the hon. Member knows that if the same criteria exists when the farmer reapplies there is unlikely to be a change in the decision unless the earlier decision was wrong. It is open to the farmer to reapply. There is, however, interesting work going on and we may see that kind of rejected application coming forward again, because it is a question of potential of the land rather than the competence of the husbandry of the farmer.
On the ploughing grant scheme, Mr. Deputy Speaker said that we were not to pursue the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am willing to debate it, but Mr. Deputy Speaker would not allow me to do it. The point is that the ploughing grant scheme is virtually a reclamation grant and not a capital grant.
On specific numbers of rejections, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)—

§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)
Will the hon. Member give way?

§ Mr. Buchan
With that beautiful Scottish accent? Yes.

§ Mr. Jopling
I am sorry to intervene in a Scottish debate. The hon. Gentleman has said about the ploughing grant—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have already ruled that we cannot discuss the ploughing grant on this scheme. I allowed the Minister a little latitude so that he could reply to the point raised earlier.

§ Mr. Jopling
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked why the scheme had been singled out for exclusion from the provisions of Clause 29 of the Agriculture Bill and when you did not intervene, I understood that you implied that it was in order to raise it at that time. My hon. Friend asked why it was that the Winter Keep Scheme was excluded whereas the ploughing grant scheme was included. The hon. Gentleman has just said that the ploughing scheme is regarded as reclamation and not as a capital scheme, but this is completely against the tone of Clause 29 of the Agriculture Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I allowed incidental reference to be made by the 198 hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and by the Minister, but we should leave the matter there.

§ Mr. Buchan
I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter we shall do doubt discuss upstairs from tomorrow onwards.
I have dealt as fairly as I always do with most of the points raised by hon. Members. This is a scheme which has had general approval on both sides. There is general recognition that it contributes to solving the problem of the hill sheep farmer in Scotland. The unique aspects of the Scottish scheme have more than proved their worth.