AGRICULTURAL LIME SCHEME (Hansard, 27 June 1969)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)
I beg to move, That the Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved. The purpose of the Order is to continue for a further five years the authority under which payments may be made to farmers towards the cost of agricultural lime. The current authority expires at the end of July.
We are not now considering the terms of the subsidy scheme itself nor the level of subsidy; these are matters which are the subject of the Order known as the Agricultural Lime Scheme, the latest version of which was approved in 1966. Since then the terms of the scheme and the level of subsidy have remained unchanged.
Although the draft Order before the House is not concerned with the details of the scheme, the House, in considering it, will wish to know that we are currently reviewing the scheme and that some proposals have been put to the farmers unions and lime trade associations for their consideration. We shall be discussing these proposals and any other suggestion during the coming weeks. An amended scheme will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible, provided that the draft Order now before the House is approved.
On this Order the issue is simply whether a lime subsidy scheme should continue. At present rates of contribution, the subsidy meets 48 per cent. of the farmer's cost of liming; and the development of liming practice since the subsidy was introduced clearly illustrates its success. Before the scheme began in 1922 1937, average consumption was about ½ million tons a year. During the last four years the annual average has been nearly 5 million tons. I am sure that the House is in no doubt that it would be inappropriate at this time for lime subsidy payments to come to an end.

§ Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)
To digress before commenting on the Order, I apologise to the Minister for not consulting him before making what I explained was a minor complaint. However, it was worth making, and I trust that he will forgive me on this occasion for not having contacted him first.
My hon. Friends welcome the Order and are pleased to see the extension period. However, we have a number of real fears on this subject, particularly concerning the drop in the tonnage of lime used. On 16th April last I asked the Minister of Agriculture … what steps he is taking to ensure that British agriculture maintains an adequate lime content in the soil …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th April. 1969; Vol. 781, c. 260.] I also asked him to make a statement on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman replied by making a statement and giving some statistics. However, he averaged the figures over the last four years. If one studies the figures relating to individual years one finds a very different picture.
They reveal the real fears which my hon. Friends have about the way in which lime consumption has dropped. In 1965 5,800,093 tons of lime were used, but in 1968 only 4,790,165 tons were used, a considerable drop. I regard this as a serious trend, since it represents a drop of 11.8 per cent., which indicates that in 1969 we shall be using only 3.6 million tons.
The Minister also said that it was in the interests of the farmer to maintain a high level of lime in his soil. This is not only right, but more than that; it is in the interests of the nation that a high level of lime should be maintained, because without adequate liming crops cannot be grown successfully. It is more essential today than ever before that we increase production. The Order will encourage that. This means that this Instrument is not only in the interests of the farmer but in the interests of the nation.
1923 Farmers must be persuaded to use more lime. Despite our welcome for the Order, we have fears about the trend in lime use, and I hope that the Minister is as concerned about this as we are. This trend must be halted. Remedial action is needed by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will comment on what action it is proposed to take.
Considering that the lime subsidy cost £9.9 million in 1964–65 and £4.9 million in 1967–68, we are not spending a great deal of money in this way. It is a good subsidy which performs a useful job. I hope that there will be no cheeseparing in the subsidy, for if that were to happen there would be an even greater loss of production.
Could the N.A.A.S. be encouraged to recommend the use of more lime? Perhaps there could be a thorough examination into lime use, an exercise in which there seems to be less interest. It is vital to know, field by field, exactly the lime content and how much is needed. I know that the N.A.A.S. is doing a considerable amount of work along these lines, but a real blitz is needed to put the matter right.
Second, an advertising campaign might be conducted by the Ministry with a view to getting the soil tested and clearly showing farmers the danger of not using lime. When costs are rising and things are difficult, the first thing that a farmer probably does is to decide that the soil will do for another three or four years and cut out the lime. That is wrong, but the trend is there. Private enterprise has its part to play, too. It is not only the Government which should encourage the farmers: those who sell the lime must also play their part.
We on this side feel that only when this trend is halted can we get to the full production we need. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister that all possible is being done to encourage farmers to use lime.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)
I welcome the acceptance of this Order by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), and I take the point that he has made. It is true that consumption has been declining in recent years, and we should like to see that trend reversed. 1924 He was right to stress that to a large extent this is a matter of publicity and of pushing this kind of knowledge, not only by the Government but by the trade itself. A 48 per cent. level of grant and good husbandry arguments will obviously help. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at other aspects of the scheme, but none of those is relevant under this Order.