HC Deb 27 June 1969 vol 785 cc1924-30

12.42 p.m.

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

I beg to move, That the Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

I want to suggest to the House, and I understand that both sides approve, that with this scheme we take also the Small Farm (Business Management) (Scotland) Scheme, 1969. The two schemes are practically identical, except that one applies to Scotland and one to the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. Buchan

I believe that that will be convenient to both sides, Mr. Speaker.

There is, perhaps, no need to explain these Schemes in detail—they are identical with those of 1965 and 1968—but it might be useful to remind ourselves of the terms of these schemes, which apply to small farmers 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 for use as the basis for making farm management 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,

Hon. Members will wish to know of two changes from previous schemes. The first of these is that following the Transfer of Functions (Wales) Order, 1969, provision has been made for the Secretary of State for Wales to share with the Minister the administration of the scheme in Wales. The other change is in paragraph 10(1), which provides that farmers may not earn double grant by participating simultaneously in this scheme and the schemes of 1965 or 1968.

There are one or two aspects which it might be useful to mention. The first of these concerns the records participants are required to keep, and the suggestion which has from time to time been made that these are unnecessarily complicated. We in the Department are very conscious of the problems facing farmers when confronted with the burden of bookkeeping at the end of a hard day's work, and we certainly have no wish to impose requirements other than those which are necessary for the success of the scheme. On the other hand, if the scheme is to achieve its purpose in helping farmers to manage their businesses more efficiently, it is essential to ensure that the records basic to the business are maintained and that during the period of membership farmers become properly versed in maintaining them. To achieve this end, while ensuring that no unnecessary records have to be kept, the N.A.A.S. advisers in England and Wales, and the colleges in Scotland, after they have drawn up the agreed programme with the farmer concerned, then select those records, and only those records, which are needed in connection with it.

The other point which I should like to mention briefly concerns the benefits of membership of the scheme. The farmers who first joined the 1965 scheme are now coming to the end of their three-year programmes, and I am hopeful that further interest in the scheme will be generated when their neighbours learn of the beneficial results that membership has brought. In this connection, I have been pleased to see articles in the farming journals about small farmers who are successfully undertaking farm management programmes under the scheme, and I hope that this will lead to the realisation that the opportunity to carry out a programme of this sort, with professional guidance and a substantial grant by way of encouragement, is one that should not be missed.

The relatively small response has been a disappointing feature of the scheme. Applications are coming forward steadily at rather over 100 per month which, in my opinion, is considerably less than the merits of the scheme justify. We hope that publicity for the scheme which is being undertaken in England and Wales by the N.A.A.S. in the form of demonstrations, farm walks, meetings and articles in the county bulletins which are issued by the N.A.A.S., will lead to a quickening of interest among farmers. Nevertheless, we shall have to keep a careful watch on progress, and in the light of this consider the future of the scheme at the next Annual Review.

The extension for a further year has been welcomed by the National Farmers' Unions, and I feel sure that hon. Members will agree that it is well worth while continuing this special form of assistance to small farmers.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome these schemes. We are pleased to see that they apply both to Scotland and England, and that Wales also will have benefits. I believe that such schemes have been of considerable help to small farmers—or, perhaps I should say, to some small farmers, because not all are taking advantage of them. This is the nub of the problem.

Any scheme for helping a large number of small farmers is to be encouraged. In the South-West of England we have a preponderance of small farmers—twice as many farm less than 50 acres as farm more than 50 acres, and that position is probably equally true of Scotland, Wales and other parts.

The small farmer can and must become more businesslike. He must know what is paying and what is not paying. Too often, he has been going on from year to year doing a bit of this and a bit of that without really knowing what is paying and what is not paying.

Schemes like this will show him very clearly the projects which are not paying. I know from experience on my own farm—I cannot take advantage of this scheme—that similar schemes show only too clearly where one is losing money and where one should change one's practice. This sort of knowledge could be of very great value to many small farmers. It is only by efficient planning and the keeping of proper records that the small farm can become viable. I do not know whether it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to quote one's own speeches?

Mr. Speaker

It is in order. Sometimes it is very valuable; sometimes it is immodest.

Mr. Mills

I shall try to press on. On 18th July, 1968, I said, when we were discussing a similar scheme: 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1968; Vol. 768. c. 1819.] That is what I say this morning. This scheme will help small farmers to help themselves. It is up to them to take advantage of it.

I understand that 40,000 small farmers throughout the country are eligible for this grant. We should like to know how many have taken advantage of it and what holds up further progress. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he was disappointed about the progress of the scheme, but he did not give reasons for that lack of progress. I can suggest one or two. If he is allowed to reply to the debate, he might be able to say whether I am right or wrong.

One disincentive may be because of reduction of previous grants. Then there is the bookkeeping, which is unpopular. I do not believe that any farmer likes keeping records, especially when he has to do so after a hard day's work. I am sure that one of the main reasons why the scheme is not such a success as we hoped is that bookkeeping is so unpopular. On many small farms, it is not the former who keeps the books but the farmer's wife and she has enough to do in these days without doing bookkeeping. I shall be interested to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary any other reasons why progress is not maintained.

Farmers may ask, "Is it worth while; what do I get out of it?" They may think that it would reveal too much and tell them unpleasant facts which they do not want to know. I have had that experience. There is also the question of records being kept confidential. The fear about confidentiality is vital. The forms must not be too complicated.

I should also like to know about the fall out, how many after taking advantage of the scheme for three years continue to keep records. This surely is the whole idea, to prove to the small farmer, once he has seen that the scheme works, that it can be of benefit to him and that he should continue under his own steam. I think it a fair criticism that the scheme is complicated in its wording. Any small farmer looking at it would say, "This is not for me: it is far too complicated." Paragraph 7(3) says: Where a yearly plan comprised in a basic programme has been completed to the satisfaction of the relevant minister,… and goes on to say in great detail what is to be done. It is very difficult to understand. I have taken the trouble to count the words and I find there are 141 in that paragraph. That is all to say in my language, and I should think the small farmer's language, how one can get permission under certain conditions to proceed from basic to the complete programme. Why is it necessary to use all these words to explain that?

Paragraph 6 describes the amount of grants which can be made and the standard man hours and size of holdings which are eligible. This strikes about the right balance. I agree with the supplementary conditions which are given in paragraph 8, and with the stipulation that applications must be made in writing. Many farmers slip up on this. They go ahead with various schemes without obtaining written authority. The Minister and those advising small farmers should see that they understand that this must be done in writing and nothing must be done without official permission from the Ministry. We know only too well that many farmers and others do things without written permission being first obtained. This point should be underlined.

Paragraph 8(2) refers to the "authorised person" who may inspect a farm. One has to be careful about this. I hope that person will usually be the N.A.A.S. officer. One must pay tribute to the National Farmers' Union and local branch secretaries for the incredible amount of work they do in advising small farmers. They are the small farmers' lawyers and they take endless trouble in explaining these complicated schemes, helping farmers to fill in forms and so on. Of course they are paid for this work, but we should pay tribute to the National Farmers' Union and its officers for all they do. In paragraph 9 we note the abatement where a grant has been previously paid. It is right to limit the grant to only one programme. I agree with the Minister that it is right to do so, but perhaps this is one reason why small farmers do not come forward more to take advantage of the scheme.

I must not go on for too long. I merely say now that we are in favour of the scheme and hope that more farmers will take advantage of it. My advice to them is to do so to help themselves to become more efficient to compete in this difficult world of agriculture.

Mr. Hoy

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) for what he said in welcoming the scheme. I appreciate that bookkeeping can be very difficult, but if records are not kept there is no purpose in the scheme.

The hon. Member asked how many applications have been made. I can tell him offhand that about 11,000 have applied so far. We gather our information from N.A.A.S. which is of the opinion that most farmers who have taken part in this scheme will have learned the lesson and will wish to continue to do so. This is the considered opinion of N.A.A.S.

Mr. Peter Mills

Perhaps not now but at a later date it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman to let us know what the actual fall out is. Although generally farmers are encouraged to go on participating in the scheme and many do so, it would be interesting to know how many fall out.

Mr. Hoy

That is so, but it would mean a fairly extensive inquiry which would use up considerable time and if we employ more men in this way we would have complaints from hon. Members opposite about an increase in the number of civil servants. To the best of our ability we shall do this job. We hope that as a result of this debate more farmers will become interested in the scheme and will join it. We cannot compel people to join, but we want to encourage them to do so. Although neither farmers nor their wives like keeping books, this is the purpose of the scheme. Unless they have records they will not know what the out-turn is, and that is of first-class importance.

The hon. Gentleman asked: is the scheme too complicated? All I will say in reply is that although the scheme is perhaps complicated, this is for legal reasons, but the forms used by the farmers are much simpler. If we accuse people of using too many words, perhaps we ought to be looking at our own efforts here; sometimes we take a long time to explain what we mean, and so it is not only the lawyers who do that. The forms are much simpler.

I say sincerely to the hon. Gentleman that I am grateful to him for what he has said about the scheme, which, properly appreciated and operated, can make a tremendous contribution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

Small Farm (Business Management) (Scotland) Scheme 1969 [draft laid before the House 10th June], approved.—[Mr. Hoy.]