§ Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
§ 7.4 p.m.
§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), a fellow Devon Member, on having the initiative to seize this vacant time in the business of the House to raise matters of great concern to him and the South-West. I am even more delighted personally, because, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) are both particularly interested primarily in agriculture, I normally refuse to seek to intervene in agriculture debates. The chances of three Devon Members being called during such a debate are small, and if I caught the eye of the Chair it is probable that one of my hon. Friends would not be able to contribute. Therefore, I am most grateful that this evening, when there is plenty of time, my hon. Friend has initiated a debate particularly concerned with aspects of agriculture.
My hon. Friend is probably the greatest expert in the House on farming. I say that begging Ministers' pardon, but I think that even they would concede that that is so. In best debating style, I follow up my hon. Friend's point that what is best for the consumer is a healthy and successful agriculture industry. What he failed to underline, and what so few people who are not concerned with farming ever understand, is the vast amount of money now needed for investment in farming. Compared with other investments in the whole of the industrial and commercial sectors, that investment as a whole probably brings the lowest return per £1,000. In other words, the capital 870 intensiveness of farming today is immense and the return on the investment is as low as it is on anything in the investment market.
I particularly agree with my hon. Friend about the use of land. Every year that goes by, the ever-increasing fall in the amount of usable land because of the demand for housing, roads and other community needs is of major concern. I want to speak of one area about which Devon and the West are particularly concerned. We have always been in need of major road improvements. That is still true west of Plymouth and along the A35, the southern link between Dover and Exeter, where there are conditions that would be unacceptable in the North-East or North-West. We need improvements to the A30, a major link which in many areas is down to only two lanes of highway.
However, I hope that the Minister will consult the Secretary of State for Transport to try to ensure that as often as possible when improvements are carried out—not necessarily the building of motorways, but dual carriageway improvements and bringing roads up to modern standards—the old road is used in conjunction with the new dual carriageway or improvement. That is one of the easiest ways to save a vast amount of land which is now lost to agriculture when the planners seek perfection. I do not doubt that for the best possible roads there are better methods than those that I suggest, but the planners forget about the loss to agriculture. There can he such loss when they choose a marvellous new line and a marvellous new landscaped motorway as opposed to running a second road parallel to existing roads.
I reinforce my hon. Friend's point about signs on motorways. I have had battles with the Secretary of State for Transport about road signing. The last thing any of us wants is a massive increase in street furniture. We need some standardisation of the method of signalling on those large overhead motorway signs which provide tourist information.
I turn now to the subject of caravans. Here I am a little more concerned than my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West about the problem being caused in certain areas. Because of a lack of planned caravan sites, of the type that we have seen 871 on the Continent—with proper drainage and electricity—more and more farmers living off the beaten track are turning a field over to about five touring caravans during the summer. No planning permission is necessary.
This means that some of the narrow lanes of Devon have caravans driving down them, creating a considerable traffic hazard. These lanes were never designed for such traffic. This is something which should be properly licensed and controlled so that adequate provision is made on these sites. Caravans cannot simply be stuck in a field miles off the beaten track. The caravans have to make these journeys, away from the main centres, because of a lack of space elsewhere. On any evening in June, July, August and September every layby on the A30, A303 and the A35 is filled with caravans.
Turning now to the question of agricultural housing, I am concerned about the advice being given by agricultural officers to county councils, and subsequently housing authorities, concerning planning permission for new houses on a farm. I know of a number of instances where problems have arisen on smallholdings when the father wishes to encourage his son to remain on the farm. The time was when the son and his wife would move into the family house and bring up their children there until the grandparents passed away. Such conditions are no longer acceptable to young farmers. There is a need to allow the building of another bungalow or a cottage on the property to ensure the continuation of the family in agriculture. This is something which is a major part of farming throughout the country and particularly in the South-West.
The advice from the agriculturists has been that a new cottage must be built immediately adjacent to existing farm buildings. In two instances families have asked me whether they could obtain planning permission to build elsewhere on the farm because they did not want to live cheek by jowl with father. If a building is two miles from the main farm buildings, that is of no account nowadays. It may have been 50 years ago, when one had to saddle a horse or walk that distance. Then there was every 872 reason for fresh housing to be adjacent or contiguous to the farm buildings. That is not the case today.
I do not want the Minister to imagine that I am advocating ribbon development. Nor am I suggesting that we should have houses splattered all over the countryside. There has to be a slightly more modern approach on the part of those making judgments about these planning permissions.
I wish to dwell briefly on the question of inshore fishing. I refer to the small fishermen sailing out of Beer, Branscombe, Sidmouth and even Exmouth. These all fish about four to 10 miles offshore. They have been seriously affected by some of the EEC regulations and by some actions of the Government, particularly with respect to herring. These fishermen claim, rightly I think, that the small shoals on the inshore side have nothing to do with international fishing problems. These men represent small communities who have lived on inshore fishing for many years. They have been especially concerned about the apparent lack of consideration given to them over conservation measures. I have seen the Minister about this problem and I know that he has discussed the issue with those concerned. However, I still find that there is worry among these people.
I know that the Minister has come to the House this evening especially for this debate. My hon. Friend and I thank him most sincerely for postponing his evening's schedule. I hope he appreciates that the points we have raised have not been brought up in any spirit of animosity or major criticism. All of those in the House who are interested in agriculture want to co-operate as much as possible to ensure that we continue to have the most prosperous industry, one that is expanding for the benefit of the whole community.
§ 7.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S.Bishop)Given a choice of subject to cover in an Adjournment debate, I should have mentioned the subjects raised tonight. Had I been invited to suggest who might take part, I should have thought of the hon. Members for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), and Honiton (Mr. Emery).
873 I should declare an interest in the matters raised. My Ministry deals with agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food. As I was born there, I am a West Country man by birth and interest. I enjoy living in my present constituency. I am represented by a first-class Member of Parliament. However, I always appreciate the opportunity, all too rare, to visit the areas of the South-West which both hon. Gentlemen represent.
I am grateful for the short notice that I had of this debate. I feel like the layman who was asked to give a sermon in the absence of a minister. He said "Today I shall say what the Lord puts in my mouth; the next time I shall try to do better." Perhaps that remark sounds rather odd from someone named Bishop.
The points raised by the hon. Gentlemen always engage the interest and concern of my Ministry. I shall not deal with them in the same sequence. However, I appreciate the concern expressed by the two hon. Gentlemen, who stayed behind in school, when others had gone, to raise points which concern them and their constituents.
The items raised on land use, conservation, leisure, forestry, farming, food production, fishing and fish farming all engage the concern and interest of the Ministry. I do not suppose that there has been an occasion in recent times when so many of these matters have been dealt with by people who were concerned in so many ways. At the moment, there is the Northfield report, which is concerned with the ownership and use of land and the problems of persuading more young people to come back to or engage in farming. That is important. We await that report in the near future. We have also received the Strutt report, which is concerned with agriculture and land use. That is being issued just after the report of the Countryside Commission.
A few weeks ago I was privileged to take in Committee the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill, which is now before the House. Hon. Members will know of the Countryside Bill, which is also before the House. A number of these matters are receiving attention at the same time. It is right and proper that they should. Last week saw the publication of the White Paper "Farming and the Nation".
874 I do not need to stress in present company the importance of agriculture. I know of the interests of the two hon. Gentlemen. The report points out that production from home agriculture will continue to provide nearly two-thirds of the food we grow here and more than half the country's total food supplies. Agriculture contributes about 2½ per cent. of the national income. It ran to £3,165 million in 1977. In addition, 660,000 people are employed in the industry. They represent a similiar proportion of the working population. Agriculture is one of the most productive industries in the country. The labour force is less than 3 per cent. of the total. Agriculture is so productive that the working population of farmers and workers—I pay tribute to both—has been producing about 3 per cent. of the GNP. I do not know of any other country where such a limited labour force produces that output. That is good.
I do not need to go back to the times of Tom Williams, who brought in the 1947 Act. Under all Governments, agriculture has had growing confidence. It faces the problems of weather, the world situation and harvests elsewhere. But there has been increased productivity. The point of the White Paper is to ensure that that continues. It looks ahead at the prospects and the way in which we should go. That is most important.
We want to make sure that agriculture can do the job that it must do in this country. It is important that agriculture should provide food for our own people. That helps the balance of payments situation. I am also keen that it should provide exports as well. Not even our own industry realises the potential in increasing exports. I am involved in this. I receive Ministers who come to Britain to see our agriculture. Some of them come from the biggest nations. Not long ago I met Ministers from the Soviet Union, India, the United States, and China, all in a few days. They and others realise just how productive we are. If other industries had the productivity record of agriculture, we should not have the problems that we now face. Those are the facts.
We must maximise our resources. I refer to the important matters raised by the hon. Member for Devon, West. He referred to the problems of the rural 875 scene, especially in the South-West. Those problems exist in all areas. The problem is to look at the resources and see how, together with manpower, money. materials and land, we can maximise the output of agriculture and forestry. He was right to emphasise those points.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the significant area that is lost to agriculture and food production each year. The Ministry is conscious of that. The total area of agricultural land in the United Kingdom is about 19 million hectares. Between 1971 and 1978 the average recorded loss of land from agriculture was about 50,000 hectares per year. That is a significant area. About half, mainly poorer quality land in Scotland, was transferred to forestry and woodland. The remainder went to urban, industrial, highway and recreational uses and other purposes. The Ministry is keen to ensure that any change of land use is known to us and that we have an opportunity of putting a point of view about future uses.
We must ensure that, as far as possible, only land which is not useful for agriculture is used for other purposes. I take note of the point made by the hon. Member for Honiton about road routes and the need to use existing routes as far as possible. I am sure that that point will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport.
We must bear in mind that when land is taken out of agricultural use it is often irreversibly lost to other forms of development. That is very important. The Government intend to pursue vigorously their policy of protecting agricultural land, especially that of better quality, and to bring into use, wherever possible, derelict and disused urban land. We feel that authorities buying agricultural land under the community land scheme must have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, and they have already been advised to make arrangements accordingly.
It is desirable that land which is earmarked for development but which is unlikely to be developed until, say, more than seven years have elapsed should be kept in full agricultural production under normal agricultural tenancies. We are 876 very anxious about these matters, not only to avoid losing agricultural land to further development but to bring it back into use.
In my own constituency, Newark in Nottinghamshire, which covers about 450 square miles of countryside and has over 80 villages and other communities, we have some very useful aggregates and sand and gravel workings. Here again, the public are very anxious that this land should not be lost to agriculture. We have plans for reinstatement. I think that is a point that we should all bear in mind.
The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of leisure use and so on. This has become increasingly a point of interest and concern at the same time, because we recognise that there will be some constraints on farming in areas around towns, and there is the demand for access for recreation, especially in the national parks in the delightful areas which the hon. Members represent in the South-West, with Dartmoor, Exmoor and other areas there. Further afield there are the national parks, the Scottish national park direction areas and other designated areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty and all those places which we appreciate. Millions of people are attracted to them, not only from within this country but from abroad.
Some controversy has been generated about land use. This was evident in the debate that we had a few days ago on the Countryside Bill. The Government have initiated studies into the ways in which the physical and social environment of areas can be reconciled with economic factors and agricultural production. As the White Paper "Farming and the Nation" points out, there have been studies by the Countryside Review Committee and the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture in England and Wales, and they have been supported by various upland and other management experiments initiated by the Countryside Commission. Then there is Lord Porchester's study on Exmoor. The recommendations in that have been taken into account in matters before the House at present.
The Forestry Commission has also played a notable part in making sure that we maximise our resources for producing the timber that we want. Most 877 people recognise that we import far too much timber and that we must do much more to maximise the limited resources of this country.
I certainly endorse any tributes paid to the Forestry Commission and all connected with forestry and timber-growing in Britain. The Forestry Commission is concerned not only with forestry. One recognises also the timber pursuits. I recall that in the last year about 24 million visits were paid to our forests and their leisure areas. This has become an increasing feature in our countryside.
I recognise that many local authorities which are involved with open spaces and country parks also make their contribution. It is probably fitting that I represent the area of Sherwood Forest. When I am abroad and talk about my constituency, I only have to mention that I represent Sherwood Forest for people to know what kind of constituency I have. I may be following Robin Rood in other ways. I would not like to progress too far down that forest trail. I also have other Forestry Commission areas. I know how much these are valued and used by the public.
As I say, the Forestry Commission is involved not only in the growth of our forests. It has been concerned with the recent publication "The Wood Production Outlook in Britain", which talks about our use of forestry land into the 1980s. The Forestry Commission is also anxious about the development of leisure. Other authorities are also involved in this—the Ramblers' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners Association and others—and they have been consulted in regard to the Countryside Bill in order to get the maximum possible agreement.
The hon. Member for Devon, West mentioned motorways and farmhouses. Motorways are increasingly used by people who wish to get quite quickly to what used to be some of the remoter areas. They are some of the most pleasant areas of this country. Farmhouses are providing accommodation. This is a maximum form of recreation as well as providing some economic return to the farmer and his wife in areas which many more people are beginning to appreciate as the years go by.
878 The hon. Member referred to caravans and the need for more sites. This is important, but there are problems as well. One needs very carefully to blend caravans into the rural scene so that they do not become offensive, and to do so in such a way that people can enjoy up-to-date amenities. That is very important. It is not good enough to leave a comfortable home and to go and live in accommodation which is not up to standard, so our local authorities and others have a very important role in that respect. I am sure that the points made by hon. Members will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends and will be taken into account. They were quite right to stress the importance of blending caravans, country cottages, forest cottages and other types of residential accommodation for holiday times into the rural scene.
It is important that the land with which we are concerned is cared for as much as possible. The hon. Member for Devon, West mentioned the use of scrub land. He is right. He is concerned, as we all are, with the maximum use of marginal land. This is a matter which is always receiving the attention of the Ministry. The hon. Member spoke of the need for drainage. I am not able to tell him without prior notice what is in the pipeline regarding drainage, but I note his point.
The hon. Member for Honiton referred to having accommodation for relatives and others near or in the environment so that they have that benefit. We have done a great deal in two respects. First, we have dealt with the tied cottage. I shall not go into that matter in great detail, except to say that it concerned the right of farm workers to some kind of security in or near their place of work and the need to have some regard to their needs in retirement, and that measure has passed smoothly on to the statute book. I think that the work of the Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee has done much to sort out some of the problems which were anticipated but have not, thankfully, arisen in the form that we had thought they would arise.
I come to the point made about the changes in the countryside. I know of these from the area I have the honour to represent. We see changes in the rural 879 areas, with the markets going in some places, vicarages diappearing or being sold, a church may become redundant, with team ministries, and so on. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest here as a Church Commissioner who is involved with some of these problems. The closure of schools is another factor.
We are all saying—the hon. Members belong to a party which is always claiming this—that we are spending far too much public money and must cut down, yet when we look at things not on the social plane but on the economic plane we get this clash of trying to save money on the one hand and, on the other, trying to keep traditional and established institutions going. It is very difficult to put the two together.
When we witness these changes where schools, churches and vicarages are closing and some of the traditional scenes in our villages are disappearing, the public are rightly concerned. But this is a challenge to us all to see in what way we can keep some of the traditional characteristics of our countryside going into the next century. These are some of the matters about which I share the concern which hon. Members have expressed.
The hon. Member for Devon, West mentioned fishing. One of my first acts on becoming Minister of State was to go round our fishing ports in order to become acquainted in greater depth with our fishing industry. Our fishermen are members of an industry which is largely fragmented. In the areas concerning the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Honiton, the South-West, I know of some of the problems, having been to Penzance, Plymouth, Brixham and other ports to discuss them with local fishermen.
Of course, many fishermen regard anyone who fishes from a beach only a few miles away as almost a foreigner. We do not have to talk about members of the Community as being foreigners. Many fishermen regard other fishermen not very far away as being foreign or strange to their patch.
The South-West has a special interest in fishing, and the mackerel fishing there is extremely important. I know that there has been concern about the transhipment of mackerel. However, this provides 880 a valuable export outlet for our fishermen. We have taken steps by conservation and other means to ensure that our limited resources are maximised as far as possible and protected from over-fishing and undue exploitation.
I take the point about the value of the fishing industry in the South-West. I always recall how my father used to fish for mackerel off the coast of Weymouth, Abbotsbury and Dorset generally, and he engaged my deep attention and pleasure when he recalled the fishing in those days. Now, of course, we are in a period of some uncertainty. For several years we have been involved in close consultations with our partners in Europe to bring about a review of the common fisheries policy. We are making progress on this, although not as much as we should like.
It is important not least to bring about a greater degree of confidence and security to our fishermen in all parts of the country. When we recognise the very valuable contribution which we make to the resources of the CFP—more than 60 per cent. of the resources comes from within our 200-mile limit—it is natural that our fishermen want to ensure that they get the sort of future in fishing which represents the very significant contribution which we make to all those resources.
The hon. Member for Devon, West made an important reference to agricultural marketing. As a former Minister in my Department, he will recall some of the organisations which are already making a contribution to our marketing scene. He will be aware of the work of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation and bodies of that kind. There are bodies such as the marketing boards—the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Home Grown Cereals Authority, the Apple and Pear Development Council, the Eggs Authority and others—all of which are responsible for the promotion of various sectors in a very commendable way. They have an important role not only now but in the future, but it is essential that we ensure that farmers can seek to supply at competitive prices what the buyer wants, whether the buyer is a processor, a wholesaler, a retailer or a direct consumer. Obviously farmers will need to adjust their production to meet the demands of their customers.
881 This is very important. Sometimes my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are accused of protecting the consumer more than we do the producer. But a careful balance must be kept between the producer and the consumer. If the producer gets too high a return, he is encouraged to over-produce and a surplus results. If the consumer has to pay a high price, resistance tends to come in and again we have surpluses. So there is this need to keep a careful balance all the time between supply and demand.
The hon. Member for Honiton also spoke about the importance of land use. I am sure that some of his comments about the use of old roads, carriageways and new routes will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.
As we move into the era of microprocessors and chips, we have an increasing challenge to make sure that if people are working shorter days and weeks and retiring earlier the additional time which they have on their hands is spent with a sense of satisfaction. Therefore the increasing amount of leisure available to people will be an important factor in the future. In this connection the rural scene, rural crafts and the environment of our rural areas and our leisure interests, whether they be in the forests or the national parks, will take on an increasing importance.
Our job in the future will be an exciting one but also a demanding one as we try to reconcile the needs of food production, of our timber production and of our fishing industry to maximise output as far as possible, thereby cutting down on the balance of payments, and at the same time to leave enough room in our society so that those who have more time to enjoy their leisure shall be able to do so to the maximum extent possible. That is a challenge which my Ministry is meeting, as are other Government Departments, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will play their part in ensuring that we maximise to the full our limited resources as a country.