Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords] [Money] (Hansard, 1 February 1988)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
Motion No. 3, the money resolution.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
Mr. Deputy Speaker —

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Question is as on the Order Paper—

§ Mr. Bob Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I stood to speak on the money resolution and shouted out several times. Therefore, I request that you call me to speak on it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I had not noticed him. I will reverse engines and call him. Mr. Cryer.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I take the view that the House should not let money resolutions go through just on the nod. I shall not take up much of the House's time, but a Bill which provides no calculations and which specifically provides for payments to be made under subordinate legislation should not go through without questioning.
The explanatory and financial memorandum states: The Bill only provides enabling powers but the subordinate legislation when implemented will entail an increase in public expenditure and probably in public service manpower. The amount will depend on the resources available, the rates of grant, the uptake of the schemes and other factors. As the Minister said that this was a "modest" Bill, the Government should have some idea of the amount of public expenditure involved, because once the Bill is through this place, that matter is left entirely to the Minister.
The money resolution states: That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament". It goes on to list the grants and other administration expenses.
During his opening speech on the Bill, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us that the grants will be at varying rates—at 25 per cent. for capital grant and at 50 per cent. of the cost of feasibility studies. However, the Minister can presumably vary that proportion if he so chooses, because he is empowered to make that authorisation under subordinate legislation.
In winding up, the Minister of State said that there will be simple applications and that farmers will be encouraged to make those applications. I do not suppose that anybody will object to that, but the fact is that that will mean 818 potentially greater public expenditure. The Government do not do that, for example, for supplementary benefit applicants. They do not say, "'We want to make it as simple as possible. We are going to encourage people to make applications." Indeed, the Government criticise Labo urcontrolled local authorities that do encourage applications for supplementary benefit. 'They make that argument because there is a great deal of expenditure in the supplementary benefit vote.
Therefore, what concerns me is that, if the Government are to make applications simple and encourage them, they should have some idea of the total expenditure so that, if it is coming to an end, they can tell the farming community that there is not a bottomless pit and that grants will be curtailed because the amount of money that has been allocated is not unlimited. It is that authority that causes me concern.
In, for example, the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill which went through this House recently and cut grants to manufacturing industry in the regions —areas of high unemployment—the financial effects of that Bill were specifically set out. They stated: Planned expenditure in 1988/89 is approximately £210 million, falling away to approximately £115 million in 1990/91. Admittedly it is easier to calculate expenditure than to calculate the amount that will be spent. Surely the Minister would not accept that the Department of Trade arid Industry is more accurate in making those calculations than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am sure that MAFF is used to dealing with the large amounts of subsidies that have gone, in a variety of ways, to farmers throughout the post-war period and certainly as a result of the CAP. Indeed, MAFF has an enviable reputation for providing advice, support and guidance to the farming community. It is important that MAFF provides that help — it did so between 1939–1945 and has done so ever since. Farmers do not stand alone in the market place, in competition, without Government intervention.
Given the Ministry's knowledge, surely some calculations have been made about the amount of expenditure, the number of farmers likely to be affected and the sort of grants that will be made. After all, clause 1 tells us about the proportion of grants–25 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively—that will be entailed in the Bill, and they should give the Ministry some idea of the expenditure.
I do not intend to oppose the money resolution, but I simply wish to place on record the fact that I believe that the Government should provide an explanation for the expenditure and calculations should be made. Such information should be included in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill; if it is not included it makes a mockery of the term "financial memorandum".

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
I wish to ask the Minister a straightforward question: how much money has the Ministry got the Treasury to agree should be expended in the first three years operation of the Bill? We are told that it is not an open-ended commitment —those who get it will be the first to apply. Therefore, figures must have been agreed with the Chancellor before the White Paper was published. How much money has the Treasury agreed that the Ministry can spend on this measure in the first three years of its operation?

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)
My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that there is £1 million a year for farm diversification, which is cash-limited. By 1990–91, we expect to be talking about £10 million for the farm woodland scheme. Obviously, if we made alterations thereafter to the rate of grant, there would be a different figure, but that is the nature of trying to make long-term arrangements for forestry. If we want people to grow trees, we must accept that that takes a long time. Therefore, any financial arrangements must take that into account.
There is also £3 million for capital grants that are not specifically in the money resolution, but which have close associations with it. That which is not cash-limited is hectarage-limited. There is no cash-limiting in the long term for the farm woodland scheme, so we have said how many hectares should be covered. That represents a clear financial commitment.
820 I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has such great concern about cash limitation and about what the Government are spending, given that the taxpayer has to pay. I look forward to the many occasions on which I shall remind him of his speech. It is not a speech that comes well from an hon. Member who is normally making unlimited demands on the public purse.