§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)I had the great fortune and privilege to be a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the skill, ingenuity, courtesy and kindness with which he steered the Bill through, and for his grasp of the subject, which all my hon. Friends will appreciate.
It would he unfortunate if I rehearsed at this late hour all the arguments that were put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because my right hon. Friend will have taken them all on board and looked at the sense of them, but I want to raise one point. The Bill is about land use. It is a modest proposal—not something to get excited about or to make long speeches about. It will make only a tiny difference to the general farming pattern in Britain.
However, the Bill is a major step in a change of attitude which the Government are courageously formulating. The farmer must now find alternative sources of income from other uses of his land with which to supplement his income for which, in the past, he depended on the Government. He must now go to the private market and find a new source of income for the land for which the Government previously paid him. That is the critical point of the Bill. It is trying to encourage the farmer to find a new vehicle for exploiting his innovatory talents so that he can find a new way of generating income. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend considers that to be a fair synopsis of what he is trying to do.
The alternative land use that the Bill will develop will reduce food production only a little. However, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised a real point, although he may not have put it in quite the modest and courteous way that he usually does, when he suggested that farmers were greedy. That may have been a slip of the tongue, but it did suggest something a little more sinister. The farmers are not greedy; they are desperately trying to make good a falling income. But as a result of that they may be tempted to make use of land which in the past has been scrubland and an important habitat for wildlife which they have not previously thought of using, but which, in view of the new pressure on them to make good a falling income, they may feel forced to use.
In that context, let me mention that in my constituency there is a dying race of bird called the cirl bunting. There are only 80 pairs left in Great Britain. I am sure that many hon. Members have spent many hours in South Hams looking for the cirl bunting. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds arranged for me on Sunday morning a few weeks ago to spy out the land on and around East Prawle and East Portlemouth and spot the cirl bunting. This may not be the right time to describe the beauties of the bird, but the point is that the cirl bunting needs the coastal scrubland which is peculiar to South Hams.
The farmer in this area could be tempted to apply for a grant to plant trees on his land. In that event, he might also be tempted to say, "I am losing good acres on which I have produced food. I will plough up this scrub land." As that land is important for the survival of the bird it could mean the destruction of another rare species in Britain.
1120 Not all hon. Members will agree that preserving the cirl bunting is of great importance, but the point I have made is indicative of the dangers that are inherent in the Bill. I hope the Minister, if he does not mention the cirl bunting by name, will refer to the problem that was raised eloquently, if unfortunately in some respects, by the hon. Member for Workington.
§ Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)I too enjoyed serving on the Standing Committee. Does my hon. Friend think it possible that cirl buntings are down to the last 80 pairs because they do not have enough trees in which to nest?
§ Mr. SteenThey do not nest in trees.
My fear is that farmers may take advantage of the Bill to grow trees. The Government's whole land use policy may also encourage farmers to make good the shortfall in their incomes not only by laying down the 20,000 golf courses which land owners have said would solve our agricultural problems, but will go in for housing. There is a great threat to the countryside in the south of England by ever more houses being built on the green belt and on green field sites, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will raise that issue on the Adjournment.
I fear that farmers who cannot produce food on their land and who are desperate to achieve alternative land use will be obliged, if they can do so, to sell land for house building. Not only will that destroy the agricultural potential of that land, but it will destroy wild life and habitat.
I feel sure that the Minister, in his broad compass approach to these matters, will deal with the problem of the urban sprawl of housing in the south and the dangers of the Bill becoming a vehicle for the exploitation of farm land for purposes other than agriculture.
§ Mr. Tony Speller (Devon. North)The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) was right to choose reality as his text, because the Bill provides vast enabling powers to the Minister, should he wish to use them, and should the Treasury agree to their use. On that basis—not that it is the only one—the measure is to be welcomed.
The Bill does not refer only to afforestation, but as we import over 90 per cent. of the timber used in Britain, afforestation is a sensible course to pursue. Apart from that—and whether or not the cirl bunting of South Hams is helped to multiply—it gives us a chance to save and promote agriculture and rural England for those who should live there.
It is no secret that every agricultural area or village is, in effect, its own minor green belt in which live excellent people who have retired from the cities, but who were not originally rural residents. While my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) seems to be strongly against the provision of more houses, he should be aware that in the adjacent constituency of Devon, North we want many more houses for our young people, who at present cannot afford the few houses that are being provided.
I welcome the Bill, because it is sensible and logical, but it is only fair to say that in its totality it bears upon the whole future of agriculture, if there is to be a future. We can destroy agriculture, as indeed this nation has 1121 destroyed other industries—for example, shipbuilding, steel and others—whether wilfully or otherwise. It is easy to lose industries in the name of efficiency.
Hon. Members have mentioned scrubland. Many of my constituents work incredibly hard to make upland scrubland productive. It is an unwise world that says, "Let the farmer go; let the scrubland stay," because sooner or later we will need the food that that scrubland can provide. It would be an unwise Administration, which this is not, or unwise Members of this House, which we are not, who would allow us to destroy our agricultural existence for the benefit of some largely plasticised green belt, which, if we are not careful, will spread across the country. We can buy cheap food at the moment, but the moment that we cannot provide food for ourselves will be the moment when the prices will go up. The Bill is welcome, not just for the afforestation provisions, but for the other things that it will allow.
In the county of Devon, about 5 per cent. fewer people will be working the land 12 months from now. If that continues, we will not have a rural population to talk about developing or assisting. We will have a selection of retirement homes dotted round a countryside that we have deliberately denuded in our folly. The golf courses may come—I welcome golf courses. But, more than that, I welcome the Bill because without the rural development that it can help to bring we will not have the people in the village or in the small town to retain the school, the church, the doctor, the health centre, the scout troop, the guide troop and all the things that make the countryside far more worth living in than the town for people like myself. That is not to be unkind to the town, but, it is illogical if everyone says, "Infill the town," when what they are actually saying is, "Neglect the countryside."
I give my full support to the Bill. It could turn out to be a more major measure than most of us believe. It is important not to destroy the countryside in the name of some form of conservation, which may mean buntings for all but houses for none.
§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)I support the Bill as far as it goes.
It was said by some hon. Members in Committee, and it was repeated during the debate on agriculture earlier this evening, that some local authorities have an oppressive attitude towards any change in farming activities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has sent a succession of circulars to local authorities suggesting, for example, a modest change from farm activity to perhaps camping or riding. These suggestions have been resisted by local authorities. My right hon. Friend should remember that local authorities must be brushed up on change and be reminded of their obligations, or they will restrict farming—as many of them do—with the same old restricted planning pattern that they have used for old and out-of-date farm buildings.
Clause 2 deals with farm woodland schemes. Some people believe that the development—12,000 hectares, or 30,000 acres, a year, making a total of 100,000 acres over three years—is tiny. It is a step in the right direction, and I do not regard it as insignificant. The replanting of 100,000 acres over three years could make a great impact 1122 on the countryside. What I do not like about the Bill, and what I had hoped to mention tonight in debates on my amendments, which unfortunately were not selected—
§ Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow)Nor were mine.
§ Sir John FarrI share my hon. Friend's sorrow.
My anxiety is that the farm woodland scheme is permanent. The trees will be there for ever. The scheme may be right—indeed, the Government are convinced that it is right. The trees will be there for our lifetime, and probably for our children's lifetime, especially if we plant the hardwoods that the Government are making financially advantageous. But is it the right thing to do now? Should we commit ourselves to taking out of agricultural production for ever 100,000 acres of land, whether it be good or bad quality, without considering alternatives, such as less input, less output?
If there were a sudden need for increased agricultural production—perhaps because of a complete change in the political climate—we could not retrieve land planted with trees. But if land was on a low-intensity regime, output could be stepped up overnight and we could meet any critical demand that we cannot foresee now. I hope that there will never be such demand, but I had hoped that the Bill would give the Secretary of State power to include a modest de-intensification scheme.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and other hon. Members asked about the monitoring of the complex requirement to plant 100,000 acres of land with trees. Does my right hon. Friend have any idea of how it will be checked? Although I do not expect that the average farmer or landowner would try to breach the regulations, if it is known that there will be no supervision of the system, that will encourage people who are in a bad way financially—many of my farming constituents have never been worse off—to bend the system. It is asking for trouble.
The Bill could have been much improved. Sooner or later—I hope sooner—the Government will have to introduce a scheme of de-intensification. It has been demanded by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend did not see fit to include it in the Bill.
§ 11.2 pm
§ Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)I agree wholeheartedly with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said.
When replying to this short debate, will my right hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance on how clause 2 will be used? We have lost many thousands of acres of moorlands. A quarter of the north Yorkshire moors have been ploughed up—much of it to produce surplus grain. We have lost hundreds of acres on Exmoor, and the same can be said of nearly all our moorlands. My right hon. Friend knows, too, that many recreations depend upon open countryside. Some time ago, in preparing a talk for a conference, I discovered 20 such recreations. I need hardly remind my right hon. Friend that those recreations are carried out by taxpayers, and our objective must be to reconcile the interests of taxpayers with those of farmers. We shall not achieve that objective if even more of our moorlands are lost to afforestation.
1123 Perhaps my right hon. Friend will give an undertaking to the many people worried about the matter that clause 2 will not be used in a way that will result in the loss of even more of our moorlands.
§ 11.4 pm
§ Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East)I have already welcomed the Bill, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not take exception to my continued expressions of pleasure and welcome for it.
It is right that we should go in this direction. As several hon. Members have said, the Bill opens the door to a new approach to supporting agriculture in its widest context, not merely as food production, which is how we have always thought of it, but as the husbandry and management of the land.
I fully recognise the need to try out the schemes before they are let loose and expanded across the countryside. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said when winding up the previous debate: it is necessary to prove the schemes. We must be able to do so.
Hon. Members on both sides have mentioned monitoring. I want the scheme to work, and I believe that it will, but I want to be able to say in two years' time that it works because we have proved that it does. It is probably impossible to monitor it on every holding that goes into planting woodlands, but we should be able to do some sort of sampling to prove that there is a reduction in yield on the farms in question. If there is a proven reduction in output on those holdings, that justifies the scheme and will justify hon. Members in asking to double or treble its size in a couple of years. We can do that only if it has been proved to reduce surpluses.
I am slightly concerned about the level of compensation for loss of income on the woodlands scheme. I realise that that is not cast in stone in the Bill, but income replacement must recognise the role of fixed costs on the farm. Merely converting 5, 10 or 20 per cent. of the land to tree planting does not reduce fixed costs in proportion. That is the opposite of economies of scale and we must all understand that.
Unless the acreage payments during the growing period at least replace some of the fixed costs a greater burden will be placed on the remaining acreage. We have already heard that there is no way in which the remaining acreage can carry that extra burden. The upshot will be less interest in the scheme from farmers, because they will realise that the bottom line of their farm business will get worse, not better.
I fully understand the impossibility of index-linking. That idea was proposed in the Standing Committee, on which I was pleased to serve. I also understand that my right hon. Friend has the Chief Secretary to the Treasury continually looking over his shoulder at every penny he spends. I hope that he will at least undertake to review the payments regularly to ensure that they are sufficient to encourage farmers to move into these schemes. Otherwise, a highly welcome and acceptable change in direction could be spoilt for that odd ha'p'orth of tar.
§ 11.4 pm
§ Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)It has already been noted that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) was not joining in the debate this evening because he chaired our proceedings in Committee.
1124 I put on record my appreciation of the work that he did as Chairman of the Committee. He brought to it a fairness and expertise that was appreciated by all.
I also put on record the support that I received from my hon. Friends in Committee; several of them spoke in the debate tonight. This may be a rare occurrence, but I thank the Minister, too, and congratulate him on the approach he adopted in Committee. There was a bipartisan approach to the Bill and I am pleased to say that its progress was helped, if not accelerated, by the thoughtful and courteous way in which the Minister responded to the amendments that we tabled, many of which were probing amendments.
In opening the debate the Minister said that during the proceedings an announcement was made after the Budget about the introduction of a new woodland grants scheme. He said that the scheme would replace the old arrangements because they were unsatisfactory and had led to a great deal of tax abuse. We certainly support the introduction of the new scheme and hope that it will remove the opportunity for abuse of the tax regime. However, the Minister's stated objective will not be achieved because, on the basis of figures provided by his Department, about 250,000 hectares of land were cleared for planting under the old regime and the tax concessions will last for the next five years. That fact should be set against the Government's much vaunted statement that they put and end to these abuses. It is unsatisfactory that these tax abuses will continue for another five years, and I hope that the Committee examining the Finance Bill will remedy that defect.
We are not entirely happy with the new grants, although they are important in that they form the basis of the grants available under clause 2 of the Bill. Despite all the arguments and the protestations from the Government, the planting grants still favour coniferous afforestation. It was our view, and we thought that it was the Government's view following Government statements, that the planting of broadleaf trees should be encouraged. The new grants scheme and the new financial arrangements mean that continuous incentive is given to coniferous afforestation.
The Minister has had one close look at the reports of our debates in Committee. I suggest that he has another close look, when he will see that the evidence that we received from, among others, the Oxford institute, showed that the balance was still in favour of coniferous afforestation. I think that at one point the Minister agreed with us about that. That is not a sour note, but it is a note of disagreement between us.
We did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and I like to think that in Committee we approached the Bill constructively. We offered amendments and views and hoped that the Minister would take note of them. He said that he would take notice of some of them. We have no intention of opposing the Bill on Third Reading, but I should like to reinforce a couple of points. This is an enabling Bill. We look forward to the secondary legislation which, I presume, will be introduced next month. I hope that the Minister's mind is still open and that perhaps we can persuade him on one or two points, as some hon. Members have attempted to do in the debate. He need not respond to my questions now, but perhaps he will see whether there is still room for manoeuvre in the statutory instrument.
1125 The matter of consultation has been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was the first to raise it and he did so in response to a brief from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which, I am sure, assisted all Members in Committee. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) supported my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and spoke in particular about the cirl bunting. I was disappointed that he was not equally vociferous in Committee and did not use his vote there to support the cirl bunting as he used it to support it in this debate.
While the hon. Gentleman was speaking I had a look at the Committee Hansard. On Third Reading the hon. Member for South Hams spoke for seven minutes, but during the whole of the Committee proceedings he managed only three interventions which between them made four paragraphs. On my calculation that is one and a half minutes. He also made three sedentary interventions. He voted against an amendment of ours that would have provided precisely the sort of protection that he argued for the cirl bunting, thereby denying the protection that he is now vociferous in advocating.
I suggest to the hon. Member for South Hams that we have both learned something from the debate. I have learned not to rely on his vote following his voice in Committee, and he has learned that before he makes interventions on Third Reading he should check his actions in Committee to see whether he can justify his comments on Third Reading.
The question of consultation has been raised. We are particularly concerned to ensure that there are safeguards for areas of high landscape or environmental value. Areas of outstanding natural beauty are excluded from the consultation arrangements. We do not wish to see coniferous afforestation in such areas unless there has been adequate consultation. If there has been consultation and it is proved that the afforestation is not damaging to the landscape, we have no objection, but there should be consultation in respect of such areas. Unfortunately, although the Bill provides for the Minister to undertake that consultation, it does not require him to undertake it and I hope that he will consider that point further, even at this late stage.
The question of monitoring has been raised by the hon. Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for South Hams, by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who frequently joins us in these agriculture debates. I hope that the Minister will consider the question of monitoring for the following reasons.
First, if the Bill is to provide a scheme that will, of its nature, be experimental, there must be a measure of assessing that experiment. If it is a scheme on which there will be further developments, the effectiveness of the scheme must be properly evaluated.
Secondly, the broadleaf percentage should be high and increasing. Unless there is a proper measure of assessment and monitoring, the Government will not know what factors control the broadleaf component, what the damage is or what the consequences are of the relative percentage between broadleaf and conifers. It would be useful for the House to know how the forestry industry and farmers are 1126 responding and whether they are planting broadleaf or coniferous woodlands. Without that measure, provided for in the Bill, we shall not have that information.
Thirdly, the Minister said that the grant rates might change. Unless there is more monitoring and an understanding of the economy of the farms involved in the scheme, how will the Government know the relevance of grant rates? Will they be increased or reduced, or will the balance between broadleaf afforestation and coniferous afforestation be changed? For those reasons, the Minister should reconsider the question of monitoring. I do not expect him to answer those detailed points now, but I hope that he will consider them before bringing forward a statutory instrument.
The hon. Member for South Hams raised the question of displacement. By displacement, we mean that a farmer might seek to afforest part of his holding but then replace that agricultural land by ploughing up an area that might be of the highest environmental value, although not in agricultural use. The hon. Gentleman described that as scrub land. We are concerned to prevent that. The Minister recently said:
If I could find a satisfactory way to tighten the system, I should implement it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 29 March 1987; c. 125.]Has he found a satisfactory way? Can he now offer us some practical evidence that he intends to live up to his words?I understand that the Government will have a tight way of measuring and assessing the new set-aside proposals. If they can find a way of measuring set-aside, with all the hazards that that involves, I am sure that they can find an adequate way of assessing these proposals. The Government should do that to ensure a diminution in agricultural production and to provide the environmental protection that we are seeking.
Fourthly, we must consider the question of planting rates. This was the subject of debate in Committee, and we argued that if the applicant for grant wished to plant at less than the normal density, full grant should nevertheless be paid. For example, some farmers would want to plant to the highest levels of coniferous or broadleaved, but at a lower density to ensure rides, because if they want to develop a pheasant shoot, a ride that has not been planted would be a requirement. We argued that if they set aside areas from within the total holding, and planted only 70 or 80 per cent. of it, because of the high fixed cost of, for example, fencing, the maximum grant of 100 per cent. should be paid. That would encourage lower density forestry rather than the higher density traditional forestry.
The Minister did not give way on that in Committee, and said that the planting was primarily for timber production. In as much as the land cleared for planting exceeds by something like a factor of two the amount of land that the industry feels that it is necessary to afforest, we do not think that the argument about the primacy of timber production exists any longer. I ask the Minister to look at that again.
Many areas of derelict woodland are not in timber production but have the highest environmental value and are a major component of the farm as an on-farm woodland, and at least some, if not the whole, of the financial provision should be made so that farmers can achieve proper control of woodland production in areas of 1127 neglected woodland. We were thinking in particular of the woodlands in the less-favoured areas, because they have particular financial problems.
Those are some of our concerns. I hope that the Minister will at least listen to the representations which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and which are shared by people outside the House. I hope that he will be able to satisfy us a little more on these points when we debate the statutory instruments.
§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) both for the courtesy of his remarks, and for the conduct of the Opposition case in Committee. It was a happy and pleasant Committee, which did its job well, and that was not least because of the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ceridigion and Pembroke. North (Mr. Howells). I am not sure whether he would have agreed with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) about the milking sheep unit that took five years to set up. I wonder whether that was because of, or in spite of, his help. He is right to suggest that there is no perfect answer to our problems, and the idea that, by some miracle, low income farming can provide an alternative, without considerable research, is mere idle speculation. It will provide some of the answers, but it cannot be seen as a panacea, and too many panaceas are presented by people who often know little about the practicalities of farming, although the hon. Gentleman is certainly not one of those.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) congratulated my right hon. Friend the Minister and me on some of the stances that we have taken. In his close concern for the Bill, he reminded us of some of problems of agriculture with which the Bill does not attempt to deal. I have no doubt that other legislation will be introduced to solve the problems that he has raised, and on that occasion we can deal with the points that he made.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) spoke about monitoring, and I assure him that we shall monitor the scheme carefully, because every request for support will come to the Ministry, as well as to the Forestry Commission, and there will be occasions on which the Ministry will refuse, because the land is not suitable, or because the plan is thought not to be what we want, so the monitoring will start then.
Secondly, we shall have to monitor a sufficient number to ensure that what has been claimed as the plan is the plan that is carried out, for people will, in some cases, be paid a different sum because of the nature of the trees that are planted. Obviously we shall have to monitor that aspect. We shall have to monitor also to see whether the planting meets the purposes for which it was undertaken.
It is difficult to devise a monitoring system that will with absolute certainty link particular amounts of production from the total farm with the effect of a certain amount of afforestation of woodlands. For example, the woodlands might be started in a year in which farming activity was hit by very poor weather and production from the rest of the farm in that year was very low. If one monitored the situation three years later, one might find a considerable increase in production. However, that might have more to do with the weather than with the fact that perhaps a very 1128 small amount of land had been set aside for woodlands. It is not possible to make direct comparisons, but we shall certainly undertake direct monitoring of the kind for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in his concern that, because of the woodlands scheme, farmers are likely to be pressed into bringing into production areas of their farms which are not currently in production. If a farmer had such an area and was so pressed, he would be able to bring it into production whether or not there was a woodlands scheme. Indeed, in many ways he might be more likely to do so because he would not have the advantages that a woodlands scheme would give him to use for woodlands land that perhaps would not be suitable for cereal production.
The hon. Gentleman applied himself to the real problem, to which I referred in Committee, that there are certain types of habitat and wild land in the ownership of farmers which we would much prefer not to be turned into productive agricultural land. Indeed, the changes made to grant structures over the past few years have been aimed at not helping farmers to do that. We have also implemented grant aid to help people return to having more hedges and trees, and the like.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have raised perfectly reasonable points, but I do not believe that the problems they mentioned are directly connected with the woodlands scheme. I do not see an easy way of stopping farmers from undertaking, at their own expense, that which most of us would prefer them not to undertake—except that there is a growing understanding of the damage that such action can cause not just to individual farmers but to the farming community as a whole—who know that its reputation can be very much affected by the actions of an individual.
I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will not need to look unhappily upon the results of the scheme, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture was himself once a Treasury Minister and he is more keen on monitoring even than the hon. Member for Workington. Were I to propose any scheme that was not properly financially controlled, my right hon. Friend would use his superior office and power to cut me down at once. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is so.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWhen grant applications are made, will assurances be sought from farmers that certain land in their ownership might not have its use changed in the way that I suggested might be the case?
§ Mr. GummerThere is no such formal requirement in the Bill. However, our experience with the ESAs has shown that the people on the ground who are concerned with these matters are increasingly knowledgeable in conservation, so applications will be carefully considered. If circumstances arose in which we felt that an application was marred by other intentions, we would see to it that those other intentions were not carried out. I cannot make a formal commitment, but that is the spirit in which we are approaching the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) called this a modest Bill. In one sense, of course, it is.; no vast sums are available. In another sense, however, it is not. First, the British Government are entering into a very long-term commitment to enable people to grow trees. I follow the view of history given to us by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). Even five years ago, I 1129 cannot imagine that people would have believed that the Treasury might consider such a long-term commitment reasonable. It is a major achievement. It has not happened in other countries, but it is happening in Britain, and it will make a considerable difference. We now have a different attitude to woodlands.
The support for marketing and feasibility studies is a crucial part of helping farmers to develop that different attitude. It emerged in Committee—from hon. Members on both sides—that farmers are not natural foresters. It is quite difficult to change their approach so that they see trees as a crop, but the Bill makes a major move in that direction. The phrase "modest proposal" is perhaps better seen in the Swiftian context than in any modern one.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East gave us a salutary reminder of 14 years ago, when people feared a major worldwide food shortage and starvation because of the growth in the population. The Government are determined not to put land permanently out of agricultural use in a way that would endanger the future if the position changed dramatically. We must learn that we were wrong 10 or 14 years ago, when we thought that the world would be one of continuous shortage. We cannot be absolutely sure that our present best analysis—that it will be a world of surplus—will continue ultimately to be so. We must act on it, because it is the best that we have, but we can all produce scenarios in which it would not apply.
For my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), that is the protection against his fear that the land will be used for house building, concretisation and so forth. In that event, it would not be available for agriculture were circumstances to change. Woodlands, farm diversification, recreation and golf courses are sensible uses of the land because they enable the land to be used again for agriculture. In the end, the provision of food for our people must be the primary demand of any Government.
§ Mr. SteenIs my right hon. Friend saying that he will discourage the Department of the Environment from allowing widespread building on land in the south of England that is currently used for agriculture?
§ Mr. GummerMy hon. Friend must understand that the Department of the Environment needs no discouragement from me. The Department has made it absolutely clear that it intends to protect the green belt and look after the very interests that he mentions. I want to encourage the Department to do what it is doing now—to join me in trying to persuade planners to be a little more flexible, in areas where the pressure is not of that kind, towards farmers who want to diversify and provide jobs in country areas which are essential so that those areas do not become museums but remain work places
That is the major importance of the Bill. We want a living countryside; we want a working countryside. We do not want a Marie Antoinette countryside. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) about the need to ensure that planners take the problems seriously. I underline also what he has said about farmers looking after the land.
I have sympathy with the belief of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) that we should have the ability to de-intensify. I am sure that he will be 1130 comforted to know that if his amendments had been accepted and written into the Bill the Ministry would not have had powers additional to those that it already has. Under the European Communities' extensification plans, we would be able, by laying orders before the House, to do exactly what my hon. Friend wishes. I ask him to allow us to proceed in a way that makes sense. We are committed to present a system of set-aside and a system for the extensification of holdings. We must proceed in that way in accordance with the timetable that has been laid down by the Community, which is one that we would wish to follow.
The set-aside will be established first, and that will be followed by an extensification scheme. Extensification is a more difficult task than the establishment of a set-aside scheme for it involves a form of monitoring that we have not yet crack painted. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a real problem. How should we lay a reasonable system that will satisfy the Public Accounts Committee upon a scheme for extensification? It is difficult to determine the base line and thereby to demonstrate that there has been a real diminution in production in those terms. We have not yet produced the answer, but I hope that we shall be able to do so.
§ Mr. William RossI apologise for intervening at such a late stage in the Minister's remarks. I wish him to appreciate that the planting of trees is a long-term project. If it is found after 14 or 15 years, for example, that the land is needed for other purposes, we shall not be justified in cutting down the trees at that stage. Furthermore, it will not be easy to bring the land back into production. It will be a costly business, however, to wait until the trees grow to maturity and then to bring the land back into production. For example, all the roots will have to be removed. If there is to be a land bank, as it were, and extensification, surely sheep grazing will be a more reasonable approach.
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Gentleman is asking me to take an alternative course when I believe that we must take both approaches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir. R. Body) has said, we are talking of large areas and a wide range of considerations. There is no one answer, and woodland can be only one part of our approach. I have no doubt that other elements of it will be extensification, set-aside and diversification. There will be low-input farming and some organic farming. If we allow woodlands to be a part of our approach, that does not mean that we remove permanently the possibility of agriculture being introduced within that scheme. Of course, it would not be easy to return the land to agriculture directly. Indeed, it would not be possible to do so for some time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston talked about moorland. We have framed the Bill extremely carefully and its provisions have been changed very much from the original proposals to try to meet the problems that my hon. Friend has in mind. That is why we have talked about improved grassland, although there is a restricted amount of land that can be used for that purpose. In considering grant aid for the planting of woodland, we would not agree to provide it if we considered that there were important environmental 1131 reasons against doing so. The arguments that my hon. Friend advanced are precisely those that we shall be taking into account.
I am loth to give a guarantee that in no circumstances will there be a slip-up. I do not intend that moorland that should be an open area should be turned into woodland. That is not the purpose of the Bill, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully keep in mind the responsibility that the Government placed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the first time in history to take as one of its requirements environmental needs as well as direct agriculture needs and food production.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) pressed the point of monitoring. I hope that I have answered that. I understand his question on loss of income. We will be reviewing the payments. We made it quite clear that after three years we would do so. It will not be tied to the cost of living because that would be the wrong way of looking at it and I cannot guarantee that we would be increasing the figures. However, we shall certainly be reviewing the payments, as he asked.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) asked a range of questions. We intend to use the experience of the ESAs. He was gracious enough to say that experience had shown that his original fear, which was that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was the wrong body to control the ESAs and that it should perhaps be done through a third party such as the Countryside Commission, was groundless. I hope that I can ask him to accept that his fears may be groundless in other areas. [Interruption.] I hope that time will tell and that in the future the hon. Gentleman will not be as unhappy as he is now. He will discover that, where there is any doubt or concern, we will take the necessary steps to consult people 1132 who can give us advice. We intend to be careful about conservation needs and to ensure that proper decisions are made. Those decisions will be taken particularly carefully when it comes to environmentally important areas.
The hon. Gentleman's concerns on mixed planting and other matters are not well-founded. However, I shall look at them again, as he asked in the preparation of the statutory instruments.
This Bill has been welcomed on both sides of the House. It is modest only in the sense that it is experimental and because we have restricted it by insisting on cash limitation, hectarage limitation and other things to ensure that we do not run before we can walk. However, it is not modest in that it makes a major change in the way in which the Government look at the countryside and the agricultural community. That change has been made necessary by current conditions and we have made the change before almost all our continental partners. In that we can honestly say that we are leading Europe to a better understanding of a proper partnership between the farmer and the conservationist.
We believe that the farmer is the best conservationist of the countryside. To be that, he must, in a time of surplus, be helped because he will need to change not only his farming methods but his habits and the habits of his forefathers. He will have to see woodlands as a crop. He will have to look for methods of diversification. He will need to see new ways of using the land. All that demands of the farmer a considerable amount of change. The Bill, when it becomes an Act and when the statutory instruments are laid, will give him a chance to make that change more effectively.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.