HILL CATTLE SUBSIDY SCHEME.

HL Deb 24 October 1944 vol 133 cc635-47

2.16 p.m

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention, while appreciating the work of agricultural executive committees in general, to the variable manner in which some of them in Scotland have interpreted the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme (1944); and to move to resolve, That orders used under the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme (1944) without Parliamentary authority, and contrary to the intention of Parliament, shall be invalid; and to move for Papers.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, may I just briefly say a prefatory word in regard to this Motion? As I was coming into your Lordships' House I was told that somehow or other a rumour had got about that I was moving the Motion which I propose to-day because of a personal quarrel of some sort with an agricultural executive committee. Allow me to say that I have no such intention. I feel strongly, as I am sure your Lordships do, that it would be completely out of place for any noble Lord in this House to use the House to further any particular personal quarrel with anybody. Therefore I wish to say at once that I have no intention of doing that. What I am doing is calling attention to the lack of uniformity in the administration of the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme. This lack of uniformity in the administration of the scheme is causing a good deal of dissatisfaction among farmers in Scotland, and a sense of unfairness to many of them. Our great aim, I think, should be to eliminate any lack of uniformity as far as possible.

I know that at this moment there are something like 300 cases—and the number is increasing—of appeals to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking him to remedy some unfairness in the administration of the scheme. 'We feel that it is highly undesirable that these appeals should grow in number or that it should be the duty of the Secretary of State to adjudicate upon these cases, because if it became a habit, and an increasing habit, for the Secretary of State for Scotland to adjudicate upon them, it would mean the creation of a kind of bureaucratic authority. When the scheme was first started the Government representative said he felt that Parliament at Westminster would be extremely busy with very important affairs, and that it would not be right to expect Parliament to give much attention to the small differences between farmer and farmer and so on. Therefore, when the Act was passed, the intention of Parliament was to run this scheme en a really democratic basis and devolve some of the administrative duties upon agricultural executive committees. It stands to reason that if the Secretary of State is to make a practice of adjudicating on differences, he is really taking the work out of the democratic line and putting it into the bureaucratic line. Our idea is that we should follow the democratic principle of allowing the agricultural executive committee to administer the Hill Cattle Scheme and the Hill Sheep Scheme with considerable latitude; but we must insist that if these agricultural committees administer the schemes they must fulfil the intentions of Parliament to the utmost and not exercise their powers to issue new regulations, new orders, or new by-laws because if they do that they are usurping the powers of Parliament.

Taking these 300 cases, let us see what is the cause of the trouble. The cause of the trouble is that a big latitude has been given to agricultural executive committees to administer the scheme. Some of the committees are very good indeed, with members who are well accustomed to administrative responsibility. Other committees are not quite so good or so experienced. There are a few which are distinctly bad and have members with no experience. It is this last class which cause most of the dissatisfaction. The Cattle scheme and the Hill Sheep Scheme were introduced about 1940 or:1941, when Parliament had the idea that we might run short of beef and mutton, and that the people on the Continent would be starving and would also require beef and mutton. Parliament therefore decided—I think rightly—that the time had come when we must build up a great reserve of cattle and sheep and that in order to do so we should make use of the thousands of acres of rough hill land, marginal land, upland farms, which at the time were producing very little. I will not say anything about sheep, because we are hoping for a declaration of policy very soon and it might cause embarrassment to an agreed policy if we said anything now. In the case of hill cattle, however, the idea was to build up reserves by giving a Government grant or subsidy of £3 per head of cattle reared on the uplands or the moors.

It was stated that the scheme was brought forward with the object of securing an improvement of hill grazings and also of encouraging the home breeding of cattle on the hills and the upland farms. There were two things to consider—the home breeding of cattle and the improvement of grazings. But when it comes to a question of interpretation some committees take one view and some another. I will not weary your Lordships by reciting all the differences, but in order to give you an idea of their nature I will quote one or two cases. The first point to be considered is, What is a hill farm? Some people think it must be poor pasture, but that does not necessarily constitute a hill farm. Other people have the idea that a hill farm is a hill where you must graze highland cattle. That is the view taken by some committees. Then the question arises at what altitude does a farm become a hill farm. In England, where a similar scheme was brought into force, altitude was taken into account. An English farmer must graze cattle on land at least 800 feet above sea level to be eligible for a subsidy; but after full discussion it was decided that in Scotland there should be no stipulation about altitude. It was recognized that there were hundreds of thousands of acres of rock-grazing land along the sea shore which should be brought into the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme and that the application of an altitude yardstick would debar that land. Some committees, however, are debarring farms from being eligible for a grant because they are not 200 feet or 300 feet or 400 feet above sea level, while others are allowing grants in the case of farms absolutely at sea level. When farmers find that one committee says one thing and another committee says another thing there is a feeling of unfairness and injustice. That is one illustration of the differences that exist.

Another difference is that some committees consider whether a farm is a unit. Some committees say that when an application is made for a grant it must be considered from the point of view of the farm as a whole, while other committees say the application must be considered from the point of view of the area upon which the cattle graze. Taking the latter view, if the cattle are grazed on rough moorland with rocks and bracken and are all herded together the farm is held to be eligible for grants. Some farmers carry dairy stock like Ayrshires on the rotational land and sell milk, but keep another herd of cattle on the hills, hardy cattle, and ask for a grant. Some committees say: "No, you are dairying, and are not eligible for a grant." Others says: "Yes, you have cattle on the hill and that has nothing to do with cattle on the rotational land." So some farmers get a grant and some do not, and when farmers meet to discuss affairs they say there is great unfairness and injustice because, of people in similar circumstances, some get grants and others do not. Although no altitude level is fixed for Scotland, some committees are introducing such a yardstick, for which there is no Parliamentary authority at all.

Another difference between the committees relates to the kind of cattle kept on the hills. When the scheme started it was restricted to hardy breeds like Highland cattle or Galloway cattle, but people with shorthorn cattle and Aberdeen-Angus cattle made a fuss and the scheme was extended to include them, subject to the stipulation that the cattle must be grazed on the hills for eighteen weeks. Other breeders with Ayrshire or Red Poll cattle then said that the scheme ought to be extended to include all cattle. Now some committees say that cross-bred cattle from an Ayrshire herd by an Aberdeen-Angus bull are eligible for the subsidy but that cross-bred cattle from a Galloway bull are not eligible. The Galloway breed is one of the hardiest and a cross between Galloway and shorthorn or Ayrshire is of great advantage to Midland and other farmers who buy these cattle. What ground is there for refusing a grant when the cross is with a Galloway bull but allowing a grant in the case of an Aberdeen-Angus or shorthorn bull? Other committees refuse to give a grant in the case of shorthorns or Aberdeen-Angus but say that farmers who breed with Irish cattle on the hills will be given a grant. There is no authority for compelling farmers to buy Irish cattle instead of home-bred cattle. The scheme was introduced for the encouragement of home-bred cattle. What right have committees to introduce this yardstick and tell farmers that if they export money and buy Irish cattle they will get a grant? That seems to be unfair and unjust.

The committees which introduce differences without any Parliamentary authority are causing farmers to ask why they should be denied grants when they have complied with all the regulations and have spent money on cutting bracken, liming the hills and so on. A rumour has gone out that the committees have over-committed themselves in expenditure of money for grants and subsidies. A rumour has gone out that they have received instructions to keep down their commitments. Well, I do not know anything about that, officially, at all. I believe that in the first year the expenditure on these hill cattle grants was somewhere between £100,000 and £200,000. I believe that in the second year it was about £300,000, and that they are budgeting this year for £500,000. The feeling is that the Government are now saying: "Stop it— £500,000 is as high as you will go," and the committees have the impression that they must cut down their grants. They are cutting them down by introducing yardsticks and regulations which have no Parliamentary authority.

May I, in this connexion, recall to your Lordships a matter affecting the National Fire Service which you recently had brought to your notice? Someone introduced laws and rules which had no Parliamentary authority, and so great was the outcry that a Minister actually had to go down to another place and apologize. I am not asking for any Minister to apologize here, but I do say that I think your Lordships should take an opportunity such as this of saying distinctly that if, for purposes of administration, we are devolving administrative powers on local committees we must insist that the intention and the spirit of the Act as passed by Parliament shall be carried out to the full, and that the committees have no authority to introduce yardsticks into measures of this kind without the sanction of Parliament. I would be glad if the noble Lord who is going to reply could give me some assurance, firstly, that something like that shall be enacted or stated distinctly, and, secondly, that the regulations of the scheme shall be drastically overhauled, not by civil servants in the office at St. Andrews but by, and with the aid of, representatives of practical farmers from all parts of Scotland who understand the scheme. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That orders issued under the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme (1944) without Parliamentary authority, and contrary to the intention of Parliament, shall be invalid.—(The Duke of Montrose.)

2.33 P.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture very wisely encourage farmers to keep more cattle on their hill farms, and the Department authorizes agricultural executive committees to give grants for this purpose to hill farms and others which may also qualify. The scheme has been very much extended in recent years, and it is now more difficult for the agricultural executive committees to administer it and to do so with complete uniformity. Consequently, discrepancies may occasionally have occurred. But I do feel that it should be said most emphatically that these committees are acting most conscientiously, and are trying to do their best. I think it would be unfortunate if anything should go out which might undermine their confidence—if, for example, there should be disseminated an idea that they are taking or usurping powers. I am very glad that the noble Duke in raising this question has referred to a lack of uniformity. That I understand is the complaint which he makes, and not a more serious complaint. I am also glad that he does recognize that the majority of the committees are administering the proposals fairly. I would like him to be able to go further, but not having any information as to the cases which he has in mind I do not propose to make any comments upon them.

The scheme is undoubtedly very beneficial. Rough grazing an hill farms can be improved by bringing cattle on to them. The bad pasture is torn up by the cattle, and something better can come through with advantage to the sheep. It is true, as the noble Duke has said, that many more types of cattle are now allowed for subsidy than was originally intended, and it may be that this has made administration more difficult. The agricultural committees, and particularly their chairmen, do, from time to time, have conferences when difficult questions of this sort arise, and it may quite well be that this is a very suitable subject for an early discussion between the chairmen of the agricultural committees or the agricultural committees in different districts with the assistance of the Secretary of State and the Department. If such a discussion were held it would probably result in the securing of greater uniformity.

I had rather anticipated that there was to be to-day a discussion on the report of the Balfour Hill Sheep Farming Committee, and I would like to point out that it was one of the many excellent recommendations of that Committee that cattle should be encouraged on these hill farms, particularly with a view to improving the grazing and increasing the number of home-bred stores for feeding on the better and richer lands lower down. As this subject of the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme as now under discussion, I would like to say that I feel sure that it is to be hoped that nothing will be done which will take away from the great value of these proposals. If any conference is desired in order to get more uniformity, I am sure that the agricultural committees will welcome it. At the same time I hope that no reflections will be allowed to stand against them as the result of anything which has had to be said on the subject.

2.40 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I must begin by offering my apologies to the House and to the noble Duke opposite for not having been in my place here at the commencement of the public business of the House. I was unavoidably detained by public business in another place. I regret my late arrival all the more because I was only just in time to hear the concluding words of the noble Duke in moving his Motion. I understand, however, that in the main his speech followed his Motion, which does not always happen in this House, and was directed towards securing uniformity between the different agricultural executive committees. I wish to intervene in the debate only for a very few minutes in order to make two points, both of which have to some extent been covered by the remarks of my noble friend who has just spoken.

My first point is to emphasize that the whole of the evidence which was received by the Hill Sheep Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, was directed unanimously towards stressing the beneficial effects of an increase of cattle on the rough grazings. The unanimity with which that view was put forward was remarkable. Unanimity in evidence from a number of different sources is always remarkable, and it was particularly so in this case, where those who gave the evidence held different views on very many subjects. About the benefit of cattle on the hills, however, there was complete unanimity, and the Committee, therefore, had no difficulty in including in their Report a commendation of the policy which was already being followed by the Department of Agriculture and the expression of their hope that that policy might be developed still further.

Secondly, I should very much like to emphasize the desirability of doing nothing which will discourage the agricultural executive committees. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, complained of lack of uniformity. The only way to avoid some variability would be by complete centralization, but in my view a complete centralization of this administration would be a disaster very much worse than some slight variability of administration in different districts where circumstances differ. There must be, in a matter of that sort, some difficulty in establishing per- fectly definite dividing lines; and, if we are to get the very best men in different areas to act on committees of this sort, we must give them discretion and they must be made to feel that they are trusted. They must be given something to do and not have on every occasion to refer these matters back to St. Andrew's House. I cannot imagine anything more calamitous than that from the farming point of view, whether we have in mind hill sheep farming or low ground farming.

That is all the more important when we consider what the future of agriculture in this country must be. There must be some kind of regional administration, and, as far as one can see, it must be some kind of voluntary administration. The circumstances must be such as to encourage the best men to take a part in what is very often an invidious and difficult task. It is always an unpleasant thing to have to take measures which are unfriendly, or which appear to be unfriendly, to one's neighbours. These agricultural executive committees have done a wonderful job during the war. Sometimes I am tempted to think that they have not always had the backing from the Central Department—my noble friend who is going to reply will forgive me for saying this—which they should have had. The best hope for the successful administration of these very difficult measures which are necessary if British agriculture is to prosper in the future is to choose the right men and back them. That is all that I wish to say. There is no doubt whatever about the necessity of continuing the policy of keeping cattle on the hills, and I do beg the Government to make their arrangements such as will encourage the best men to continue to give their services, because that will be of the greatest possible benefit to agriculture in the future.

2.45 p.m.

LORD ALNESS

My Lords, I fully recognize that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has raised a matter of considerable interest and importance, whether it be regarded from the constitutional point of view or from the point of view of the administration of the scheme to which he has referred. Parliament has no doubt a legitimate interest in seeing that agricultural or other schemes which are locally administered are administered upon a sound basis, and that there should be no risk of hardship or of unequal treatment to those who are affected by such schemes. I first assumed, when I saw the noble Duke's Motion on the Paper in its original form, that he had in mind that certain orders had been issued which were contrary either to Statute or to regulation, but the Motion on the Paper to-day is in rather different terms. I still find, however, that the pivotal point of the Motion as framed and submitted to-day is the word "orders." In my humble judgment, that is the most important word in the Motion.

If that be so, I want to say to my noble friend quite plainly that there are no orders issued under the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme, either for cattle or for sheep. The subsidy is open to farmers who care to claim it. If they want to claim it they do so, and, if the conditions are satisfied, they receive the subsidy. On the other hand, if they do not want to claim it they stand aside and abstain from claiming it. In neither case is any order made, and I cannot too strongly emphasize that this is from first to last a purely voluntary scheme, and that the nomenclature which the noble Duke has seen fit to select is inappropriate.

But, whatever the Motion on the Paper may be, I gather from the noble Duke's speech, as my noble friends who followed him have done, that the really substantial complaint he has to make is that the scheme has not been evenly and uniformly administered. In effect he says this: "Parliament has agreed upon a certain policy. That policy was enshrined in a certain scheme, but in the administration of that scheme the agricultural committees have undermined and frustrated the intention of Parliament, and have administered it in a way which cannot be properly defended." I must in that connexion—I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes—refer to the history of these schemes. As the noble Duke has truly said, the scheme of 1944 was preceded by two others of a more restricted character. I shall not weary your Lordships by going into the details, but, as the noble Duke has said, the scheme of 1944 is a much wider one than either of the two which preceded it.

The two criteria which have to be applied in deciding whether a subsidy is to be available under the 1944 scheme are, first of all, the class of farm, and secondly, the class of stock on the farm. These are the two things to which the scheme refers, and, having regard to their nature, I think it is not surprising that there should be divergencies of opinion as to whether a certain scheme comes within or without the description. Are the committees to have regard to the character of the land on which the cattle are pastured, or are they to have regard to the character of the farm as a whole? Clearly there is room here for a difference of opinion in applying a general principle to particular cases. I am advised that it would be quite impossible to draw up a scheme or to frame rules and regulations which would apply to every type of farm equally, and which would yield an absolutely uniform result; I am afraid that that is beyond the capacity of any draftsman. That end could no doubt be secured, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh has said; but how? By a centralized and bureaucratic administration. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Secretary of State considers that that would be a most retrograde step. He prefers the democratic administration by agricultural committees which, broadly speaking, consist of respectable, reputable, well-known farmer, who are fully seized of all the local circumstances and who are familiar with the agricultural conditions of the district. I cannot think of a more suitable and knowledgeable tribunal, but differences in practice are bound to arise.

I am authorized by the Secretary of State to give my noble friend two assurances. In the first place, if the scheme is continued for another year the Secretary of State will take steps to hold a meeting of the various agricultural committees in order if possible to eliminate, or at least to narrow, the divergencies in administration which may have occurred and to secure that in the future there shall be less divergency in the administration of the scheme. The noble Duke has, I know, given to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland several cases which he had in mind, some of which he has quoted here to-day, and these are being investigated. But I think the noble Duke will probably agree with me when I say that such a conference, which is usual and which has always been found to be fruitful, may be a very great advantage in ironing out those difficulties of which the noble Duke complains, and some of which no doubt in the past have occasioned some dissatisfaction in some quarters. That is the first assurance. In the second place, I am authorized by the Secretary of State for Scotland to say that he is most ready to consider an amendment to the scheme as it exists, in consultation with the agricultural committees and with the farming organizations which are concerned, and to hold such a conference with a view to amending the scheme without avoidable delay. I venture to think that these two assurances really meet all the points which the noble Duke made, with the exception of one to which I want to refer before I sit down.

The noble Duke has seen fit to bring a rumour before your Lordships' House and to put it forward in the form of a suggestion. The rumour is that the Government have overspent the money which is available for the hill cattle subsidy, and have issued directions, or given a broad hint, to agricultural committees, that they must restrict their expenditure and apply a more rigid standard before they grant a subsidy. I want to say in the plainest possible fashion that I think that a most unworthy suggestion, for which there is not a scintilla of basis in fact. I think the best reply to the noble Duke is this, that so far from the subsidy having been cut clown in the current year, it has, as he himself admitted, gone up. The expenditure on the subsidy during 1943 was £338,000 and in 1944 £506,000. Does that look like accrediting the rumour to which the noble Duke has seen fit to refer? I want to tell him and your Lordships that there is not the slightest foundation for the rumour or the suggestion. I regret that it has been made. That is all that I think I need say in reply to the noble Duke. I hope that, in view of the two assurances which my right honourable friend has authorized me to offer to him, he will see fit to withdraw the Motion on the Paper.

2.53 p.m.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

My Lords, I am sure we have heard with great gratification the three or four speeches which have been made on this subject, and I myself found great pleasure in listening to my old friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, because Lord Balfour is well known for the great work he has done for our hill agricultural interest. In passing, may I say that I noticed yesterday on the Order Paper a reference in a Motion of mine to what is described as the "Balfour Committee"? I hope I may be pardoned for saying, and perhaps the Clerk of the Parliaments will take note, that in Scotland we like to hear it called the Balfour of Burleigh Committee. There are a great many Balfours in Scotland, and Balfour is a good name, but we like this great monument of industry and labour to be identified with the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh.

I hope that in the remarks which I made I did not convey that I was lacking in appreciation of the work that has been done by the agricultural executive committees in Scotland, because I am not. I know they have worked hard, and that as a whole they have done their best to help us hill farmers in every way they can. They work very often for no remuneration, and sometimes under most depressing circumstances, and I agree with the Minister of Agriculture, who said the other day that the work on the agricultural committees had made a splendid contribution to what he called "the farmers' triumph" of 1944. I was particularly gratified also to hear the assurances and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Alness. I am quite prepared to accept his assurances. But I am glad to think that the subject has been ventilated, and I hope that the Department of Agriculture will take note of some of the points which have been raised and do their best to improve matters. If the work of the agricultural committees is going on after the war surely now is the time to take note of the weaknesses, and to do our best to iron them out and make good work even better. As I say, I accept the assurances of the noble Lord, whose forensic skill and debating power make black seem almost white. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.