DRAFT PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME, 1955

HL Deb 02 May 1955 vol 192 cc647-51

EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, April 27 last, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the fifth Scheme to be made under the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act, 1952. Its principal object is to encourage ley farming—that is, as your Lordships know, to keep the plough going round the farm on all suitable fields. Your Lordships will remember that in the White Paper which was published following this year's Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, the Government undertook to increase the rates of grant by £2 an acre. The Draft Scheme which is now before the House gives effect to this undertaking and accordingly provides for two rates of grant: a standard rate of £7 an acre for land that has been continuously under grass for at least three years, and a higher rate of £12 an acre for bringing into cultivation difficult pre-war grass land where the costs of doing so are abnormally high. The conditions under which these grants are payable are the same as in the earlier Schemes, except for two slight relaxations. These are in Section 3 (1), and they have the effect of slightly widening the rules relating to the crop which follows the ploughing up.

In Part I of the Scheme for 1954–55—that is, the part dealing with the lower rate of grant—a crop had to be produced on the land in the calendar year 1955 or, exceptionally, if the Minister gave approval before ploughing in, the calendar year 1956. In other words, a crop had to be produced within a maximum period of two years. In this Draft Scheme for 1955–56, two changes are made. Cropping will be acceptable which takes place in the last seven months of 1955 as well as in 1956 and, exceptionally, in 1957. The maximum period has, therefore, been extended to two years and seven months. The other change is that the Minister's approval to cropping in 1957 need not necessarily be given before ploughing. These, however, are minor alterations; the main principles remain unaltered.

Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that the need for grants of this kind continues. They are undoubtedly doing the industry a great deal of good, and the Government attach very much importance to them. Without them it would not be possible to maintain the arable and tillage areas in this country at their present high level compared with the levels which were customary before the war. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, April 27 last, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Earl said about the importance of continuing this subsidy, especially in view of the fall in the arable acreage last year. I am glad that the Government have taken this step, and I think the slight alterations in the scheme will, on the whole, be an encouragement to farmers to take advantage of it. I beg to support it.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, may I ask one question? I know very little about farming, but when I was in New Zealand I was enormously impressed—and I cannot generalise from a short visit about the particular time of year—with the quality of the grass which they had. I talked to many New Zealand farmers, and they were all immensely appreciative of the skill of our farmers over here. They said they did not think they could teach our farmers anything, which I think is true. But when I pressed them, they did say that they thought our grass farming was perhaps not so good as theirs. I wonder whether it is not a fact that a great deal of our grassland ought to be ploughed up and sown back to grass in order to improve the quality of our crops. Is that being done? Is that commonly done? I do not think it is. Land is ploughed to put it to other crops. Does this ploughing scheme apply to the case where grassland is ploughed up with the deliberate intention of re-seeding it to grass again?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, a farmer may re-seed to grass with the permission of the county committee. That permission is normally given without any trouble if the committee are satisfied that it is in the interests of good husbandry that the land should be re-seeded directly rather than a cash crop taken first.

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON

My Lords, in any future orders, schemes or subsidies, will the Minister reconsider the method of allocating the ploughing grants for downland, especially in those areas scheduled under the National Parks Act? On the South Downs, indiscriminate ploughing right up to the escarpment will surely lead to erosion. By ploughing too much, and therefore right up to the verge of existing highways, no space is left for bridle paths for horsemen or turf footpaths for pedestrians. Once farmers have got their heavy machinery for ploughing and clearing up on to the hill, surely the temptation to plough the whole lot, suitable or unsuitable, is almost irresistible, especially with the larger subsidy. Trees and bushes uprooted by bulldozers, footpaths fenced in or entirely obliterated by the plough, seem to be the rule of the day. Could not certain downland in England in future come under one of the special categories?

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I should like to support the plea which has been put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon. In order to attract the lower rate of subsidy under this scheme, one requires no permission, no inspection by anybody and no decision from anybody as to whether the land is, in fact, suitable land to be ploughed up. This seems to me to be encouraging a form of mining of land. It is not, of course, my intention to oppose this Order to-day, but I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us an assurance that this is a matter which his Department will look into.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Willingdon has said, about ploughing up downs and national park land. We must, of course, see that the amenities of the countryside are preserved, but I think the noble Marquess will find that that is taken care of in other ways. We have tried to keep this Scheme as simple as possible, and up to now I think we have succeeded; but if, in any particular circumstances, we made the £7 ploughing grant subject to Ministers' approval, we should inevitably be introducing considerable complications. Moreover, it is doubtful whether Ministers would be justified in using a Ploughing Grants Scheme, which was passed by Parliament in order to improve farming production, as a means of enforcing views on the amenities of the countryside. The responsibility for safeguarding the amenities of the South Downs rests with the local planning authorities. I have been in touch with the Minister of Housing and Local Government about this matter, and he is not aware that the ploughing of downland has given rise to any serious problems of access. It is true that the pattern of farming in downland areas is changing, but I do not think that the extension of the arable area should necessarily be regarded as detracting from the beauty or from amenities.

I am sure that under this Scheme there will be no question of the ploughing of land by farmers merely for the sake of getting the grant. They must plough and sow a crop, or get the Minister's approval to allow the land to lie fallow and then sow a crop. That, I think, covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. I understood him to suggest that farmers were ploughing in order to get the grant; but they have also to take a crop before they are paid the grant. Obviously, they will not go to the expense of planting and cultivating if they are not going to get any return other than the £7 an acre.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I should like to feel as confident as the noble Earl does that in fact these grants will not encourage the ploughing up of unsuitable land. May I ask the noble Earl to reconsider this matter before an Order of this kind is produced again?

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in connection with the administration of the many different problems arising under these grants, he will bear sympathetically in mind the problem affecting common lands which are still, in this last year, being ploughed up and which present a particular problem for succeeding years? The subject was explained in some detail by the noble Earl's predecessor, Lord Carrington, in this House last year. Would the noble Earl bear in mind that there is a serious danger of loss of national food production through the apparent inability to dovetail the matter of common rights and food production? In many parts of England, particularly in the South, a serious situation is arising: land which has been so cultivated and has attracted these grants apparently runs the risk of going out of cultivation, with a consequent lessening of food production.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, said, as I am not a member of the Procedure Committee, may I ask whether it would not be a good Standing Order of this House that these Draft Orders should be debated under Committee Rules? They do not usually lead to long discussion, but often there is a good deal of exchange about them.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that we are in danger of having land ploughed up merely for the sake of ploughing. We have been into this matter carefully, and we are convinced that the situation is well in hand. As regards the question of commons, I do not think I can add anything to what I said in the debate in your Lordships' House on forestry and agriculture. I told your Lordships then, I think, that the matter was being considered carefully by the Minister and that in due course something might be said.

On Question, Motion agreed to.