PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME, 1960

HL Deb 17 May 1960 vol 223 cc856-61

2.46 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE rose to move, That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1960, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will deal with the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme at the same time as the Scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We propose to make the 1960 Schemes in similar terms to the 1959 Schemes, subject to the necessary advancement of dates. We have given much thought to the matter in this, as in previous years, and have concluded that the Schemes continue to serve a useful purpose.

Expenditure during the financial year ended 31st March was £9.37 million, compared with £9.19 million the year before that. Ploughings were affected by the prolonged drought last year, though to a lesser extent than in the previous year when the wet season caused a marked fall. There has been a considerable improvement since the autumn, so that ploughings under the 1959–60 Scheme are expected to reach about 1,250,000 acres, which is almost as high as in 1957–58. Expenditure in the current financial year is expected to approach the £10 million mark once more. Despite a setback due to two abnormal seasons—one wet and one dry—the Scheme continues to operate at a high level.

It is far from the truth to suggest—as has been done in another place—that we renew these schemes automatically from year to year without consideration of their purpose or usefulness in present conditions. As I have previously informed your Lordships, we have in recent years carried out two major reviews of the ploughing grants and we shall continue to keep them under review. This year we are paying special attention to the administrative provisions of the Scheme. We shall seek to improve the administration of the Scheme by checking, each ploughing grant application against previous payments that may have been made under the Cereal Deficiency Payments Scheme. This will be a considerable operation, but there may be a small number of incorrect and sometimes fraudulent claims—and this cross-checking will be the best method of bringing them to light. As a matter of fact, the check which has been made in Scotland during the last year has revealed incorrect and/or fraudulent claims amounting to about one-half of one per cent. of all claims. Our investigations for England and Wales are not yet complete.

Your Lordships will have noted the statement in this year's Annual Review White Paper, in which it is said that there should be, within the framework of general policy, continuing emphasis on the better production and use of grass as a means towards reducing costs of production. In general, this will call for the maintenance or increase in the area of rotation grass. In this, ploughing grants play a useful part. There has been an increase of 1 million acres of rotation grass in the United Kingdom since the grants were reintroduced in 1952, of which about 800,000 acres are in England and Wales. But we think that there is still room for expansion, especially in England and Wales, where the area of rotation grass is still very much smaller in relation to both tillage and permanent grass than it is in Scotland.

The main emphasis in the passage I have quoted is on rotation grass as a means towards reducing costs of production. We are satisfied that the ploughing grants do make a direct contribution to good husbandry, and they are an integral part of the total assistance available to farmers. They are not at all rigid in their effects and grassland of all ages over 3 years is ploughed up under the Scheme. In fact, figures which we have recently obtained in respect of applications since last autumn in England and Wales show that nearly 40 per cent. of the grass ploughed up is 5 to 7 years old, while over 40 per cent. is 10 years old or older. Farmers therefore evidently do not plough up their leys every 3 or 4 years simply to mine the subsidy or to get the grant, as has sometimes been suggested.

While the grants are paid for work carried out, wherever this is done and whatever the size of the farm—and we think it right that this should be so—roughly half the applications at present are in respect of farms of less than 100 acres and two-thirds in respect of farms of less than 150 acres. The grants are of particular assistance to the smaller farmer and they are closely linked with the operation of the Small Farmer Scheme.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1960, be approved.

Moved, That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1960, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

LORD WISE

My Lords, I rise not in any opposition to the passing of this particular Order but to obtain some further information, if possible, from the Minister in regard to it. I understand that it has been said that the time has come when these ploughing grant payments should cease. I personally do not hold that view, however. Perhaps selfishly, I think that if £10 million were lost to the agricultural industry by the cessation of these grants it is not quite certain where we should pick it up in compensation. There are several questions I wish to put to the Minister and I will refer to the paragraph in each case.

With regard to paragraph 3 the expression "in special circumstances" is mentioned, whereby the ploughing up of land can be postponed for a time, with the consent of the Minister. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us anything of the nature of the special circumstances, other than possibly the question of the spring ploughing of the land and getting it ready for future cultivations. The year 1962 is mentioned in that paragraph, and I should like to be informed by the noble Earl, if possible, whether there is any significance in that year, whether ploughing grants will cease then; because in a later paragraph in Part III the latest date for receiving applications is put at July 31, 1961. It may be that 1962 is mentioned in order to allow for late ploughing, but I should be glad if the Minister could say something on that point.

The Minister has mentioned the administration which is outlined for the future checking of applications made. Part I of the Order, however, does not suggest that any application may be made to the Minister before ploughing takes place; notification has to be given to the Minister within 21 days after ploughing. Part II of the Order suggests that applications should be made before the commencement of ploughing; so that one part deals with notifications after the ploughing and the other part with applications before ploughing. If the Minister is going to check the applications, would it not be better for the applications all to be made before ploughing takes place? He could then check the application with the grants which had been made for the particular farm in the past. I suggest that, though it might not be so easy for the farmer, it would be easier for the administration if the applications were made at the same time.

The Minister has mentioned the figure of 1,250,000 acres as the area likely to be ploughed up under the 1959–60 grants. I wonder whether he can break that figure up to tell the House how many acres will be granted under Part I, the short annual ploughing, if I may put it in that way, and Part II, which is the ploughing of old pastures. I notice that £10 million is likely to be the amount paid by way of grants for that particular year. It may be that the total is divided: two thirds under Part I, and one-third under Part II. I should like to know, as a matter of interest, whether the actual figures can be given.

In regard to the £12 grant under Part II of the Order, I wonder whether it would be possible to make that a little flexible. I notice that under the Order the Minister has the right to withhold a portion of the payment and need not necessarily expend the whole of the £12 per acre. But in the case of small farmers the cost per acre may be very much more than that of the large farmers. It seems to me that if the amount of the grant could be flexible in some way, either up or down—it is certainly flexible down, but if it could be flexible up—there might be a reduction in the amount paid to the large farmers, whose costs are less and possibly more paid to the small farmers.

I understand that since the Ploughing Grants Schemes came into operation in 1952 the sum of £61 million has been paid out by the Exchequer in these grants. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether the grants for the old pastures have been in excess of the grants for the new lands. I should also like to know, if it is possible, in that connection whether any areas of any particular farms have received more than one grant in the particular period. It may be that one grant has been paid in respect of one field, but it may also be that two, or even three, grants may have been given in that time for the ploughing up of the same field. If the Minister could help us in that direction I should be obliged. I raise these points only as a matter of interest to those who are interested in agriculture generally.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a number of interesting points, and I will see if I can answer them; and if I do not answer them completely I shall be happy to communicate with him afterwards. The first point he made was: "What are special circumstances?" I think special circumstances are special circumstances—rather like the definition of ploughing. This really means no more and no less than it says. There are, of course, special circumstances such as occasionally fallowing and things of that kind which have to be taken into consideration.

With regard to the dates, we are in the same trouble that the noble Lord and I had last year. We have simply moved this whole Order forward one year; there are no other alterations at all. You will find in this Order 1962 where 1961 appeared last time, and 1961 where 1960 appeared, and so on. It is no more than that. The noble Lord must not be suspicious and think that he has ferreted out something in regard to 1962, because what we have done is to advance the dates one year, as we have done in previous years.

As for checking, we have got to keep a balance here. It will be quite a considerable operation to do this check, but it is right that we should do it in case there is a waste of public money. The noble Lord said that it might be not so good for the farmers, and that it would be easier for administration if we did something else—that is to say, if we demanded to have the applications before any of the ploughing was done. Surely that is a most dangerous philosophy: that ease of administration should take precedence over the object of policy. The policy is to encourage good farming, and it would really stultify farming tremendously if, before anybody ploughed up, he had not only to put in his application but have all the checking and examination done. We should really be in great trouble. I do not think it would be at all right to suggest that ease of administration ought to be allowed to cause such a disadvantage to good farming.

As to the figures, there is some difficulty about the figures, because I am bound to say—the noble Lord has obviously been reading the Caine Report—that the statistics that we have obtained under the scheme are of two kinds: there were operational statistics and statistics for policy purposes, and it is perfectly true that we are going to try to get some more statistics now. I think I could give the answers to some of the questions, if I have them down aright—such as what proportion of this was for old lays and what proportion for new leys. But I will give the noble Lord this assurance; that to enable us to answer just those sort of questions we are collecting more statistics—statistics which have not been necessarily collected or collated before. Some of them may be in our divisional offices and some in the headquarters office, and I should prefer—and no doubt your Lordships would also—that, instead of going into those figures, which I have not looked up specifically (because no notice was given), to communicate with the noble Lord afterwards in regard to the figures, and to give an assurance to the House now that those kinds of statistics are very much in our minds and that we propose to have them available.

On Question, Motion agreed to.