§ 3.16 p.m.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated saving to the Treasury of making the final barley deficiency payment for 1961–62 in November in place of in July.]
724LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord has in mind, as the final barley deficiency payment is always made as soon as practicable after the end of the crop year, and the total payment to the farmers is not affected by the date of payment.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, why was notice not given that the Government intended to make the payment this year later than in any previous year? No notice was given to the farmers. Why was that not done? Was it purely for finance reasons; and, if so, what is the saving to the Government?
LORD ST. OSWALDNo, my Lords; it was as a result of the introduction of the premium system and the premium paid to barley growers according to the time of year at which they sell their crop. They are encouraged by this system to hold their crop so that there is provision throughout the year. That means that, whereas the returns for the deficiency payment claims were received from the merchants, the claims for the premium now have to be made by the farmers and checked against the merchants' accounts, and this is bound to take longer. I think that all farmers involved in barley growing were aware of that, and certainly there were numerous announcements and comments to this effect in the agricultural Press at the time.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHBut is that not introducing a note of great unfairness to the poorer of the farmers? In fact, the poorer farmers have already paid a premium of 9d. a hundredweight, because they were bound to sell in order to meet their commitments. That was all settled fifteen months ago. Why could they not have been paid out?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I think all I can say to the noble Viscount is that the barley incentive scheme, which caused this later date for making the final payment, was freely negotiated with the Farmers' Unions after the 1961 Annual Review. Moreover, both the unions and the growers were warned through the Press of the effect of this final date of payment; and, of course, the noble Viscount is as well aware as 725 I am that this is only part of the payment. They are given a large payment on account much earlier. It is the final "totting up" payment for which they have to wait.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHWhat payment has been made on account in regard to the acreage subsidy?
LORD ST. OSWALDI think I am right in saying that £6 10s. has so far been paid as an initial acreage payment.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI hear complaints from many farmers that they have not yet received anything at all for 1961–62.
LORD ST. OSWALDI certainly have had absolutely no complaint of that nature brought to me, but I will certainly look into it. If the noble Viscount will give me instances, I will naturally look into them.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it is the normal practice, at any rate in the agricultural industry, for interest to be charged on overdue accounts? Farmers usually have to pay interest, or forfeit a discount, if they are unable to pay their accounts at the appropriate time, and many of them use their deficiency payments—which, after all, may be in respect of barley which they have sold in the previous September or October—in order to do this. Would the noble Lord not agree that it is at least equitable, if the Treasury have been able to hold on to this money which eventually becomes due to the farmers, even though it is through no fault of their own that payment has been delayed, and as they have presumably been earning interest on it and putting it to good use, that some recompense for this delayed payment should be made to the farmers who have had to suffer?
LORD ST. OSWALDThe noble Lord is, of course, right in a certain example. Some saving was made by the Treasury as a result of this late payment. But in fact this factor in the premium system was known to farmers and was agreed by the National Farmers' Union, so I know the noble Lord is not suggesting it has come as a surprise to them; in 726 fact, nobody could seriously say it came as a surprise to them.
§ LORD WALSTONIn view of the fact that the noble Lord now tells me that some saving has been made, will he be good enough to answer my question and say what saving has been made?
LORD ST. OSWALDYes, my Lords, a saving of about £53,000 as against a total subsidy of £60 million on cereals.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHCould we know on exactly what date the acreage subsidy is going to be paid?
LORD ST. OSWALDI take it that the noble Viscount is speaking of the remaining acreage subsidy. I am afraid that I cannot give him an exact date. It will be very shortly. I am sorry not to be able to give the precise date.
§ LORD STONHAMCan I help the noble Lord? I sold some land in October. 1961, and the acreage subsidy on that land was paid this month. Is that not a little long?