Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990

HL Deb 05 July 1990 vol 520 cc2330-3

7.24 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 8th June be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Baroness said: My Lords. I beg to move that the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990, which was laid before the House on 8th June, be approved. This is one of two Statutory Instruments designed to amend the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme. As you may recall, the scheme itself was introduced in February of last year. You may therefore wonder why it is necessary to amend it so early in its life. The principal need for change arises from the EC farm structures package which was agreed by the Council of Ministers in December last year. At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to make some other changes which have been required by the European Commission, and also some which seem advisable in the light of experience.

The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme consists of two parts. Farmers can receive grant for investments in an approved programme called an improvement plan. Alternatively, they may elect to claim grant on individual investments under the non-plan side of the scheme. The most significant of the changes being made affect the system of improvement plans, and are embodied in the Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1990. That instrument is subject to the negative resolution procedure, and will not therefore be considered by your Lordships. The instrument before us today makes certain changes to the non-plan part of the scheme.

The first of these changes relates to what we call the "time and income test" of eligibility for grant on traditional buildings. This test must be met by the person running the business. In the past this person has had to spend at least half his or her time working on the agricultural part of of the farm business, and derive at least half his or her income from that source. The modified test allows time and income relating to certain non-agricultural activities (such as tourism and craft) to be taken into account for the purposes of the test. This will obviously benefit farmers who have diversified their on-farm activities.

Another change stems from the fact that the European Commission has required us to reduce the 30 per cent. grant rate for the replacement of heated glasshouses outside the less favoured areas in order to comply with the strict letter of EC legislation. Like other member states we are of course required to implement Community obligations. However, in view of the storm damage suffered by the glasshouse sector earlier this year, and realising the considerable difficulties facing those involved, we have decided to allow growers to benefit from the higher grant rate for as long as possible. The reduced rate of 25 per cent. will therefore not apply to claims received before 1st January 1991.

There are two further changes which are set out in the instrument. The first of these is purely to clarify the existing position regarding certain horticultural grants. The scheme offers grant for durable structures clad with plastic (or "polytunnels") and for heating systems in such structures. There has been some suggestion that mushroom houses clad with black plastic could thus qualify for grant. That is not the purpose of grant aid in this area, where a firm policy decision was taken to target aid at the glasshouse sector. The instrument therefore clarifies that aid for durable structures is confined to those being used as an alternative to glasshouses, and clad with transclucent plastic.

The final change relates to grant for traditional field boundaries. As part of this grant, aid is available for fencing to protect hedges until they are established. Earth banks serving as field boundaries are however also liable to damage until they have been consolidated by vegetation. The instrument therefore extends the grant to include protective fencing for banks as well as for hedges. Any of your Lordships familiar with the landscape in Devon and Cornwall will know that this will be particularly welcome in that part of the country. This change also applies to fencing protecting raised floodbanks in Scotland.

Your Lordships will have gathered that the instrument before us does not embody fundamental changes to the scheme. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to make such changes when the scheme has been running for only a relatively short period. However, the modified time and income test of eligibility, and the extension of grant for protective fencing, should enable more farmers to take advantage of the scheme which, I believe, with its emphasis on anti-pollution measures and enhancement of the environment, will continue to reflect the proper priorities for financial aid. I therefore commend the instrument to your Lordships.

Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 8th June be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Trumpington.)

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness for explaining the scheme. I say at the outset that we welcome the changes in the eligibility criteria and the target income requirements, as they should enable more farmers to qualify for grant aid. The changes with regard to pig grants affect only those with improvement plans, and seem likely to affect only a small minority of pig farmers. The majority of items that qualify for grant aid are likely to be of interest to pig farmers and can be operated as non-plan items.

The restrictions on beef production grants that are necessitated by changes to Community legislation may adversely affect some of the more intensively stocked livestock farms.

As the noble Baroness stated, the reduction in the rate of grant for glasshouses, was necessitated by changes in Community laws. We are particularly grateful that the 30 per cent. rate will continue until the end of 1990 as a result of the heavy storm damage in the earlier part of this year. We consider, however, that the rate should be set at the maximum, which is 26.5 per cent., instead of 25 per cent. It is undoubtedly true that horticulture in this country is suffering from intense competition from other Community states.

We welcome the extension of grant aid to fencing for field banks and flood banks, which will be of environmental advantage in Devon and Cornwall where such banks, on which trees and bushes grow, are often used as field boundaries.

We are somewhat disappointed that the Government did not accede to other requests made by the National Farmers' Union, for example, and in particular to installation grants for new entrants into farming and the extension of grant aid to other items that would greatly assist in the control of pollution.

In the United Kingdom new entrants are eligible only for a 25 per cent. enhancement of capital grants. Under Community legislation, installation grants could also be made available and would be particularly valuable to new entrants. We regard that matter as very important because agriculture is currently in a state of transition.

Grant aid is available for effluent disposal facilities but not for items such as roofing over yards, which would help to separate clean and dirty water and therefore enhance the efficiency of such facilities.

Having made those few points, I repeat that we support the order.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I should like to answer the point he made in regard to glasshouses. I have been very sympathetic to the glasshouse people in view of the damage that they have suffered.

I am informed that 26.5 per cent. would be inconsistent with other rates and would be very costly to administer.

If the noble Lord wishes me to give details of the changes that are being made to the pig restrictions, he only to nod his head and I shall write to him.

House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.