asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why a tower crop-store receives under the Farm Improvement Scheme a one-third grant which may amount to upwards of £1,000 if intended for grain storage but only a silo subsidy of £250 if intended to be used for silage and haylage.

The Farm Improvement Scheme covers a wide range of longterm improvements and grants under the scheme are at a uniform rate of one-third of the cost. The Silo Subsidy Scheme is designed to encourage the making of silage especially on small farms. There is a maximum limit to the grant under this scheme and the rate of grant may in practice be more or less than one-third of the cost according to the size of the silo.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he not aware that in general the farmer has to make the choice, and does he not think that this discourages the proper use of grassland?

I would not accept that, because the silo subsidy has worked so well that the silage of grass made this year is up by 200 per cent. since the grant came into operation in 1956.

In view of the fact that it is declared Government policy to ensure that public money goes only to those who can prove their need for it, what steps are taken to apply a means test to farmers to see whether they are really in need of this kind of subsidy?

The answer to that is that no means test is applied to the operation of the subsidy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions are placed on the change of use of a building which has been erected with the help of a farm improvement grant for a specified purpose.

None, Sir. We have to be satisfied that the improvement will fulfil the statutory conditions, but the actual use is for the farmer himself to decide.

Does my hon. Friend mean that if a farmer puts up a building and obtains a grant and then uses it for something else, nothing whatever is done? Does not that make absolute nonsense of getting approval beforehand?

While I would strongly deprecate the behaviour of any farmer if he deliberately and knowingly misstated his intentions about the grant, there is no evidence that this is happening. So swiftly are the systems of farming husbandry changing that it would be most inadvisable to restrict the use of a building to the use for which it was grant-aided.