SUGAR BEET (RESEARCH AND EDUCATION)

HC Deb 02 May 1962 vol 658 cc1153-62

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Order, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 618), dated 26th March, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be annulled. Our purpose tonight is to obtain information from the Government about the Order, which is important, because it deals with research and education in the industry. The industry occupies an important place in our economy. I have looked at the official statistics and I understand that one-quarter of the sugar consumed in Britain is produced in this country. Sugar beet growing extends to about 400,000 acres, and approximately 36,000 farmers are engaged in growing it.

Sugar beet is a dual-purpose crop, providing a cash return and also feed for livestock. If I may weary the House for a short time, each acre of sugar beet produces 30 cwt. of sugar, 12 tons of leaves and crowns, 15 cwt. of plain sugar beet pulp and 10¾ cwt. of mollasses. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

Order. It is almost impossible to hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Peart

I do not wish to weary the House by repeating all I have said. I merely emphasise that the industry is an important one and provides a livelihood directly and indirectly for 36,000 of our farmers over approximately 400,000 acres.

The Order, which deals with the provision of research and education in the sugar beet industry, is, therefore, important. Its Explanatory Note gives the general purpose of the Order as providing for the assessment and collection of contributions in 1962 from the British Sugar Corporation Ltd. and growers of home grown beet". The purpose of this revenue is to provide over a period for a programme of research and education. Details are given in the Schedule to the Order of the various matters of research, which include plant breeding, variety trials, pests investigations, crop husbandry, and so on. There are numerous details affecting education to a total of£152,000.

The programme also provides, however, for a further stage in capital development. This development is now to be undertaken by the Rothamsted Experimental Station at a new field station at Broom's Barn, Higham, near Bury St. Edmunds. A total of£35,000 is included in the Schedule to the Order for capital development. I understand that disease and fertiliser experiments previously carried out by the Dunholme Field Station, in Lincolnshire, are to be carried out at Broom's Barn.

I should like to know why Rothamsted has been chosen. Many years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Rothamsted Experimental Station. I believe it to be one of the finest stations in the world. Every hon Member connected with agriculture, even indirectly, should visit it. I should like to know the reason for the change and what is happening to Dunholme Field Station. Obviously, there are policy reasons for this change.

There will be a transfer of manpower. What about the scientists who have been engaged on important work in the Dunholme Field Station? What is the need for this change? There may, of course, be a scientific reason for it. Rothamsted is a wonderful centre, and I pay tribute to the work it has done and perhaps from the point of view of scientific research it is considered that it would be better to carry it out in this main centre.

The Minister is making this Order under powers conferred by Section 18 of the Sugar Act, 1956. It is laid down in that Act that there must be consultation with the British Sugar Corporation Ltd. and representatives of growers of home-grown beet. It is laid down that there must be consultation between those two bodies. Has there been proper consultation? At what level has this consultation taken place? Has this consultation involved purely the financial aspects of this Order, or has it included the scientific policy behind it?

In all our legislation we have laid down that consultation must take place between the Corporation and the growers, and this is a happy marriage. I will not weary the House with the details, except to point out that Section 18 of the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1936, and Section 6 of the wartime Sugar Industry Act, 1942, clearly lay down that there must be this consultation. In other words, there must be a combined effort between the Corporation, the producers and, of course, the Ministry, which is responsible for preparing the Order. What consultation has taken place, and at What level?

It may be that we are creating a precedent by praying against this Order, but these are matters affecting an important industry. The Order affects scientific policy. It also affects the manpower engaged in research. For these reasons, therefore, we should be given the information for which I have asked.

Paragraph 4 (1) of the Order deals with contracts, and says: All contracts made between the Corporation and any grower for the sale of homegrown beet for delivery to the Corporation during the year beginning on the first day of April, 1962, shall specify the aforesaid rate of contribution and provide that the total amount of the contribution shall be payable by the grower to the Corporation out of any sums standing to the credit of that grower and so on. I will not weary the House with the details, but here again we are dealing with contracts made between the growers and the Corporation which in the end will affect the revenue for essential research required by the industry. I should therefore like to know what consultation has taken place about contracts.

I omitted any reference to paragraph 3, which merely confirms what is laid down in Section 18 of the 1956 Act, to which I referred. This Order merely confirms the provisions laid down in that legislation.

I am in no way criticising the work of the British Sugar Corporation. It is an excellent institution and has done a good job for the producers and the growers. I want this happy partnership to continue. Hon. Members on this side of the House are very pleased that not only under the Order but under previous legislation part of the revenue collected, by whatever means, is to be devoted to both fundamental and applied research into the various aspects of the sugar growing industry. Anything which encourages more home production is a good thing. This point will be argued at a later stage in our Parliamentary life, when we discuss the Common Market. I fully support anything which improves home production, if it is in the interests of our country.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to supply the information for which I have asked.

10.21 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bonrke (Isle of Ely)

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has referred to the major item of expenditure of£38,462 arising in respect of disease investigation at Rothamsted. I do not want to deal with that point, beyond endorsing what he said by referring to the latest Report of the Agricultural Research Council, which points out that In 1959 it was estimated that the average yield of sugar beet was increased by 25 per cent. as a result of spraying to control aphids carrying 'yellows'. The Institute at Rothamsted has done excellent work, and we would be unwise in any way to attempt to curtail expenditure by that station, and especially the Plant Pathology Division.

I wish to raise the question of plant breeding. Under Item A.1 (a) Research, an expenditure of£14,372 is shown for the Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge. It is becoming increasingly difficult to discover exactly where the finances of these bodies come from. A document called Agricultural Research Fund Accounts, 1960–61—House of Commons Paper No. 63—published on 23rd January this year, states that the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge received a maintenance grant of£88,406 under Subhead C, and capital grants of£4,725 under Subhead H, making a total of£93,131. We see that under the Order the amount to be allocated in respect of sugar beet research will be£14,372. There is no way of telling whether the sum of£93,131 includes the£14,372. It is almost impossible to discover this from the Annual Report of the Agricultural Research Council.

Strangely enough, this is the first year in which the Report has been presented in a slightly different form. After all, the Agricultural Research Council is largely responsible for what goes on at Rothamsted but one can hardly discover what is the amount devoted to any particular type of research. All that one can get from the 1959–60 accounts is that current expenditure on research institutes and units of the Council amounts to£1,147,217 and capital expenditure to£169,719. It is impossible to find out anywhere else in the Report how much has been spent on any particular type of research.

Now we come to the latest Report of the Council where even these figures have been eliminated on the ground that each branch of agricultural research publishes so many reports periodically, which give accounts of the work in much greater detail, that it has been decided to limit the Report to what is almost a cursory review of the general picture. We are all anxious to safeguard the money of the taxpayer and to prevent expenditure which has not been properly examined. Yet when one tries to find out what is the expenditure, despite these copious reports made year by year, it is practically impossible to discover how much money is being spent and from where it is obtained.

The Council spends about£6 million a year which I consider is money well spent. The fact that only£14,372 is spent on sugar beet may prompt us to ask whether that is enough. I hope that my hon. Friend may clarify our minds on this matter. I hope that he will not regard what I have said as carping criticism, because it is not. I am genuinely anxious to ensure that more attention is drawn to the excellent work done on agricultural research particularly in connection with sugar beet.

For a number of years, including the lean years between the wars, growers in my constituency have relied on the sugar beet crops for a great proportion of their income. Had it not been for the Sugar Beet Act I do not know what might have happened. There are, of course, serious diseases and viruses which affect the crops, of which eel worm is a major factor. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that these matters are receiving the attention they deserve and that the amounts spent approximate to what is required.

10.28 p.m.

Sir James Duncan (South Angus)

I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on raising this matter. His action has called attention to something which otherwise we might have passed over in silence. The Order refers to various aspects of the agricultural problems in Scotland and the problems created by the diseases of virus yellows and eel worm which are fairly well understood in Scotland.

There are other problems arising out of the Price Review. For the first time the Review has stated that in future the price may well be determined by the sugar content of the beet instead of the tonnage. All the advice from the Sugar Corporation factory at Cupar, Fife, in the past has been devoted to tonnage rather than sugar content. But now, for the first time, there is something new. I do not see any evidence of research, at any rate in Scotland, specifically into the question of increasing the sugar content of sugar beet rather than the tonnage. I would ask my hon. Friend to tell us when replying what research is being done into the growing of plants which will be higher in sugar content even if the yield is less in the future than it has been in the past.

There is one point in the Explanatory Note on which I should like an answer. It is that the British Sugar Corporation and the growers will be subject to this new levy after 1st April, 1962. But long before that date we have in the past signed contracts at a fixed price for sugar to be delivered to the factory during 1962. Is this to be an alteration of the contract by Statute or is it not? I should have thought that if we are going to amend these things we should at least be given a year's notice so that we may know that there has been an increase from 2d. to 3d. in the deduction made for research purposes.

I do not object to the Order in the least, but I just want to understand what we sugar beet growers—and I declare an interest—are to be faced with in the future and what help we are to get from the additional expense which is going to arise, particularly in view of the statement in the Price Review that in the future we are to be paid more on the sugar content than on tonnage. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy me on those two points.

10.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane)

I believe that this is the first time in the twenty or so years of the existence of this fund that it has been discussed in the House. I think it is a good thing that it should be discussed, not least because it gives us an opportunity of paying tribute to a very good record achieved by this industry on many sides and not least in this question of research, a practical approach to the value of research and a willingness to pay for it.

The record, as I say, is most successful and it covers diseases and sugar content. There are a number of research stations concerned in this, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), not least Rothamsted, the Imperial College of Science and Technology and Nottingham University. By and large, the general problems concerned with sugar beet are really the same—not all—whether it is grown north or south of the Border. Of course, by far the greater part of our sugar beat acreage in Great Britain is south of the Border.

We are also concerned with diseases of sugar beet and with engineering questions, which have not been mentioned, because the harvesting of beet is important in keeping down costs, and also with the question of fertilisation. Throughout all the years the industry has taken the initiative and co-operated very closely with national research institutes, and particularly Rothamsted, which has played a remarkable part.

The Order which we are discussing is in the same general form as previous years, and the levy of 3d. per ton which is to be paid by both growers and processors is exactly the same as last year. I am not sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that. The work done by these various research institutes and by the industry itself has been remarkably free from criticism both inside and outside the industry, and in many ways I think it could serve as a model of what could be done in other fields.

The question of the yield of sugar beet has been mentioned. The yield showed a remarkable increase over recent years. I think that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure which covered quite a short period. Between 1942 and 1961 the average yield of beet per acre—that is, the total yield not the sugar content—as a result of improved varieties and better methods of husbandry went up from 9.4 to 134 tons. That is a very considerable rise.

Virus yellows, which perhaps is the principal menace, has also been mentioned by several hon. Members. I am glad to say that as a result of the work of the research institutes, it is much less of a menace and the methods of control have been getting better. It has been estimated that a bad attack could cost us up to 1 million tons of the crop.

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked me several questions and I shall do my best to answer them. First, why are we leaving this out-station at Rothamsted and moving to Broom's Barn? There are two reasons. First, the Air Ministry are the owners of the Dunholme Station and might well want it back. Broom's Barn will be a permanent station and will give more opportunity for research without interruption on a bigger scale and it is in a good area. In regard to the scientists, I cannot guarantee that every single man at Rothamsted will be re-employed, but the great majority will.

The hon. Member asked what main lines of research are to be carried on at Broom's Barn. Broom's Barn will be mainly concerned with sugar beet. Many of these stations do research on a whole number of different crops and problems. I admit that it is difficult to break down the various figures we get in the reports as among different problems and it may be that some of the work is important in more than one field, but Broom's Barn intends to concentrate on sugar beet problems. We hope that this is the last time it will appear in the schedule as a big capital sum in connection with building. My right hon. Friend hopes that the station will be fully open before the end of the year.

The hon. Member also spoke about consultation. There are statutory obligations on my right hon. Friend. Before framing the research programme and laying an Order, my right hon. Friend, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, is bound to consult, in the words of the 1956 Sugar Act: any body which in his opinion is substantially representative of growers of home-grown sugar beet. Since 1942 this consultative body has been known as the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee and it is under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Greenwell. It has worked extremely well over the years. Growers' contracts are negotiated between the National Farmers' Union and the British Sugar Growers Association and they are always shown to my right hon. Friend before they are put into circulation. There is reference to this in the 1960 White Paper.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely asked about increases in yield. I have referred already to that and have echoed what he said. He asked about the item of£14,000 going to the plant breeding station at Cambridge. I can assure him that all the items in the Schedule are in fact financed by the levy for which we are seeking authority tonight. Others are financed in other directions. If I have not answered exactly the point made by my hon. Friend I am sorry, and perhaps if he has a word with me later I may be able to find the further detail for which he wishes.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) asked about research in Scotland and about eel worm. Generally it is true to say that research concerning sugar beet in Great Britain does not break down into quite separate lines of research appropriate to the country north or south of the Border. He spoke about contracts which had already been entered into being, apparently, breached because of the effect of the levy. I think that I answered his point. The levy we are asking the House to approve tonight is exactly the same figure as last year, and, therefore, there ought to be no change.

I hope that I have been able to show that this Order, which is one of a long series, does not depart in any material way from its predecessors. It reflects, in fact, a remarkable record of research within the industry. I feel sure, therefore, that the hon. Member for Workington will not press his Prayer but will ask leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Peart

I think that we have had a good reply. The Minister has gone into the details which we raised. In view of what he has said, I have pleasure in doing what he suggests. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.