HC Deb 14 February 1968 vol 758 cc1348-50

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HAZELL

To ask the Minister of Labour what reply he has given to the request from the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board for assistance towards its second year costs.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will answer Written Question No. 106 [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The interchange is over.

Mr. Hattersley

Following discussions with representatives of the Board and of the employers' and workers' unions, the Government has recognised that the foot-and-mouth outbreak has caused widespread disruption to the Board's operations just at the time when the first levy was to be raised.

My right hon. Friend has, therefore, undertaken to continue the assistance given to the Board during its first year until the end of March by making a special grant of up to £450,000. This is on the condition, which the Board has accepted, that it covers the remainder of its second year costs with a levy of £3 per regular full-time worker, and an amended levy Order will be laid before the House shortly.

Mr. Hazell

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful approach to this problem, which we appreciate. Can he inform the House whether it is the intention of the Board to adhere to the training programme at its original level despite the reduction in the levy?

Mr. Hattersley

The net effect of the grant alteration is that the training programme for this year will be able to continue and the cost to the farmer will be about 50 per cent. of what it would have been had the grant not been made.

Mr. Godber

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has made is very much in line with the proposal I made in the recent debate, and that I welcome it? Is he also aware that I hope the industry will consider it a fair solution of the difficult problem with which it is confronted and that, provided the Board will make use of the time so gained, it may make a realistic assessment in agreement with the industry of the sort of programme which is needed for this important industry? It is absolutely essential that the Board works with the full support of and full co-operation with the industry.

Mr. Hattersley

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the success and the future of the Board. As to whose idea this was in the first place, I am sure that no one wants to compete for an idea which we all agree will be of great help to the industry.

Mr. John Wells

Did the hon. Gentleman give notice to my hon. Friends, who raised this matter a fortnight ago, that he would seek leave to bring forward the Answer to this Question today? It is most inconvenient. Will he bear in mind that the great hulk of the farming community, is still dissatisfied? While the farming community recognises that it is better than nothing, during the intervening months will he ask the board positively to think about the long-term future with a view to formulating entirely new policies?

Mr. Hattersley

As to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I understood that the Prayer was in his name and I told him that a statement would be made and a decision was arrived at today. Whether he notified his hon. Friends I do not know, but he knew it. Clearly, the Board must work in such a way as is acceptable to the industry, though that may involve changes of attitude in some parts of the industry itself. I agree that the future of the Board rests on a happy working arrangement between the Board and the industry.

Mr. Hawkins

Does not the Minister realise that the main objection to this Board is not the amount of levy, but the 'act that a new Board is to be super-imposed on training establishments which are very well thought of by the farming Industry and that this will be merely another bureaucratic set-up above all those boards?

Mr. Hattersley

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) does not take that view. If the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) reads the debates which have taken place about the existing Order he will see that it is the intention of the Board to work hand in hand with existing institutions and to promote their work.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the point as to how far the Government contribution goes? Does it go to the March this year or next year? Will he take it from me that the industry will be disappointed that he has not decided to cancel the levy entirely for the year to come and by Government funds take over the whole burden, as should have been done?

Mr. Hattersley

The grant goes to March, 1968. Whether the industry will share the hon. Member's views about training in this sector I doubt. I think that the industry will consider it fair and sensible.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

What benefit will there be for the workers in Scotland?

Mr. Hattersley

Workers in Scotland will benefit in very much the same way as workers throughout the United Kingdom. This proposal will give them an opportunity for increased and enhanced training which will bring the prospects of more efficient working and greater remuneration into the industry.

Sir J. Rodgers

The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to have the closest cooperation between the Board and the industry. Does he realise that the industry does not want this scheme?

Mr. Hattersley

I certainly am not aware of that. As I told the House a fortnight ago, the Board was set up at the express wish of the industry. [HON.MEMBERS:" No."]The industry approached my right hon. Friend and asked that a board should be set up for agriculture.