HC Deb 29 January 1968 vol 757 cc1034-51

10.46 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I beg to move: That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 1747), dated 23rd November 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be annulled. I do not intend to divide the House on this Motion because, with the large Government majority, nothing would be achieved by voting. I hope, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise the extreme hostility there is to this Order. Even at this late stage, I hope that if it is not withdrawn tonight there will be further discussions with the National Farmers' Union and a real examination made of the measure.

In 1964, the N.F.U. labour committee examined the future manning of the agricultural industry and produced some sensible tentative suggestions that some sort of board should be set up under the Industrial Training Act. The committee, quite rightly, had been trying to encourage apprenticeship. In farming there is an intake of only about 3 per cent, by way of apprenticeship compared with 25 per cent, in other industries. Consequently, the existing members of N.F.U. apprenticeship committees became a sort of specialist enthusiastic elite. County branches of the N.F.U. were consulted as no one knew what the proposals were, but consultation was of a most perfunctory nature—I can speak of this for my own county.

It was decided to establish some sort of board, but at no point was the farmer in the field consulted about the Board that has been forced on him. The ordinary farmer is worried by the composition of the Board. The nine employers' members, who are enthusiastic anyway, can be outvoted by the nine workers' and six educational representatives, who are seen to be complete theorists and also as empire builders.

The Board should be seen against the background of the total labour force in farming. This has declined rapidly in recent years. In June, 1965, it was 450,500 compared with 771,700 in 1945. The bulk of the wastage is in the age groups between 20 and 50. Below the age of 20 agricultural wages are still attractive, and over 50 it is difficult for a man to change his way of life. Consequently, if farming is to have a stable modern labour force, they must be properly trained, but when they are trained they must be able to be paid a sufficient wage to help keep them in the industry.

It is absurd to ask farmers to pay £6 a head for every man they have in order to train men to go and become motor mechanics in the local town. Training is needed, but let it be realistic and not just another piece of bureaucratic nonsense run by theorists. The statistics of education for 1965 tell us that there were then 8,991 full-time students and about a further 6,000 on day release, giving a total of over 15,000 persons enjoying an agricultural education. The Pilkington Report shows that a year earlier about a quarter of those recruited to the industry had some sort of vocational training.

From these figures it will be seen that the existing county farm institutes do a good job. Why not let these county institutes continue but add some technical training, as opposed to pure education? The county institutes are now by no means full, and new training courses could easily be organised by a more modest board. Commercial concerns such as tractor and chemical manufacturers often offer extremely good practical courses which supplement the more theoretical institute courses.

The overbearing cost of the Board is the greatest complaint of the ordinary farmer. Why was not a more modest pilot scheme such as has been mentioned for East Anglia put up in the first place? I realise that the East Anglian scheme is not regarded by the Board as a pilot scheme but as something more thorough still than the main scheme. Is it too late even now to have a pilot scheme until the concept is better understood?

Turning now to part-time workers, the Board's questionnaire about part-time workers was both confusing and alarming to many, especially to horticultural growers. The fact that the Board has made no levy this year on part-time workers gives no comfort for the future. On this point I should be glad to have a categorical assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Many special categories of employer can never get any benefit from the scheme and should be exempt. I have in mind those in remote areas and certain highly specialist horticultural producers, such as watercress and mushroom growers. Horticulturists are particularly hostile to the Order. Let me give a brief example. In the same county—Lincolnshire—two men farm similar acreages. One man grows bulbs and will have to pay a levy of about £1,000 and will get virtually no benefit, whereas his neighbour and friend who is a mixed and arable farmer will pay £60 a year and get some benefits. I give another example of the horticulturist's problem: in the Lea Valley about 75 per cent, of the horticultural labour force speak no English. It is absolutely absurd that these people should be assessed for levy. Apart from the residence of the Prime Minister, what is the position of the Isles of Scilly?

I was minded to say something about the absurdity of the Y.M.C.A. episode, but the shortage of time makes me skip that. I would merely say that, if the Board had treated the Y.M.C.A. episode as a publicity venture, it would have been more useful and more rewarding than the absurd hand-outs at great cost that come from the Board's publicity consultants. This firm of consultants costs the farmers good money to dish out these hand-outs. One would imagine that the hand-outs should be perfect, but one has come into my hands which is riddled with mistakes. These people who are being hired at considerable cost should be accurate.

Again, the farmer in the field is extremely hostile to the costly appearance of the Board's publications. Many farmers are horrified at the £6 levy. On top of that, they see on pages 2 and 3 of the Board's second bulletin the head-line, "This is only the start". This sort of promise of worse things to come is not likely to encourage farmers to pay promptly.

There is little doubt that there will be many slow payers. If through non-payment the Board becomes insolvent, will the Government wind it up; or, alternatively, will they put it on to the shoulders of the general taxpayer? It is noticeable that the fines for non-payment of the levy are very high—£100 for the first offence and £200 for second and subsequent offences. I realise that these were fines provided in the parent Act; suitable no doubt for great industrial concerns, but a very different kettle of fish for a small farmer.

Although the N.F.U. and the Board have, I understand, asked the Government for finance for a second year, I hope that the Government will resist this and not waste the taxpayer's money on a grandiose scheme which is unwanted by the bulk of the farming industry. If any general finance is to be provided by the Government, might it not be better for it to come out of Price Review moneys? This would clearly help the Board by saving it chasing slow and unwilling payers. It would help those sections of the industry such as horticulture which gets little from the Board and fears that it may pay much. It would remove from the Board the moral responsibility of providing odd special courses because special producers had been forced to pay the levy. The small farmer who employs one man or even two men cannot spare them for part-time training. These people are the backbone of British farming, and many view them as the backbone of Britain. Why should they have to pay £6 a year, and maybe more in the future——

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

If my hon. Friend will allow me, he mentioned a sum of £6 a year. I hope he realises that the £6 referred to in this Order finishes in August, 1968.

Mr. Wells

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think I said they would have to pay £6 and more in the future.

Why should these people have to help their larger neighbours to some thoroughly nebulous advantage? If the Government are unwilling to reconsider the finance, then the levy should be reduced. All farms with less than three men should be exempt and the activities of the Board cut down to fulfil a real need.

The Board is currently trying to get some emotional support for offering special training in foot and mouth areas. I shall be glad to know just what training would be relevant in dairying Cheshire or some steep stock rearing areas. Farmers who have spoken to me about this scheme are not impressed.

I have heard the unacceptable and pathetic excuse that the Board has been unable to "sell" itself owing to cancellation of farmers' meetings because of foot and mouth disease. The Board will never sell itself to the ordinary farmer. It should give up its grandiose plans and come down to earth. The parent Act may be good for industry, but it is unsuitable for agriculture. Any training in agriculture with its vast number of small employers should be tailor made to their requirements, and not come in such a badly fitting ready made suit.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot amend the parent Act on this Order.

Mr. Wells

I am grateful for your help, Mr. Speaker.

What I would seek is that this Order be rejected and that new legislation be introduced if need be to cover a more suitable scheme for agriculture.

I have just been handed this telegram addressed to me, which reads: Reported that Welsh farmers union have rejected officially the Agricultural Training Board. I have unfortunately not yet been able to check this statement, but if it is true I have little doubt that Wales is only leading the way for England.

I therefore oppose the Order and, although I cannot vote against it, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider it most urgently.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell (Norfolk, North)

I very much regret that the Opposition seek to annul this Order. The Agricultural Training Board has been established just over 12 months, on the joint application of the National Farmers' Union and the workers' organisations. Indeed, the National Farmers' Union was very much to the forefront in taking the initiative in discussions with the workers' unions for the purpose of creating some such board.

As has already been said by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), prior to the establishment of the Board there was within the industry an agricultural apprenticeship scheme. This was on a voluntary basis, and, as a consequence, the scheme never really got off the ground. It is true that in some counties a number of young lads did become apprentices, but, in the main arable belts very few lads took advantage of the scheme. Nor were they encouraged so to do by their employers. An analysis of the figures for those who have entered the scheme shows that most of them came from the towns and cities, and many of them, after taking their apprenticeship, did not stay in the industry.

The farming community has for a long time recognised the need for an adequate and more efficient training system for the young in particular and for workers on the land in general. Less than 20 per cent, of young entrants into agriculture undergo any form of training. Agriculture itself has undergone radical changes in recent years. This emphasises the need for all workers, except, perhaps, the most elderly, to have some form of instruction. Adequate training can and will have the effect of creating higher productivity, reducing the maintenance costs for farm machinery and equipment, reducing the accident rate, which is substantially higher in agriculture than in many other industries, and giving the worker a greater and better appreciation of the nature and purpose of the work which he has in hand.

Sixteen thousand new young entrants enter agriculture each year. It is estimated that of these 10,000 boys and about 2,000 girls stay put. But it is unlikely, according to the figures, that more than 10 per cent, of these receive any formal training. In the agriculture industry, therefore, we recognise that training is essential. Moreover, as the future pattern will see—as it has in recent years—a diminishing labour force in the industry, it is more than ever essential that those who are retained are highly skilled personnel.

The Board was not foisted on the industry. It was amply discussed at county and national level. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Publicity was produced extensively through the Press, the farming journals and the radio, and, when application was made to the Minister of Labour for approval of the proposals, again substantial publicity was given to it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot on this Order discuss the fact that the Board exists. We are discussing a levy to help the purposes for which it exists.

Mr. Hazell

But, with respect, Mr. Speaker, the functions of the Board in the future will depend on its ability to raise the necessary money, and it is to that that I am addressing my argument. Hon. Members opposite have said that the Board did not receive publicity. 1 cannot do better than quote from today's Daily Mail. In reply to a suggestion that there should have been a ballot taken by the National Farmers' Union and the further suggestion that when a farmer receives his demand for the levy of £6 a worker he should post it to the secretary of his N.F.U. branch, stating that he never associated himself with the scheme the N.F.U. is reported as stating: The Union received an overwhelming man date from county branches for the principle of establishing a board"——

Hon. Members

Nonsense.

Mr. Hazell

— Members were informed through the union ournal in July 1966"—

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. With all the good will in the world, the hon. Gentleman cannot give way to four hon. Members. He has not even said that he is giving way to one yet.

Mr. Hazell

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The report states: Members were informed through the union journal in July 1966, when full details of board activities and forecasts of levies were published. Not a murmur of dissent was received from the present objectors". That appeared in today's Daily Mail.

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

Has the hon. Gentleman read this morning's Eastern Daily Press, in which it is reported that the Norfolk branch of the N.F.U. has unanimously come out against the Training Board?

Mr. Hazell

I have read what the Norfolk branch has said, but I have just quoted what appeared officially on behalf of the N.F.U. in this morning's Daily Mail.

The Board has not been able to get on with its campaign because of foot-and-mouth disease. But now that the disease is fading—and we hope that it will soon disappear—there is a definite assurance that the Board will start its active campaign of informing farmers and others concerned of its needs, plans and policies, and will at the same time express to farmers' organisations the purposes of the levy and how it is being used.

When the Board decided on the basis of a levy it originally decided that it would apply in respect of paid employees. Subsequently the Board retracted over part-time labour. I am sorry that it did; perhaps the over-all levy might not have been quite so high. All decisions about staffing, organisation and amount of levy were taken jointly by the N.F.U. and the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and at each stage the N.F.U. representatives, like my own union representatives, consulted their parent organisation. It is not correct to suggest that the N.F.U. was not fully acquainted of every step the Board has taken through its representatives on the Board.

The Board is required by Statute to make a budget and in its preparation the Board has made three sections. First, to estimate the cost of grants to farmers for training; second, the cost of the training the Board will have to undertake; and, third, the cost of the Board's administration. It has been estimated by the Board that half the money raised will return to farmers by way of grants to train their employees. A quarter will be for the purpose of supplementing, through the Board's national field officers, the training the farmers will be unable to undertake, and the other quarter will go in administration costs. When one realises that 100,000 files will have to be maintained and kept up to date, one sees that this will be no small problem for the Board. Money will be needed to bring its administration up to date and keep it up to date.

The essential point for young workers is to receive proper training to enable them to qualify for plus rates, because, side by side with the work of the Training Board, we are working out on the Agricultural Wages Board details of a wages structure. The main basis of payment under it will be qualification through adequate training, shown by the granting of a certificate through the Training Board.

I therefore hope that the rather loud, vociferous attitude adopted by what I believe to be a minority of fanners against the Board will soon subside, and that we shall see it carrying out its proper function of efficiently training skilled young men for the future of British agriculture.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

It is very unwise to bring the Order forward at present. The imposition of another levy on agricultural employers is another burden when this great industry is already carrying burdens that are far too heavy. The levy is bitterly resented by most farmers.

It is no good the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) saying what he did. He should visit the South-West to appreciate how strongly the farmers feel about it. It is not often that I criticise the National Farmers Union, but, frankly, I feel that it is out of step in what it has done at the national level. Its members are not with it on this, and this it will find out as the years go by.

The burden of legalised extractions from farm receipts is growing all the time. One has only to think of the amount that is taken from our milk, eggs, cereals and wool, for P.I.D.A., for the Hop Board and the Apple and Pear Council, and now a Meat Commission is coming along, to realise what a burden it is. Now we are to have the training levy. I believe that the Government have gone too far. I do not believe that many small farmers can bear the burden, and I think the time has come when farmers generally will say "No. No more." They cannot bear this burden very much longer, particularly the small farmers. When one looks into the levy and into what the Training Board has to offer, it is nonsense. Take a farmer at Chagford or Moretonhampstead, miles away from anywhere. What help can he possibly get from this? Yet he has to pay the levy.

The Board should be looked at very carefully. Every penny it spends must be checked before we pay the levy. Every item must be looked at. When one thinks of nearly £500,000 being spent on administration it is very sad. One can compare this cost of administration with that of other training boards. There are the training boards for the hotel and catering industry, the iron and steel industry and the engineering industry, and the last one, the largest of all, is paying out £70 million in training grants but spends only £1.3 million on its own payroll. The Agricultural Training Board does not compare with those. It shows how poorly it has been set up.

Mr. Neame's Board, with an estimated levy income of £1.7 million, expects to spend nearly half of it on its administration and advisory payroll and on the Board's own capital projects. This is not good enough. We must look at the Board very carefully before we pay the levy. I know the need for training in agriculture, but is the Board really necessary when we have the very adequate training schemes through our farm institutes and the day release arrangements? Surely these should be improved and encouraged.

Unless these problems are cleared up and unless there is co-operation with the industry, the Training Board will never really work. I ask the Government to look at this again very carefully before there is any thought of our paying the levy.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber (Grantham)

I rise only for two minutes, because I know how many hon. Members want to speak, but I felt that I must make two points to the Parliamentary Secretary.

First, I was the Minister responsible for introducing the Act under which the Agricultural Training Board was set up. I want to make it clear to the House that the Government of which I was a member looked on the Act primarily as one for dealing with industry generally. The Parliamentary Secretary will be well aware that Section 1(4) of the Act said that the Minister would have full consultations with any industry before setting up a board. It is permissive as to whether he sets up a board for an industry or not. But, as Mr. Speaker will remind me quickly, we are not discussing whether a board should be set up; we are discussing a levy Order under the Board.

I feel that I should make it clear that it was no initiative on our part that the Board for agriculture was set-up, but set-up it was, by the present Government, with the best intentions, and presumably the hon. Gentleman will tell us that this was done after consultation with both sides of the industry. Now we are dealing with what the Board is actually doing, and that is what is worrying my hon. Friends. Apparently, it is undertaking large scale work which means substantial imposts on farmers. What is worrying my hon. Friends is not so much the cost but that it would appear that the Board is duplicating work already done.

From my constituency, I have details of the extra-mural courses at the Agricultural College there which cover many things that the Board is seeking to do. No farmer wants to see things paid for twice over, particularly if he is having to foot the bill. The hon. Gentleman has a problem, and I suggest that the way to handle it is to get the Board—if he is prepared to withdraw the Order, as I hope he is—to spread the cost over a much longer period so that it will not apply merely to one year.

The hon. Gentleman should seriously consider withdrawing the Order and getting the Board to introduce a more modest scheme more in keeping with what the fanners want. Farmers and representatives of the farm workers are on the Board and it should be up to the representatives of the industry to make clear to the Board what they want in the form of training facilities. If they do, and the Board respond properly, there may well be functions for it to carry out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that aspect.

Mr. Speaker, we were not able to begin this debate until 10.46 p.m. and a large number of my hon. Friends are deeply concerned about how the Order may affect their constituents. By the allotted time, we shall not have had time to rehearse all the points properly, and I beg you, at 11.30, to use your discretion, for which there are precedents, to defer further consideration so that we can continue the debate another time.

My hon. Friends are genuinely concerned to represent the views of their constituents, and I am sure you wish them to have the opportunity to put their views. I ask you to rule on this point. I shall take no further time. I have expressed my view that the Act was right and that the question before us is whether the Board is acting in the best way for farmers. Many hon. Members here say that it is not. It is for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to justify it fully if he expects this Order to be approved by the House.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Hattersley.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the; Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley) rose——

11.19 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. M3' right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has drawn your attention to the fact that there has been very little time for this debate and that many of my hon. Friends still wish to take part. Once the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gets up we know that the debate is virtually finished. It is within your discretion to allow us further time.

May I draw your attention to the precedent established on 25th February, 1965, when you were Deputy Speaker? There was then a Prayer against a Statutory Instrument dealing with plant varieties. The debate began at 10.43 p.m. This debate began at 10.46 p.m. In your wisdom, when 11.30 came on that previous occasion, you said you were of opinion that the time for the debate had not been adequate and adjourned it. About the same number of hon. Members had spoken then as tonight. This is an exact parallel. We have not had sufficient time.

Mr. Speaker

It is embarrassing for the Chair to be overwhelmed by advice from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Hattersley

The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) rightly says that the Levy Order springs naturally from the existence of the Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Industrial Training Board. The Board itself springs equally naturally from the legislation which bears the right hon. Gentleman's name and for which he deserves a great deal of credit. I have always taken the view that one of the important things about that legislation was the welcome with which it was received by both sides of the House, and I am always happy to give credit to the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), who started it all with the Carr Report, for what they achieved.

The right hon. Gentleman said that any discussion of this levy order concerns an area of activity which his Government did not necessarily regard as appropriate for industrial training of this sort. But I have to remind him that his Government, as mine, had a series of criteria which they observed when they decided which industries should have training boards. Two of the criteria were the quality of training in the industry before the creation of a board and the desire of the industry that a board should be created.

I hope shortly to be able to say something about the facilities which were available for training in agriculture before the Board was set up. In the Board's view and in mine, they were in general inadequate. However, I want to begin by saying what was the attitude of the industry to the creation of a board when the Board was created in 1966.

On 13th April, 1965, the National Farmers' Union wrote specifically to my right hon. Friend asking that a board should be created under the terms of the 1964 Industrial Training Act. With all respect to hon. Members and to you, Mr. Speaker, we ought not to comment on, or make judgments about, the internal democracy of the National Farmers' Union. Its leadership put it to us that a Board was necessary. We accept it as the view of their union. It also put the point that many associated organisations, like the Scottish National Farmers' Union and the trade unions involved also wanted a board.

It was appropriate and inevitable that my right hon. Friend should respond to that request. It was inevitable that when he did so he should set up a board which would produce a levy and a levy Order which he or I could commend to the House in the knowledge that it was initially recommended by Board members who had practical knowledge of and practical experience in agriculture. I must express my personal regret that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) chose to speak as he did about individual members of the Board. I hope that none of the members of the employers' side are ever subject to more severe criticism than it being said that they are enthusiasts for their jobs. I would have thought that that was a qualification for being on the Board rather than a criticism. To say that they are people without practical experience of farming is, of course, absolute nonsense. As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the Chairman, to take only one example—although similar things could be said about all the members on the employers' side—is himself a substantial farmer with substantial farming experience.

Mr. John Wells

I did not say that the employer members had no practical experience. I was speaking of the theoretical educationists.

Mr. Hattersley

I shall come to that, but certainly the majority of the board, employers and employees, are people who know about agriculture, who have spent their lives in agriculture and who in my certain knowledge are respected in the industry. They were appointed to the Board only after close consultation with the National Farmers' Union, the Agricultural Workers' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union. Many of the attitudes which they represent and many of the things which they say about training are points of view to which, I am sure, the hon. Member for Maidstone would strongly subscribe.

For instance, they have publicly pointed out the importance of training being run by men of experience in the industry. They have said that their object is to ensure that training is run for practical reasons—to increase profitability and to increase productivity—and they have specifically said that they believe that the interests of the industry are best served if the training is run by people with practical knowledge rather than by people whom they choose to call—and I do not complain—"Whitehall bureaucrats". Having decided that they want to run it in this practical and material way, they need to make sure that they are able to receive sufficient finance to make that possible.

In the first year, they were helped in their administration costs by a payment from my right hon, Friend of about £300,000 for that purpose. In the second year, it became essential that the Board stood on its own feet in an industry in which I gladly concede it is particularly difficult to organise training. The hon. Gentleman knows better than I do that there are in the industry 330,000 employees, 140,000 establishments, 46,000 establishments with only one employee and 130,000 establishments with less than five workers. It was inconceivable that the Board could operate were it to exclude from its provisions the small farmers. If they were not in, virtually no one was in——

Hon. Members

Why?

Mr. Hattersley

If hon. Gentlemen will contain themselves I will tell them. It also makes it difficult for training to be organised, when farms are scattered throughout the country, when they are occasionally inaccessible and when the entire working year has to be geared to seasonal factors. Because of that the Board, rightly in my view, chose to organise in such a way that training was available in the county, locally, and run from local advisory committees, rather than from London.

That meant that the Board decided to appoint 47 training advisers—that number will be appointed by the end of February—to work in the country, giving practical advice to farmers, doing the job which needed to be done. The cost was very substantial. But their appointment was vitally necessary.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

Could the hon. Gentleman say whether either side, during the passage of the Industrial Training Act, ever envisaged that 25 per cent, of the levy should be on administration? Would he, therefore, say whether he thinks that that degree is correct at this time?

Mr. Hattersley

There is a very bogus distinction drawn between administration and other costs.

The Board is required to administer training in the industry, which as I have told the House, proves particularly difficult, because of the size and number of its establishments.

Mr. Michael Noble (Argyll)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that he is pressed for time. He said that the training should be involved in the immediate areas. There is no possibility of training in some areas in my constituency, and in many other areas of Scotland.

Mr. Hattersley

I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the view of the Board—a Board specifically appointed to give that sort of advice. It does not believe that there is any area of its responsibility for which training is inappropriate. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman or some of the farms that he knows do not train according to the specifications of the Board. If they did they would be eligible for the grant.

The hon. Member for Maidstone talked about the emotional support that the Board had tried to rouse because of its emergency training to meet the foot-and-mouth epidemic. I pass on from that in the belief that he will regret what he said when he reads it in HANSARD tomorrow. What is certainly true is that the courses of training appreciation and meetings to encourage the acceptance of training, indeed the entire training programme mounted by the Board this year, has been held back and minimised because of the foot-and-mouth epidemic.

I will give two examples. Of the 50 appreciation courses, 44 were concelled, and of the 37 public meetings planned to take place to talk about training 23 were cancelled. Under those circumstances it was absolutely inevitable and it is proper that I should make plain now that the Board and the N.F.U. had come to my right hon. Friend and asked him that the grants for administration expenses, which are normally only paid for a single year, should be carried on into the Board's second year.

I have to make it clear that my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture are at this moment considering the Board's application that some specific financial assistance should be given which would enable, for a temporary period, the levy to be reduced from the £6 figure. It is impossible for me to give any indication to the House this evening of how the application would be treated, but I ought to make it clear that a request has been made. While that request is under consideration the Board must continue to exist, because it is in the interests of the industry, and it can only continue if it is financed by levy. It must be financed by the Levy Order which I commend to the House now.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior (Lowestoft)

In the very short time that is left, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, in view of the remarks that he has made in the last sentences of his speech, he has not thought fit to withdraw the Order. After all, he has now left us in the worst of both possible worlds, because he has in many respects, conceded the case——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER, being of opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the Motion was entered upon, the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, and the debate stood adjourned till tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &c, (procedure)).