HC Deb 31 January 1968 vol 757 cc1492-513

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29th January]: 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.—[Mr. Joint Wills.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker

Apparently the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who was addressing the House on the last occasion, is not here.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

I want to exhort the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to tell us at the close of this debate that he will be withdrawing the Order which the Prayer seeks to annul and not to give an undertaking that he will kill it for all time. There are two overriding reasons for this. The first is the inadequacy of the discussion which has taken place. I do not want to attribute blame to any-body or to enter into a discussion on the authenticity of the excuses given concerning foot-and-mouth. However, the fact that the Training Board thought it necessary to write to us making excuses for not having adequate discussion surely substantiates the case that adequate discussion has not taken place.

The second ground on which I press the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the Order is that unless he is prepared to tell us tonight what will be in the Annual Price Review we are unable to judge what the financial effect will be on the agriculture industry. The Minister his impaled himself on one of two horns of a dilemma. If he says that the Price Review will recoup the agricultural Community for the extra costs which will be put on them by this Measure, why do it in that way? Why not cut out all the administration of assessing and collecting the levy and then repaying it and making additional payments in the Price Review just by the Government paying the cost of these proposals?

On the other hand. if the Government do not intend that this money should be recouped in the Price Review, let them say so clearly so that the House can work on the assumption that this Measure will increase the under-recoupment of the agricultural industry. But it is wrong that the House should be left in doubt as to whether this is yet another burden to fall on the agricultural Community.

The Chairman of the Devon branch of the N.F.U., the largest branch in the United Kingdom, is very concerned about what the effect of this Order may be on the proficiency testing scheme run by the Young Farmers' Clubs. There is a considerable body of opinion which thinks that any extra money which the Government can make available for purposes of this kind would be better channelled through the Young Farmers' Clubs into the existing proficiency-testing scheme to expand it rather than be channelled into this rather novel body—novel in the sense that it proposes to consume such a large Proportion of the money it raises in winding its own clock.

Although there are many other points which I should like to make, I will stop so that my hon. Friends can speak.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon)

It seems clear that the Order should be rejected, for two main reasons. First, the amount of the levy proposed represents an undue burden on farmers. Secondly, it cannot conceivably be necessary.

The Parliamentary Secretary comes from the Ministry of Labour and not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I am not sure whether he knows exactly the bureaucratic burden financially which is put on farmers today. It is possible for a farmer with 500 acres or less to be levied to the extent of many hundreds of £s to maintain marketing bodies and other institutions, the results of many of which individual farmers feel fall far short of value for the money that they pay. This levy represents one additional burden.

I am aware that it has been suggested that the National Executive of the National Farmers Union supports it. That may be. Large bureaucratic institutions like the headquarters of the N.F.U. generally support the proposals of other large bureaucratic institutions. All the committee men get together and vote for the committee of another board. But it is not the view of individual farmers and most of the county branches, and the amount of consultation that has taken place has neither been adequate nor suggested that farmers generally are in favour of the scheme.

It is clear that an undue Proportion of the cost of this manoeuvre will go on administration. The most significant and alarming feature came when the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) said that we had to have a levy of £6 a head because this Board would maintain 100,000 files. That is the reason for having an Industrial Training Board and a levy. It is a very good bureaucratic reason, but it is not one which appeals to farmers.

Mr. Bert Hazell (Norfolk, North)

In making the Statement that I did, I made it clear that, of the levy to be imposed, 50 per cent. would be returned to farmers as direct grants for the training of their employees, another 25 per cent. would go towards the salaries of local and national field training officers who would fill in the gaps of training where it was impossible for a farmer to supply it on his own holding, and only 25 per cent——

Mr. Maude rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Maude rose—

Mr. Hazell

Only 25 per cent. of the levy——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I under-stood the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) to have given way. His giving way permits of a short interjection by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), but not a lengthy one.

Mr. Hazell

Only 25 per cent. on administration costs.

Mr. Maude

There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to make his speech again. I heard it on Monday, and I took an opportunity to read it again this morning. The one serious argument which he adduced for the Provision of 25 per cent. of the levy for administrative costs was the maintenance of 100,000 files. That will confirm the average farmer's worst suspicions as to the motives of those who introduced the whole Organisation.

It cannot conceivably be necessary. No one who knows anything of the arrangements, machinery and Organisation of agricultural education and training can believe that it is necessary to set up an Organisation as expensive as this to improve it. When one reaches a Situation in which the Government, in one of their economy drives, are removing grant and causing the closing down of Studley College in my constituency, largely because they cannot get enough people to fill vacancies in existing farm Institutes offering training courses, it is obvious that there is no shortage of adequate training facilities. It really is scandalous that the Government should propose setting up, with an enormous amount of expense, an Organisation of this kind in order to add to them.

Finally, anyone would think, to listen to the advocates of this phantasmagoria, that this was an inefficient industry which stood in need of a great increase in its productivity through the training of its workers. It is one of the most efficient industries in the country. The increase in its productivity since the war has been fantastic. It is the envy of every agricultural industry in the world, and if the manufacturing industries of this country had increased the productivity of their labour at the same rate as the British agricultural industry has increased its productivity we should have no balance of payments difficulties at all. It is really ludicrous to suggest a levy on farmers, many of whom have a very small labour force, highly trained and skilled, in order to improve the productivity of the most productive labour force in the world.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Elysfan Morgan (Cardigan)

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have exhibited a self-righteous fury against the levy which is the subject of this Prayer. It is on occasions such as this that we realise the full force and truth of Edmund Burke's dictum, "To tax and please is not given to man." It is not the displeasure shown by the Opposition but its intensity and its timing which is difficult to under-stand. The Board was set up by Order in August, 1966, and it was formed as a result of a request made by certain bodies representative of various sections of the agricultural industry.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt (Hereford)

Would the hon. Member say whether the National Farmers' Union in Wales supported this?

Mr. Morgan

I shall be dealing with that.

The Board was set up under the Industrial Training Act, 1964, an Act which was passed by the party opposite when in Government. Section 4 of that Act makes it perfectly clear that the raising of a levy in order to finance the Board is a mandatory matter. I think that this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Section 4(1) reads: For the purpose of raising money towards meeting its expenses on industrial training board shall from time to time impose, in accordance with an order made by the Minister (in this section referred to as a levy order), a levy on employers in the industry, other than such (if any) as may be exempted by the levy order of the industrial training order. The party opposite must have been aware of the legislation it had itself passed. If there was a defect, in so far that it encompassed the agricultural industry, that party, and it alone, is responsible for it. This is a case of "Physician, heal thyself." In any event, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that the levy would inevitably follow the setting up of the Board. When the Board was created, as I said, by Order in August, 1966, the party opposite did not see fit to pray against it. It is clear, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot object to the establishment of a board, or, indeed, to a levy as such. The only possible, logical objection, therefore, which they can have is to the amount of the levy.

Since the amount of the levy is indeterminate at present I submit that there are no grounds for the objection of the party opposite. As I understand the speech of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the exact amount of the levy is not yet known. The fury of hon. Gentlemen opposite is without logical foundation. I expect, however, that these hon. Gentlemen have been exhorted by their divisional associations to show how competent an Opposition they are, and that their excellence is to be measured by the number of hours of negative obstruction that they carry out. In addition, they have tried to show that the National Farmers' Union, the body representative of the vast bulk of the British Farmers had not really consulted its grass root members in this connection.

It is rather difficult for them to plead this, and they are merely trying to make bricks, not only without straw, but without mud and water also. The National Farmers' Union on 13th April, 1965, wrote to the Minister of Labour, in requesting the establishment of a board, in the following terms: I am sure that with the close co-operation between the industry any your Department, the Board for Agriculture will successfully resolve these problems and will play a very considerable part in enabling the industry to make a major contribution to the nation's economy. Following the establishment of the Board, full details of its structure and its Operation were circulated to 7,000 members of the labour committees of the various county branches of the Union. It was also explained to the members of the Union at large that the levy was likely to be between £4 and £14. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have prayed in aid the objection of the National Farmers' Union of Wales. May I congratulate them on the new-found interest that they take in Welsh agriculture?

I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) read out a telegram on Monday night, that he had presumably received from one of the agents of the Conservative Party in Wales, telling him of the objection of the Union. As far as I can remember, the Farmers' Union of Wales has objected formally to this since mid-1966. Why it was necessary to send a telegram to indicate such stale Information to the hon. Gentleman I cannot think. In any event this kind of material does not assist their case. After all 83 per cent. of Welsh farms are under the 600 Standard man day per annum limit and therefore are not likely to be caught by the provisions of the levy at all. One cannot plead on the one hand, that the Welsh farm is traditionally a family farm, not employing anyone at all, and at the same time say that this levy would be a crippling imposition upon its finances.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

The telegram that I received came from a substantial farmer of my acquaintance. Secondly, there are many farms in Wales where the son is a farmworker but is still an employed person for the purposes of this Order.

Mr. Morgan

I am certain that the hon. Gentleman does not dispute my figures, that 83 per cent. of farms in Wales are below the commercial limit that is set out in various Acts. Therefore it means that four-fifths of Welsh farms and more, do not employ anyone at all.

However hollow the opposition's case might be, I should like to ask two questions of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and is permitted, with the leave of the House, to speak again. First, I should like to know whether the definition of "employee" in the Order could encompass the rather remote but nevertheless possible case of a farmer's wife who, for tax purposes, is entered as a full-time employee. Such cases must be very few, but there are some such cases. I am sure it would not be the intention of the farmer concerned that she should be sent off for any industrial training.

Secondly, I should like to have the assurance of my hon. Friend that these training facilities will be provided in Wales within a reasonable distance of the employees concerned so that they can have the full benefit of the training schemes envisaged by the Order.

Having said that, I conclude by stressing once again that I am of the opinion that the benefits of this Board far out-weigh the disadvantages. Not one word has been spoken by any hon. Gentlemen opposite who have taken part in the de-bate, either on Monday night or this evening, concerning the hundreds of thousands of pounds that will be repaid to farmers by the industrial training grants. How can they pretend to take a fair, balanced, constructive view of this Situation without even condescending to mention that vital fact?

Mr. Maude

Has not the hon. Gentleman yet grasped that the real objection which farmers and we find to this is that it would be better to leave the money in the farmers' hands without taking 25 per cent. away to keep 100,000 files?

Mr. Morgan

Obviously any Board that is set up has to be financed. It was the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they passed the Bill that the bulk of that finance should come from farmers them-selves. How they can turn round like a cup in water and take this attitude now, I do not know.

I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that one of the finest assets which agriculture can have, and the most substantial earnest for the future, is the skill of those who are employed in this great industry. The Opposition have chosen wholly to ignore this factor. By so doing they have shown an attitude of petulance, short-sightedness and destructive criticism. It may be that they have succeeded in part in stinging a few farmers into a panic stampede against this Board, but I suggest that farmers, by their character and experience, are people who are used to looking at things in the very long term. They are people who are hard headed and practical and who know a mischief -making partisan political campaign when they see one.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

Before the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) took up so much of the time of the House at this late hour with his endless platitudes, I think he might have read the Order. Had he done so he would have seen in Section 3(3) that the sum which the farmers will have to pay is £6 a head for every man in their employ at the moment.

I hope that we shall vote against this Prayer tonight. I welcome the opportunity to vote against it for the reasons that it is too elaborate a scheme and it is too expensive for an industry which is being depressed by the complete failure of the present Minister of Agriculture to re-think policies and support price policies in line with the changed economic Position in which the industry finds itself today — [Interruption.] The original scheme was introduced by the Conservative Party, but at that time there was confidence in the industry. The price of lamb was rising, the tillage acreage was increasing, and the use of fertilisers was increasing. All the classic signs of a thriving farming industry were there.

We have an adequate scheme at the moment. There is the Apprenticeship Council, which sends people round to all the schools in the counties to look for suitable boys to bring into the agriculture industry and give them proper training. These boys are apprenticed to farms which agree to accept them. Many of these farms could pay these boys at the apprenticeship rate, but certainly in Lincolnshire there are no apprentices who are paid anything other than the rate for farm workers, rather than the cut rate for apprentices. These boys go on day release to the farm institute, and after three years on day release are eligible to take the City & Guilds examination, which allows them to do a further year at the farm institute and become fully qualified farm workers.

The failure of the old scheme—and my party must accept some of the blame for this—is due to the fact that they did not think it out further. We hear references to a farming ladder, but, if there is a farm apprenticeship scheme, with day-release, and then a year's course at the farm institute, there must be a realistic smallholding scheme.

When my party was in power, county Councils were refused loan sanction to reorganise their smallholdings. I think that this is a serious problem. If we are to have a farm ladder, there must be a realistic smallholding scheme so that farmers can go into smallholdings. If they do not make a success of them, they can be moved out, but the county Councils must have larger and larger smallholdings to enable them to move the successful farmers up the county ladder. Without a proper smallholding scheme, the farming ladder is not complete.

1t would be wrong if, by voting against this Order, we appeared to be voting against further agricultural education. In voting against the Order we are voting against a scheme which is inept and in-appropriate at the moment. Many farmers fear that the figure in the Order, of £6 per man will, like all Government figures, increase. It will be £6 this year, £12 next year, and £18 in the last year of the present Government, which will cost the industry a further £6 million.

What many of them object to is that the £6 per head which they will have to pay will not be of any benefit to them, because in the Board's Organisation the £6 will pay only the trainers who will train the other people who will train the people who are to come into the scheme. This is Socialism and bureaucracy gone mad.

I shall not deal with the publicity stunt —it is nothing more than that—of the crash courses to turn dairy farmers into arable farmers. Here is another bit of real Socialist nonsense. We know about the business of producing unsuitable crops in unsuitable areas so that the taxpayer has to pay a great deal more. This is the sort of thing in which the Agricultural Training Board should not get involved.

The core of the matter is the fundamental problem that very few intelligent young men are" Coming into farming today. They are too intelligent to settle in agriculture because they see that under the present Administration they will not receive a proper reward for their hard work.

I would like the scheme to be held in abeyance for five years so that further consultations can take place. It is nothing more than a day-dream of the civil servants in Whitehall. It has been dreamed up to avoid the issue of paying farmers the proper price for what they produce. If the industry received the proper reward for what, it produces, it would be able to recruit the kind of intelligent young man that it deserves.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Tony Gardner (Rushcliffe)

I am very glad that Mr. Speaker has allowed us a little more time for the discussion of this Prayer because what we are doing tonight amounts to consideration of a motion of confidence in the industry. Hon. Members opposite—and I share the view with them—are continually saying that the agricultural worker in 1968 has to be a highly skilled worker, with capabilities in his trade at least equal to those of his opposite number in industry. What we seek is a Training Board to allow to the farm worker the same kind of training which is available in other industries. We are discussing whether or not all the difficulties which hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of day-release schemes in agriculture?

Mr. Gardner

I was about to speak of 'difficulties in providing training in agriculture and it is those which lead to the reasons for the setting up of a Board which has the kind of functions that this Board has. It is easy to provide training in, say, engineering, simply by going the Walking distance necessary to reach the local technical College, but as recently as last Monday evening we heard about what training for one or two chaps on the lonely farm can entail. It is for that reason that we have this arrangement now being discussed.

Before becoming an hon. Member of this House I worked in an Organisation involved in discussions on the setting up of other industrial training schemes, and precisely the same argument as we are hearing tonight came then from the small businessman in respect of other training boards and that is one of the reasons why we have the levy. If one does not have a levy, then quite frankly I do not think that the training will be done. While speaking of costs, I would say that a great deal has been made of the point. We are asking for 2s. 7d. a week, or a sum equal to 0.1 per cent. of the turnover of the agricultural industry. Some of the programmes which the Board has put forward are magnificent, and I hope it will not be argued that this industry cannot afford 0.1 per cent. of its total turnover in order to help provide farm workers with the sort of skill they need in the modern age.

It will be agreed that it is relatively easy to provide training where workers are grouped together in a large town, but it is precisely because we want to cater for the problem, to which the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) referred, of such people as the lonely farmer at Upper Chagford—or was it Lower Chagford? We all fully understand his point, whatever the name of the place. The training cannot be on the farm, and we want far more training officers and advisers for the agricultural scheme.

I am sorry that some hon. Members opposite appear to have chosen this debate for an attack on the leadership of the National Farmers' Union. That leadership, one presumes, was elected by democratic machinery, and in respect of all farmers. My complaint is not about their part in drawing up this scheme, but when the massed hordes of red guards are about to march on Westminster, with pitchforks at the ready, they seem to be suffering from a severe attack of cold feet. I am very sorry that they have this attack of cold feet.

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the comments on the Prayer dated 29th January from the National Farmers' Union in which it calls upon the Government to undertake the early revocation of this Order and says that it has led to an unprecedented wave of hostility through-out the industry?

Mr. Gardner

This is exactly what I was saying. These men deal with others in the industry and knew what was needed but are now climbing down under pressure. I am sorry that they had to, and I do not criticise them for trying to co-operate with the Government and others in a sensible training scheme. One of the valid issues raised by hon. Members opposite is that there have been many setbacks, such as foot-and-mouth disease, which made it difficult for the farming Community and the Board to deploy their case. I believe that there is a case for delay. I would ask the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to consider my hon. Friend's comments in column 1050 on the representation to the Minister, because I would support him in urging my right hon. Friend to listen to what the Board said.

Finally, I ask hon. Members to consider that, although some comments tonight have been reasonable ones about the scheme's detailed Operation, some of those on Monday were broad attacks not on the Board's literature or the details of the scheme but on the imposition of any levy. The hon. Member for Torrington, for instance, said: 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…. He went on: 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.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1042, 1043.] Hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends interested in agriculture are pressing the Government for greater support for farming in changes which will enable the industry to meet more of the food import bill. The industry has a good production record and we are trying to make it even better. We are therefore pressing now for great consideration from my right hon. Friend. I ask hon. Gentlemen, is this the time to make the case which they did on Monday and again tonight, when we are asking the taxpayer and the consumer for more support for British farming? I have some sympathy with this point of view, but is it really politic to deploy the case that the industry is faced with a levy of 0.1 per cent. on its turnover? People might think that the farmers are demanding more all the time. It cannot be said of agriculture, that, when faced with a moderate imposition for training its own people for the future, it is not prepared to pay its share.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt (Hereford)

I was disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), who I had always considered knew something about agriculture and was closely connected with it. Did he consult those of his constituents who are farmers or either of the two unions to which he referred, and did his speech truly reflect their opinions? In spite of the figures which he gave and in spite of the Order, it seemed to me, on reading it—which he clearly had not—that the levy will fall largely on the smaller farmer and will favour the larger one. That is bad, since farmers bear many other levies, including Selective Employment Tax. This also bears on forestry and horticulture, which cannot be recompensed in any agricultural Price Review.

The N.F.U. leadership has been mentioned, and I will not avoid this issue. I have been a member of the union and proud of it for a long time, but on this issue they have made a mistake and have failed to consult county branches and their members adequately. In these consultations, other matters like foot-and-mouth disease may have engaged their attention, but the advice which they have given the Government on this occasion has been bad advice, which is one reason why the Minister has been here tonight —[An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"]—for a short time, one of the agricultural Ministers, rather like one of the visitors to Alice in Wonderland's tea table, showed his ears from behind the Speaker's chair.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is reasonable and sensible, and must realise that there is a good deal of feeling on this matter. Would he consult the Minister of Agriculture, who I do not believe honestly favours the Order, and then come back to the House? On matters like this, the House would certainly be generous to the Minister. I ask him to reconsider the Order.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

One starting point for any debate on agriculture, whether relating to this levy or wider issues, is that farm gate prices are no better than 10 years ago and, indeed, have tended to fall, whereas the price of food in the shops has risen by at least a third. There is intense feeling about this levy, that farmers and particularly horticultural growers will gain very little from this training scheme——

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

indicated dissent.

Mr. Body

The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he must realise that the owner or manager of the average horticultural enterprise is a highly-trained man, with diplomas and an academic education supported by practical experience, but there may be, supporting him, a number of what are euphemistically called semi-skilled, but what others might call unskilled, people. That is the kind of team engaged in most of these enterprises, and it is pointless to expect such an owner to pay this levy to train people who will not benefit from it. There is intense feeling in all sections of the industry. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this, since other-wise there will be great ill-feeling through-out the industry. It wants training but has many misgivings about this Board.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)

My feelings against this levy have been strengthened and not diminished by the very strange speech of the Parliamentary Secretary on 29th January.

Had he been supporting the abolition of this levy he could not really have made out a better case. He used the strange argument that we ought not to comment on or make judgments about the internal democracy of the N.F.U. That seemed to me to come very strangely from a Government and from a Minister who has made it his special task to interfere constantly in everything the unions have been concerned about, in particular with their freely entered into contracts.

The Parliamentary Secretary quoted figures which demonstrated clearly to us that this levy and this Board is a bureaucratic monster, whereby 25 per cent. of the total amount Coming in from the levy. will be spent on administration. I cannot believe it is in the interests of the Government or the farmers to support this kind of Situation.

We know that agriculture has increased its productivity at a very fast rate. The young farmers' movement performs a valuable function and B.O.C.M., N.A.A.S., Ferguson and a whole series of manufacturers and suppliers provide advice to farmers on how they can improve their productivity. There does not seem to be any reason whatsoever for this type of levy. It is complete economic rubbish and it is being imposed because of some theoretic abstraction that training "is a good thing", rather like the Battle of Hastings was a good thing in "1066 and all that".

What does the Parliamentary Secretary feel about horticulture? What is the Position of a horticulturist who employs a large number of people for his particularly intensive type of work? How does one train a flower picker to pick flowers more competently? This is a repetitive function, and in a large number of respects there is absolutely no training that can be carried out whatsoever.

I am bound to say that I am very disappointed that our Front Bench have not advised my hon. Friends to vote on this matter as a party. At least I am glad that some of my hon. Friends and myself will be opposing this Order in the Division Lobby tonight.

11.18 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeifh (Edinburgh, North)

I am strongly inclined to support my hon. Friends so far as this Order affects agriculture, from what I have heard so far. But my concern is with forestry. I think that forestry requires certain assurances and answers to a few specific questions.

Is it necessary and sensible that forestry should be included in this Order in this way? It might seem that the answer should be "Yes", but in practice are we quite so sure about it? Should we not consider allowing the forestry industry the opportunity to organise its own training of the sort envisaged in the Order in the way it has been doing extremely efficiently in the past, particularly so far as the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association are concerned?

Are we going to get a better answer, having regard to the need to produce tailor-made types of training schemes to suit regional variations? Will this lead to a lack of cohesion in the industry and result in dividing the private sector from the State sector in forestry? Will the Foresty Commission go on having its own special courses, or what is to be done?

I want a certain amount of information about this, bearing in mind that it is vital to a growing industry like this one that there should be a solid marriage between the State and the private sectors. On the question of money, the forestry industry is a small industry in relation to agriculture, and I should like assurance that the forestry industry will get its fair whack from what is paid in. Can the Minister assure us that their interests will be safeguarded?

11.20 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)

I shall be very brief. I oppose the Order wholeheartedly. I think that it was a mistake for the Government to introduce it. The original Order of 1966 was also a mistake. My reasons for opposing the Order are, first, that I think that the Government will waste a very great deal of money. This is what farmers object to. They do not object to paying out money on something worth while, but this is not worth while and the money they pay out will be wasted. As many of my hon. Friends have said, there are very adequate and good training facilities available throughout the country. There is no reason at this moment of time for this levy to be raised on the industry. Particularly as it will be wasted, it is utterly wrong for the Government to impose it.

I beg the Parliamentary Secretary, particularly in view of the words he used on Monday evening, to ask his right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly the Minister of Agriculture—I am sorry that neither the Minister nor one of his Parliamentary Secretaries is present—to with-draw the Order. There is a tremendous hostility throughout the country to the Order. Hon. Members opposite obviously have no idea of what the feelings of farmers throughout the country, including farmers in their own constituencies, are. They cannot know that throughout the country there is a feeling of hostility to this proposal. I do not want the position to arise when the Government are fighting head-on with the farmers. That is not the right way to go about things.

I therefore beg the Parliamentary Secretary to take the opportunity before Saturday to withdraw the Order, to think about it again, and to return to the House —as my hon. Friends have said, we should be generous—with a new and re-constituted scheme later on in the year when the Government have had more time to think about it—more time to work it out with farmers. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to carry on with this now.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

At this stage there is little that I can add to what has already been very eloquently said by my colleagues. I want to make a very specific and very brief point. If this top-heavy, bureaucratic Training Board is imposed on agriculture, to my certain knowledge it will be terribly unfair to some individuals. I believe that the Board is being imposed upon the industry in a very bureaucratic and totalitarian manner. I know full well that many farmers will have to pay their £6 per head to begin with but will receive no return. If an industrial training officer, or whatever he is called, comes to their farm and Starts to give advice, they will not have time for him. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary at least to respect the opinions which have been expressed very forcibly and take the scheme back and re-think it.

11.23 p.m.

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

With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply at least to the specific questions which have been put to me, although it would be wrong for me to try to make a second speech. I want to say at the outset that we are most conscious of the views of the House and of the need to respect them. If I did not agree with another word which has been said by hon. Members opposite during the two evenings over which this debate has stretched, I certainly agreed with the Statement of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that without the co-operation of the industry the Board cannot work. I certainly subscribe to that sentiment.

It is, I hope, the earnest endeavour of all who have spoken in the debate and supported the idea of the Board—that is, 70 per cent. of the participants in the debate—that the Board and the industry should work together.

I will try to answer some specific questions. I shall deal first with the question that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) raised about what he described as the undue burden on far- mers. I think that the House should get clear how great that "undue burden" is. For the 95 per cent. of the farming Community, who employ fewer than 5 employees, the maximum gross amount they will pay in any one week, assuming that they do no training and receive no grant, will be 12s. Since the levy is deductable against taxes, their net payment, the net "undue burden", could not be more than 10s. a week and is probably less. For the 46,000 farmers who employ only one employee, the net "undue burden", again assuming that they do no training and receive no grant, will be about 1s. 6d. a week. It is important that those figures be kept in perspective.

It is equally important that we deny the allegation that there is no need for a training revolution in agriculture. I emphasise to hon. Members opposite with the due humility which must come from an urban Member like me, that my advice on training is given to me, basic-ally, specifically and properly by the Agricultural Training Board. That is what it was set up to do. To describe its activities, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) did, as Socialist nonsense—he used that phrase about the Board, not about the Government—is to show a total misunderstanding of the composition of the Board. There sit on the Board nominees of the National Farmers' Union, and if they include Socialist practitioners or Socialist theorists, I am sure that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would be very heartened and relieved to hear it.

The advice which the Agricultural Training Board gives to me, and the advice on which I am in honour bound to operate, is that training throughout agriculture, with some notable and honourable exceptions, is inadequate. In-deed, the hon. Member for Gainsborough seemed to give the game away when he talked about Colleges of further education and agricultural Colleges which, to his certain knowledge, had places still un-occupied. The object of a board, the object of a levy and the object of a grant to encourage more training is to make sure that those places do not re-main unoccupied. The simple object of the grant and levy scheme is to offer a financial inducement for more training and to make sure that the dilemma or problem which the hon. Gentleman out-lined ceases to have effect.

I am advised that, even where there are further education courses available through Colleges of agriculture or Colleges of further education, almost invariably the backing-up arrangements, the arrangements for adequate practical training once the short further education courses have been completed, are either not made or are not well made. Very often, the subsequent backing-up courses are more geared to the needs of the specific employer than to the training needs of employees. The advice which the Training Board gives to my right hon. Friend and to me is that to remedy this kind of deficiency the provisions of the Industrial Training Act should be applied and an inducement to do more training in the form of grant should be brought in.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins rose—

Mr. Hattersley

I want to answer specific questions. Two detailed points were put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). First, he asked specifically about farm wives. Under Article 2(1,k) of the Levy Order, two conditions have to be fulfilled before someone described as a full-time employee is subject to the levy system. First, he or she must work for more than 40 hours a week. I have no doubt that a great many farm wives do that. Second, he or she must be subject to a contract of employment. I suspect that very few farm wives are employed on that basis. Therefore, my hon. Friend has our assurance that, almost invariably, farm wives will not be covered by the Order.

Equally, my hon. Friend has our assurance that training will be carried on reasonably near to farms. Indeed, whenever it is possible, training will be carried out on the farms themselves. This is one of the matters about which hon. Members opposite make a fundamental mistake when they say that training is adequate. They are not thinking of the sort of training which I am advised needs to be done. They are not thinking of the sort of training which a number of distinguished agricultural experts, speak

ing for, to and in the National Agricultural Advisory Service, the County Stockmen's Club and many other Organisation say should be done on the farm and could be encouraged on the farm by a grant and levy system.

It is because it should be done on the farm, and should be encouraged on the farm by the grant, that 47 training advisers are to be appointed. The great cost—I admit it is a great cost—of the 47 training advisers is necessary because the training should and can be done in the localities, as my hon. Friend suggested.

I have been asked to withdraw the Order, and specifically, I have been asked to withdraw it in the light of the last Paragraph of my speech on Monday evening. Although the application for financial assistance had been recently received, and it was a matter on which neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture nor I could properly comment, I felt that I had an Obligation to tell the House that it had been made. I also have an Obligation to tell the House that I can give no assurance that that application will be met with an affirmative answer. There is no reason to assume that the Government can make the money available. In that Situation the Board must rely on its own sources of finance.

Mr. John Wells

On a point of order. As extra time was given tonight and as there are still about 15 hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, will you rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should be given further time tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

I am of the opinion that the matter has been adequately discussed. Many hon. Members have taken part in the debate on Monday night and tonight.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. WO (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 125.

Division No. 37.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Baker, W. H. K. Body, Richard Dalkeith, Earl of
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Clegg, Walter Davidson,James(Aberdeeruhire,W.)
Bitten, John Cooke, Robert Errington, Sir Eric
Black, Sir Cyril Currie, G. B. H. Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Farr, John Kitson, Timothy Page, Graham (Crosby)
Foster, Sir John Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) Scott-Hopkins, James
Gibson-Watt David Maude, Angus Silvester, Frederick
Glover, Sir Douglas Maxwelt-Hyslop,R. J. Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hawkins, Paul Monro, Hector Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Higgins, Terence L. More, Jasper
Hirst, Geoffrey Morrison, Charles (Devizes) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kimball, Marcus Nicholis, Sir Harmar Mr. Peter Mills and Mr. John Wells
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Nott, John
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hamling, William Murray, Albert
Archer, Peter Hannan, William Norwood, Christopher
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Harper, Joseph Oakes, Gordon
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Ogden, Eric
Beaney, Alan Haseldine, Norman O'Malley, Brian
Bence, Cyril Hattersley, Roy Orme, Stanley
Benn, Rt. Hn Anthony Wedgwood Hazell, Bert Oswald, Thomas
Bishop, E. S. Horner, John Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Blackburn, F. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Palmer, Arthur
Booth, Albert Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Bradley, Tom Hoy, James Pavitt, Laurence
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Huckfield, Leslie Pentland, Norman
Broun,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Buchan, Norman Hunter, Adam Richard, Ivor
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hynd, John Robert Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Carmichael, Neil Jones, Dan (Burnley) Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Coe, Denis Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Ross Paul
Concannon, J. D. Judd, Frank Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Conlan, Bernard Kenyon, Clifford Rowlands, E. (Carditf, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lawson, George Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dalyell, Tam Leadbitter, Ted Silvernan, Julius (Aston)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretlord) Lomas, Kenneth Slater, Joseph
Davies, Harold (Leek) Loughlin, Charles Spriggs, Leslie
Delargy, Hugh Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Swingler, Stephen
Dickens, James McBride, Neil Tinn, James
Doig, Peter McCann, John Tuck, Raphael
Dunnett, Jack Macdonald, A. H Urwin, T. W.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) McGuire, Michael Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th& C'b'e) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Eadie, Alex McNamara, J. Kevin Wallace, George
Edwards, William (Merioneth) MacPherson, Malcolm Watkins, David (Consett)
Ellis, John Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wellbeloved, James
Fernyhough, E. Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Ford, Ben Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Witkins, W. A.
Forrester, John Manuel, Archie Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Fowler, Gerry Marks, Kenneth Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Galpern, Sir Myer Marquand, David Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Gardner, Tony Mendelson, J. J. Woof, Robert
Garrett, W. E. Millan, Bruce Yates, Victor
Gregory, Arnold Miller, Dr. M. S.
Grey, Charles (Durham) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Eric G. Varley.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Forward to