HC Deb 23 June 1969 vol 785 cc1171-82

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for his participation in this debate at this late hour. We have corresponded about further education in agriculture for some time, since November, 1966. I want to put to him the now urgent need to improve and extend further education facilities for agriculture in the North of Scotland, and in Caithness and Sutherland in particular.

The main reason for this debate is the drastic drop in the farm work force in Scotland of 8½ per cent., 3½ per cent. more than the average figure predicted by the N.E.D.C. for agriculture. I would draw the Government's attention to an important editorial entitled "Recruits", in the current issue of the Farming Leader, the journal of the Scottish N.F.U., which spells out stark facts. During the ten years 1958–68 there has been a drop of 40 per cent. to less than 40,000 in the number of full-time agricultural workers in Scotland. Even more alarming has been the recruitment into agriculture. Whereas, in 1958, over 10,000 young men under 20 were working full time in agriculture, in June last year the number had fallen to around 4,000.

If this trend is not arrested, the consequences for Scottish agriculture, and for those parts of Scotland whose prosperity is at present linked to agriculture, can be grave indeed. It is inconceivable that, in the hills and uplands in particular, agricultural productivity can hope to keep pace with a continuing decline in the total work force of this order. The loss to production may already be apparent in some parts of the country in the declining hill sheep returns. The social impact on the Highlands in particular of a further flight from the land would be particularly damaging to communities which have no immediate prospect of alternative employment.

I have always argued that a proper wage structure for those employed in agriculture and forestry, relating earnings to skills, and starting wages at a substantially higher level, was a prerequisite for a healthy industry, and if young people are not going to be attracted away from the land. But I entirely agree with the N.F.U.'s editorial view that the image of the industry, apart altogether from its performance must be improved by paying much greater attention to the encouragement of training, and, in particular, of further education. If young men are to be attracted into farming, they must see that it is a career which demands skills and rewards ability.

It appears that the Government intend that the pattern for the provision of further education in agriculture in Scotland should adhere loosely to the recommendations of the 1967 Report of the Agriculture Committee of the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council. I should like to acknowledge that that report was workmanlike and comprehensive in its approach to the problem, but what it failed to impart was any sense of urgency. In some respects, moreover, I believe that the report was quite unrealistic, particularly in its proposals for regional farm centres offering courses in agriculture beyond the level of Stage I of the City and Guilds of London Institute examination.

Nor, I am afraid, have the Government shown a proper sense of urgency even in pushing for the implementation of the report, which they accept. What the report sometimes loses sight of is that the object of further education in agriculture at the sub-diploma level is to provide an essential practical training for young men in how to embark on farming as a means to earning a living. Most of them are rooted in certain areas and some have prospects of taking over ultimately the working of a family holding. For those employed on anything up to a medium-sized farm, and particularly in the north of Scotland, where the activity is frequently most intense at certain seasons, the block release pattern of education is quite unattractive.

When, in 1966, I put to the Secretary of State proposals to build up an agricultural training centre at the Sutherland Technical School, using the local authority's 130-acre farm at Golspie, I was conscious of that difficulty. I believed in this and I believe now that for Easter Ross, Caithness and Sutherland it would still be justified by the numbers who would be prepared to come from that area. What is totally inconceivable is that more than one or two young men per annum would be prepared to go on a full-time or block release course to the regional centres in Fife or even East Aberdeenshire, as suggested in correspondence by my hon. Friend. This may be regrettable, but it is realistic. If further education in agriculture is not provided within the northern area, then the young men will simply forgo it altogether. I put it once again to my hon. Friend that in view of the continuing absence of a regional centre for sub-diploma courses for the North he ought to authorise local authorities in Caithness and Sutherland to proceed with that proposal, even at this date.

The second proposal I put to him is that he should authorise the provision of courses for Stage II of the City and Guilds Examination at Thurso Technical College. It appears that the Government's objection to this plan is based on the S.T.E.C.C. committee's finding that the present and likely number of agricultural workers made it improbable that there would be sufficient support to justify the provision of a "farm centre" there.

I do not quarrel with that; that is not what I am asking for. By the committee's own criteria, a farm centre with residential accommodation and an instructional farm might be hard to justify for Caithness and the area of Sutherland which I seek to assist by the provision of these courses. It may be argued, as it was by the committee at paragraph 49 of its report, that for City and Guilds Stage II an instructional farm is essential. I would point out that the committee was somewhat equivocal on this point and acknowledged at paragraph 31: The lack of a farm attached to a centre can be, and indeed has been, overcome to a certain extent through the co-operation of local farmers who permit some of their facilities to be used for students' practical work. I assure my hon. Friend that in Caithness at least, the farmers have shown admirable willingness to co-operate with the local education authority and the Thurso Technical College in the provision of these facilities.

If it is felt that these facilities are not of a comparable standard with existing farm centres, I would point out how few these centres are which provide up-to-date standard facilities. I suggest that perhaps the North of Scotland College of Agriculture might be able to act as an independent advisor and assessor of the suitability of certain farms in Caithness to offer the necessary practical education required.

It is also open to argument that those who wish to farm in the North could usefully be trained on farms where conditions are broadly similar rather than at a model farm operating as a somewhat artificial hybrid for educational purposes. I accept that that point is arguable. What is beyond argument is that the alternative so far proposed by the Government is quite unrealistic and wholly unacceptable. The suggestion that Stage II of the City and Guilds course should be pursued by my constituents at Elmwood Agricultural and Technical College, at Cupar, in Fife, on short full-time or block release basis is not notably sensible.

It will not happen, at any rate on a significant scale. It is in any case doubtful whether, by the S.T.E.C. committee's criteria, Elmwood could properly be described as a regional farm centre with residential accommodation and an instructional farm provided. In the letter addressed to me on 23rd April my hon. Friend suggested that in the longer term, provision would be made at Meikle Clinterty, in Aberdeenshire, for a regional farm centre providing courses for the north of Scotland as well as for the North-East. That may or may not be a suitable long term solution—I find it scarcely more attractive than Fife—but it does not meet the immediate and real demands for these courses.

Caithness has an active district apprenticeship committee. It has urged upon me the desirability of providing these courses. The Caithness area branch of the National Farmers' Union for Scotland, which also includes the Farr area of Sutherland, has also warmly supported the proposals. The Thurso College itself considers the scheme practical and economical. In a letter dated 27th May, from the Caithness Director of Education, I have been told: The Education Committee would certainly welcome your support in trying to persuade the Department to let us run a trial course. In these circumstances, I would put it to my hon. Friend that the case for allowing this course to be run at Thurso is overwhelming. I hope that he will give an earnest of his concern for the provision of further education in agriculture by acceding to this request.

12.37 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan)

I welcome the opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on a subject about which, as he has said, we have already had a certain amount of correspondence. He has described the difficulties which arise in his constituency, and in the North of Scotland generally, very sympathetically.

Although I would not, obviously, accept all that my hon. Friend has said, some of his comments I would certainly accept. Obviously, the present position in the North of Scotland is not completely satisfactory. I think, however, that before I answer the specific points that he has put to me, I might just go over a little of the background to this problem—and some of the background that he has himself mentioned.

The basic situation with regard to the labour force in agriculture—and this, of course, affects the number of persons seeking education and training—is not untypical of certain other traditional industries where the unit cost of labour has risen more than other costs, and where the labour force is, shrinking. Because, however, of the importance of agriculture, the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council, which I shall describe as S.T.E.C.C.—the name by which it is normally known—agreed in 1963 to carry out a review of training and education needs in Scotland. This was before the passing of the Industrial Training Act, 1964, which brought into effect new machinery relating to the responsibility for industrial training.

It is worth pointing out that S.T.E.C.C. included among its representatives members from the National Farmers' Union for Scotland, the Transport & General Workers' Union, the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, the Scottish Association of Young Farmers' Clubs, the Scottish Joint Apprenticeship Council for Agriculture and Horticulture, the Association of County Councils, the Scottish Counties of Cities Association, the Colleges of Agriculture in Scotland, as well as the assessors from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Scottish Education Department and the Ministry of Labour. It was, therefore, an expert committee, and it took evidence from all the bodies interested in the matters concerned.

Naturally, therefore, its report has an authority which the Government accepted on its publication, and which I accept now. The report was commended to authorities by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after its publication in 1967, and it provided a national plan for further education in agriculture in Scotland. It made special reference to the significant decline in young male workers over the last decade, and went on to point out that the impact of mechanisation, application of improved techniques and increasing specialisation, along with the trend to larger units, had increased the rate of drift from the land.

I have not the time now to quote a great many figures, but perhaps I might add one or two to those quoted by my hon. Friend. In 1960, there were 4,652 young men aged 18 and under 20, whereas in 1968 the equivalent figure of those employed in agriculture was only 2,045.

I have taken out the figures for Caithness and Sutherland for those two years. There was a reduction between 1960 and 1968 from 93 to 31, so the figures in my hon. Friend's constituency are quite small. I have compared them with figures in the S.T.E.C.C. Report and I find that, taking Scotland as a whole, the decline during the last two years is very substantial. This decline, unfortunately, is likely to continue for reasons which are intrinsic in the development of agriculture in Scotland at present. This decline in numbers, taken with the scattered spread of population, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, obviously gives us new problems in the provision of courses of further education.

The S.T.E.C.C. review suggested a number of regional centres based upon instructional farms at which the Stage II and Stage III City and Guilds courses would be provided on a block release basis and also by day-release if necessary. These centres would be supported by a number of centres providing the less advanced Stage I courses on a day-release basis. The report came firmly to the conclusion that for Stage II courses an instructional farm was essential. For Stage I courses this was not so regarded and would not have been practicable. It was admitted in the report that in the absence of an instructional farm it was possible to provide a certain amount of instruction by using the facilities available on local farms, but the report was in no doubt at all—and the committee had the benefit of a wide range of expertise among its members—that, as it said in paragraph 49, an instructional farm was essential for the regional centres.

The report went on to propose a distribution for both types of centre, but concluded that in the North of Scotland the number of agricultural workers made it most unlikely that in the foreseeable future there would be sufficient support to justify the provision of an instructional farm centre on the mainland. It accordingly recommended only the provision of Stage I centres at Thurso and Inverness Technical Colleges and envisaged that students who wished to advance their studies should attend a farm centre elsewhere.

Since the publication of the report in 1967 the numbers of young workers in Caithness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Inverness have continued to decline. The Stage I course at Thurso has been established, but it has attracted only 11 and 9 students for the first and second years respectively and at Inverness the Stage I course will be offered for the first time in 1969–70. An instructional farm is a costly venture as all the figures demonstrate and there could be no justification on the basis of present trends of attendance for setting up a full instructional farm centre in Caithness.

In the longer term, the farm centre which will best meet the needs, not only of the North-East but also the North, will be that now being established by Aberdeenshire education authority at Meikle Clinterty. It will not however be fully operational for some time yet. Accordingly, it had been suggested to Caithness education authority, and I suggester in a letter to my hon. Friend on 23rd April, that after consultation with Fife education authority students from Caithness who wished to advance their studies by following the Stage II course might go on a block release basis to Elmwood College at Cupar in the session 1969–70.

It was recognised—I recognise it now—that to travel as far afield as Cupar is inconvenient for employees. I also accept that the employers would prefer a system which allowed day-release rather than block release. This is not possible in this case, where the courses are being provided at a considerable distance from the students' home area.

Nevertheless, on block release itself I must tell my hon. Friend that, despite his criticisms, I think that it will be an essential part of the national plan, on which we are now operating, that block release should be accepted in the long term as the only solution feasible in areas where the numbers of students do not justify an instructional farm within daily travelling distance.

Although block release can have certain disadvantages, compared with day release it can have certain advantages from the point of view of the operation of the farms. So I do not think that the balance of advantage lies by any means all on one side.

The long-term plan, as I have said, must rest as it does at the moment, and it would be a great pity and detrimental to agricultural education if there should be any question now of abandoning the long-term aims that we have had set out for us in the S.T.E.C.C. Report and subsequently accepted by the Government.

However, I appreciate the shorter-term difficulties and the representations which my hon. Friend has made to me. We have had representations from the district apprenticeship committee, as he said in his speech, and we have also had an assurance from the Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Industrial Training Board that if Stage II courses can be provided locally at Thurso Technical College it would ensure that the necessary instructional work would be made available on local farms. My hon. Friend said tonight that the local education authority has confirmed to him very recently that it is still anxious to provide Stage II courses at Thurso Technical College.

In view of all that and, in particular, in view of the representations that my hon. Friend has made to me, I have looked at the matter again, and I am glad to be able to tell him that, looking at this as a temporary problem and before the provision of the regional centre in Aberdeenshire, I should be willing, if the education authority were now to put forward a proposal for Stage II courses at Thurso Technical College, to look upon this proposition favourably.

It would have to depend on the appropriate facilities being made available, and staffing and facilities at the farms in the locality. It would also have to depend—I make this clear to my hon. Friend—on there being a satisfactory number of enrolments, but, in view of the keenness of the National Farmers' Union in the area to have this course, and of the assurances of support that we have been given, I would hope very much that that would not provide an insuperable difficulty.

If, therefore, we could get these various requirements and get a satisfactory number of enrolments, and so on, I should be glad to have my Department approve a Stage II course at Thurso Technical College which would meet the problem of students wishing to enter Stage II in the current year. As to next year, we could look at the matter again, but, provided that the course had been successful this year, I should have thought that next year a similar course could be provided, again on this temporary basis.

I hope, therefore, that what I have said to my hon. Friend, while not satisfying him in any way in the longer term as I appreciate, will at least be of some satisfaction to him in the shorter term, and, if we can get these conditions satisfied, as I think we can, will meet the shorter-term problem without, from my point of view, prejudicing the longer-term arrangement, which, as I say, I am very anxious not to see abandoned or even disturbed substantially in any way.

I am glad to be able to make this proposal for the short-term and greatly hope that my hon. Friend and those whom he represents in the area concerned will take up the opportunity which is now open to them. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the persistence which he has shown over a very long period on this matter. I very much appreciate his persistence And I hope that it will be appreciated in the area of his constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock.