AGRICULTURE (SUGAR BEET) (Hansard, 10 February 1970)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)
I beg to move. That the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) (Increase of Contributions) Order 1970 a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved. The purpose of this order is simply to maintain at its present level the maximum contribution which growers of beet and the British Sugar Corporation may be required by order to pay to finance the programme of research and education which the industry wants to see carried out. Under Section 18(1) of the Sugar Act 1956, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland make an Order each year setting out a programme of expenditure on research and education for homegrown sugar beet. The Ministers are required by the Act to consult the industry and the established practice is to do this through the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Committee, comprising representatives of the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and Scotland, the British Sugar Corporation and agricultural scientists. The income is raised by Orders made under Section 18(3) of the Act and the con- 1198 tributions from growers and the Corporation are paid into the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Fund which is under the control of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The actual rate of contribution is determined annually and is subject to an Order separate from the one under discussion.
The 1956 Act specified that the maximum rate of contribution should be 3d. per ton each from the growers and the Corporation for each ton of home-grown sugar beet sold for delivery to the Corporation in that year. Under Section 18(4) of the Act the maximum rate can be increased by Order. The maximum rate was raised to 4d. per ton in 1967 and this enabled increased contributions to be assessed to meet rising costs of the programmes. The present maximum contribution Order expires on 31st March and without another Order the maximum rate would automatically revert to the 3d. per ton specified in the Act. The actual rate of contribution in force at the present time is 3½d. per ton—giving a likely income of the order of £177,000 against an estimated expenditure on the current programme of £229,000. We are already cutting into the reserves of the Fund to pay for current research. The Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Committee does not contemplate any major expansion of the programme over the next year or so, and has looked closely at current expenditure to see that this is fully justified.
But costs continue to rise and the industry wants the present level of research to be maintained. Under these circumstances the maximum rate of contribution which was considered appropriate when the Act came into force in 1956 would no longer be adequate. The proposal embodied in the Order now before the House is that the present rate of 4d. per ton from the grower and 4d. per ton from the Corporation should be maintained for a further period of two years. We are satisfied that this will meet present needs, but would intend to review the position towards the end of the two years. These proposals do not affect the price of sugar.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)
The Order which comes before us tonight is different in one respect from some which we discuss at this time of night. The 1199 original Act was passed in 1956 and I can find only one occasion since then when this topic has been raised in this House. That was when the amount was increased and there was a debate on 1st March, 1967. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend was asked about the money which was being collected. There seemed to be some anxiety as to where it was actually going. His right hon. Friend gave an assurance that: Like many organisations, until such time as the money is required it is invested, so that it is interest earning and not lying idle" —[OFFICIAL REPORT: 1st March 1967; Vol. 742, c. 456.] I listened with care to what the Parliamentary Secretary said a few months ago, but I regret to say I was not quite able to tie it in with the accounts I have for 1968–69 of the Home-Grown Sugar Research and Education Fund. No doubt he will have a better head for explaining these things than I have, but on the balance sheet it appears that there is a sum of £253,509 in local authority loans, and that on the income and expenditure account there was a surplus on the last year of £34,965. Yet the hon. Gentleman was saying, "We are eating into our reserves".
No doubt what he is saying is true, but it is not immediately apparent to me; and others who produce sugar beet may like to have a slightly clearer explanation that has been given to us so far. It appears that the British Sugar Corporation has been left, after tax, with £1,636,228 this year, so there does not seem to be any shortage of funds. In those circumstances, it seems difficult to follow why it is required to keep this levy at this high level.
May I put three other points briefly to the hon. Gentleman? In this report there are 11 items under which research is undertaken. Is he in a position to say a few words about any of those items? For example, as a result of money which is being spent, are the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge or the National Institute of Agricultural Botany producing something of considerable help and assistance to the sugar beet industry? During the last debate there was a reference, among other things, to something called "monogerm seed". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that 1200 and what has been done. I understand that among other things the British Sugar Beet Review is very well received and is read by those in the industry. Is he satisfied that the items of research that are being successful are being communicated to those who are planting and harvesting sugar beet?
May I also ask him whether any consideration has been given to co-operation in this industry? In most aspects of agriculture we find that co-operation plays quite a large part in discussions which take place, but I have not found any reference to it in these debates. Finally, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can give any indication of what the trend is as a result of this research? Are yields improving? Are machines being improved to help the industry? Are there other matters that he feels it might be helpful for growers to know? May I say in conclusion how much I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is not here, because his interest in this matter is well known. He would have been present but for the fact that he is not well.
With those observations, on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House I support the Order.

§ Mr. Mackie
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate. I think that on the subject of research itself if the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) would care to look at the Schedule to the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Order, 1969, he will see that the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge received £55,000; variety trials of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany received £19,000; disease investigations £81,000 and crop husbandry at the Norfolk Agricultural Station, £11,000. I could go on but I do not wish to bore the House and the details are all contained in the Schedule.
As regards the result of research the hon. Gentleman mentioned monogerm seed which is now a reality, and a variety tolerant to virus yellows is now available. This is a tremendous achievement, because virus yellows were a great trouble to sugar beet for a long time. As far as mechanisation is concerned, harvesting operations are now largely 1201 mechanised and hardly any sugar beet is pulled by hand. Monogerm seed and single planting help a lot towards that.
As to the general picture of research, I think that the hon. Gentleman must know that sugar beet has shown an impressive increase in yield from nine tons per acre 25 years ago to about 15 tons in recent years, and there has been a comparable increase in sugar yield. The whole of the increase cannot be attributed to research alone. Much of it is due to general improvement in husbandry standards.
On the question of digging into reserves it is this year's current account which will hit the reserves for research and the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is an Order to keep the maximum contribution at 4d. per ton. Although I did say that costs were rising, the Order for the new contribution will come along in about a fortnight's time. It is simply that we need this money because we do not receive money—as the hon. Gentleman well knows—from the sugar beet growers until much later when the tonnage is counted up and so on. We need to have some reserve to keep up research which is going on all the time.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cooperation. I cannot give him details of actual examples of co-operation, but I should imagine that the small sugar beet growers are taking advantage of the new agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme to buy machinery. I know that quite a lot of co-operation is going on, although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any details. Those are the points the hon. Gentleman raised and I hope that the Order will now get the blessing of the House.