SUGAR BEET

HC Deb 27 January 1972 vol 829 cc1709-26

7.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart)

I beg to move, That the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) (Increase of Contributions) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved. The purpose of this order is to increase the maximum contribution which is payable equally by growers of beet and the British Sugar Corporation in order to finance the programme of research and education which the industry itself wants to see carried out.

Section 18(1) of the Sugar Act, 1956, lays a duty on Ministers to make an order every year approving a programme of expenditure on research and education for home-grown sugar beet. Ministers are required to consult the industry, and in practice it is the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee, representing both sides of the industry, which draws up the annual programmes of research and education for the approval of Ministers and advises on the necessary rate of contribution. The contributions are paid into a fund operated by my Department, and annual accounts are laid before Parliament. The actual rate of contribution, as opposed to the maximum rate, is determined every year and the 1972–73 contribution will be the subject of a separate order in a few weeks' time.

We are concerned here only with the maximum rate which may be levied. The 1956 Act specified that this maximum should be 3d.—I emphasise that this refers to old pence—a ton each from the growers and the corporation for every ton of home-grown sugar beet delivered to the corporation. Under section 18(4) of the Act the maximum rate can be varied by order. In 1967 it had to be put up to 4d. a ton to meet the steadily rising costs of the programmes. The order was renewed in 1970 for a further two years ending on 31st March next. So the maximum in force at the present time is 4d. or 1.66 new pence, and this produced a total sum of £210,000 last year.

Hon. Members may well ask why the industry wants to increase the maximum by a comparatively large amount to 3p. The sugar beet industry has an exemplary attitude to self-help. It has for many years financed its own research and education and now sees ahead a period of increased competition. The industry has always recognised the value of the activities of the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee and it is clearly ready to invest more in research and education if this is necessary. Also, of course, the cost even of a static programme is increasing. The present amount was not enough to meet this year's programme and it had to be curtailed. The increase, although substantial, is needed if the programme is to be marginally expanded.

The problem is that we have to look ahead beyond the coming year and provide a sufficient balance to finance something like 70 per cent. of the following year's programme. The research is a continuous process, but the money does not start coming into the fund until after the harvest has begun.

The order now before the House provides for a maximum of 3p for 1972–73. The Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee has looked closely at current expenditure to see that this is fully justified. The proposed maximum is fully endorsed by the British Sugar Corporation and the National Farmers' Union, and is a sensible provision for the demands likely to be made on the industry in the changing circumstances ahead.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, West)

The few of us on this side of the House who are attending this short debate might be a little disappointed that the Minister has not chosen to give us a little more information about what is envisaged for the future. He said that the increase in maximum contribution was quite large. In fact it is 80 per cent., which is a swingeing increase. Obviously we are talking merely about maximum contributions but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could say something about the level of actual contribution likely to be levied in 1972–73. The House will be aware that the actual contribution at the moment is the maximum of 1.66p. The hon. Gentleman indicated that there may be some sort of expansion in the programme, but can he say in what respects expansion is contemplated in the research programme?

The second point that arises is whether producers are getting value for their contributions and from the British Sugar Corporation. For example, we see from the 1969–70 accounts, which unfortunately are the latest available to the House—one hopes that accounts will be laid before the House shortly dealing with the following year—that total expenditure from the fund has risen by 25 per cent. That was a very large increase. When we look at the figures in more detail we find one or two causes for concern and I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will tell us a little more about them.

In the year 1969–70 research expenditure compared with the previous year rose by 26 per cent., more or less in line with total expenditure; but expenditure on education rose by only 9 per cent. Therefore more money was spent on research but proportionately less was spent on getting across the results of that research to producers in the industry. Perhaps equally distributing is the fact that general expenses in 1969–70 rose by no less than 63 per cent. over the previous year. This again calls for explanation.

I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the position of the British sugar beet review. I do not know what is happening to it, but expenditure in 1969–70 was drastically down on the previous year. Are this year's accounts likely to show any significant improvement in the situation?

Perhaps I may draw attention to two particular items in the 1969–70 balance sheet. Sundry debtors have increased enormously and the amount invested in local authority loans has drastically decreased. We are at a time when bad debts in all industries, particularly in agriculture, are increasing, as anybody who has worked in the industry will be well aware. Is it safe to switch more of the funds into sundry debtors and less into local authority loans—in other words, is this money perfectly safe? One might ask whether under the 1956 Act there could not be a bigger contribution from the British Sugar Corporation, the annual accounts of which show a net profit of£1½ million. Surely there would be scope for a bigger increase. If an increase is needed in the research and education programme in respect of sugar beet, surely the money should come from the British Sugar Corporation rather than from producers.

My final point is to ask the Minister whether he has studied the E.E.C. regulations on sugar and sugar beet. Can he assure us that there is nothing in the regulations and directives which has any bearing on the operations of the fund? The Minister knows that there are 13 regulations and three directives dealing with sugar beet and there are 111 regulations dealing with sugar, all of which will have to be adopted in the event of our entry into the E.E.C. I shall be grateful to have the Minister's comments on these points.

8.0 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)

In the past Scottish farmers have paid their contributions towards the sugar beet levy. Because a decision was taken by the last Government to close the Cupar sugar beet factory, they will no longer pay these contributions unless the factory is kept open. But research and education is a continuing affair. Therefore, the money which has been paid by Scottish sugar beet growers to the fund will have an effect in future. Although it would seem that we are not to grow sugar beet in Scotland, we have a real interest in the money which we have subscribed in the past to the fund.

When the decision was taken by the last Administration that the Cupar factory should close, many of us asked that the matter should be reviewed. What advice did the Government take from the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee about the future prospects for the growing of sugar beet in Scotland?

I must declare a past interest. At one time I was a member of the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee and therefore took part in its deliberations. When we had a sugar beet crop-growing prize for different areas, in my ignorance when I first joined the committee I asked "Why do we not take into account in assessing the best sugar beet crop in the country the return which we get through the factory for the tonnage of sugar beet and the sugar percentage that is achieved?" I was told, particularly by representatives of the British Sugar Corporation who served on the committee: "You do not understand This crop is grown on a quota basis. Although farmers may have quotas of 25, 30 or 50 acres or whatever it may be, because it is a quota crop they all grow at least 10 per cent., if not 20 per cent., more." I see my hon. Friends on this side of the House nodding agreement. I have spoken to several farmers in different parts of the country and they all agree that the yield which is returned to the British Sugar Corporation is entirely false.

The Ministry in its blindness will not listen to what I think is a common sense argument. If officials from the Ministry were prepared to go to the people in the British Sugar Corporation they would confirm without hesitation that, because it is a quota crop, farmers may put in 25 acres in the front field but that they grow 5 or 10 acres behind. I discovered when I served on the committee that one could not possibly do this on the returns, because everyone cheated.

Another point which comes out concerning Scotland is that the sugar beet crop, because there is more daylight in Scotland, grows in a different way from the sugar beet crop in the South. It is difficult, for instance, to grow a good crop of maize north of Hull because there is too much daylight and maize is a tropical crop. Therefore, in the Northern Hemisphere we tend to get a bigger percentage of top growth with the type of sugar beet which we grow. This is useful in Scotland because we get good animal feeding-stuffs out of the tops. Therefore, in assessing the value of a sugar beet crop, we need to take into account not only the worth which goes into the factory but the by-product. This has never been done.

What advice did my hon. Friend receive about the prospects when the present Government made their review of the last Government's decision to close the Cupar factory? We had on the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee a learned gentleman from the College of Agriculture in Edinburgh who was breeding sugar beet. The pundits, mainly from the South, said "We believe that it is unnecessary to spend money on breeding sugar beet which is good for Scottish conditions."

This is a matter for which the British Sugar Corporation has real responsibility, because the only source from which to buy seed to grow sugar beet is the corporation. It cannot be brought from anywhere else. Plant breeders breed sugar beet, but they tend to breed it for the places where the maximum amount of sugar beet is grown, which are in East Anglia and the South. Growers in Scotland have paid good money over many years, but have they received the benefit of the advice which is necessary to grow a good crop of sugar beet in the Northern Hemisphere beyond a certain latitude?

I know from experience that the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee paid for officials of the British Sugar Corporation to travel to Russia, elsewhere in Europe and various other parts of the world to study sugar-beet growing. I do not believe that they have made sufficient use of the information which was available to them.

What worries me is that as we are joining the European Economic Community, if we decide to grow sugar beet only in the areas where we get the maximum tonnage per acre it is possible that we will arrive at the situation that the Commission in Brussels will say, "A bigger tonnage of sugar beet can be grown in France than in East Anglia, except perhaps for the Fen districts" and that we should not have an increased acreage of sugar beet in the United Kingdom. This is not the kind of thing which our Administration would put up with, but there is no doubt that if we say that the only place to grow sugar beet is where we get the maximum tonnage, we may find that we shall not grow it at all in Great Britain and the whole of the sugar-beet growing will be removed to Europe.

This is easy to say so long as the pundits stick to an idea on the yield, but what we want to arrive at with all crops—it is the same with almost everything in agriculture—is the cost per acre of producing the crops. Not long ago I went to the Smithfield Show and saw yields of beef growing to so many pounds per day, but nobody said how much it had cost to put that poundage of meat on the animal.

What matters in agriculture are the economics. I believe that the economics of growing sugar beet in Scotland, while possibly not as good as the best country in the Fen district, are at least as good as for the districts which will have the increased sugar-beet growing which will come about after we go into the E.E.C. I feel, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Scottish Office have not paid proper attention to the advice they could have got from the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee on the prospects for growing beet economically in Scotland in the future.

This is particularly underlined by the fact that East Scotland, where we grow sugar beet, is potato-growing country. Therefore, we tend to grow our beet on the same row widths as for potatoes. The economics of changing our row widths go against us, so we tend to grow sugar beet on a wide row width. I have had many conversations with the British Sugar Corporation over the years. I know that the corporation is keen that we should minimise row widths. Apparently we will get a better tonnage per acre if we cut down the row widths and, therefore, produce more roots per acre and a more economical crop.

What one has to arrive at is the most economical way for the grower to produce his sugar. The Research and Education Committee has not been asked by the Government to give the advice which it could have given, nor has it been asked to show how the advance of such things as pelleted seed and cutting the cost of seed should reduce the cost of growing beet in Scotland. As a result of a decision taken—I believe wrongly—to cut down on growing beet in Scotland, and with all the money that the Scottish sugar beet growers have subscribed to the fund over the past years, the least that my hon. Friends could have done would have been to say to the Committee, "What do you believe are the possibilities of development in the future?" They did not go anywhere near to doing that. For that reason they should be very severely censured.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling & Falkirk Burghs)

I am delighted at the opportunity of speaking immediately after the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). He and I have been debating the question of sugar beet for a very long time. I accept that it was the previous Government who decided to close the sugar beet factory at Cupar and run down sugar beet growing in Scotland. But I understand that one of the reasons why the hon. Member for Fife, East emerged the victor from the skirmish that he and I had in June, 1970, from which I emerged as loser and moved on to pastures new, was that the Conservative Party held out hope to the beet industry in Scotland that it would reverse the Labour Party's decision.

I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office is present in the Chamber. I well remember his coming to Cupar and saying that the closing and the running down of the sugar beet industry in Scotland was criminal. There was hope, therefore, that if a new Government were elected the industry would be saved.

However, I am interested to note that the order applies to the whole of Great Britain. This baffles me. I wonder what will be the position of the Scottish sugar beet growing industry once the factory at Cupar is closed. I wonder how the Government can possibly increase the levy on farmers, when what is needed is an incentive to grow more. Given this incentive, as has been proved in the past, Scottish farmers will undoubtedly respond.

Many things were said by the hon. Member for Fife, East with which I agree. I should be interested to know what advice the research and education committee gave to Scottish farmers or the British Sugar Corporation when, or if, it approached them on the question of beet growing in Scotland.

This issue is far too important to be discussed in the calm atmosphere of the House and pushed aside as if there was no interest in it. The hon. Member for Fife, East conveyed some of the Scottish farmers' concern about the beet industry. We in Scotland are very concerned about the industry's future and about growing and milling the sugar beet. I should be failing in my duty if I did not say that it is not only the sugar beet industry that is seriously concerned but also the ancillary industries which have been built up as a result of having the sugar beet factory at Cupar, such as transport and various other industries.

I am grateful for the opportunity to focus the attention of Parliament and the country on this grave question which affects us all. I do not pretend to have brought to the debate the expertise and knowledge of the hon. Member for Fife, East. I how to his superior knowledge of this industry. But I can convey to the House the concern which was conveyed to me when I campaigned in the constituency that the hon. Gentleman and I contested last June. I convey that concern to the House now. I ask that the Minister answers the pertinent points that have been raised as to the future for the sugar beet industry in Scotland, and as to what advice was given to the British Sugar Corporation and the National Farmers Union. Perhaps the Minister could go outside the limits of order, if you would allow that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and say specifically why the farmers in Scotland have been refused permission to form the co-operative which was suggested to save the industry and the factory.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

I had half hoped that on my return to the agricultural Front Bench I might have had the red carpet laid out for me by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, instead of which from half-past ten this morning he has been abusing me. He said this morning that I was an agricultural anarchist. Since I was not given an opportunity of replying this morning, I can now reply that I much prefer to be an agricultural anarchist than to be a Brussels bureaucrat, which the Government are rapidly becoming.

I was disappointed that in introducing the order the Parliamentary Secretary restricted himself very much to the narrow technicalities of costings. It has been customary on these orders to deploy a little some of the problems facing the industry to which research and education would have particular relevance. But the point on which the hon. Gentleman relied was of immense interest. It was that the money—"levy" is a familiar term—will be virtually doubled; it is to go up by 80 per cent. He said that this was due to the fact that the Government would need to put additional research and education projects into the industry because of increased competition. This, therefore, is the first fruit of the publication yesterday of the European Communities Bill. The first thing that hap pens is that the levy upon some of our home producers is to be doubled. I am being absolutely accurate in saying this. This is a grave indication of the kind of costs that Britain will face if we go ahead with the efforts produced in that inadequate European Communities Bill to take us into Europe.

My second point is that I should have thought that the Minister would have taken this opportunity to indicate something of the relationship between the Research and Education Committee, with this 80 per cent. increase, a virtually doubled expenditure, and the prospects facing us within the Common Market. If he had given indications of a booming economy, with the sugar industry in successful competition, he might have been able to defend the increase. I am not opposing the increase. I am in favour of research and education within agriculture. Together with Dean Swift, I prefer to see two blades of grass growing where one grew before. Unfortunately it had to be done under the particular economic squeeze. I am not opposing the order but these points must be made in expressing disappointment that the Minister did not give an indication of his expectations for the industry.

I hope that the very pertinent questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) on the analysis of expenditure, and the level of expenditure we might expect—at present we are running at maximum—and the very interesting point he made about value for money, especially on the analysis between the expenditure on research as opposed to expenditure on education, getting into the field and the work of the research committee, will be answered.

My next point was raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). It is not an unfamiliar situation for me to find myself facing the hon. Gentleman on this issue. But it is relevant to the order because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the order applies to Great Britain. Equally important, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, money which has been put into research and education by way of past payments by sugar-beet growers in Scotland continues to produce results for other growers in the future over the country as a whole. Therefore, we have an interest and it is necessary to comment on the points raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East.

The hon. Gentleman is a very loyal member of his party. I think none the less of him for that. He referred to the responsibility of my own Government for the present situation. However, I am sure he will remember my own efforts to keep the factory going. I worked first to get the three-year extension, which was five years from the time that I first became involved. I well remember how devastating it was, trying to get the crop doubled to about 16,000 acres, to find new costings produced. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the relevant papers and I have to rely on my memory. The capital cost brought forward was of the order of £1.7 million and it was calculated that 30,000 acres would be required to maintain the factory.

Sir J. Gilmour

We need to be clear about what we are discussing. I know from the answers to Questions that I have put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the figure of £1.7 million, now increased to £2.2 million, was for the factory to continue on a 40-year basis. What concerns everyone in Scotland now is that, because of the changed situation of the Common Market, the factory might possibly continue until we know what is to happen when we go into Europe. However, the figures are irrelevant to the present argument. We know that the Cupar factory has been processing sugar beet from the South this year because of plant failure in the South. We are asking for an infinitesimal sum compared with £1.7 million or £2.2 million.

Mr. Buchan

I was coming into the present position. However, questions were raised about the situation as it was then. But the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I shall come to that point in a moment.

The present position arises in a changed situation with the question of the Common Market. Then it was whether we could keep that factory going in case something unfortunate happened and we were taken into the Common Market. Would there be an opportunity for sugar beet production to keep going? The position is now different in two ways. The first is the point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East. It is the position of maintaining the factory and not of recapitalising it. It is not a matter of an expenditure of £2 million-plus in order to be able to say that we can project 40 years ahead. It is to see what kind of continuation could take place and what kind of research should take place to see whether it is a proposition for the future.

Sir J. Gilmour

Would not the hon. Gentleman also agree that when his Administration dealt with the matter and when, in 1970, the present Administration dealt with it, the world price of sugar was quite different and we did not know whether we were going into the Common Market? The situation which the hon. Gentleman dealt with when he was at the Scottish Office has been completely reversed.

Mr. Buchan

I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman make my speech for me. Probably he will do it better than I could. But I agree with him. We face a new situation. There must be a response on this. It is not too late. We want it above all because of the other point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs.

One of our reasons for anger about this matter was that expectation was built up by leading spokesmen of the party opposite. They said that, given a successful result at the General Election, the factory could continue. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, East did not say that but I know how strongly he hoped that the statements being made at the time by the present Scottish Whip about how criminal it was of us to close the factory—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. The order is about research and contributions for research. I have allowed the discussion to go rather wide of the point. I hope that in due course we shall come back to the order.

Mr. Buchan

I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Ewing

My hon. Friend obviously did not see the election address of the hon. Member for Fife, East. He is not in a position to see whether the hon. Gentleman promised anything.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does that intervention concern contributions for research?

Mr. Buchan

We may have strayed a little. But it is relevant, because the problem at the time was whether research would be able to increase the yield per acre. I agree that I did not see the election address of the hon. Member for Fife. East. However, I take my hon. Friend's hint about what it may have included. Incidentally, I wonder whether there can be any significance in the fact that I was accused at the time of the last election of being a criminal and, as I have said, this morning I was called an anarchist.

The final point is the relationship between the Research and Education Committee and the various instruments of the Common Market regulations which, for the sake of accuracy, I have before me. They cover 1,500 matters affecting agriculture. I have turned up those on sugar. It occurs to me to ask whether the Government have related the requirements of the order with the bureaucracy which is to be imposed upon us. It is no use involving us in lengthy speeches about the value of a sugar beet order when, at the same time, the Government publish a Bill which intends to put the control of the sugar industry so much into the hands of bureaucrats in Brussels.

This is related to the charges on levies. Clause 7 of the Bill dealing with the Common Market says: In relation to amounts charged for the use of the Sugar Board by a directly applicable Community provision on goods imported in to the United Kingdom, and to refunds of any such amounts, section 6 (5) above, shall have effect as it has effect in the case of other agricultural levies of the European Community, except that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall account to the Sugar Board, in such manner as the Treasury may direct, for all money collected for the benefit of the Board by virtue of that subsection and, pending payment to the Board, shall deal with all such money in such manner as the Treasury may direct. Willy-nilly, the problem of the Sugar Board is written into the Bill. We shall have to fight hard to keep the independence even of some of our research institutions in so far as they are there to protect British interests. The Bill establishes a Sugar Board. It says that there shall be a board in charge of the Government Department. I am not sure whether that means that the Government Department will control the board or vice versa I am clear that the British people will have little say.

Mr. John E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a board whose duties are confined to research or education, or something wider? I am not clear how this relates to research and education.

Mr. Buchan

I am showing the connection between this order and the establishment of a board whose powers will be dealt with under the notorious Clause 2 of the European Communities Bill. Independence of view will be largely removed from the democratic control of this House and put into the hands of the Brussels bureaucracy.

There is, too, the competitor aspect. There is the transport subvention given to keep a factory going for the sake of employment. We have 150,000 unemployed in Scotland. To what extent will this cut across the rules of the Common Market designed to prevent unfair competition? The real point that this raises is that the legislation being imposed upon us impinges on almost every part of our national life which is supposed to centre upon this House. Even on this minor aspect of a sugar beet levy for research we can see the problems we are running into.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart

By leave of the House, I would like to reply to the points that have been raised. It is clear that for some reason best known to himself the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) liked my description of him in Committee this morning as an agricultural anarchist because he was anxious, as it might not be reported in the national Press, that he should get it on the record in the House. Obviously he takes it as a compliment.

This is a rather narrow order, and that is why I would not risk a disputation with yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in entering into a discussion on the Common Market. If you are agreeable I will endeavour to answer points raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope the hon. Gentleman will do it shortly.

Mr. Stodart

The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) asked several pertinent questions, the first of which was: why has it been necessary to make so large an increase? I thought I had already explained this. During the past two years the rate of contribution has been insufficient even to meet the immediate cost of the programme, 70 per cent. of which is attributable to salaries of research and other workers. For example, in 1970–71 income was £210,000 compared with costs of £241,000. The programme this year had to be cut for lack of funds.

I have explained the need to carry forward a reserve, and the combined effect of these factors is that the industry feels the need to provide for a substantial increase which could, with an average crop this year, bring in an extra £150,000. The hon. Member asked me what the likely level of actual contribution would be. This has still to be considered by the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee at its meeting next month. I would be optimistic and think that in the light of the exceptional crop this year it may be found possible to pitch the levy below the maximum.

Thirdly, he asked me about the basis of the 50/50 split of contributions. This is laid down in the Sugar Act. The equal contributions from the producers and growers are of long standing, and as far as I am aware there has never been any problem. I do not think it would be easy to divide the benefits of the research programme precisely. It is essentially a co-operative effort between producer and processor. It works well and is of mutual benefit.

The hon. Member asked me what the likely expansion in the research programme in 1972–73 would be. It may well come to more than £300,000 compared with the £240,000, with some extra work in particular on plant breeding and on husbandry experiments.

Then the hon. Member asked me whether I could say that the producers were getting value for money. I can only say to him that the industry is confident that they are getting value for money, and that is why, as I said to him, they are fully behind the present proposals. They are, of course, fully represented on the Research and Education Committee.

Then the hon. Member asked me, and, of course, needless to say very properly and appropriately, as did the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, what would be the effect of this order if we were to join the Community. There is nothing whatever in the Community's regulations on sugar or sugar beet which would prevent arrangements of this kind: absolutely nothing. Indeed, the existing member States mostly operate research arrangements of a similar nature, and I would have thought them strictly in line with the improvement of efficiency in sugar beet growing.

The hon. Member also asked me one or two questions about the accounts. He pointed out that there was more research and less education compared with the previous year; but he should observe that in 1970–71 education was up by £10,000 and research by £9,000, and that, therefore, the rise in the one was bigger proportionately. Secondly, he pointed out that administrative expenses were up. This is closely linked with increasing salaries, still a very small proportion of total expenditure. Then he pointed out the decrease in local authority loans. There is, in fact, less money in the fund and less to invest, and that is the reason for that.

Mr. Deakins

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the 1970–71 accounts are not currently available in the Vote Office, although they may be laid there shortly, and that I had to work on the previous year's accounts.

Mr. Stodart

I take that point, and I think those accounts will be available.

I must now turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for File, East (Sir J. Gilmour), the hon. Member for Sterling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West about the position of the Cupar Sugar beet factory, although this was a subject which I thought, with the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be wide of the question of levies. I would say first, in case you stop me, what is undoubtedly in order, that this order applies to Britain, and has the Secretary of State's name linked to it. The reason is that it would not be beyond the realms of possibility, although I would say that it was beyond the realms of likelihood, that sugar beet might be grown in Berwickshire next year and taken to a North of England factory, in which case it would be leviable on the grower as on every other grower of sugar beet. It no one grows sugar beet in Scotland, no levy will be paid. That is the reason for the Secretary of State's interest.

Sir J. Gilmour

Would it not also indicate that the Government's mind is not entirely closed to keeping sugar beet growing in Scotland?

Mr. Stodart

I had better say only that hope springs eternal. But more than that I will not say, and I do not believe that my hon. Friend would expect me to say more. It has been said today that considerable hopes were held out that, with the change in Government, the factory would be kept open. I can only ask hon. Members to read the statement for which I was responsible, which went no further than saying that we would examine the situation, getting information which was, quite properly, not available to us: the Government of the day had the information. I said that it would be reviewed, and my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that he did. I could not accept that anyone in the present Government held out hopes and gave grounds for expectation that the factory would be kept open. That is going a great deal further than any of us did in Opposition.

Mr. Buchan rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue further the matter of Cupar.

Mr. Buchan

I was going to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I confess.

Mr. Stodart

That makes it slightly difficult for me. Naturally, I will do whatever you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I can only apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who has put up a tremendous fight to keep the factory open. I hope he will not think me discourteous if I bow to your Ruling and say no more than that, with the best will in the world, I can add nothing to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already said.

Sir J. Gilmour

But is it not true that Scottish growers have paid to the Sugar Beet Research and Education Com mittee? What I want to know—I think that this is in order—is what advice the committee gave the Government about sugar beet growing in Scotland. This is in order, because we have paid the levy this year and we can pay it next year if sugar beet is grown.

Mr. Stodart

With respect, this order is about a levy to be paid next year for the coming crop [Interruption.] Before the hon. Gentleman interrupts me, let me say that I am not dodging my hon. Friend's question. He asked me what advice the committee gave. I do not know, but I will find out for him. A review of this matter was carried out by my right hon. Friend. I will certainly draw to his attention this question, which no doubt the hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities of pursuing on other occasions.

The results of the research programme over the years have been good. It has put the sugar beet industry in this country under climatic conditions which might not be considered ideal, among the productive beet growers of the world. Money spent in this way, which is a good example of the industry helping itself, is also a good investment.

I am grateful to the House for listening to me twice in the one evening and for signifying that it will accept the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) (Increase of Contributions) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

c1726
1. ADJOURNMENT 12 words