HC Deb 27 October 1976 vol 918 cc664-74

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

1.53 a.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks (Bodmin)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of the future of the Ellbridge Experimental Horticultural Station at Hatt, near Saltash, and I am obliged to the Minister for his presence, even at this late hour.

In raising this matter I recognise the very real economic problems facing our country, and the fact that this situation demands cuts in the level of public expenditure. There is a fair measure of agreement among responsible politicians of all political parties about this. I readily appreciate that in the current economic climate no Government Department can claim automatic exemption from the Chancellor's requirements, and that the Ministry of Agriculture has an obligation here like any other Department.

Following the Chancellor's announcement on 22nd July this year, the Ministry made public those cuts affecting it. These totalled £25 million. One of the contributions to the net savings was itemised as follows, and I quote from the Ministry hand-out to the Press: Postponement of expansion in research and development and miscellaneous minor savings—£2,500,000. Later I learned to my surprise and disappointment that the Ellbridge Experimental Horticultural Station was to be included in the list of cuts, that this five-acre unit was to be closed at the end of the 1977 cropping season.

Since this news was made public considerable concern has been expressed locally. I have received a large number of representations from both individual growers and representative organisations, such as the horticulture committee of the Cornwall branch of the National Farmers' Union, local NFU branches and the Tamar Valley and Ellbridge Growers' Co-operative. A public meeting was held in Cargreen and as a result a telegram was sent to the Minister of Agriculture. Since then I have been in correspondence with the Minister.

In a parliamentary reply given to me on 20th October 1976 the Minister stated that the total cost of operating this station in 1975–76 was approximately £38,500. Offset against this figure was a revenue of £4,500, derived from the sale of produce. In other words, we are talking about an apparent net saving of £34,000, but I believe that that figure is misleading, since the Ministry has admitted that if Ellbridge is closed an adviser will be based at the divisional offices at Liskeard. This person's salary has still to be met, plus his additional travelling expenses.

Furthermore, it has been argued that, because of the greater area involved and the number of growers that have to be serviced, a second advisory officer could well be required at some future stage. This would cost the Ministry, in terms of both salary and expenses, probably about £6,000 or £7,000 per annum, so that the quoted figure of net savings by the closure of Ellbridge is very questionable, irrespective of the decline in the quality of servicing and advice that would surely result.

I believe that there a are number of good, sound reasons why Ellbridge should be retained, perhaps in a somewhat different form. I want briefly to outline them to the House.

First, I believe that this specific proposal to close an important centre is totally inconsistent with the Government's own White Paper policy document, "Food From Our Own Resources". Secondly, this station services not only the 128 registered horticultural holdings in the Tamar Valley but a wider catchment area in respect of strawberry growing. It is relevant to point out that many growers in the Tamar Valley are family units and that a close liaison has evolved over the years between these growers and E11-bridge

Thirdly, closure would mean growers in my constituency having to use either Rosewarne, near Camborne—about 60 miles away—or Efford, in the constituency of Lymington, which may please my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who, I see, is present. Efford is 150 miles away. It may be suggested on good grounds that neither alternative is environmentally and climatically suitable to reflect the needs and requirements of the Tamar Valley.

My fourth point concerns the number of grower visits. In 1975 there were over 1,200 such visits to Ellbridge, a firm indication of the value of the station to local growers. If one compares that figure with grower visits to other stations one observes a much higher use of Ellbridge.

My fifth point concerns employment. Nine people would be affected. I do not claim that they would all lose their jobs, but Ellbridge is situated within the South-Western Development Area, a district of very high unemployment. The figures issued this week from the Department of Employment show a further increase in the South-West assisted areas.

My sixth point is that Ellbridge has over the years worked up a first-class reputation, not only for protective crops but, more recently, in respect of the small glass unit. It is an available centre for the training of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service staff. Appointment to Ellbridge gives a member of the Ministry considerable experience in administration, in contact with people and in respect of the advisory and experimental work.

In addition, it has been suggested that Ellbridge has been chosen for the axe because 18 per cent. of the resources of the Ministry's allocation for research and development is concentrated in the South-West and Wales, yet this combined area is responsible for only 6 per cent. of the horticultural produce of England and Wales. I seriously question that latter figure. But surely the criteria upon which such decisions should be made must include the cost-effectiveness of the individual station involved and the number of growers served.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas (Monmouth)

There is a very serious point concerning, the distance involved, the mileage and the relationships. We are faced with the situation in my constituency that in addition to Ellbridge in the South-West, Clepra Park is to be closed. I have corresponded with the Parliamentary Secretary and with the Minister of State, but I have received a blank-wall response. It means that the whole of Wales and Monmouthshire will be totally deprived of an experimental station. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) said, the distances involved are considerable. In the replies that I have received there seems to be a total inability on the part of Ministers to realise the importance of the relationship among growers, not just in Wales and Monmouthshire, but in Bristol. Gloucestershire and a wide area of the western part of the South-West.

Mr. Hicks

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the distances.

I have made what I believe to be a strong case based on objective reasoning for the retention of the Ellbridge experimental centre. I do not expect the Minister to announce tonight the instant reversal of his earlier decision. That would be too much to hope for. But I want him to consider agreeing to suspend any final judgment until he has had the opportunity personally to investigate the possibility of changing the role and function of Ellbridge by placing a greater emphasis on demonstration rather than experimentation. I believe that that would provide for easier management. It would reduce costs on the one hand and increase revenue on the other. By that course of action it should be possible to reduce the net cost—which the Minister said was about £34,000, although I believe it to be less—to about £15,000 to £17,000 a year.

If this were possible, the Ellbridge station would still be making a contribution to cuts in public expenditure and, at the same time, a valuable service to the Tamar Valley horticultural industry would be retained. The service is appreciated by growers and once an asset like Ellbridge is destroyed, it is far more difficult to replace it.

2.5 a.m.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

Despite the fact that some of my hon. Friend's constituents may find their way into my constituency, I support his case and admire his efforts.

The Tamar Valley, as anyone who knows it will confirm, is a unique area. Some of the savings which Government Departments put forward are often mythical and there is frequently no deduction of the removal costs involved.

In my constituency, we suffer a reverse manpower flow in the removal of SRDE in Highcliffe to Malvern. I urge the Minister to examine my hon. Friend's pleas very carefully.

2.6 a.m.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) for raising this matter as it gives me the opportunity to clarify some of the issues associated with the closure of the Ellbridge sub-station. First, however, I should say how much I appreciate the concern that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have shown on behalf of the horticultural industry. The hon. Gentleman has also written to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have great sympathy with the concern expressed by the horticulturists in the area about this decision and can assure them that it was taken only after very full consideration of all the facts.

Some emphasis has been laid on the marginal nature of the savings that will be achieved by this measure. But the Ministry has to make its contribution to a reduction in public expenditure. A Department such as mine cannot put together a significant package without aggregating items which individually might be described as "chicken-feed". Our contribution to the manpower economies required of the Government service can best be achieved by looking for savings that can be made without detriment to the essential needs of the industries we serve. We are satisfied that this is the case here.

Ellbridge is a sub-station of a major centre which is also in Cornwall, situated at Rosewarne near Camborne, and which is remaining in being. The essential needs of the South-West will be met by the remaining experimental horticulture stations which will, if necessary, defer other work in their programmes to accommodate the transferred work.

The Ellbridge Advisory Committee will be meeting early next month and will consider closely this aspect of the closure. My officials will attend that meeting to join in this assessment of the on-going work needed and where it should be done. As evidence of our firm intention to effect a smooth transition, the Chairman of the Ellbridge Committee has been invited to serve on the advisory body for the Rosewarne Experimental Horticulture Station and I am delighted to say that he has accepted.

The main experiments on the substation have been concerned with outdoor bulb flowers, tomatoes and cucumbers under glass and plastic structures and early strawberries. Work on outdoor bulb flowers is already a major part of the Rosewarne programme and any outstanding work from Ellbridge could be transferred there. Rosewarne and the Efford Experimental Horticulture Station in Hampshire both work on the main crops under glass and plastics. Consequently, the only crop which presents a problem is early strawberries where the crop response under the peculiar climatic conditions of the area cannot exactly be simulated else- where. Experimental work on early strawberries is however carried out at Efford Experimental Horticulture Station.

It might be helpful if I spent a few minutes setting this question in perspective by giving a few facts about our experimental centres. There are 11 experimental horticulture stations, including the sub-stations, and the net cost of operating them in 1975–76 was about £1,700,000 compared with the somewhat lower figure of £1,500,000 for the 13 experimental husbandry farms. The value of the horticultural industry in England and Wales in the same period was about £500 million compared with some £5,000 million for agriculture. I think that these broad figures indicate that horticulture is very far from being neglected, in terms of research and development investment from Exchequer funds. It is a most important part of our industry and is given priority that reflects this importance.

The Ellbridge sub-station was established as a full experimental centre by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1954 to cater for the special conditions of the Tamar Valley and East Cornwall in which soft fruit, especially strawberries, early vegetables, flowers and glass crops were grown. The sub-station has a much longer history as a demonstration centre, because it was first set up in 1926 by the Cornwall County Council. In the early 1950s there were 1,200 growers in the area but today there are only about 250. The length of the centre's history, spanning half a century, adds to the natural concern expressed by those who regret its closure.

The hon. Gentleman fairly argued that the centre might be reduced, but remain in being as a demonstration unit. It may be that the pre-war role of the centre prompted that alternative proposal.

Ellbridge has in the past mounted some demonstrations and growers were welcome to see on-going experiments. But its main purpose, as with the other centres, has been to generate new information which was then incorporated into the regional experimental/demonstration programme. Demonstrations are often mounted by ADAS in conjunction with commercial growers. I understand, for instance, that, as promising new strawberry varieties emerge from the national fruit trials, the Tamar Valley adviser will arrange for trials to be carried out on commercial holdings to test their suitability under the local climatic conditions. Plans to this end and financial provision, have already been made by the local ADAS. Thus, it will be possible to ensure that information is available to growers through the standard ADAS procedure, whereas to retain the station for demonstration purposes only would incur continuing overhead costs.

I think that I should respond to the hon. Gentleman's statement regarding an advisory officer. Indeed, he suggested that there might eventually be two advisory officers for the area. The advisory officer is already there and at present allocates only 10 per cent. of his time to Ellbridge. There has been no suggestion of a second advisory officer. I must emphasise that the advisory effort of ADAS in this part of the country is not affected.

Concern has also been expressed about the rundown and closure of the experimental centre at Cleppa Park in Wales. We appreciate that the decision is naturally regretted by horticulturists directly interested and concerned. The advisory committee there will shortly be meeting to consider what priority work should be transferred elsewhere. For example, experiments with bedding plants are well known and of national interest and may have a claim for transfer to a suitable station elsewhere.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas

Where?

Mr. Strang

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I should prefer the advisory committee to meet and deliberate on this matter first. I should then be happy to write to him and explain what we propose to do. There is no intention on our part to end valuable and important work. It is a question of working out the most appropriate way of carrying it out elsewhere where it can be justified.

I turn now to the effects of the Ell-bridge closure on the people concerned and the question of redundancies. ADAS officers, who are subject to mobility as part of their normal conditions of service, will be redeployed to fill vacancies elsewhere arising from normal wastage. The six full-time and one part-time horticultural workers consist of three apprentices who will move at the end of their apprenticeships, two workers who have already reached the Civil Service retirement age, and two others who will be advised of vacancies at other experimental centres, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and other Government Departments in the locality, so that they may apply for them if they so wish.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that somehow we could avoid these difficulties when taking harsh decisions of this nature. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort is being made to avoid any hardship and disturbance to local staff. I make it absolutely clear that I should be very anxious to hear if any particular difficulties arise with regard to the personal circumstances of the staff, which is something of great concern to me, and if they are not adequately taken care of.

I hope that what I have said makes it clear that all aspects of the question were examined with great care before the decision to close Ellbridge sub-centre was taken. The essential research and development needs of the horticultural industry in general and that part of the country in particular will be suitably catered for. Indeed, I regard the research and development effort as a prime constituent of the work of the ADAS.

The total R and D effort at horticultural centres, which is very substantial, will not, overall, be significantly reduced by the closure of Ellbridge. I know that the number of growers in the Tamar Valley may, since the 1950s and for a number of reasons, have shrunk considerably. I also know that the value placed by these growers on ADAS assistance is no less than in the rest of the country. But I am confident that their needs will continue to be met by the ADAS.

I am glad that when he opened the debate the hon. Member for Bodmin acknowledged that the Government's policy of containing the level of public expenditure and of reducing the public sector borrowing requirements, which is leading to these difficult decisions, is not opposed by the Opposition. On the contrary, it is fair to say that the most overriding and forceful criticism being made of the Government by the Opposition at present is that we are not making sufficiently effective cuts, that we are not really cutting back substantially on public spending in the way demanded by the needs of the economy. The hon. Gentleman recognised and acknowledged this, so I know that he will appreciate that if further cuts in public expenditure are to be made, and if the advisory services in agriculture have to be cut—and we must acknowledge that very substantial cuts were made by the previous Conservative Government—it is inevitable that we must take these very difficult decisions.

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is quite legitimately and properly taking up what he regards as a very important matter for his constituency, and something that he regards as a real setback to the local horticultural industry. This is naturally something that causes him concern. These are very difficult decisions for Ministers. However, if we did not do this we should have to save the money elsewhere.

I am glad that hon. Members have not found it easy to put forward counter-suggestions about where we can make savings in the agricultural sector. I do not think that they would suggest for a moment that somehow in this exercise we could exclude agriculture completely, or that we could exclude the horticultural side of the industry.

However, I give the hon. Member for Bodmin this final assurance. If there is anything that I can do to help to reduce or mitigate the difficulties created by this closure at Ellbridge, or, indeed, that at Cleppa Park, I shall certainly be happy to look at it. But it would be quite wrong for me in this debate to raise any false hopes about the Government being able to make any basic reappraisal or modification of their policy with respect to this painful containment of public expenditure.

Mr. Hicks

If the advisory committee at Ellbridge puts forward proposals at its next meeting for a bigger role for the demonstration side, could the whole situation be looked at again?

Mr. Strang

I shall try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Our officials will be attending that meeting with the advisory committee and they will be bringing back to me a report of the discussions at that meeting. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we in the Ministry will give careful consideration to everything said at that meeting.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Two o'clock.