HC Deb 17 July 1985 vol 83 cc302-4
4. Mr. Bruce

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss the impact of cuts in the agricultural research and advisory services on farms in the less favoured areas.

Mr. John MacKay

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union on 22 March 1985, when the future funding of agricultural research and development and of the advisory services was discussed. He has arranged to discuss this subject, among others, when he meets the president of the union next week.

Mr. Bruce

I am surprised that it is so long since the Government met the union, in view of the great concern among farmers in Scotland about the Government's policy. Is the Minister aware that I and my colleagues met senior representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union this week, when they expressed deep concern about Government policy on cutting advisory services and capital grants? Nearly 90 per cent. of Scotland's farmers are in less favoured areas, and they require the Secretary of State and his Ministers to stand up and fight for them. There are problems which are peculiar to Scotland, and so far the Government's policy is causing loss of morale and deep despair. Many farmers will be forced out of business and off the hill, and that will undermine rural communities.

Mr. MacKay

My right hon. and hon. Friends meet the Scottish National Farmers Union at the times that I have stated, and they will meet representatives next week. when they will discuss these matters yet again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the SNFU briefly at Ingliston, where these matters were discussed. It is worth reporting to the House, before we believe all the histrionics of the hon. Gentleman, that, even after the expenditure reductions are made, almost £29 million will be spent every year on research and development and advisory services in Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the need for a comprehensive research and advisory service for Scottish agriculture in the difficult years of change that lie ahead? How can such a comprehensive research and advisory service be established if in the coming 18 months the Government go ahead with a 41 per cent. cut in the budget for this work?

Mr. MacKay

If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have realised that I said that, even after the reductions in expenditure, about £29 million will be spent on research and development in 1987–88. That is a considerable sum of public money which is still being spent on research and development.

Mr. Andy Stewart

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cutback may be a good measure, as imports of agricultural machinery increased by 112 per cent. during that period?

Mr. MacKay

My hon. Friend is correct to point to what has happened during the past few years. The claims of Opposition parties about the effect of research and development are exaggerated. Research is conducted in many more places than just the Government research institutes. The industry conducts research into a number of matters.

Mr. Eadie

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that his reply is causing concern to some of us. I had an Adjournment debate on this subject, because this matter affects my constituents on the Bush estate, Penicuik area. The Monister's colleague, Lord Gray, has written to me saying that the whole matter will be considered in relation to the submissions. Overwhelming Scottish opinion is that the Government's policy is wrong. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Department has reconsidered this matter since Lord Gray wrote to me?

Mr. MacKay

A consultation paper on future strategy for research and development was issued on 30 May. Consideration is being given to the comments that were received. I think that I explained the position to the hon. Gentleman in his Adjournment debate. That is still the position.

Mr. McQuarrie

I accept that £29 million will be available in 1986–87, but is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern that has been expressed by universities, colleges and farmers in the less favoured areas? Will my hon. Friend continue with the consultation to which he referred in a written parliamentary answer to ensure that that cut is not implemented until there is a satisfactory solution to the problem?

Mr. MacKay

We shall take account of all the observations made to us as a result of the research and development consultative paper. A similar paper on the advisory service will be published shortly. We shall take account of all those matters. I am sure that the colleges, in their observations, will be mindful of the importance of the advisory services keeping a high profile in the less favoured areas.

Mr. Wilson

Why did the hon. Gentleman tamely pass on to the Scottish advisory services the cuts that had first been produced in England? Does he realise that a high proportion of the farms in ill favoured areas will not be able to afford the fees for the advice that they need to cope with the changes that will be imposed through the common agricultural policy?

Mr. MacKay

The reductions in expenditure were not passed on from England. They were part and parcel of the negotiations with the Treasury on the total amount of spending on agriculture in England, Wales and Scotland. Even after these reductions are made, £29 million will still be spent on research and development. A total of £34 million will still be spent on research and development and the advisory services.

Mr. Ewing

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that £29 million is 41 per cent. less than the amount being spent at present? Has he and, more importantly, his noble Friend come to understand that the link in Scotland between research and development and the advisory services is much greater than that which prevails in England and Wales? Is he aware that the cuts in Scotland will do irreparable damage to agriculture? The Minister should withdraw these proposals.

Mr. MacKay

I cannot believe that a continuing total expenditure of £34 million for 1987–88 represents irreparable damage. We shall be considering how to make those reductions after discussions with the colleges and research institutes, after taking the advice of the Priorities Board on priorities for research and development and after listening to the observations of the National Farmers Union.