§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
11.22 pm§ Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss tonight the subject of the agricultural research budget, because there is no doubt that British agriculture is entering a very troubled period. I believe that it faces immense change, not as a consequence of the need to rectify inefficiencies but because its very efficiency has contributed surpluses in some foodstuffs. Dairy quotas have already come, and cereal limitation is shortly to be tackled.
The farming industry knows, as the National Farmers Union has recently stated, that the pattern of farming is likely to change both in support and in market requirement. The country will want, instead of just maximum production, which is what it has asked of its farmers for the last 40 years, the inclusion of product quality, dietary needs and environmental safeguards. These in their turn will lead to new products and to new production systems.
Farming cannot cope with this change without help. It needs Government advice and help which is based upon research as to how it should diversify and into what crops so that it can meet the changed requirements which the country asks of it.
It is at this very moment that the Government have chosen to imitate a hard-hearted Hannah who, as hon. Members will remember, was chiefly distinguished for pouring water on a drowning man.
In the last public expenditure review, in January, cuts in expenditure on research in agriculture by the Department amounted to £10 million for 1986–87 and £20 million for 1987–88. I understand that, of that total, MAFF's share is likely to be £8.25 million in the first of those two years and £16.5 million in the second.
I emphasise that this is not the first time that the research budget has been cut, but the second time in as many years. The Department of Education and Science science budget, much of which is devoted to the Agricultural and Food Research Council, has already been considerably cut. In 1984–85, the AFRC will suffer the loss of 550 jobs, of which 100 will be made compulsorily redundant. By 1987–88, that number will have increased to 1,200 job losses. I emphasise that those figures do not take account of the latest cuts of which I am speaking tonight.
The stupidity of the logic of making these cuts is nowhere highlighted more than by comparing what is spent in research costs with intervention costs. Total agricultural R and D is about £200 million, and MAFF's expenditure on R and D in agriculture is about £120 million. For 1986–87, our scheduled intervention costs for over-production under the system, which, on all hands, is accepted as requiring change, is £1.160 billion. That is a forecast amount, but the actual amount that we shall be spending next year on intervention will be £1.315 billion.
Of that figure, as a result of last year's increase in grain and other products alone, £189 million has had to be added to the budget, and £189 million is more than the total research budget of MAFF and almost as much as the total agricultural research budget. Yet if we want to reduce 410 these surpluses and gain control of a system of agriculture that seems to be out of control, research geared to competitive and efficient production, but compatible with welfare and environmental costs, is desperately needed. That alone will reduce the cost of food and costs to the producer.
For example, the Minister's response to the COMA report—announced in a written answer yesterday —talks about the exclusion of the fattest quality of meat. But that of itself is a negative concept. It should be accompanied by positive research which will enable, for example, sheep farmers to produce marketable lean lambs which meet customers' demands. That must be the way forward. If we are to create, and satisfy, a demand for leaner meat, we must not only penalise the fattest meat but create and stimulate an industry which produces leaner animals.
The £20 million cut of which I speak is about 14 per cent. of expenditure. It will, I understand, mean the loss in total of 2,000 jobs, of which 1,000 will be scientists. That would be harsh, but, frankly, if it could be shown that our expenditure on agricultural R and D was already excessive, it would be a price that would have to be accepted.
But that, alas, is not true. If these cuts go ahead, the spending on agriculture and food research and development will be lower per capita than that in any other country in the EEC, with the exception of Greece and Italy, which are hardly agricultural models to follow. We must remember, too, that, as well as being our partners, other EEC countries are also our competitors, selling agricultural products in the increasingly competitive markets which can be forecast for the next decade They will have the advantage of a much better and bigger research backup.
The Minister, of course, will say that I am alarmist and that nothing has yet been said about job losses or the closure of establishments. That is true. The Government, in what is now an all too familiar pattern, having decided the ends, have neglected to indicate the means by which they will effect savings. Not the least cruelty in the whole process is the uncertainty about people's futures which has been aroused and which is being allowed to drift. The Minister will probably indignantly repudiate that by saying that the Priorities Board is already at work to solve the uncertainties by the allocation of resources between the different forms of agriculture and food research, taking into account future priorities. I will be asked why we should not leave it to the board.
I have no doubt that the Priorities Board will do the best it can, but it has already been given the answer to the sum. All it is being asked to do is to figure out the working to get to that answer. A sensible Government would have reversed the process, but the Government are not at all sensible when it comes to monetarism, even when the well-being of the country is being jeopardised, as it is here.
Nor can I accept that the Priorities Board should be charged with this task. It is not democratically accountable and it has no consumer representation. The Minister in answering the debate should say whether or not the report of the board will be publicly available. I suspect not. The passion which the Conservative party has for privatisation has led the Government to privatise matters which, like this one, are properly the responsibility of Government. Great anxiety has been expressed to me as to whom, if anyone, the board has consulted. None of the representatives to whom I have spoken has as yet been 411 involved. We would welcome being told by the Minister in the response to the debate the date when the report of the Priorities Board is expected. I fear it will not be until late summer. If that is so, until that date both the AFRC and, more importantly, those engaged in the research will not know where the cuts will fall. That is a poor reward for the loyalty and devotion of the employees.
In the absence of firm data, I am forced to make certain assumptions in an attempt to press the Minister to be more definite. The first assumption is that MAFF research spending is divided almost equally between its internal research and research commissioned by the AFRC. If that is so, a fair working assumption would be that they will bear the cuts almost equally. I have already stated that in all some 2,000 jobs will disappear. Of these, I believe that it is fair to put a minimum figure of 700–800 on the jobs lost in the AFRC. Taken with its present job loss plans, which I mentioned at the beginning, the AFRC's job loss in the next few years will be 2,000.
Not only does a job loss of such magnitude represent a tragic waste of human potential, but it also puts in jeopardy the future of a number of establishments. Lord Selborne, the chairman of the AFRC, writing in Big Farm Weekly, has specified at least two as being at risk of closure. As to which they are, we must await the report of the Priorities Board. The most heavily supported by MAFF are the National Vegetable Research Station at Wellesbourne, the Poultry Research Centre at Edinburgh, the Glasshouse Crops Research Station, Sussex, and the East Malling Research Station at Maidstone. In Wales, is the unjustified threat to the Plant Breeding Station at Aberystwyth to be renewed?
"Ah," the Minister will say in one of the magic incantations that we now expect, "we want private money to come in, which means that all the jobs losses that are feared will not happen." It is impossible in the time scale to guarantee funding, certainly in an industry subject to a financial squeeze. In any event, the injection of such money would go to projects which are immediate and which would bear quick results. Private money will not be able to supplement Government money in the long-term research which is subject to the inevitable delays, vagaries and uncertainties. It is in that area that Government investment cannot be supplanted.
The long-term basis of agricultural research is now being destroyed. Even if it had its effects only in this country it would be criminal, but the truth is that it will also affect our ability to make a significant contribution to the conquest of the famine that affects much of the world. To do that in pursuit of savings which, in terms of global expenditure, are puny, shames us. The Minister must know that once a research programme is halted and a team broken up, it is difficult to put it together again.
For the sake of the highly qualified scientists, for the sake of our farmers who face an uncertain future without knowing how and where to direct their efforts, and for the sake of our reputation as a caring nation, I appeal to the Minister to reverse this harmful and unjustifiable decision.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr.
412 John) for raising this important subject and allowing us an opportunity to talk about our plans relating to agricultural research and development.
Let me say at the outset that the Government fully appreciate the contribution which research and development make to the well-being of our agricultural industry and the community at large. The scale of our commitment is evidenced by the considerable sums of public money—to which the hon. Gentleman, to do him credit, referred—devoted to the agriculture programme by the Agriculture Departments and the Department of Education and Science. In 1983–84, expenditure on agricultural research and development was £160 million and, although it falls outside the strict terms of this debate, hon. Members may like to be aware that a further £40 million of Government funds were spent on food and fisheries research. This total expenditure of over £200 million of national resources is a clear indication of the importance that we attach to these subjects.
The objective of the research and development programme is to advance scientific knowledge relevant to agriculture and food in order to increase the efficiency of the industry while at the same time protecting the environment and preventing adverse social effects. I make that point because the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that this was a whole new area that required additional research. It has always formed part of research into this work.
The more basic research is carried out by the research councils with funds provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, from the science Vote. The funds from my own Department are devoted to work of more immediate importance to the industries, and those which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland support the basic and applied research of Scottish agricultural research institutes and the development work of the Scottish agricultural colleges.
The Agricultural and Food Research Council is the main contractor for work commissioned by my Department on agricultural research and development. As hon. Members will no doubt be aware, the AFRC is a body which operates under a Royal Charter and it carries out its work by running or grant-aiding research institutes and by awarding research grants to teams of scientists in the universities. About half of its income is received from the science Vote and half from commissioned work. In 1983–84 the council received £45.8 million in grant in aid and £51.3 million from MAFF commissions.
In Scotland, as I have indicated, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is responsible for administering the seven Scottish agricultural research institutes which form part of the Agricultural and Food Research Service. The institutes contribute significantly to the agricultural research and development effort, particularly in relation to the soils, crops and livestock in the climate of northern Britain. The Department is also responsible for administering the three Scottish agricultural colleges which undertake development work in close association with their advisory and educational activities.
My own Department also carries out a major programme of agricultural research and development. About one third of the total effort of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is devoted to research and development. We run experimental husbandry farms and experimental horticultural stations which evaluate 413 research results and develop and integrate them into production systems that can be applied in commercial practice. There is also a network of central and regional science and veterinary laboratories, and a cattle-breeding centre, which are all concerned to a greater or lesser degree with research and development over a wide field. In addition, there is a good deal of local investigation of particular problems encountered by the industry. All this amounts to a considerable investment of public resources, costing some £40 million a year.
To achieve a fully co-ordinated approach to agricultural and food research and development, a priorities board was established in 1984 to advise the Agriculture Departments and the AFRC on research and development priorities and the allocation of research budgets. The board is small, with an independent chairman, Sir Kenneth Durham, chairman of Unilever, and a majority of independent members representing customer and scientific interests. Although the board is advisory, the Government expect that its advice will normally be accepted.
The hon. Gentleman wanted me to say whether the board's report would be made public. If its advice is sometimes not accepted, perhaps it would be as well for it not to be made public. However, when the Government appoint a board to advise them, it is expected that its advice will normally be accepted.
Representatives of the Agriculture Departments and the Agricultural and Food Research Council are on the priorities board and are therefore fully involved in the formulation of its advice. We believe that the board, which can take a view of national needs over the whole range of agricultural and food research and development has a major role to play in guiding the direction of the research effort. The hon. Gentleman did not give the board credit for being in a position to so advise the Departments.
It is against that background of a close and effective research partnership that I wish to set the Government's plans for future expenditure on agricultural research and development.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced on 22 January, provision for expenditure by the Agriculture Departments on research and development has been reduced by £10 million in 1986–87 and £20 million in 1987–88. There are no reductions in planned expenditure for 1985–86. The reductions in 1986–87 and 1987–88 are provisional and will be influenced by the scope for industry support of research carried out by the public sector. They should not be seen as casting doubt on the Government's appreciation of the value of agricultural research. Rather, they represent the view—I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not share it—that it is not unreasonable that the industry should bear part of the cost of a service from which it benefits. The financial arrangements that I outlined earlier indicate the scale of the Government's commitment to the research and development effort. We believe that there is scope for a change in the pattern of funding, so that the industry is more fully involved in contributing to the work which is being done and in determining the nature of that research effort.
The Agriculture Ministers have asked the priorities board to consider and advise on the allocation of resources between the different sectors of agriculture and food, taking account of future priorities for the direction of research and the scope and prospects for increased levels of industry funding. When we have that advice we shall consult the industry about the mechanisms which might be 414 appropriate for securing the greater involvement that we wish to achieve, and we shall be taking our decisions about the future direction of the research programme.
The poposed reductions in expenditure are shared as the hon. Gentleman suggested — £8.25 million to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1986–87 and £16.5 million in 1987–88 because of the share with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
The revised expenditure plans and the move towards greater industry participation could clearly have significant implications for the Agricultural and Food Research Council and for the resources devoted to in-house research and development. There are likely to be some changes in relative priorities, and the industry is likely to be involved in areas in which it has not previously participated. At this stage, it is not possible to be precise about the scale and nature of these changes. We have made no change in the funds earmarked for research and development in the coming financial year to allow us to consider, in conjunction with all the parties involved, the way forward which will ensure maximum effectiveness of the revised arrangements.
The move towards greater industry participation accords with the initiative taken by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in establishing a working party on private sector funding for the research councils. The working party, chaired by Professor Peter Mathias, is aiming to establish the facts about the present funding of scientific research by charities, industry and commerce and to consider what scope there might be for increasing the flow of such funds to the research councils and higher education.
The AFRC's recently published corporate plan recognises that if the scale of the council's research for the industries it serves is to be maintained it will be necessary to draw its support from elsewhere. The council already receives more than £2 million per annum from the private sector and over the planning period 1985 to 1990 will aim significantly to increase its funding from industry. We support this approach most strongly.
For the AFRC, the funds which we hope will be available through contributions from industry w ill take their place alongside the grant-in-aid from the science Vote and the revenue from other commissioned work. It will be for the AFRC to manage its resources within that total funding. I accept that concern has been expressed about the future of staff and institutes, but I do not think that it would be helpful to speculate on such aspects tonight. Decisions on these points depend on decisions yet to be taken on priorities and on the level of industry contributions. We recognise the importance of these decisions and will aim to provide clear guidelines for the future as rapidly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman gave figures which he said showed that we shall be below the levels of funding of EC countries except for Italy and Greece. There has been much debate about the appropriateness of the various indicators of relative spending on agricultural research and development. All of the methods have their limitations, but they can draw attention to some interesting questions. Different approaches can draw different conclusions. It is beyond doubt, however, that our agricultural research and development effort has been supported well by the Government. Even after the adjustments, we shall still 415 make a major contribution to the costs of that research programme. That contribution will stand comparison with all of our competitors.
I appreciate that we are to some extent breaking new ground in our efforts to involve industry more fully in the research and development effort, but we believe that this is the right way forward. When there are constraints on public expenditure, it makes good sense to encourage those who are likely to benefit from the work which is being undertaken to share in its costs. I recognise that the proposed expenditure reductions and the issues which have 416 still to be resolved on industry funding give rise to uncertainties for all those involved in the research and development effort. It should be remembered, however, that the Government will still be making a major contribution to agricultural research and development and that we shall be seeking the active co-operation of industry in our future plans. I am sure that through the arrangements that we are aiming to establish we can maintain a strong and effective research effort which will be of benefit to the industry and the country as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o' clock.