§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 6, after 'or', insert, 1112
'subject to approval by affirmative resolution of the House of Commons'.
§
No. 4, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
'(3A) Within three months of the passing of this Act the Minister shall set out in a report to Parliament the criteria which he proposes to apply in determining whether to introduce charges for services provided under this section, the method of charging which he proposes to adopt, the amounts which he proposes to charge, and any exemptions from charging which he proposes to make. '.
§
No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
'(3A) The Minister shall appoint such officers and staff as may be necessary for the supply of services or goods under this section and shall provide training appropriate to their duties.'.
§ Mr. JohnSome of the amendments in this group amend in part the basis of charging and the number of staff in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, but amendment No. 1 simply seeks to delete clause 1.
We had a short stand part debate in Committee, but nevertheless there was a remarkable lack of clarity at that stage as to how the scheme would work, what the basis of the charging was, how the ADAS staff would be able to cope, how they would be trained to do so and how many of them would be engaged in invoicing an billing as opposed to delivering the advice.
I hoped that with the passage of the 11 weeks to which I have earlier referred that more clarity and detail will be available to us tonight than was the case in Committee, because we are that much nearer the implementation of the scheme. If ADAS is to be launched upon an unsuspecting agricultural public, we had better know and debate the scheme and its ramifications at this stage.
Clause 1 is broad in scope, not only covering the provision of any services or goods in relation to production and marketing of agricultural produce but also dealing with research and development. So it is not confined merely to advisory services; it also deals with research. It seeks to replace provisions in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as well as the Agriculture Act 1947.
Clause 1 should be removed from the Bill, first because so far there has been a statutory duty upon the Ministry to provide advisory services and all the other subjects which are listed in clause 1. Clause 1 would substitute a discretionary power and whether it is to be provided or not will cause widespread concern because of the uncertainty that is bound to arise whenever a discretionary power is put in the place of a duty. There will be widespread concern among the farming population, conservation organisations, and so on. I refer, because it is a matter of common circulation to hon. Members, to the memorandum of the Council for the Protection of Rural England on that subject. Therefore, clause 1 should be deleted because it removes a statutory duty and replaces it with a discretionary power.
Secondly, clause 1 exists against the background of cuts both in the advisory and research services. The House should consider the extent of each of those. In advisory services in 1987–88 the cut at the ADAS level will be £20 million which will be accompanied at MAFF level by a cut in the same year of £16.5 million. In agricultural research we have a cut in 1986–87 at ADAS level of £10 million doubling to £20 million in 1987–88. At the same time, in ministerial research we have a cut in 1986–87 of £18.25 million rising to £16.5 million in 1987–88. At a time when agriculture is expected to adapt to deal with the new situation, cuts are bound to weaken the fabric of both 1113 ADAS and ministerial advice and research into the subject. Unless the Minister can provide one tonight, there is no guarantee that after 1987 that will be the end of the matter. There may be a continuing spiral of cuts.
Although the proposed cuts may appear to be significant at the bilateral talks that are held each autumn, compared with the £1,893 million that is spent upon CAP market support in the United Kingdom they are very small indeed. They are being made at the expense of the dispersal of and, in many cases, at the expense of the redundancy of highly expert advisers and research specialists. Their dispersal means that never again will there be collected together such an expert body to advise agriculture in a position of travail.[Interruption.] I appreciate that the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary have difficulty in understanding this biblical phrase, despite the Minister's earlier allusion to Baptists.
§ Mr. GummerGiven where I have spent the whole of this afternoon, the word "travail" is very close to my heart.
§ Mr. JohnI should have thought that, were he prepared to use it, the word "labour" would be much nearer to it.
The dispersal of this body of expert knowledge would have tragic consequences for the quality of advice and research that is available to agriculture at precisely the time when it needs it most.
Furthermore, parliamentary approval is not required for the detailed system of charging. We have not been given the basis for the charges. No details have been made public so that discussions can be held about them. We are told that no charge will be made for conservation advice, but if a future Minister were to decide that a charge should be made for conservation advice, the House would have no power to influence his decision, or even to debate the matter.
A great deal of the statutory work that is shared by the NFU and the milk marketing board is carried out for the benefit of the public. Inspections are carried out under the milk and dairy regulations to protect the public against the consequences of contaminated milk. A charge is to be made for this service. The Minister says that the provision of good milk will benefit the consumer. The producer also benefits. The consumer is at one remove from the producer who is being charged. The fact that statutory work has not been charged for has served us well over the years. It has ensured a reasonably high standard of food hygiene and the standard of care to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in the last debate. The charging system needs to be clarified.
On 13 February Big Farm Weekly carried an interview with Professor Todd who was reported as having said that the full economic cost of the service is to be passed on to the user. Is that so? Or will the Minister say, using the immortal words that so enlivened our Committee stage debates, that consultations are still taking place? If he cannot assure us that those consultations are now coming to an end and that they know what they intend to do, I fear that the inclusion of this clause is a blank cheque.
The Government have said that advice relating to conservation, rural diversification and animal welfare will be exempt from charges.
1114 In Committee the Minister seemed unable to suggest how one would draw a line between those and the other advice.
If we go to the Bell report, at paragraph 47, we find that Professor Bell says that this type of advice—meaning conservation—is inexorably linked with the measures which improve the efficiency of the operation. That is what I would like to ask the Minister. How can he separate the two, and what counts as pure conservation?
For example, advice on pesticides may benefit the environment, and also benefit the farmer to cut his costs by being able to apply only the correct amount of pesticide. Will this service be charged for, because it has to do with the business, or will it be exempt because it has to do with the environment? That is the sort of detail upon which we had no advice in Committee, and I believe that it is high time that we had some advice.
10.45 pm
The next point is the mushrooming of private consultants. We shall see a sudden increase in the firms of private consultants, who will give the advice which ADAS is now being disabled from giving for financial and personnel considerations. They will not be obliged to take conservation into account as did the ADAS personnel. Should there not then be a code of practice for them?
I do not know whether Ministers will consider that matter, whether they have already made up their minds, or whether they are still open minded about it. Time is getting short. We have had a Committee stage plus eleven weeks, and we still do not know publicly what the ministerial stance is.
I believe that the major flaw in this case is that charging will mean that the very people who need the advice most will be unable to pay for it. Small farmers on hill and upland areas who most need advice may well find themselves precluded from taking as much advice as they would wish, even if they can afford some.
If subscription schemes are introduced, will there be a guarantee that farmers will get advice from ADAS as and when they want it? We know that often emergencies divert attention, energy and manpower, but will that advice be available?
I should like to deal with the training of ADAS staff in their new marketing orientation. I give way.
§ Mr. John CarlisleBefore the hon. Member goes on to training, he is giving the impression that farmers receive advice at the moment only from ADAS. Will he agree that many commercial organisations give an enormous amount of advice free of charge, in some cases in commercial consideration of their products which they are trying to sell. However, the personal advisers that he has talked about have been in existence for many years and have not just sprung up because of this Bill. They have the advantage of giving farmers and growers advice without having some commercial consideration by a large firm behind them.
§ Mr. JohnI should like slightly to adapt the advice given to some hon. Members and say that there is no such thing as a free consignment. A lot of advice is given by commercial advisers on the side to enable the farmer to apply their products.
ADAS is perceived to be totally independent, at the service of the farmer, and able to range across a much wider spectrum than would agricultural supplier who would deal mainly with his own product, and its effects.
1115 Although I agree that other advice is possible, I would say that no advice could supplant ADAS, and I do not believe that any advice is as good as ADAS advice. The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but I say that if this measure goes through agriculture will learn to its cost just how good ADAS has been and just how damaging are the Government's proposals for it.
I am sure the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was not trying to divert me from the new training for ADAS staff for their marketing orientation. Whatever else we may disagree about, we will agree that that is a new departure for the staff. They have not been used to charging for their services and they will have to become market-oriented. From the news I have received about training, it seems like a bad book in the series, "How to Succeed". I understand that it is proposed to have a two-day course to train ADAS staff for their market orientation—how to be a salesman in two days. It sounds like a course in how to learn Esparanto in 12 hours. If the Minister has contrary information, he should tell the House tonight that their training will be much more thorough. If they are to have only a two-day course, ADAS will be launched into its new role completely unprepared for the rigours of the market. That brings me back to the private consultants who will operate without a code of conduct.
Another matter of concern is that a statutory duty is being accepted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We were delighted to hear that in Committee, but it will have an effect upon ADAS. How can it carry out that role when it has to charge? I would not be the first to be thought of as a Francophile, but the French are raising their research budget by 10 per cent. at this difficult time when we are cutting ours. The ADAS staff has already been cut by 12 per cent. and the cut will go up to over 20 per cent. when the further 450 redundancies are declared.
We have had no details to date about redundancies in the ADAS research organisations. I hesitate to remind the House how long it has been since Second Reading, yet no further details have been made available. We know about the implications for the manpower of the Agricultural and Food Research Council because it has published a corporate plan for 1986–91 which refers to a 26 per cent. drop in the volume of research over the period between 1983 and 1991; job losses are put at 600 in 1984–85, 580 in 1985–86 and 600 in 1986–87. That is roughly one third of all staff employed by the council; about 1,800 people will be declared redundant between 1984 and 1987.
Coupled with the privatisation of the plant breeding organisation and other bodies, that points not only to the basis of ADAS being changed but to the quality of its advice, and of all advice and research in agriculture being badly affected at the very time when farmers are desperately seeking such advice and research to help them adapt to the changed circumstances which will affect farming in future. That is why I believe that the House should throw the clause out, although other amendments seek to modify its rigours slightly.
§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)I agree very much with the words of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in commendation of the work done by ADAS and the high regard in which it is held, certainly by the people with whom I am particularly concerned, namely, the smaller growers and farmers. I also agree with the 1116 emphasis that he placed on the importance of research and development at a time of high and increasing competition with our continental competitors. As the hon. Gentleman might expect, I also agree w1th what he said about the £2 billion that we spend on market support under the common agricultural policy at a time when we are making fairly major cuts in these important services.
I do not agree with the rather pessimistic approach that the hon. Gentleman adopted. I warmly welcome the increased opportunities for private consultancy, as [do the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that commercial interests can and will provide a wide range of highly valuable services to a large number of growers. There is some validity in the point that the advice tendered by commercial organisations concentrates on the areas of their own interests and does not generally cover the wide spectrum of interests which have frequently and consistently been supported by ADAS and the Ministry.
The specific worry that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend is about the effect on smaller growers. We are entitled to some reassurance from my right hon. Friend that this matter will receive careful consideration. Smaller growers are least able to afford higher charges and might suffer most. Although we talk easily about the problems of agriculture and about the high levels of income to the larger growers, it should be borne in mind that many smaller growers—I say growers because I am talking about the horticulture industry in my constituency—struggle year after year to survive. The imposition of charges will be a heavy burden on them.
Small growers have benefited most from the first-class services offered by ADAS and the Ministry, especially in the development of new types of fruit. This is not an area in which private commercial interests are likely always to be available to advise; and small growers may well suffer. I do not disagree with the principle of charging. Agriculture is a highly important matter about which commercial interests should have the chance to make commercial decisions. I receive representations from highly efficient but small growers who are struggling to stay in business and are genuinely worried about the charges that might be imposed by organisations upon which in the past they have depended and greatly respect. I hope that nothing we do will make it harder for those growers who are fundamental to the life of our countryside to stay in business and to flourish at a time when they are desparately worried about new competition, especially from an enlarged European Community.
§ Mr. LivseyI should like to make a few important points. I cannot agree that charging for ADAS services is a good thing. There is room for commercial advice and this has been available for some years. I have worked in the commercial advisory field. We are being asked to introduce charges for ADAS services. That advice has always been independent and not linked to commercial interests, and it is important for us to stick to that principle. I am not saying there is no room for commercial advice, because there certainly is, but ADAS should not be asked to impose charges in competition with commercial advisors.
I am worried about research. The plant breeding institute in Cambridge has been involved in all kinds of research into cereals and has carried out that research in an objective and fine way. What will happen if 1117 commercial interests become involved in the plant breeding institute and we lose some objective research? Pure research, possibly on low input systems of growing cereals may conflict with the commercial interests of any grouping that may take over the plant breeding institute. We cannot afford to lose objective research. We have seen cuts in the Weed Research Organisation. That has happened in the past, but now the research station has disappeared. We have also seen cuts at various other research stations such as Compton which has stopped research in several areas. We have seen also cut backs in the Welsh plant breeding station, and the losses of jobs in all those places.
11 pm
There are many fears about clause 1. I believe that it will undermine objective research and objective advice. I am not saying that there should not be a commercial sector. There is a commercial sector, but I think that it will not adequately compensate for the necessary independent research and advice.
I am particularly worried about charging for advisory services in the less wealthy farming areas, in particular in the less favoured areas where the ability to pay for services does not exist. The targets set for ADAS in regard to charging and income I believe will not be achieved in those areas. Are we, therefore, to discriminate against those areas in the matter of advice? I am sure that is not the Government's intention, but that is what may happen as a result of what they are doing.
If the Government reject our arguments for clause 1 to be taken out of the Bill, we would like to see each charge for every service put before the House for consideration.
§ Mr. John CarlisleLike the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), I have been involved in commercial advice to farmers and growers. I wish to allay some of the fears that will have been aroused by the alarmist talk of the hon. Member for Pontyprid (Mr. John). The question has been raised, particularly by Opposition Members, whether advice given freely is necessarily better advice than that which might be given on a commercial basis. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may have underestimated somewhat the advice that is given in the private and commercial sector by those who are well trained. The cost of this training is borne by companies at considerable expense, and those involved are not sent out into the world until they have had that training. Farmers are, I think, getting better advice from commercial companies now than they were in the old days. I say that from a certain amount of experience.
If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman also overestimated the value of advice given by ADAS. Although because it is so-called free it is meant to come in an unbiased way, the advice given is not necessarily the best advice. It could be argued that, had more money been available for better training in the ADAS scheme, with farmers and growers able to make contributions to it, ADAS might have been better advised.
As the hon. Member for Pontypridd has said, there is no such thing as a free service, yet Opposition Members are now complaining that the service has to be paid for.
§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that agriculture is probably the most 1118 efficient industry in the country? Why has it been so efficient and done as well as it has done? The answer is, through the services of ADAS and its predecessors. It has been of the highest quality. It is disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman should decry it now.
§ Mr. John CarlisleI do not need lessons from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in the viablity of agriculture. I have spent all my life in agriculture, I am a farmer's son and I have spent 20 years of my commercial life advising farmers and commercially marketing their products. I do not need the hon. Gentleman to tell me about the viablity of an excellent agricultural trade.
I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Opposition that the great idea that because the advice is freely given it is the best advice is nonsense. I would not want the House to be left with the impression that those in the commercial sector are giving advice purley for their own commercial interests. As I said in an earlier intervention, there was a growth of personal consultants over many years before the Bill was considered, even in the dark days before this Government were elected. These consultants stand or fall on the advice that they give and on the commercial viability of the farmers on which they consult. If their advice is not good enough, the farmers will not accept it. It is a hard commercial world in relation to advice. Most of us in the trade welcome the fact that ADAS will now have to be paid for.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor talked about the PBI. When it is privatised—and I hope that it will not be too long before it is—the money that will be available for potential buyers could be such that the research and development that goes into the PBI will be considerably more than at present. That must be to the benefit of growers. A large amount of cash will be involved, and that will be to the benefit of the growers and the institute.
Farmers and growers are ready to pay for advice if they think that such advice will help make them more commercially viable. The Bill's provisions will assist them in that way.
§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)I intervene briefly towards the end of the Bill's passage—my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd;ant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) having been involved in earlier stages.
I cannot accept the comments that have just been made, particularly the slur on people working in ADAS—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It was a slur. If the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) carefully reads what he said, he will see that there is a reflection on the ability of ADAS—that people are not as well trained as they might be and that the resources have been such that people may not be up to the same standard as the private sector.
The experience of farmers in my part of the world has been very different indeed. I do not know whether standards vary from area to area, but the representations that I have received arise directly from the large volume of pressure in my own constituency from farmers who are extremely upset at the possibility of a decline in the ADAS service.
In my area, farms are small. It is subsistence farming. It is not farming with large resources that can be used for highly professional independent advice. I wish that that were the case. It would be excellent if farmers had the 1119 resources to take advantage of every possibility, but in my area it is very much breadline farming, and those farmers depend on the advice that they receive from bodies such as ADAS.
Over the last few years, there has been a tremor of fear in the Welsh agriculture industry because of the run down in research. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the effect on the plant breeding station. Farmers in Wales were extremely concerned about the cuts at Aberwstwyth, because the direct help that they have received for many years has made land—often marginal land—much more productive because of know-how and development.
The agriculture industry faces a difficult time. Farmers may lose the services of ADAS, which has been one of their main supporters, and because of the resource squeeze on them they may not be able to take advantage of other opportunities.
I am not for a moment decrying the ability of those who are working in the private sector, although I would question whether they are all totally impartial as they obviously have an eye on their own commercial interests. That is perfectly natural and understandable, but there must be an alternative that is readily available and not priced out.
People in Wales feel strongly about the possibility of charges for some of these services. That could put farmers off from using them. We must devote all the resources we can to research in the agricultural sector, and we should not restrict artificially the availability of those services. For that reason, I shall support amendment No. 1.
§ Mr. GummerThe purpose of this clause which we are invited to remove from the Bill is, first and foremost, to make clear the wider remit of agriculture as distinct from the one which has so far been depended upon in earlier Agriculture Acts. I believe it to be absolutely right that we should make clear that the Minister is responsible for supplying to any person any services or goods relating to a much wider range of items than was previously the case. We used to see agriculture in far too narrow a context.
However, there is an inevitable result. One cannot—not just ought not—lay the same statutory duty for that wider range of matters as for the much narrower range. It would mean that anyone concerned with
the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countrysidecould say that any service which he thought concerned that ought, by statutory power, to be carried out by ADAS. That cannot be so.We have had this argument in Committee. It was one of the arguments which seemed to me to be so obviously accepted that the other side of it rather trailed away. Those who opposed it realised, when they looked at the problem in a straightforward way, that the reality was different from the fear. I can see that one could be afraid that to move from a statutory duty, in the narrow sense, to a wider statement might mean that less concern would be shown in the future than hitherto. Yet nothing that my right hon. Friend and I have said or done could possibly lead to the substantiation of that fear.
The opposite has happened. We are now saying that agriculture is not just about husbandry and growing crops; it stretches to conservation and
the enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".1120 Agriculture is also concerned with other activities and enterprises which benefit the rural economy. That is why cause 1 is crucial. If Opposition Members persist in pressing for the abolition of this clause, they will once again be taking a reactionary view about what we are trying to do in the Bill, for at long last we have broken out of the attitude towards agriculture which is now being trumpeted abroad by the Labour party. It evidently does not want to have this extension or scope. If it wants it, why does it wish to get rid of the clause in which that extension is enshrined?That is why the introduction of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) to what he put forward was neither acceptable nor in accordance with the facts. More important, it appears that in the 11 weeks of which he has spoken he has learnt nothing, for we have had this debate backwards and forwards—and nobody took his view. He did not win a single impartial person to his side. The reason is that it does not stand up. Many of those people who felt that perhaps he might be right realised, when they came to consider what a statutory duty would mean, that this was an impossible situation, for anyone involved in any activity in the countryside could demand that the Minister should provide any service he regarded as being related to that activity.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he wants this wider definition of agriculture, or he must accept that only the narrower definition can carry a statutory duty. If he wants the wider, he must accept that it is no longer a statutory duty but a discretionary power. Otherwise no Ministry could take this wider remit upon its shoulders, and this Ministry certainly would not be prepared to take on that which it could not carry out.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about a number of things, but I would take up particularly the milk and dairy regulations. It is true that their cost will be borne by those who receive the benefit. Who are the first beneficiaries? They are those who wish to sell the product with the assurance that it is a pure product. It is perfectly right for those who produce and sell to carry that kind of cost. That is, after all, what his Government visited constantly on the rest of industry. Is he suggesting that in some way or other industry should turn to the Government for payment of so many of the things which, rightly, he demands that it achieves?
Most of industry has laid upon it a requirement to sell goods of a proper standard for the purpose for which they are intended. It is not the Government who pay for that research, or for the checking and testing; it is industry itself. It is not unreasonable that the agriculture industry should also meet the cost of being able to sell its goods at the standard required by the customer.
11.15 pm
The hon. Gentleman spoke in a sneering tone about the mushrooming of private consultancies. There is great advantage in the private consultancy because we know where its bias lies. Therefore, unless one thinks that farmers are extremely stupid—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not think that—one realises that the farmer knows perfectly well that, when consulting someone with a commercial interest, he must take the advice with a very large pinch of commercial salt.
1121 There are other sorts of bias. When I talk to conservation interests, they say that ADAS is very much biased against them. I do not happen to believe that, but they think so. There are many differing biases.
I would not go along with what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said in his assessment of ADAS. I also find peculiar the view that it is blasphemous to cast any doubt upon the service provided by ADAS at any time, as suggested by Liberal Members. It was a most preposterous riposte. It appears that every time we discuss any section of the population that might vote Liberal they come into their own. It is a most remarkable achievement—
§ Mr. Stephen RossThat is disgraceful coming from a member of the Church of England synod.
§ Mr. GummerOh dear, oh my goodness—
§ Mr. GummerIt is a little late in the evening for the hon. Gentleman to enter our debate and then to lose his temper so rapidly. He should look after his health a little better. It is synthetic anger.
The House should honestly be able to say that ADAS has done—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Order. Hon. Members must not bellow across the Chamber.
§ Mr. GummerThe House must honestly accept that ADAS has contributed a great deal to the advancement of agriculture. However, to say that the advancement of agriculture is entirely the responsibility of ADAS is a load of rubbish, and we all know it. It is to do with the work of farmers, it is to do with the investment of farmers and landowners, it is to do with the way that the agriculture industry has been led to produce 80 per cent. of the temperate needs of this country. It is ridiculous to say that because ADAS has been largely responsible for that, we cannot discuss alternative means of providing advice, and it is not sensible to suggest that ADAS cannot charge for some of its services. Many of us would say that by charging for some of its services it would get closer to the market and, perhaps, tailor some of its services more to what people need rather than what they think they should need. There is always a temptation—[Interruption.] It is odd that some people believe that, unless one is 100 per cent. sure that the way an organisation is, is how it should always be, one is betraying that organisation. I am simply saying that we can improve ADAS by ensuring that there is a closer association between it and the market—
§ Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)Rubbish.
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Gentleman's contribution to this part of the debate, as in the rest of our debate this evening, consists of shouting "Rubbish" from a sedentary position. We know the contribution of the alliance parties to agriculture. We have had nothing useful or productive from its members this evening, which is the fifth successive time that we have had no help from the alliance when debating agriculture.
§ Mr. GummerNo, I shall not give way, because so far I have been unable to speak without the hon. 1122 Gentleman shouting at me. He does not even have the courtesy to ask me to give way. The hon. Gentleman must accept that if ADAS is to do its job properly it must be viewed in the context of general advice not only from commercial businesses but from elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd used a technique which I have noticed before which is called the using-thepercentage-without-giving-any-of-the-figures technique. The hon. Member said that France would increase by 10 per cent. the state contribution to the advisory service, but he did not say on what or in comparison with what. I checked on the situation in France and it should be said that French farmers contribute nearly half of the cost of the advisory service. The Government are considering small charges, but are still spending £120 million on ADAS. The figure of 10 per cent. seemed to be a figure plucked out of the air. In Denmark the contribution of the state was 37 per cent. in 1972 and fell to 22 per cent. in 1982. In Germany the state contribution is 40 per cent. and in the Netherlands it is about 50 per cent.
We would not be out of line with our neighbours if we suggested that some part of the cost of the advisory service should be contributed by those who receive its advice. I agree with the worries expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). I have carefully considered what we are doing and I shall monitor what we are doing. I appreciate his concern about the small grower. I have many such growers in my constituency and they are concerned that services should be tailored to their special needs. I hope that the element of commercialism will promote that.
§ Mr. JohnThe right hon. Gentleman has said that comparatively small charges would be imposed on British farmers. How do we know that when he has not given us any details on charging?
§ Mr. GummerI mentioned such charges in making the point that, even with these charges, we will be spending £120 million on the services provided. That is a large proportion of the expenditure.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd wondered why in such circumstances we do not place before the House a series of charges. The answer is that in these areas we want ADAS to be commercially oriented and able to react to the needs of the market. We want to ensure that it can provide the services which are required by the small growers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. ADAS can do this only if we have some flexibility. If it is tied to a tariff, one is expecting it to work in a commercial environment with both hands tied behind its back. If that were the case, it could not compete with commercial enterprises. The hon. Member for Pontypridd wants us to do the one thing which would destroy the ability of ADAS to compete and and win in the market place.
I have no fear for ADAS because it is a successful body and will be able to meet the needs of the market. To ensure that the marketing is effective there will be a two-day induction course for all employees of ADAS. That is just the starting point, because there will be continual training. To laugh at the initial two-day course is to suggest that educational training can start nowhere.
That is a typical example of the reaction of those who do not wish ADAS to work because they believe that the only advice worth having is free advice. That is nonsense.
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Member may shout that, but the spokesman for the Liberal party said that he did not think that the services of ADAS should he charged for—or did he?
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livesy)—it was the one occasion when the hon. Member for Gordon was in the Chamber—said that ADAS gave the best advice and that that advice should be free. He went on to say that commercial advice was biased and, therefore, worse than the unbiased advice of ADAS. That must mean that he believes the best advice to be free advice.
I am sorry to have taken so long in replying to the debate—
§ Mr. LivseyThe Minister is getting carried away with himself. I did not say what he suggested. I said that we have a perfectly good advisory service which has a free, honourable record. Why cannot we continue with that and have commercial advice alongside it? It is disgraceful to charge for the advice of a service that was not set up for that purpose.
§ Mr. GummerIf the hon. Gentleman believes that I have mis-stated what he said. I withdraw any part of my remarks which mis-stated his case. But what he said is precisely what I thought—that ADAS provides the sort of advice which he and his hon. Friends see as better, more important and more central than any other advice.
§ Mr. GummerIs ADAS advice better than other people's advice? That is the question that I ask the Liberal party.
§ Mr. GummerThat changes the position altogether. Of course, it is necessary to have it, and we shall continue to have it. The Government will continue to pay for a large proportion of it, and we are asking people to pay a proportion for themselves. That is what happens in all the countries of the European Community that I have mentioned.
More importantly, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor is asking for apartheid between commercial advice and the advice given by ADAS. That is unacceptable. It would be much better if ADAS provided a more direct connection with the market, and that is what the amendment proposes to do. I am sorry if the Opposition do no want the clause, but I hope that the House has noticed that the arguments against the clause, although wrong, have been made properly by the official Opposition, in contrast with the mere shouting match from the alliance.
§ Mr. JohnAfter such felicitations from the Minister, I regret having to remind him that, although some women undergo post-natal depression, he is obviously undergoing post-natal euphoria. If the alliance did not exist, it would be necessary for him to invent it, because, robbed of that prop, the House might have adjourned at a reasonable hour tonight.
The Minister talked of the lost 11 weeks. Neither in Committee nor tonight has he deigned to give us facts. He 1124 says, "I cannot tell you about charging because it may contravene commerciality, and anyway I am rot so timorous about the future of ADAS as to believe that it could go wrong." In that, he differs from Professor Bell, who says that, depending on where the charges are pitched, there could be a substantial fall in demand, which could jeopardise dual objectives. Professor Bell could conceive of difficulties, but our euphoric Minister of State could conceive of nothing. The House is not worthy to hear even the basis of the charges being put before it. I challenge the Minister once more to say whether the full economic cost of ADAS advice will be charged.
The Minister is always longer on rhetoric than on fact. I challenge him to say how we could separate conservation advice which happened to be intertwined with advice on pesticides, in view of his declaration that environmental advice would not be charged for but that commercial advice would. Shall we have a stopwatch ADAS, in which every 30 seconds a watch clicks off and on and they say, "We are off pesticides as a conservation measure; we are on to pesticides as a commercial venture?" Is that what he is asking us to accept? Of course not. He is asking us to accept that his amusing tirade at the expense of the alliance is a substitute for answering the detailed and perplexing points that we raised in Committee, but which were not answered then or tonight. The House does not know the facts and neither does AD AS.
11.30 pm
The Minister talked about my sneering at the two-day course. The responsibility for ADAS having nothing better than a two-day course to prepare it for the realities of the commercial market is the Government's. They have not been able to devise a scheme, or to take ADAS into their confidence, early enough for it to be prepared properly. They will cast it into competition with what the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has described as expert commercial undertakings, and I have no doubt that many of them are, with only a two-day course to prepare it. To use the modern jargon, it will have two days of in-house training. Even with the Minister of State's silver tongue, that is not a recipe to ensure that ADAS will be able to take its place in the commercial market and compete with the commercial undertakings. It is a recipe for decline.
The attractive feature about ADAS has been its duty to give advice rather than discretion, and by removing that duty and replacing it with discretion we shall have an adverse effect on the quality of advice which has guided agriculture under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
The Minister has sneered and said that the Labour party argues that industry has to pay for ensuring the merchantable quality of its goods. That is so, but we are talking of different traditions. Agriculture has so far been in a position where it has not been charged for advice that has benefited the public as well as manufacturers. At the end of the day it will be the consumers who carry the cost and not producers. The Minister should be frank and admit that to the House.
§ Mr. John CarlisleThat happens now.
§ Mr. JohnBut in a diluted form. The taxpayer carries the cost now. The hon. Gentleman may squirm, but the consumer and the taxpayer do not always coincide. The 1125 largest consumers are often those who are unable to bear additional costs, but that is a wider economic argument which I do not want to enter into tonight.
ADAS is being asked to effect economies through the redundancy of 450 members of its staff. The Minister has talked about the percentages to which I referred, but he did not challenge the assertion that ADAS's advisory staff will be reduced by 20 per cent. He is aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has stated that the ADAS research staff will be cut by 450 in two years. Those people will be cast adrift in a commercial world and will be inadequately prepared, and ADAS will have a diminishing staff that will be unable to compete on equal terms. There will be less advice available to agriculture at a time when it will want it most.
I do not want to take up all the Byzantine rhetoric that the influence of certain shouting induced the Minister to produce, but I must respond to the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the Opposition trailed away in Committee. We trailed away to the extent that we forced a vote against the clause at the end of the debate to decide whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We intend to force a vote against the clause this evening because we believe that a statutory duty could be combined with a wider definition of agriculture, and not because we believe that a narrower definition of agriculture should prevail. We do not accept that the one goes with the other. I hope that the House will reject the clause out of hand.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 125.
1126| Division No. 146] | align="right">[11.35 pm |
| AYES | |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Livsey, Richard |
| Bruce, Malcolm | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Maclennan, Robert |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Nellist, David |
| Clelland, David Gordon | Parry, Robert |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Pike, Peter |
| Dalyell, Tam | Randall, Stuart |
| Eadie, Alex | Rogers, Allan |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Ewing, Harry | Rowlands, Ted |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Skinner, Dennis |
| Haynes, Frank | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Home Robertson, John | |
| Howells, Geraint | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| John, Brynmor | Mr. Ron Davies and |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Mr. John McWilliam. |
| NOES | |
| Amess, David | Bulmer, Esmond |
| Ashby, David | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Carttiss, Michael |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Cash, William |
| Baldry, Tony | Chalker, Mrs Lynda |
| Batiste, Spencer | Chope, Christopher |
| Bellingham, Henry | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Benyon, William | Conway, Derek |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Cope, John |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Blackburn, John | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dover, Den |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Dunn, Robert |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Durant, Tony |
| Bright, Graham | Eyre, Sir Reginald |
| Brinton, Tim | Fallon, Michael |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Farr, Sir John |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Favell, Anthony |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Mather, Carol |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Forman, Nigel | Merchant, Piers |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Forth, Eric | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Mitchell, David (Hants NW) |
| Freeman, Roger | Moate, Roger |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Murphy, Christopher |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Nelson, Anthony |
| Ground, Patrick | Neubert, Michael |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John S | Newton, Tony |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Osborn, Sir John |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn) |
| Hawksley, Warren | Pollock, Alexander |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Portillo, Michael |
| Hickmet, Richard | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Powley, John |
| Holt, Richard | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Raffan, Keith |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Key, Robert | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Knowles, Michael | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Thurnham, Peter |
| Lilley, Peter | Viggers, Peter |
| Lord, Michael | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Whitfield, John |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Wood, Timothy |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | |
| Major, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Malins, Humfrey | Mr. Gerald Malone and |
| Marland, Paul | Mr. Francis Maude. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
11.45 pm§ Mr. Home RobertsonI beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'(6) In exercising his powers and duties under section 4 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911, the Secretary of State for Scotland shall take account of the objectives of subsections (1), (2) and (4) of this section.'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 28, in page 14, line 34 [Clause 15], leave out subsection (6).
§ Mr. Home RobertsonOne of the purposes of amendment No. 7 is to enable us to hear something from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who sat through the entire Committee stage of the Bill in silence. That, I think, was a case of dumb insolence on his part, but we hope during this brief debate to entice him to say something about the situation in the agricultural, advisory and research service in Scotland.
The obscure reference in the amendment to the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 will, I trust, enable us to debate the Government's attack on the agricultural advisory service, the research service and agricultural education in Scotland. The amendment would incorporate the useful aspects of clause 1 into the Scottish system, and it would specifically build in the reference to conservation in subsection (1)(b) into the Scottish scene, but it would 1127 obviously omit the unjustifiable reference to charges in subsection (3), about which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was speaking in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom a minute or two ago.
Charges for advisory services for agriculture in Scotland are not ruled out by the present legislation as it affects Scotland. However, it has not been the practice of the Scottish agricultural colleges to charge for their advisory services, and the plans to impose such charges are part of a squalid package of cuts which are being imposed by the Treasury on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. What a package that is for Scotland.
We are being confronted with a 41 per cent. cut in the funding for the agricultural advisory services of the three Scottish agricultural colleges. We are being confronted with an 18 per cent. cut in the funding for research and development in Scotland, and there are parallel cuts in the state veterinary service and in the other aspects of state involvement in agriculture in Scotland.
All that is being dressed up as some kind of a review of agricultural education, advisory services and research in Scotland, but in reality this is an extremely damaging raid by the Treasury on the Scottish agricultural college system.
The integrated system that we have in Scotland is universally recognised to work well. Indeed, it was recently commended by the Select Committee on Agriculture as a system which worked well because it is a partnership between the agricultural research services, the agricultural advisory services and agricultural education.
There is no waste in the system, and there is proper cooperation between the three sectors. There are no watertight compartments. People involved in agricultural research in Scotland are in close contact with farmers, and the students in our colleges get the maximum practical experience. There is a proper flow of information between the three sectors.
The cuts in the budgets of our three agricultural colleges, and the cuts which have been imposed on the Scottish agricultural research institutes are undermining the whole system. There is genuine evidence that Scotland is taking a heavier share of that cut, although the Government are predictably going to great lengths to try to obscure the issue. Indeed, it is difficult to establish direct comparisons because of the different structures in England and Scotland.
I find the arguments and the detailed figures which have been provided by the Scottish agricultural colleges on this issue convincing and disturbing. There appears to be a genuine risk that if the income from charges cannot be raised in the coming year, the advisory staff throughout Scotland could be cut from a total establishment of 208 advisers to only 55.
The problem seems to be that the Scottish agricultural colleges are facing even tougher constraints than ADAS in accommodating that regime of cuts. The first year could be absolutely disastrous. If they cannot get the income from the charges in 1987–88, the entire system could collapse. That is no exaggeration, because if there is a fall in the numbers of staff available to do the job in Scotland it will be impossible for those in remote areas to get access to the service. The costs of providing the service are higher in Scotland. Many farms are in remote areas. The needs 1128 of the marginal areas, such as the area that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is supposed to represent, are considerably greater.
I refer to the annual report for 1985 of the Edinburgh School of Agriculture that serves the east of Scotland. It refers to a market research project into the reaction of farmers at the prospect of having to pay commercial rates for advice. It says:
This report indicates that the standing of the College's advisory service ranks high with Scottish farmers hut their ability to pay is, as we suspected, severely curtailed by their current financial position. In the last normal year for which data are available (1984), the net farm incomes of Scottish farmers were less than £5,000 a year, and thus it is obvious that many farmers with less than average incomes will have great difficulty in paying an economic charge for advice which they have previously received free.The report continues:the revamped services will not merely have to be sold to farmers able and willing to pay, they will have to be tailor-made to farmers' needs and marketed accordingly.The report makes two fundamental points. First, there is likely to be a slump in the uptake of advice by farmers. That slump in uptake may be only temporary, because the farmers cannot afford the advice, in present circumstances. Many of the farmers who most need the advice will be those who cannot afford it, under present circumstances. They may believe that they can do without this kind of technical support in the next year or two, but if they do without it in the next few years they will find that it is no longer there if they decide later that they want to take it up again. The shortfall in funding could wreck the system.Secondly, the advisory and research services may in future have to be targeted at the most prosperous farms. The smaller, marginal farms—the farms that most need advice—will find that those services are no longer available. It is a serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it.
As if the disruption of the Scottish colleges, with their excellent system of integrated education and advice, were not enough, the Government have extended their attack to the Scottish agricultural research institutes. The principal focus of the Government's attack is upon soil science, land use and marginal farming, refer to the Macaulay Institute of Soil Research in Aberdeen and to the Hill Farming Research Organisation that is based at the Bush in Midlothian.
These two institutes provide a classic example of the principle of divide and rule The Government say that they want to get rid of about 100 members of staff and of one of the two locations at either Craigiebuckler or the Bush. Not surprisingly, both of the institutes and their staff have rallied to save their own institutes. The Government have cynically stood back and watched the conflict that they deliberately sought to start.. That is a despicable way to treat two excellent Scottish agricultural research institutes. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to think again.
The remote rural areas in Scotland that are involved in marginal farming need all the expertise that is available in Scotland to restructure and to diversify land use and the economy of those areas.
This is not the moment in our history to sacrifice excellent institutes like the MacAuley and the HFRO, which can help restructure those important and fragile factors of our economy and ecology.
I am not opposed to a review of the system, but I am opposed to these wholesale cuts at a time like this. Can I 1129 urge the Government to give genuine consideration to the positive suggestions being made by the Institution of Professional Civil servants which call for the forming of a new united institute which could work from the two locations in Mid-Lothian and Aberdeen? It would be sensible because it would provide a focus of activity both in the north and south of Scotland which could meet the needs of both parts of the country.
I would like to mention the cuts in the state veterinary service, because I think that that is relevant to what we are talking about tonight, and the centre at Casswade in Mid-Lothian, which is being closed.
I fear that the cuts will undermine the genuinely vital service and could increase the hazards not only to animal health, but also to human health in Scotland. We all know that some animal health problems can give rise to a risk to human health too.
I put it to the Minister that the Government must stand condemned in its contempt for rural Scotland, the farming industry, and the staff of the Scottish agricultural colleges and institutes. We demand a proper constructive review of the system, which must include adequate funding to help to guide the Scottish agricultural industry through these times of fundamental change.
§ 12 midnight
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay)The purpose of these amendments would have been to ensure that the provision of advisory and related services in Scotland would be the same as in England and Wales. That was not obvious from the hon. Member's speech, because the last thing that he did was to speak to the two amendments in his name.
We are proud in Scotland of our distinctive system, a key element of which is the Scottish agricultural colleges, generally independent of Government, though deriving a substantial proportion of their income from Government, and able to integrate advisory, research and development and education services.
Section 4 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 has been seen as the main vehicle by which the Secretary of State for Scotland can provide advice and services through the colleges. The terms of this section are broadly drawn and they have proved sufficiently flexible over the best part of the century to allow changing levels and patterns of service to be provided.
Existing legislation already provides sufficient cover for the Secretary of State for Scotland to fund, and thus guide, the provision made by the colleges for the advisory and related services. Further legislation as suggested in amendments by the hon. Member is strictly unnecessary, and can only put in question the adequacy of that existing legislation. Far from clarifying the position, as is not unusual with the hon. Member, he could only create uncertainty.
The advisory services north and south of the border have always marched broadly in step. The idea that the cuts in Scotland will be as drastic as an hon. Member was suggesting is totally misleading. The idea that a 41 per cent. reduction in expenditure will lead to a 75 per cent. reduction in staff is also misleading, and causes alarm amongst the people whom I presume the Opposition want it to cause alarm to.
1130 He himself said that there was some agreement on the merit of the new united institution. I think he also mentioned one of the trade unions involved. He knows that both institutions favour that concept, and the governing body of the MacAuley recently issued a statement to that effect.
The idea is an exciting one, and one which a lot of people agree with. The contentious question is where the institution should be cited.
A group is currently studying the options available to us for the citing of the institution, whether Aberdeen or Edinburgh, or a combination of the two. It will not do any good to prejudge what that group is going to advise us on the question of citing.
§ Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)Could I urge my hon. Friend to give as much weight to the arguments which have been put by the hon. Gentleman as is reflected by the attendance of Opposition Members? The fact that there is only one of them present surely indicates that there is not as much feeling about this as an issue as he has given us to understand.
§ Mr. MacKayMy hon. Friend has made a valid point, but any of my hon. Friends who have listened to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will know that he is a great man for generating heat, if a little light. Obviously his colleagues know that and have pushed off to their beds.
As independent companies, the Scottish agricultural colleges do not require statutory authority to raise charges. It would be undesirable for Ministers to exercise the degree of control over such companies suggested in the hon. Member's amendments. None the less, as the major funding body for the colleges, my Department can exercise close oversight over their activities and we shall expect the spread and level of charges to be determined only after close consultation with the Department.
I ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendments on the grounds that they are unnecessary, confusing and therefore undesirable, but most particularly because they are wholly inappropriate to the present distinctive arrangements for providing advisory and related services in Scotland. If the hon. Member does not seek to withdraw I hope my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby.
§ Amendment negatived.