Agricultural Research and Development

HL Deb 14 May 1986 vol 474 cc1191-221

6.29 p.m.

Baroness Nicol rose to call attention to agricultural research and development; and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. Before getting on to the subject of the debate, I am sure that the House will wish to know that the reason my noble friend Lord John-Mackie is not here to debate this subject—in which he has such a keen and active interest—is that he has suffered an injury. I know that he would wish me to give his apologies to the House. The Front Bench will be in the capable hands of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and I do not think that we shall suffer on that account.

We have been waiting for this debate since last summer when I first put it into the ballot, but I have not been fortunate until now. However, I believe that the debate is still relevant. I believe that the questions which I would have asked at the time are still largely unanswered.

In January 1985 cuts were announced in agricultural research amounting to £10 million in 1986–87, and a further £20 million in 1987–88. That was in addition to cuts already made in the science budget of the Department of Education and Science following the Rothschild Report, which affected agricultural research and development quite severely.

Speaking in a debate in another place on 13th March 1985, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at col. 413 of the Official Report, said: 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". The honourable lady then went on to explain the work of the Priorities Board to advise on the allocation of resources and she followed that up, at col. 414, with these words: When we have that advice we shall consult the industry about the mechanisms which might be 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".

That suggests to me that the Government are not deciding which areas should properly be their responsibility, but are seeing how much they can hive off first, and will then make their decisions on what is left over. I hope that I am wrong about that, and if I am wrong I am sure that the noble Lord opposite will put me right at the end of the debate. However, that does not seem to me to be a responsible approach to strategic research.

Questions in this House on several occasions led us to expect that the Priorities Board would report towards the end of the summer. The report finally appeared in December 1985. When it came, as expected it merely suggested emphasis on certain areas within a reduced budget. It is interesting to note that the report commented: We believe that the scale of cuts will allow the essential research base to be maintained". But it went on to say: but that a longer-term phasing would have allowed more efficient management of their introduction". That again is a point which I hope the Minister will take up at the end of the debate, because the speed with which those cuts were inflicted on certain institutes has led to great disarray.

During all the time while awaiting the report, and indeed up to the present day, the various establishments under scrutiny have had to live with no certainty at all about their future prospects. If the Government had deliberately set out to destroy the morale and motivation of those loyal and dedicated teams they could not have found a more certain way of doing so. It is hardly surprising that some of our best and brightest scientists and technologists have taken other more secure opportunities with consequent damage to the projects that they have left. For example, the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge was working on a drought-resistant wheat which could have been of great benefit to some famine areas. However, when a key member of staff left they dared not replace that person because of other uncertainties, and so the project has ended. It is a very sad loss not only to us in this country but perhaps to other areas of the world where this research is desperately needed.

The cuts are already biting hard. I am indebted to the Institution of Professional Civil Servants for an up-to-date summary of the losses so far, and I shall quote from its factsheet. In ADAS in 1985–86 the sub-centres at Shardlow, Bangor and Cardiff were all closed, as was the Lasswade Veterinary Laboratory. The veterinary investigation centres at Moulton, Leeds, Cardiff, Gloucester, Liverpool and Chester were all closed. Indeed, 17 animal health offices and various area offices are planned for closure, and the planned job losses in that little group will amount to between 500 and 600. This is at a time when ADAS is to have greater responsibility than ever before under the Agriculture Bill, and will need not cuts but expansion.

As regards the AFRC, already 600 posts have gone and the Weed Research Centre and the Letcombe Laboratory have been closed. In 1986–87 a further 600 posts are to go. The Soil Survey of England and Wales has been reduced to a half. It has been renamed and it is now available for privatisation. The Plant Breeding Institute has been reduced and is also available for privatisation. I propose to return to the Plant Breeding Institute later in my remarks.

The National Farmers' Union is very concerned about those cuts and the proposed new cuts at what is a very difficult time for the farming community. Surely there cannot have been a worse time in at least the past quarter of a century at which to ask farmers not only to take cuts in the advisory services available to them, but to give more money for the basic research which should really be the Government's responsibility.

What is the future of the National Vegetable Research Station, the Poultry Research Centre at Edinburgh, the Glasshouse Crops Research Station in Sussex and the East Malling Research Station, to name but a few? What of Aberystwyth, on which we have had many debates in this House? I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench will want to speak on that matter and will want an answer.

A report from the Institute of Aquaculture in Stirling University draws attention to the inability of the institute to make long-term strategic research plans due to the Government's failure to keep university funding at the promised level. That has implications for fish farming, which is a growing industry in this country and a matter about which we should be concerned.

The Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge was established in 1912 and has a world-wide reputation. Its long list of successes means that it more than pays for itself. It accounts for 83 per cent. of the NSDO's income and its breeding programmes account for more than 80 per cent. of Britain's winter wheat and a substantial part of potato, oilseed rape, winter barley and field bean acreages. It is now one of the leaders in work to apply molecular biology and other sciences to the development of disease-resistant and pest-resistant arable crops.

The British Veterinary Association has expressed anxiety about the effects of continued cuts on animal disease research. It is concerned about the number of staff seeking jobs abroad and about the difficulties of recruiting young people to research as a career because of the uncertainty of the future. It points out that our research base is being destroyed, that it would be difficult to restore it and that certainly it could not be done quickly enough to deal with an emergency situation. In a country which is supposed to care about animal welfare, that is a very sorry tale. It is essential that this work should continue if we are to reduce our future use of chemicals.

Coming back to the Plant Breeding Institute, which is no stranger to the world of commerce, I point out that it has substantial outside contracts and cheerfully looks to this side of its work continuing and improving. The Plant Breeding Institute is not resisting the privatisation to which it is accustomed and as regards which it has already been very successful. However, it is seriously concerned about the uncertainty surrounding more basic research about which it has been unable to get any specific assurances.

So why do we need publicly-funded research? The original main reason arose from the need to aim at self-sufficiency in food production. We have now achieved 80 per cent. self-sufficiency in indigenous foods, but overall self-sufficiency is still only 62 per cent. All developed countries give support to their agricultural industries. I understand that this year the French intend to increase by 10 per cent. their contributions to agricultural research and development.

As price supports are withdrawn and competition increases, research and development becomes even more important. This is recognised in the poll which is now being conducted by the Home Grown Cereals Authority into the willingness of the industry to finance a proportion of research and development through the authority's statutory levy. On the poll form they list the aims of industry-funded R & D. I imagine that not everyone who is listening will have seen this form, so I propose to quote a little of it at length because it gives a useful guide to what might be considered the Government's strategy.

They say: The aims of industry-funded R & D will be to enhance the competitive position of UK cereals by improving: the efficiency of production, distribution or processing of UK cereals; the qualtiy of UK cereals and cereal products on a cost-effective basis and in line with market needs Value for money will be a key factor in developing a programme. Generally speaking, industry-funded projects will be market oriented, lie at the development end of the R & D spectrum and have a reasonably short time horizon for potential pay-off. Research which is related more to public or Government interest than to potential commercial application will not normally be supported by industry funding". Excellent, my Lords—exactly what you would expect to find in a document of this kind.

But then they go on to say: Examples of the subject areas which may be appropriate for industry support are: development of new and existing uses for cereals; breeding and ancillary work including variety trials; work in connection with cereals quality and, in particular, the evaluation of quality, techniques for producing grain to required quality standards and the avoidance or control of adverse characteristics in grain".

They talk about techniques of processing—and again that is fair enough—and storage and drying, which again is fair enough, and, the efficient use of fertilizers and other agrochemicals and other work in connection with the control of diseases, pests and weeds; cultivation techniques and the application of machinery or other equipment; crop handling (including straw disposal and utilisation); if the possibility arises, levy money may be used to secure the future of the Plant Breeding Institute (PBI) as a research organisation working for the cereals industry".

There seems to me to be a conflict between the opening remarks in that particular document and the list I have just read out, and particularly that last sentence. This would seem to leave very little which the Government consider to be of sufficient general importance for them to assume complete responsibility. The last sentence seems to me to throw doubt on the continued existence of the PBI despite earlier assurances that we have constantly sought and gained in this House. But what happens if the farmers say no? And even if they do not say no, are we to assume that only those areas to which the industry is willing to contribute will receive government help? Or are the Government going to pick up the tab for those things that we all know are essential to the industry in the long term and must be continued?

I am running out of time so I shall be as brief as I can. It is vital that there should be unbiased support for areas of work where the commercial applications may be a long way off, or where such an end is not presently obvious but where final applications could bring environmental benefits. I understand that the time required to launch a new strain of wheat can be as long as 10 years from the beginning to the time when it is in sufficient quantity to market. Surely that cannot be expected to be funded privately.

Is it reasonable to expect an organisation whose main income is derived from the sale of chemicals to encourage and fund research which would reduce or eliminate one of its major markets? This is one of the points that will have to be taken into account when parts of the PBI are offered for sale, which is the present intention. I understand that some chemical industries are interested in them. It would be useful to have government reassurance that privatisation will be careful in its application and not simply a matter of putting everything up for grabs.

When will we be told which programmes the Government feel are essential and will continue to support? Repeated questions have failed to get answers. When will a decision be taken on the allocation of government funding for research and development in 1987–88? That is still not known. Can the Government assure us that at the end of this painful and destructive exercise there will be a clear indication of their long-term intentions, and a logical administrative system which can be understood by the industry? That, again, is something that we do not have at the moment. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for at last finding the time—or the Government finding the time—to debate this problem. I agree with practically every word that she said; but I am sorry to say that I can only offer to my noble friend Lord Belstead vinegar, because I am highly critical of, and deeply regret, the cuts that the Government have made, and are indeed making, in agricultural research for the following reasons.

We lead the world in agricultural research, and it is a pity to lose that lead if only for the reason that such research is a benefit to all mankind, and not least the third world, about which I thought we were supposed to care. Secondly, the cuts were carried out too quickly, with disastrous effects on the work in hand and on the morale of the staff, resulting in the loss of many of our best scientists, which the noble Baroness pointed out.

Thirdly, the policy was short sighted, for the world will always need food efficiently produced. To say, as some do—I do not think that my noble friend does—that there is no need for agriculture to become more efficient because we are producing too much is to confuse production with productivity. Fourthly, it is wrong to state that agricultural research claims too large a slice of the research budget, for if the Government do not fund it, there is no one else to do so (a point that the noble Baroness made) whereas in most other research areas there is an identifiable person or firm that will have direct financial gain from doing so. For that reason I think it was incorrect to make AFRC direct some of their energies and funds into food research.

Such research can, and should, be funded from the food processors and sellers. No doubt some money will be channelled into AFRC from these firms, so I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that little—I would hope he would be able to say none—of the existing funds of AFRC will be diverted into food research.

There is one other point why agricultural research is so important, because it does not just concern itself with agriculture. I shall give one small example. Medical research, for instance, into AIDS-I believe a rather "popular" disease today—was much helped by veterinary research on the sheep disease maedi visna, a point I raised with your Lordships about six years ago. Therefore, perhaps others than farmers may in the end regret the cut back that is taking place in the AFRC on animal diseases. It is a large cut back, as I see from the blue book from the AFRC that I have here.

So much for my criticism. However, I believe that it is no good crying over spilt milk so I would ask my noble friend to look at ways that could perhaps help to alleviate the immediate problem. First, I would refer your Lordships to the 1984 Select Committee on Science and Technology report on co-ordination of agricultural and environmental research, a point that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will deal with because he was its eminent and good chairman. This report was critical of the oganisation of publicly-funded work in this area of co-ordination between environment and agriculture. I hope that the Government will encourage further support for such projects from the Economic and Social Research Council, the National Environmental Research Council and the universities, for I cannot see such work being funded by the farmers for the reasons that the noble Baroness has already said or indeed from individual firms. Indeed it is possible that to do so might be against their short term interests, even if farmers were flush with money which they are not at the moment as a result of having newly to fund organisations like Food From Britain and ADAS which the noble Baroness spoke about.

There is, however, an immediate step that the Government can take; that is, to make quite sure that the proposed commercialisation of ADAS, as proposed in the Agriculture Bill now before your Lordships' House, does not lead to lack of information on environmental matters getting to the farmer free of charge; likewise on the other side of this story lack of feedback from the farmer through ADAS getting back to AFRC, an important part.

I hope the Government will accept this point and accept that such an undertaking be written into that Bill. The importance of these grass roots views is clearly stated in the AFRC corporate plan 1986–91 in paragraph 2.10.

There is also the question of the timing of the cuts. I ask my noble friend to accept that if the remaining (I hope they are really the remaining) cuts are to be implemented in 1987–88 he will realise that notices will have to be given to staff this autumn. This is really far too short and much too short for new funding to be found. Can the Minister please look again at this timescale? I am sure he can alter it slightly. Last, and perhaps most important, I reinforce the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and ask my noble friend whether he can assure me that if R and D is funded from outside, which we all hope, the Government will not respond by simply making further cuts.

6.52 p.m.

Lord Walston

My Lords, the time for this debate is limited and so I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do no more than thank her very briefly for giving us the opportunity of discussing this enormously important subject and congratulate her on the admirable way in which she opened our discussion. I hope that she and other noble Lords will forgive me if I do not remain until the end of the debate. Unfortunately I did not realise (perhaps I should say I miscalculated) the length of time the two Statements would take. I have an appointment at eight o'clock for which I shall undoubtedly be late, but I do not know whether I can make myself late enough in order to stay until the end of the debate. I offer my apologies should it transpire that I have to leave.

This debate is being held under the shadow of surpluses of food in the Western world. "Shadow" is a curious word to use in regard to surpluses; rather it is a question of the glare and the warmth of the sun. It is fantastic that we should look on surpluses as something to decry and be afraid of rather than revel in surpluses and fear shortages. Although there are surpluses in this part of the world, in the world as a whole there are no surpluses. If everybody had enough money to buy the food that they needed for nutrition and that they wanted for their own satisfaction, there would be no surpluses whatsoever.

Let us remember that by the end of the century the world population will have increased by one-and-a-half billion people—one-and-a-half billion extra mouths to feed. At that time North Sea oil will be close to exhaustion, our industrial production will not have shown very many signs of increasing and our balance of payments will present serious problems. We must always have that in the forefront of our minds when we are talking of subjects of the long-term nature of both farming and research. Do not let us forget that it was not so many years ago—some 40 years or so—that we were short of food in this country. Even when the war was over we had to introduce bread rationing. It was largely because of the efforts of farmers and, above all, the successes of scientists in the 1920s and 1930s that we were able to overcome shortages. Surely there is a lesson to be learnt from that. It is that agricultural research must continue at least at the present level for the safety and for the wellbeing of the country, looking ahead over a 20-year timescale as indeed we must.

Quite apart from food production, there is biotechnology, about which we hear so much. I do not believe that biotechnology will help the immediate problem of food shortages, but I do believe that in the years and decades ahead it can make a very great contribution to our economic well being. The possibilities from this type of work, from the genetic engineering associated with it, are almost without limit. Other countries are working at it; we must be working at it ourselves. As environmental considerations increase in importance and as nonrenewable resources become dearer and even exhausted, we must look ever more to raw materials from renewable resources; in other words, from agriculture.

Let us press ahead far more urgently than we are doing with research into biotechnology. It is not only the question of the time lag that is important. What is also of enormous overriding importance is the relationship between basic and applied research. There is no hard and fast division between these two. One cannot just draw a line and say that on one side the research is basic and on the other it is applied—we shall deal with the applied in one way and the basic research in another.

Rather more than 50 years ago I was privileged to learn the then very new techniques of tissue culture at the Strangeways Laboratory in Cambridge. Who could have imagined then that even such a mundane thing as the breeding of new varieties of potato would be helped to a great degree by the technique of tissue culture, quite apart from the far more important matters of improvements and new techniques in medical science. What about synthetic pyrethrins? Investigations into the nature of natural pyrethrins started in 1948 (quite a long time ago) in a purely academic way. In 1965 new compounds were synthesised. Now, some 20 years later, those new compounds are present in 25 per cent. of all insecticides used in agriculture. They account for a turnover of very nearly £400 million a year and over £10 million in royalties to the British Technology Group. There has been basic science, basic research, and after 20, 30 or 40 years we have seen very real applied results from that.

I shall take one more example; and I could go on and on. In the early 1950s work was being done on a purely academic basis on amino-acids not incorporated into proteins. As I say, it was purely academic research. This has now led to a means of producing hybrid wheat which has potential advantages akin to those of hybrid maize, stemming from this academic research of 30 years or so ago. We cannot afford to forgo such research; yet in the past six years the staff of AFRC has fallen from 6,500 to 3,200. This has obviously—and the noble Baroness has touched on this—a disastrous effect on the morale of the people working there. Some have already gone into industry; more have emigrated. Still others, particularly young ones, have decided against a career in agricultural research at all—and agricultural research is today the loser. In 20 years' or 30 years' time we shall all be losers.

The noble Baroness has mentioned the Plant Breeding Institute, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I say a few words about it, As we know, it has a worldwide reputation and it is founded upon truly magnificent work based on the closest collaboration between basic and applied research. I repeat that it is impossible to draw a line between the two. We have heard accusations by my noble friend Lord Diamond and the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, about selling off the family silver. That is bad enough; but it is sheer vandalism to break up the silver teaset and to sell off the teapot to one person and the milk jug to another, so that what has been built up over generations is dissipated.

Yet that, I fear, is what the Government are facing if they are intending—and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will tell us more about this—to sell off the practical part of PBI but retain the basic research. No matter how great may be the need of the Government for ready cash, there are certain principles, whether for the Plant Breeding Institute or any other research institute, which must be adhered to.

In the case of the Plant Breeding Institute it must not pass to any group whose main interest is in selling products other than seeds for agriculture—products which might well compete with new varieties; for instance, as we have heard, disease-resistant strains. It must be controlled by people who are not looking for quick profits but who are prepared to wait 20 years or more for a return; and these people must also be concerned primarily with United Kingdom agriculture. It must belong to, and be controlled by, people who are prepared to give freedom to scientists of all kinds, the best and the not so good, to pursue their own line of research even though the commercial significance of that research is hard to quantify at any given moment.

But, above all, the basic and applied research must not be separated. The line between them, I repeat—and it cannot be repeated too often—is very hazy. But even if it could be drawn, the contract between the pure and the applied sciences is absolutely invaluable. For that reason, if for no other, I say very firmly from these Benches that we are adamantly opposed to the selling off of the Plant Breeding Institute and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some news on this when he comes to reply.

If the United Kingdom is to retain its leading position in agriculture of which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, reminded us, if agriculture is to continue to serve the country's needs, the present trends must, first, be halted and then reversed. Only in this way will established scientists remain in their present jobs, will morale be improved, will enthusiasm once more be seen; and only in this way will the high flyers of the future be persuaded to take up jobs at home.

7.5 p.m.

Lord Somers

My Lords, my first duty must be to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in one thing, and that is to apologise to your Lordships if I have to leave before the end of the debate. I apologise particularly to the noble Lord who is going to answer, but I can assure him that I shall read every word that he says. I am going to confine myself to one aspect only, and that is what is known as intensive farming, or factory farming, as it is sometimes called. This has not gained very great acceptance in our country. It can be found but it has not spread very widely; although in France it has spread so widely that the old-fashioned farm is almost a rarity. I am hoping that we can do something to prevent that from happening here.

The main object of it is financial. It is a money-making concern, although actually there are signs that it is becoming less easy since the equipment that has to be purchased in order to start it is extremely expensive; and also they are not getting the same price for their products as they used to get. There are three reasons why it must be objected to. One is humanitarian; one is the quality of the product; and the third is the economic, including the effect on the third world. I will not dwell too heavily on the humanitarian because I know that when it is a question of making money that is not considered to be of very great importance. But it is extremely important to those who are worried about it. The animals are crowded together in quite unnatural conditions; they have no daylight at all, merely artificial light; they have no natural food, merely composite foods; and they have no freedom of movement. That does not make for a very healthy animal. I will leave it at that.

The next point—the quality of the product—is of some importance because one has to remember that when one eats an animal one also eats what that animal has been fed on and what it has been given. Hormones are used not only for battery birds but also for calves and other animals. And, of course, antibiotics are used widely. The trouble with hormones is that they are completely unspecified, nobody quite knows which hormones. Some can be very harmful and some not. There was a time not so long ago, only a few years ago, when a product was injected into calves which was later found to be cancer-producing in humans. That sort of thing, I am glad to say, has stopped now; but, on the other hand, one must be very careful about what these animals are eating.

There has been a good deal of research into battery eggs. It has been very difficult to show a scientific difference between the two types of eggs, but I have recently been translating a French book on the whole subject of battery farming and the value of that book is that it approaches the whole question in an entirely factual way, without being in any way emotional. The book includes a paragraph by the president of the French gastronomic press, Monsieur Edouard Longue, which reads: Laying hens, immobilised, over-fed, light during the night, give eggs of which the smaller yolk is less biodynamic, while the white contains a large amount of coarse albumen, whence comes a difference in digestibility very noticeable to the middle-aged or elderly". I am not a great egg eater myself, but I shall be very careful after that to see that I eat free-range eggs.

Of course, too, one must consider the make-up of composite foods. The hens are given a mixture chiefly of cereals. In 1980, in France, they consumed 14 million tonnes of composite food, of which four and a half million was maize, two and a half million was wheat and one and a half million was barley, and other cereals, as well as foods such as powdered milk, lactose, molasses, fatty materials and mineral vitamins.

That is all very well, but it is certainly not a natural food for any creature, and it is given purely for the purpose of making them grow faster and lay more. But one must remember, too, that the colossal amount of cereals which is used in these foods would do a very great deal to relieve famine in the starving countries of the East. Therefore, as I said, it has its effect on the third world.

I have always had the greatest admiration for farmers. They are a gallant race, and they fight what is almost a losing war against our very changeable climate. But I would hate to see them turned into a race of factory managers. I sincerely hope that we will do something to prevent it.

7.13 p.m.

The Earl of Selborne

My Lords, I should first declare an interest as chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council as well as being a farmer. As such, I must resist the temptation, much as I should like to do so, to dwell on the problems that research councils are facing in these times of severe cuts. I am sure that the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will be appreciated by those who are affected so directly by these cuts.

I should like to take a step back and look at the justification for publicly-funded agricultural research in the context of our civil research programme in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, reminded us, this has to be done in the context of agriculture as it is perceived by the public at the moment. These are times of surpluses; times when the agricultural industry itself is in some respects, striving to find its new role. The Government are certainly casting a new role for it, which is why their support has been radically modified.

The particular disfavour that the Government have with the present support system refers to the CAP. Previous Administrations have tried unsuccessfully to get a Common Agricultural Policy which is appropriate to our needs and, for that matter, to the needs of Europe—and I speak of the consumer as much as of the producer. All Administrations have failed. Successive agriculture Ministers and finance Ministers have had to accept that the majority view in the EC has prevailed. Inevitably, the national government have turned to the area of the support package, which is within their control, and have cut fiercely and predictably into the national support system. So capital grants, arterial drainage and advisory services have all been cut, and will possibly face more cuts. Inevitably, also, research and development was in line for those cuts.

In that context, the Government have looked at the entire package and have said, "We have got to go right through the list and cut." I think that they were mistaken not to have thought through quite clearly enough what is the strategy in these changing circumstances, where production for production's sake is no longer desirable. What is the role for the rural areas? What is the role for the producers of raw materials? What does the industry expect it will need in the very changed financial climate? I do not believe that this has yet been clearly thought out.

Going back to the role of research and development for agriculture and looking at what, at the moment, is included in public expenditure terms under this very wide umbrella that is described as "agricultural research", it is very important to remember that, as other speakers have already reminded us, it covers a far wider field than support for the producer—the grower, the farmer. It includes food research. My noble friend Lord Stanley would apparently like to see less of that. I disagree with him, because there is a continuum between production and the food processor, and it is very often difficult to determine when you are doing research, even in the field, whether the benefit is to go to the producer or the consumer. If you breed a milling wheat, that may be an advantage to the arable producer as well as to the baker. So I accept the Government's recognition of the need to underpin the food industry, which they did a year or so ago in response to the report of ACARD—The Advisory Committee for Applied Research And Development. I only hope that the funds will allow that initiative to continue.

Agricultural research also includes support for the agricultural engineering industry. Your Lordships have in the past referred to the great need to underpin this successful industry, remembering that we export more tractors than any other country, but an industry which in sectors other than tractors has often faced very severe times. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the animal welfare interests. Again, these are covered in part by the agricultural research budget, as indeed are veterinary interests in a wider field.

A subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has chaired a report for your Lordships is the environment and agricultural research. By no means all such research will come out of the agricultural research budget, but much work on, for instance, nitrates in water supplies, slurry disposal and the like comes under it, as it should, because the agricultural research services carry out research into these areas most effectively. But these are all areas in which I believe there will be very wide public support for continuing, or increasing, expenditure, whatever your Lordships may think of underpinning production research.

It may surprise your Lordships to know that some aspects of human nutrition come under the agricultural research vote. Work at the Rowett research institute in Scotland, for instance, is funded by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in a figure which will come under public expenditure on agricultural research. Again, that is logical, because it is an end-use for the food, and much of the composition of food can be influenced back through the production and storage chain. So whatever your Lordships' view may be about production research and the need to underpin the producer, I think there will be a wide measure of agreement that, within the total budget for agricultural research, there are many areas which will command wide public support.

Secondly, there is the underpinning of the biological sciences, to which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has also referred. He referred to biotechnology and to other areas which are of great strategic importance to this country. It is not true that agricultural research has a monopoly of such underpinning research in the biological sciences, but it nevertheless has a very important part. The biotechnology programme within the research service is an extremely large and important part of the national biotechnology programme. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is right to say that it could be of enormous importance to us, not in the next two or three years, perhaps not even in the next decade, but certainly thereafter and well into the next century.

Today, when we have listened to a sad Statement from the Front Bench on the British shipbuilding industry, it is so important for us to identify and remember which industries are going to be helping us in 10 or 20 years' time and which are the growth industries. I would hazard a guess—others may disagree with me—at electronics and the biological sciences, and would say that those are the two areas on which we can put our money with some degree of conviction. If you have within the agricultural research umbrella a strong biotechnological programme, for goodness sake you would not wish to see it cut.

It may have been a misnomer to have described such work as agricultural research in the first place. After all, this biotechnological work, at a cellular level or wherever, could well eventually not only benefit the food industry or the producer but could produce replacements for our present energy sources. It could help the pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry, feedstocks for industry and the textile industry—who is to say? This is a demonstration of how far-reaching these biological sciences could be in reshaping our industry. Noble Lords may say, "So much for that, but that is not what we meant by agricultural research". I have to say that that in part is what is meant by agriculture in public expenditure statements.

But I make no apology for saying also that the case for supporting production in this country is as strong as it ever was. I have to accept, standing as I do on this side of the House, that there will have to be cuts in support for agriculture. I will accept that there must be a greater sense of self-help by farmers. It is right that they should be paying more for research in the future. Other industries look with some surprise at the relatively modest amounts farmers contribute compared with other sectors of industry. The farmer, having in some ways been led up a blind alley by the Common Agricultural Policy, will have to face surpluses which depress the world price, and he is now being told by government that he will have to rely more and more on selling at something nearer world prices. He will have to face much fiercer competition than he has ever known before, at least in my lifetime. Perhaps those who can remember back to the 1930s will say that history will repeat itself in some respects.

Those agricultures in Europe and elsewhere around the world which will compete effectively are those which will implement the most relevant technology and will have the greatest aptitude for implementing such technology. I have the greatest confidence in the farmers' ability to implement technology, because whatever the British farmer has done he has been extremely successful in doing it. I have also—and here noble Lords may say that I am speaking from a vested interest—every confidence in the research service delivering the goods.

My noble friend Lord Stanley was correct in telling us that agricultural research in this country has been a success story. Against a framework of expansion encouraged by numerous governments, going back to food from our own resources, and by more recent Administrations, the requirement has been to increase production. Now the requirement will be to reduce costs—it may well be at lower inputs—to produce higher quality food, to do so with greater respect to the environment and neighbours, to find new markets in the world and to compete efficiently and effectively with other producers around the world. I believe that agriculture can do that. I believe that the British farmer will do it. Whatever other support he will need, he will need technology, and I beg my noble friend on the Front Bench to tell us that, whatever other support is to be removed, the research and development budget will be retained.

7.25 p.m.

Lord Tedder

My Lords, before proceeding further, I must own that I have an interest in the organisation of agricultural research in Scotland. I am a memorialist (or trustee) of the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research in Aberdeen.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has suggested, among other proposals, that the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research should be combined to form a single research institute, concerned with land use, particularly in the hills and uplands. In addition, it recommends a transfer of some staff from the Macaulay Institute to the Scottish Crop Research Institute and to the colleges of agriculture.

I think it is fair to say that the majority if not all the members of the Council of Management of the Macaulay Institute, would welcome the merging of the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the Macaulay Institute to form an institute of land usage. However, there is dissension as to where the new institute should be sited. The possibilities are on the land owned by the Macaulay memorialists in Aberdeen or on the Bush Estate in Midlothian owned by Edinburgh University, some 10 miles out from the centre of the city. A major objection to the move to Midlothian is that it would involve the transfer of the larger of the two units. The staff at the Macaulay Institute is approximately 221 compared with 120 at the Hill Farming Research Organisation.

I am a little concerned by the paper produced by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland entitled, Strategy for Agricultural Research and Development. This paper lists a number of organisations on the Bush Estate which it is hoped will establish links with the new Macaulay Institute. No mention is made of the collaboration which at present exists between the Macaulay Institute and other research institutes in Aberdeen which include the three laboratories belonging to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and several departments of Aberdeen University, including the soil, forestry and land economy departments whose basic research would particularly underpin that of the new institute. The collaboration lost by the move of the institute from Aberdeen to the Bush Estate is likely to be considerably more significant than future collaboration with units already on the Bush Estate. There appear to be more links to be severed by the move of the Macaulay Institute from Aberdeen than there would be by the move of the Hill Farming Research Organisation from the Bush Estate.

It is very hard to understand the justification of a large transfer of staff and resources from the Macaulay Institute to the Scottish Crop Research Institute as proposed by the department. It seems clear that both institutes need similar expertise, even when they are seeking different objectives. At present the relationships and the collaboration are excellent. Why interfere with this first class collaboration, particularly when it would involve splitting up expert teams?

The department's proposals are too rigid, and insufficient attention appears to have been paid to the need for flexibility. The new remit for the Macaulay Institute must enable the new institute to cope with changes in land use other than those associated with animal husbandry in the highlands and uplands. It is urgent that the staff should be versatile and that teams of research scientists with special expertise should not be fragmented, especially at this time when so many cuts are being made. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland must look to future flexibility and the ability to respond to changing circumstances.

I return to my main concern. The transfer of the existing staff and equipment belonging to the Macaulay Institute from Aberdeen to the Bush Estate would be a far more difficult and costly operation than the transfer of the Hill Farming Research Organisation from Midlothian to Aberdeen. If the new Macaulay Institute were to be established at the Craigiebuckler site in Aberdeen, few members of staff would be required to move.

My other point is that it is by no means clear what would happen to the Craigiebuckler site if the department went ahead and transferred the staff and equipment of the existing Macaulay Institute to Midlothian against the considered judgment of the memorialists. It must be hoped that the use of the Aberdeen site—the Craigiebuckler site—will be settled with the agreement of all concerned.

It seems clear from every point of view that it would be of the greatest benefit to agriculture in Scotland if the Hill Farming Research Organisation were to join the Macaulay Institute on the Craigiebuckler site, where its animal husbandry resources would be supported most by those of the nearby Rowett Research Institute, which is a world leader in that area. The present Macaulay Institute collaborates extensively with the Rowett Institute, and the relationship between the two is close and productive. Let it remain so.

So far, I have been concerned with a particular example of agricultural research in Scotland. I repeat what I have said so many times in your Lordships' House; the future of this country depends on the quality of its research in science and engineering. Let us do all that we can to promote good science in agriculture.

7.31 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, coming as it does at a very critical stage for the agricultural industry, I welcome the timeliness of this debate and the very positive, practical and thoughtfully progressive proposals put forward by noble Lords during it. I especially commend the points made by my noble friend Lady Nicol when she opened this debate. I am pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, who spoke for Scotland so cogently and progressively. I wish to express an interest on behalf of the Northern Ireland community and also the many others in Northern Ireland whose life, work and future prosperity is closely tied to the agricultural industry in the province.

Agriculture is Northern Ireland's largest single industry. In 1984, which is the latest year for which I have figures available, some 10 per cent. of the total working population were directly involved in agricultural production. In addition, about 4 per cent. of the working population are employed in industries and services directly related to farming activities, such as food processing, packaging, feed stuffs, machinery, transport, and other forms of indirect employment. In Northern Ireland, the role of agriculture in the economy is relatively more important than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom. Agriculture is based predominantly on the natural resources of the province and it makes a significant contribution to employment, output and exports.

I believe therefore that it can be fairly claimed that agricultural research and development is, on a population basis, eight times more important to Northern Ireland's future prosperity than it is for the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard the importance of research and development emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, in general terms, and I was pleased to hear it. I consider that it is even more important in respect of Northern Ireland. I am not making any special pleadings, but I ask that the situation there be looked at.

I am pleased to say that Northern Ireland has over the years developed a highly sophisticated and expert range of research and development facilities. The development schemes are incorporated in legislation and cover agriculture and horticulture. Research provisions and facilities are provided by Queen's University and the Universityof Ulster, by agricultural colleges, and by research centres provided by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. They have been very well documented in reports of the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the Public Service Alliance, which is the trade union for research and agriculture workers in general, and by the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland.

I realise that some of the matters I wish to deal with this evening are already contained in issues arising in the Agriculture Bill that is currently being considered by this House. Perhaps I shall have the opportunity to deal with those points in more detail when that Bill reaches its Committee stage. However, on broader and more general matters, I take this opportunity to emphasise that the small family-owned and run businesses that are a feature of the structure of farming in Northern Ireland have the usual difficulties of maintaining a reasonable cash flow and generating funds for new development. Their needs for technical and economic advice are of a different nature from those of large farm businesses, which can more easily purchase expertise and fit the costs into their normal financial budgets.

The farmer with a relatively small area of land, unless he has recourse to other employment has frequently to maximise his family's and his own labour inputs into his farm to maximise his profitability. That requires him to be knowledgeable about the very complex and rapidly changing technology that characterises farming today, and to be able to implement the results himself.

In addition, the role of the agricultural development and advisory services in Northern Ireland in low-cost farming systems is likely to be very similar to if not more vital than that which has been required of them during the past 10 years. Changes in the common agricultural policy designed to reduce surpluses will no doubt accelerate the search for increased efficiency. The absolute and relative importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy makes it imperative that farming in Northern Ireland remains viable; that Northern Ireland products become even more competitive in the United Kingdom, EC and world markets; and that total production, and therefore employment, is maximised so far as possible, commensurate with those requirements.

Sadly, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, there are ominous signs looming darkly on the horizon for agriculture. Northern Ireland perhaps has more difficulties, as has already been stated, in respect of huge bank overdrafts, which have been publicised in the press and other media. They are now a feature of the Northern Ireland economy. There are also the difficulties of last year's winter and the problems already arising for agriculture because of the late spring conditions. Additionally, there are the proposals in the Agriculture Bill, which have already been mentioned, for wider and additional financial charges for vital advisory and research services that are critical and necessary to progressive developments in the farming industry.

In those circumstances, I wish to have an assurance from the Government that development and research in Northern Ireland will be reinforced to enable an increase in the efficient use of available resources; a reduction in the level of purchased inputs while maintaining output on farms of sufficient size to meet family income needs; and, I stress again, to ensure that developments in research in Northern Ireland will be maintained and improved to promote employment and prosperity for the Northern Ireland agricultural industry.

7.40 p.m.

Lord Adrian

My Lords, as has been anticipated already by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I want this evening to say something about the relationship between agricultural research and environmental research. Before I do so, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for introducing this debate. If I say nothing about the difficulties faced by the Agricultural Research Service and ADAS it is not because I do not recognise them. I am directly involved in them as chairman of a governing body of an AFRC- and MAFF-funded research institute. It is one, like many others, which has had to face many difficulties. The noble Baroness has already said very much on that score and I agree with all that she has said.

I had the privilege in 1984 of chairing a subcommittee of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. Its remit was to examine the borderline between agriculture and the environment. We said then that awareness of the environmental dimension ought to be written into the remit of all those concerned with agricultural research; both Government departments, as customers, and the AFRC and the Scottish agricultural research organisations, as contractors. I believe that events since that time, especially within the common agricultural policy, have confirmed the importance of that message. It is not necessary to dwell here on the problems of the CAP. They are huge, and feverish activity is going on to work out how production in Community agriculture can be contained.

The transformation of agricultural production from dearth to surplus in a quarter of a century is a striking tribute to the success of agricultural R & D; but this success has had its cost. I believe that the cost is felt particularly in marginal areas of poor agricultural land. These lands have increasingly been ploughed up for cereal production. But the factors which had made that land unattractive for agriculture were of course often the same factors which made it valuable for amenity or nature conservation. For example, roughness of terrain, low nutrient values or poor drainage. Therefore, land has been turned from a regime which respected those environmental qualities to the exclusive production of crops; crops which are now unwanted here in Europe because their supply is excessive.

The implications for agricultural R & D are substantial. As the CAP policy-makers look for alternatives to their present policies, research is urgently needed both to inform their decisions and to support farmers in the new conditions in which they find themselves. So emphasis in R & D is moving away from the pursuit of maximum production at any cost. This shift has been under way for some time and is likely to gather momentum. It is not possible to generalise about what alternative goals will be sought; but I am sure that more attention will have to be paid to the relationships between agricultural inputs and agricultural outputs. Instead of high input-high output regimes, there are many advocates of regimes that maximise the output but from substantially lower inputs. I believe that this may help to reduce the problem of surpluses without harming the farming community in a way which quotas and other draconian measures obviously do; moreover, there will be substantial benefits for conservation of the countryside.

The inquiry by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which I referred, was concerned with the organisation of research rather than specifically with its content. We wanted to be assured that agriculture and the environment were not seen as distinct entities. They cannot be separated. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, for instance, or the AFRC and NERC, are acting in collaboration rather than in isolation from each other. We were also keen to ensure that research projects on the borderlines between agriculture and the environment did not suffer. Furthermore, we drew attention to the importance of bringing the Economic and Social Research Council closer to agricultural research in order that the socio-economic issues in new agricultural policies were properly considered.

I am glad to say that the Government's response to our report was a most positive one and I believe that the research councils have also taken full note of our recommendations. I particularly welcome the new duty accepted by agriculture Ministers, now proposed in Clause 12 of the Agriculture Bill before this House, to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of agriculture, conservation, recreation and the social and economic needs of rural areas. This is a very important development because, as the Select Committee said, the key to a proper balance in agricultural research depends largely on the customer. The agricultural departments must accept their obligation towards the whole environment and must promote research on the environmental effects of agricultural practices, whether or not such work appears likely to have benefit in terms simply of farming economics. That recommendation has been accepted by the Government, and we are grateful.

I am also aware of moves to bring the research councils closer together. The AFRC, in its corporate plan, for instance, states that it is exploring with ESRC and NERC ways of integrating research programmes more effectively and of giving clearer guidelines to universities on the research councils' interests and their responsibilities in applied biological research on agriculture, land use and the natural environment. I welcome the establishment by the research councils of a joint policy working group to encourage joint programmes in institutions and universities. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House what progress is being made and whether the working group has yet become active.

No speech about agricultural R & D these days can fail to mention the subject of finance, and I have two questions for the Minister on that subject. First, the Select Committee recommended that MAFF should significantly increase its funding of strategic research. This has been one of the victims of recent cuts and I know that the priorities board said that, while it accepted a degree of industry funding of R & D as an active method of securing industrial commitment, it is likely that the industry will most readily fund work at the applied end of the R & D spectrum". Since the Government's policy is to rely more heavily on industrial funding for agricultural R & D, I seek assurances that the funding of strategic research not fall by the wayside.

The Government's response to the Select Committee said that agriculture Ministers would be taking their decisions on the future direction of research effort in the light of the report from the priorities board and would bear the views of the Select Committee in mind. What conclusions have been reached? Perhaps I should give one example of the many strategic areas which need support; for instance, in soils the long term sustainability of rural resources and the preservation of soil fertility. This area, which was mentioned in our report, must be adequately covered by research.

The Government's response also said that MAFF was considering the funding of socio-economic research in agriculture in conjunction with the ESRC and the DoE. What decisions have been reached and has additional effort been put into this area?

Finally. I come back to the environmental effects of agricultural practices. The Select Committee recommended that the agriculture department should introduce a mechanism for identifying these effects. Otherwise, we did not see how Ministers could fulfil their responsibility to promote research into the effects. This is still the case. The environmental duty in the Agriculture Bill cannot be complied with unless Ministers have the facts on which to judge what is a reasonable balance between the interests of agriculture, conservation and the other needs of rural areas. The committee did not try to lay down what mechanisms should be adopted to identify environmental effects of agricultural practices; but we did recommend, as a contribution to that mechanism, a small and highly selective network of projects, perhaps modelled on the North Farm project of the Game Conservancy.

This excellent study of the grey partridge revealed some unexpected trends in the population dynamics of wild species, especially invertebrates, and potentially damaging ecological side effects which can flow from pesticide regimes and cropping practices. Strategic monitoring of this kind is needed to give early warning of environmental consequences and so to prevent pollution. Comparable projects are needed in other locations of different soil types and for different ecosystems.

In their response to this recommendation, the Government said that studies were being undertaken at Boxworth Experimental Husbandry Farm where the influence of different pesticide regimes is being assessed. NERC and AFRC were said to be exploring the possibilities of a number of studies within existing and proposed research programmes, which could provide a potential basis for a selective network of projects. 1 should be very grateful for a progress report on this matter, though I realise that in a short debate of this kind there is a limit to the number of questions which the Minister can answer. I should be perfectly happy to receive an answer to this question in writing if that would be a preferable way of doing it. However, I hope to hear that some kind of selective monitoring network is in process of being established for what I believe to be an important purpose.

7.51 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, this has been an extremely important debate and the House is fortunate that the noble Baroness was lucky in the ballot. She has introduced the debate with her usual great competence and the amount of work that she obviously does on these occasions and the excellent way in which she presents it to your Lordships' House always make me a little ashamed.

Every speaker has stressed the importance of research and development in their different ways and all of them have expressed—some more violently and some more tactfully than others—their astonishment that the Government should be cutting back on research and development at a time when the incomes of farmers are down—for example, in Scotland by some 80 per cent. this year. Many farms in my own area are up for sale simply because the farmers cannot retain them. Research and development is enormously important.

The whole history of my native county of Aberdeenshire is tied up with the development of the college of agriculture there. When I went to my present farm, which is in the good lands of Strathmore away in the deep south, at least 50 miles south of Aberdeen, I remember that the previous farmer said to me: "You must remember, laddie, that this is real farming country. It has been farmed for five hundred years, whereas Aberdeenshire has been dragged up between the stones in the last one hundred and fifty years". This is perfectly true of my native county. That history of the dragging of it into one of the biggest and best agricultural areas in Scotland is a history of research and development in agriculture.

The use of lime has been known for many years. It was propagated by the college. One of the great advances in the increasing fertility of land and flow of food from Aberdeenshire came from the introduction of wild white clover and the fixing of the nodules of nitrogen to increase fertility of the land. It was a tremendous advance. Then we went on to the new seeds and the new techniques. There was the work of Mr. James Findlay of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture who observed and measured sowing dates and crops for 40 years and, with a typical scientist's caution then said: "I think it is apparent that after 14th April in Aberdeenshire, with a crop of oats, every day you delay sowing on average loses a bushel a day". This sort of work that is undertaken over many years by the college and which is suitable for the area is of immense importance.

I do not think that research and development can be concentrated in one centre. It has to be spread throughout the country, be close to the practical farmer and suitable for the purposes of that area. In Northern Ireland just after the war Professor Morrison of the university there and his team were way ahead in the development of silage as a suitable winter crop for a wet area. That shows the value of local knowledge in the development of the many new practices that we can use. My noble friend Lord Tedder has spoken already of the unease that is felt in the Macaulay Institute and, I suppose, in the Hill Farming Research Organisation, at the combining of the two institutes in one establishment. The Government must realise the harm that is being done and the delay which is caused by moving a whole institute with its personnel (taking families and children from their schools) to a new location. Obviously, it must be done in a way which causes the least upset to the very important work that is being done in that area.

In Scotland as a whole, which of course I know best, we are suffering a great deal from the rundown—in fact the cutting out—of the Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engineering. I hope that in its new role, which has been much reduced because of the cuts in the colleges, it can once again be built up and continue to do the very important work that it undertakes for Scottish conditions; such as, for example, not producing potato harvesters which can work in the Fens but cannot possibly work in the rather stonier Scottish ground. There is also the Farm Buildings Institute which is extremely important for the development of any system. If we are going to move—which in my view we must do—to a system of lower farming, lower inputs, and perhaps healthier inputs, we shall need a great deal of research.

I hope that this will not mean that the fall in the price of land and the fall in the price of goods will result in great parts of England tumbling back into the kind of buttercup pastures which I am sure was not what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, meant when he said that conservation was important. I am sure that we can do better than that. But it needs a great deal of research to see the kind of grasses that are required and the kind of conservation that is needed for the winter feed in that area and again to see the sort of buildings that are required to house the stock comfortably and properly in winter. It all ties in together.

I must say that I was delighted when my noble friend Lord Walston said that we were wholly against the privatisation of the Plant Breeding Institute. It is difficult to understand what the Government are doing. Privatisation does not appear to depend on competence or service to the community; it depends on being able to sell to somebody. It does not appear to me to be a good basis for the support of an industry as important as agriculture is and will continue to be. It is nonsense to think that agriculture can be an industry which will make the countryside pretty for people to visit. It is an industry which is of enormous importance and which at the present time is saving in imports some £2 billion a year more than 10 years ago. It will become more important as our oil exports decline. It needs to be supported by established institutions.

The Plant Breeding Institute, because of its close association with more basic research, has been able to produce 80 per cent. of the new wheats which are producing the surpluses (which are a good thing and not a bad thing) in this country and 30 per cent. of the rest of the cereals.

It is ludicrous to think about privatising an establishment that is already losing people because of lack of confidence in the future. The Government should think again. It is a good thing to make the National Seed Organisation more competent and to get it to export its excellent products. But to interfere with the Plant Breeding Institute as it successfully is at the moment appears to us to be stupidity of a high order, and influenced only by the doctrinaire thoughts of the Government which are already running them into trouble.

I could say a great deal more; in fact, if I find my notes, I will. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, stressed the importance of keeping up research into biotechnology, genetic engineering and all the other new features. I hope and trust that the Government will do that, will not rely on getting all the money from an industry that is being impoverished in other ways, will realise the importance of confidence and will do their duty instead of their doctrinaire worst, which is what they appear to be trying to do.

8 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie is not at the Dispatch Box to wind up on behalf of the Official Opposition, but my task has been made considerably easier by the masterly opening speech of my noble friend Lady Nicol and also by the guidance that she has given me. She described carefully and accurately the nature and the magnitude of the crisis facing agricultural research and development in the United Kingdom and its long-term repercussions. She also identified apparent inconsistencies, if not contradictions, in government statements, and she asked a few awkward questions. Noble Lords who speak with great authority on the subject—the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Walston, in particular—have in powerful speeches reinforced her analysis of the crisis. The Government have a great deal to answer for.

The House listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, chairman of the AFRC and a farmer. I am sure that his speech, which amounted to a justification for publicly-funded agricultural research, will be studied with great interest and will also be quoted by an audience far wider than that present here this evening. The noble Earl steered clear of discussing the immediate cuts that are around us, but I recall his explaining clearly to the House two or three years ago how at an early stage he recognised that the Government's policies bore within them the seeds of danger. In 1984 he warned that the cuts could be devastating and were more far-reaching than might then have appeared. I believe that that message delivered in 1984 has now been driven home.

The profound effects of the crisis are reflected in three paragraphs in the AFRC's corporate plan for 1986 to 1991; namely, paragraphs 3.6, 5.3 and 5.5. It is well worth repeating the essence of those three paragraphs. Paragraph 3.6 tells us that, assuming that costs are rising at 5 per cent. per annum, there will be a drop in volume of agricultural research of 26 per cent. over the eight-year period 1983–1991. Paragraph 5.3 tells us that in 1984–85, 600 posts were lost in AFRC institutions. In 1985–86, 580 posts will be lost; and in 1986–87, in the words of the document "another 600 will go". That means a reduction over three years of about one-third of the AFRC manpower resources. Paragraph 5.5 tells us that the corporate plan is unable to make a prediction of staffing levels beyond 1986–87, because that will depend on the level of funding available and that is an unknown factor. The crisis may not necessarily be over in two years' time.

There is no doubt that the dismantling of projects, the closing of research institutes, the redundancies and the threat of continuing uncertainty have drastically affected the morale of the research workers, who feel that they are remote from the planners. The point has been made by a number of noble Lords this evening that all that undermines morale. We accept that agriculture is confronting major challenges; it is in a changing situation. That was spelt out clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, in a notable speech.

In such a period when the skills and the learning of the scientists have so much to offer to resolve the difficulties and the challenges, does it make sense to make them redundant? Is that not yet another example of government stubbornly and fervently pursuing a short-term policy of reducing public expenditure at the cost of jettisoning long-term benefits? It has been said that it is the wrong policy at the wrong time. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, called it a mistaken policy. We hope and trust that the Government will rethink some aspects of their policy.

The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, spoke of the Scottish experience, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. My noble friend Lord Blease referred to the Northern Ireland experience. On those precedents I believe that I am entitled to refer to the Welsh experience! Some noble Lords will recall that in February 1984 in your Lordships' House we debated the future role of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station, which is the only agricultural research institute in Wales. It is described by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn as a national institution. We see that station as one specific victim and one example of the drastic reduction in spending on agricultural research.

In 1983–84 it was feared by the scientists and the research workers at Aberystwyth that the removal of the breeding project, and in particular the barley breeding project, and the consequent redundancies would seriously weaken the capacity of the station to undertake effectively its continuing remit and make it vulnerable in the future round of cuts. The staff at Aberystwyth put up a good fight against the 1984 cuts, but I am not sure what was achieved.

The staff at Aberystwyth were concerned about the future, but the Secretary of State for Wales took a different view. He announced to the world that there was a firm future for the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. He claimed that the loss of the barley breeding and some other programmes would be balanced by the station's new remit which would offer it an expanding role in improving hill and upland pasture. The anxieties of the research workers were not allayed. Some were made redundant. Others, fearing the writing on the wall, left the station and took up new and assured appointments, sometimes abroad. That has been a sad loss for the Welsh Plant Breeding Station.

Notwithstanding the optimism of the Secretary of State for Wales in 1984, the Welsh Plant Breeding Station now faces another round of cuts. On the morning of 18th April, research workers at the station were surprised to read in the Farmers' Weekly that five of their projects were on what the journal described as a hit-list of 22 projects which could be axed if the Ministry planners carried out their threat to slash funding in 1987. It is interesting to note that the five projects identified in the journal included a programme which the Secretary of State for Wales was building up two years ago as a substantial part of the 1984 expansion. Does that not suggest "ad hocery" and piecemeal planning? Naturally, the staff at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station turned to their director for reassurance but the director confessed that he too had been surprised by the article. He does not know whether or not it is soundly based.

If the Farmers' Weekly article is reliable it would appear that the Ministry planners want to decommission projects in at least seven institutes in England, and a similar number in Scotland. We know that they want to privatise one or two institutes in England.

Given the widespread concern in the country which has been expressed in the House this evening—I know that it would have been voiced by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the Leader of the Opposition, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and my noble friend Lady White, I shall be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister will answer a few questions.

First, will he confirm whether the article of 18th April is soundly based? Secondly, if the article is reliable, or substantially accurate, what is its significance for those projects which industry is unable or unwilling to finance or support? Will those programmes be terminated? What will become of the disbanded research? Thirdly, on what have the planners at the Ministry in London based their evaluation of the threatened programmes? For example, have they taken into account that terminating a project will have repercussions on the institute's remaining remit and undermine the institute's capacity to discharge that remit?

Fourthly, at what stage in the planning process will the Ministry planner discuss his proposals with the management at the institute—the management will know better than anyone else how the termination will affect the institute—or is it not the intention to consult the management? Is it right in this day and age that research workers should be told first by the Farmers' Weekly that their projects are at risk? Fifthly, and this point has been touched on by a number of speakers this evening, why is the Ministry in such haste to decommission projects, bearing in mind that haste can be achieved at the expense of consultations and adequate preparatory work?

Sixthly, will the Minister listen to the reasonable demands of the AFRC and of the research workers that the department should announce at an early date the level of public funding that will be available to the council as and from 1987–88? Will the Minister identify the areas of agricultural strategic research which will remain publicly funded for the foreseeable future? That is the question to which the noble Baroness seeks a reply.

Lastly, I return to Wales. Will the noble Lord the Minister confirm whether or not the consent of the Welsh Office will have to be given before any current project at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station is decommissioned?

8.17 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for giving us this opportunity, the second in 10 days, to debate agricultural matters. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is not with us this evening to debate agricultural research and development. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested that the Government are not giving sufficient priority to research and development. That was a view which was followed by others of your Lordships.

On behalf of the Government I say that there is no lack of understanding on our part of the contribution which research and development make to the economic health of the agricultural and food sectors, and the economy as a whole. However, we believe that it is right to look carefully at the way in which such work is funded and the areas to which the Government's resources should be directed.

The noble Baroness questioned the timing and basis upon which expenditure on agricultural research has been planned by the Government. My right honourable friend made it clear well over a year ago that although there would be no changes in the financial year 1985–86, nonetheless, as part of our public expenditure policy, research and development budgets would have to be reduced for this financial year and for the financial year 1987–88. Those reductions reflect our view that there are limits to what the Government can fund and our belief that it is right to seek a greater contribution from industry towards the research from which it benefits. We believe that there is scope for a successful collaborative effort between industry and government, not only in the funding of research but in helping to determine the shape of the programme and ensuring that results are taken up even more rapidly and effectively than before.

I should like to point out that in 1987–88 we still expect to be spending almost £200 million on agricultural and food research and development. That is a major commitment by any standards and a clear demonstration of the importance that we attach to that work.

The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, reminded the House that the fourth report of the Science and Technology Committee, under his chairmanship, had asked for assurances about funds continuing to be deployed for strategic research. The Government are fortunate in having available the advice of the independent and highly qualified Priorities Board. In accordance with the advice of the board, the Government will increasingly be concentrating their funds on basic and strategic research and on work in such areas as safety, welfare and environmental protection.

In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who was critical about moneys being spent upon animal welfare, my advice is that some £80 million a year is being spent on research and development into animal welfare and some £25 million a year into animal disease research. I have no doubt that there is some overlap between those two figures, but they represent a substantial proportion of the total research and development expenditure on agriculture. As to short-term work where there is likely to be a clear and rapid benefit to the industry, that is where we would expect to see the industry's funds concentrated.

In the past year the Government have held intensive consultations with all sectors on the part that industry might play in future funding arrangements. Of course, some sectors, as your Lordships will well know, already fund a considerable volume of research. I am thinking, for example, of milk, potatoes and, indeed, sugar beet. We have recently had an encouraging response from the horticultural sector, which has declared itself willing to fund R & D. Subject to the approval of Parliament, we hope to be establishing a horticultural development council for this purpose as rapidly as possible.

Your Lordships will recall that we are also seeking mechanisms through the Agriculture Bill to allow the cereals and livestock sectors to play a larger part in the R & D programme. I should like to emphasise that it will be for each sector to decide on the level of funds that it wishes to provide and on how the money that it raises is spent, and to link it with the publicly funded effort in a programme of research that will serve each sector and ultimately each and every grower and producer to best effect. The response so far has been encouraging. We look forward to working closely with each sector to bring the new arrangements into effect.

My noble friend Lord Stanley drew attention to the importance of research into agriculture and into the environment meeting, as it were, as one, which is, of course, a theme brought out by the Select Committee on Science and Technology of two years ago. I very much agree. We must, I realise, be particularly mindful of the fact that, as over 80 per cent. of the land in the United Kingdom is farmed in one form or another, so farming must have a considerable influence upon the environment. Therefore, a prime aim of R & D is to achieve a more environmentally acceptable agriculture. Indeed, when the Ministry submitted evidence to the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I seem to remember that we included a seven-page list of R & D commissions with environmental objectives.

In this context, may I say in passing that your Lordships will be very well aware that in the Agriculture Bill now before your Lordships' House the power to designate environmentally sensitive areas, to which £6 million is to be committed in a full year, will enable farmers in areas under particular pressure to farm in ways that will help to preserve the landscape value and habitats of those areas.

I very much hope—this is the context in which I was wanting to mention the matter this evening—that this system will enable us to learn more about the environmental effects of different agricultural methods. In this context of environmental and agricultural research, the Government certainly accept that there is a need for R & D to have a better understanding of the biological interaction that in many habitats determines which species can survive and which species cannot. Here we believe in co-operation with others who have a particular expertise in these matters. One example of this is the study that is just about to begin in the Somerset levels where the Ministry of Agriculture has joined the Department of the Environ- ment and the Nature Conservancy Council to commission research into the effects of nitrogenous fertilisers on the botanical composition of herb-rich lands to be found in that area. We are also commissioning research with the British Trust for Ornithology in which we are supporting a statistical analysis of the common bird census to try to find out more about the relationship between habitats on farmlands and bird populations.

From the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, made—although I realise it was more directed towards livestock—I think the noble Lord may be interested to know that in our research programme there are also studies on biological control of insect pests, the more efficient use of pesticides, the use of natural compounds for pest control, the treatment and disposal of animal wastes and research into alternative crops and land uses. Through these and other protects, we are examining the role of farming in the environment, and seeking solutions to the problems that we have.

The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, reminded the House that the Select Committee under his chairmanship wanted also to be assured that the Ministry's research programme is not planned in isolation. Indeed, it is not, and I think that the noble Lord was generous in his remarks in this way. We do have discussions with the Department of the Environment. However, it is also important to note that the research councils—namely, the AFRC, the NERC and the Economic and Social Research Council (the ESRC)—are setting up a joint policy working group on agriculture and the environment, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, to determine R & D needs and to devise co-ordinated programmes. Both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment are represented on that working group.

The noble Lord asked also about socio-economic research. One example of the collaborative effort in the socio-economic field is the establishment of a rural data bank at Essex University. We are looking forward to developing this co-ordinated approach even further in future.

My noble friend Lord Selborne, if I may say so, made a most interesting speech about the role of research and development and its aims and objectives, and gave from his great experience several interesting examples. The noble Earl made an eloquent plea for the research and development budget to be continued at least at its present level. Indeed, that was the essence of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, from the point of view of Northern Ireland. To both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, I have to say that I cannot give any undertakings beyond the period of the three-year public expenditure survey published in the Command Papers.

I feel that I must say, with my noble friend Lord Selborne in your Lordships' House, that I recognise that the reductions in the programme of commissioned work with the Agricultural and Food Research Council, under my noble friend's chairmanship, have led to some hard decisions by the AFRC and, indeed, by the Ministry. In that context, let us nonetheless remember that the Ministry is still going to be spending around £48 million with the AFRC on commissioned work in the current year. It will be about £43 million in the next financial year. In addition, the AFRC will be able to compete for funds through the open contracting arrangements that we have started. We hope that significant new resources will be forthcoming from the industry, also.

In making the changes to our research programme for the present financial year, we followed the advice of the Priorities Board in accordance with the advice given in the context of the resources that government are going to make available. We sought to achieve the savings that we had to make as far as possible through a rationalisation of the present effort and through identifying work that appeared to be of lesser importance. All along we endeavoured to have discussion between the Ministry and the AFRC management. Wherever possible, programmes were scaled down without losing the essential core in order to preserve a research capability for the future.

The research about which we are talking, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Stanley, does include rather more emphasis on food research, which, as my noble friend Lord Selborne quite rightly pointed out, if I may say so, is of benefit to the producer as well as to the consumer.

I should like to say a brief word about the enormously important area of ADAS R & D. It is worth bearing in mind, when the noble Baroness is critical of this area, that the advisory services in England and Wales run 19 experimental husbandry farms and horticultural stations, and R & D represents a major part of the work of the agricultural science laboratories and the Central Veterinary Laboratory. The contribution of such work to the economic health of the industry is fully appreciated, but I have no doubt that there is scope for economies.

The noble Baroness mentioned, as she has every right to do, the closure of some laboratories and certain veterinary investigation centres. In each case this was a rationalisation, and the work that was done on those sites will be continued elsewhere. For the future we would expect ADAS to attract a proportion of the R & D commissions that will be financed by the industry. After these economies the cost of R & D work by ADAS will still be over £40 million a year and the total annual cost of running ADAS well over £100 million a year.

I would add that the agricultural departments and the AFRC are now considering the changes that may need to be made in the publicly funded programmes in 1987–88 taking account of the advice of the priorities board and the level of funds available. That consideration is being undertaken jointly by the sponsors—that means the government departments that sponsor—and by AFRC, with the aim of achieving the most rational and cost-effective use of resources. I believe that this joint approach marks a significant step forward in the management of the R & D programme.

In the time available I should like to try to answer some individual questions. The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke about the proposed amalgamation of the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Tedder. I shall most certainly draw the noble Lord's speech to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As the noble Lord probably knows, no decision has been taken yet on the future location of the new combined institute. The respective advantages of location in Aberdeen or on the Bush estate near Edinburgh have been acknowledged and recognised. The noble Lord expressed concern that the strategy for agricultural research and development does not mention collaboration with the Macaulay Institute, which the noble Lord said can exist so well in Aberdeen. I would reply that a feasibility study is under way to assess the options in detail. This will consider all relevant scientific, administration and financial aspects, and assurances have been given that all points made have been noted and that no decision will be taken until the feasibility study has been completed and only after full and careful consideration of the options.

The noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, all spoke about the proposals of the Government for the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organisation. I can only say, in the time available to me this evening, that I have no fresh news on our proposals other than that known to your Lordships. The merchant bankers to whom we have gone for advice, Lazards, are expected to give us advice, I would hope, even before the end of this month. I would also add that, contrary to the expectation of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, several private organisations are indeed interested in bidding for this work.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, does the noble Lord expect to get any other advice from a merchant bank other than that privatisation is possible? To ask it to give any other form of advice is rather like asking a cow to lay eggs.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I did not go into detail because I have covered several times in your Lordships' House the reasons for the Government's proposal. We are not going to a merchant bank asking it to approve our reasons. We are asking for advice on how best to carry out the policy that we believe right in this respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked a series of questions based on an article, I gather, in Farmers Weekly about the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. In 1986–87 the Welsh Plant Breeding Station will be receiving public funding of just under £3 million. This, with respect to the noble Lord, is not a drastic reduction but a marginal reduction over last year. The efforts of the director and his staff have more than covered the difference by securing contract research from a variety of sources. The total value of these contracts amounts to more than £500,000. This will make a substantial contribution to the running costs of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station.

The noble Lord put to me a list of questions based on the Farmers Weekly article. I can only say that the direct statement in Farmers Weekly, as represented by the noble Lord, is not correct. What was said in the article represents options for possible industry funding and possible reductions. I do not have this evening any announcement to make about reductions relating to the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. Indeed, I hope that what I have said about the present funding of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station has put the context of the funding of the station into the correct light.

Three of your Lordships, the noble Lords, Lord Walston, and Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Selborne each mentioned the question of biotechnology. This new science, by which it is possible to probe genetic material, identify desirable genes, extract them individually and recombine them with the genetic material of other cells is enormously exciting. Even more exciting is the possibility of transferring genes from one species to another that could not possibly cross breed by conventional reproduction mechanisms. This means in practice, as many of your Lordships know better than I, that we can greatly accelerate the pace of genetic advance. Crops may be improved to give better yields for lower inputs and have increased resistance to pests and diseases and greater resistance to cold, together with extended cropping seasons. There is also the possibility of new crops yielding valuable compounds of interest to the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Similarly, livestock may have improved qualities of growth, fertility and leanness and resistance to disease. Equally important in these developments are the new enabling technologies of tissue culture and micropropagation for plant breeding and the bulking up of plant materials.

Amid the considerable amount of criticism heard in this debate, which I realise stems from genuine concern, it is very heartening to consider that industry is well seized of the opportunities that are presented by this new science and is already matching interest with funds where it appears that developments might be successfully exploited. On that encouraging note I say to the noble Baroness that while not agreeing with a great deal of what she says, none the less I thank her genuinely for instituting the debate.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, it remains for me to thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. We have heard some well informed and thoughtful comments. The Minister has answered the debate with his usual charm and courtesy. I must say, however, that there is little comfort in some of his remarks for those directors of institutes who are trying to see their way ahead. In spite of some of the encouraging things the Minister had to say about funding, we are left in some doubt about the Government's own attitude to their prime responsibility. I hope that this can be answered on another day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.