HL Deb 22 January 1990 vol 514 cc903-14

4.16 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements will be made in any reorganisation of the Scottish agricultural colleges to maintain the co-operation now existing between the University of Aberdeen and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the timing of business in this House can be very difficult for someone who lives only 20 miles away and relies upon getting to the House within an hour and then finds a mile of the Embankment torn up and spends half an hour there and arrives almost too late for the debate in view of the speed with which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has dealt with the business today.

The Question concerns the effect which the implementation of the Williams Report might have on the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. Although I have narrowed the Question to that issue I am sure that my noble kinsman will expand on the report as a whole.

To some extent my interest is a family one. My uncle and my father were both chairman of the governors of the college for many years. I was a governor for many years and also served as vice-chairman. I farmed in the area near the college for many years and my family still farms there. I was chairman of the hill farm research farm and saw a great many of the less favoured areas which are referred to in the report. I saw the great help which the college's advisory service gave to those areas, and I should like to emphasise the close contact between those areas and the college. I was a student of the college, taking a certificate course. In all the time that I farmed in the area I received help and advice from the college's advisory service.

It was therefore a great disappointment to me that moves were afoot to upset the system which I knew so well and took part in for so long, particularly on the educational side. I understand that those moves are the result of the Williams Report recommendations being almost rubber-stamped by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Although I have not seen his statement, I understand that he accepts the report's recommendations.

The foreword to the report goes into a fair amount of detail about what is in the report. I should like to read out the first sentence which states: Scotland is not well-endowed physically for the pursuit of agriculture. Most of its farming is nothing less than trench and tractor warfare against a hostile terrain". I should like to repeat that statement, but perhaps I should let it sink in. Has the committee no knowledge of Scotland? Even starting at John o' Groats and taking the coastal strip of arable land all the way to the Black Isle, one cannot say that that is "hostile terrain". The farming there is not trench warfare. When one thinks of the Black Isle, which includes some of the best land and farming in the country, and the easy, beautiful land and climate along the coast of the Moray Firth, one can hardly imagine classifying that as "hostile terrain".

We can go from there into Aberdeenshire where my family has farmed for nine generations over the past 340 years. It is one of the largest farming counties in Scotland and has rightly developed over the years. My ancestors did a great deal of trenching and draining there at one time. As one goes through Aberdeenshire—I am sure that the Minister has been there—one realises that this is not an area of hostile terrain.

There is some of the best land in the country in the Howe of the Mearns where I farmed for 30 years. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, will emphasise that point in relation to the Valley of Strathmore where he farms. There is then the coastal plain from Stonehaven to Perth and the kingdom of Fife with its golden fringe, good land in the centre and good farming.

The Lothians contains the best land in the country. I knew many of the farmers there, including the late Jack Dale who made a reputation for the farming and land of the area. Farming in Berwickshire and the Borders can by no stretch of the imagination be described as: warfare against a hostile terrain". Perhaps I may now cross the country to the noble Lord's homeland of Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire where some of the best grassland for farming is to be found and milk production is the envy of many. I have many friends there and it has never struck me that they struggled against "a hostile terrain".

Quite frankly, that opening sentence is the most extraordinary that I have ever read, especially given that there are two prominent Scottish farmers on the committee. It makes me and many other people suspicious of the report. The statement that 90 per cent. of the land is classified by the EC as unfavourable—I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but I think it must be wrong—prompted me to calculate the gross cash intake per acre available for the remaining 10 per cent. It comes to about £800 per acre. That is a rough calculation, but if that is the case, there is not a great deal coming over that 10 per cent. I do not know where that figure came from; it should be examined carefully.

The second paragraph of the report is simply a statement of fact. The third paragraph is the most revealing. It states: This network of agricultural education, research and development and advisory services is the Scottish System which won parliamentary praise as recently as 1983. It is now under threat for various reasons, all reducing"— I do not understand that piece of grammar— to swingeing cuts in the public funds which have been allocated annually in support of the System for the last 80 years".

The report is obviously not concerned with increasing the efficiency of the college services, be they educational, advisory or regarding research and development. It is simply a grant-cutting exercise in line with the Government's dogma of cutting public expenditure irrespective of the harm that might be done. I emphasise that point, but anyone who reads the report will see that that is the case.

The report is most difficult to understand. I have tried to understand it and I am not alone in my difficulties. Professor Jones and his staff sent a letter to the Secretary of State. I do not wish to quote it all; I am sure that the noble Lord must have read it as I believe that it was also sent to him. Professor Jones mentioned the muddled way in which many matters were dealt with.

Chapter 8 contains the committee's main opinions, recommendations and conclusions. There are 82 in all, so it is difficult to sort them out and deal with them. I rely on, as the North-East poet, the late Charles Murray, said: Folk wi' better thums thon me to red the ravelled snorl". He goes on, although I have altered one word to fit the case: and tell ye fa be-good the ploy that sae upset the College". I may have to translate that later. The people on whom I have relied are Professor McNicol, the principal of the University of Aberdeen, Professor Jones—the head of the college—and his staff, and many others interested in the North of Scotland College of Agriculture who have had the time and knowledge to go into that matter in depth.

In a detailed survey, Professor Jones pointed out the committee's naivety on the subject of higher education in paragraphs 7.47 and 7.49 and in paragraph 8.82 which contains its final, overall view. He also pointed out a mistake in costs with regard to the figures for Aberdeen and the West of Scotland College. There was a mere £400,000 difference which I suppose does not worry anyone. The number of times that he uses the expression "This is untrue" leads one to be suspicious of the value of the report.

Its two main recommendations will disastrously affect the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. Professor Jones is not quite so hard on the report as I am. He uses the phrase, "seriously affect".

The first recommendation concerns the centralisation of administration of three colleges at Edinburgh. This recommendation is viewed with great apprehension by the staff of North Scotland College and by the principal of the university. The North of Scotland College is over 100 miles from Edinburgh. If it is put further away, a few miles will be added to that. Large areas of North Scotland College's advisory territory are well over 100 miles away. Therefore there will be an enormous waste of time and money. Staff will be moving about and governors will struggle to meetings. Some people believe that the effect of that recommendation will lead to unworkable conditions. The point is emphasised that the college may close.

The second and most important recommendation concerns the separation of the college from the university. This would be a major tragedy—and I use the word "major" unreservedly. For years the headquarters of the college were at Marshall College. Physical contact with other students of the university has a broadening effect on some narrow-minded farmers' sons and other agricultural students. When the university required this space for medical use an unimaginative Department of Agriculture said: "You have plenty of land at Craibstone. You can build cheaper there". That land is 4 to 5 miles away. The governors, who appreciated the situation, fought against the suggestion. With very good support from the then principal, Professor Taylor, we obtained a site at King's College and the physical connection was continued. This point is also emphasised by the present principal. I cannot stress too strongly how important this contact is. I and my two brothers and my three sons derived great benefit from it. However, my grandson, although he is the tenth generation, has left agriculture and gone into another business.

The tragic proposal to dismantle the present joint University of Aberdeen and North of Scotland School of Agriculture is ably dealt with in the memorandum of Professor McNicol of 16th November and in the letter from Professor Jones and his staff to the Scottish Secretary. I am sure that the noble Lord has read both those letters. It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to enlarge upon them. However, I should like to read paragraph 11 of the principal's memorandum. He writes: Account must also be taken of the financial and legal complexities of dissolving the partnership between the University and NOSCA and transferring the College's assets to ACS. The School of Agriculture Building, for example, was financed jointly by the University through a direct grant from the UGC (one-third share) and the College (two-thirds share) but is built on land exclusively owned by the University. The Animal Metabolism Unit, however, was built by the University on College land. This is a good illustration of the extent to which the complementary activities of the University and NOSCA are physically integrated.

The attempt to get students to attend the university and the college could create serious competition. That is a situation which should not exist. There is also the point about waste of manpower. These matters are expressed very clearly by Professor Jones and his staff and the principal.

I do not wish to say any more. I hope that the noble Lord will take into consideration all the points that have been put to him not only by me but by other people.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I rise to back up my noble kinsman in practically everything that he has said. Although he has expanded fully on the foolishness of the opening sentence, I should like to say that it is quite extraordinary that it should appear in a document of this kind. I have farmed in the Howes o Muir for 40 years. I started there as a tenant of the grandfather of the noble Earl sitting on the Front Bench. He will know the quality of that land. It throws a little doubt on the validity of many sections of the report.

The principle that we are pushing is that of co-operation between the universities and the colleges. The system of the three colleges has worked very well, particularly with Aberdeen and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. There, one has three internationally known research bodies: the Rowett Institute, the Macaulay Institute, and the Craibstone Research Station. All three bodies co-operate closely with the university and have governors on their boards who are members of the other bodies. As a result, one has a complex which is of great value to Scottish agriculture. I dare say that the same is true of Edinburgh, but I do not speak with so much knowledge of that as I do of Aberdeen.

I remember the row that went on just after the war when a professor was appoined to head the college and to be the professor of agriculture of the university. Having taken on the appointment, he became frighened at the amount of work. He set to work to undermine the system and to separate the university from the college so that he could concentrate on his academic navel, or something of the kind. He was successful and the university had to provide a new farm. Happily, he left to go back to Leeds. By this time the university and the college were aware of the harm that had been done by splitting the two functions and breaking the co-operation between the two bodies. The university provides the intellectual and academic background and the college provides the immense range of services which are necessary to produce good advice and good practitioners of agriculture at every level.

It is very important that the principals and the professor of agriculture appreciate that something good is going to come out of the Williams Report, whose main recommendation is that the three colleges should be combined as one college on three separate campus sites. This may well be sensible. Some of the other recommendations are far from sensible. The one which was calculated in the summary of the conclusions—and I cannot understand how any sensible person could have put it in this way—was that the schools of agriculture at Aberdeen and Edinburgh should cease to exist and that their academic function should be taken over by joint boards of studies responsible to the appropriate university faculties and the Academic Policies Committee of the ACS. I cannot think of anything that would be more inclined to send shivers up and down the backs of the people concerned.

Further recommendations in the report state that it is essential that the strong academic links between the existing colleges and their local universities should continue. These are two different interpretations of the facts. It is suggested that the colleges should continue as separate campuses under a central direction. That is sensible. However, I think that other recommendations are enormously dangerous.

There is some evidence, although I do not think it is conclusive, that there is a preference among certain firms in England for employing people with national diplomas from English colleges as opposed to those with a Higher National Diploma from Scotland. That is worrying. A number of Scottish students have gone south. That is not a bad thing so long as a reciprocal number come north. However, it may be more a case for propaganda for the value of the Scottish HND. If the course needs upgrading and a further input of different disciplines, then that should be done in collaboration with the universities. It should not be separated entirely from the universities, as the report recommends. That must be wrong.

I hope that the Minister will study the recommendation with great care and decide against it. It is one of the conclusions reached by the report that must be wrong and needs to be reviewed. It is all very well to say that the college and university can co-operate. But if one has total separation as, for example, with Aberdeen—it is recommended that the principal be appointed entirely by the college and that the university will appoint its own professor—one begins a process of separation that is bound to do harm in the long and the short run to the cause of education and research in the area.

It is recommended that the headquarters be moved from Perth and set up in Edinburgh. That would be overturning a decision taken only in 1987. It is also recommended that the principal in charge of direction of the central board could be a principal of one of the colleges. That must be wrong. If one has three equal colleges co-operating with one another, and the principal of one is made director overall, one will have much bad feeling. Although a good start has been made by the provisional appointment of a good chairman for the new college, we must look carefully at that issue. I believe that Perth should remain the centre. It is always cheaper to adapt an existing establishment than to set up an entirely new one, especially, as in this case, since I am certain that the change will cause a good deal of strife. I should like a comment from the Minister on that aspect.

There are many other points in the report with which I disagree. However, there are some good suggestions. One is that the lower degrees for farm workers in crafts and so on, the courses for which at present are provided by colleges run by the education authorities, should be integrated with the colleges in their area. That is done at present by the East of Scotland College at Oatridge and the local authority. That is sensible.

There are a number of sensible suggestions in the report. The Minister has already allayed some fears in the North by his Statement. I hope that he will consider the central point of the report and accept that the colleges should be combined as one college with three campuses. However, he should then consider the human relations aspect with great care. Human relations are what make any company, college or advisory system work. I hope that in particular he will apply his well known charm and common sense to the academics of Aberdeen University so that the very excellent co-operation that has done so much good for agriculture in the North and over a wider field will be able to continue.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I shall certainly not keep the House from the Minister's reply for more than a few minutes. I was always told that the one subject on which one should not speak unless one knew about it was agriculture. Having listened to the two contributions in the debate I am fully convinced by that advice.

I have studied the report. There were many elementary facts that I was unable to understand because of my totally different background. However, I am concerned about some fairly simple points. The Statement in answer to a written reply by the Secretary of State in another place on 15th December is less than two columns in length. Would it not have been better for the Secretary of State to issue a fuller reply to some of the points raised by the two previous speakers?

I have been trying to find out from colleagues how the Statement has been accepted generally. After a close discussion there has been much greater acceptance than I should have expected, although there are many points in dispute. The Secretary of State might have been able to allay many of those fears, and to get closer to the nitty-gritty, had he made a fuller Statement and analysis of the report and his reaction to it. Perhaps that will be made at some point, although I am not referring to this afternoon.

During my discussions questions were raised about a reduction of staff and the availability of help to small farmers or even crofters. Will the source of information and advice still be available to them?

We are grateful to my noble friend Lord John-Mackie for raising the Question. After the Minister has replied, I hope that we may have a fuller Statement either here or in another place.

Finally, what happens to the report now? Is it merely implemented or will any of the recommendations come back to the House for ratification? Will the report be debated more fully in another place?

4.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)

My Lords, first, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that I am pleased to answer this short but very important Question on the future of the agricultural colleges in Scotland. I know that he and other members of his family—in particular his father—had an important role to play in the agricultural scene in Scotland, in particular in Aberdeen. I shall address most of my remarks to that subject, which has exercised me and the Secretary of State over the Williams Report.

Perhaps I may say that the acceptance of the committee's appointment was welcome. I very much understand the concern of the noble Lord at the opening sentence of the foreword and the impression that it might give. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will understand when I say that the amount of less favoured area in Scotland is considerably greater than in other parts of the United Kingdom. While I accept what the noble Lord says about the Mearns—the noble Lord talks with much authority about the land in Angus and so on—there is a considerable amount of land in Scotland which is of a less favoured type. I know only too well that I have to deal with that when we come to matters such as hill livestock compensatory allowances—a subject that is exercising me at the present time.

With an ex-president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union on the Alwyn Williams Committee, together with Mr. Manson, who farms near Oldmeldrum, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will understand that we did our best to persuade those who are pro-active in Scottish agriculture to take a part in the work of the important committee.

The major recommendation of the Williams Report was that there should be one college, a single board of directors and a single chief executive or executive director. I am pleased that Mr. Sandy Inverarity, who has considerable knowledge and experience of agriculture in Scotland combined with wide experience in the business sector and as a chartered accountant, has agreed to be chairman of the new board. We intend that it should have its full appointment in February.

The creation of the new college will mean that the Board of Governors of the three existing colleges will be wound up, although there will be a place for local bodies deriving their authority from the main board to carry out certain functions locally relating to the individual colleges or "campuses", as the Williams Report describes them. The Secretary of State has also decided that, in accordance with the recommendation of the Williams Report, the educational focus of the new college should shift towards the higher end of the education spectrum. That is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred.

That will put the new Scottish Agricultural College more in line with other nationally-funded central institutions in Scotland. It means that the college will increasingly provide courses at degree level while reducing provision at National Certificate level, particularly the craft level courses, which can be accommodated in other centres of learning.

It has been suggested that the creation of the new college could have particularly damaging effects in Aberdeen, where there is a long tradition of college and university working intimately together in the framework of the Aberdeen School of Agriculture for the provision of agricultural education. In Aberdeen, as in Edinburgh, there is a single head of the school and arrangements for sharing land, buildings and other facilities. In the West different but equally constructive relationships exist between the West College, which I visited only on Friday, and Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities. There have been, and still are, fears in Aberdeen—clearly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—that the creation of the new college and the accelerated thrust towards degree-level provision will do damage to this existing relationship.

I must say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have listened very carefully and took a great deal of care especially as regards representations from Aberdeen. As the noble Lord will be aware, I have also seen representatives, Members of Parliament and others from the area. We have concluded that the specific recommendation of the Williams Report—that the existing schools of agriculture should be abolished—would not be in the best interests of university or college, or, more importantly, of the students attending either institution, or of the agricultural industry which they serve. It is essential that there continues to be an intimate association between the college and the university. In the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it remains desirable for them to share resources.

That brings us to the very nub of the argument presented by the noble Lord: how is co-operation to be maintained between college and university in the new arrangements? There are a number of points that can be made immediately in response to this question. I shall ensure that all noble Lords who have spoken receive a copy of my right honourable friend's Statement because it allays some of the fears expressed.

Taking the example of Aberdeen, there is close co-operation between the university and other higher education research organisations in the area. I am aware of the kind of co-operation that exists, for example, between the university and Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology or, within the agricultural sector, between the university and the Rowett Research Institute in the provision of postgraduate education and research. Therefore, I am confident that one of the earliest tasks of the new board of directors, its chairman and executive director will be to enter into discussion with the principal of Aberdeen University—and with the principals of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities who have generally welcomed the findings of the report—about the arrangements which will operate in the future. They range from the details of course provision to the use of resources, including staff, land, buildings and equipment.

But one point is absolutely fundamental. It is that there must be proper lines of accountability within the college and the university. It is essential that responsibility for appointing the principal or head of the North College or campus should lie solely with the board of directors of the new college, albeit with university involvement; and that the head of the college should be fully and solely accountable to the board of directors through the executive director for the management of the college. The same principles must surely apply to the university where heads of department are accountable to the university principal. It is neither sensible nor desirable—indeed it is quite bad management—for the head of an important organisation to be responsible to two masters.

The argument has been put that such an arrangement—the separation of responsibility for college and university department—was tried before in the 1950s and failed. But that argument fails to take into account the profound changes that have taken place in the college structure over the past five years. That experiment—if that is how it can be described—occurred when all three colleges were quite independent of each other and provided a full range of services—education, R&D and advice—within their local areas. But it was the colleges themselves which in 1985 recognised that their continued existence as purely regional-based organisations could not continue. The creation by the colleges of SAC Ltd., and the establishment of the general advisory and veterinary investigation services on a national basis—that is a Scottish basis—marked a clear and radical break with what had gone before and signalled the determination of the colleges to operate increasingly in the future on a national basis.

Before Christmas I attended an extremely good meeting of the college advisory service personnel in Crieff and the morale and standing of that body I could recommend to anyone. The transformation which has taken place within the set-up since 1985 is quite remarkable. It goes to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about small farmers. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the determination of the college advisory services is now such that the small farmer, wherever he is in Scotland, is receiving a very good service.

The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked whether it is a cost-cutting exercise. The answer is certainly not. It was never the intention, nor was it implicit in the terms of reference of the Williams Committee, that we were embarking on a cost-cutting exercise. I hope that, in what I have said and what I have to say, I can demonstrate that we must have a proper set-up for Scotland as regards the Scottish agricultural colleges.

In short, the Williams Committee found that the way forward lay in a national college under unitary management. The new management arrrangements would be incompatible with overall management responsibility of the north or any college or campus by a university-appointed senior manager. That is the major point.

I appreciate that there are necessarily a great many points which require detailed consideration and discussion before a new agreement can be established between the college and the university. That applies not only to Aberdeen but also the other bodies. The discussions must cover staff—a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—including the arrangements for senior academic appointments which are currently jointly funded. They must also cover land and buildings—where the college occupies the greater part of the Department of Agriculture building which was built originally with funds contributed from both sources—and the use of farms and equipment where the university has the use of college-owned facilities. Important questions of policy and finance also arise in relation to the nature of the degree-level courses to be provided and the access of college students to the academic and non-academic facilities of the university such as libraries, sports fields and so on. I know very well the strong representations made by the principal of Aberdeen University and of course Professor Jones on this matter and I have had the pleasure of discussing this matter with him. I am confident that with good will on all sides there will be a satisfactory arrangement on every campus as regards the future.

I can take away the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, on the headquarters of the new operation. That will be a matter for the new board but all three governing bodies of the three colleges suggested that Perth, the present headquarters, should be the place. From those headquarters the successful development of the advisory service has taken place. I also draw attention to the statement by my right honourable friend that the role of the executive director should be separated from that of the campus principal. Therefore, the noble Lord will understand that the Secretary of State and I have not accepted all the recommendations of the Williams Committee.

I shall read to him, because it is vital, the paragraph which concerns the schools of agriculture in Aberdeen and Edinburgh: So far as the Schools of Agriculture are concerned I am not minded to accept the Williams recommendation that these should cease to exist. While some restructuring of the relationship between the present Colleges and their neighbouring Universities will be an inevitable consequence of the establishment of a single national college, I attach the greatest importance to allowing the strong academic links and the productive sharing of resources established between Colleges and Universities to continue both now and in the long-term. I would therefore in particular wish to see the concept and title 'School of Agriculture' carry on at both Aberdeen and Edinburgh provided that the School was in future headed jointly by its respective campus Principal and by a Professor at the University. I expect the Scottish Committee of the UFC to offer me advice on the balance of provision in agricultural education between the College and the Universities, recognising the Universities main strength lies in the sciences and that of the College in technological and vocational subjects". As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said, agriculture is at times difficult to explain to those who are not involved in it. When I started this job I did not know much about it but I know a good deal more now. One thing I know is that in Scottish agricultural circles one must work with the grain and not against it. That is why when I came to this job I was very concerned by some of the problems surrounding the Scottish agricultural colleges. I believe that, with the recommendations which we have accepted from the Williams Committee, we shall make sure that we are delivering into the next century a satisfactory situation in Scotland.

What is most important about the Williams Committee report, although it has not been mentioned by any noble Lord, is that the three-legged stool—the Scottish system, the advisory service and the research and development function—of the colleges in Scotland will be maintained. That is something I should not wish to see in any way jeopardised. I believe that the arrangements which we are setting in train to be brought into effect as fast as possible will achieve that end.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he expand on his statement that the North of Scotland College will continue to exist and that the professor appointed by the university and the principal of the college will work together to run the college? Does that mean that there will be no competition for students, because I believe that that is very important?

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, the arrangements and the necessary courses will be determined in the light of what the university and the college would wish for agricultural education. The new campus principal, who will be situated in Aberdeen, running the agricultural college on behalf of the SAC, will, it is hoped, at a very early date get down to the provision of the courses required and the arrangements necessary for the use of land, property, farms and so on which will be implicit in that. I believe—and I am sure this also goes for the new chairman of the SAC—that an early start must be made to those arrangements so that we can provide the education required through the right channels.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has some doubts about Williams and his remarks about a degree. But he might wish to have another look at paragraph 3.70, where there is no doubt that, not merely in agricultural education in Scotland but also in the other Scottish CIs, there are problems in relation to degree courses being available in England, That is something on which the noble Lord and I differ. However, there has been a problem in relation to that matter and that is something which the SAC must address.

House adjourned at six minutes after five o'clock.