Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the order to the House. I remember from my history lessons a ministry of all the talents. No one would say that this Government are a ministry of all the talents, but at least the noble Lord can lay claim to be the Minister of all the talents. I am grateful for the way in which he has presented the case for the order. I am an active member of a family farming and horticultural business. In this matter I have more of an interest than I do on most occasions when I speak to my brief—although I have no livestock interests. We grow potatoes, cereals, vegetables, bulbs and flowers. I was also a founding member of the Horticultural Development Council, and at that time was chairman of the bulbs and outdoor flowers panel. So I have previously been involved with the horticultural research institutes, particularly the former Glasshouse Crops Research Institute at Littlehampton, with East Malling, and in commissioning panels and ministry consultations. If noble Lords think that I am painting myself as an expert, I should tell them that I certainly am not. I am an expert only to the extent that I recognise the complexity of getting these things right and how easy it is to upset them. One of my first experiences of interacting with government—it was a formative political experience—was some 20 years ago when I was working alongside the then chairman of the HDC, the late Frank Thomlinson, on trying to establish a viable levy-collecting system which we found MAFF was not much exercised by. It was my first experience of seeing how Governments enact and then move on, as if their role stopped at that point. The HDC was set up to fill the gap in near-market research as a result of government withdrawal from this area. It has remained a research rather than a promotional body, which has coloured its thinking about these proposals. It is worth remembering that Rosemary Ratcliffe’s report identified the Horticultural Development Council as the most effective levy board. There is concern that a sector which includes some 300 different crops may find it difficult to have its voice heard in joint working with single commodity boards. I have a copy of a long letter about the proposals which Colin Harvey, the chairman of the Horticultural Development Council, sent to Defra. It has been said—I think by way of reassurance—that horticultural levies will be ring-fenced. Will the Minister confirm that? Where in the order is it stated? Horticulture is vulnerable to overseas competition. Only 10 per cent of the £2 billion-worth of flowers sold in this country is grown here. It needs research and development and for that to be properly focused. Is the Minister satisfied that science will be at the heart of industry-levy companies’ activities? Relocation could also present difficulties. The Minister mentioned the relocation of the bodies concerned to Stoneleigh, but I understand that horticulture is seeking to remain at East Malling, where it receives charitable support. What is happening in that regard? Is there concern that relocation will lead to loss of expertise? Does the Minister have an estimate of what percentage of staff will not move? I am reminded of the relocation of staff to Newport under the statistics and registration Bill, which the Minister mentioned, and all the problems with that. That is a similar case of expertise in an important area. How secure is the relocation deal with Advantage West Midlands, which has promised an incentive payment of around £7 million for the relocation? Perhaps I may turn to some specific problems which have been raised with me and which I shall raise in turn with the Minister. A change from the draft order has been made to Article 5(1), whereby it now states: "““The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board may establish a subsidiary company for each of the industries within the scope of this Order and may establish other subsidiary companies as may be conducive””." In the past, the word used was ““must””. Why has that change been made? It makes people suspicious, which is not what you want to create if you want to gain confidence. Similarly, there is a change in Article 5.2, which states: "““The Board may delegate any of its functions to a subsidiary company, but may continue to carry out any function it has delegated””." What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that they will both be doing things together? Who will be responsible? Perhaps the Minister can explain the meaning of that paragraph. The Minister mentioned the ballots and the date of 1 April 2012, mentioned in Article 11(6), as the embargo date before which it was invalid to have a ballot. However, in discussions in the consultative period, Defra’s response said: "““In response to the views expressed by a large majority of the respondents, both cross sectoral and sector specific, regarding what was considered too long a moratorium period (no … ballots until April 2013) it is proposed to reduce the moratorium period from five years to three years (April 2011) in the SI””." So it seems a little odd that we are now looking at April 2012 as the deadline date. Why have the Government changed their position? Noble Lords will know that these are matters of trust, that getting these things right is important and that changes weaken trust. All commodity boards depend on farmer and grower support. It is not just about paying a levy but about keeping involved and responding to initiatives. Keeping the industry onside is important and is a major factor in the effectiveness and success of any body set up in this manner. Lastly, on costs, the Explanatory Memorandum goes into a lot of detail about the potential savings that may be available through the merged body. Accenture is certain that there will be savings, but the Minister knows that farmers and growers’ instincts will tell them otherwise. Is the Minister sure that they will be proved wrong?