HC Deb 15 December 1966 vol 738 cc818-44

11.3 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)

I beg to move, That the Apple and Pear Development Council Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved. This Order is presented for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. Its purpose is to provide for the establishment of a development council for the apple and pear growing industry in England and Wales. The House will recall that earlier this year my right hon. Friend announced that he had decided to seek Parliamentary authority for the establishment of a development council for this industry. This followed his study of the views of the industry, which he had sought individually by writing to those growers of apples and pears who would be called on to meet the costs of a council.

It gives me great pleasure tonight to be able to introduce an Order whose purpose has been welcomed generally by both sides of the industry. Indeed, the proposals for the establishment of a council originated with the N.F.U.

The general aim of development councils established under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act is to assist industries to increase their efficiency and productivity and to improve and develop the service rendered to the community. Two councils now exist, the Cotton Board, shortly to be reconstituted to cover additional sections of the textile industry, and the Furniture Industry Development Council, which was set up in 1948.

The Apple and Pear Development Council will be the first to be established in the agricultural and horticultural sector, and I can therefore say to night that we are making something in the way of history. Apples and pears form an important part of the horticultural industry. I will not burden the House with a mass of figures, but perhaps I might just mention that in the 1965–66 season the value of the output of dessert apples was £17½ million, of cooking apples £7 million, and of pears £3½ million. Before making a Development Council Order the Minister concerned is required by the Act to consult organisations representing persons carrying on business and employed in the industry. In compliance with this provision consultations have taken place with the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and the Transport and General Workers' Union.

I am pleased to be able to say that these bodies have all welcomed the establishment of a Council, and the discussions have proved useful and productive. These discussions together with the results of the survey of growers' opinion, satisfied my right hon. Friend—as the Act requires—that a Council was "desired by a substantial number of the persons engaged in the industry." The functions to be assigned to the Council are listed in the First Schedule to the Order. They are taken from the list set out in the Act and all of them are functions which the growers themselves want this Council to have.

The Council's most urgent task will be to publicise home-grown apples and pears with a view to increasing sales, a function which will fulfil a long-felt need. If British growers are to continue to compete effectively with their overseas rivals for the housewife's purse, publicity is essential, but this costs money. Recognition of the desirability of affording the horticultural industry a means of advertising its products through a statutory scheme was given by the inclusion in the Horticulture Act, 1960 of provisions for the establishment of producer organisations with power to raise money compulsorily for publicity. But organisations of this kind were to be financed through the Horticultural Marketing Council and with the dissolution of that body in 1963 these provisions could not be implemented.

Since 1960 there has been in existence an Apple and Pear Publicity Council, financed by voluntary donations from growers. It has been doing a fine job on what can only be described as a shoestring budget. There is a clear need for a body with a much more substantial income to take over and develop the work in this field. It may be said that eye-catching publicity is not enough and that the product itself must have eye appeal. In this context the introduction of statutory grading for apples and pears from 17th July next will make the Council's task that much easier. There will also be much useful work for the Council to tackle in the realm of market research, the encouragement of export business and providing information and advice to growers on these matters.

The Order provides that growers having five acres or more planted with apple or pear trees—but not cider apples or perry pears, which are expressly excluded from the Order—must register with the Council within one month of 1st April next. To meet the expenses which will be incurred in the exercise of their functions the Council is empowered, subject to the Minister's approval, to impose on every registered grower an annual charge not exceeding 30s. an acre. In order to comply with the requirement of the Act that the Minister must satisfy himself that the incidence of charges as between different classes of undertaking in the industry will be in accordance with a fair principle, my right hon. Friend has decided that growers on lightly planted land should be given the opportunity to pay, instead, 30s. per 50 trees.

We estimate that about 2,800 growers, with upwards of 90,000 acres—about 80,000 acres of apples and 13,000 acres of pears—will be called upon to contribute to the Council. For technical reasons, these estimates are subject to some margin of error, but it is safe to assume that the Council's income will exceed £125,000 a year. The Council will need information from growers to enable it both to carry out its functions and to impose or recover the levy. The Order accordingly empowers the Council to require growers to make returns.

This power is enforceable in the courts and the Order provides penalties on conviction of the offence of failure to register or to provide information required by the Council. There are restrictions on the handling and disclosure of particulars relating to individual businesses, to safeguard the interests of individual growers. Only the independent members and specially authorised officers of the Council may examine individual returns.

The enabling Act provides that every Development Council shall have members representing employers and employees and also independent members. The Minister may also appoint members having special knowledge of the marketing and distribution of the products of the industry. My right hon. Friend has decided that, since the Council will be financed by growers, their representatives should be in the majority. Although the Order provides that there shall be not more than 12 and not less than ten growers' representatives, the Minister has decided initially to appoint 12 growers. These members will be appointed on the recommendation of the National Farmers' Union.

There will be three representatives of the employees in the industry, appointed on the recommendation of the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Transport and General Workers' Union, and three independent members, one of whom will he the Chairman. The Minister has also decided to appoint to the Council three people with special knowledge of the marketing and distribution of apples and pears. He hopes to be able to announce the names of the Chairman and members very shortly.

I am confident that the House will approve the Order in the knowledge that it has the full support of both sides of the industry and that there is much useful work awaiting the attention of the Apple and Pear Development Council.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

We welcome the Order and the comprehensive way in which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary introduced it. It will be of particular value if and when this country joins the Common Market. It is a useful forerunner to help our growers, who may have a difficult time. The previous proposals of ten years ago failed to materialise, of course, because the industry voted against them. Since then, the N.F.U. has worked hard to bring this new scheme forward, and it was a previous Conservative Minister of Agriculture who was the "godfather" of the scheme.

I am sorry that the Minister is taking so long to announce the names. The hon. Gentleman said that we would get some names soon: I hope that it will be really soon, as we have waited a long time. He said that the poll was heavy. I understand that the poll in favour was 60 per cent., but was this calculated by men or by acreage? I understand that a certain number of larger growers, particularly in the Home Counties and the areas near London, were and still are opposed to the scheme.

I hope that steps are being taken by the Department, by the N.F.U. and by the others concerned to show these growers the advantages to them and to the whole industry of this scheme. I believe that this is of particular importance, because growers have now had their first and last chance to vote. The members of the Council are all Ministerial appointments and, as there is no further democratic process involved, it is most essential that minority interests are carried along with the will of the majority.

Turning to the detail of the Order, in paragraph 3(2) one notices the phraseology: The Council shall exercise their functions in such manner as appears to them to be likely to increase efficiency and productivity in the industry. Does that efficiency and productivity include such detailed arrangements as assistance to growers in amalgamations and business schemes, or is it merely to be directed entirely at the generality of the industry? Will the money to be paid out by the Council in certain circumstances be paid to individual growers or growers' co-operatives?

I mention growers' co-operatives in this connection because at Question Time we had yesterday some faint glimmer that the Government are at last taking a more realistic view of growers cooperatives in relation to Selective Employment Tax. It is important that we should know tonight whether the payments will be made only as a generality to the industry or whether they will apply only to individuals. In this connection the first paragraph of the First Schedule of the Order is important. This says one of the Council's functions is Promoting the production and marketing of standard products. Does this apply to individual growers and individual firms, or only to the industry as a whole?

In relation to the composition of the Council, set out in paragraph 4, I want to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary the fundamental truth that the great bulk of the workers in the horticultural industry are not trade union members. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the three representatives of the persons employed in the industry are all going to be nominees of the trade unions. One can accept that there is no other body to nominate non-union labour, but the fact remains that the trade unions are very weak in the agricultural industry and perhaps weakest of all in the horticultural section. Therefore, a turn of phrase which may well be suitable for the furniture industry and the other industry which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned is not necessarily particularly applicable here, and I hope that this inclusion of three trade unionists does not mean that this is going to be a happy hunting ground for places for the boys.

I am sure that such a thought is far from the Parliamentary Secretary's mind tonight, as he wishes the scheme well, but it might well be that at some future date some other Labour Administration might not be so well disposed. I hope that in these outside members, and possibly even in the trade union nominations, there will be some attempt to get female representation. There is a large number of female workers involved, and from the consumers' point of view there is obviously a great preponderance of interest among housewives. I am not one of those who say that we should have women on every committee just for the sake of having women represented, but I do say that provided they are suitably qualified it is highly desirable.

Just as the majority of the workers are not members of the trade unions, so the Parliamentary Secretary should bear in mind that not all growers are members of the N.F.U. Like other hon. Members who represent fruit growing districts, I have close friends in the N.F.U. However, we are all aware of leading growers who are not N.F.U. members. I trust, therefore, that when the names are announced, it will be remembered that while the N.F.U. is important, it is not all-important in this matter of horticulture.

One of the most valuable functions of the Apple and Pear Development Council will be the production of statistics. It has been noticeable from recent Parliamentary Answers that the Ministry is woefully deficient in its knowledge of information about certain aspects of the apple industry. Last Wednesday, when seeking information about older orchards—on which there should be a concentration of grubbing up and renovation—the figures were not available. The Council should result in valuable statistics being produced, for the improvement of the industry and for other purposes. However, I do not want to see the already harassed grower, who already thinks that he is a part-time civil servant, being further chivvied into producing statistics. I am sure, however, that the statistics which the Council produces will be useful and that the Department will be able to use them for other purposes, too.

The Minister gave the anticipated income, but he did not comment on the anticipated running costs of the organisation. We note that the Council can pay remuneration and out of pocket expenses. We realise that publicity must be the first aim of the Council, although the Minister mentioned competition from abroad. Will it be within the scope of the Council to make active representations to the Board of Trade about the time-phasing of imports, since this is one of the burning problems felt by the majority of growers, who say that the present time-phasing of apple imports is not entirely satisfactory?

It is expected in Schedule 1(5) that the Council will promote the development of the export trade. Will the Council be able to promote and take part in exhibitions overseas? Exporting to Northern Europe and Scandinavia is easier while we are outside the E.E.C., but if we enter Europe we should have a potential to export the specially highly prized British varieties whose flavours are unsurpassed in the world.

The Third Schedule gives an enormous list of 250 varieties. I understand that this list of exempt varieties was drawn up by the National Fruit and Cider Institute at Long Ashton. However, the Institute has told me that it is almost impossible to compile a really complete list of varieties because nobody can say how many there are. Farmers have raised their own varieties for hundreds of years and some of these have never spread beyond individual farms, whereas others have become popular and are recognised more widely. Thus, any list is bound to be somewhat arbitrary. The research station says that it would be possible to find other names in the West Country if one were prepared to pursue inquiries from parish to parish and from farm to farm.

While one accepts that this list of some 250 names contains all the notable varieties which occupy any sizeable acreage, might there not have been some neater method of deciding the cider and perry varieties? There may be a few growers of other obscure varieties who, because of this tight definition in Schedule 3, will find that although they are not growing dessert or culinary varieties they are subject to the levy. This is an important point, and I hope that at some later date it will be possible to get some neater definition of cider and perry varieties.

One reads the names with some slight amusement. There are high Norman-French names and names of high chivalry—we have Camelot and Churchill, which are very good names, indeed. However, when I turned to the perry varieties I was inclined to think that perhaps the Minister was seeking to lampoon some of his cabinet colleagues and other distinguished hon. Members opposite. We have Jenkins' Red, and Golden Balls seems to be the sign of the pawnbroker for all time. There is also Steelyard Balls—perhaps it was some reference to the Minister of Power.

When I read of Brown Bessie I could only assume that it was a kindly and friendly reference to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. I do not know how they came on in another place this afternoon when they got to Stinking Bishop. The name of Roughs might perhaps designate the Cabinet as a whole. And I wonder whether Early Treacle and Late Treacle might be a modern version of the Minister of Agriculture himself—jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today. There were other possibilities, notably in page 9.

Despite the odd language and, perhaps, the unnecessary verbosity of the Schedule, we welcome this Order most warmly and commend it to the House. welcome the apparent width of the drafting. I am particularly glad that the Parliamentary Secretary paid a tribute to the existing voluntary body. It has been very difficult for it to get publicity on anything like an adequate scale with only voluntary contributions. I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute.

11.28 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) in welcoming the Order. When the Parliamentary Secretary said that we were making history tonight I thought that he certainly was, because, as my hon. Friend has already hinted, the hon. Gentleman is seriously in danger of being prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act for Schedule 3. When I find a cider apple called Slack My Girdle and a perry pear called Bloody Bastard I begin to wonder quite where we are getting to. One variety mentioned by my hon. Friend certainly made me think that I was still in a certain Standing Committee—that happy variety called Steelyard Balls.

The varieties we have mentioned are specifically excluded from the effect of the Order, and I agree that it is rather desirable that we should have a simpler form of definition of cider apple and perry pear without having to go into the infinite varieties which may mean quite different things in quite different places.

The Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to give an estimation of what he thinks will come in as a result of this Order. I gather that a sum of about £125,000 is expected from the 30s. per acre likely to be paid by those affected by the scheme. My calculations, taking the total acreage of dessert apples, culinary apples and pears, have worked out at £158,400. Therefore, perhaps he is under-estimating and I am overestimating. But growers in my constituency will probably be contributing £4,500 if all the growers of apples and pears in the Isle of Ely, particularly around Wisbech, contribute their 30s. per acre.

Obviously, those making such contributions like to see value for money. In the recollection of a good many growers there is the rather unfortunate absence of real benefit from the contributions some of them who were both growers and pig breeders made to P.I.D.A. I hope that steps will be taken to ensure that the work of this scheme will be more apparent to the individual contributors to it than was the case with schemes such as P.I.D.A., which, of course, I cannot go into tonight.

It is rather fantastic that our dessert apple acreage has remained virtually constant for the past 10 years. The latest detailed figures I have from the Ministry of Agriculture go up to 1963–64. Over the 10 years ending then, the dessert apple acreages remained virtually constant at around 63,000 acres. The cooking apples acreage has dropped, but the interesting thing is that the yield has gone up very considerably.

It varies enormously year by year. This year is perhaps a very good year to take as an example of some of the problems that will come out of our attempts to make better grading and better market presentation, which is one of the principal objects of the Council, as one can see from Schedule 1: 1. Promoting the production and marketing of standard products. I must not go into this in detail, but there are problems developing over the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, which came into force voluntarily last 21st July and will be compulsory next year. There is an enormous difference in the size of apples this year. They are of first-class quality but Bramleys vary in size from 2½ inches right up to five inches in diameter. That presents great problems, and the work of the Council will not be easy.

One of the things it can do, and which would be welcome, would be to try to advise the industry on the best types of grading machines to install. I know that N.A.A.S. does wonderful work, and probably that is its big success story is in horticulture, but by bringing in the manufacturers the Council could greatly help the industry. The sort of problem that will confront growers from now onwards is packing their fruit to within a variation of three-sixteenths of an inch throughout in each pack. The best possible technical advice will be needed for this.

Some growers are at present extremely worried about how they will fully comply with the scheme when it becomes compulsory next year. One of the real tragedies is that all these schemes rely for their success not so much on those who originally helped sponsor them but the recalcitrants who did not want them at all. That is the bitter lesson of the old Apple and Pear Marketing Scheme, which foundered and did a great deal of damage to the interests of the best growers, and did no good to the less careful growers.

The fact remains that only about two-thirds of the growers likely to be affected in my constituency voted for the scheme. Therefore, one-third did not. I believe that over the whole country about 60 per cent., by acreage, supported the scheme when it was first put about.

I hope that a real drive will be made by the Council to consolidate on the success it has had in winning the support of a considerable majority of growers by going straight into the task of persuading those who were not in favour of the scheme. The success of the scheme will depend largely upon the success obtained in bringing along those who either did not understand the scheme when it was put to them or who have misconceptions about it or who perhaps did not want to know. Of the one-third who did not vote probably the majority would come into the latter category: they did not want to know.

One thing I worry about a little under the scheme is the exclusion limit or Article 8, Exemption from registration: If a grower has fewer than 50 apple or pear trees growing on land occupied by him for the purpose of business in the industry, he shall be exempt from registration. I believe that an enormous amount of harm has been done to the interests of the best growers by the ordinary arable farmer who has an orchard or two and who perhaps falls into the category of having just under 50 trees and who puts on to the local market some very inferior quality produce just at the wrong moment. This undermines the position of the best growers to a great extent year after year. I hope that somehow we can consider this in the future and see whether we can reactivate the grubbing up exercise which went on in those areas where there were a few scattered orchards, often with very old trees producing very inferior quality fruit from holdings which could not be categorised as horticultural holdings in the true sense of the word.

Now, returns and information. It grieves me that this provision is necessary. I think that growers are busy enough and already have quite enough paper work to do without having to be burdened with yet more. I hope when it comes to obtaining information that the Council will take every possible step to make use of the official statistics which are available as a result of the various Agricultural Returns. An enormous amount is known in the local agricultural executive committee offices and in the regional offices of the Ministry. I hope that the Council will not imagine that it must set up from scratch a complete statistical unit to contain ab initio all the information already available in various places. I am certain that there is a great deal of information already available, although I accept that it is sometimes difficult to get the latest figures. The latest full statistics on agricultural production in our Research Library are those for 1963–64; in other words, already we are nearly three years out of date. I hope that an effort will be made to accelerate the provision of such information, because it is very helpful.

On the question of the borrowing and investment of money, can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give us any idea of what the Council's borrowing powers are likely to be and what sort of initial borrowing it will have to indulge in to float itself and become an effective body? We are all becoming more and more worried about the problems that arise because of the credit squeeze, and so on. It would militate against the Council's interests if it was suddenly put in a privileged position at a time when growers do not find it easy to get the credit they need. There are times when the Minister says, "All you have to do is to ask your bank manager", but the bank manager does not take quite the same line. This has already caused a great deal of resentment in the last few months in the farming world. I hope that the Council will not suddenly become the blue eyed boy in the matter of obtaining credit, whilst growers, who are only too anxious to try to jolly along the recalcitrant one third about whom I have spoken, find themselves rather hard put to it to carry themselves through to the next season.

I again welcome the Order and point out that I think that it has at least one godfather in the background in the shape of the former Minister of Agriculture who cannot entirely be excused from some responsibility for it. I think that Mr. Christopher Soames really laid the foundations for the Order and I am glad that the building is now taking place.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison (Maldon)

Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Order. Anyone who was conscious of what was going on or had an interest in the previous scheme which was put forward and, unfortunately, not accepted by the growers ten years ago will welcome that this scheme, even with only 60 per cent. on an acreage basis in favour of it, is being proposed.

I am worried, nevertheless, lest the whole scheme may prove abortive because there seems to be nothing in it to enable the Council to make representations about the phasing of imports. I admit that, with my associations with another country, I receive representations at times that there should be a freer market for the products of Australia, of New Zealand and even of Canada. But there is no reason why their products should not come into this country at a time other than when our own growers are marketing their prime crop. If our growers could have a "fair crack of the whip" or go at the market, there should be room for all in our big United Kingdom Market.

It is not clear whether the people who produce the nursery stock and young trees can be brought in to help in keeping the scheme afloat. They may well have a number of stock trees grafted more than five years previously, but I am not sure whether they can have a part in the scheme. It should be possible for them at least to be influenced by the activities of the Apple and Pear Development Council. Perhaps the answer would be that one of the growers' nominees should be a representative of a big nursery producing plants and trees for the fruit grower.

What exactly will the standards be when the new forms of grading come in? Shall we be using a series of standards for fruit now and then, if the Prime Minister's attempt to bring Britain into the Common Market proves successful, as so many of us hope, shall we find that a change of grading standards is needed once again? Would it not be much more sensible at this early stage to institute the right form of grading to accord with what we shall have to do ultimately?

Now, the question of health. Will the Council have power to deal with the health of orchards, or will this remain with a separate part of the Ministry? Fire blight is an example. Will it be the Council's job to draw to the Minister's attention the problems which might arise from the import of apples and pears, or will there be a completely separate organisation with no co-ordination between the two bodies?

It is probably unkind to bring this up when we are welcoming the Council, but there have been some extremely unfortunate experiences with the winding up of various boards and I am not sure that the Order contains provisions for winding up the Council, should that most unfortunate occasion arise in what I hope would be in the very distant future.

Generally, representing an area which produces some of the finest apples and finest pears in the United Kingdom, I welcome the scheme and look forward to its operation and to its improving the quality and marketing of these very useful products.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

Although the majority of growers will support this Council, I must be churlish and tell the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that a sizeable minority regard this Development Council as a time-consuming and money-wasting piece of bureaucracy. I hope that before a few years are out the hon. Gentleman's successor, from this side of the House, will have convinced them that they have been wrong.

Horticulture is the one industry whose confidence in the future is tempered by thoughts of the Common Market, and if there is one branch of horticulture more vulnerable than any other, it is the growing of apples and pears. Continental growers of apples and pears have well-known advantages of climate. More than that, producers groups are rapidly growing in the Community, and even in France, where growers have been traditionally very individualistic, 40 per cent. of the growers now belong to producer groups. That gives them a great advantage when it comes to marketing.

However, one advantage remains with us in this country, and it is that we have varieties which in the main are of better quality than those grown abroad. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would never touch a Golden Delicious when you could taste a Cox's Orange.

The first function of the Council should be to put across to the public the quality of English produce, and I am sorry that that function is listed as No. 6 in the First Schedule. The Council must set about the task of improving our methods of marketing. It must convince the public that homegrown apples and pears are of higher quality than those which are imported. The value of the Council will be decided by the work it does in making sure that this branch of horticulture is ready for entry into the Common Market.

However, I have one reservation and it is one of bureaucracy. The staff of the Council should be efficient and go-ahead and the organisation must be streamlined. There is always a danger that official and semi-official bodies attract the less able. As Bernard Shaw said, those who can, do and those who cannot, teach. Every farmer is afflicted by those individuals who come along and take up many hours of his time trying to teach him his job and to persuade him to embark on schemes which would get him very near to Carey Street. I hope that the Council will not recruit any people like that.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

I am glad that this Order has come up now. I did not mind waiting for it. I am thankful that it has not come on either a Wednesday or—still worse—a Monday morning. Up to now nearly every point I hoped to make has been made by my hon. Friends and I would not have liked the Order to go through without these points being stressed.

If the Order had come up on a Monday morning, I would have had to cancel engagements with constituents, perhaps with my own apple and pear growers, to make what would have been a minimal appearance here, and this would have made a travesty of my job as an M.P. This matter is relevant to the Order. I hope the Minister will allow me to beg him not to bring on what is alleged to be minor business dealing with agriculture on Monday mornings. I would much rather wait until the evening, when I am not missing any other political engagements.

I want to stress some of the points made because they are important. To what extent will the functions of the Council touch upon research into marketing? Obviously, we want to avoid overlapping and yet it may well be that, from the marketing point of view, certain production practices would be worth encouraging. I have in mind possibly spray developments to enable apples to have a better appearance.

In grading, I hope that duplication between the efforts of the Ministry and those of the Council will be avoided. It is immensely important that we should try to shape our grading both as to size and other characteristics towards the standards that are likely to be adopted in the E.E.C.

Here there is a real difficulty and danger. We all know that one of our premier apples, the Cox's Orange Pippin, is superb. The great danger is that Europe may settle upon first-class grading standards which will include colour requirements cutting out the somewhat autumnal russet colour of an English quality apply, because, on the whole, we do not go in for the ruddy and deceptive appearance of some of the inferior Continental products. It is important to work towards English standards that will admit our kind of quality. We all have faith that, once people get to know our standards and qualities, they will prefer them.

The phasing of imports is obviously vital, including, as it does, the question of the period in which Commonwealth and other qualities are allowed on the market. Such matters are immensely important because of the fitting in with our own products. The possible argument about overlap applies here because our traders will have gone to the expense of building storage facilities and the like.

I do not see in the Order reference to provisions for appeal should a grower find himself in dispute with the Council. We should know what appeal procedure there is to be. Nor am I clear whether the Council is to be elected or appointed. I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that the N.F.U. would recommend or put forward twelve names for twelve posts. Will the Minister more or less approve or reject the 12 names put forward or is there to be a longer list from which he will make selections?

May I also suggest that he would have in mind if possible to get a good regional spread of representatives, because I think that this is important in getting in the different apple-growing areas of the country confidence in the Council. I would hope that the appointment of the Council will phase in well with the demise of the voluntary Apples and Pears Publicity Council, which has done a very good job.

No one has yet mentioned that we have just completed a week of special apples and pears publicity, in which, I think, if anyone travelled from the Hook to London he would have found himself presented with a free Cox's Orange Pippin with two slogans. I think that the Minister may approve of them. The first was, "Finish your meal with an English apple." That may make the Minister think he has missed his last chance of an apple today, but I hope that, on going to bed tonight, he will have in mind the other slogan, "The English apple is nature's toothbrush".

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

My constituency has a very great deal of horticulture. We have wide acres of flowers in the fen country near West Row. We have large acreages of glass. Above all, we have very fine apple orchards. Many of their blossoms in the spring time near the airfields in Suffolk always seem to me to make a remarkable combination of the English countryside and the United States' presence in Britain.

We do not have some of the Anglo-Saxon varieties in the list appended to the Order. We have no Bastard Long-dons. I mean no reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden). Nor do we have any Slack My Girdles, which, I must say, I find an intriguing name. But we do grow, as indeed, throughout Britain we grow, some of the best apples in the world. During the many years I lived in the United States I used to long, on many occasions, for the flavour of the Cox's Orange Pippin, and for the crispness and juiciness of the Bramley. One simply does not get these quality fruits in the United States.

But whereas we grow splendid fruit in our country I fear that we very often fall down badly on the grading, the packing and the merchandising of that fruit. I am aware of this, having lived in California for many years and seen the enormous amounts of capital, research and expertise which the American apple-growing industry puts into grading, packing and merchandising, in particular, of course, in the north-west of America, in the Okanogan Valley, where they have apples by the hundreds of thousands of tons, probably, and marketed in a fashion which, I must admit, is very impressive indeed. Those apples so often are big and very rosy and very attractive to look at, and British housewives are impressed by the rosy cheeks and the shiny character of those apples and sometimes, at least, away from the perhaps less rosy, but, in my view, sweeter-tasting apples of our own country.

It is because I believe that this Development Council will go some way towards bridging the gap between our own grading, packaging and merchandising and that in the United States and now in Italy as well, that I welcome the Order tonight. There is still an enormous gap between the best of our apple grading and merchandising and the average or worst.

In my constituency we have the very large orchards of Justin Brook. Here, I should have thought, was a model example of how to do this job, and to do it well. Having visited it only recently, I must say that I was surprised and very impressed by the large sums of money which have to be put into the business of handling and packaging apples properly. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke) said, there is at the same time in many of our smaller orchards, perhaps not so much in East Anglia, a lot of inferior fruit which is thrust on to the market, gnarled and badly graded, and it does from time to time give the whole of the English product a bad name, particularly in comparison with some of the products from other countries. I believe that this Council will go some way towards bringing the less good producers of merchandise in Britain up to the level of the very good ones.

There are one or two specific points which I want to raise on the Order. The first concerns the functions of the Council. These are extremely comprehensive, and so much the better, but I am bound to say that while I have no desire at all to see the levy of 30s. per acre increased—on the contrary, I am afraid that it will be something of a burden to some of my constituents—nevertheless, I am at a loss to understand how £125,000 will suffice to carry out all the eight functions described in Schedule 1.

This is a lot of money to any one of us, but I wonder whether it will be sufficient for the council to carry out its functions. Research itself can cost scores of thousands of pounds in a year. One of the Council's functions will be to promote the development of the export trade, including promoting or undertaking arrangements for publicity overseas. Has the hon. Gentleman any idea what overseas publicity costs? Will the council consider having a colour spread in Der Spiegel, in Germany, or in some of the glossy magazines in Italy, or the United States, or in France? It used to cost 25,000 dollars for a colour page in the magazine for which I used to work in the United States.

I wonder whether £125,000 will really be adequate to finance research, statistics collection, promotion in this country, and export promotion as well. I hope that it will be. We shall get extremely good value for money if it suffices, but I suspect that the powers of the Council to borrow money, as set out in paragraph 11, will be used, and used very soon. How much money will the Council be empowered to borrow? There is no indication in the Order of any limit on the Council's borrowing powers, and I hope that when he replies the hon. Gentleman will tell us how he sees the limit or the ceiling on borrowing.

I should like to underline again—and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will deal with this—the importance of the time phasing of imports. Whenever I discuss the apple business with my constituents, it is always this subject which comes up first and last as well. I recognise the difficulties. Unfortunately, even in my hon. Friend's other affiliation in Australia, they do not seem to grow them at the right time of the year, and the phasing is not always easy to correlate with our own.

I must emphasise the importance of women being on the Council, first, because they really are the buyers of the apples, and, therefore, ought to play some part in promoting sales, and secondly, because, certainly in my area, most of the apple pickers are women. If there is to be representation of the workers in the industry I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that a large proportion of the pickers, graders and other workers are women, most of whom are not members either of the National Union of Agricultural Workers or the Transport and General Workers' Union. I hope that when he appoints members he will bear in mind the importance of the ladies. Perhaps he will also tell us how many staff he envisages for the Council and its secretariat—I appreciate that he cannot be precise at this stage—and what will be the costs of the salaries and administration.

I end with three brief admonitions. I hope that in respect of this Council, as in the other councils which are coming into being or have been with us for some time, the Minister will insist that it should first and foremost keep down administrative costs. Nothing is so distressing to the agricultural industry as the suspicion—justified or not—that the administrative costs of many of these hoards, councils and agencies with which the whole industy is encumbered, are too high. Let us keep them down.

Secondly, will he keep the forms and statistics as few as possible and as simple as possible? Many farmers will be smothered in paper work. The most important implement on a farm in these days is a pencil or a biro. I understand the need for that, but please let us keep the forms as few and as simple as possible.

Thirdly, if we are to have advertising—and we must have it at home and abroad—let us be sure that we get the very best possible advertising advice before public money is spent on it, be- cause nothing is so wasteful as ineffective and badly organised advertising. Let us go to the best in the business, even if it is relatively more expensive, because it is important to get the advertising right.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Hoy

If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, this has been an absolutely first-class debate, and if I deal with the last points first it is not because I am taking them out of the order of priority. I can assure the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) that the functions in the Schedule to the Order are taken as they were dealt with in the First Schedule to the Act, and they appear in that form in the Order for that reason and no other. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston, unlike every other Member who spoke, apparently did not want a council at all—

Mr. Body

indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy

Perhaps when we are dealing with names like Holland with Boston we are dealing with a point of view that is not entirely British. The hon. Member has a very good constituency. I admire it very much. I have visited it on many occasions, in a private capacity.

Mr. Body

The Minister is maligning me. I am not opposing the Order.

Mr. Hoy

The hon. Member did not greet it with enthusiasm. I would have liked to hear him express much more positive support for it.

The point about the income of the Council was raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I said that it would be about £125,000. It could be £150,000, or £158,000. I was trying to make a reasonable estimate. The argument is: are we giving the Council enough money to enable it to do all the jobs it is to do? Hon. Members must make up their minds. They cannot complain that we are taking too much from the industry and then say that the Council is not getting enough money to do the job properly.

I hope that it will be enough to make a sensible start. I do not think that a revolution must take place all at once. I would rather the Council started gradually and did a first-class job. When the case for the Council and the work it is doing has been proved we can ask for more money. I hope that by its actions it will prove that the money has been well spent.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Most growers would prefer that a substantial bite was taken at one problem, rather than a nibble at many.

Mr. Hoy

I agree, and that is the way in which the Council will work. It will not spread a limited income over too many things. It is not for us to instruct it, because the money will not be public money but will be provided by the growers, who will want the best return for it. I want them to get the best value.

The hon. Gentleman said that there is no limit on what the Council can borrow. This is true, but the bank from which it wanted to borrow would want to know its income, and would not be likely to lend an amount greater than that income. We have given this some consideration. The initial borrowings are unlikely to exceed £50,000 or thereabouts: I would not care to go further than that tonight.

The hon. Member for Maidstone was probably right to say that this would be a help if we entered the Common Market. It is not for me to comment on what might happen, because the Common Market has already settled its grading schemes. If we went in, this would have to be considered. But what we are considering tonight is the setting up of an Apple and Pear Development Council to strengthen our own industry. The stronger it is, the better able it will be to meet competition.

I would confirm that the poll in favour of the Council represented about 60 per cent. of the acreage liable to levy. I hope that the others will come to see the value of this proposal. I hope that they will do so enthusiastically. If we can get people to co-operate voluntarily, that will be much better than using compulsion. However, I would say that 60 per cent. of the acreage liable to levy supporting the proposal is very firm ground from which to work.

I was asked what help the Council will give to individual growers. That is not its purpose. That assistance is provided by Government, and it will remain a Government job.

The hon. Member also spoke about representation. The only dissenting note he struck, and one which I disliked, was his criticism of the trade union representation as being "jobs for the boys". They are no more "jobs for the boys" than are the places provided for the growers. We are trying to get the best people in both capacities to help the Council work. The hon. Gentleman is bound to concede that, if we are to get representatives from the growers, obviously we must depend considerably on the N.F.U., to which they are attached. It is the same with the trade unionists. The workers also have their organisations. Obviously, we must consult the trade unions just as much as we consult the N.F.U. We do no more than that.

Therefore, I did not like that note. If I wanted to be party political, I could point to lots of boys who have had lots of jobs since 1964, which might be said to be "jobs for the boys"; but I want harmony and to get the Order through, so I will take it no further—

Mr. John Wells

I do not want to provoke the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will take note of the fundamental point which I made, that the bulk of the growers belong to the N.F.U., whereas the bulk of the operatives do not belong to any union.

Mr. Hoy

I do not know whether or not that is correct. We must consult the organisations which exist—[Interruption.] Indeed we have. These jobs are dependent on people who not only earn their living from them but are willing to support organisations which make it possible for them to get a decent livelihood. Just as we consult the N.F.U., we are entitled to consult the trade unions.

I was asked about the representation of women on the Council. Obviously, the Minister is bound to give this considerable thought. After all, the housewife is the person who normally purchases, and if she does she is entitled to have her views heard and this will certainly be taken into consideration.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

rose—

Mr. Hoy

May I be allowed to finish one point at a time.

I want to deal with a point raised by the hon. Gentleman himself, if he will wait a moment. He asked me to consider area representation. Of course, this has got to be given some thought too, and indeed when we agreed in the initial stage to have 12 representatives from the growers we obviously had taken into consideration the tremendous areas with which we are concerned. As far as possible we would want to see every section represented, and so we have not overlooked that one either.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

On the question of a woman being on the Council, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would think in terms of such organisations as the Women's Institute both on the working and the using side, and possibly one of those television cooks who are great users of, and encouragers of the use of, apples?

Mr. Hoy

We have a tremendous number of women's organizations—women's guilds, co-operative guilds, women's institutes and many others. But quite frankly we cannot have one from each of them. What we have to do is to select a representative who will cover the interests of the women of this country and make their voice heard on this Council.

I was also asked whether the Council would be asked to encourage exports to other countries. This would be part of the work the Council would undertake. Even I, in a very small capacity, was able to persuade certain sections of the horticultural world to take their apples to Berlin last year and indeed we did a fairly good job for the apple and horticultural industry in this respect. Without tremendous expenditure of money, we were able actually to take the apples there and make it possible for people to taste them and then to buy them. At the exhibition I was at they were not given anything, they had to buy. Indeed it was run on the very best Scots principles.

I have replied to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely as to what the income would be. This is an estimate we have both made, and perhaps in that range we will both be correct. I would not expect that either of us is absolutely right.

On the question of statutory grading, the hon. Gentleman said this will present difficulty; but every time one introduces something somebody says it is going to be difficult. We must realise that our competitors do not find it too difficult to grade. They grade and sell their produce accordingly, and I would link that with what was said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last when he said there are certain things on which we are a little backward.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was not too critical; but he said that in grading, packaging and merchandising we have a lot to do, and unless we get our grading right the others could go by the board. These things are all dependent one upon another. If those in Europe can do it, it is possible for us to do it, and we have got to do it if we are going to compete.

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) got into a little difficulty. I understand his difficulty about the overlapping of arrivals from other countries. He is very warm in support of the constituency which he represents but he also has leanings towards his home country which I do not deny. He wants Australia to be able to supply her superb produce as well. I am not denying him that right.

The Government have tried to get a satisfactory arrangement so that the produce from other countries, particularly from the Commonwealth, arrives here when the demand for our produce is not so great or when our fruit is not available. It is a question of working it out to the best of our ability; but we cannot fix a calendar date which will guarantee that all our produce will have been sold on the very day when their produce arrives. There is bound to be some overlap, but we have tried to make the best possible arrangements to cover it.

The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) referred to imports and the question of representations which might be made on this subject. I assure him that the Government will pay attention to the views of representative bodies. When discussing this matter, it is obvious that we must have the views of the large representative organisations. I assure him that we are discussing it with, for example, the N.F.U.

Reference was made to the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, 1966. This came into operation on 21st July. It provides grants to growers; and has nothing to do with the statutory grading scheme for apples and pears. It is intended that that Scheme will be introduced in July, 1967 and that an Order, which will be subject to negative resolution procedure, will be laid next year. There will, therefore, be another opportunity of discussing this matter; and while hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to morning sittings, they do not appear, judging from the clock, to object to discussing this issue at a very early hour in the morning.

The hon. Member for Maldon spoke about the winding up of the Council. I assure him that it is not necessary for that to be mentioned in the Order. Provision for that to be done is already made in the relevant Act, should it prove necessary. In any case, it would not be a particularly good idea, when introducing an Order which gives life to the Council, to at the same time talk about winding up the Council.

The levy is payable on apple and pear trees of five years of age or older and which are used for producing apples or pears for sale. This is the answer to the question I was asked about nurserymen. That specific matter is not provided for in the Order; the Order applies to apple and pear trees which bear fruit offered for sale.

I was also asked to explain the duties of the Council. I was not sure why that question was put, particularly since the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that the duties were all carefully laid out in the Schedule. Naturally, whenever one includes something in an Order such as this, somebody is bound to complain about something having been left out. We have tried to spell the duties out clearly and we have been conscientious in our efforts.

There is no need to make fun of some of the names of the varieties of fruit. Hon. Members should reflect that some of these names have been in use for many years. They were not produced by us merely so that we could include them in the Order. Many of them have been used by growers for many years and I suggest that they are good, healthy, couthy names. I admire them and I regret that they have been criticised. Frankly, I prefer them to some of the junk that is being sold in some book shops under the name of literature. I understand what these names mean.

I am grateful to hon. Members for taking part in this debate. We have been discussing the inauguration of a Council that will play a distinctive and important part in the horticultural industry and I am certain that the whole House will wish it well. I do not claim any credit, any more than anyone else. for this enterprise. I could never find any satisfaction in saying that I, or somebody who used to be here, thought of this idea first. Only one question need be asked: Is this worth doing? That should be the test. Anybody can have the credit. I only hope that the Council will work and will benefit the industry which it seeks to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Apple and Pear Development Council Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.