MARKET DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (Hansard, 25 March 1968)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)
I beg to move, That the Market Development Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved. The Market Development Scheme was introduced in 1962 for three years. When that period ended in 1965 it was extended for another three years—I think I was at this Despatch Box to extend it—until the end of March 1968. The Statutory Instrument now before the House will give the Scheme a further extension up till 31st March, 1971.
Subject to Ministerial approval of grants, the Scheme is run by the farmers unions. It is known by its initials A.M.D.E.C.—the Agricultural Market Development Executive Committee, which the unions set up to nin the Scheme. That Committee is responsible for considering all applications for grants, and it is only on its recommendation that grants are made. Throughout the period of the Scheme this arrangement has worked well and has made it possible for leading figures in the industry to bring their judgment and experience to bear on the tremendous variety of proposals put forward for assistance under the Scheme.
On the recommendations of A.M.D.E.C. grants have now been made in more than 260 cases ranging over a tremendous variety of projects such as market research of various degrees of complexity, quality improvement, produce storage, increased efficiency in handling and transport and performance testing of livestock. The projects have been both large and small, and the grants have varied from 25 to 75 per cent., and in a 1116 few special cases have been up to 90 per cent. The amount of grant paid or due to be paid on projects approved or expected to have been approved by the end of March is nearly £1.2 million.
An important feature of the Scheme has always been that the results of projects should be made generally available to producers and others by means of reports prepared by the recipients of grants. The outcome has been the publication of much interesting and very informative material.
About half the amount of grant which has been paid has been used to assist developments in co-operative marketing by producers, particularly in the field of livestock. The House will recall that the Agriculture Act, 1967, provided for a new scheme of grants for co-operative activities and for the establishment of a Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation.
This new Scheme, which came into operation on 3rd October last, incorporates the several types of grant which had previously been available for the promotion and development of co-operation, including A.M.D.E.C. grants. The effect on A.M.D.E.C. has been to divert part of their work to the Central Council and to make it necessary to consider the future of the Market Development Scheme in these changed circumstances. The Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend are persuaded, therefore, that there remains an important role for A.M.D.E.C. to play, and we consider that the Scheme should continue for a further three years as a means of encouraging developments in marketing, other than those concerned with stimulating co-operation between producers. To cover this additional period, we propose that the ceiling for the grants should be raised from the present level of £1½ millions—of which £1,200,000 has been taken up—to £2 millions.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that our views are shared by the farmers' unions. Because A.M.D.E.C. is unlikely to have quite as much work to do in the future, the unions have decided to reconstitute the Committee as a smaller body. I also understand from the unions that the Chairman of A.M.D.E.C., who, as the House will know, is Lord Nugent of Guildford, has decided that, after six years of office, it is time to stand down. It is particularly fitting, therefore—and I 1117 am sure that I carry the whole House with me in this—that I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding contribution which Dick Nugent and his Committee have made to the success of this Scheme. It is a scheme which is unusual in its methods of administration and in the wide range of projects coming within its terms of reference and we are all greatly indebted to Lord Nugent and to his Committee, as well as to their small secretariat for the hard work which has been put in and for the efficient way in which their duties have been discharged.
The farmers' unions have proposed that the new Chairman should be Mr. John Jenkins, who has been a member of the Committee since its inception and who, I think, is well known to those hon. Members of this House who have a particular interest in agricultural matters. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the proposal that Mr. Jenkins should be appointed has been agreed. I hope, therefore, that this Statutory Instrument extending the Scheme for a further three years will meet with the approval of the House.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)
On this side of the House we want to associate ourselves with the generous tribute which has just been paid to Lord Nugent of Guildford and those who have served with him on A.M.D.E.C. We also welcome most heartily the new Chairman and wish success to the work which he and the Committee will undertake. We would also at this time offer our felicitations to the Central Council and the work which it, in turn, will undertake. At the same time, we are grateful to the N.F.U. for the support, financial and in other ways, given to these schemes. I have only two points to put to the Parliamentary Secretary.
If one looks at the Statutory Instrument to find out what it is that A.M.D.E.C. will be doing in the future, one finds that it is really necessary to read paragraph 60 of this year's Price Review—the Annual Review of Determination of Guarantees—and there, under the heading of "Market Development Scheme ", in paragraph 60 see that …this scheme will be extended for another three years from 1st April, 1968, to 1118 assist marketing developments other than those of a co-operative nature". It is not immediately apparent, however, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has told us tonight, or from the Price Review, what is the logic of the organisation. I would ask, why one organisation to assist marketing developments of a co-operative nature, and another for marketing developments other than those of a co-operative nature"? Why does the Parliamentary Secretary think that two organisations are necessary and why have suggestions to the contrary put to him been rejected?
The second point arises from the Order which, in paragraph 2, says that approvals may be given under Section 9 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963, and then sets out what they are. Among other things, Section 9 provides that the Treasury may …make provision for the payment of grants towards the cost of carrying out proposals for promoting the efficient marketing of agricultural or horticultural produce, for carrying out research connected therewith, for making real results of such research available to producers of such produce, or for the formation of bodies carrying on agricultural or horticultural producers' marketing businesses. Since the Committee was set up, at least 20 new co-operatives have been brought into being. None of them has fallen upon evil times. They have all been successful. Some of them are expressing some doubt as to how the new organisation will work under this Statutory Instrument.
They feel that they are not in any way associated in contractual relationships, that the residual powers of A.M.D.E.C. might well have been applied to them in questions of research and development and, in particular that the provisions of Section 9 would be available in a way which they might not be under the new arrangements. One of the ways in particular in which they feel this might apply would be in providing market intelligence research and other methods by which they would be able to co-operate better for their common interest. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with these two points. We on this side give our support to this Statutory Instrument.

§ Mr. Mackie
With permission, perhaps I might reply to the hon. Gentleman the 1119 Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). The two points he raised are basically the same. I can see that the two organisations could perhaps have been combined. However, both organisations will operate in the same building. Mr. Jenkins is also Deputy Chairman of the new Central Council. The Committee was operating while the Bill was going through the House, and it and the new Council will co-operate. The Council does not have anything to do with development. We felt that it would be as well, since it would not cost any more, and since some of the staff and the Chairman are common to both organisations, that we should let the Committee go on for the next three years, working in cooperation with the new Council.
Although, on the face of it, the arrangement appears clumsy, it will not be so in practice. There will be close liaison. I hope that the co-operatives mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which have been a great success, will agree that they will get the liaison required.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak, but he may intervene.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine
I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the anxiety expressed by the co-operative movement as to the way this will work in future?

§ Mr. Mackie
We have not had such anxieties expressed to us, but I am certain that there will be close liaison between the two bodies.