APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (Hansard, 28 May 1970)

§ 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 (Amendment) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.
This Amendment Order is presented for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, under which the principal Order was made in December, 1966. The Amendment now before the House will have the effect of increasing from 30s. to 60s. per acre the maximum rate of annual charge which may be levied on registered growers of apples and pears by the Apple and Pear Development Council.
The Apple and Pear Development Council Order was made in 1966 after my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had satisfied himself that substantial numbers of growers within the apple and pear growing industry wanted a Development Council and that it had the full support of representative organisations.
The Council set up under that Order has now completed the first three years of its life and my right hon. Friend in accordance with the requirements of the Act of 1947 has consulted the Council and organisations representative of persons in business and employment in the industry as to whether it should continue 2087 in being, and if so, whether the Order of 1966 should be amended in any respect.
My right hon. Friend, having noted the views of the Council and the support expressed by the National Farmers' Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, together with the views of other people and organisations, has concluded that it is desirable that the Council should continue in being.
He has also concluded that he should agree to the Council's proposal that the maximum rate of annual charge should be increased from 30s. to 60s. per acre. Hon. Members may share my surprise to learn from a consumer survey carried out by the Council that the majority of housewives interviewed were unaware that apples and pears were grown commercially in this country. It is against this background that the Council's main function of promoting this sale of homegrown apples and pears can be assessed.
The Council has mounted full-scale campaigns in 1968 and 1969, concentrating its main advertising efforts in the retail shops where the housewife buys her fruit. No doubt hon. Members have seen some of the Council's eyecatching and attractive publicity material, and if they have missed the point of sale material they will perhaps have seen posters on hoardings exhorting the public to buy Worcester Pearmain, Cox's orange pippin apples and Conference pears.
In the North of England the Council has also undertaken television advertising and presented demonstrations in local department stores in order to boost the sale of home-grown apples and pears. Retailers in these areas have reported increases in sales of up to 300 per cent during the campaigns.
The Council's publicity campaigns are welcomed by producers and distributors and research has determined that most retailers carrying out special promotions have achieved increases in the volume of their sales of between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent., directly attributable to the Council's activities. Nevertheless, the awareness of the public of the qualities and availability of our apples and pears remains less than it should be and the Council is very conscious that if it is to extend consumption and compete successfully for an increased share of the apple 2088 and pear market its activities must be expanded.
The Council has collected a levy at the maximum rate of 30s. per acre over the past three years, but after low expenditure in 1967 because of the light home crop it has been spending at a level in 1968 and 1969, which represents a rate of 40s. per acre, using up reserves accumulated in 1967. If the Council is to be able to continue to expand its promotional activities, guard against possible increases in costs and have room for some flexibility in fixing each rate of annual charge—which is subject to Ministerial approval—a greater maximum than is now current is necessary. An increase in the maximum to 60s. per acre, within which the Council will determine year by year what is required, will reasonably meet the needs of the situation.
This Measure has been generally supported by the industry and I take pleasure in commending it to the House

§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)
I am delighted that the Minister has brought this Order before us on the concluding day of this Parliament, because apple growers form the one section of British horticulture that may have a rawish time if we enter the European Common Market. It is therefore imperative that the House does all that it can to support and assist growers. The work done by the Apple and Pear Development Council has been extremely good. The Minister has rightly reminded us of the 300 per cent. increase success story in the North of England. I believe that in Glasgow there have also been great successes as a result of the Council's promotional activities.
Another aspect of the Council's work that should be praised before we part with the Order is the careful, wise and efficient management of the Council and its staff. The Council has not engaged too many staff. It is run absolutely on a shoe string. The chairman and his senior executives should he warmly congratulated for the way in which they have conducted themselves. These levy-based boards can be a bit of a drag on an industry, but this one, as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, is well respected throughout the industry. There are one or two dissentients even now, but 2089 the bulk of growers and fruiterers welcome the activities of the Council. I believe that other sectors of horticulture may copy this example in the future, although they may not adopt the levy-based aspects of it. The general activities and the spirit of the Council have been extremely good.
I hope that the House will think of this not in isolation but as a forerunner of other schemes—not identical but similar—because the more Sir Richard Boughey and his team get on with the work the better respected they will be. I hope that in increasing the levy from 30s. to 60s. we are taking a step in the right direction. One could make the side point that it is perhaps the devaluation of cash in the last three years since the Measure was first introduced—[Interruption] If hon. Members want to buy themselves an apple they can go to the cafeteria and get one. There will not be an English apple there at this time of the year, unfortunately.
I suggest that this is a valuable Measure, and hope that we shall see its similar children in the future.

§ Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)
That the Apple and Pear Development Council is perhaps the least criticised of all the boards and councils that exist in agriculture is one of the best tributes that can be paid to it. Perhaps we could make an exception in the case of the Central Council for Agricultrural and Horticultural Co-operation, but that has the happy task of simply giving money away. It is a tribute to the chairman of the Council and to its members for what they have done for so long, on a shoe string, that praise is due to the Council.
It has a task ahead of it. My hon. Friend has said that it is the one branch of the horticultural industry that would have a rawish time in the Common Market. I am less optimistic than my hon. Friend I think that it would spell almost the death of a large part of our historical industry, quite apart from apples and pears. That is one of the several reasons why I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) 2090 Undoubtedly, if we go into the Common Market we shall have far more Golden Delicious apples coming in—apples that can be grown more cheaply abroad, with a higher yield—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)
Order. We are not debating the Common Market. We are debating whether the charges should be increased. It is rather a limited debate.

§ Mr. Body
I hope that I am not deviating too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the purpose of the Development Council is to get this branch of horticulture equipped and able to compete with the challenges of tomorrow.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
But on this Order we are not debating the general functions of the Council; we are debating only the question of the increase in the charges.

§ Mr. Body
My point is that it will need even more money than this if the Council is to meet the challenge. That would be too tall an order to expect, and I do not expect it on this occasion. I am saying that I do not grudge the extra levy because it will be needed to enable the industry to do sufficient research and to carry out publicity to overcome the dangers which may be quite close at hand, though I hope those dangers will not materialise. I will do my utmost to oppose our entry into the Common Market.

§ Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)
Is the hon. Member saying to the House that in view of the contingency—and I use the word advisedly—of our entering the E.E.C. the amount proposed in the Order is grossly inadequate?

§ Mr. Body
Indeed. I have said time and again that the whole horticultural industry will be in real danger if we go into the Common Market.
I should like to mention one of the recent decisions made by the Council. The decision concerns a constituent of mine who only last week was prosecuted and fined £250 for failing to register with the Development Council.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is going wide of the terms of the Order. He must restrict himself to the charges in the Order.

§ Mr. Body
But we are concerned with the funds of the Development Council, funds which can be raised only by growers registering and paying the levy. On this occasion a grower was going to give up growing apples—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying very ingeniously to circumvent Standing Orders but he must relate his remarks directly to whether or not the Order should be approved, stating the reasons why the increase is not enough or is too much.

§ Mr. Body
I will not try again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will make my representations elsewhere about this particular prosecution of a man who had decided to abandon growing apples and, despite that, was prosecuted, some would say unfairly prosecuted, for the offence of not registering when he had not been told how to register.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must abide by my Ruling which I have already given twice.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)
I should like to lend the support and approval of hon. Members on this side of the House to the work of the Apple and Pear Development Council. The words used by the right hon. Gentleman in expressing his support and the support of the Ministry for the work of Sir Richard Boughey and his men are reciprocated by hon. Members on this side of the House.
There is one aspect of the publicity which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. From time to time certain examples of it are fixed to the windows of my motor car and they have found their way into New Palace Yard. These are excellent little notices which, once removed, still leave their imprint on the windscreen, so that one cannot get rid of them even if one wants to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) referred to the excellent way in which the Council is run. He will recall that he took the chair of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Agriculture which dealt with horticulture and that Sir Richard Boughey and others gave evidence before him. They then said that they were running the 2092 organisation with only four people, which is a commendably small number of people with which to manage an organisation of this sort. The Council deserves the greatest congratulations for the fact that only 10 per cent. of its total income is spent on administration. This is an example which might well be followed by other organisations in regard to other crops.
It is essential in horticulture to have both good marketing and good publicity. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Order was designed to deal with possible increases in costs. A letter was sent out by Sir Richard to growers stating that one of the reasons that the Order was being asked for was that costs are rising all the time. It was not merely a question of possible increases in costs, but that costs had in fact risen. This among other reasons had led the Council to go to the Minister for an additional levy.
The levy was negotiated in 1964–65, which is now some time ago. There are a number of precedents involving people who, having had their remuneration set at that time, have since received increases. Sir Richard in a note to his letter went on to say that if the present maximum rate was maintained the purchasing power of the rate would be reduced to only 21s., or half the level at which it at present stands. This was at a time when there was increased competition, which would mean difficulties for the Council and for growers.
The other point Sir Richard made was that the average spent on advertising is 2.5 per cent. of the retail value of goods sold. The present rate spent by the Council amounts to 0.3 per cent. of gross values paid to growers. Therefore, even if we pass the Order, this will mean that the total rate will go up to only 0.6 per cent. which, compared with a national average of 2.5 per cent., is very small indeed. Sir Richard went on to say that the rate which was paid in other countries is as follows: United States, 6d. per bushel; New Zealand, 5d.; Denmark, 3½d: and the United Kingdom, 2d.
So that, whatever criterion is used, the Council is being most efficiently run and when one remembers that a bushel of dessert apples is 40 lbs., culinary apples 44 lbs., and pears 48 lbs., the total amount spent of Id. or 2d. is very small 2093 indeed. The total amount spent on publicity by the Council is remarkably small. In 1968–69 it was £110,000 and in 1969–70 £109,000. This is another reason for sending our good wishes to the Council so that this Order may help it on its way.
I suspect that it would be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to mention that this may be the last occasion on which we shall have the privilege of seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Dispatch Box. In the circumstances perhaps you will allow me to remain in order by saying that we on this side of the House have greatly appreciated the diligence, courtesy and assistance shown to us by him over a large number of years.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
I shall be very brief. I too wanted to add to what was said by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), and hope that I may be allowed to remain in order. We on this side of the House wish to be associated with the kind of remarks of the hon. Gentleman about my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has been both a good Minister and a good Member of Parliament. We wish to associate ourselves very much with what has been said.

§ Mr. Hoy
May I first of all say how grateful I am for the kind way in which this Order has been received and for the very kind remarks which have been made about me. This will be the last occasion on which I shall have the privilege of addressing the House, not only from this Box indeed from any other part of the 2094 House. I have enjoyed my time here very much and I am most grateful to all hon. Members for the kindness shown to me in my 25 years in this place.
I am grateful to hon. Members foi the tributes which they have paid to Sir Richard Boughey, his Vice-Chairman and the members of the Council for the magnificent job they have done. They have done a supremely important job on a shoestring. When one considers how little money it has cost the industry and the return the industry has had for the money, great credit is reflected on those who form the Development Council.
The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) said that the only things which had entered the House were bills for display purposes. In fact things even better than bills have come into the House, and we have all enjoyed the fruits of them. We are grateful to the Council.
The Order places the limit at £3, although that does not mean that the figure will immediately go up to £3. It relates to a further period with a £3 maximum.
I hope that the Council will continue to do its job—and, indeed, will do an even better job in the future. The results which the Council has already shown give all in this House the greatest confidence in the work it will do in the future.