MEASURES TO RESTRICT THE GROWING OF MALE HOP PLANTS (Hansard, 5 May 1976)

§ Mr. Bishop
I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 30, after 'with', insert '(a)'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
With this amendment it will 1390 be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13.

§ Mr. Bishop
I am glad that the House has recognised that I am not always an iron lady in some of these matters, and that, after vetting the suggestions put forward, we sometimes come to agreeable conclusions.
The Opposition's Amendment No. 25 in Committee sought to ensure that specific provision would be made for consultation with commercial hop growers in any area to be designated for the growing of seedless hops. Although provision is already made in the clause for individuals to object to a proposed order, we fully understand and sympathise with the concern for individual hop growers and we accepted the amendment in principle. I think that the amendment I am now putting forward fully meets the Opposition's point. In saying that I am, referring particularly to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
With regard to Amendment No. 12, this includes the words, In this subsection 'the relevant area' means the current area or, if the proposed order would add any area to the current area, the area consisting of the current area and the area proposed to be added. During the debate in Committee, the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) questioned whether the procedure to be followed before making revocation and variation orders was the same as for orders first establishing designated areas. Further consideration has indicated that there was. some basis for his doubts, and I am. grateful for his helpful comment. It was always our intention that the same procedures should be followed for all orders, and this amendment will ensure that that is so.
Amendment No. 13 is consequent upon, the previous amendment, which sets out in a new subsection the procedure to be followed before making revocation and' variation orders. Reference to such orders is, therefore, no longer necessary in that subsection.

§ Mr. Jopling
We seem to be in a stage of the consideration of the Bill where the Minister of State seems to be earning for himself our congratulations and thanks. This group of amendments is another 1391 example exactly on those lines. This follows on from the helpful statement he made on the previous amendment. As he said, Amendments No. 10 and 11 meet a point that began, I think, in a remark that I made on Second Reading, when I think I suggested that it was extremely important that where these designation areas are made, where there is to be freedom from the growing of male hops, they should be made with very great care to ensure the maximum support of growers in the area.
As originally drafted, the Bill ensured that Ministers would consult only with organisations which appeared to represent groups of people. As we have learned, many hop growers are great individualists and it is right that the Minister should also consult individual growers.
I am sure that when a Minister designates areas where seedless crops are grown, these amendments will make his job much easier. I congratulate him on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which we heartily endorse.
Amendment No. 12 refers to an Order which may be made to revoke or vary a previous Order. A Minister may wish to vary an Order by extending the area in which male hops are not to be grown. I can understand that the Minister, having designated an area, may feel the exercise has been a great success and the production of seedless hops in the area may have such a ready home or international market that growers wish the Order to be extended. Alternatively, a Minister may feel he can identify an adjoining area which is a source of pollination by male hops.
We want to ensure that if there is an Order to extend the size of an area, the provisions of Clause 5 will be fully implemented. For instance, can we be certain that the period of notice and the opportunities for objections will be the same as those given when the original Order was made? It is essential that growers in an area which is to be extended should have exactly the same rights as were available to growers when the original Order was made. May we take it that the Orders envisaged in Amendment No. 12 will be laid before the House for consideration in the same way as the original Orders?
1392 If we can have these assurances, I can do nothing but congratulate the Government on the amendments, which meet in full the points which we raised in Committee.

§ Mr. Bishop
The answer to both the questions asked by the hon. Member is "Yes".