HC Deb 20 March 1980 vol 981 cc800-12

Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

11.30 pm
Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

On 6 March The Times reported my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when speaking in Paris in the temporary British pub…still reeking from a stink bomb thrown…by irate French sheep farmers as having stood up for Britain on an upturned beer crate In those remarks, my right hon. Friend said that the British apple trade had virtually been destroyed by cheap Golden Delicious apples. He was clearly angered on that occasion by the French belief that they could keep out English lamb but were entitled to their pound of flesh when it came to our home trade in apples. His anger on that occasion is certainly matched now by that of the British people on this point, certainly by the anger of the people in Kent and certainly by the people in the apple and pear industry.

The question is: how real is the threat to the British apple and pear industry? Before our entry to the Common Market, under the then quota system French apple imports in the season up to Christmas were less than 15,000 tonnes. Last year the figure was about 100,000 tonnes. I understand that for the full year 1979–80, the French were, and probably still are, aiming at a total sale of apples in the United Kingdom of 300.000 tonnes. That is roughly equivalent to the whole of the United Kingdom production of apples.

Only seven years ago the import figure was less than 80,000 tonnes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) stated in the Adjournment debate which he initiated on 24 January: The fundamental problem"— —facing the apple industry today— is the over-supply of apples. In replying to that debate, the Minister of State reminded consumers that in Coxes and Bramleys we in this country had varieties of unsurpassed excellence. He also said that many of our growers achieved extremely high standards of grading and marketing. He believed that the industry had a future but recognised the difficult period through which it was going. We can, I hope, all agree with all of that. But there should be no disguising the fact that today the industry is facing a threat to its continued existence.

I believe that we have to ask whether we are prepared to see this Continental onslaught on our market denude our countryside of our orchards and deprive the consumer of British fruit. It is against that background that the Selborne report has been published. It has been produced by the top fruit working group, chaired by the Earl of Selborne, and is, in my opinion, one of the best pieces of work on this subject that we have seen for many years. We should all be immensely grateful to the group and to Lord Selborne for a report that is workmanlike, challenging, realistic and backed up with many more facts and figures, statistics and analyses than we have been used to in the recent past. It is valuable and important.

I hope that tonight my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal with some of the points raised in the report. I appreciate that he cannot deal with all of them. It is a major and wide-ranging report. More important, I hope that the report will stimulate continuing debate on the key issues and will also stimulate longer-term action by the Government and the industry. As the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food said in that Adjournment debate of 24 January: Debate is no substitute for action".—[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol. 977 c. 785–792.] The Selborne report accepts the point constantly made by my right hon. Friend the Minister that the industry must do much to improve its marketing. There is no dispute about that general proposition, but—and there are many "buts" to this—experience has for many growers been dispiriting. Most growers have acted to prevent substandard fruit from reaching the market. Many growers have invested substantially in better equipment, machinery and the like. But, whilst they have been doing that, year after year greater volumes of imports have led to even lower returns and frequently to substantial trading losses.

It is against that background, too, that growers are now being encouraged to invest even more and to improve their marketing techniques. The Selborne report goes on to conclude that the Common Market system of intervention discriminates against us". If we have to have intervention—it is a system that I do not like at all—that system must be fair. It is not fair—I quote from the report—that in a given set of circumstances a grower of French golden delicious would receive £1,529 per hectare. In comparable circumstances the Cox grower would receive £599 per hectare. I ask my hon. Friend whether the Government will take action on that point. Will he at least take it up with the Community?

The report also concludes that French national aids distort competition between member States. The report gives impressive evidence of subsidies—subsidised publicity campaigns, subsidised insurance. These capital subsidies distort production costs over the whole lifetime of an orchard; and that distortion reduces actual costs to the grower to a very substantial degree over, perhaps, a 25-year lifetime of a modern orchard.

On the basis of that evidence, the report goes on to conclude that short-term measures to limit imports from France are justified within the terms of the Treaty of Rome, article 92, which states that measures which distort competition are incompatible with the Common Market.

I appreciate the extreme nature of the proposal and the difficulties that it poses for the Government. May I say at this stage how grateful I am to my right hon. Friend for being present to listen to this debate. I recognise his concern for this industry. I ask my right hon. Friend: will the Government at least undertake to consider this question in the longer-term context and to report back to the House in due course? I do not pretend that there is a simple answer to that, but I do not believe that it should be rejected out of hand.

The report also suggests that the Ministry and the inspectorate should direct their attention to a more stringent inspection of foreign fruit at the actual ports of entry. I must ask my right hon. Friends and the whole nation this question: why do we seem to go out of our way to make it very easy for our competitors' products to come into this country when we never get that same sort of treatment when we are exporting to them?

Obviously, we must be fair about this and we must apply the same rules to importers as we apply to ourselves. However, as I understand it, our very limited inspectorate—I appreciate that it is limited in number and has a major task to perform—concentrates its efforts at the markets. Should it not direct much of its attention to the ports of entry and subject imported fruit to very close scrutiny indeed?

Again, I hope that my right hon. Friends will give consideration to that proposition and answer it tonight, if possible, but at any rate at some later stage after they have given it their consideration.

The report goes on to give strong support to the National Farmers Union case for new restructuring grants. Again, I recognise the difficulty of asking for money at a time like this, but we must consider this matter in the context of an industry that is being urged to change its structure in many ways in the face of what I call unfair competition. It urges a key role for a reconstituted Apple and Pear Development Council supported by the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to say about that tonight.

I am anxious to leave sufficient time for my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) to say something on this subject, because the whole House recognises the important role he has played over the years in supporting this vital industry. Therefore I have picked on only a few points from this excellent report. But all these points and the many others in the report require answers from my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government in due course.

I conclude my brief remarks by returning to the basic but fundamental point. We are kidding ourselves if we think that better marketing alone or sheer quality—both of which are there or need to be developed—will win the day against the determination of the French to dominate this market. They demonstrated their determination to dominate this market before we joined the Common Market, but they have developed it ever since. That determination has been backed by State assistance on a scale that we have not matched and perhaps cannot match today.

I believe—perhaps I am making a point that I made many years ago—that it was wrong for us to accept free trade in apples and pears until such time as the structural surpluses had been eliminated. They were deliberately created by subsidies, they constitute unfair trade and the industry cannot deal with unfair trade on that scale. In the end, only the Government can deal with unfair trade on such a scale.

I am grateful for having had the opportunity to initiate this brief debate on a valuable and very welcome report.

11.40 pm
Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and initiating this important debate.

The most boring kind of Member that this House contains is the chap who looks up his own speeches of 10 years ago in Hansard and regurgitates them, but I cannot resist quoting my remarks on 26 April 1972. Digging at my arrogant and conceited right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), I inquired what he was going to do about the structural surpluses of apples and pears and other fruit in Europe? He, in his usual steamrollering and arrogant way, slapped me down. I told you so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I join common cause, most surprisingly, with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), who in that self-same debate caught out my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and said: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has blown the gaff. He frankly said that once we go into the Common Market and have grubbed up our orchards, the poor British consumer will not even be able to buy good English apples."—[Official Report, 26 April 1972; Vol. 835, c. 1648–63.] Of course, my hon. Friend wriggled, but the hon. Lady had got it right. I say this to the Minister tonight: unless something is done most urgently, within a matter of two or three years there will be no good English apples.

I believe that my right hon. Friend is full of good intentions, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham tried to be eight years ago. But my right hon. Friend the Minister must offer cash in one of two—if not two—forms to the industry. Either there must be cash to grub up the structural surpluses, to replant and to modernise, or there must be cash to support the newly developed Apple and Pear Development Council. I believe that my right hon. Friend is full of good ideas for reforming the APDC, and I shall touch on just three of the points from the report.

First, the new APDC will be able to obtain an income with the premium pack of about £700,000 a year, but it needs to spend about £3 million per year for two years. That is not very long. If the £700,000 could be topped up by the Government for two years, it would be enormously helpful. Secondly, the report urges that close attention should be given to Cox and Bramley apples only. These are the only apples that can be marketed. What we need is a marketing operation.

I began my Adjournment debate a month ago by referring to the good apples in the Tea Room. I must refer to them again before I sit down. I have just been along there and bought an apple. The good lady who served me said "They are very nice apples, but they come in such a rotten bad pack that far too many of them are bruised." Selborne recommends a standard pack of better-quality cardboard. It is no good our growers producing superb apples if the fruit are humped and bumped all over the place and ruined before they reach the consumer.

11.45 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on raising tonight the subject of the report of the top fruit working group on the British apple and pear industry. He has taken a very close interest in the apple industry, which is of such importance to his constituents, to all the people of Kent and to the nation, and his efforts on its behalf are well known both inside and outside this House. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) was able to intervene.

I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is here. It would seem to be a rather Kentish evening. However, there is a substantial fruit industry in the county of Worcestershire. I come from that county. The importance of this subject is emphasised by the presence tonight of my right hon. Friend, who has joined us for the entire debate. We are very conscious of the feeling that exists in the horticultural industry and in all housewives' minds that this is a serious situation and is of great national importance.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham in paying tribute to Lord Selborne and his colleagues on the top fruit working group, who have produced such a wide-ranging and penetrating study of the problems facing the British apple industry at the present time. It is indeed heartening to see the industry coming together to discuss its problems, and to see in the report the extent of agreement that was reached by the working group as to what needs to be done. The report is a great achievement for the industry as a whole.

The congratulations and thanks of all of us interested in the well-being of the apple industry must go to the representatives of the National Farmers Union, the Apple and Pear Development Council, and the top fruit co-operatives, all of whom served on the working group, as well as to the representatives of the fruit retailers and wholesalers who participated in its discussions. Special thanks must go to the chairman of the group, Lord Selborne, for his energy and drive in bringing the different sectors of the industry together to produce this report.

The thoroughness of the study is illustrated by the detailed action list—35 recommendations in all—that the group sees as necessary if the apple industry is to overcome its present difficulties and equip itself for the future. The recommendations are addressed to all sections of the industry as well as to the Government. I stress that the Government support wholeheartedly the broad objectives of this plan of action, which is to enable the British apple industry to improve its competitive position against imports. We wish to see a flourishing British apple industry, not only in supplying apples to the domestic market but even exporting quality produce to other countries. We are willing to do what we can to achieve this, but the main initiative in strengthening the industry must, of course, come from those in the industry itself.

My right hon. Friend has already taken action to implement some of the recommendations set out in the report. Yesterday he laid before the House an order aimed at streamlining and strengthening the Apple and Pear Development Council so that it can take up the key role in co-ordinating the marketing and promotion of British apples envisaged in the report. Following the publication of the report we had consultations with the NFU, the workers' unions and the council itself on the recommendations relating to the APDC.

The draft order reflects the results of those consultations. Subject to approval, it will reduce the number of members on the council to 14, increase the functions of the council, and double its potential income. On the question of membership, the Selborne report recommended a council of nine. My right hon. Friend and I very much wanted a small council of no more than this. However, we were very strongly pressed by the NFU for a larger council. In view of the strength of its feeling we agreed to the number of 14.

This is a very positive contribution to giving the apple industry an organisation that can co-ordinate and direct its activities and so help the recovery of the industry. The order will allow much more money to be made available for the work of the council and will permit, with the usual procedures, an increase from the existing levy of £14.50 a hectare to a limit of £29 per hectare, although I should emphasise, of course, that that is not necessarily going to be charged without the appropriate procedures being gone through and recommendations being made by the council.

The council's activities will include certification of produce, promotion of arrangements for marketing and distri- buting produce and promotion of research into the development of new methods of handling and presenting apples.

Once the new council is functioning it will be up to the industry to make use of these new powers to enable the recommendations of the report to be put into effect. The council will be able to introduce the premium pack and the market intelligence service, to co-ordinate marketing and promotion of apples, to experiment on new packaging, to encourage regular meetings and co-operation between the different sections of the industry, and generally to act as a catalyst in promoting action for the benefit of the apple and pear industry as a whole.

On a different aspect, we are currently reviewing the recommendations in the report for changes in the Community regime for apples. This review will be carried out jointly by officials and the industry. The recommendations range from the abolition of the present withdrawal arrangements and the establishment of a marketing fund in their place to Community aid for producers of northern European varieties of apples.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)

I am interested in this in a very real sense, because I am one of the great eaters of good old Cox's Orange Pippins. I should like to ask the Minister if he can guarantee that he will do all in his power to see to it that we keep in this country an apple which is so far superior to the apples that are flooding in. I practise what I preach, I eat at least a couple of pounds a week, and when I go to the farmers I find that the tragedy is that not enough people are selecting Cox's. I do not know whether the reason is price, but I want a guarantee that we shall have them available at the right price and at the right times.

Mr. Wiggin

Certainly the objective of what I am putting together, which is a quite complicated and lengthy matter, is the achievement of just the end that the hon. Gentleman has described so succinctly.

The question of the coefficient for Cox's, which was a technical point raised by my hon. Friend, is one that we would like to have a look at, and indeed that we would hope to increase, in order to get more in compensation when produce is withdrawn from the market.

I sympathise with the objective behind these recommendations, but some of them would involve fundamental changes in the Community regime for fresh fruit. Others, such as the method of assessing compensation payments, are highly complex. We all know that procedures in the Community are slow and that it can take a long time to bring about any change. I cannot, therefore, promise such rapid action as we have taken with the APDC. As with any matter discussed in the Community, much will depend on the attitude of our Community partners and the Commission to any proposals for change that we decide to put forward, and any changes in the present regime for apples are likely to be opposed by the French with their usual tactics. The most sensible course must be to select those changes that seem most likely to be acceptable to the majority of our Community partners as being in the general interests of the Community.

I realise that our growers feel their businesses threatened by the heavily increased sendings of French apples to our market. To many growers the French action must appear to involve the deliberate dumping of produce on our market. But I must be careful; I understand that when describing Community trade "dumping" is no longer the correct technical expression. "Unfair competition" has been used correctly, but I suspect that all hon. Members understand exactly what is meant.

I can repeat the assurance that my right hon. Friend has given on many occasions. We are willing to investigate any evidence of illegal activities by French or any other exporters of apples to this country. We will carry out investigations swiftly and act quickly if necessary.

The report supports the NFU's request to my right hon. Friend for restructuring grants to assist the industry. It has been variously estimated on the basis of the NFU's request that grants could cost between £3 million and £7 million a year for a five-year period. These are substantial sums. We are, of course, willing to study any proposals for this improvement of the industry. We shall be dis- cussing this idea further with the NFU, and perhaps the reshaped APDC will have a view on it, but in discussing any proposal we must bear in mind the national financial circumstances which apply to this industry, as to all others.

On the question of additional funds to assist the industry, the report suggests that further aid might be given to supplement the publicity budget of the Apple and Pear Development Council. My right hon. Friend has told the Selborne working party that he will study any case put to him by the refashioned APDC for aid of this kind. If a satisfactory case has been made out in his judgment, he will do his best to support it.

The report also makes favourable comments about the ADAS advisory services of the Ministry and the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate that enforces the quality standards for fresh fruit. My hon. Friend mentioned the ports inspectors. I emphasise that the standards applied to the ports are the same as the standards applied to the wholesale markets.

I should like to take this opportunity to reassure the industry that there is no intention that the advisory work on horticulture or the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate should be reduced in effectiveness. Indeed, we had already acted to enforce more rigorously the quality standards as suggested in the report. We will not shrink from prosecuting in appropriate cases where offenders persistently and wilfully ignore the requirements of the quality standards.

I reaffirm our belief that quality standards have a most important part to play in the overall improvement in marketing that we hope to see in the British apple industry.

We have also announced that the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate will be the subject of an inquiry. We are grateful to Sir Derek Rayner for agreeing to oversee this inquiry into operations of the inspectorate in enforcing the quality standards. The greater efficiency that we hope will result will enable the inspectorate to carry out more inspections and so help to improve the overall standard of produce being marketed.

I intend to ensure that work on apples and pears being done at East Mailing, Long Ashton and elsewhere will continue to be based principally on those varieties picked out in the Selborne report. I happen to be visiting Long Ashton tomorrow, when I shall be able to look at the work being carried out there at first hand. I suspect that my hon. Friends will think that I should have gone to East Malling instead. I shall certainly go there if they will be kind enough to invite me.

The Selborne report suggests that the Ministry might commission a study on the relative degree of support available from all sources to French and United Kingdom growers respectively. It is extremely difficult to compare different systems of aid applying to different social and economic circumstances. However, the Commission of the European Communities is attempting this task at the present time. I would prefer to see the results of the Commission's study before we consider commissioning any separate United Kingdom initiative.

I say publicly again that I support what has been said about the first-class quality of the dessert and cooking apples represented by the varieties of Cox and Bramley. I have a very low regard for Golden Delicious. It is a misnamed apple. It is rarely golden, and it is far from delicious. I would perhaps be wrong to use knocking copy, but nearly everyone I speak to prefers the very superior quality of the Cox dessert apple.

Just at this moment we are coming to the end of the Cox season, and the difficulties that have been experienced in the past few weeks have to some extent been due to this. I hope that critics will bear in mind that one disadvantage that the crop has is its lack of keeping capacity, which is a varietal defect, as against the Golden Delicious.

There can be no doubt that new markets for British apples must be explored. I very much welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) in getting representatives of Long Ashton to come to the House recently to show us some of the juice and cider products that can be obtained from apples. That was a very useful and worthwhile exercise.

The Central Council for Agriculture and Horticultural Co-operation will give priority to co-operative ventures relating to apples and pears, and I hope that the industry will come forward with projects that will enable it to claim its share of the funds available to the council. I take note of the point made about this, which is of course part of the recommendations.

In conclusion, I should like to refer back to what I said at the beginning of my speech. The Selborne committee's report is a signpost, not an end in itself. The report indicates to us all what the industry should do. It is up to all those involved to play their part in making the industry prosper. This is a challenge that must be met by all those engaged in the industry. The Government are playing their part, and I am sure that the industry will seize the opportunity to play its role also.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.