§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
11.35 pm§ Mrs. Marion Roe (Broxbourne)As the House will know, I have always taken a keen interest in horticultural matters—particularly in my capacity as chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench horticulture committee and as parliamentary consultant to the Horticultural Trades Association, which appears under my name in the Register of Members' Interests. I am most grateful, therefore, to have the opportunity of an Adjournment debate to raise with the Minister a number of important challenges that the production sector of British horticulture faces today.
The total farmgate value of horticultural production in this country is estimated to be £1,600 million, and the retail value of that produce is at least twice that amount. Outdoor vegetables account for around £600 million, flowers and plants for around £400 million and fruit for £240 million. I often feel that, overall, horticulture is undervalued in Britain and that is particularly true of its production capacity. As I hope to show, other nations are perhaps less indifferent to horticulture than we are.
It is a measure of the importance of the industry that it employs about 60,000 people—half as many as are employed in the entire agricultural industry in Britain today. It is worth recalling how horticultural production was often limited to a certain season and a modest number of products, whereas now the seasons have been extended —as in the case of autumn-fruiting raspberries—and exotic crops such as sweet peppers or bean sprouts are on offer from domestic suppliers. The British grower must seize those challenges, plugging the trade gaps in certain product lines.
I believe that British growers have shown real enterprise and initiative in ensuring that Britain has one of the most competitive and technically advanced horticulture sectors in the world. From my knowledge of the industry, I do not believe for a moment that the people who work in horticulture expect special favours from Government or the erection of obstacles to competition. British growers know full well that foreign producers may benefit from lower wage costs and a more favourable climate. They accept the fact that improvements in transport have intensified competition.
Certainly those factors cause our producers problems, but, thanks to the technical sophistication of our industry and the quality of the produce it provides, I have confidence in its ability to compete and to excel. However, to employ a rather overused phrase, British producers should face the competition on a level playing field. It is crucial that our industry is not disadvantaged, especially by unnecessary red tape and obstacles to innovation at home.
I hope that the Minister will be able to consider a number of issues, all of which will have an impact on prospects for British horticulture. The use of peat in horticulture is the first of these. Peat is a vital element in ornamental horticulture, as a growing medium. As any gardener will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, peat is unique in that it has a number of key characteristics: it is disease-free, has an ideal mixture of air and water, holds water exceptionally well and can be easily adjusted in formulation for different plants and locales. There is not a 570 single other material combining all these qualities that is available in sufficient quantity. Quite simply, given our current state of knowledge, peat is irreplaceable as a growing medium for young plants. As the Horticulture Development Council peat report points out, however, peat is less essential as a mulch or soil conditioner.
In the past couple of years, there has been increasing concern about the risk of damage caused by peat extraction to wildlife habitats and scientific areas. Fortunately, new technology has found some alternatives to peat for soil conditioning and surface layering. As yet, however, no commercial substitute has been found. Research is currently under way to find new substitutes, but we still have a long way to go before we can find something that is both cost-effective and non-polluting.
I wholeheartedly applaud the growing consciousness of environmental issues, but I think that it is wrong that horticulturists should bear the brunt of having to find peat substitutes in response to wider political concerns about the environment.
What is needed is more money to fund research. Until then, British horticulture has no choice—regardless of its own environmental concerns—but to continue to rely on peat. I hope that the Minister may be able to give the industry some reassurance on the important issue of research and development in peat substitution.
Another subject of concern to the industry is how it will be affected by the European single market. One of the great achievements of British horticulture is that this country currently has one of the most stringent plant health regimes in the European Community. We have been able to maintain this through tough regulation and import inspection and control. With the single European market will come harmonisation of plant health standards. Many in the industry find that very worrying. The European Community proposes to maintain health standards through two key mechanisms: the establishment of special plant health status and the introduction of plant passports. Each plant or batch of plants will have to have its own safety inspection record, and this record will constitute a plant passport which will allow the plant to move freely within the Community.
All this seems thoroughly sensible in theory. However, the proposal at present is for such a system to apply to movement not only between member states, but within member states. A passport, plus inspections, may thus be required for shipments of plants between Athens and Acton or between Lincoln and London. This could lead to serious administrative problems and heavy costs, with little demonstrable improvement in plant health status.
With each plant requiring its own passport, the scope for red tape, bureaucracy and burdens on business is limitless. It is also worrying that the EC may adopt standards below our current national standards, which could seriously jeopardise the health of the plants in Britain. I am concerned that some other Community countries will not be willing or able to maintain the levels of plant health to which we in this country are accustomed, and that standards will slip, especially as controls will rest with the exporting country, with no customs checks at point of entry. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that the Community recognises the importance of maintaining high standards designed to achieve the very best, not just the average, standard of plant health?
Possibly the most serious threat to horticulture in the longer term is the progressive loss, and lack of 571 replacement, of plant protection products. With the loss of advisory services' routine screening of pesticides, the greater registration costs, which act as a disincentive for manufacturers to invest in developing plant protection products for horticultural crops, and the progressive reduction in Government support for near market research into novel pesticide applications, there is a serious and imminent danger that horticulture will lose the ability to control important pests and diseases. Much has been done by the industry in funding essential work to support "off-label" uses of pesticides, and by industry and Government in developing alternatives to chemical control methods.
However, the industry must rely on the help of pesticides for the foreseeable future, but it cannot fund the enormous costs involved in developing and registering pesticides. Unless serious reconsideration is given to the level of support given by the Government to enable the development of such control methods, the industry may collapse through the lack of such essential techniques. Surely it is for the public good for the United Kingdom to have a viable horticultural industry?
The third issue I wish to raise tonight is that of garden festivals. Horticulture has given wholehearted support to the concept of garden festivals. Needless to say, they provide a forum for marketing the products of the industry, but they have also proved a catalyst for urban regeneration in some of our most rundown inner-city areas and they offer horticulture an opportunity to apply its expertise to making the urban environment more pleasant for the people who live and work in cities.
The Government's imagination was instrumental in getting the idea of garden festivals off the ground. I hope that, having seen the beneficial effects, the Government will continue their support. Government financial aid for garden festivals expires in 1991. If there are to be further festivals, as I hope there will be, a Government decision is needed immediately on whether they will continue to support national festivals. It takes several years to put together a first-class garden festival. It would be a tragedy if we wasted time. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to look favourably on supporting and funding a continued programme of British garden festivals, so that those important public events will be able to endure.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard a great deal from the industry about the fourth issue that I wish to raise tonight, but I hope that he will bear with me while I go through the arguments, as the issue is crucial to horticulture. Like all business men, growers are being affected by the slowdown in the economy. They are also being hit by rising costs, but none is rising quite as fast as natural gas. Gas is very important for greenhouse growers, because it burns efficiently and does not emit pollutants, as the CO2 is used to enhance plant growth.
It is a major cost for hundreds of growers and, quite frankly, its price has risen at an alarming rate. It now costs 50 per cent. more to heat a glasshouse in Britain than to heat one in Holland. Some growers have seen their natural gas bills rise 25 per cent. during the past year. When British Gas was privatised, it was hoped that increased competition would result, pushing prices down. Sadly, that has not happened. British greenhouse growers are suffering from extremely disadvantageous gas prices, which are in turn affecting their ability to compete, and biting into profits.
572 Caught between high gas bills and high interest rates, growers could be forgiven for feeling that they are truly between a rock and a hard place. Can anything be done to ease the burden of high gas prices which so many of our producers now face? How does the Minister intend to tackle the problem of soaring costs for British growers?
Finally, I turn to the issue of soft fruit imports from eastern Europe. During the past few years, Britain has imported a great deal of semi-processed soft fruit from Poland and Yugoslavia. Those two countries have the advantage both of low labour costs and favourable rates of exchange to export. Moreover, until recently, a system was in place that guaranteed minimum soft fruit price levels for goods imported into the United Kingdom. However, that system broke down last year, resulting in a severe fall in prices.
To the critics of a price support system, I would argue that the mechanism aids not only British fruit growers, but eastern European ones. The eastern European countries could earn more for their soft fruit exports with the agreed minimum price. The price support system was extended on a temporary basis for three months from 1 January 1991, but that is clearly not long enough to provide any sort of security for our growers or, indeed, the eastern European countries that compete with them. Does the Ministry intend to extend the price support system into a viable long-term mechanism that can provide security to everyone?
British growers can compete well in an international environment if they are only given the means by which to do so. I emphasise that this is not an industry on the look-out for handouts or preferential treatment, but it needs a fair deal from a sympathetic Government. During the past 11 years, the Government have transformed prospects for the business in this country. They have shown that they understand the problems and challenges that horticulture faces—notably through the help they have lent with replacement heated green houses.
I hope that British horticulture can continue to count on the understanding and help of a Government and a Ministry that have proved themselves good friends to it during those years. We must address those problems and give the British grower a chance to prepare for the future.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry)My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has raised five issues and I will do my best to respond to them. She discussed the use of peat, soft fruit from eastern Europe, plant health, gas prices and garden centres.
I know that the question of peat preoccupies the industry. Professional horticulture accounts for about half our usage in the United Kingdom; the other half is split between the retail market and the landscaping contracting sector. Professional use has declined. Tomatoes, for example, are now grown on rockwool, perlite or NFT. Even with 100,000 hectares in England and Wales, and 800,000 hectares in Scotland, peat constitutes a limited resource, especially as some of the area is not exploitable.
The Department of the Environment has made a firm Government commitment to examine the question of peat, including working licences and the availability of substitutes. Neither we nor the industry can be complacent. I appreciate that any restrictions on the 573 current uses of peat would present problems, although it should be possible to develop effective and acceptable alternatives, especially in the ornamental sector.
Our strategy for horticultural research and development identifies work on alternatives to peat as a high priority area. We are already committed to substantial spending on strategic work. We are liaising closely with the Horticulture Development Council, Horticulture Research International and others in developing further programmes. It is in the industry's interests to take a constructive role in encouraging the use of acceptable alternatives. The Peat Producers Association and the Horticultural Trades Association have a role to play in this respect.
The Department of the Environment recently issued a leaflet called "Wake Up", which was launched just a few days ago and which advised gardeners to avoid using peat where substitutes were available, as my hon. Friend said, as mulches and soil conditioners, for example. There is a Horticulture Development Council seminar on peat scheduled for 26 March, which is a welcome initiative enabling the industry to explain its current position on peat use and to consider the next steps.
The gas pricing policy is a matter for British Gas. However, I recognise that the price of Dutch gas is a long-standing issue. The United Kingdom cited the Netherlands case before the European Council and it obtained a ruling which still stands. We must get better value for money from the use of gas. My right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out at the "British Growers Look Ahead" exhibition that energy efficiency is vital for business and for the environment.
The Government are surprised by the low uptake of grants of up to 40 per cent. under the farm and countryside grant scheme for the installation of more energy-efficient glasshouses and equipment. We should like growers to come forward for the grants while they are still available. There are already things that can be done to help growers to get better energy use in their greenhouses. Where we have clear evidence of continuing problems of unfair competition, we shall take that evidence to the European Commission and ask that action be taken. I recognise that garden festivals have proved popular with the industry. Nobody could ignore their effects on urban regeneration. As my hon. Friend has said, no decision has yet been taken on the future of the garden festival programme after Ebbw Vale, which is scheduled for 1992.
We have had a report on the festivals in Liverpool, in Stoke-on-Trent and in Glasgow, which was published just before Christmas. It is true that it showed that there was a fast reclamation of derelict and polluted sites, that there was economic benefit from the jobs and that there was an improved image for cities. That was, of course, at some cost—we reckon about £20 million at today's prices over and above the cost of reclamation. We will review the programme of garden festivals in the light of the balance of benefits and costs. The views of the industry will weigh heavily with us during that review.
I recognise that the most important issue raised by my hon. Friend may have been plant health and the single market. I subscribe entirely to her belief that the single market must not lead to a lowering of our plant health standards or status, or to excessive financial and 574 administrative burdens on the industry or the Government. Controls on plant material entering the United Kingdom centre on plant health certificates, which are issued by authorities in the country of origin. Certificates are checked at the point of entry by customs officers and, where necessary, by our plant health inspectors.
After 1992, the system will continue for trade with non-Community countries, but a new system of control will be needed for intra-Community trade.
The proposals are still being thrashed out in Brussels, but we can see the outline of what is likely to emerge. It is clear that there will be significant changes in the way both we and the industry work. There will be more frequent visits by plant health inspectors to growers of planting material, leading to the issue of the so-called plant passports.
As my hon. Friend said, the passports will apply for trade within member states, as well as between member states. After 1992, in principle, there will be no distinction between internal trade and trade between member states —apart from the so-called isolated zones. Plant passports will be needed for material travelling between Lincoln and London or, indeed, between Broxbourne and Basildon. This is intended to ensure that all material circulating within the Community meets certain standards.
We are conscious of the need to minimise red tape. It is inevitable that the introduction of Communitywide changes will result in certain changes in the regulatory framework, but it is not our intention to impose on ourselves a burden that is not necessary, and least of all do we intend to impose on the industry a burden that is not necessary. A great deal of our negotiation is directed at making sure that we have the lightest regime that can be effective. If one demands that there should be a level playing field—that the law should be enforced equally everywhere—a certain number of inspectors and a certain regulatory framework are necessary. We have to be able to manage and police the system.
We supported the establishment of the European plant health inspectorate, which is the kernel of the Communitywide supervising system that will oversee the enforcement of the new rules. A great deal of negotiation has still to be done in this sector, but we are particularly conscious of the need to preserve the special status that the industry in the United Kingdom enjoys, because of our high health standards. Of course, that is a consideration which extends beyond the plant and horticultural sphere; it affects the agricultural and fisheries sectors also. We wish, in all those cases, to preserve the status that we have built up over the years.
The final issue raised by my hon. Friend—the import of east European soft fruit—has caused some difficulties. I have been very closely involved in the negotiations. I can confirm that we have sought an extension of the safeguard action—the minimum import prices—beyond the end of this month to cover the new season. We do not have the ability to impose that ourselves. It is not a unilateral decision; it has to be agreed by the Commission. However, at the Agriculture Council meeting at the beginning of this week, my right hon. Friend raised the matter before the full membership. I, too, raised it at a number of meetings last year.
That has been followed up with a letter to the Commissioner within the last few days. Our officials have been given instructions to pursue the matter with all 575 vigour. We recognise its importance to the industry in my hon. Friend's constituency, in other parts of England and, of course, in the lowlands of Scotland, whose important horticultural industry has felt a serious draught from these imports.
We have not moved from our long-standing position that effective voluntary arrangements with Poland and Yugoslavia are best, and that reasonable price levels serve both us and them. It is perfectly true that undercutting prices and failing to maintain discipline does the United Kingdom's industry no good. It is equally true that unfair competition does not do very much for the revenue of those exporting. The exporters do not get the sort of returns that would benefit them in the long term. We do not deny, and I think that my hon. Friend does not deny, that there is a place in our markets for Polish and Yugoslav products. For example, they are used in jam production.
We think that it is very much in our interests to have a rapid reintroduction of the informal pricing arrangements, with improvements—for example, differentiated prices and better monitoring, which the Commission promised more than a year ago but has not been able to deliver. We shall continue to press this important issue. The east Europeans, if they have any sense, will recognise that, if they do not deliver the sensible disciplines that we seek in this sector, our outlook will be influenced when it comes to seeking further liberalisation in other sectors.
My hon. Friend said that she was very optimistic about the future of the industry. In general terms, I share her optimism. Where the industry is forward-looking and competitive, it will have our full support. But, as my hon. Friend said, it faces challenges. Nineteen ninety-two will ease the trade between member states and in 1996 we shall see the end of the Spanish transition. Both events will result in greater competition. Several years ago people 576 assumed that Spanish entry would somehow bring an Armageddon-like attack on the industry, but that has not materialised. Our competition is still predominantly from the northern European states, which have climatic conditions similar to ours.
Successive Ministers have reminded growers about the importance of marketing. It is important to keep hammering home that message. I am sure that my hon. Friend does so in her constituency, which is so important in horticultural terms. Quality assurance, presentation, continuity of supply and competitive prices are the important elements for the industry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said on 21 February that Food from Britain would address itself to the import substitution problem. Clearly, horticulture has a considerable potential to help in that matter. He also issued a challenge to the industry at the "British Growers Look Ahead" conference in January to come up with ideas to improve competitiveness, and we look forward to seeing those ideas put into practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne has raised some important issues for the horticultural industry. It is by no means considered the Cinderella of the United Kingdom industry by the Ministry, despite the fact that it does not have the heavy regimes of other agricultural sectors which command so much time, sweat and tears. The horticultural industry is important. It has a significant future. It recognises that its future lies significantly in its own hands. Where we can assist, we shall do so. With such a joint enterprise, there is no reason why it cannot increase in strength.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve midnight.