§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
10.38 pm§ Mrs. Marion Roe (Broxbourne)I am grateful for the opportunity of initiating an Adjournment debate on horticulture, a subject in which I take a great interest. In addition to my constituency concerns, I am also chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench horticulture committee and parliamentary adviser to the Horticultural Trades Association, a fact that appears in the Register of Members' Interests.
Since this subject was last debated, the Government have made positive moves to help horticulture. 1 have been approached by many growers and asked to express their gratitude. The Government's commitment of £25 million for the restructuring of Horticulture Research International has been warmly received, as has the recent announcement of a £5 million allocation to improve horticultural marketing through existing and new producer groups. Those are welcome and positive signs for the industry, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to look for further ways to assist horticulture.
Last year was not a good year for the industry. We saw a combination of a £51 million decline in the value of horticultural production and rises in costs and overheads. With the coming of the free market at the beginning of 1992, it is even more important that steps are taken now to enable the horticultural industry to prepare itself for the challenges of a fair and even market. The Government can assist in a number of ways.
One such way is a more equitable writing-down allowance for specialist horticultural buildings. The sophisticated equipment involved has a short working life and should therefore have a short writing-down period. I understand that progress is being made, and I should be grateful for an indication of the timing and likely outcome of those negotiations.
Another is the requirement for local planning authorities to be made aware of the needs of horticulture when considering redevelopment proposals. That is particularly necessary when development is required to meet the needs of new health regulations or the demand for improved standards from supermarkets or other customers.
The removal of all barriers to free trade within the European Community raises other potential problems. There is already a considerable trade in plant material within the Community, and I welcome the opportunities that further deregulation will bring. However, there is stil concern over Community plant health legislation. Britain is entering that arena, having already established a quality reputation because we enjoy one of the highest plant health regimes in Europe. It is essential that that is not diluted in any way.
The British horticultural trade strongly supports the Commission's proposals relating to plant health. They support both the registration of growers and the regular inspection of premises. They are happy that plants should be inspected at the point of production, rather than at national borders, and they like the idea of plants that are moving beyond a certain local zone carrying a passport. 1082 One would hope, incidentally, that that would be in the form of a label showing details of the source, inspection and validity of registration.
In theory, all those measures will preserve the existing high plant health standards in the United Kingdom. The problem arises in the practical implementation of regulations. It is essential that other countries are not allowed to treat lightly the necessary details of inspection, registration and implementation of plant passports.
That raises a number of points. First, assuming that growers will be licensed to issue their own passports after inspection, we need to ensure that there are sufficient inspectors to police the standards set. I understand that, although there are to be national inspectors, only four inspectors are proposed from the Community. Can my hon. Friend give some assurance that standards will be maintained throughout the Community?
Secondly, I believe that there will be charges for inspections. How will my hon. Friend ensure that certain Governments do not subsidise those charges, thereby putting British growers at a competitive disadvantage?
I am also concerned that too much detail is being left to member states. Although I welcome that in many other areas of Community activity, we must be extremely careful in this instance. Plant material has many problems that are not shared by inanimate objects. It is vital that all member states adhere to the highest health standards, as determined by the Community. Failure to do so could lead to the importation of diseased plant stock, which could devastate our horticultural industry, gardens and parks. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on how the Community proposes to maintain those standards.
Finally, it is important to get the balance right between an effective system and one that can operate with the minimum of bureaucracy. We do not want to see growers burdened with extensive and expensive form-filling. We must ensure that passports are such that they can be incorporated into existing commercial labels: accepted botanical and horticultural systems are used when naming plants; and costs are clearly apportioned in the regulations.
I realise that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been very firm and supportive on these measures during the negotiations. I urge that the Minister continues to insist on the highest health standards with the lowest bureaucratic fuss.
The changes taking place in eastern Europe affect all parts of our lives, including horticulture. One issue of relevance to the industry is the price set under the association agreements for soft fruit grown in eastern Europe. It is important that these are not set at below realistic commercial levels. To do so would be to the detriment of fruit growers both in the east and in the European Community. I know that my hon. Friend has fought hard on that issue, and I hope that he will continue to be firm in negotiations and resist the erroneous argument that artificially low prices would benefit producers. It is simply not true.
There are a number of domestic matters that are of concern to a large sector of the industry. One such is spray irrigation for container plants. It seems clear that, in this sector, legislation has not kept in line with advances in horticultural production technique. Spray irrigation is controlled by the Water Resources Act 1963 and the subsequent Spray Irrigation (Definition) Order 1965. Those regulations took into account the need of crops that 1083 were not growing out in open fields and would be unable to survive without artificial irrigation. In those days, that meant plants under cover—for example, in greenhouses or under cloches. The order exempted those crop-growing methods from the regulations controlling the level of irrigation.
Since the late 1960s, we have seen the growth of container production, which has revolutionised the United Kingdom's nursery stock industry. Currently, £200 million-worth of container plants are produced each year. Those plants are separated from the soil by their containers. Unlike field-grown crops, they cannot draw moisture from the ground. Also, unlike field-grown crops, if they do not receive adequate irrigation every 24 hours during hot weather, they are certain to die quickly.
For the purpose of the 1965 Act, it is clear that container plants fall into the category of protected crops that cannot survive without artificial irrigation. The only reason why the regulations do not already take account of container production is that it was not a factor at the time. I find it hard to believe that there are any reasons not to update these regulations, but if there are, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain them. If not, it is a simple matter to amend the regulations, and I would ask my hon. Friend to do so in time for the 1992 growing season, especially given the prolonged dry season that we are currently experiencing.
The growth in container production is one of the factors affecting the amount of peat used for horticultural purposes. Peat plays a major role in all three main areas of horticulture in the United Kingdom—first, in the retail market, where 1 million cu m are used each year for soil improvement, potting and mulching. Secondly, the amenity market makes use of 300,000 cu m per annum, mainly for soil improvement before landscape planting. Finally, in professional horticulture, growers use between 800,000 and 1.2 million cu m of peat. Those amounts total 2.5 million cu m of peat per year. Putting that into perspective, the total world consumption of peat—mainly for fuel and horticulture—is about 525 million cu m per annum.
British horticulture therefore accounts for under half of 1 per cent. of the total world peat consumption. Horticulture is well aware, however, of the need to reduce peat usage in order to protect habitats not only in Britain but throughout the world. It is taking steps to find alternative sustainable compounds, looking at the three main sectors that I mentioned earlier. In the retail and amenity sectors, peat is used as a soil conditioner and for aesthetic purposes. It is proving far easier to find substitutes for those sectors than for commercial plant production.
For such growers, peat has a number of unique properties which are vital for stock production: it is disease-free; it contains no nutrients, allowing the grower to add these himself to provide a uniform media, which can be adjusted to suit different plants and growing locations; its air-water relationship provides the ideal balance for root growth; and it has ideal water-holding and transfer characteristics. The highly sophisticated peat-based composts necessary for professional modern horticultural production have taken more than 40 years to 1084 develop. It is extremely difficult to find suitable alternatives overnight, although significant moves are being made.
Growers are increasingly using peat alternatives to dilute their composts. Some sectors of the industry, such as glasshouse tomato producers, have stopped using peat completely. But much more research still needs to be done into finding true substitutes for peat. The industry is looking at wood bark, coconut fibre, straw and even sewage sludge. All those potential alternatives—and a number of others—will require several more years of scientific trials before we can be assured that they are reliable and safe. The Horticultural Development Council, which is funded by the growers, is spending £100,000 over the next three years to research the issue. It is important to keep a balanced and realistic view of it.
In the short term, reduction in the use of peat can be and is being made in domestic gardening and professional landscaping. To find a substitute for growers, though, is far more difficult and will take some time. Money is being spent on research, and I am sure that any further contribution that the Government might wish to make will be welcome. In the meantime, I ask my hon. Friend to give strong consideration to the detrimental effects on the economy and employment, particularly in rural communities, of any forced ban or reduction. The industry is working to address this problem, but the answer cannot be found overnight.
Any speech on horticulture has to be wide-ranging to take account of the many activities that fall under its umbrella. I want, therefore, to say just a few words on the situation relating to nurseries that serve the forestry industry. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the disastrous effects of the 1988 Budget on forestry, and hence on many nurseries. It seems ludicrous that, at a time when our farmers are being urged to diversify and when the European Community is spending millions of pounds in subsidy, we should remove the financial incentive for forestry.
Britain is a net importer of timber products. There was a trade deficit in this sector of over £5 billion last year, yet farmers are being paid to leave thousands of acres of land fallow that could be used for forestry.
The 1988 Budget removed the tax allowances on the capital charge of setting up a new forestry enterprise. No other business is treated like that. It is clear that the promise of tax-free returns on felling many years in the future holds little attraction to the cash-starved landowner. Consider what has happened: before the 1988 Budget, new plantings totalled 25,000 hectares. Last season, this figure fell to just 10,000 hectares, of which commercial afforestation is unlikely to exceed 6,000 hectares.
The collapse of the creation of new forests in the past three years has resulted in a rapid reduction in manpower and investment in new equipment for the industry. This has been particularly harmful in the upland areas, already struggling because of the agricultural downturn. The resulting and continuing depopulation will reduce the potential to increase afforestation in the future, should the Government wish to do so.
It is not, however, just the lack of financial incentive that is presenting difficulties for the forestry industry. Potential investment is also deterred by the bureaucracy that surrounds the awarding of forestry grants, so vital to any planting. In particular, there is concern over the 1085 number and range of groups that are consulted before a decision is made by MAFF. Given the problems that exist in encouraging forestry planting, can my hon. Friend explain how the balance is struck between the views of environmental organisations and the need to promote forestry? Can he also explain what steps are being taken to streamline the system of awarding grants?
I would urge that MAFF consider urgently what needs to be done to encourage greater participation in forestry, because the current system is obviously not working satisfactorily.
The range of matters that I have raised tonight demonstrates the diversity of the horticultural industry, but horticulture embraces an even wider industry than that which I have described, and has interests that go far beyond those matters that are the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Ministry. Roles for other Departments, such as the Department of the Environment's influence on our parks, gardens and open spaces, are well known, but the decisions taken by others, such as the Departments of Employment, of Education and Science, and of Trade and Industry, can also affect horticulture. I hope that we can be assured that there is significant co-ordination of horticultural strategy.
We need to ensure that the industry is given the most effective and productive support to help it to meet the challenges and opportunities that the future will bring. As I said earlier, much has been done. I am sure that horticulture can continue to count on the assistance and understanding of my hon. Friend's Ministry, and I look forward to further advances over the coming years.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry)My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) asked me a series of questions. She dealt with the depreciation of glasshouses, planning, plant health legislation in the Community, imports from eastern Europe, spray irrigation for container plants, peat and forestry. I shall try to cover as much of that ground as I can, and I shall answer her by letter on any matter that I do not reach in the time left to me tonight.
My hon. Friend raised the question of tax allowances for specialist horticultural buildings. I know that inconsistency in treatment of capital allowances for glasshouses has been of considerable concern to the industry. I have raised this concern with the Treasury, which has agreed that an objective test would be attractive as a basis for determining relief due. It is not straightforward, because a considerable body of case law has to be taken into account. However, my officials have been working closely with the Treasury on the details, and we hope that we will have agreement soon.
Planning policy guidance note 7 issued last month includes guidance to planning authorities on the revised planning controls on agricultural development which came into effect on 2 January. It emphasises the importance of an efficient and flexible agricultural industry and advises planning authorities to take full account of the operational needs of farm businesses, together with environmental considerations, in operating the new controls. Planning authorities are also specifically encouraged to adopt a positive approach generally 1086 towards development proposals which are designed, or necessary, to achieve compliance with new environmental, health and welfare legislation.
On plant health, the twin objectives of maximum health standards and minimum bureaucratic burden will guide our policy in this sector in this crucial year, as they have in the past.
We are seeking simple but effective ways to implement the broad framework agreed by the Agriculture Council in December 1991. On plant passports, we fought a long battle in the Council to get the right for the trade to attach their own passports, under inspectorate control, and I am glad to say that we were successful. We are expanding our plant health and seeds inspectorate accordingly. In practice, we are looking to enable producers to choose between incorporating the necessary information on their existing trade labels or, if it is commercially more convenient, attach a separate label. We are aware of the potential impact of the level of charges that we make on the competitivity of UK growers. No decisions have yet been taken.
On imports, it is clear that the potential risk to the high plant health status that we enjoy lies overwhelmingly outside the Community. The present system of phytosanitary certificates for relevant third country material entering member states will continue. Inspections of these plants and plant products will occur when they enter the Community and plant passports will be issued as appropriate.
There are a number of safeguards of United Kingdom growers in this. First, national inspectorates throughout the Community take their duties seriously, and I do not imagine that any of them would willingly allow a pest to be imported when it should not be there. Then, the Community has provided its own inspectorate, one of whose express tasks is to monitor work of inspectorates across the Community so that full confidence can be placed in them. Exchanges of information and techniques will play an important part in this work. Finally, we have the nature of the regime which the Community presents to third countries. As the EC harmonises the different national import regimes this year, it has the opportunity to take the best from each of them and adopt it for its own. We shall be busy this year making sure that that opportunity is grasped.
One of the tasks of the EC's plant health inspectorate, will be to work with national inspectorates to ensure that inspections of domestic production and third country imports are on the same basis throughout the Community. Of the planned complement of 17 EC inspectors, it is intended that nine should be filled by national inspectors on temporary secondment. This movement between the national and Community inspectorates should help to reinforce the harmonisation process. [Interruption.]
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spent two days in the Council sitting between the Portuguese and Belgian delegates, who have been determined to show that there is value in the tobacco regime, and that has led to my having to blow my nose.
As regards imports of semi-processed soft fruit from eastern Europe, the United Kingdom Ministers' positive commitment to the legitimate interests of the soft fruit industry is not in doubt: few other issues are raised four times in a year in Councils of Ministers by a single member state. 1087 The Commission maintained safeguard action for 14 months on the criterion of preventing serious disruption of market; this provided some breathing space for longer-term arrangements. The initialled association agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary are due to come into force on 1 March and provide a satisfactory basis for market surveillance and, if necessary, control of imports. The situation in Yugoslavia does not allow for action at the moment.
The Commission is responsible for arranging mechanisms involved in the trigger price system in association agreements. We have made it clear that these should be settled as soon as possible. Minimum prices are important, but so are other details such as speed of transmission of data and compliance with rules on price differentiation for different qualities. As I said in March last year, undercutting prices and failing to maintain market discipline does no good for either the United Kingdom or overseas producers.
Structural measures are matters for the Commission. At the Agriculture Council which concluded yesterday, the Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, undertook to make structural proposals to help the particularly hard-hit Scottish raspberry industry by 1 April. The new group formation grants are designed precisely to help producers to work together in a more loosely knit fashion than under standard producer organisation rules.
I come now to the question of spray irrigation of container-grown plants. We have consulted the National Rivers Authority about the effect that an exemption would have on water resources and other water users and the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, as any amendment to the 1965 order would be made jointly with those Departments. I am pleased to say that those consultations have now been completed and we intend to make an announcement in time for the coming season.
On the question of spray irrigation generally, as hon. Members will be aware, we have not had much rain this winter and in some areas rivers and acquifers are at record low levels. Therefore, I urge all users of spray irrigation to use water wisely, review irrigation programmes, and water only when absolutely necessary. Unless it rains continually between now and May, which is unlikely because it is not the cricket season, it is likely that the N RA will have to impose some restrictions on spray irrigation in East Anglia. We have therefore revised our good irrigation practice leaflet which gives details of an early warning system on restrictions on spray irrigation. That will be distributed to all holders of spray irrigation abstraction licences in the N RA's Anglian region at the end of this month.
I am aware of the importance of peat for some sectors of the horticultural industry. The Government made a commitment 18 months ago to examine the question of peat, and to look in particular at the environmental consequences of peat extraction. I welcome the positive action taken by the horticultural industry to encourage the examination and usage of peat alternatives wherever suitable—in particular, in retail and amenity sectors.
For some major horticultural sectors there is still no suitable alternative available. My Department is funding research into the needs of plants from growing media and we shall be working closely with the Horticultural 1088 Development Council in taking results forward. That will inevitably take time. My aim now is to ensure that the United Kingdom horticultural industry can continue to have access to efficient and economic plant growth media.
The Horticultural Development Council seminar on peat last year made it clear that substantial supplies of peat are available worldwide, and overseas competitors will continue to have access to them. The United Kingdom container and nursery sectors in particular have been successful in expanding their market and there is still considerable scope for further expansion here and overseas. We aim to ensure that United Kingdom growers are not disadvantaged, and can continue to compete with overseas producers on fair and equal terms.
We have made important changes to the support arrangements for forestry, but we have not removed the financial incentive. Public confidence in special forestry tax reliefs as an appropriate instrument for encouraging new planting had all but disappeared by 1988. That is why we changed to a grants-only approach. We are now targeting taxpayers' money in a more open, acceptable, and effective way, in order to deliver a wide range of public benefits.
My hon. Friend mentioned a figure 25,000 hectares for private sector planting in 1988, but that was when new planting by the private sector was at an all-time high. The average for the previous 20 years was just over 15,000 hectares. We must also remember that we reduced the top rate of income tax to 40 per cent. in the 1988 Budget, and that would inevitably have had an influence on potential forestry investors' decisions. Clearly the time had come for change.
Of course the forestry industry has had to adjust to the new approach. Moreover, it has had to do so at a time when we have been experiencing a general downturn in the economy, and I am well aware that for some sectors, such as the nurserymen, the change has been a painful one. But the Government are not complacent about the levels of new planting. The woodland grant scheme was introduced in 1988 with substantial increases in grant levels. With our aim of encouraging more planting on better quality land, we have substantially increased the better land supplement under the woodland grant scheme from £200 per hectare to £400 per hectare for conifers, and £600 for broadleaves. We recently announced a special community woodland supplement of £950 per hectare to encourage the establishment of woodlands close to towns and cities. From 1 April woodland management grants will provide a contribution to the cost of maintaining and improving woodlands and forests. Also from 1 April the successor to the farm woodland scheme will be in place. The farm woodland premium scheme will have enhanced incentives to encourage farmers to establish woodlands on their farms. The new scheme will be easier to understand and simpler to administer. The simplification of bureaucracy is one of my hon. Friend's principal concerns.
It is important that we remove any excessive bureaucracy that may act as a disincentive to farmers and others to plant trees. However, the planting of trees results in significant changes to the countryside, and we must ensure that the right decisions are taken. If our policies are to deliver social and environmental as well as economic benefits, it is essential that the views of the statutory bodies that represent the interests of local people, amenity and wildlife conservation are sought. The Forestry Commission is charged with ensuring that full account is taken of such interests. 1089 We aim at keeping bureaucracy to a minimum and the commission's forestry authority seeks to ensure that in the vast majority of cases consultations with other interests are completed within four weeks. There will inevitably be those that take longer, but that will be because they are sensitive cases deserving of extra special care—not because the system is necessarily wrong.
It is important that we strike a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and those of the environment. The forestry commissioners have a statutory duty to endeavour to achieve such a balance, and the consultation procedures are an important element in that. They are backed up by regular dialogue between the commission and other Government Departments, including those responsible for agriculture and the environment, as well as with bodies representing environmental interests and those of the forestry industry intself.
The reorganisation of the Forestry Commission from 1 April will enable its forestry authority arm to focus more 1090 clearly on private sector planting and thus be better placed to deliver the Government's forestry policies. I am confident that the measures that I have outlined, coupled with an improvement in the economy, will bring a rise in new planting activity.
My hon. Friend covered a wide range of issues. I have endeavoured to respond as fully as I can. I know that my hon. Friend acknowledges that the Government continue to argue strongly the case for this important and innovative industry both in Brussels, where the necessary legislation will shortly come into force and where the final details of some elements have still to be agreed, and in the United Kingdom, where there are great opportunities in the leisure and other industries. I trust that I have given my hon. Friend some assistance.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.