§ [Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1994–95, on Horticulture (House of Commons Paper No. 61–1 and -II), and the Government Reply thereto contained in the Fourth Special Report of Session 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 778).]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
9.34 am§ Sir Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)The Agriculture Committee is deeply honoured to be the first Committee to take advantage of the new procedure, which you, Madam Speaker, kindly approved, to allow Select Committees more time to debate their reports. All of us on Select Committees agree that the former arrangements were totally unsatisfactory, particularly when hon. Members and people outside the House give up so much of their time to give evidence to our Committees, and it is a tragedy that we do not have more time to debate them. This is only the third debate that the Agriculture Committee has had in the past seven years.
We published our report on horticulture last August, and it shows that, despite the problems that the horticulture industry faces in the United Kingdom and the relatively low common agricultural policy support that it receives, horticultural holdings in the United Kingdom employ almost 10 per cent. of the agricultural labour force. Some 60,000 people, including farmers and their wives, work on holdings where horticulture accounts for more than two thirds of the total standard gross margin, and that figure does not include the substantial number of seasonal and casual workers who are employed at harvest and other busy periods. Nor does it account for those who work further up the food supply chain and those who work in the ancillary sectors.
We were left in no doubt that, in some parts of the United Kingdom, horticulture plays a role in the local economy that is much understated by mere employment statistics, and it is fair to say that the substantial attendance at what, for Parliament, is an early hour to debate what appears on the face of it a somewhat dry subject demonstrates that hon. Members recognise the importance of the industry to their constituencies. We held our inquiry at a time when the fortunes of some sectors of the UK horticulture industry were, and, I am afraid, still are, at a low ebb. A snapshot of the industry when we made our inquiry shows the problems that it faces. There has been an on-going, long-term decline in horticultural production in the United Kingdom; the value 248 of output has been falling; and horticulture's share of total agricultural output has also declined. Despite rising output per hectare, due largely to technological advances, incomes have also been in decline.
In addition, and perhaps amazingly, the United Kingdom runs a substantial and growing trade deficit in fruit and vegetables, which in 1993 reached £2,818 million. Even when produce that cannot be grown in the UK is discounted, there is still a substantial trade gap, and all that despite the fact that per capita consumption of fruit and vegetables in the UK is among the lowest in the European Union and is less than half the amount consumed in some of the southern member states.
We paid some visits during the inquiry, and in Almeria, southern Spain, we were astounded by the results of a latter-day "gold rush", where what was once a wilderness has been transformed into a highly productive and low-cost nursery, with not just acres or hectares but what seemed to be square mile after square mile of plastic sheeting spread along the coastline. Those vast, cheap, makeshift greenhouses, with the aid of irrigation water from the aquifers beneath, produced peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers and numerous other salad crops, all of which are transported throughout the European Union.
In Holland, we saw similar crops being grown in more elaborate and expensive systems under glass, but we should bear in mind the favourable arrangements that the Dutch created for themselves to supply gas to heat those greenhouses. Although the Dutch, like many producers in the UK, fear Spain's low-cost producers, the Spanish are concerned that there may be increasing penetration of their markets by even lower-cost producers from Morocco.
Little can be done about the climatic advantages for the salad crop producers whom we visited in Spain, although it is clear that Almeria is an environmental eyesore that would not be allowed in the UK. Nor can UK apple growers expect to benefit from the growing conditions prevalent in South Africa and other southern hemisphere countries. Even so, the UK could benefit from many aspects of the horticultural sectors that we saw in Spain, Holland and South Africa, not the least of which was the organisation of their marketing systems.
The UK has the most developed retailing systems in Europe and probably the world. The major multiples are taking a larger and larger share of the retail market, and their central purchasing and distribution systems give importers relatively easy access to outlets capable of handling large volumes of produce. It would be wrong to assume that the supermarkets are the only outlet for produce—others include independent retailers, market traders and the catering sector—but the major retailers are the potent force in the market, eager to give their customers a variety of fresh fruit and vegetables at a competitive price.
It was frustrating to hear supermarket buyers speaking of the ease with which they could purchase produce from an importing nation's growers, frequently by dealing with a single point of contact. That, we were told, is not the case with the sales of UK produce, whether it be for the domestic market or for export.
§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)Does my hon. Friend accept that that might be the general picture, but that, in a region such as west Cornwall, local growers are 249 making strenuous efforts, through co-operatives and marketing organisations, to produce exactly what the supermarkets want? The number of new pack houses that have opened in the past couple of years is testimony to that enterprise. Should not their example be followed in other parts of the country?
§ Sir Jerry WigginNeedless to say, I agree with my hon. Friend. The supermarket buyer who wants to buy 10 tonnes of a product can lift a telephone and be sure of getting the quality and quantity that he wants from many of those foreign countries' marketing agents. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of the British industry, large gaps still exist in our marketing system, which have been obvious for many years. Having been a farmer and worked among horticultural growers, I know that they are, by their very nature, an independent bunch. It is extremely difficult to get people to co-operate in this country. There must be a sacrifice, but when it comes to it, too often people pull out. They will not take the strain when things are difficult.
During our inquiry, we received numerous suggestions as to how the UK industry's performance could be further improved at home and abroad. In particular, we were eager to ensure that Ministers argued strongly for reforms to the European Union's fruit and vegetable regime which would not disadvantage UK producers. Other changes, however, are needed in the horticultural sector, as the Committee report's conclusion and recommendations show.
Not the least of the problems that we identified was the lack of reliable statistical information on the UK's horticultural sector. We asked the Government to discuss with the industry the means by which information can be collated and disseminated, and pointed out the need for the Government to encourage the European Commission to ensure that similar information on the horticulture industry throughout the EU is available. The Government accepted those recommendations and we should be grateful for further information on their implementation.
Of course, any industry requires skilled people to work in it and, although much can be learnt through training while in employment, it is also important that people entering the industry have access to suitable courses. The Committee asked the Government to keep a weather eye on that, to keep local education authorities aware of the need to maintain funding for discretionary grants in that sector at appropriate levels, and to consult employers in the industry on the most suitable content of courses. That recommendation was also accepted by the Government. We made it because, in these days of stringency in education, we found that it was easy for such authorities to drop horticultural courses from their syllabuses. We wish to put up a marker that that will be damaging for the industry in the long term.
The Committee recommended that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should take a lead in exploring ways by which the wholesale marketing system, which faces many difficulties and a declining market share, can be rationalised. During our inquiry, it became obvious that an increasing number of retailers and producers are trading directly with each other. The Committee welcomed the new producer contracts that were being introduced by Tesco, which gave its suppliers 250 greater security. We recommend such initiatives to all producers and retailers in the hope that it will help to stem the growing tide of imported produce.
We also hope that retailers will realise that they will benefit from working with producers in funding near-market research, thus helping to ensure that UK customers are able to buy the type of produce that they wish from UK producers.
We were also concerned that the UK was not performing well in export markets. We urge the Government to investigate ways by which producers could be encouraged to explore and exploit the opportunities presented by the single market for their produce. We were pleased that, following our report, MAFF appointed a horticultural export promoter, seconded from industry, and to hear news of the establishment of the Horticultural Export Bureau. That bureau appears to be a direct response to our recommendation that horticultural exporters should establish a representative organisation to co-ordinate export strategies. We still, however, hold the view expressed in our report that the redirection of Food From Britain's role away from import substitution was misconceived: for fruit and vegetables, import substitution will be by far the most effective way to reduce the trade deficit.
On the fruit and vegetable regime, although in 1996 the cost of support for both fresh and processed regimes will amount to only less than 4 per cent. of the total common agricultural policy budget, it will still amount to about £1,252 million. What is more, much of the expenditure is to "withdraw" produce that is not wanted by the market. Many producers in southern Europe grow their crops solely for withdrawal. Withering criticism of the regime is contained in the 1994 European Union Court of Auditors report, which described systems for inspection and approval of producer organisations by member states as very weak and found many irregularities in the withdrawal of produce from the markets.
We were generally dissatisfied with the withdrawal system's operation, but its effects are especially damaging to the UK apple industry. The Committee was keen for the Government to pursue their policy to end the system completely for all fruit and vegetables. With that in mind, it is a disappointment, as many people have already noted, that the current proposals for reforming the fruit and vegetable regime do not give a final date for the end of the system, but simply make it slightly less attractive. The Committee's report made it clear that there would be distinct advantages to UK apple growers from ending the system completely. It is unacceptable that producers in some member states produce apples for no other purpose than sale into intervention.
We were also made aware of the way in which UK producers are disadvantaged—and would still be at a disadvantage under the new proposals—because of the way in which producer organisations are defined. The British horticulture industry has played little part in the creation of surpluses and it would be iniquitous if it was disadvantaged simply because of historical differences in the industry's structure in the UK. The definition of a producer organisation should allow for a variety of legal and commercial entities. I am sure that the Minister will wish to comment on that.
Our recommendations have been echoed by the European Communities Committee in the other place and by our Select Committee on European Legislation, 251 a formidable phalanx of informed parliamentary opinion. I call on the Government, who have shown their support for those views, to stand firm when the European Commission's reform proposals return to the Agriculture Council.
Besides the European marketing regime, we received evidence about other inappropriate and burdensome regulations. I stress two main problems, the first of which is the ridiculous and unscientific European Community proposals to impose maximum nitrate levels on spinach and lettuce. As originally suggested, those would have had devastating effects on the British lettuce industry, yet there is no scientific evidence that nitrates are harmful to human beings.
The Commission's original proposals have been relaxed, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that the revised standards are achievable by British growers following good agricultural practice, and represent the best possible compromise. None the less, I still ask what the scientific basis is for having maximum nitrate levels at all.
Secondly, horticultural producers often have trouble getting hold of appropriate pesticides, because of the expense and delays in pesticide registration in the United Kingdom. Partly because of what we heard in our horticultural inquiry, we subsequently held an inquiry into the Pesticides Safety Directorate, and we are glad to report that much progress has been made in reducing backlogs in pesticide registration.
However, problems still exist concerning "minor use" pesticides—those used in small quantities, especially in the horticulture industry. We were disappointed that the Government did not adopt one or two recommendations for streamlining the system that we made in our horticulture report. I hope that they will keep the matter under close review.
I shall not detain the House much longer, but our report also dealt with the mechanisms and funding for horticultural research and development, recommending in particular that reforms of the funding and accountability of the Horticultural Development Council be considered. For example, we found that much of its money was going towards research into pesticides, which should have been funded from other budgets.
We recommended that the Government should divert some of their applied research funding towards joint funding of near-market research with the HDC. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on any progress that has been made. We are glad to see that MAFF has retained sponsorship of Horticulture Research International—the option universally supported by those who gave evidence to us.
Finally, I shall tell the House about a large mushroom farm in my constituency. The Irish Government's market development fund was misused to establish a mushroom industry in Ireland that progressively strangled our mushroom business, and the company in my constituency has now been sold to an Irish company. The loss to the original owner is quantifiable and should be assessed. It should be the Commission's duty to ensure that repayment is made to the original owners, who suffered from the direct and unfair competition created by the Irish Government.
Madam Speaker, I repeat my gratitude to you for arranging our procedures so as to allow horticultural matters to be aired in this way. I understand that the 252 procedure requires the approval of the Minister and myself if any other hon. Member wishes to intervene, so I make it clear that anyone who wishes to intervene has my approval to do so.
§ Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire)I thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me, and I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) for his all-embracing courtesy. I welcome the opportunity to debate a Select Committee report in the Chamber. After all, an awful lot of work goes into producing such reports, apparently for little return, sometimes.
The difficulty of the investigation resulted from the immense diversity and complexity of the horticulture industry, and the consequent variety of difficulties reported to the Committee. None the less, underlying the investigation were three important factors that occupied our attention.
The first was the trade deficit in horticultural produce, and the scope that that offers for substantial import substitution, which could do nothing but good for our national economy. In that context, I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that the shift in the responsibilities held by Food From Britain was regrettable, although one welcomes the efforts to put something in its place, in the form of the export bureau.
The second main issue is the relative labour intensity of the sector, with its potential for job creation, its seasonal nature and all the implications for horticultural training. Thirdly, there is the capacity of the European Union, while responding to pressures from its widely varying regions, to blunder into regulations that could damage some growers in this country—and no doubt, at times, in other countries too.
The proposal to impose an illogical upper limit on nitrates in lettuce was of particular interest to me, as it would have wiped out many lettuce growers in my constituency and in other areas, notably Cambridgeshire. I was heartened by the united front against the proposal presented on both sides of the House and by the United Kingdom scientific community—an approach also embraced by the Minister's predecessor, who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
I was grateful to the Committee for its energetic questioning on the nitrates issue. My colleagues on the Committee will be glad to know that the Lancashire lettuce growers whom they met have had a good year. Mr. Keith Ball, who runs Lovania Salads and formed the Solfresh marketing group in Tarleton and Hesketh Bank, is one of my constituents whom they met. Last month he won the national salad grower of the year award for the quality of his produce, and he tells me that this year his firm will produce 300,000 boxes of lettuce.
The nitrate threat has not completely gone away, but at least the immediate threat has been allayed. I hope that the Ministry and its Ministers will keep alert, to ensure that the issue does not become a serious threat again.
I shall touch briefly on two or three other matters raised in the report, the first of which concerns employment and training. There is much anxiety about developments in horticultural training in recent years. The Committee's recommendations on the subject were pretty bland, simply asking the Government to keep a weather eye on the 253 matter and keep it "under close review". But the Government could not even go along with that fully, declaring that
The Government has no locus to intervene in those decisions"—that is, decisions on discretionary awards.The take-up of specialist horticultural courses depends, of course, on discretionary awards. Although it is rather outside the scope of the debate, it is important to know that discretionary awards represent one of the aspects of local education authority spending that have been most brutally cut in recent years. Because the awards are non-statutory, obviously they get clobbered, along with other non-statutory education provision. In my county, as with many other local education authorities, the provision has been cut to ribbons.
Local authorities naturally concentrate such awards as they can still afford on students attending local further education colleges, often at the expense of specialist colleges. As the awards shrink in size and number, the problems of specialist colleges are increasing. The example of the Welsh college of horticulture at Northop in Clwyd has been brought to my attention. This year it may not offer any full-time courses in edible cropping at all, and may have to close its glasshouse production unit because of the lack of grants for students to take up places there.
Horticulture workers are in general the lowest paid in agriculture, and they have the least security of employment. Despite that, unlike the agricultural community as a whole, several of the groups whose representatives we interviewed opposed the retention of the Agricultural Wages Board.
That reveals an interesting problem. Seven-day opening by the supermarkets over the past year to 18 months, plus the moves by big retailers to buy more British produce and offer greater security to growers, which we must welcome, should mean a welcome increase in jobs in the horticultural sector. However, those developments also mean seven-day working, and employers in horticulture, both in growing and in packing, are reluctant to pay premiums to their workers to cover the seven-day regime.
One fact uncovered by the Committee's investigations in the preparation of the report was that the flexibility allowed by the 1993 changes to the Agricultural Wages Board secured much of what employers wanted in the way of flexible rostering, but also brought some safeguards for workers. Nevertheless, many employers, especially in mushroom growing, use casual labour at weekends to avoid premium payments. I make no point, at this stage in any case, about employment practice, save to say that the AWB arrangements seem to be both adequate and flexible in regard to the problems and I fully support the Select Committee's recommendations.
The Select Committee also considered representations from the industry about foreign workers. I understand the concerns about the potential use of eastern European casual workers to undermine UK casuals or even permanent workers. However, the National Farmers Union's evidence in particular clearly pointed to the need for more foreign student labour in horticulture during the summer, especially in the south-east. Foreign students form a particular and circumscribed group of about 4,000 workers, the use of which is worth reconsidering. Casual 254 labour among United Kingdom students in European horticulture and viniculture is a long and valuable tradition, and if we can maintain it and at the same time help the horticulture industry by expanding such labour, it can do little but good.
The horticulture industry, specifically vegetable and salad growing, which most interests my area, exists— I hope thrives—without much help, subsidy or grant. Nevertheless, the industry requires Government help from time to time. It cannot, for example, completely sort out the problem of discretionary awards and training. National and local governments must do that.
On an entirely different subject, but continuing the theme of Government help, the Committee noted when it visited the Almeria region of Spain that there was enormous investment in renewing the irrigation system— paid for, as far as we could tell, by the regional government, which was helping growers to compete more effectively with UK and other European growers, and to try to extend the season. By a remarkable coincidence, the following summer in Britain was the most drought-ridden on record. People involved in the industry in my area feel very strongly that there should be grant aid or a taxation incentive to encourage the increased provision of water storage facilities and water preservation and recycling systems in anticipation of global warming causing more and more wonderful, hot, dry summers. It is a serious point, because people waste much water and the horticulture industry is no exception.
It seems odd that the Government have decided to withdraw from the European Union processing and marketing fund from 31 March, years before the expiry of the original deadline. English growers might be seriously disadvantaged in comparison with other EU states, and Scotland and Wales, where I understand the fund is to continue. It is hard to see how that decision coincides with the Government's desire, which I am sure we all share, to correct the trade deficit in fruit and vegetables.
Since I come from an area with an extensive glasshouse industry, I also urge the Government to take a much more positive stance on the Committee's recommendation that the glasshouse industry should be exempted from any possible energy tax from Europe. Historically, our glasshouse industry has been disadvantaged, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned, by artificially lower energy prices for glasshouses in Holland. A similar or greater disadvantage should not be allowed to recur.
Should the wholesale market experience the severe decline that has been forecast, large supermarkets would enjoy a type of monopoly that would damage the horticulture industry. I therefore urge the Government to take a more proactive role in the rationalisation process than their response to the Committee's recommendation suggests.
The potential for the horticulture industry is immense. At present, it employs many workers. The Transport and General Workers Union estimates that there are 36,000 workers, of whom 16,000 are casual. I agree, however, with the view that its contribution to the economies of many areas such as mine is out of all proportion to the number of employees. The sector is extraordinary for its relentless hard work and apparently infinitely flexible enterprise. In recent years and usually in partnership with supermarket chains, it has become the centre of exciting research and development, which is dramatically 255 improving the quality, yield and taste of its products. The standard of many products, such as tomatoes, is capable of challenging produce from much more favoured areas of Europe.
The trade deficit in fruit and vegetables remains at about £3 billion, and much of what we import can and should be grown and processed in this country. To enable our businesses to make strong inroads into that deficit, the Government do not have to play a strong interventionist role, but should be nudging and tweaking the system in ways identified by the Committee and the industry, such as continuing their level of support for Horticulture Research International; bringing on and off-label approvals more into line with most of our EU counterparts at the speed that they seem to be able to organise such things; reconsidering some of the planning obstacles to development, especially in green-belt areas and for horticultural haulage firms, which have particular difficulties with planning regimes; being more proactive in helping to make the marketing system more efficient— the single contact point that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, the Chairman of the Committee, mentioned—and negotiating the redefinition of producer groups to allow for grant aid, where it is available, to EU co-operatives. By such relatively small means, the Government could reap huge economic dividends and help the revitalisation and growth of rural areas.
The Select Committee has done a good job, if modest. All its recommendations should be pursued by the Government with some vigour and urgency.
§ 10.7 am
§ Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and his Committee and congratulate them on an extremely well-researched and valuable report. I am glad that our new procedures give us the opportunity to debate it. I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the imperative need for radical steps to be taken to stop the grotesque wastage of European Union taxpayers' money in horticulture, and indeed the wider agriculture sector.
Like other hon. Members, I have had the good fortune to be able to travel fairly extensively during the years that I have had the privilege to serve in the House. In doing so, I have found that one place only in my constituency is known around the world. It is known in the deep recesses of the African bush and, as I found out only last month, in the huge terraced hill sides of the cultivatable parts of Nepal. Unhappily, that one place is not either the town of Tonbridge or the village of West Mailing, from which my constituency takes its name, but the East Mailing research station, as it was called until a few years ago. The East Mailing research station is Britain's premier research establishment in the fruit sector—both soft and tree-borne fruit. Over many decades throughout the century, it has built up an unrivalled reputation for excellence that extends around the world.
It was, I suppose, inevitable that when the Government came to office in 1979—committed, in my view rightly, to examining the public sector across the board and to asking what functions that had been carried out by the public sector should continue to be done in that way in the future—an establishment like the East Mailing research station should come under scrutiny. That scrutiny took place during the 1980s, a time of considerable difficulty and near trauma for the research station and its staff.
256 At the end of the period of uncertainty, there emerged Horticulture Research International, resulting in a great deal of reorganisation, restructuring, staff changes, and changes in the research programme at East Mailing. The outcome was generally regarded as satisfactory, as it produced the continuation of the research establishment with a new focus on the requirements of the horticulture industry. The decision was strongly supported by the industry—a fact that emerged in the Select Committee's report—and the establishment continued under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Having been through that long and difficult period of uncertainty in the 1980s, the staff at East Mailing not unreasonably hoped and expected that there would then ensue a period of stability and certainty, during which they could continue to build on their remarkable reputation for research and excellence. Sadly, that hope has not been realised so far in the 1990s.
A report on the matter was produced by the Cabinet Office's efficiency unit. I have no doubt that that unit has made many recommendations in the interests of efficiency, but that was not the case in 1994, when it recommended that the research establishment be treated as a branch primarily focused not on agriculture and horticulture, but on pure science. The unit recommended that the sponsorship of the establishment be transferred from MAFF to the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
I was delighted that the Select Committee report threw out that recommendation, and I was equally delighted when the Government—in responding to the Committee's report—also threw out that recommendation. Having disposed of the uncertainty engendered by the Cabinet Office, further uncertainty has now been created by the Government's exercise called the prior options review, which extends to some 40 or 50 Government or Government-sponsored research establishments in different sectors.
News of that further review—not surprisingly—was greeted with great dismay by those who work at East Mailing. We all know that a premium is attached to the continuity of personnel in research establishments, because they are all "people places" where the people involved are fundamental to the value that can be obtained from the establishment's activities. Continuity and certainty are of primary importance. I am not a great horticultural expert, but I believe that if one picks up a plant by its roots, shakes it around and puts it back in the soil, and then redoes that several times, it will not be wholly conducive to the plant's growth. I would suggest to MAFF that that is true also in the case of horticulture research establishments.
I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister comes to make his own recommendations under the prior options review exercise—as he is due to do next month—he will have at the forefront of his mind the critical need to maintain stability and continuity at East Mailing. I earnestly hope that he will decide to leave unchanged the new status of the East Mailing Research Establishment within Horticulture Research International, and that its sponsorship by MAFF will remain.
§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on the specific point that he makes, 257 although I am sure that there is wide sympathy in the House for it. I do not have his knowledge of the East Mailing research station, but I agree that it is important that continuity is maintained in such research establishments.
I share the view of other hon. Members about the value of the report from the Select Committee. We are all grateful to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), and his colleagues not just for the succinct and effective way in which the Committee covered the subject, but for the succinct and effective way in which the Committee Chairman introduced the report, which will enable a number of hon. Members to speak in what would otherwise have been a short debate.
I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you share my nostalgia for the days when one knew when a particular product came on the market—for example, the first asparagus, the first strawberries, the first Cornish early potatoes or daffodils from the Isles of Scilly. Sadly, those days have to some extent gone. I think that we have lost something, as we now get very little seasonal, or even regional, variety. We can have almost anything at any time of the year.
One of the lessons that I hope that we take from the Select Committee report is that careful sourcing of local and regional products by major buyers could reintroduce an element of the previous system to good effect, with an element of freshness, variety and speciality that many of us would relish. It is not just old 'uns like me with my nostalgia who would enjoy that.
The whole issue of sourcing in horticulture is complicated. Clearly the Select Committee has taken great care to obtain the best possible advice on the matter, and we should listen to the recommendations. I saw some figures recently giving the distance travelled by the average vegetable to arrive at a supermarket in the midlands. It is literally hundreds—sometimes thousands—of miles, depending on the particular vegetable and the time of year. The traditional market down the road actually sells fresh fruit and vegetables that have usually travelled less than five miles. The contrast between the sourcing policies of independent traders and big multiples is very stark, and that discrepancy needs to be attended to if we are to deal with the question of import substitution that I believe is rightly at the heart of the Committee's report. I shall come back to that matter in a moment.
We all know that horticulture is exceptionally sensitive to the time of day or year and to climate. Today, somewhere out in the snow, someone will be reckoning on whether it is worth pulling up or picking vegetables. At any time of year—despite the weather—people are having to think carefully by the hour, and even by the minute. Therefore, pressure on the growers is intense. I echo the point that has been made about the ingenuity, enterprise and sheer hard work that those involved in the industry must put in to make a reasonable living against difficult competition.
In those circumstances, we must also be sensitive to the continuity and security of a contract that a grower may get by supplying to a big supermarket chain. The other side of the coin is that that security may lock the grower 258 into a long-term relationship that he may find extremely difficult to break if it becomes necessary to do so. The most secure contract of all was the slave contract. Some growers regret very much the extent to which they are locked into particular organisations.
The report refers, as did the chairman of the Select Committee today, to the need to make sure that our producer organisations are not mistreated, ill treated or unfairly treated by the rules and regulations that may emerge from the European Union and the Council of Ministers. I agree, but we also have much to learn from our competitor countries in the EU in respect of the co-operative principle. As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said before he left the Chamber, we in Cornwall have moved in a small way towards some effective co-operatives. That is also true in other parts of the country.
The core of the Committee's report is the contrast between its advice and the advice of the Government on import substitution. It is apparent from the report that the Committee took most careful evidence from a huge range of extremely well-informed organisations. After exhaustive inquiries, the recommendation of the Select Committee is specific. It is that the reorientation of Food From Britain towards export promotion is misguided and that the organisation should be much more concerned with import substitution. I believe that to be true, and I believe that the industry does, too. Many of us are disappointed that the Government in their, albeit short, reply to the report have not dealt with that specific and well-based recommendation. I hope that the Minister will expand on that matter.
Of course import substitution and export promotion are not mutually exclusive. That is acknowledged in the report, but paragraphs 88 and 89 make a good case for the issue to be most thoroughly reviewed in the light of the most recent advice. The report states that we should not simply rely on previous views, evidence and data. I hope that the Minister will at least tell us today that Food From Britain is to be commissioned to carry out an appraisal of the advantages of reorientation along the lines suggested in the Committee's recommendation. Such an appraisal should, of course, take into account what would be cost-effective. If reorientation in the longer term necessitates some increase in resources to make the organisation more effective, I hope that that will also be possible.
One issue is not touched on at any length in the Committee's report, but it is extremely important in many parts of the country. The amount of casual labour used in the industry has been referred to briefly. A substantial proportion of the labour is casual. The treatment of casual labour for the purposes of social security benefits causes a considerable problem in many parts of the country. It is one of the difficulties that face many vegetable growers in Lincolnshire. It has been a long tradition in Kent that casual labour provides the hop growers with their main source of assistance. In Cornwall we have had major problems in recent years, especially in the flower fields.
One must bear it in mind that in many of the areas to which I refer not only does horticulture provide great employment potential but there is high joblessness and women in particular find it extremely difficult to find part-time work. It is important that we try to find a way out of an absurd mare's nest of red tape. I am sure that that concern is shared throughout the House.
259 We must also arrive at a simple system that prevents fraud as far as humanly possible. We all know that there has been fraud. My experience and that of the National Farmers Union is that the complexity of the present rules encourages rather than reduces fraud. Therefore, we must find a simpler system. At present, if a picker in Lincolnshire, Kent or Cornwall does some short-term picking because the time of year or the daylight hours or the nature of the crop—as in the case of early daffodils— make that possible, just one day's picking may exclude that individual from days and days of not only direct unemployment benefit but everything else that goes with it, such as housing benefit or council tax benefit.
The result is that a young woman, for example, whose only employment may be picking finds it impossible to take up that employment. The regulations have forced local labour out of many pickers' fields. As a result, many growers have perforce had to rely on gangmasters from other parts of the country or even other parts of Europe to provide gangs of pickers. That cannot be a sensible solution. It is damaging to local employment prospects.
I have made representations to the Department of Social Security, the Department of Employment, as it then was, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I note from the report of the horticulture committee to the annual meeting of the NFU yesterday that negotiations between the union and the Department for Education and Employment have continued for months and months, but small progress is now being made. I hope that the Minister might be able to give us some examples of what is intended.
The NFU suggested a simple pilot cheque book scheme. I understand that that was ruled out for one reason or another, but somehow we have to make it easier for local people to give their casual labour. Otherwise, an all too sad sight in Cornwall in the past couple of years will recur year after year. Last March, I found myself driving past a wonderful golden field full of daffodils in full flower. That was a disaster. It might have been good for the tourists coming down to Cornwall for an early spring holiday, but it meant that some grower had lost his whole crop. When I asked why, I was told that it was because the grower could not get local pickers for love nor money because none of the local people could afford to do the job.
It would be the most appalling example of failure to deal with import substitution if we had more and more fields of Cornish daffodils in full flower and the Welsh had to import their daffodils from overseas for St. David's day.
§ Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)Time permits me to intervene only briefly. I do so to congratulate the Select Committee on an excellent report. I read it soon after leaving ministerial office last August and I found it interesting and extremely knowledgeable.
I am interested to follow the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). He speaks with some knowledge on horticultural matters. He represents a good chunk of the area to the south of the Ribble, adjacent to my constituency. I shall inherit four of the wards that he now represents under the boundary changes. In addition to my existing constituency activities in glasshouse and vegetable cropping, I will take on some of the growers 260 whom the hon. Gentleman represents. Like him, I know about horticulture from my experience in South Ribble. I also know about it from when I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and had responsibility for food.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about the Irish mushrooming operation which sends vehicles all the way through Northern Ireland to come across to this part of the United Kingdom, with all the consequences to which he referred.
I am impressed by the quality of the activities performed by the growers in my present and future constituencies. They are a remarkable bunch, as my right hon. Friend said, and an independent bunch. They work extremely hard at all hours of the day and night and different periods in the year to produce the food that we need. I am in the process of carrying out a survey among all the growers in my constituency and nearby to find out what their concerns are. The House will not be surprised to learn that many of the points which the Committee investigated are dear to their hearts. We have heard about the import substitution argument. Certainly, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire will confirm, the problems relating to the import of Spanish and Moroccan tomatoes, nitrates in lettuces and what growers perceive as unfairness about what they call the unlevel playing field— the growing industry in Europe—require that something must be done about them.
I am sure that the report will provoke the Government to do what I know my hon. Friend the Minister has begun to do, and what his predecessor, my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was doing, and fight our corner strongly in Europe to ensure that the growing industry in Lancashire, about which I am concerned, and in other parts of the country, is protected and developed. The capacity and potential of the industry is enormous. If it is properly treated by the Government and by the European Union, its ingenuity and its capacity for hard work, new marketing techniques and exploiting new varieties of crops is such that it can build on its reputation as the best producer of those crops in this country, as well as in the rest of Europe and even further afield.
I am pleased to be able to speak about horticulture and add my congratulations to the Committee for an intelligent, exhaustive report to which the Government's response has so far been so good. There has been unanimity across the House on the matter. If the unanimity of commitment to the industry continues, I suspect that the growers in my present and future constituency will have cause to thank the Select Committee for its report and the Government for their response.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)Tucked away in paragraph 95 of the Select Committee report, students of development and agriculture will find an especially interesting passage on which I should like to comment. The Committee states:
we consider that the EU can provide substantial assistance by judicious relaxing of the terms of entry for South African exports of horticultural produce: whether by association with the Lome Convention or under a separate trade agreement. Any such agreement should be absolutely dependent upon conditions assuring that no disruption is caused to EU markets, taking account of the 261 [Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours] respective marketing seasons of European and southern hemisphere produce. There may also be advantages to British agriculture in freer trade with South Africa".I quote that because, during the inquiry, which I joined quite late on, we visited South Africa—in somewhat controversial conditions, if I remember rightly.There was an important underlying characteristic to our visit. While we were there to consider the implications for British horticulture of developments in South Africa— we examined its extremely efficient single-channel system for marketing its products—some of us went with the additional agenda of examining what was happening in South African agriculture and horticulture after the major political changes there. I concluded, as did some hon. Members of all parties, that, to some extent, horticulture held the key for development in South Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and I visited Khayelitsha, a township of some 700,000 people outside Cape Town in the middle of the area in which the South African deciduous fruit industry is based. While we were there, we were given a little document, which stated:
Today Khayelitsha is the fastest growing residential area within the greater Cape Town area. Current projections put the population at one million by 2000.Current estimates give the population as some 700,000 in an area of only 6,500 acres. That is the nature and scale of the problem in South Africa. I cannot describe the conditions that existed in that township, but we know that South Africa has huge potential for horticultural development as long as markets are opened up worldwide and it is given the access that it requires.Unless we are prepared to open up markets—and in particular the European Union market—to the products that can come from South Africa when they are out of season in the European Union, and unless there are parallel developments in other parts of the South African agriculture and horticulture economy, there will inevitably be trouble again in South Africa. We have it in our hands in the European Community to bring about those changes.
In paragraph 95 of the Select Committee report, we comment:
South Africa is also seeking the closest possible association with the Lomé Convention: the European Commission has been mandated by the Council to negotiate possible South African membership of the Convention and, in the longer term, a free trade agreement. COPA/COGECA has fiercely resisted this move, claiming that the EU's processed fruit and vegetable sector might face extinction.We have a choice to make: either we concede on that front and the developed nations of the world—especially Britain, in the context of Europe—argue the case for greater penetration of our markets by South African produce, or we pay the inevitable price in future.
§ Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, over the years, Britain has been very interested in doing trade with South Africa and, in Europe, we have led the cause for improving the conditions of that country? Is not the stumbling block, as we have heard already in the debate, the other European nations?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThat is absolutely right.
262 I should like to take up my point in a future debate, perhaps on development. I understand that we are short of time. I shall resume my seat, having put my case that we should open our eyes to what is required.
§ Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)I also congratulate the Select Committee on producing this excellent report. Unfortunately, because time is so limited, I must confine my remarks to certain aspects of the proposed new EU fruit and vegetable regime and to research and development.
The Minister knows the strength of feeling in Britain about the EU's spending taxpayers' money on buying certain surplus crops and then destroying the bulk of them. That scheme has led to massive fraud and overproduction. The Select Committee was right, when talking of apples, to recommend that the Government pursue vigorously their policy of ending all fruit and vegetable withdrawal payments. When the Commission made proposals for reform in August 1994, they were greeted as a step in the right direction. The Select Committee supported the Commission's proposals to reduce withdrawal prices to an uneconomic level over a four-year period and wanted the eventual abolition of withdrawals. The Government agreed with that.
One major difficulty for British growers has been that payments are made only through producer associations, of which there are fewer in Britain than elsewhere. For that reason, the Select Committee made the important recommendation that producer organisations eligible to receive money should be defined so as not to leave Britain at a disadvantage. That was agreed by the Government.
To sum up the Select Committee's position, it wanted an end to withdrawal payments, supported making them uneconomic over a four-year period and, if taxpayers' money was to be scattered around, wanted it to be easier for British growers to get their hands on some of the loot. That is what it wanted; what it got was another matter entirely.
Their credibility in Europe being nil, the British Government achieved nothing in the discussions on the proposals studied by the Select Committee. If anything, they went backwards. The draft Council regulations on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables and in processed fruits and vegetables, adopted by the Commission on 4 October 1995, were extremely disappointing from the British point of view. They were a complete let-down for British producers and consumers, to say nothing of the taxpayer. That general view is expressed in the report, dated 19 December, of the Select Committee of the European Communities in the other place. The report said that, in the evidence of witnesses:
Aspects of the proposals were welcomed as steps in the right direction but the overall tone was one of disappointment that there was no signal of the end of withdrawal and criticism of the proposal".The Committee concluded:the perpetuation of the intervention system and the enhancement of the role of Producer Organisations … are not … the right way forward.Hon. Members should read that report to understand how matters went from bad to worse between the communication of August 1994 and the draft regulations of October 1995. First, the proposed transitional period had been extended from four to five years. Will the Minister tell us how the Government allowed that to 263 happen? Secondly, the withdrawal system may be extended by a proposal to allow producer organisations to use funds to buy in produce that is not covered by the intervention scheme. Thirdly, to quote the report:None of our witnesses have been convinced that the reduction in the level of withdrawal compensation by 15 per cent. over five years would reduce the compensation to a non-remunerative level.How does that leave our Select Committee report? Its recommendation, which has been accepted by the Government, was:We support the Commission's proposal to reduce withdrawal prices to an uneconomic level for producers over a four-year period and would like to see the eventual abolition of withdrawals.As the proposals have become regulations that will, during a five-year period, reduce the payments—but not, in the view of informed witnesses, to uneconomic levels—is it any wonder that people feel let down? The position in relation to producer organisations is, if anything, worse.In the original proposals, the Commission laid down that, to be able to receive payments, producer organisations must effectively market a high percentage— 80 per cent.—of the marketable produce of their members. Although British producers thought that 80 per cent. was far too much, the percentage was raised to 90 per cent. in the draft regulations. Worse still, the producer must place 90 per cent. of his total—perhaps varied—produce with a single producer organisation. How on earth did that happen? Even imagined benefits are disappearing under re-examination.
Witnesses in the other place expressed concern that the destruction of good produce will continue under the proposed regulations and that, despite the creation of a corps of inspectors, massive fraud will continue. That would be a disgrace. The Minister and his colleagues must do better in looking after our interests in the negotiations on the draft regulations than they have in the discussion on the communication.
I should like clarification on one other matter. In paragraph 29 of their response, the Government question the Select Committee's support for the creation of a forum, which would include growers, customers and scientists, to debate the research strategy for horticulture. The Government have said that they intend to build on existing mechanisms that give a clear focus on priority matters and bring together the key players. In his reply, will the Minister explain what he has in mind?
When I recently visited the headquarters of Horticulture Research International, people there clearly said that they do not want to face any further changes as a consequence of the prior options review. As they see it, their work is well focused on an industry with a clearly defined mission, and it is going well. They argue that the organisation is already close to being privatised or quasi-privatised and they want to avoid losing key sites and work to other organisations.
I am sorry that there is insufficient time to do this report justice. I only hope that some of the Select Committee's drive and sense of purpose will rub off on to this feeble and ineffectual Government.
§ The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell)I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important issue on the Floor of the House. I am also honoured to be 264 the first Minister to take advantage of the new arrangements to debate Select Committee reports, even if—as some hon. Members will know—it means missing the start of the annual Bramley and spoon race that may even now be taking place on College green. With luck, and because of our arrangements, it may be possible for us to be, metaphorically, in at the kill.
I am extremely grateful to the Select Committee for its efforts in producing a wide-ranging and considered report on an extremely diverse industry, for the tone of its report and of this debate and for the understanding that has so far made it possible, in a short time, to accommodate seven hon. Members. That has been extremely encouraging.
I thought that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) put it extraordinarily well when he said that the Select Committee has done a good, if modest, job. It occurred to me that that was a motto that one could properly apply to horticulture as an industry: it does an excellent job and it does not make a fuss about it. Its achievements should be acknowledged and problems should be actively and sympathetically considered.
§ Mr. HarrisIn relation to the problems facing the industry, my hon. Friend is of course aware of the great concern in west Cornwall about Dutch seed potatoes, which are probably infected with brown rot. I have heard reports that what growers had feared has happened: the potatoes delivered to at least one farm have been found to be infected with brown rot. Will my hon. Friend comment on this situation? It is a very important point.
§ Mr. BoswellI must acknowledge that the situation is serious, and growers' concerns are understandable. The Government supplement the tests that already take place in the country of origin, the Netherlands, with our own, both of which are drawn to the attention of the European plant health authorities. As a result of those tests, out of 300 samples, we had suspected infection in one case of stock. We have now confirmed that it is brown rot and the potatoes are being destroyed. We shall continue to exercise the utmost vigilance on the industry's behalf.
As hon. Members have raised so many detailed matters of concern, I shall endeavour to reply briefly to as many of them as I can. If anything has been overlooked, we shall certainly take account of what has been said in the debate and, if appropriate, reply in correspondence. I am anxious to get on with the major points that have been made.
The introduction to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) clearly encapsulated the report and the main matters of interest. He was concerned about the organisation of marketing systems, about which I shall say a little more later in relation to the domestic situation. He was also concerned about reform of the European Union regime. He was concerned about nitrates in lettuce—a matter that also exercised Conservative and Opposition members of the Agriculture Committee. We have worked very hard to achieve an acceptable solution—we have introduced some changes in the European approach and a derogation for our growers in terms of domestic trade. We shall continue to work on that matter, and scientific evidence will have to be produced for a continuing restriction to be justified.
My hon. Friend also mentioned his concern about the Irish mushroom scheme, the market development fund. The House may be interested to know that approximately 265 85 per cent. of the moneys that have been improperly paid out have already been recovered by the Commission. Any compensation to individual growers appears to be a matter for private law between the grower, the Commission and the Irish Government. If I may, I shall write to my hon. Friend about that.
My hon. Friend mentioned one of the report's major recommendations about the improvement of statistics. We have certainly taken that issue on board. We must find a balance between making them not too intrusive, but as effective as possible. At the European level, we are discussing the issue with Eurostat.
Lest we overlook them, it might be useful if I deal with the two recommendations of the Select Committee which the Government felt unable to accept, and to which hon. Members have referred. The first relates to funding for Food from Britain, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned. Three years ago, we carried out an independent review that took evidence from a wide cross-section of the industry and considered all areas of activity. We decided, broadly, that the Food from Britain initiative should concentrate on exports. That approach has been successful. While the Government continue to provide funding of £5 million per annum, the level of funding from industry is also increasing—it rose by 17 per cent. last year. That would suggest that industry endorses what is being done and that the new focus is appreciated.
In view of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I should make it clear that a specific interest in the Food From Britain initiative is speciality foods. Perhaps with a little ingenuity, his local growers could involve themselves in that sector.
§ Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)We understood that Food From Britain had been asked to focus on value-added products as opposed to fresh products. The Government were criticised for their response to the Select Committee in that they had not made such a request. Can my hon. Friend confirm whether that emphasis on value-added products has now been put on Food From Britain?
§ Mr. BoswellThere is a clear interest in the export of food and drink, which is handled by my ministerial colleague. I shall reflect on the question and give my hon. Friend a considered reply on Food From Britain's exact current remit.
The Government were unable to accept the Committee's recommendation about pesticides— on notification to growers ahead of the type of problems that we encountered with organophosphates in carrots. We understand growers' concerns, but we have an obligation in the interests of food safety to release information as soon as possible to all those with an interest who may have a need for it. We have been considering the possibility of giving a day or so's notice to allow interested parties to prepare a considered response. Hon. Members will be familiar with the type of arrangements that apply through the usual channels in this place, but we must find the right balance to meet the occasion.
I was interested in the tenor of today's debate in relation to employment and training. As one who used to be a practitioner in horticulture, I understand the 266 importance of a labour force. The Committee referred to the possible exclusion of horticulture from the Agricultural Wages Order 1994, but it would be for the Agricultural Wages Board, under present legislation, to alter the structure if it so wished.
The main concern has been about seasonal workers. In relation to United Kingdom workers and those from the European Economic Area, there is no difficulty establishing who is working here. Seasonal workers from outside the Community are covered by the seasonal workers scheme. We have recently announced some changes to that scheme, which I hope will make it more flexible. We continue to discuss it with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall expressed some concern about the employment of casual workers from the United Kingdom. He will be aware, as he rightly said, that it is a problem as much for the benefit structure as for the tax structure. I have no definite news to offer him or the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) except to say that discussions continue at a technical level. Their concerns will be drawn to the attention of the relevant Departments and will reinforce our efforts to reach an acceptable solution.
Hon. Members will be aware of my previous involvement in further and higher education. I have seen both sides of the argument and I can assure the House that, even if I have no direct locus in the discretionary awards, which are as they are described and the responsibility of local authorities, that does not mean that this Minister does not take a keen interest in a satisfactory resolution of some of the problems that have been identified.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursUsing his knowledge, and his friendship with Baroness Chalker, will the Minister bring home to her the need to ensure that aid to South Africa for education, in particular about horticulture, is channelled where it will benefit black students and not just white ones?
§ Mr. BoswellI shall bear that point in mind. The Government broadly support liberalisation of trade with South Africa and are therefore able to agree with the terms of the Select Committee's recommendation, which contains a number of important safeguards for British growers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his genuine concern about a matter that concerns many of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare advocated—as does the report of the Committee of which he is Chairman—a more effective system of marketing top fruit. In many ways, the Committee's considerations have proceeded in parallel with those of the Government. We have, therefore, been able to agree readily with the Committee.
We have been able to make a number of structural changes in relation to the English Fruit consortium and the work of the Fresh Produce Consortium, which goes rather wide of the work of English Apples and Pears. Much is happening to meet the difficulty of local sourcing. I am also aware of the concern about imports of soft fruits from east and central Europe. A trade interest exists and we need to have proper discussions to ensure that trade is not disrupted. We look for a proper measure of liberalisation in the adaption of the European agreements.
§ Mrs. Ann WintertonWill my hon. Friend say something about the state of the wholesale markets? It is 267 important that choice should be available within marketing arrangements so that produce from this country is not just sold through the big supermarkets but is available to independent traders and caterers. The Strathclyde report made some recommendations, but does my hon. Friend agree that a catalyst is needed to bring about necessary and ordered change in the wholesale market sector to ensure that better hygiene standards, better quality and a better service are delivered to its customers?
§ Mr. BoswellSome of those recommendations are a matter for decision by the trade itself. A new code of practice will be introduced on hygiene. It would be possible to promote the wholesale markets. We cannot, however, provide the resources centrally to do that; the initiative must come from the trade, but we will offer it our encouragement to restructure.
§ Mrs. WintertonWill my hon. Friend give way on that point?
§ Mr. BoswellMy hon. Friend must forgive me, but I cannot give way. I may respond to her question in more detail later.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) mentioned the European context. Of course we believe that the present regime is wasteful. We do not believe that the Commission's current proposals for reform are satisfactory. The hon. Lady did something of a disservice to the Government by suggesting that we have not resisted those proposals vigorously. It is precisely because we have resisted them vigorously that we have not settled for anything. Substantive negotiations are about to start and we will argue the interests of British growers and the British taxpayer, which in this case happily coincide, vigorously and firmly. Our argument will be reinforced by today's debate.
I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said about East Mailing research station, and I endorse his remarks about its quality and excellence. We must take research seriously; that is one reason why we provided £42 million in capital funds to restructure Horticulture Research International. We cannot avoid the need for a review from time to time to get the best possible value for the taxpayer, but the points that my right hon. Friend made so eloquently will be taken into account in forming opinions in our prior options review.
The whole House should acknowledge our debt to the Select Committee for a very constructive report. It has done a service to the House and reflected the horticulture industry, which deserves acknowledgment and serves the nation well.
§ Sir Jerry WigginWith leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have but one minute to thank my hon. Friends and Opposition Members for contributing to the debate. We have all learnt a good deal this morning, not only about horticulture but about our procedures. I am sorry that not all hon. Members who wanted to speak could get in, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to debate the report. I hope that other Select Committees will be able to take advantage of this procedure, as we have this morning.