HL Deb 29 November 1989 vol 513 cc494-8

7.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th October be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1988–89].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these orders are being presented in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. The first order, the Apple and Pear Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1989, dissolves the Apple and Pear Development Council. The second, the Apple and Pear Research Council Order 1989, establishes a new council. As its name suggests, its principal responsibility will be to collect and spend a levy for research and development in the apple and pear sector.

Your Lordships will remember that the council came into being in 1966, the first appointments being made in February 1967. The idea for a council had emerged in discussions between the NFU and MAFF after the winding up of the Horticulture Marketing Council in 1963 and its prime purpose was to promote home-grown apples and pears. In 1980 the council's functions were expanded to include promoting or undertaking scientific research and to provide for the Kingdom quality scheme. As we reach today's situation I should like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the APDC and all its members, both past and present, for the considerable part that they have played.

I now turn to the quinquennial review process which has led us to propose the orders which are before your Lordships today. These orders are made under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, Section 8(3) of which requires the Minister at five-yearly intervals to consult the council and organisations representing those trading and working in the industry as to whether the council should continue in being and if any amendments to the development council order are necessary.

This year's review began in January and the respresentative organisations were asked to submit their responses by mid-March. In addition to representations from those bodies consulted formally, the then Minister received a large number of representations from individual growers and others. Most organisations consulted were in favour of the APDC continuing. A poll of all registered growers was also undertaken. It showed that of the 86 per cent. of growers who voted (representing 93 per cent. of total area) only 35.9 per cent. (representing 49 per cent. of the area) were in favour of the continuation of the council.

Exceptionally, at the urgent request of growers' organisations, a second poll was held by them in May on possible modifications to the APDC as an alternative to winding up completely. Views were sought on the possibility of confining the activities primarily to R&D funding. Although this poll did not form part of the statutory review process, it was conducted in the same way and among the same growers. The result showed that, although the majority of growers believed that the commercial functions of the APDC should in future be handled by the industry itself, they would support a new statutory council exercising primarily R&D functions.

Taking into account all of the representations received and the results of the two polls, the then Minister concluded that the APDC should be wound up and that a new council should be set up, principally to promote and finance R&D in apple and pear growing. That explains the background of today's orders.

The Apple and Pear Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1989 provides for the winding up and dissolution of the APDC. It is proposed that the dissolution order shall come into force seven days after it is made. Although the council has since the announcement of the Minister's decision to wind it up taken steps to run down its activities substantially, there will inevitably be some remaining work; for example, the preparation of final accounts; which must be completed before it is finally dissolved.

Article 3 of the order provides for the property, rights and liabilities of the council to be transferred to the Minister. It further permits any legal proceedings to which the council is party to be continued by or in relation to the Minister and for the Minister to pursue any requirements imposed by the council which remain unfulfilled on the dissolution date.

Article 4 concerns the format and presentation of the council's accounts. As I have mentioned, the council has taken steps to reduce the level of its activities by, for example, making all of its full-time staff redundant, with the exception of its secretary, and I am pleased to say that current forecasts indicate that on dissolution there may be a modest financial surplus. Nevertheless, the Act requires a dissolution order to provide for the imposition of a charge to raise any amount by which the council's liabilities exceed its assets. This is contained in Article 5 of the dissolution order but I should repeat that the latest forecast is that the APDC should be more than able to meet its known liabilities.

Article 6 of the order provides for the Minister to pass on any surplus moneys to a new development council or for use for the other purposes for which they were originally collected. We intend to pass the surplus to the proposed Apple and Pear Research Council.

The provisions for the settlement of the council's debts and liabilities are contained in Article 7 of the draft order which also sets a time limit of three months during which creditors shall notify the Minister of any claims.

That concludes my remarks on the dissolution order, and I shall now turn to the Apple and Pear Research Council Order 1989, which I shall call the new order. Much of the new order is identical to the one under which the APDC was established so I do not propose to go through it article by article. Basically it sets up a new development council under the 1947 Act with powers to raise an annual charge on commercial apple and pear growers to be spent primarily on funding research and development.

Under the new order the definition of "apple or pear tree" (that is, those trees on which the annual charge will be payable) has been widened to include all trees irrespective of age. Previously a charge was paid only on trees of more than five years' growth after budding or grafting. This is a change proposed by the industry. We believe it is appropriate because apple and pear trees now come into bearing much sooner than they did when the APDC was first set up. Secondly, R&D should benefit growers of trees of any age; and thirdly it will simplify matters both for the new council and for the growers.

The membership of the new council has been set at nine against the APDC's 14. There has been wide consulation with representative organisations in the industry on this point and the proposed composition is the one which most nearly meets their suggestions. A major concern was to strike a balance between economy and effectiveness. As required by the Act, those representing growers and workers in the industry constitute an overall majority of members, with growers as the largest single group.

The maximum rate of charge provided for in the order is £25 per hectare compared with the £65 per hectare in the APDC order. This reflects the much narrower range of functions to be assigned to the new council. The actual rate of levy in the first year will probably be lower than the maximum, at a rate to be determined by the council with the approval of the Minister.

Those are the new points in the body of the order. The other articles are concerned with the detail of the council's operations and the requirements for growers to register, and I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time in going through them in detail.

I would, however, like to mention briefly the schedules to the order. Like me, I am sure that few would not be fascinated by the delightful list of cider apple and perry pear varieties contained in Schedule 1 ranging from Cider Lady's Finger and Slack My Girdle to Golden Balls and Stinking Bishop, to name but a few varieties. Incidentally I have just discovered immortality at last. Apparently there is a variety of apple called Trumpington. I gather it is an American variety frequently confused with another called Rambo—make of that what you will.

Schedule 2 lists the functions assigned to the new council. The first four are concerned with the council's R&D functions. The fifth will enable the council to act as a spokesman for the top fruit industry on technical matters. Schedule 3 is concerned with the proceedings of the council and specifies such matters as the quorum for its meetings, use of its seal and so on.

Finally, I should draw your Lordships' attention to the timing of this order. It is proposed that it should come into force eight days after it is made. This means that the new Apple and Pear Research Council will come into being the day after the dissolution of the APDC. In accordance with the terms of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, a review of the council's activities will be undertaken after it has been in existence for three years. It remains only for me to commend these orders to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th October be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1988–89].—(Baroness Trumpington.)

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has explained these orders. From this side of the House we welcome them in principle. The noble Baroness will know that I have always been a supporter of the principle of development councils.

As with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I wondered why the Apple and Pear Development Council had to be wound up, only to be replaced by a development council called the Apple and Pear Research Council. I do not know why the original body should not remain in existence with revised functions. However, there is no doubt a good legal reason.

I wished to raise some points of detail which the noble Baroness in fact answered in her explanation.

I should like to ask her whether the Government agree with the strictures of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which concluded that some parts of both orders might not be intra vires. If the joint committee is correct, what will happen to the orders? Will the research council still be able to operate?

Like the noble Baroness, I was interested in the remarkable list of names of varieties. I wonder what would happen if one crossed a Bloody Turk with a Fair Maid of Devon, and much more interesting would be the outcome of a cross in the perry pears between Iron Sides and Margaret.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Lord and I could have a lovely time with a few more of the names in that list. I am most grateful for his remarks. I have a very long explanation on intra vires which I shall put in an envelope and send to him.

On Question, Motion agreed to.