APPENDIX 4
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Chief Executive, Horticulture Research International (D5)
Thank you for providing us with copies of the
three memoranda on the subject of Horticulture Research International,
received by the Agriculture Committee from the National Hop Association
of England Limited. The National Farmers' Union of England and
Wales, and the Commercial Horticultural Association.
My colleagues and I were pleased to read the
supportive memorandum from the NFU and have no further comments
to make on this document. In contrast I think it is appropriate
that we respond to the NHA submission with an additional memorandum
which may help explain to the Committee some of the background
and the likely motivation and rationale behind the points raised.
This is one of two additional pieces of information requested
by (and promised to) the Select Committee (Questions 40-41 refer).
I think the criticisms of HRI's management history
and the skills and role of Board members raised by the CHA are
adequately dealt with by Mr Siddall's responses to Questions 54
and 74. In Question 54, we were asked "Are they hostile witnesses?":
I have subsequently been informed by colleagues at HRI that our
previous New Business Development Director withdrew HRI membership
of CHA which caused some discontent.
In my response to Question 55, you will note
that I offered to provide a paper with further details of our
long-standing constitutional impedimenta. I therefore enclose
a copy of a recent paper prepared for MAFF which may or may not
be of assitance to the Committee.
I also note that the Chairman requested sight
of a copy of our new DRAFT Corporate Plan (1999-2004) which is
currently being reviewed by MAFF. A copy is enclosed [not printed].
As requested, further details of our financial
projections (Questions 87 and 91 refer) are contained in Table
4.2.1 in this DRAFT Corporate Plan. I also enclose two additional
Tables of financial data; the first expands on the projected income
and expenditure accounts for each of the HortiTechTM Business
Units presently in operation, and can be related to Table 4.2.1
in the DRAFT Corporate Plan. The second table summarises what
we hope is the worst-case future financial situation for HRI,
modelled in the light of correspondence from MAFF in December
1999, which advised us that our Commission income may fall by
2-5 per cent per annum until FY 2003-2004. The coloured graph
which comprised Annex A to the original HRI memorandum was based
on these (and past) values. We are in detailed discussions with
MAFF at the moment regarding cost-saving options to accommodate
these stark financial projections.
Questions 158; 159; 161-167 from Mr Marsden
focused on our Quality Assurance Schemes and TQM policy. I am
able to enclose an additional memorandum explaining the past and
present status of QA issues at HRI.
Again, may I thank you and the Committee for
their effort and interest in Horticulture Research International.
17 May 2000
| 
