---

Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether I may ask a question. I think I must have misunderstood her. Did she suggest that the retail trade should shoulder none of the charges for the development council?

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the proposal as it stands in this order is complicated. It can indeed be open to abuse and we have managed very well without it so far. I should like to know from the Minister why it is needed.

4.50 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I love the noble Baroness smiling at me. She was in fact saying no, the retail trade should pay nothing towards the council. She does it very charmingly, but it goes without saying that I think she is totally wrong.

I support the order, not least because I am, with my son, a potato producer. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Carter, when the whole question of dismantling the PMB was discussed and voted on during the passage of the Agriculture Act 1993 and the necessary affirmative order moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas in 1996. Now, four years later, I repeat my plea.

It was accepted by my noble friends on the Front Bench in both cases that the development council will be frustrated in what it hopes to achieve if the present unlevel playing field continues, with all other European Union countries having the ability to give surreptitious aid to their producers. It is essential in order to ensure the future of our industry that fair competition goes hand in hand with the development board.

I remind noble Lords that any form of support or quota was taken away from British growers in the 1993 Act, but not so--I repeat--for our continental competitors. As an aside, I should perhaps say that the 1996 potato crop came to a staggering £500 million less than the 1995 crop. We do not need any more "bumps", as my noble friend Lord Lucas said in 1996, caused by the national governments of our continental neighbours being able to support their own producers.

3 Feb 1997 : Column 1465

What action will the Government take to ensure, as they promised in 1993 and 1996, a light-weight European potato scheme with as level a playing field as possible? If, as it seems, we are incapable of bringing any sense to the workings of the common agricultural policy, will the Government promise to undertake an investigation into the state of competition in the potato market, including state aids, and make that report public, in particular to Parliament?

In 1973 I was persuaded to vote to join the European Union; I believed it would encourage a common market. Sadly, it appears that I was wrong and it has become an uncommon muddle. The potato market has the potential of being a perfect example.

4.52 p.m.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend the Minister can clarify one point for me. Article 9, paragraph (6), states:

"Where two or more persons jointly carry on business".

I presume that refers to people acting under paragraphs (3) and (4). I had in mind a fairly large farm or family who are both growers and also acting as "first purchasers" under this order. Either today or later perhaps my noble friend can give me some guidance on what paragraph (6) means, especially the last phrase,

"shall ... be treated as constituting a single person".

4.53 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question of my noble friend in connection with this Potato Industry Development Council Order. Although the constitution is set out under Article 4, I am concerned in respect of the ordinary consumer.

Many people, when they go to a shop to buy potatoes, want to know what is the best potato for boiling, making chips, roasting or baking, as the case may be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, we are dealing with retailers. My problem is that most supermarkets regard the potato as just that--a potato. They cannot give advice as to what kind it is. I am fond of potatoes and like eating them. But quite often the only place I can obtain information about them is from the little farm shops which can tell me--I do not put them in any order of preference--whether I should buy Golden Wonder, Maris Piper or Pentland Squire. Those shops are the only places I can obtain the information.

I do not see anything in the order which gives the encouragement and help that the ordinary purchasers--all of us or our wives--need to strengthen an extremely important industry and one that I should like to see flourishing.

4.55 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I join the list of people speaking in the gap. My name was meant to be included.

I suppose one must welcome the order, but the fact is that throughout Britain our potato farmers are suffering the worst year that they have had for a long time and they are regretting the demise of the Potato Marketing

3 Feb 1997 : Column 1466

Board. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said, unless we have some reasonable guarantee of a level playing field with the Continent, without help the industry will have to operate in a manner which, even if farmers are super-efficient, is not likely to make them prosperous under the present conditions.

Can the Minister tell me how much money the maximum of 25p a tonne would raise? It does not appear to me to be a lot. If one does all that is required, £40 per hectare, plus 25p a tonne, is not a great deal of money. One is expected to promote our export markets and conduct research into the growing and handling of potatoes and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, one has to reassure the public that potatoes are healthy and good to eat. All that takes a great deal of money. I do not believe there is a ready answer. But it is important at the present time to reassure the public that our methods are healthy; that we do not leave residues and cause problems with chemicals and all the things the environmentalists constantly, and rightly, complain about. If the marketing board is to do the research and to provide an explanation, it will need a lot of money. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

4.57 p.m.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. In this debate we may have a little less excitement than we had in the previous debate this afternoon.

From these Benches we generally welcomed the order in the debates on the 1993 Act. I made it clear on behalf of my colleagues that if the PMB was to be wound up, we would support a potato industry development council to fulfil the important functions of research and development, of collecting statistics, of generic promotion, of developing exports and of guaranteeing the basic quality standards.

In relation to promotion, I was pleased to see in the first schedule to the order that paragraph 3 promotes,

"the production and marketing of standard products";

and paragraph 8 undertakes

"arrangements for better acquainting the public in the United Kingdom with the goods and services supplied by the industry and methods of using them".

In discussions on previous development council orders we had problems with "promotion". It seems now that the Government are happy, under the 1947 Act, that promotion can be included.

When the order refers to "generic" promotion, can the PIDC, under European regulations, use its funds to promote the British potato or can it only promote potatoes as a whole? Can we isolate the British potato for generic promotion?

At the risk of upsetting my noble friend Lady Nicol, I have long supported the concept of development councils in agriculture. Agriculture is divided into small units; development work is for the benefit of all farmers and therefore all should pay. The only way to do that is through some form of compulsory levy.

3 Feb 1997 : Column 1467

Perhaps I may say in passing that it is interesting to compare the attitude of this Government with that of the previous Administration led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. We had a number of attempts to try to get development councils. She saw them as just another quango and compulsory levies as just another tax. How things change!

I wish to make a final point about the potato regime itself and take up an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. We support, as do the Government, the principle of a lightweight potato regime in Europe, which is also supported by the Commission. It would be our wish to secure such a regime. But if we are not able to get the agreement of other member states, it will not happen. We should be clear about that. That will not surprise the Government, as they have been in exactly that situation with BSE for the past 10 months.

I wish to make two small points of detail. How will the development council know that a producer's hectarage has increased? Will it have to rely entirely on the producer informing the PIDC? There is a scheme in Article 8(4), but it is not entirely clear how the PIDC will know that the hectarage has increased. Can the Minister make absolutely clear what is to happen to the assets of the PMB? Does he have any information as to their likely size? What are they likely to amount to? Do the assets include the PMB research station? I saw in the farming press only this week that a consortium involving ADAS, the Scottish agricultural colleges and the Cambridge University Research Association is involved on the research farm owned by the PMB. It would be interesting to know how that will fit in with the work of the development council.

I conclude by repeating what I said when we debated the Agriculture Act 1987. I said that if the PMB had to be wound up it was essential that the development council should be in place to continue so many of the important functions of the old PMB. We therefore support the order and wish the new development council well.

---