| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wish to make it clear that I am not opposed to the establishment or to the functions of the council but to the funding and composition of it.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to reply to this short debate in which the proposals put forward by the Government have received such a general welcome, if slightly qualified in some quarters. Perhaps I may deal with the points that were raised in the order in which they were raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised some of the concerns of the British Retail Consortium. The House and the noble Baroness must understand that the proposals have been arrived at after consultation with all sides of the industry. As she will have learnt from my noble friend and indeed from her noble friend, there are a variety of views on how the funds should be raised and how the council should be made up. Nonetheless,
agreement has been reached on the proposals before us today. They may be something of a camel; they may be a racehorse. We shall have to wait and see how they perform over the next few years.If there turn out to be problems, there will be opportunities to bring forward amending legislation once everyone involved has agreed that things need to be changed. We have done the best we can, and the industry has done the best it can, to produce these proposals. I hope that the British Retail Consortium will feel able to live with them and that it will not go ahead with its proposal to play dog in the manger and not put forward someone for the council. That would be sad.
We recognise that retailers are at last starting to play a constructive role as regards British agriculture and British horticulture. For many years, as I am sure my noble friend and others will agree, they did not. Indeed, they seemed to be set against it and seemed to be trying to find ways of tripping it up. I think that is changing. I hope that if the consortium agrees to take part in the council it will find it constructive. In the end, what matters to potato producers is getting the best market for their produce. The retailers are a very important part of that and must to a large extent have an identity of interests.
I do not think we are looking at a council which will turn out to be producer dominated in that way. Nine producers are to be chosen by the Government. They are not being elected by some coterie of producers. I would expect them to have a wide variety of views. If the retailers and those in other parts of the industry were to put forward their views to the producers, it would take an exceptionally bad argument not to win over one of the producers to their cause and thereby take away the producers' majority on the council.
Perhaps I may turn to the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. We are and have been fighting for a lightweight potato regime. The Irish presidency tabled revised proposals based on the fruit and vegetable regime which were discussed at the Agriculture Council of 18th November. The revised proposals did not, as the House knows, command the support of the majority of member states. We hope that in the long run we will achieve agreement on this. There are some signs that some member states are moving towards our proposal. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, recognised, we stand in the middle between a group of states to the south of us which wants a heavyweight regime, and a group of states broadly to the north of us which wants no regime at all. It is a very fine line. If we go jumping around too much we might fall off on the wrong side of it. A period of quiet and slow diplomacy will repay our efforts in the end. So far as any cheating or unfair state aids are concerned, if anyone can bring those to our notice with enough evidence to go on, we shall pursue them, and pursue them vigorously.
My noble friend also raised the question of whether we would investigate the state of the European potato market. I shall draw that request to the attention of my colleagues and will write to my noble friend. However, I am not aware of any such proposals. I shall also write
to my noble friend Lord Lyell. The wording of the order provides for a partnership or company to be levied once rather than there being a levy on each partner to avoid in any way duplicating levy collection. However, perhaps I should look at Hansard again and make sure that that answer fully covers what my noble friend was asking.My noble friend Lord Balfour asked for information on the use of each variety of potato and what they were best for--what was best for frying, boiling and all the other uses of the potato. That comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was saying. There is a role for retailers to play in this, a role which, as regards potatoes and perhaps some other similar produce, they have not played to date. A good deal more information would be useful, and if that worked back into better varieties of potato being available with more information from retailers so that consumers knew how to use them, that would be extremely good and would be helpful for the potato industry as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked how much the levy would raise. If the levy was set at £35 a hectare and 20p a tonne, which is where we think it will start out at, it would raise £6.3 million in total, with £1 million of that coming from the first point of sale. The noble Lord might well argue that that is not enough money for everything the council might want to do. That is something it will have to establish in practice. However, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, there is a balance to be drawn between the wish of the industry to be levied and its wish to spend money. It is a balance familiar to any Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, if, after the next election, Mr. Gordon Brown, the colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would like to apply for the job of chairman, he might be well qualified for it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord has a job to tell the difference between a camel and a horse, I do not think we should take his projections about the election too seriously.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew attention to an interesting side line on our situation within Europe. The French can, of course, promote French potatoes in Britain and we can promote British potatoes in France. However, we cannot promote British potatoes as such within the UK. The marketing campaigns undertaken by the council can be timed to coincide with the British new potato harvest or with some particular new variety which has been planted somewhere. We can act, as I am sure the French will act, in promoting our own potatoes, but we must not act so as to act against the interests of our Community colleagues and try to exclude them from our market. There is a subtle balance to be drawn. I am sure the council will draw it wisely.
The assets of the Potato Marketing Board will transfer to the Potato Industry Development Council. It is not yet clear exactly what they will be and what they will comprise. Dealing with them will be a matter for the potato council. I am sure that the noble Lord will be kept informed as matters progress.
The need to audit the acreage returns from producers is evident. The council will be helped in that by having information from the payers of the first-purchaser levy
who will have information about who is supplying them with potatoes. They will be able to work with that information to produce an effective audit--nothing is ever perfect--of the acreage returns.As the noble Lord said, a consortium of Scottish agricultural colleges, otherwise known as SAC/ADAS, and the Cambridge University Farm, have expressed interest in managing the Sutton Bridge experimental unit. The decision on that will be for the British Potato Council. We shall not be seeking to interfere with it. I hope that answers the questions that have been raised today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and for the comfort of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, can he confirm that I am right in believing that of the 16 members of the council, nine will be people representing the interests of producers? They will pay for 80 per cent. of the cost of the council so fair is fair in that respect. That may comfort the noble Baroness.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, at this point we believe that it is fair that the producers have what is in effect a bare majority on the council. Much will depend on how the members of the council are selected as regards their individual qualities. The noble Baroness should look forward with optimism to us finding a range of people to sit on the council who will not act in a pig-headed and stupid way and go against the interests of the people who, after all, are their largest customers. I believe that they will be seeking ways to work with the retailer. I hope and expect that the fears of the noble Baroness and of the British Retail Consortium will prove to be unfounded.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.12 p.m.
Clause 1 [Disposal of crofting property]:
Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I preface my remarks by saying that I believe that the procedure that we have adopted in considering this Bill has been wholly beneficial. We had the advantage of the Select Committee's visit to Inverness where we took a great deal of valuable, informed and detailed evidence. We also had the opportunity of visiting Skye, where we were able to see many of the particular problems and to have illustrated to us many of the concerns facing crofters in the north-west of Scotland.
I wish to stress that we have also had the opportunity of having a very constructive Committee stage in the Moses Room. Putting it all together, for at least some Members of the Select Committee it has been an educative experience. We reach the Report stage where really no great issues of principle and no major matters of policy divide us. Indeed, having read the Hansard report of the Committee stage proceedings, I believe that many of us are happy to accept many of the policy clarifications that the noble Earl was able to give then.
However, there still remains a difference in approach. It is fair to say that the Government are intent on keeping the Bill relatively undefined in a number of areas in order to maintain flexibility. Flexibility is a good thing, but there is a risk, which is that because of the lack of clarity and certainty, those who may wish to proceed and to take advantage of the measures contained in the Bill will somehow be deterred. They will not have sufficient information to know where they stand at the initial stage. That is an omission.
Through virtually all the amendments tabled today we seek to add a degree of certainty and clarity to the Bill. We do not seek to change in any way the direction of the Bill or the main policy underpinning it. But there is an argument for a greater degree of precision. That is particularly the case with Amendment No. 1, which deals with the problem of burdens. In a number of cases, the burdens that particularly fall on crofting estates are of significance. The noble Earl the Minister indicated Benbecula, where there is a major drainage scheme. In other crofting estates there are responsibilities for major roads and bridges.
Clearly, if these burdens are transferred then at some time in the future, following something like a flood or a landslip, the crofting trust that has been established in all goodwill on the basis of viability at that time, will find itself faced with an intolerable burden, which will drive the trust out of viability. It is our proposition that it ought to be made clear from the outset that the burdens to be transferred should only be the normal ones of maintenance that one would expect in keeping up the property and that the exceptional and major burdens relating to infrastructure provision should not transfer at the time.
I recognise that the Minister at Committee stage in the Moses Room indicated that that was likely government policy. If that is the case, there would be great merit in trying to make that clear in the Bill itself so that this quite significant worry and concern is removed from those who wish to take advantage of its provisions. In trying to put into the Bill virtually the words that the Minister himself used at Committee stage, I hope that we shall get that degree of certainty. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this amendment. I beg to move.
Page 1, line 25, at end insert--
("( ) Any disposal of property under this Act shall only include normal maintenance burdens and obligations, and shall exclude major infrastructure in and related to the crofting community affected by the disposal.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page