Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his brevity and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his kind words. Let me assure him, however, that although we are a Government of all the talents, the only talent that I have is an inability to say no when pressed to take on an obligation for the Government on occasions such as this. I shall do my best to respond to the questions that he has asked; they are very appropriate questions, as I would expect from the noble Lord with his degree of expertise. He will recognise that I have no chance at all of matching him in his extensive knowledge of the issues underlying the order, but I hope that I can address myself to the main points that he has raised and I shall write to him if there are any that I miss. Ring-fencing is definitively provided for in Article 6(6) of the order. That intention is stated there, so I can give the noble Lord an assurance on that front. I recognise his anxieties; it is much more difficult to represent a part of the industry where there are many products as opposed to the single product that others look after. I see the clarity being brought to that case, which will escape the new horticultural board in that respect. We recognise the vast experience that the noble Lord has in that area, and I hope that the ring-fencing provides a degree of assurance on that front. The noble Lord asked me whether science would be at the heart of the development of this work. Science certainly has a part to play; it will be very much a question of the pressures from the boards with regard to what necessary research they expect to be done. No serious board could conceive of fulfilling its obligations without the appropriate application of science and looking ahead for changing circumstances. We all know what challenges are presented to agriculture by changing scientific opportunities, so I agree with the noble Lord that science should be at the heart of the work. The noble Lord asked, too, about staffing movements. Although I bow to his experience with regard to agriculture, he will forgive me if I chide him by saying that I cannot see the problems associated with the relocation of the board being quite on the level of those of the Statistics Board. First, the numbers involved are very substantial. As we discussed in debates on the statistics Bill, we were in any case in midstream with regard to the process when feathers were at their most ruffled, so I was not at all surprised at the intensity with which the issue was debated during the passage of that Bill. With regard to the boards, I hope that sufficient consultation will go on so that feathers are not ruffled—very far from it. Staffing interests are of course taken into account while the broad objective of the instrument is delivered, and it will be important that staff have full consultation and confidence in what is being proposed. After consultation, Stoneleigh was overwhelmingly the preferred location for the united board, so we are building on a clear expression of opinion. However, I recognise that there will be difficulties in some areas; staff will need to be consulted, but they will also need their full employment rights safeguarded. Of course, the Government undertake that they will be consulted and that, if it is the case that they decide to be made redundant rather than move to the new location, their full terms and conditions will be complied with on such an occasion. The noble Lord would expect the Government to do no less than give a full undertaking on this. The noble Lord asked about the issue of establishing subsidiaries and the word ““may”” in that regard. I hope that he will forgive me if I am slavish in my attention to my note on this matter, as it is rather precise with regard to the law. The change is a technical one. Although I would hope to show some insight into the broad principles behind the order, I am easily adrift with regard to technical matters. The technical change is a result of the wording of paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 10 to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The wording of that provision specifies that an order, "““may include provision … enabling the board to establish subsidiaries," but not requiring it to do so. Because ““enabling”” is used in the parent legislation, our legal advice is that the wording of this order should use ““may”” rather than ““must”” because the parent Act does not make the obligation mandatory. As sector company chairmen make up the majority of the board, they will certainly be able to ensure that sector companies are established, so the noble Lord need not have excessive anxieties on that score. That is the reason for the change: it is a purely technical change deriving from the original Act. He also asked me about the date.