Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007

My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that some general functions are bound to be carried out by the overarching board. I am merely explaining that within the provision in this article, the overarching board can carry out its research and development functions while at the same time recognising that the individual companies will be doing the same for their own areas. I understand the noble Lord’s anxieties, but he will appreciate that the concept behind the order is to set up the single board, but at the same time ensure that the sector companies have the maximum amount of delegated authority to carry on their activities. As I indicated in my opening contribution, I think that we have got the balance right on that. No great anxiety was expressed on that score during consultation on this matter, although there was on other points raised by the noble Lord. In particular, he asked about the issue of the 2012 date. The concept that levy payers should have the right to a ballot is recognised and appreciated, and the significance of that is of the greatest import. He asked why there was a postponement. The concept behind the ballot is that it should be a valuation every third year of the performance within the industry. It seems a little unfair in the circumstances where significant reorganisation and relocation to work at Stoneleigh is involved, to do anything other than to say that the first ballot ought to happen after the board has settled down in its position at Stoneleigh. The ballot should take place three years after that. Otherwise, we would be getting a judgment on the work of the new arrangements before they had had a chance to show themselves in their settled state. That is the reason for the postponement. It is not in any way sinister: it is a reflection of good management in circumstances where there are bound to be elements of change and the dislocation that the noble Lord referred to when he said that some staff might have difficulty in moving to Stoneleigh, and all that had to be worked through. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me to venture into prediction. Goodness gracious me, I have been long enough at this Dispatch Box to recognise the dangers of that, certainly while the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is sitting just behind him. I will not get involved in too much prediction. I have met that in other areas and it has been to my cost. He will forgive me if I do not. We hope that the industry and the levy payers are satisfied enough with the arrangements to want to show reasonable confidence in the way that the arrangements are developing. A demand for a ballot is in itself a challenge and an indication that things are not working as well as people want. They want to express their concern. They might even through the ballot effect very significant changes indeed. That is the proper democratic right for the industry. That goes without saying and it should it be built into the legislation. But I hope that we have got the broad structure about right. Therefore, if the noble Lord is pushing me for a prediction, it will not happen in the foreseeable future. On Question, Motion agreed to.