Consultation outcome

Analysis of responses to the consultation and what we will do next

Updated 8 March 2022

The report is also available in Welsh (ar gael yn Gymraeg).

Introduction

About the consultation

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) is a statutory levy body funded by farmers, growers and others in the agriculture and horticulture supply chain to deliver services to help the sector adapt and thrive in a changing policy and commercial environment. The AHDB was created in 2008 following an extensive review of predecessor levy bodies. The AHDB currently serves several agricultural and horticultural sectors, with varying coverage across England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. Between them, AHDB’s sectors cover over 70% of the total UK agricultural and horticultural output. AHDB raises about £60 million per year in statutory levies. A levy raised in one sector can only be spent for the benefit of that sector.

On 17 November 2021 the UK government and devolved governments issued a joint public consultation on proposals to deliver legislative reforms to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Order. The consultation applied to the whole of the United Kingdom where levy is collected by AHDB and closed at midnight on 10 January 2022. The consultation proposed changes to deliver the recommendations from the 2018 Request for Views on the future of the AHDB and respond to the outcome of the recent ballots on the future of the levy in the horticulture and potato sectors across Great Britain. The proposed changes sit alongside improvements already underway to the structure and governance of AHDB to deliver a more efficient and focused organisation giving value for money and greater accountability to levy payers in the future.

The UK and devolved governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have joint responsibility for the AHDB Order, and we have worked jointly to produce this summary analysis of responses to the consultation and to agree the next steps on each of the proposals as set out in this report.

About this analysis of responses

When considering this summary analysis of response it is important to keep in mind that public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population (in this case of all levy payers). Since anyone can submit their views, individuals, organisations, and businesses who are more able and willing to respond are more likely to participate. Because of this likelihood for self-selection, the approach of this analysis has not only been to count how many respondents held a certain view but also to include qualitative analysis of the additional comments provided to consider the range of issues raised by respondents, differences in views and the reasons they hold their view. For example the number of responses received to this consultation from horticulture levy payers (120 responses) and potato levy payers (33 responses) are a small sample of all levy payers in these 2 sectors. Therefore, we have included qualitative analysis of the range of views provided alongside the quantitative analysis. In addition the views of levy payers who voted in the 2021 horticulture ballot (802 levy payers voted, with 61% voting to end the levy) and the potato ballot (1,196 levy payers voted, with 66% voting to end the levy) also forms an important part of the wider evidence base informing decisions on next steps. The detailed results of these ballots can be viewed on the AHDB website: The vote on the future of AHDB Potatoes is now published and The vote on the future of AHDB Horticulture is now published.

Who responded to the consultation?

We received 476 responses to the consultation. 470 responses were provided to the citizen space survey consultation questions and 6 email responses were received. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the citizen space responses to each of the consultation questions is summarised under each of the headings in this report. The 6 email responses have been analysed and summarised separately (see summary of email responses section).

As shown in the charts below most respondents to the consultation were from agricultural or horticultural businesses (see table 1). Most respondents were from England, but some were from multiple countries and some from Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland only (see table 2). Most responses were from levy payers with mixed farm businesses operating in multiple agricultural and horticultural sectors. A list of responding businesses and industry organisations is attached at Annex 1. The list of responding businesses and organisations does not include respondents who requested that their responses be treated as confidential.

Table 1 Citizen space responses by type of respondent (Total 470)

Type of respondent	Count	Percentage
Agriculture or horticulture business	381	81.1%
Individual	43	9.1%
Sector trade body or membership organisation	25	5.3%
Research organisation	14	3.0%
Other	7	1.5%

Table 2 Citizen space responses by country (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Multiple countries	33	7.0%
England	399	84.9%
Scotland	24	5.1%
Wales	9	1.9%
Northern Ireland	4	0.85%
None given	1	0.21%

Views on ending the potato levy

Table 3 All citizen space responses to the closed question: should the AHDB Order be amended to remove the statutory levy in the potato sector in Great Britain? (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Yes	157	33.4%
No	53	11.3%
Not applicable	252	53.6%
Not answered	8	1.7%

Table 3 shows that of the total 470 responses most 53.6% respondents said this proposal was not applicable to them. About a third 33.4% of all respondents agreed with the proposal to remove the levy and some 11.3% disagreed. Of the 210 respondents who provided either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer 74.8% agreed with the proposal to remove the levy and 25.2% disagreed with the proposal. Responses from England, Scotland and Wales followed a similar pattern to the overall responses with most respondents saying the proposal was not applicable to them, and of those who gave a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, more respondents agreed with the proposal to remove the levy than disagreed. This was not the case for responses from Northern Ireland where of the 4 responses received, only one response agreed with removing the levy and 3 disagreed. However, it should be noted that the AHDB potato levy does not apply in Northern Ireland.

Citizen space responses from potato levy payers: Of all the respondents who answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question 33 were from potato sector levy payers. Of these 33 potato levy payer responses 66.7% (22 respondents) agreed with the proposal to remove the statutory potato levy and 33.3% (11 respondents) disagreed.

Qualitative analysis of comments provided: The most common theme amongst respondents who agreed with removing the statutory potato levy was that the outcome of the democratic ballot of potato levy payers (held in March 2021) to end the levy must be respected and implemented. Other themes raised were that the levy does not deliver value for money and that the AHDB was not responsive to industry needs. This view was supported by some trade organisations including the National Farmers’ Union for England and Wales (NFU) and the Tenant Farmers Association (TFA). However, the NFU highlighted that the door should remain open to a statutory levy in future if a need for it is identified by former levy payers. A common theme from those respondents who disagreed with removing the statutory potato levy was that the levy is needed to fund important research activities for the potato sector, and some respondents raised concerns about the future of potato storage facilities and research.

Views on ending the horticulture levy

Table 4 All citizen space responses to the closed question: should the AHDB Order be amended to remove the statutory levy in the horticulture sector in Great Britain? (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Yes	152	32.3%
No	134	28.5%
Not applicable	175	37.2%
Not answered	9	1.9%

Table 4 shows that of the 470 total responses received just over a third 37.2% said this proposal was not applicable to them. However, where the proposal was relevant to respondents there was a close balance between those that agreed with the proposal to end the levy 32.3%, and those who did not agree with it 28.5%. Most responses were from England and these responses followed the same pattern as the overall responses. Of the 24 Scottish responses 11 indicated the proposal was not relevant to them, 9 agreed with the proposal to end the levy and 4 disagreed. Of the 9 Welsh responses 5 indicated the proposal was not relevant, 3 agreed with the proposal and 1 disagreed. Of the 4 responses from Northern Ireland 1 agreed with the proposal and 3 disagreed. However, it should be noted that the AHDB statutory horticulture levy does not apply in Northern Ireland.

Table 5 Citizen space responses from horticulture levy payers who answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the closed question: should the AHDB Order be amended to remove the statutory levy in the horticulture sector in Great Britain?

Sector	Yes	No
Horticulture and other farming sectors (note 1)	14	20
Multiple horticulture sectors	3	16
Tree fruit	3	12
Soft fruit	3	11
Protected ornamentals	3	2
Protected edibles	2	9
Mushrooms	0	3
Hardy nursery stock	1	4
Field vegetables	6	6
Bulbs and outdoor flowers	0	2
Totals	35	85

Notes

1. This category accounts for responses that indicated they were part of at least one (or more) horticulture sectors and at least one (or more) other non-horticulture sectors.

Citizen space responses from horticulture levy payers. Table 5 shows that of all respondents who answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this proposal 120 were from horticulture levy payers. Of these horticulture responses 29.2% agreed with the proposal to remove the statutory levy and 70.8% respondents disagreed. Most of those who responded from across the horticulture subsectors did not support the proposal to remove the statutory levy except for responses from the ornamentals and field vegetables subsectors where responses were more mixed. It is important to note that the number of responses received from the horticulture sector to this consultation is a small sample (approximately 10%) of the wider population of horticulture levy payers across all subsectors (in 2021 there were approximately 1,155 horticulture levy payers). Therefore, it is also important to consider the qualitative analysis below of the comments provided to consider the range of issues raised by respondents, differences in views and the reasons they hold their view. Data from the ballot of horticulture levy payers shows that in February 2021 there were approximately 1,155 levy payers in the horticulture sector who were eligible to vote in the ballot.

Qualitative analysis of comments provided. Of those respondents that supported the proposal to remove the statutory levy many said the outcome of the democratic ballot held in February 2021 to end the levy must be respected. This view was supported by some stakeholders including the Tenant Farmers Association and the AHDB Petitioners Group. Many highlighted that horticulture is diverse and that the current levy applying the same rate across all subsectors is not fair. Others said they did not feel the levy provided value for money and some said they had lost confidence in the AHDB. A few respondents made suggestions for establishing industry led crop groups or a horticulture foundation to coordinate and deliver research services in future funded through a different model such as a combination of membership fees, syndicate funding, government funding and a voluntary levy approach.

Of those respondents that did not agree with removing the statutory levy many were concerned that it would leave a gap in funding for research and important research skills could be lost which would damage the competitiveness of the sector. Some respondents commented that they wanted to see the statutory levy mechanism amended rather than removed including adding more subsector categories so that a statutory levy for subsectors who want it can continue in future. This view was supported by the National Farmers’ Union for England and Wales who proposed that further discussions are needed between industry and the UK and devolved governments on opportunities for subsector levies to continue in future.

Other respondents commented that they supported the views of the Growers Better Levy Group for a statutory levy to continue in future but not delivered through the AHDB as they wanted a different organisation closer to growers needs to deliver horticultural research in future. Others suggested that the horticulture sector should be given a vote on a new 5-year plan for how the levy would be spent in future before it is removed. A few suggested that a much smaller statutory levy could be delivered more cost effectively in future focused on fewer core activities such as the continuation of the AHDB’s application service for pesticides (EA/EAMU application service).

Views on AHDB’s pesticide application service for horticulture in Great Britain

Table 6 Citizen space responses to the closed question: do you want the AHDB’s application service for emergency authorisations and extension of authorisation for minor use (EA/EAMU) of pesticides for the horticulture sector in Great Britain to continue? (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Yes	233	49.6%
No	41	8.7%
Not applicable	130	27.7%
Not sure	57	12.1%
Not answered	9	1.9%

Table 6 shows of all the 470 responses nearly half 49.6% supported the continuation of the AHDB’s EA/EAMU application service for the horticulture sector, some 27.7%, said this was not applicable to them and others 12.1% said they were not sure. A few 8.7% said they did not support this service continuing and 1.9% did not answer. A similar pattern of responses was provided across respondents from all countries.

Citizen space responses from horticulture levy payers. Of the 108 respondents from the horticulture sector that answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question 88.9% wanted the EA/EAMU service to continue and 11.1% did not. Most respondents from across all the horticulture subsectors indicated that they supported the continuation of the AHDB’s EA/EAMU service except in the protected ornamentals sector where responses were more equally divided between those who supported the service continuing and those who did not.

Qualitative analysis of comments provided. The most common theme from respondents who supported the continuation of this service was that it is essential for plant protection and a coordinated application service is important to the future of the industry. Of those respondents that did not support the continuation of the EA/EAMU service some suggested that in future it should be delivered by a different organisation such as crop associations or by individual businesses who want to use the pesticide products. A few raised concerns at the estimated costs of the AHDB delivering the service and suggested the service could be delivered more cost effectively in future.

Views on funding for AHDB’s pesticide application service for horticulture in Great Britain

This was an open question asking for views on how the AHDB’s application service for EAs/EAMUs for the horticulture sector in Great Britain should be funded in the future. 184 respondents provided views on this question and a diverse range of views and suggestions were provided. Some of most prevalent themes raised are summarised below.

• A voluntary levy on those businesses that benefit most from the service.
• Syndicates of growers coming together to pay the AHDB or any other suitable organisation to deliver the applications they need on a commercial basis.
• A smaller and more targeted statutory levy or compulsory charge system so that everyone that benefits also contributes.
• A statutory levy delivered by a different organisation (not the AHDB) capable of coordinating and delivering horticultural research.
• An increase to the pesticide’s charge / a charge on manufacturers of pesticides.
• Individual businesses who benefit should deliver and pay for this themselves.
• Government should fund this service.

Views on a regular vote for levy payers

Table 7 All citizen space responses to the closed question: should the AHDB Order be amended to ensure that levy payers can vote on proposals for how the levy will be spent in their sector at least once every 5 years? (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Yes	411	87.4%
No	30	6.4%
Not applicable	22	4.7%
Not answered	7	1.5%

Table 7 shows of the total 470 responses most respondents 87.4%, agreed with this proposal, with a few 6.4% either disagreeing or responding that the proposal was not applicable to them 4.7%. 1.5% of responses did not provide an answer. A similar pattern of responses was provided across respondents from all countries.

Qualitative analysis of comments provided. The most common theme from respondents who agreed with this proposal was that it would give levy payers a greater say in the priorities for their sector and would help improve accountability to levy payers. Some respondents suggested that levy payers in the horticulture and potato sectors should also be given the opportunity to vote on a 5-year plan for their sectors. A few respondents suggested that 5 years was too long an interval between votes, and that levy payers should be able to vote more frequently (such as annually) on sector plans. Of those respondents who did not support this proposal some were unsure how it would work in practice and some suggested once every 5 years was too short, and a longer time frame is needed to give stability to the AHDB. A few suggested the AHDB should be abolished completely.

Views on retaining rights for a ballot on the levy continuing

Table 8 All citizen space responses to the closed question: should the AHDB Order retain the current provision that a ballot on whether the levy should continue must be held if, within a rolling 3-month period, requests for a ballot are received from at least 5% of eligible voters? (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Yes	373	79.4%
No	65	13.8%
Not applicable	31	6.6%
Not answered	1	0.21%

Table 8 shows of the total 470 responses most 79.4% respondents agreed with this proposal, some 13.8% disagreed and a few 6.6%. said it was not applicable to them. A similar pattern of responses was provided across respondents from all countries.

Qualitative analysis of comments provided. The most common theme from respondents who agreed with this proposal was that it is important that levy payers continue to have the option to request a ballot if they are not content with how their levy is being spent and to ensure that the AHDB remains accountable to levy payers. A few commented that 5% of eligible voters to trigger a ballot is too low and a higher percentage would be more appropriate. A few suggested there should be more options than just a ‘yes/no’ ballot such as reducing the levy in future. Of those who did not support this proposal some commented that a higher percentage of eligible voters should be required before a ballot can be triggered. A few commented that the 3-month period to organise a ballot is too restrictive and a few suggested that this is no longer needed if the new proposal to give levy payers a vote on sector plans at least once every 5 years is implemented.

Views on extending the scope of AHDB to other agricultural sectors across the UK

Table 9 Citizen space responses to the closed question: should the scope of the AHDB Order be extended to include other agricultural or related industries in the UK so that the AHDB can offer services to them (where requested by industry)? (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Yes	169	36.0%
No	144	30.6%
Not applicable	114	24.3%
Not sure	41	8.7%
Not answered	2	0.43%

Table 9 shows that views on this proposal were mixed, of the total 470 responses just over a third 36% of respondents supported the extension of AHDB’s scope, slightly less than a third 30.6% did not support it and some 24.3% respondents were not sure. A few 8.7% said this proposal was not applicable and 0.4% did not provide an answer. There were some differences in responses between different countries. Most responses were from England, and these followed a similar split as the overall responses. Of the 9 Welsh responses received 6 agreed with extending the scope, 2 disagreed and 1 said it was not applicable to them. Of the 4 responses from Northern Ireland all of them agreed with extending the scope. The 24 responses from Scotland were more finely balanced, 10 responses were against the proposal to extend the scope, 8 were in favour of it and 4 not sure.

Qualitative analysis of comments provided. A range of views were provided on this proposal. Of those who supported the proposal some commented that the AHDB should be able to provide services and expertise to other sectors where there is demand and where those industries want to pay for AHDB services. Some respondents and stakeholders including the Tenant Farmers Association, the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales and the National Farmers’ Union Cymru said they supported this proposal subject to safeguards being put in place to ensure there is no cross subsidising or conflicts between commercial activity and activities paid for by statutory levies. A few respondents commented that they would like to see more cooperation and partnership work across all the devolved government levy bodies in future. Of those respondents who said they were against this proposal some said the AHDB should focus only on delivering for levy payers. Some raised concerns that delivering for other farming sectors would spread the AHDB’s resources too thinly and could lead to conflict of interest between levy payer activities and commercial activities. Some respondents who said they were unsure were concerned that there may not be much demand for this or that it could lead to competition with other trade bodies and consultancies. Others said that they needed more information on how this would work in practice before giving a view.

Views on AHDB charges for services

Table 10 Citizen space responses to the closed question: should the AHDB Order be amended to clarify that the AHDB can charge for services delivered to any industry in scope of the Order through a commercial agreement? (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Yes	220	46.8%
No	107	22.8%
Not applicable	101	21.5%
Not sure	36	7.7%
Not answered	6	1.3%

Table 10 shows of the total 470 responses nearly half 46.8% of respondents supported this proposal, but some 22.8% were against it, or not sure 21.5%. A few 7.7% respondents said the proposal was not applicable to them and 1.2% did not provide an answer. A similar pattern of responses was provided across respondents from all countries.

Qualitative analysis of comments provided. Of those respondents that supported this proposal a common theme focused on the AHDB being able to cover the costs of services provided to non-levy paying sectors. Some respondents said they agreed with the proposal provided it does not lead to additional charges to levy payers or conflict with the delivery of activities in levy paying sectors. Some respondents who were against the proposal were concerned of potential conflicts with statutory levy activities. Others raised concerns that charging for commercial services might impact on AHDB’s independence as a public body. Respondents who were unsure about the proposal were concerned about the potential for conflicts of interest with levy paying sectors. Some respondents indicated that they needed more information on how this would work in practice before giving a view.

Views on raising the sheep levy rate ceiling in England

Table 11 Citizen space responses to the closed question: should the AHDB Order be amended to increase the maximum levy rates allowed in the English sheep sector by 25% to provide more flexibility for the AHDB to deliver additional services if there is demand for this from the English sheep sector in future? (Total 470)

Response	Count	Percentage
Yes	83	17.7%
No	134	28.5%
Not applicable	248	52.8%
Not answered	5	1.1%

Table 11 shows of the total 470 responses most 52.8% respondents said this proposal was not relevant to them. Where respondents provided a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer more responses 28.5% were against the proposal, than were in favour of it 17.7%. A few 1.1% did not provide an answer.

Citizen space responses from the English sheep levy payers. Of the 217respondents who answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this proposal 42.4% (92) were English sheep levy payers. Of these responses 39.1% (36) agreed with the proposal and 60.9% (56) did not agree. It should be noted that the number of responses received from the sheep sector is a small sample of the wider population of English sheep sector levy payers. Therefore, it is important to consider the qualitative analysis (outlined below) of the comments provided to show the range of issues raised by respondents, differences in views and the reasons they hold their view.

Qualitative analysis of comments provided. Of those responses that supported the proposal some said that having more headroom in the levy ceiling could give greater flexibility to deliver more services in future such as more export market development activities. Others said they supported the proposal but only if levy payers first have a say in what activities the levy will deliver. Some stakeholders including the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales and the National Sheep Association supported the proposal although both organisations said their support was on the basis that any additional projects should be industry driven and agreed in consultation with industry with clear benefits to the sector. Of those who were against the proposal a common theme was concern that this would lead to an increase in the levy rate which they could not afford to pay. Some said that more scrutiny is needed on what the levy is currently spent on before any changes are made. The Tenant Farmers Association held this view and noted that levy payers should have a vote on priorities, whether a higher levy rate ceiling is needed and whether they want the levy to continue. Some responses said there was no need for additional headroom, and a few said the levy should be removed.

Views on future reforms to the AHDB

This was an open question asking for views on what other changes to the AHDB respondents want to see delivered in future. 270 respondents provided comments on this question. A diverse range of views and suggestions were provided. Some of the most prevalent themes raised by respondents are summarised below.

• Levy payers should be provided with more control over how the levy is spent.
• There should be more transparency and a reduction in AHDB’s central costs.
• Concerns were raised about the AHDB supporting third party organisations and assurance schemes such as Red Tractor.
• Communication and engagement with levy payers should be improved.
• Governance should continue to be improved, including levy payers being given more say in who is elected to the Board/sector councils.
• There should be continuation of statutory subsector levies and votes on sector plans for those parts of the horticulture sector that want to continue to support research.
• The AHDB EA/EAMU service, which is vital for plant protection, should be continued.
• Statutory levies should be enabled for horticulture to continue but only through a different horticulture body and not the AHDB.
• Levies in the horticulture and potato sector should be ended and the AHDB abolished.
• Several strategic issues were raised that respondents want to see the AHDB delivering on in future including climate change, export development, promoting British Food, supporting trade deals, and crop research.

Summary of email responses

We received 6 email responses to the consultation (2 of these email responses were also posted to us as hard copies) providing general views on the AHDB. The emails did not provide responses to the citizen space survey questions and so are not included in the analysis of citizen space responses above. Common themes from these email responses are summarised below.

• Concern at AHDB’s involvement with Red Tractor.
• Support for ending the levies.
• Support for a statutory levy tailored to the horticulture subsectors that want it.
• Support for a statutory levy through a grower led organisation but not through AHDB.
• Concern that the consultation questions are too binary and do not represent all the options open to the industry. A wider range of alternative funding options for crop protection and wider R&D work for growers should be looked at before coming to a view.
• Concern that more transparency and information is needed on the costs of delivering a coordinated EA/EAMU crop protection service so that industry can provide an informed view on how it should be funded and who should deliver it.

What will we do next?

The UK government and devolved governments of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland would like to thank all the respondents to this consultation for their views and feedback. We have carefully considered all the responses and views provided and have agreed to deliver the following next steps on each of the proposals.

Changes we will deliver now

We will end the statutory potato levy in GB. Having considered the responses to this consultation alongside the outcome of the democratic ballot to end the levy we will remove the statutory levy provisions from the AHDB Order for the potato sector in GB. This will end the levy in this sector from next financial year (April 2022). Whilst we will deliver this legislative change as quickly as possible the changes may not come into force until a few months after 1 April 2022, therefore the AHDB will set a zero-rated levy for the potato sector from 1 April 2022 until the repeal of the levy comes into force. The potato sector will remain in scope of the AHDB Order so that a reducing number of legacy research projects can continue to be delivered through the wind-up period and any outstanding potato levies owed can be collected. This also provides flexibility in future for any part of the potato industry in GB to work with AHDB on a voluntary levy or commercial basis if they wish to. We recognise that some respondents to the consultation want to see a coordinated industry led approach to important crop protection and potato research in future. As a next step we will take forward discussions with industry led groups and trade bodies to explore how the industry wants to facilitate and fund this coordinated approach in future.

We will end the statutory horticulture levy in GB. Having considered the diverse range of views provided to this consultation alongside the outcome of the democratic ballot to end the levy we will remove the statutory levy provisions from the AHDB Order for the horticulture sector in GB. This will end the levy in this sector from next financial year (April 2022). Whilst we will deliver this legislative change as quickly as possible the legislative changes may not come into force until a few months after 1 April 2022, therefore the AHDB will set a zero-rated levy for the horticulture sector from 1 April 2022 until the repeal of the levy comes into force. The horticulture industry in GB will remain in scope of the AHDB Order so that a reducing number of legacy research projects can be funded until September 2024, crop protection work can continue to be delivered as part of a managed transition and any outstanding horticulture levies owed can be collected. The changes to remove the levy mechanism provisions (Part 4 of Schedule 3 to the AHDB Order) will also mean that there will be a broader definition of the horticulture industry which will be defined as the growing of any horticultural products for business purposes in future (rather than being limited to just those horticulture products that were listed in the levy mechanism). This change will provide greater flexibility enabling any part of the horticulture sector to work with the AHDB on a voluntary levy or commercial basis in future if they wish to.

We recognise that many growers who responded to the consultation want to see the statutory levy provisions amended rather than removed so that a levy can be applied just to those subsectors that want it to fund crop protection and research. We have investigated this option and considered these views carefully and concluded that the current horticulture levy provisions cannot easily be amended in this way as we do not have important details such as how the levy should be calculated and applied for different subsectors in future. Therefore to give certainty to all levy payers and a clean slate from which to build further industry discussions we have decided to repeal the levy provisions from the next financial year 2022/23. However, as a next step we will engage in discussions initiated by industry led groups and trade bodies to explore in more detail the design of industry led funding options including voluntary levies and /or statutory subsector levies and other options that can be tailored to the diverse needs of the different horticulture subsectors in future.

We also recognise that some respondents and members of the Growers’ Better Levy Group (GBLG) wish to see a statutory levy continuing but delivered through a new grower led organisation instead of the AHDB. We have considered these views carefully and concluded that establishing a new statutory levy body for horticulture would be a difficult and lengthy process due to the considerable governance and regulatory requirements that now sit around statutory levy bodies. However, as a next step we are keen to continue our engagement with members of the GBLG and other interested stakeholders and industry groups to discuss other industry led funding options.

It is important to highlight that public sector funding through the farm budget in England, will not pay for research or other actions that were funded by industry by the statutory levy. Therefore, it is essential that industries across these 2 sectors coalesce to provide leadership and work with us to formulate new industry led funding models that are better suited to their needs. We are keen to explore whether there is industry support for voluntary subsector levies as the money raised can be used in a more flexible way than statutory levies which are classified as public money and as such are bound by tighter governance rules and restrictions. There are other options that could also be considered further such as subscription or membership models, or commercial agreements with AHDB or with other suitable organisations capable of coordinating and delivering applied research services or other priorities. We also remain open to exploring proposals for a statutory subsector levy (delivered by the AHDB) which could be implemented through further changes to the AHDB Order later this year or early next year if there is widespread consensus in any subsector on the detailed design of such a statutory levy from those businesses that would be paying it.

We will introduce a new regular vote for levy payers to inform and shape sector plans. Having considered the responses to this consultation, which were mostly supportive of this proposal, to improve accountability to levy payers we will introduce a new legislative duty on the AHDB to deliver a vote at least once every 5 years on sector work programmes setting out how the levy will be spent. The first votes will take place in April 2022, and we encourage all levy payers to register to vote now with AHDB so they can have a say on the priorities they want AHDB to focus on and the services they want delivered for their sector. This is an important opportunity for all levy payers to influence how the levy is spent so it is focused on the things that matter most to their business. More information on how to register to vote can be found on the AHDB website Shape the Future register to vote.

We will retain the right for levy payers to trigger a ballot on the future of the levy. Having considered the responses to this consultation, which were mostly supportive of this proposal, we have decided to retain the existing legislative provision that a ballot on whether the levy should continue must be held if, within a rolling 3-month period, requests for a ballot are received from at least 5% of eligible voters. The new duty to deliver a vote on 5-year sector plans should ensure that AHDB is meeting the needs of levy payers and delivering value for money. However in line with most consultation responses we feel that it is still very important for levy payers to retain their current right to have a say on the levy continuing should there be widespread dissatisfaction within any of the levy paying sectors on their sector plans. As currently final decisions on whether a levy will continue will remain with the appropriate authority (ministers of the UK government and devolved governments as appropriate).

We will enable the AHDB to charge non-levy paying sectors that are in scope of the AHDB Order for services. Having considered the consultation responses, many of which were supportive of this proposal, we have decided to take forward changes to the AHDB Order to ensure that AHDB can charge to cover the cost of services it might deliver in future to non-levy paying sectors that are in scope of the order (such as the horticulture and potato sectors in GB). This will give flexibility to these non-levy paying sectors to continue to work with the AHDB if they wish to and for the AHDB to cover its costs by charging for such services. We will also make a technical change to clarify the current provisions on ‘charges for services’ to prevent the possibility that levy payers could be charged twice for a service.

Proposed changes that need further consideration before implementation

The future of AHDB’s pesticide application service. It is clear from the responses to the consultation that there is significant support for the continuation of a coordinated application service for Emergency Authorisations (EAs) and Extensions of Authorisation for Minor Use (EAMUs) of pesticides in the horticulture sector in Great Britain as this is seen as vitally important for crop protection. However there is less consensus with a range of different suggestions on how the service should be funded and delivered in the long term. As a short-term transitional solution we have agreed that AHDB will use funding from reserves to deliver the EA/EAMU application service and associated trials and research up until April 2023, after which a long-term funding solution needs to be put in place. As a next step we will engage in discussions initiated by industry led groups and trade bodies on the detailed options for industry led funding for a coordinated EA/EAMU service. It is important to recognise that the AHDB team delivering this service need certainty on the future, therefore industry leadership is needed to work towards a preferred funding solution that has widespread support by the summer of 2022.

Extending the scope of the AHDB to work with other agriculture sectors on a voluntary levy or commercial basis across the UK. Having considered the range of views on this proposal and some of the differences between responses from different countries we have decided not to deliver this legislative change yet. However, as a next step we will take forward discussions between the UK government and devolved governments to explore in more detail the benefits and the safeguards needed for how a broader scope for the AHDB can work in practice with a view to implementing this legislative change in future subject to the outcome of these further discussions.

Raising the English sheep levy rate ceiling. From the responses to this proposal it is clear that levy payers want more information on what the sector priorities are before assessing whether or not they can be delivered within the current levy ceiling. Therefore, we have decided not to proceed with this change yet. As a next step AHDB will engage with levy payers to agree priorities through the sector plan process. After this we will review whether further discussions on raising the levy ceiling are needed to deliver the priorities that levy payers want to see delivered.

Future reforms to the AHDB

There were suggestions for further changes to AHDB that respondents highlighted, many of which have already been delivered by AHDB, or are continuing to be delivered as part of AHDB’s change programme including:

• AHDB has put in place governance changes to the main Board and sector councils to deliver more levy payer involvement, including levy payer ratification of sector council members through the regular voting process.
• AHDB has ended its financial support for Red Tractor.
• AHDB has and will continue to improve ways of communicating and engaging with levy payers.

This has delivered a more efficient and focused organisation providing greater accountability and influence for levy payers over the direction and priorities for AHDB.

There were also suggestions on the strategic priorities that some respondents want AHDB to focus on such as climate change, export development, promoting British Food, and crop research. The setting of strategic priorities will form part of the discussions that AHDB will deliver with levy payers and sector councils over the coming months which will feed into the development of sector plans.

Next steps timeline

We will deliver the priority legislative reforms outlined in this executive summary over the next few months as the first step to ensure changes are in place at the beginning of the financial year 2022/23. We will also engage with industry initiatives and groups in the horticulture and potato sectors to help facilitate discussions on industry led funding options for research and crop protection activities.

We recognise that many growers in subsectors such as soft fruit, top fruit and mushrooms want to see new funding models for a coordinated approach to research and crop protection implemented quickly so that important research skills and capacity are not lost from the sector. Therefore, over the next 3 to 4 months we will engage with industry groups and trade bodies that are interested in developing more detailed proposals for grower-led funding models such as voluntary levies and / or subsector statutory levies for those subsectors that want it. We are keen to explore whether there is industry support for voluntary subsector levies as the money raised can be used in a more flexible way than statutory levies which are classified as public money and as such are bound by tighter governance rules and restrictions. However, we remain open to exploring proposals for a statutory subsector levy (delivered by the AHDB) which could be implemented through further changes to the AHDB Order later this year or early next year if there is widespread consensus on the detailed design of a new subsector levy from those businesses that would be paying it.

Over the coming months we will also take forward work to explore and discuss with industry further technical changes to the AHDB Order to deliver efficiency and operational improvements and to explore the potential benefits of updating the functions of the AHDB to deliver animal and plant health and welfare related services in future. Subject to the outcome of targeted industry consultation with any sectors impacted by these further changes we plan to deliver them later this year or early next year, except for where any changes require primary legislation in which case they may take longer to implement.

Taking forward these changes and next steps will establish the foundations for a reformed AHDB that delivers value for money helping to support farmers as they enter a time of significant change outside the EU. This includes supporting farmers to meet the challenges and opportunities of reducing carbon emissions, engaging in environmental land management, and improving competitiveness and productivity. As we negotiate new trade deals around the world the AHDB will also play an increasingly important role in helping farmers access new markets, delivering important export market development work as well as domestic marketing and promotion.

Annex 1: List of responding businesses and organisations

This list of responding businesses and organisations is not exhaustive. It is based on responses either to the online survey or sent by email where the respondents declared their organisation or business name. This may include responses from individuals who are members of specific organisations but who do not necessarily reflect that organisation’s views. The list does not include those organisations and businesses where the respondents requested that their responses be treated as confidential.

A Dawson and Co (Estates) Ltd
A J Spilman and Son
A Pearson & Sons Ltd
A Pearson Growers Ltd
A.Hinge & Sons Ltd
AC Hulme & Sons
Agrico UK Ltd
Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC)
APS Growers Ltd
APS Produce Ltd
Bardsley England
Boxford (Sufffolk) Farms Ltd
Bransford Garden Plants Ltd
British Apples and Pears Ltd
British Association of Landscape Industries (BALI)
British Growers
British Hop Association
British Meat Processors Association
British Summer Fruits
British Tomato Growers’ Association
Brookhouse nurseries
C H King & Sons
Cambs Farms Growers Ltd
Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock (CIEL)
Chairman of the Growers Better Levy Group
Cheviot Trees
Cobrey Farms
Collison Cut Flowers Ltd
Cucumber Growers Association & Anchor Nurseries Ltd
Cygnet Potato Breeders Ltd.
Dairy UK
Delfland Nurseries Ltd
Driver Farms
Dungait Farms
East of Scotland Growers Ltd
Edward Vinson Ltd
Euro Quality Lambs Ltd
Euston Farms
Farmers’ Union of Wales (FUW)
Farming Partnership is WJ Bell & Co.
Fera Science Ltd
Flavourfresh Salads Ltd
Fleurie Nursery Ltd
Fortrie Farms Ltd
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust
Greenyard Frozen UK Ltd
H L Hutchinson Ltd
Hartpury University
James Mcintyre & Sons
Hillview hardy plants Ltd
I W Renner and Sons
I W Renner & Sons
J & J Burnett Ltd
J A C Grierson Ltd
James Foskett Farms Ltd
Kepak Group
Landbouwer
Langrish Farmers
Littlechild & Son Ltd
Littleport Mushroom Farm LLP
Longclose Farming
Longthorp (Kilpin) Ltd
Little Peterstow Orchards
Messrs Chapman
Milking Equipment Association
Molyneux Kale Company
Monaghan Mushrooms
Myerscough College
National Farmers’ Union – (NFU) England & Wales
National Pig Association
National Sheep Association
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich
NFU Cymru
NIAB
P C Thorold Ltd
Penhallow farm Ltd
Peter Quayle & Co.
Plant Science Consultancy Ltd
R & L Holt Ltd
R J Fletcher
R Watson and Sons
Red Roofs Nursery Ltd
RMO, RCO & AM Capper
RSK ADAS Ltd
Sandfields Farms Ltd
Scottish Agronomy Ltd
Shobrooke Park Estate
Stoke fruit farm ltd
T H Clements & Son Ltd
Tenant Farmers Association (TFA)
The AHDB Petitioners
The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers
The Livestock Auctioneers’ Association Limited
The Maltsters’ Association of Great Britain
The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers (RABDF)
The Vegan Society
Tozer Seeds
TW Franke & CL Franke-Knight
University of Warwick
W L Caley Ltd
Warden Farming Co Ltd & Ermine Farms Ltd
Westcott Farm Partnership
Redford Flowers Ltd
Winterwood Farms Ltd.