In the ‘Food Programme’ on 20 May 2007 Lord Rooker justification for the decision to move the National Fruit Collections from Brogdale was that ‘there was a need to relocate them simply because of the lease and access to the particular site’ and ‘because the lease (at Brogdale) runs out in 2016.’
As Lord Rooker said ‘Defra owns the Collection but we do not own the land so we took it upon ourselves to go out and test the market to see if we could relocate the site.’ The reason Defra does not own the land is because government decided to sell the land at Brogdale. Instead government decided to lease the land at Brogdale. For 17 years this has worked satisfactorily and will continue until 2016 or whatever time the lease is finally terminated.
One reason given for the moving the Collections was that the Defra lease runs out in 2016. When asked about the offer to extend the lease to 2050 Lord Rooker said ‘at that time I have to say the issue of 2050 was not on my desk or any other minister’s desk. So the decision was taken to move it.’ Yet surely before making such a decision the public would expect Ministers to know whether the Collection could remain at Brogdale and the terms of any extended lease.
Other points made were that ‘the Trust do not have security of tenure on the site’ and because ‘of what was happening between the landlord and the Trust.’ Why do Brogdale Horticultural Trust not have security of tenure on the Brogdale site? Well in 1990 the Trust bought the land at Brogdale but because of financial difficulties it had to sell the land to settle its mortgage commitments. Since then it has leased the land. Why could this not continue? Is it because the Trust is again in serious financial difficulties and this really underlies what is happening between the landlord and the Trust?
However one must always come back to the fact that the over-riding Defra lease protects the Collection at Brogdale. Defra interests are not the same as the Trust’s and should not be used as a reason for moving the Collection.
No public announcement was made by Defra in 2006 that a decision had been made to relocate the Collection from Brogdale. The Defra tender documentation simply stated ‘should applicants wish to relocate the Collections’ not that they must be moved. If Defra had decided to relocate the Collection why did it not disclose this fact and set it out clearly in the bid documentation?
How can it be claimed that the open tendering system is ‘open and acknowledged to be open’ if bids to keep the Collection at Brogdale are rejected for the simple reason that Defra has already decided to relocate the Collection.
In answer to a question about a bid based on keeping the Collection at Brogdale Lord Rooker said ‘I can’t possibly say here and now that would be a preferred option because competitively other bids might have come in and I can’t be in a position of pre-judging’.
By taking the decision in 2006 to move the Collection surely the pre-judging has already taken place.
If a bid to keep the Collections at Brogdale was the most competitive what would Defra do, reverse its 2006 decision citing public value for money?
Robert White
Did I understand the Minister Jeff Rooker to say on Sunday’s edition of The Food Programme that the decision to move the National Fruit Collection from Brogdale had been taken some time ago?
I fail to see how this information squares with the wording of Defra’s COMPETITION DETAILS AND PROJECT SPECIFICATION for THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND SCIENTIFIC CURATION OF NATIONAL FRUIT COLLECTIONS that:
“Bids can, if appropriate, also include plans for relocating the Collections.”
Lord Rooker seems to have let ‘the cat out of the bag’ in the Food Programme: the future of the National Fruit Collections has already been decided – they will move to a new site. And Defra must also have decided where they will relocate the Collections. All months before the tender document for the new management contract was issued in January; it makes a nonsense of the whole exercise.
As well as his astonishing revelation, Lord Rooker seems to be linking the future of the Collections to the plight of the Brogdale Horticultural Trust’s. There is no such association. The Collections are totally independent of the Trust. The Trust is merely the holder of the present contract to husband the Collections. What is going on?
Joan Morgan
Lord Rooker said nothing about the National Fruit Collections being open to the public in his interview.
So does this mean that the Collections won’t be open for the public to see them?
Alan Rowe has sent us the following comment.
Lord Rooker, in the BBC Broadcast, inferred that the reason for wishing that the Collections be moved from Brogdale was because of difficulties which the Brogdale Horticultural Trust had experienced from the present landlord. Yet a letter from Defra to a ‘Friend of the Brogdale Trust’ and dated 4/4/2007 stated that they were ‘not aware of any written deficiencies’.
Mr Hillier, the landlord, has expressed his surprise and mystification over the assertions made by the Trust. He is investing £1million in site refurbishment. He is offering a lease until at least 2050 and is willing to co-operate with whosoever is the successful bidder and in an independent role.
I am a ‘Friend of the Trust’, so long as the Collections remains at Brogdale. I visited the site earlier this month. I saw work in progress and I visited the Restaurant and the Shop – both reported by the Trust as no longer available to me.
The Collections do not belong to DEFRA – once MAFF – perhaps to be what? They are not New Labour’s, nor the Conservatives’, nor should they become easy prey to self serving and insecure commercial or scientific interests. They are the Nation’s, accessible to all and a highly respected and unique World Heritage.
Alan Rowe