Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 160: Leave out Clause 85. The noble Lord said: My Lords. I have tabled this amendment to get assurances from the Government on the way in which they propose to respond to the Radcliffe report on the levy bodies. I have always been a strong believer in the idea of the levy boards. Farming is a business of small businesses and it is important that if there is promotion or research development in any sector, which is beneficial to all the members of the sector, then they should all pay for it by statutory levy, and avoid the problem of freeloaders. If it is left to a voluntary levy, some who benefit will not have paid. The case was put well in the Radcliffe report:"““On the matter of the statutory levy, I conclude that there continues to be a case in principle, based on the application of the ‘fragmentation test’ and the ‘scale of change test’ of market failure, for a statutory levy in each of the product areas to which it currently applies””." Two of the existing bodies—the Horticultural Development Council and the Milk Development Council—are concerned about proposals in the Radcliffe report. The remaining three—the Meat and Livestock Commission, the British Potato Council and the Home-Grown Cereals Authority—have not briefed, so I presume they are not concerned. The great strength of the levy boards is that the levy payers want them. They are subject to quinquennial review and therefore they should stay. It is interesting that the levy collection costs vary considerably. This is relevant in Radcliffe to the proposed changes that could be made in the way in which the levies are collected. Per pound, the British Potato Council collected 6.9p, the Horticultural Development Council collected 1.3p, the Home-Grown Cereals Authority collected 4.0p, the Milk Development Council collected 0.6p and the Meat and Livestock Commission collected 2.0p. The Milk Development Council is extremely sceptical. With their levy collection costs of 0.6p per pound collected, it is hard to see what savings could be made by the proposals in Radcliffe. The fear is that there will be a dilution of the present strong industry-focused approach. A tidy and bureaucratic organisation chart is not necessarily the best way to approach the matter. Would the Minister confirm that there will be the widest possible consultation before implementation of any changes? Will any proposed changes be put to the vote of the levy payers? I am sure that my noble friend is aware of the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in their report on the Bill. It said:"““Unlike with the Industrial Organisation and Development Act (1947), the Minister need not be satisfied before establishing a Board that is wanted by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry concerned””." This applies, I presume, to new boards, which is not the same as existing boards. It went on:"““Unlike with the 1947 Act, the membership is not required to be taken from (amongst others) persons representing specified interests who must form a majority””;""““Unlike the 1947 Act, the bill does not describe those who may be made by the order to pay a levy””;""““Unlike orders under the 1947 Act, orders under the bill are expressly enabled to confer powers of entry (Schedule 10, paragraph 2(1)) though the memorandum does not explain why this power is needed””." I have been extremely brief, but these are very important differences. I look forward to my noble friend’s reply. I beg to move.