Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, this has been another valuable debate on the levy boards. Since their creation, the levy boards have played a valuable role in the development of the agricultural and horticultural industries. The principle of statutory levies in the UK has a long history. The oldest of the five statutory boards is the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, established in 1965. The Milk Development Council was established as recently as 1995, although it picked up many of the functions previously carried out by the Milk Marketing Board, which had been established in the 1930s. Levy boards have been introduced over time to address market failure in the different sectors, but the time was right for a fundamental review of their role. The review was undertaken by Rosemary Radcliffe, to whom the Government are very grateful, and published in November 2005. Since then, we have consulted on the review’s findings, and that consultation finished on 3 February. Over 200 responses were received; we are analysing those responses, and I expect to announce our proposals around Easter. I hope that the House will appreciate that I am unable to say what our decision or decisions are likely to be at this stage. I assure noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in particular, that we are determined that levy payers’ interests should be paramount. Clause 95(5) includes the specific requirement for formal consultation with affected parties before any order can be made under this chapter. Clause 85 is essential because it implements the Radcliffe proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked whether the Bill would let an NDPB be set up in Scotland and Wales. Yes: nothing in the Bill would stop that, and the Bill is drafted to allow such flexibility. We can legislate once we have decided what to do. The noble Lord wants an assurance that MLC functions will not be swallowed up in a UK body. The new structure, if implemented, would be more flexible, but we have not made final decisions yet; I want to emphasise that. There will of course be consultations on any statutory instruments before the process begins. Details will be needed for the statutory instrument process. The old Clause 80, referred to by the noble Lord, is in fact the new Clause 85. I can confirm for the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that there will be wide consultation. Our amendments from pre-legislative scrutiny early last year ensure that, after the Bill becomes law, formal consultation will take place before the affirmative statutory instrument process of making a Section 85 order. Let me be very careful in my choice of words in replying to the noble Lord’s interesting question, taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about whether levy payers will get to vote on the levy. Until we have made our final decisions on implementing the proposals, I cannot give any detail of what procedures might be put in place. However, noble Lords will know from the report that there is, in the opinion of Rosemary Radcliffe, a clear need for greater accountability to levy payers. She proposed that levy payers should be able to vote on whether particular industry sectors should be covered by levy board arrangements. We share the view that any future bodies must be responsive to levy payers’ needs. As I have already made clear, we are determined that levy payers must have a say in how any levy body is run. In implementing our proposals, we will consider how provisions for votes might be included. Going back to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, I must say that the Bill already provides scope for ensuring that an order can establish an NDPB levy board in Scotland or Wales. Therefore, we believe that his amendments are not necessary and would leave some uncertainty about which parts of the Agriculture Act continued to apply in Wales only. I am advised—I am now repeating what was said in Committee—that once the MLC is dissolved there is no way that another body can seek to rely on the powers contained in the Agriculture Act 1967. Therefore, I cannot find favour with his amendments. However, I thank him warmly for his kind comments about the role that Defra played in making sure that the beef export ban was lifted. That was a very important moment, and it is something that we should now take advantage of in implementing. Everyone has a role to play in that. I shall deal with the government amendments as briefly as I can. They address amendments tabled in Committee concerning levy bodies’ potential enforcement powers. Amendments Nos. 161 to 163 clarify the functions that may be assigned to levy bodies. Bodies established under this chapter can be charged with developing and operating schemes for product certification. This group of amendments also clarifies the provision on the training functions of levy bodies. It also deletes a redundant provision on accounting practices and the formulation of standard costings. Amendment No. 164, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was kind enough to refer, removes authorised officers’ power of entry into private dwellings. Having thought carefully about the issue, we accept that that is an unnecessary power. Last Wednesday, when we discussed Amendment No. 122, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in the context of having regard to the code of practice for pesticide inspectors, I explained that, although there would be clear operating instructions in place to deal with the conduct of levy board staff visiting business premises, I was not persuaded that we needed to have additional specific measures inserted into Schedule 10. Amendment No. 165 removes the option of imprisonment as a possible penalty for failing to pay the levy. We accept that that was an unnecessarily severe penalty and have deleted it. However, we have provided for proceedings for an offence to be commenced up to two years from the date when it was committed because, in some cases, a failure to pay the levy will not come to light until after producers have submitted annual returns. The normal six months’ limit on the instigation of summary proceedings would not therefore be appropriate. Last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that she still had some difficulty with the penalty tariffs in the schedule. That was reported at col. 1334 of Hansard. I reassure the House that paragraph 9(2) is structured simply as an enabling power. It will be necessary for any levy board order to identify the specific fine levels for the different offences. All that the schedule does is to set down the maximum that can be written into the order when consideration is given to the appropriate fine level. As that order will be approved by an order of both Houses, this House will be able to scrutinise the offences and tariffs carefully at that stage. The noble Baroness asked about boards for non-food crops. There is nothing in the definition of agriculture in Clause 86 that would prevent a levy being created for those involved in producing non-food crops. I think that I have dealt with the points that have been raised, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.