---

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Indeed I will. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the point. The Curry process is of course at the centre of how we see farming develop during the next few years and the RDAs have an important role to play in that. One issue that we must decide is what role the Levy Boards have to play. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, expressed his view that there might be a better way of doing it. We must consider that matter in deciding what we do about the Radcliffe report. On the other hand, many people—including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, herself—have praised what the Levy Boards do in some cases and believe that they should continue to exist, albeit in a slightly altered form as a consequence of the Radcliffe report. However, I will bear in mind what she has had to say. We believe that the tightly constrained affirmative order-making powers will deliver an appropriately flexible mechanism to allow for future reorganisation of the Levy Boards while maintaining—this is important—a sufficient degree of parliamentary scrutiny. I shall now deal briefly with the amendments. I shall start with the government amendments. Amendments Nos. 345 to 352 are designed as enhancements to this chapter to ensure that the Government will be able to implement changes. I must emphasise that the powers are enabling provisions. Orders made under this chapter will be subject to strong parliamentary scrutiny by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure—the approval of both Houses will of course be required before any order can be made. Amendment No. 345 has been tabled to ensure that there is an express power for a new board to set up and operate through subsidiary companies. The Radcliffe model envisages that each agricultural sector will have its own subsidiary company with its chairman sitting on the main board. Amendment No. 350 introduces a specific, express power to enable the board to charge for its advisory and other services. It also clarifies the incidental powers that can be exercised by the board. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the board may raise funds by means of voluntary contributions, as well as by means of a compulsory levy. We wish to provide for the board to be able to raise voluntary contributions from industry to facilitate additional functions that would not be an appropriate use of statutory levies. One example might be a hardship fund. Amendment No. 351, with two small consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 346 and 348, bring together the various situations in which an order could require the board to obtain the approval of the appropriate authorities. In my amendment, references to the need to obtain approval of the appropriate authority would be concentrated under a new paragraph headed,"““Approval of appropriate authority, consultation etc.””." Therefore, references would need to be deleted elsewhere in the schedule. Amendment No. 351 may make provision for the exercise of a specified function to be subject to conditions—for example, a condition requiring a ballot to be held for the purpose of imposing or terminating a levy or ascertaining the views of farmers or others who would be affected by a levy. Amendments Nos. 346, 348 and 351 are an interconnected group that is technical in nature. Obviously, I shall go into detail if I am required to do so, but we think that they add further to the proper supervision of the board’s functions. In due course, I shall move those amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made some interesting comments in moving her amendment, Amendment No. 343, and in speaking to Amendment No. 344. She argued that a Clause 80 order should not include provisions for pensions for board members. We have debated identical probing amendments several times, as the noble Baroness reminded us. On 29 January, and again yesterday, I wrote to her. I hope that what I had to say to her in pages 1 and 2 of my letter yesterday will go some way to answering her questions. I can say that serving members will not receive pensions from the non-departmental public body; they will receive them only on retirement. On the regulation of any new board by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton explained on 8 February (at col. 701 of the Official Report) that there is an existing convention that the Secretary of State is required to follow the OCPA code. On Amendments Nos. 352A, 352B and 352C, we very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, will be back with us soon, perhaps even on Report. The Bill already provides the scope for ensuring that an order can establish an NDPB levy board in Scotland or Wales under Clause 80, so the amendments are unnecessary and would create uncertainty about which parts of the Agriculture Act continue to apply in Wales only. Once the MLC is dissolved—I pay tribute to it as the noble Baroness did—I am advised that there is no way in which another body can seek to rely on the powers contained in the Agriculture Act 1967. Therefore, I am afraid that we cannot find favour with either of the approaches mentioned to find a way of setting up a separate levy board to cover Wales. I think that I have dealt with all the amendments that have been moved in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked why we should use secondary legislation instead of primary legislation. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—a powerful and important committee—scrutinised the Bill and the explanations that we gave to it, and it has not responded adversely to the decision to use a statutory instrument order-making power. Indeed, three of the existing levy bodies were set up under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 by way of secondary legislation.