---

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I thank the Minister and all Members for their comments, which were very good. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was not here to explain why he was anxious that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. Because we had moved on, I did not think that I could presume that. He may come back to it on Report. Even at this late stage, I should like comment because we have hit on an important topic. First, we are at a crucial time of change in the farming industry, of which the Minister is well aware. The way in which business was done traditionally is very much in question. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has referred to supermarkets. I will not continue down that alley, but there are great concerns about the way in which food is purchased. The amount that the prime producer is paid today in comparison with what he was paid years ago is minuscule. I think that he now gets about 7p from every pound, which is down from 50p about 50 years ago. My figures are not exact, but this is a big issue. Secondly, I am sure that the Minister’s concern is the same as mine. It is worrying that quite a few prime producers feel remote from their levy bodies, which they feel do not represent their needs in the way that they would like them to do so. That is just a warning shot, which we need to address. This is not good for the long-term and needs to be given further thought. Thirdly, I turn to the existing levy bodies. I pay tribute to the work that Rosemary Ratcliffe has done. She has produced a very good report. As the noble Lord said, we await the spring to hear exactly what will happen. It may be that some levy bodies that have existed traditionally may not be necessary in future, which the Minister touched on slightly. With the change to the single farm payment, the subsidies and so on which farmers receive, and the circumstances in which they operate, may not be the same in five or 10 years’ time. So I am well aware of the need for this section, for which I am grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the original Milk Marketing Board, which, obviously, was first dissolved when we were in government. I wish to raise an important point. In those days, we were told that it held too much power over the way in which milk was produced in this country. Nowadays, we compete on a global setting. I hope that Rosemary Ratcliffe will read our comments on this part of the debate. We operate in very different circumstances: we operate globally. Some countries have 90 per cent or more co-operatives. Surely, we must think again about the way in which we operate in this country or have had to operate since the decision was taken to stand down the Milk Marketing Board and the three boards that followed. Otherwise, it is totally unfair to the British producer that we should act in an uncompetitive way. I apologise to the Minister for having taken a little longer, and I propose, when we come it, not to oppose the Question that Schedule 9 should stand part. In some ways the debate we have already had around this has covered it. I hope the Minister will take on board those few comments I have made because they are enormously important. We are at a big crossroads with agriculture today, and whatever we can do in the way of levy boards, whatever way we can help improve their ability to produce and be competitive, will make this Bill all the more welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 344 not moved.] Schedule 8 agreed to. Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to. Schedule 9 agreed to. Clause 83 agreed to. Schedule 10 [Ancillary provisions relating to boards]: