Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I believe that my amendments are Amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168? I certainly do not want to detain the House very long, especially at this hour. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about levy boards and their importance. As my amendments cover the MLC rather a lot, I would like to congratulate the Government on the hard work that Defra did in securing the lifting of the EU beef ban. I know that many of its officials were involved in that over a long period and that a lot of work went into it. My thanks, and those of the farming community, go to the Government, and particularly Defra, for achieving that with their European colleagues. It means a lot to the livestock industry. In these three amendments I am attempting to secure the position of the MLC functions in Wales. I know that the Minister replied in detail on this matter in Committee, but I should like clarification on a point that I shall be raising towards the end of my intervention. I know that in some quarters there is dissatisfaction with the conduct of the MLC but, in many others, there is recognition of the good work that it does. As the operator of a weigh crate weighing thousands of cattle a week, I was very relieved to hand the whole thing over to the MLC, which was a new body at the time. We did a lot of very useful work, the MLC carried out further development and much useful information came out. The Radcliffe report recognises the good work that the MLC has done. It stresses that in the meat sector there will be a place for it in the proposed NewCo, which combines the five levy bodies, including the MLC, recommended by Rosemary Radcliffe. However, I stress to the Minister that in Wales there is particular concern that the funding streams derived from the current structure of the MLC enable an independent body—for example, Meat Promotion Wales—to operate, especially in the function of meat marketing, and that enables the Welsh Assembly Government to provide additional support for the marketing of meat. I should like to know whether the new body will be able to support that kind of operation in Wales in the future. I also request assurances from the Minister that the MLC functions will not be swallowed up into a UK NewCo, which would shut off innovative production and marketing of meat from Wales. I know that the Minister addressed that in Committee, and I shall refer to it in a moment. There is particular concern about money and the continued viability of the operation on a Welsh basis. Amendment No. 166 is the nuclear option. It would remove the dissolution of the MLC from the Bill altogether to preserve its current structure, thereby protecting the Welsh interest as well as that of excellent bodies such as EBLEX—English Beef and Lamb Executive—which has a very good record in assisting English livestock producers. The Minister needs to convince me that NewCo’s structure will not stifle such assets. Amendment No. 167 is a cross-reference to Amendment No. 168, which would insert a new subsection (3A). That subsection states:"““If an order is made providing for the dissolution of the Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Assembly for Wales may provide for some or all of its existing functions to continue in Wales””." There is great concern because we do not produce a great variety of agricultural products in Wales. We produce mainly meat and milk and just a few cereals. They are very important to us because they are pivotal to the economic welfare of farming in Wales. The implication is that, if the MLC is dissolved, its functions can still be carried out in Wales to enable the present advantages to continue. I note that on the sixth day of our Committee stage deliberations on the Bill, the Minister said that there would be a single NDPB to act as a holding company, or NewCo, to replace the current five NDPBs. He mentioned, in particular,"““the possibility that separate boards might be required for certain levy activities in the devolved regions””.—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 226.]" That statement is perhaps a little vague for me. If he had stated that separate boards ““will”” be required for levy activities in the devolved regions or nations, I should be a lot happier. That would secure a more adequate structure and a financial basis for an equitable solution. At col. 229 of the Official Report for 28 February, the Minister refers to Clause 80. Is Clause 80 now Clause 78? I suspect that it is. We were looking at a slightly different Bill on 28 February. Clause 78 in the current edition of the Bill is headed, ““Designated bodies””. I suspect that it is the same clause that was referred to in Committee. If so, what the Minister said on 28 February intrigues me. He said:"““The Bill already provides the scope for ensuring that an order can establish an NDPB levy board in Scotland or Wales under Clause 80””." I assume that that is now Clause 78. On the other hand, he also says:"““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””.—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 229.]" That does not quite clarify the situation. I am hoping that the Minister can satisfy me by confirming that first quotation and saying whether the funding stream will enable a body such as Meat Promotion Wales to continue, with farmers paying the levy and the Assembly assisting it with its functions. I beg to move.