|
Mr. Paice: In the Minister's opening comments, he suggested that 10 years was not a long enough period, and that the investment might deter some organisations from taking on such an agreement. It is the same phrase that I used—the return of capital investment. Will he give us any examples of the sorts of agreements whereby capital investment would be expected in any reasonable business sense to run beyond 10 years? If it were and if a subsequent Secretary of State were to cancel the agreement, would that not render the Government liable for significant sums of compensation? Would it not be more appropriate, and would it not be easier to go along with the power to cancel, if the agreement were for a shorter period, and included a less open-ended commitment to compensate?
Column Number: 300
Jim Knight: To some extent, the hon. Gentleman's argument is logical. I am particularly thinking about habitat restoration projects, in which a function may be delegated to carry out such work. There is such a project of heathland restoration ongoing in my constituency. It is a long-term project to restore the historical heathland to the Purbeck area of Dorset. Cancellation decisions would have to be made as a last resort, because if agreements had been made on the basis of the long-term investment required for such a project, one would have to take seriously the losses that might be incurred and, one would assume, any compensation that might be required.
Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): Surely in those circumstances, if a local wildlife trust, for example, were to enter into an agreement, the fact that the agreement would be renewed regularly would give the trust an added incentive to deliver on it. I suggest to the Minister that a long agreement is less likely to provide that incentive. It is interesting that in his remarks on previous clauses, he talked about the legislation having to stand the test of time. The inflexibility of a 20-year period in the agreements means that it is less future-proof than it would otherwise be.
Jim Knight: In some ways, one could cut the legislation both ways to achieve the same result. We could have either short agreements, producing the friction that requires improved performance, or long agreements, but with the requirement that at least every five years the Minister review the agreement with the power to cancel it. That would provide the same sort of friction to ensure that performance was delivered. One would expect the Minister when reviewing the operation of an agreement to ensure that the agencies concerned were delivering. It is worth making it clear, particularly in respect of clause 72, that the Minister is still accountable. Delivery is being delegated, but accountability is not being delegated at all, and that is why we are keeping the requirement for the review.
Mr. Paice: I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a slight distinction. He referred to an agreement involving the restoration of natural habitat on heathland or wherever. The investment that I am talking about is not investment in heathland or the oak tree, or whatever it was that he referred to. No one is suggesting that that is a short-term agreement, and we do not want to bring that back just for 10 years. The agreement to which I refer is with a contractor who will deliver. My earlier challenge to him about the investment period was about the investment in men and machines, not the public investment in the countryside for what we hope will be a permanent change to create the countryside of the future. Except in extreme cases such as the railways, most businesses, whether the Wildlife Trust or a private sector organisation, would not expect a contract to run for more than 10 years. I am drawing a distinction between that sort of investment and public investment in the environment. That is the fundamental objective.
The Chairman: Order. The Committee is being run in a fairly relaxed mode, and there is nothing wrong
Column Number: 301
with that, but interventions are starting to get somewhat lengthy. I remind the Committee that they should be brief.
11.15 am
Jim Knight: We are trying to create a framework in statute that is flexible enough to cope with all sorts of agreements. The clause contains the word ''maximum''. When an agreement is approved, I would hope that the relevant Minister would consider carefully its term to ensure that it is appropriate and that we are not contracting for too long a time in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes. However, a maximum of 20 years may be appropriate for the examples that I gave. I hope that, on that basis, he will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 75 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Power to establish boards
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): This is an important part of the Bill, and it would be appropriate for the Minister to make some remarks and answer some questions on it. It is clear that the powers to reform agricultural and horticultural bodies and perhaps create new ones are wide ranging. They have the potential greatly to change the structure of the levy boards.
The idea is not new. It was telegraphed in the Haskins report and the Government announced their decision in March. I know some of the bodies involved. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, many of them have been around for a long time. I simply say to the Minister that a change of this kind will not necessarily be easy. I have no objections to changes. Clause 78 and the following clauses set out the process, but it will be important to have a long period of consultation and work on it. Other clauses give powers to dispose and reallocate property, which will not be easy.
I ask the Minister to sketch out for the Committee and those who watch our proceedings the timetable that he has in mind. Later parts of the Bill—I hope that you will allow me to make these remarks now, Mr. Forth—spell out how the changes will be dealt with by way of secondary legislation through statutory instruments. I understand that the negative procedure will be used. Again, it is important that there is a long period of consultation so that Members of Parliament can have an opportunity to comment.
I do not underestimate the need to change, but neither do I underestimate the contentious nature of some of the issues. I would just like the Minister to
Column Number: 302
outline his thinking about the timetable, consultation and parliamentary procedures involved.
Mr. Paice: I agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). He has taken the opportunity to raise the issue under the first clause in this chapter of the Bill. A couple of amendments that I have tabled will be discussed in relation to clause 88, although they touch on the point that he has raised. Perhaps now is the right opportunity to discuss the general point, and I agree with him. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to discuss it.
What we have here, understandably, is the Government's desire to take the one legislative opportunity that they have in this parliamentary Session—and, being realistic, that they are likely to have for two or three years—to create the powers to deal with whatever comes out of the Radcliffe review of the existing levy boards. None of us knows what those conclusions will be. In the agricultural industry, there are a multitude of different views about the value of the British Potato Council, the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, the Horticultural Development Council, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Milk Development Council. Given the MDC's report last September into supermarket margins, I suspect that some organisations would be quite happy to see the back of it. It was quite a major report to which—without wishing to digress—the Government perhaps have not made as strong a response as I would wish.
Those bodies exist. If people go out, as I do, and discuss the matter with farmers and farmers' organisations, they will realise that there are a multitude of views. We do not yet know what conclusions will come out of the inquiry. It may be proposed that some of the bodies remain in their current state, some may be merged and some may be abolished. There are many permutations. We do know that there will be a report. As an aside, I hope that that report to the Government will be published as a precursor to what follows. That is not the same as the Government's publishing their own proposals that they will make as a result of the report—the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Clearly, there is the potential for a significant impact on the agricultural industry for the next—dare I say it, in light of the earlier discussion—20 years or perhaps more. I do not think that there is anybody who does not appreciate that, given the changes that farming faces—the advent of the single-farm payment, stewardship schemes and so on—farming itself must change. Through some form of statutory levy, these bodies are engaged in promoting their particular sectors of the industry, helping to market their products and improving standards. In principle, everybody understands those objectives. Farmers need to grasp that more clearly than perhaps many have in the past and they need to understand that, if they are to compete in a more globalised agricultural economy, the role of such bodies is important.
Whether the bodies should remain as statutory bodies or become voluntary, and whether they should remain levy-funded or should be funded by
Column Number: 303
subscription are issues that will be part of the current review. As I have said, I know that there are many different views. It would be helpful if the Government gave us an update on their plans in relation to the principle of dealing with these bodies and if they addressed how they see the sequence of events unfolding. I will not trespass on your indulgence by talking about my amendments, which I will deal with later, Mr. Forth, but it would be useful if the Government were to lay out how they see things happening, when they expect the report to arrive, when they expect to produce their proposals, and how long they expect to spend consulting the industry and everybody involved in the food sector.
There is also the vexed question of devolution. Some of the bodies have a cross-border role or there is an element of devolution within them. The Meat and Livestock Commission is an example of a body in which is an element of devolution. It would be useful if the Minister could explain how that devolved aspect relates to the inquiry and whether the agreement of the Welsh Assembly or, I think in one case, the Scottish Parliament would be necessary to any change, and how that will work. These bodies are constantly evolving. They need certainty. I hope, therefore, that the review will not take too long because people on these bodies—the chief executive of one of them is a constituent of mine—are anxious to move on and to know where the organisation is going. While there is uncertainty, those organisations cannot do that. As the hon. Member for Sherwood has rightly said, this would be a useful opportunity for the Minister to explain the Government's thinking on the powers that they are seeking to take in the chapter.
| 
