Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill to the House this afternoon. I remind noble Lords of my family’s farming interests, and also of my association with several rural organisations and charities. We are very much looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who is with us today. I understand that he was formerly Bishop of Birkenhead and had a great input with the farming community there. We look forward to his contribution, which is coming shortly. We welcome him to the House. This Bill comes to us, as the Minister has said, after a searching passage through another place and amendment by the Government as a result. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill—the Natural England part of which will be headed up by Sir Martin Doughty—follows four years of pressure on Defra and its associated bodies. On the surface, this is the outcome of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. We add our thanks to him for that. We should remember, however, that his work was occasioned by poor performance levels at that time on the part of Defra. There was the sluggish response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; the lack of control over subsequent events, and I believe there are still some outstanding bills to be paid; the problems that followed the amalgamation of the cattle tracing service and the Rural Payments Agency; the appalling number of errors consequent on the introduction of satellite mapping on farms; the constant evidence of the decline in British Agriculture; the closure of rural services, to which the Minister has referred; and the growth of rural poverty and deprivation is still with us. The noble Lord’s report was much needed. This Bill is to,"““make provision about bodies concerned with the natural environment””." Why was it, then, that the Environment Agency was not included? As I recall, it was especially excluded from the remit. Why was this? Why was the Rural Payments Agency left out when, as I have said, its performance—or lack of it—is so crucial to the cash flow in farming communities, as well as to other small and medium-sized rural businesses? The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, had just four terms of reference, which I abbreviate: to simplify or rationalise existing delivery mechanisms; to achieve efficiency savings and maximise value for money; to provide better and more streamlined services; and to identify arrangements that can help to deliver Defra’s rural priorities and public service agreement targets cost-effectively. We would all support that. The main thrust of the Bill is the establishment of Natural England, which occupies six pages and a four-page schedule. It encompasses the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency and the transfer of the duties of the Rural Development Service. Apparently, however, like a phoenix from the ashes, the Countryside Agency will be resurrected within both Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities. Why did the Government decide not to take on the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, that the Countryside Agency should simply cease to exist? The Commission for Rural Communities is to be established with the general purpose of promoting both awareness of rural needs and methods of meeting them that contribute to sustainable development. I am grateful to the Minister for enlarging upon that. He referred to rural proofing, as we all call it. The impact assessment seems to suggest that the set-up costs will be in the range of £5 million to £9 million and that the savings will come from the closure of the Countryside Agency. However, in another place, my honourable friend Oliver Letwin, quoting from the regulatory impact assessment, said that the on-off costs of this simplification measure in establishing English Nature would be between £32 million and £47 million between 2005 and 2009. Will the Minister comment on this? We have steadily questioned the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities; not that we do not believe or know that there is a need for a rural advocate, because indeed there is, but because to us this is yet another high-level body responsible for talking. True, it is supposed to talk with good effect to government departments, local authorities, local planning authorities and statutory undertakers and persuade them to consider their effects on rural communities. But we have reservations about it. We shall look closely at the reformed Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is moving into a United Kingdom committee. Although we support that we shall look at it in greater detail in Committee. In general we welcome the wildlife clauses, particularly those that deal with invasive non-native species. We recognise with gratitude the benefits that our intrepid explorers of earlier generations brought back to the United Kingdom, but it is now obvious that we have to be selective if our existing flora and fauna are to survive and contribute to our own unique habitat. Strengthening the rules on SSSIs is unfortunately necessary. The idea that any Section 28G authority can carry out operations that result in damage to SSSIs is unacceptable. They may well excuse themselves on the grounds of the mass of new legislation, direction and guidance with which all manner of authorities are constantly bombarded. However, these clauses, with their considerable financial penalties, will have the effect of making them more careful in how they treat SSSIs. Amendments to the rules of the national parks and Broads Authority are mainly sensible. But we note with slight amusement that, rather than attempt to define ““significant expenditure””, the Government propose merely to remove the need to have regard to it at all. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that too. Parts 6, 7 and 8 are welcome in principle. I know that many people will be pleased at the new controls to be operated in regard to mechanically propelled vehicles, an issue to which the Minister referred in detail. I also know, however, that there are many who wish to use such vehicles on the rights of way. They feel aggrieved because they feel that they have a lack of suitable facilities. Consequently, in Committee we shall look very closely at the contents of these clauses and the timing of their introduction. We await eagerly the promise made by the Minister in another place on 11 October—at col. 228 of the Official Report—to deal with the flood of applications to register byways on definitive maps. Can the Minister tell us how many there are and how long it will take to process them? In Hampshire, for example—and these are Defra’s own figures from May 2005—BOAT applications currently stand at 25, compared with six in 2004. GLEAM, which I know has written to so many of us, has supplied figures showing that in 2005 there were 147 applications, of which 73 are post 11 October 2005. There is a real problem as regards applications that have already been lodged and the pressure put on local authorities by organisations to get the new ones registered. Clarity on that point would be very helpful. The Minister referred to the dissolution of existing levy bodies as part of the Bill and referred to Rosemary Ratcliffe’s report. The note I have asks when the report will be available but the Minister has already said that it will be Friday. The Minister has spoken of consultation, but how long will that take? How long will it be before individual Peers can get a copy of the report and how quickly will the Government respond after the consultation? Will it be before or after the Bill’s passage through Parliament? The issue of levy bodies brings me to that of finance. Clause 6 allows Natural England to give financial assistance. Clauses 14 and 24 allow the Secretary of State to make such grants as she sees fit to Natural England and the commission. The latter receives wide financial powers under Clause 23, as do the conservation bodies under Clause 35. I have already mentioned the removal of financial restrictions on national parks. Clause 87 allows the appropriate national authority to make grants to the new agricultural boards; in England that will be the Secretary of State. Clause 91 gives the Secretary of State wide powers to grant, loan or guarantee moneys in respect of expenditure relating to any matter connected to a ““Defra function””, and her word that any function is a Defra function is to be conclusive evidence of that fact. I hope that the relevant committees in both Houses will be aware of these various powers and will monitor their use carefully. The main part of the Bill occupies 43 pages of print. The schedules take up 58. Of those, repeals and revocations extend for four-and-a-half pages while Schedule 11, entitled Minor and consequential amendments, uses up twenty-six-and-a-half pages. In other words, one-third of the Bill is devoted to changes to existing legislation. We should examine this very carefully in Committee to make sure that when we pass this Bill we will be confident that it does not carry the risk of any unintended consequences. In the minutes that remain to me I should like to turn to aspects about which we are particularly cautious. First, why, for instance, is the Forestry Commission to be, in the words of the policy statement, a major partner of Natural England rather than an integral part of it, especially when there is so strong an emphasis on the need for it to ““work closely”” and have a ““strong and transparent partnership”” with Natural England. Secondly, how will the Government ensure the preservation of the independence of English Nature? I have not always agreed with its pronouncements but I have always acknowledged that its voice remains free from government influence. By joining it in a body that is to be subject to direction, guidance and control, are the Government hopeful of eliminating one source of criticism; that is, how can this be a fully independent advice giving body? It is notable that none of the major players in this new organisational structure is elected. Moreover, there is no direct reference to RDAs, even in Schedule 7, entititled Designated Bodies—I understand that is the way the Government wish to push their policy through—although the policy statement refers to those designated bodies having the power to delegate to local authorities and regional bodies. There must, in practice, surely be strong links between the RDAs and both Natural England and the commission, and it is our contention that the Bill as it stands will remove even more accountability from local, elected representatives. Many colleagues are very unhappy about that. Finally, we are seriously concerned about the dangers of overlap and disagreement. There is no merit in streamlining an organisation if, in the process, we build in conflict points. The time that used to be taken in consultation and discussion will merely be dedicated to argument and dissension. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee reported on the draft Bill and recommended the use of the Sandford Principle,"““to apply in those exceptional circumstances where there is an irreconcilable conflict, to make clear that the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural environment takes precedence over other purposes””." I noted that, but as the Minister himself said, that will be a very difficult balance to achieve when it is crucial that economic and social circumstances are taken into consideration for long-term sustainability. From my contribution noble Lords will appreciate that it is our intention to examine the Bill very closely in Committee.