Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, that makes me even more convinced that it was tongue in cheek. It seemed to take the attention of other noble Lords, however. I can confirm that the name ““Natural England”” was proposed by the chairmen of the three predecessor bodies, following consultation with staff and stakeholders. The problem with his alternative, ““the commission for rural environment”” raises quite an important point which has already been mentioned. Natural England’s remit will cover rural, urban and coastal areas from seabed to mountaintop. It will be empowered to take an integrated landscape-scale approach to sustainable environmental management. So ““the commission for rural environment”” will not do, but I advise him against putting down an amendment to call it ““Unnatural England””. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned the Marine Bill. We very much agree with what he said on that, and it is our intention, everything else being normal, that we will have such a Bill before Parliament in the next Session. Of course, he knows that that is not a guarantee, but it is our intention. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill is the foundation for our plans to achieve the agenda set out in the rural strategy and the rural manifesto. It will provide the legislative framework to help us realise our vision of thriving rural communities, fair access to services for all in the countryside and rich, diverse landscapes managed and enhanced for current and future generations. I was delighted that there seems to have been general support in this House this afternoon for an important Bill. It has not been universal, and, of course, all the support had some reservations, as it no doubt should. I do not think anyone listening to this debate, however, could say that there was anything other than general support for the Bill. It will benefit rural businesses, rural people and people enjoying the countryside and the coast, with Natural England providing a single co-ordinated approach to access and nature. It will benefit the environment through better sustainable management. Last but not least, it will benefit the taxpayer, with more efficient and effective administration. Implementing the change programme as a whole will save roughly £21 million each year by 2009–10, and more beyond. The Bill will provide a flexible delivery framework that is both fit for purpose today and able to evolve. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich wanted this Bill and the organisations to stand for some time. That is our clear intention. We will not be revisiting this year on year. Rather, we want these organisations to stand the test of time. If they do not, of course, any government will have to come back and mend the situation, but that is our intent. Of course, I recognise from the debate today that there are areas of the Bill that noble Lords will want to give very close scrutiny indeed. I look forward to discussing these in closer detail in Committee. In the available time, I shall now address some of the points made during the debate. No doubt time will prevent me from covering everything. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, wanted to know why there was so much in Schedule 11, with all these minor consequences. The reason is simple. The large number of minor, inconsequential amendments contained in that schedule is needed to substitute references to English Nature, nature conservation councils and the Countryside Agency by references to Natural England. We have taken the valuable opportunity, with this important Bill, to tidy up the statue book. The department has assisted the House with reproducing the changes within the five main Acts of Parliament, by placing the Acts as amended by this Bill—a document known to noble Lords as a Keeling schedule—in the House Library. The noble Baroness asked when noble Lords will have copies of the review of levy boards. The noble Baroness and her colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Front Benches will be invited to the event on Friday, when Rosemary Radcliffe will announce her report. I hope that copies will be available for all noble Lords in the usual way, either on Friday in the House or on Monday next week. I was asked about the Forestry Commission not being included in Natural England. We have heard today about the excellent work done by the Forestry Commission from its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. We thought carefully about that recommendation. We thought that incorporating the functions of the Forestry Commission, a body with a very wide range of responsibilities across Great Britain, as we have heard, including managing the public forests estate, would have added a further level of complexity and risk. So we decided not to take that course. Why did we not get rid of the Countryside Agency, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins? The noble Lord’s criticism of the Countryside Agency was that it was unwieldy, poorly focused and expensive. That no doubt reflected widespread feeling at the time of the review. The Government’s decision to establish the CRC to take and build on some of the agency’s functions, however, is a bold measure that will address the needs of rural communities and those who live and work in them. There is a role for a strong and independent rural advocate to advise on issues affecting rural communities. Therefore, the Commission for Rural Communities will be a small, expert body, to provide strong, independent and impartial advice to the Government, and act as a watchdog. I was asked why the Environment Agency was outside the remit of the review of rural delivery of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. It was not. The noble Lord’s terms of reference were very wide, relating to delivery arrangements for Defra’s rural policies in the round. They included, in Annex 9, looking at the activities of the Environment Agency in so far as their work relates to the delivery of Defra’s rural policies. Recommendation 17 of the review relates to the Environment Agency and the relationship it will have with Natural England. How will English Nature’s independence be preserved? This is an important issue, raised by many noble Lords, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I repeat what I said earlier: Natural England will be no less independent than its predecessor bodies. However, like its predecessors, as an appointed rather than elected body, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for Natural England’s effective and efficient use of public money. Directions provide an important part of this chain of accountability. There is nothing new here. In fact, the briefing issued by the bodies that will make up Natural England is quite illuminating. They welcome the reassurance given in Clauses 15 and/or 16 by the requirement to consult the transparency of publication and specificity of the obligations set out therein. They say that these reassurances are, if anything, greater than those currently applying to English Nature and the Countryside Agency, which have never been accused of lacking independence, and have a strong track record of influential policy advice. Why are the RDAs not part of Schedule 7, or in the Bill? The Secretary of State may delegate functions to regional development agencies under Section 6 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is already in legislation. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, raised important points—as did other noble Lords—about the CRC. He said that we know what the real issues are, and that what we need is a delivery body which will focus on championing best practice, not a talking shop. The CRC needs research powers to be able to undertake its functions of representation, advice and monitoring. It needs to be able to investigate particular issues affecting rural people so that its pronouncements are evidence-based and objective. I remind noble Lords what the Secretary of State said in her first response to the Haskins report. She pledged that the CRC would be,"““reporting on best practice in the delivery of the Government’s rural policies””." The CRC will need to inform and engender debate, but that is not a talking-shop role; it is about exercising influence and applying its knowledge and expertise. I was grateful for the quite wide support for the CRC from all sides of the House, including the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the right reverend Prelates, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, of course, and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked why the CRC, not local authorities, would have responsibility for rural policy and delivery. In acting as an advocate for rural communities, the CRC will seek to establish a national position that, frankly, would be beyond any individual local authority, and will have a single-minded focus on rural matters. It will need to challenge local authorities as deliverers of those services and to work with local partners to draw on their specific experience and expertise as appropriate. We do not think that that function could be easily picked up by local authorities.