Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I have to admit that initially we found that Amendment No. 272 had some merits, but on further reflection we felt that it was a reformulation of Clause 33(1)(a) using a different form of words. The form of words that has been included within the Bill in Clause 33 is there to provide consistency and continuity with the existing framework in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which first established the joint committee. It is implicit within Clause 33(1)(a) that the JNCC is about biodiversity and that it will be promoting biodiversity as part of its core work. Therefore, we do not believe that the amendment would add significantly something that would otherwise be lacking. Amendment No. 273 would restrict the JNCC’s role in the area of increasing understanding of nature conservation to circumstances where there was a practical, hands-on application to what it was doing. We believe that our phrasing has a wider remit and should be retained because the JNCC should be able to provide advice which has a more general application. For example, that has been beneficial in work in our overseas territories to increase understanding of endangered species. I should explain a little further the fit between Natural England’s functions as set out in Part 1—precisely the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made—and those that it must deliver jointly with its sister bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That fit is not precise. The noble Baroness’s question is whether Clause 33 should not better reflect Natural England’s functions. We agree with the sentiment that we should endeavour to make the functions of the various bodies match as closely as we can. However, we have to have regard to the interfaces that the JNCC will have with bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. While this Bill could, with the prior consent of the Welsh Assembly, be used to amend the remit of the Countryside Council for Wales, it cannot make any changes to the general remits of Scottish National Heritage and the Council for Nature Conservation in Northern Ireland. All four bodies can only discharge functions through the JNCC that they already have as part of their own general remits. I emphasise that this does not mean that the JNCC is king and can dictate what the others are able to do; it just means that we must look at the wider picture and the complex web of relationships, of which the JNCC is a part. My view is that, by sticking to the 1990 Act’s terminology, which is how I started this reply, in Clause 33 we are minimising the potential for problems in the future. It will be implicit that the relationship that Natural England has with the JNCC will mirror exactly that which English Nature currently has with the JNCC on a day-to-day basis. That is the explanation of why we think that, while this may not be perfect, it is important to remember that Natural England is one of four institutions that make up that UK-wide body, the JNCC.