Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 303:"Page 21, line 23, at end insert ““after consultation with whom the agreement has been made””" The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 303 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 304. This issue was raised by my honourable friend Jim Paice in another place in Amendment No. 130 under the heading,"““After consultation with every occupier of that land””." This has now been refined for practical purposes which were highlighted in the Standing Committee debate. The Minister said that he would expect Natural England to liaise with owners and occupiers. I am sure that he is right but we would encourage him to accept our more restrictive amendment. The Countryside Alliance was also interested in this amendment because it would ensure that a land manager would be fully aware of any signs being placed on his land and be consulted on the issue. One of the points it made was that Clause 55 currently goes against the spirit of community conservation and the Government’s commitment to working with local land management communities. The purpose of this Bill is to devolve responsibilities closer to rural people and ensure that practical integration on the ground is achieved. Failing to consult local land managers of any changes is failing to deliver on the objectives of this Bill. Amendment No. 304 probes the parity between punishments that are on the same tariff. In Clause 54 there is an insertion into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to the effect that anyone who does damage on a SSSI commits an offence punishable by a level 4 fine. It seems rather odd to have the same level of fine for damaging a notice. We feel that either the greater offence should have a greater fine or that the damage to a notice should have a lesser one. On balance, we feel that the latter course of action is more desirable. I beg to move.