Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 5:"Page 2, line 2, at end insert—" ““(   )   The functions of the Rural Development Service are divided between the Regional Development Agencies and Natural England.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals again with the Rural Development Service. In Committee, the Minister stated:"““A large part of the Rural Development Service’s functions, including the delivery of the agri-environment schemes . . . will be the responsibility of Natural England””.—[Official Report, 24/1/06; col. 1101.]" He also said that it was neither legally necessary nor appropriate to mention that fact in the Bill. At that time, we agreed to disagree with him. Our main reason for bringing this issue back on Report is because of the doubts surrounding the funding of Natural England. The money that goes out of the door in the form of agri-environment scheme funding is presumably not in question. It will be what it will be, and will be made available either via Defra or directly from the Treasury. We do not know. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to disabuse me if I have got it wrong. The money that enables Natural England to administer the schemes is, however, a rather different matter. If there is no reference to the transfer of responsibilities, will the necessary funding be made available at the same level as when the task was part of the RDS? Or will there be discussions about how many staff are needed and which computer hardware or software is required? Or will they all be transferred? How much will be devoted to the accountancy systems which are, presumably, fairly sophisticated? It seems fairly well accepted that the Government are trying to cut back on expenditure wherever possible. Part of that is simply reducing the funding that they allow for certain items—national parks, for example, as we discussed in Committee—and of shifting responsibility for the delivery away from government to, for instance, local authorities. An example of the latter is the Chancellor’s promise of free local transport for the over-60s, for example, which has resulted in some councils having to consider raising council tax by up to 2 per cent. We should not like to see the delivery of agri-environment schemes compromised by lack of funds. I refer to the Minister’s letter to me of 29 January, as it underlines my concern. It says:"““Following the Curry Commission recommendations, the Government has made clear its desire to shift resources by modulating . . . funds from Pillar 1 subsidies to Pillar 2. The UK has been at the forefront of voluntary modulation for several years. It is true that modulation will have an effect on the amount of subsidy that farmers receive but our industry has remained amongst the most competitive and sustainable in the EU. The agreement reached also provides for the possibility to allow transfers of up to 20% of Pillar 1 funds to Pillar 2. There is a provision in the agreement which allows Member States to choose whether or not to co-finance transferred funds, adding incentive to transfer funds to rural development””." However, the letter goes on clearly to state:"““No decision has yet been taken about whether the Government will match-fund additional transfers from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2. It is clear that the decision reached will have an effect on the amount of funds needed to transfer to deliver rural development, including the agri-environment programme””." That is why I have returned to the matter today. I beg to move.