Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, the amendment would require certain areas of Natural England’s work to be funded totally by government grant. Those areas would be any reviews relating to the general purpose; research activities; compliance with UK common standards established by the JNCC; provision of advice to public authorities; and compliance with any direction from the Secretary of State. Although we would expect all those areas of work normally to be funded from Natural England’s core funding from government, we do not categorically rule out the possibility that Natural England could utilise other sources of funding. One example may be European co-financing or other EU funding sources such as the LIFE regulation. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would not wish Natural England to be excluded from applying for such funding. Programmes funded by the lottery have a limited life. It is too early to say whether individual programmes will be replaced. We understand the noble Baroness’s concern that Natural England should be properly funded and that it should not be too reliant on, for example, lottery funding for top-up. I can merely reiterate some of the reassurances that I have given previously and highlight the fact that lottery income represents a small but significant element of the current bodies’ income. They have not been encouraged by government to seek alternate funding from lottery sources for their core work. Nor will we encourage Natural England to do so once it is established. Rather, those bodies have been able to use their expertise to deliver the lottery distributors’ aims, and we have encouraged them to do so. The noble Baroness expressed fear in an earlier debate that money would be diverted from charities and voluntary bodies, but the opposite has been the case. The bulk of lottery money that is given to the confederation bodies, English Nature and the Countryside Agency, is passed on to local communities. Confederation bodies are assisting lottery distributors by making available their grant-giving machinery. In the case of the local heritage initiative, they were successful in attracting more than £1m of private sector sponsorship. The noble Baroness asked about the current position. As she said, that income amounts to £17 million or about 5 per cent of the bodies’ total expenditure of £360 million. That does not include EU co-funding of the agri-environment programme or the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. Much the largest source of income has been the lottery. During the next two years, income is projected to drop to around £10 million, unless it is replaced by sums not yet awarded. The vast majority of that is where the bodies act as a distributor rather than a recipient of funding. I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied by my response.