Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) Regulations 2006

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2362). 46th Report from the Merits Committee (Session 2005-06). The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to the Committee for having a temporary adjournment because it was enormously important that the Minister was presenting awards to the poultry industry. As that is where I started my trade, many years ago, as a poultry producer, I would certainly not have pulled the Minister off that particularly important job. I place on record, too, my thanks to the Minister for reconsidering the whole question of the IPCC charges because they are a real problem, on which I and many others have lobbied him. Having started on a positive note, I am sorry to have to nitpick and raise certain questions. I suggest that we take these two sets of regulations together. Statutory Instrument 2006/2362 was made on 4 September, laid before Parliament on 7 September and came into force on 1 October. Statutory Instrument 2006/2522 was made on 13 September, when it was realised that there were errors in the first one, laid on 15 September and came into force on 30 September, but some remaining provisions came through on 10 October. Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more on that matter. My reasons for raising this issue before in Committee today are to seek clarification and assurance, and also to say, yet again, that the department is obviously not functioning as the Minister would like it to. To have to reproduce legislation so quickly after it has come into being seems undesirable, to say the least. How many copies of the original were made and how many were sold at £5.50? Consequently, how much money has been spent on reproducing the regulations? Presumably, there is a cost to the department which it covers. With regard to Regulations 23 to 31, how much money does Natural England have in its budget to act as the enforcement authority? That is certainly not clear. Is the amount that it will cost Natural England to be taken out of the fees that it gets from the fines that may follow if people do not adhere to the regulations set? There is no clear definition of that. Also, does Natural England keep the fines or do they return to the revenue so that, in other words, they are lost? Under Regulation 3.1, the Explanatory Memorandum for SI 2006/2522 states: "““The Department deeply regrets that it has had to break the 21-day rule””." I can understand that it broke it because otherwise the other regulation would come into force. But Regulation 3.3 leaves us with a very sorry state of affairs. It states clearly: "““In order to correct a minor but persistent validation error in the S.I. template, a final draft of those Regulations was cut out and pasted into a fresh copy of the template. The new version validated correctly, but the cut-and-paste process had introduced an unexpected error into the instrument, mis-numbering all the paragraphs in Schedules 3 to 5. This was noticed after the instrument was made, and it was considered an error that was so obvious and minor that it could justifiably be corrected before the instrument was laid””." The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to state: "““Unfortunately, the correction of that minor error introduced a surprising and yet more serious error into the instrument, with regulation 1 becoming regulation 2 … leading to consequential errors in the Regulations … Most regrettably of all, that further re-numbering error was not noticed until after the instrument had been laid and printed””," That is not a happy state of affairs. Is that a lawyers’ or a printers’ error, because we have no knowledge of that? The summary of the recommendations of the46th Report from the Merits Committee of the 2005-06 Session states: "““These Regulations implement EU legislation on environmental impact assessment, and on habitats, by developing existing requirements for projects for the use of uncultivated land and semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes. They also introduce new rules for projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings. The lack of clarity over the definition of restructuring projects in the Regulations means that there is a risk of accidental non-compliance (and thus commission of a criminal offence) by farmers and others””." So it is not a light matter. Further on, at paragraph 8, the Merits Committee states that Defra was, "““keen to choose a broad interpretation of the restructuring projects, particularly because the new rules being introduced under EU infraction pressure””." Paragraph 9 goes on to state: "““The Department will also include details of new rules and guidance to all farmers on ““cross-compliance”” (planned for January 2007)””." I would be grateful if the Minister could update us about where we are with that. However, in paragraph 10, the committee states: "““While we welcome DEFRA’s efforts to publicise the new rules, we are not persuaded that publicity will necessarily equate to understanding””." Again, I would like to know how the Government have reacted to that. In paragraph 11 the committee states: "““DEFRA have stressed that interpretation of the term ““restructuring project”” in the 2006 Regulations should be in line with the meaning of the relevant term in the EIA directive; and yet it is clear from the Department’s advice to this Committee that different Member States have interpreted this term in the EIA Directive differently. DEFRA have explained that Natural England, as the regulator with responsibility for screening decisions and consents, is ready to provide informal advice to farmers and land managers. However, it does not seem appropriate to us that uncertainties which should have been resolved in the Regulations themselves are left to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis through discussions between Natural England and individuals potentially affected””." I seek a little more information from the Minister on that. The committee states in conclusion inparagraph 12 that it is concerned that, "““the lack of clarity over the definition of restructuring projects means that there is a risk of accidental non-compliance (and thus the commission of a criminal offence) by farmers and others””." I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is not a desirable state to be in, and that is why I have brought this issue to the attention of the Grand Committee. I shall wait to hear what other noble Lords and the Minister have to say and shall perhaps come back with further comments. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2362). 46th Report from the Merits Committee (Session 2005-06).—(Baroness Byford.)