Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) (Appendix 11)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.  At the time of the "Modernising Rural Delivery" review, CLA expressed its strongly held concern that the proposal for reliance for delivery of rural policy on three separate agencies—(i) an "integrated" agency taking in English Nature (EN), parts of the Countryside Agency (CA) and Defra's Rural Development Service (RDS), (ii) a stripped down CA and (iii) the relevant Regional Development Agency (RDA)—would wrongly lead each of these agencies to believe that it had a responsibility for pursuing only one of the three pillars of sustainable development, environmental, social and economic sustainability. The result would be not an integrated approach to pursuing true sustainability but a disintegrated approach, with the inherent and serious risk that the essential importance of economic viability of land management businesses as the vehicle for environmental conservation and enhancement would be ignored.

  2.  The draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill reignites these fears.

  3.  In particular, Clause 2 of the draft Bill, which sets out the purpose of the "Integrated Agency" (IA), provides that the exercise by the IA of its powers and duties to regulate the conservation, enhancement and management of the natural environment constitutes the totality of its remit to contribute to sustainable development. The reference in 2(2) to economic and social well being places no obligation on the IA to have regard to sustainable development as a whole. On the contrary, the clause assumes that management of the natural environment will itself support economic and social well being.

  4.  The absence of a straightforward remit for the IA—an environmental agency—to contribute to sustainable development in the same way as the RDAs and the proposed Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) are remitted to do, is mystifying and worrying.

  5.  The draft Bill is a departure from statements by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which have recognised that environmental and social sustainability are ultimately dependent on economic sustainability.

  6.  The draft thus raises doubts, despite reassurances from officials, that Defra accepts that the IA must have regard to the economic practicalities of rural land based businesses in order for the agency is to be successful in achieving its environmental objectives or contributing to sustainable development overall.

  7.  In addition, and in number of places, the draft Bill would give general and unqualified powers to the Secretary of State, for example:

    —  to authorise the IA to compulsorily acquire land for experimental schemes;

    —  to give directions to that agency, the CRC and the joint nature conservation committee (JNCC) as to how it carry out their functions;

    —  to remove members of the Boards of these agencies or the JNCC without explanation; and

    —  to dissolve existing levy boards and create new ones.

  Clause 67 of the draft Bill would also enable the Secretary of State to amend primary legislation through regulations. Such extensive powers require justification.

THE PURPOSE OF THE INTEGRATED AGENCY, CLAUSES 1-2

  8.  The purposes of the IA are set out in Clause 2 of the draft Bill. Clause 2 (2) (e) states that ". . . The Agency's general purpose includes—contributing in other ways to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment" and thus assumes that management of the natural environment is the way for the Agency to contribute to economic and social well-being. CLA believes that such an approach is at odds with what the Secretary of State said at the time of the launch of the rural strategy in July 2004 and what Sir Brian Bender, Permanent Secretary at Defra, said at a seminar on Defra's Five Year Strategy on 25 January 2005, namely that sustainable development is built on the three pillars of environmental, social and economic sustainability and that it relies on the economic viability of land based rural businesses.

  9.  CLA accepts and supports that latter approach and is dismayed that it has not been carried into the draft Bill. We believe, strongly, that economic sustainability is fundamental to the good management of the natural environment. A policy approach that works with the grain of business is needed in order to achieve the IA's environmental objectives. In making this argument, we do not seek to choose between economic and environmental objectives. Rather, we are saying that they are interdependent, and that the Agency should have regard to the need to work with market policy mechanisms in order to meet its environmental objectives.

  10.  Thus 2 (2) (e) as drafted is at best circular and at worst back to front. Good management of the natural environment may or may not enhance economic and social well-being. There is no guaranteed process to ensure that it will. So (e) cannot be a statutory purpose, since it is based on a hope, rather than a mechanism.

  11.  Moreover, management of the natural environment, which is cited twice in Clause 2, cannot be sustained without policies that promote economic and social well-being. How are land managers, who are the providers in reality of the public benefits aspired to in Clause 2 (2) (a) and (b), going to provide public benefit if they are progressively reduced in profitability by public policy, pursued by the IA on the basis that it is following (e)? It cannot be done.

  12.  We do not object to the general objective at Clause 2 (1), and accept that that objective contributes to sustainable development, but that is quite different from asserting, hopefully, that management of the natural environment will somehow support the economic or social pillars needed for true sustainability.

  13.  An alternative approach would be to borrow words from the 1998 Regional Development Agencies Act as it applies to RDAs. That Act states that a purpose of an RDA is:

  "4 (1) (e) to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so."

  For the most part it will be relevant to the area of an RDA to do this; indeed it is hard to envisage where it will not be relevant. Such a remit for the IA would not deflect the Agency from its primarily environmental objectives, but would direct it to pursue these objectives in a way that also contributed to sustainable development. This seems an entirely reasonable purpose for an environmental agency to be given. It is surprising that the IA has, according to the draft Bill, a lesser responsibility to contribute to sustainable development than an RDA.

OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE INTEGRATED AGENCY, CLAUSES 3-16

  14.  Clause 7, management agreements. At present the conservation bodies can enter into management agreements under section16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, for securing the management of land as a nature reserve, or under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 for the purpose of conserving the special features of an SSSI.

  15.  It is not proposed to repeal either of these sections, just to amend them to reflect the creation of the IA. Accordingly, the new management agreements are a supplement to the existing provisions, not a replacement, and are presumably designed to enable the IA to operate the stewardship schemes planned by Defra within the existing and proposed EU Rural Development Regulations, ie, land on which an environmental benefit is sought, but which is unlikely to be designated as either a nature reserve or an SSSI. So far as the proposed entry level scheme is concerned this could be agricultural land anywhere in England.

  16.  CLA has consistently supported the introduction of these stewardship schemes, because they reflect the voluntary approach described in paragraph 9 above. However, CLA will be cautious in the advice it gives on entering these schemes to individual members. Land managers may be tempted to enter into time-limited agreements in respect of land which is of no special conservation value and, having improved it in the way the IA desires, find it permanently designated in some way, most probably as either an SSSI or as access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, or both. Thus it is essential that land managers are alive to this possibility.

  17.  Clause 8 (4), enabling the Secretary of State to authorise the Agency to compulsorily acquire land for an experimental scheme appears draconian, given that such schemes, by their experimental nature, cannot be regarded as essential to the national interest.

  18.  Clause 11 (3) would enable the Secretary of State to make a statutory instrument (negative resolution) requiring charges to be made for the issue of licences by the Agency. It is not clear for what purposes such licences would be issued. CLA will wish this provision to be clarified.

  19.  Clause 15 (1), Guidance. In the CLA's view, guidance to the Agency from the Secretary of State should be made public, in the interests of open government and the interest of those being regulated by the Agency knowing what guidance the Agency is acting under.

  20.  Clause 16 (1), Directions. Clarification is needed that this clause is required to enable the functions of the RDS to be carried out by the Agency. Otherwise it is not clear why the Secretary of State should have powers to direct the functions of a non departmental body. The award of similar powers to the Secretary of State in respect of the CRC, in Clause 25, suggest that the Government does not have in mind a specific reason for these powers to be awarded. Such expediency requires justification.

COMMISSION FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES (CRC), CLAUSES 17-25, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS, CLAUSES 26-48

  21.  Clause 18 (1) (b): CLA notes that the proposed CRC is to have a purpose, "to promote—rural needs in ways that contribute to sustainable development" that is similar to the purpose in Section 4 (1) (e) of the RDAs Act 1998 (see paragraph 13 above). Clearly the Government believes that this formula works for the CRC and is consistent with its overall sustainable development strategy. This eloquently makes the case, once more, for a similar purpose for the IA. If a remit to contribute to sustainable development is appropriate for an economic agency (RDA) and a social agency (CRC), then there is no legitimate reason why it should not be applied to an environmental agency (the IA).

  22.  Clause 19, Representation, advice and monitoring. CLA supports the clause which requires the CRC to (a) represent rural needs, ie act as a rural advocate, (b) provide information and advice, ie act as an evidence base and (c) monitor the way in which policies are adopted, ie "rural proofing". It should be clarified that this latter provision (i) enables the CRC to monitor the activities of regional as well as national bodies, (ii) is backed by a direction by the Prime Minister to departmental Ministers to involve the Secretary of State (for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), her officials and the CRC at the formulation stage of policy, not just adoption, and (iii) will be supplemented by the Prime Minister, Secretary of State or others taking action to ensure that policies that do not meet rural needs, or threaten not to meet them, are adjusted as necessary.

  23.  CLA has concerns that the CRC will not be a credible rural advocate and proofer, because it will not have the direct experience of rural needs that the CA derived from operating particular schemes, or that the Rural Development Commission had up to 1999. The CRC will have to work proactively and effectively with other bodies to garner the information it needs to carry out these roles.

  24.  Clause 23 (1) giving the CRC the power to "do anything that appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions" appears to be a far reaching and unlimited power for an agency of this type. The need for such a power has yet to be justified. A similar power is given to the UK conservation bodies in Clause 37, and again a justification for such general and unqualified power is required.

  25.  Clause 42, agreements between the Secretary of State and a non-designated body. The Secretary of State is authorised to enter into an agreement with a non designated body to perform eligible Defra functions.

  26.  As such the Secretary of State could authorise NGOs to carry out an investigative or policing type role, including one that involved rights of entry on to land. This is wholly inappropriate and CLA opposes it for much the same reasons as we, and others, opposed the granting of police type powers to the RSPCA under the draft Animal Welfare Bill. For example, it would be wrong to give the powers to carry out cross compliance inspections to an NGO.

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE LEVY BOARDS, CLAUSES 49-59

  27.  Clauses 49-55 would give the Secretary of State wide ranging powers to dissolve and/or reform the existing levy boards (listed in clause 51 (2)). It is difficult to say whether these powers are necessary in advance of reviews of the effectiveness of these boards.

OTHER PROVISIONS

  28.  Clause 66, time limit on proceedings for certain offences. CLA has serious concerns about this proposal. The reason limitation periods exist in various statutes is both obvious and sensible. With the passage of time, recollections fade and evidence becomes stale. For example, in a case concerning animal welfare animals may recover from mistreatment and their wounds heal. Alternatively, the animal may need to be destroyed. In any of these situations the quality of the available evidence is reduced. All of this goes against the probability of any trial being fair. In the CLA's view the interests of justice require that the present position should be maintained.

  29.  Clause 67 gives the Secretary of State the power to effect the provisions of the Bill if necessary by amending or repealing primary legislation by order, albeit by affirmative resolution. CLA is concerned to see Ministers being given powers to overturn primary legislation by order.

  30.  Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, Paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 and Paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 give the Secretary of State the power to remove a member of the Board of the Integrated Agency or the CRC (respectively) or of the JNCC without reason. This raises concerns as to the independence in practice of the IA, the CRC or the JNCC. For the IA, the CRC or JNCC to be credible and to attract support, it will be necessary for these concerns to be allayed. CLA notes with approval that annual reports of the IA, the CRC and the JNCC are to be laid in each House of Parliament.

  31.  Removal of expenditure constraint for national park authorities (NPAs). CLA would strongly support the inclusion in the Bill of the Defra Review of English National Park Authorities Action Item to "remove the expenditure constraint on NPAs' activities in pursuit of their socio-economic duty" as set out in Appendix 2 of the Draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill Policy Statement.

  32.  Three purposes of NPAs to be co-equal. NPAs have three purposes with respect to National Parks. These are (paraphrased):

    —  to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage;

    —  to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public; and

    —  to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities with the National Park.

  33.  The NPAs have had limited success in pursuing the third of these purposes, to foster economic and social well-being. Some NPAs do more than others to facilitate change or allow necessary growth, adaptation and investment in a National Park economy. Economic viability underpins environmental land management and it should therefore be made clear that the three purposes of NPAs are of similar importance.

  34.  Removal of the expenditure constraint for Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Boards. CLA would also strongly support inclusion of an equivalent provision "to remove the expenditure constraint" on AONB Conservation Board activities in pursuit of their socio-economic duty.

  35.  AONB Boundary variations. CLA has concerns over the Countryside Agency's (CA) ability to define boundaries correctly for National Parks and AONBs in line with their own criteria. In the case of the boundary for the proposed New Forest National Park the Inquiry Assessor, the Inspector and the Secretary of State all disagreed with the proposed large extension of the New Forest Heritage Area.

  36.  The proposal to extend the area of land to be taken into the South Downs National Park beyond AONB boundaries stretches the CA's criteria. Judgements from the Inspector and Scottish Natural Heritage Landscape Assessor are awaited.

  37.  In view of the potential impact of designation of land (within national parks or AONBs), and of the CA's current approach of seeking to effect minor AONB boundary changes without a formal inquiry process, CLA believes that the following provisions should be included in the Bill. Firstly, there should be a statutory duty on the IA (which will replace the designation function of the CA) to advise affected landowners of proposed AONB boundary variations. Secondly, there should be a statutory right of appeal for affected landowners to AONB boundary variations. Thirdly, all minor AONB boundary variations should be subject to Public Inquiry. These provisions are, we maintain, fully justified by the past record, described above, of the CA on boundary designation.

Country Land and Business Association

February 2005





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 4 April 2005