Memorandum submitted by the Royal Institution
of Chartered Surveyors (Appendix 20)
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS:
There is a need for clarity and unambiguity
in the concept and the detail of the Bill (paras 1-4 on page 3).
Dividing rural strategy in England
between the Integrated Agency and the Regional Development Agencies
with no linkages between the two fails to address the need for
effective rural delivery in England. The two need to be brought
together.
There is a need to indicate clearly
how farming will be integrated with the other needs referred to
in the Bill.
Specific reference is needed about
the nature of the advice which both the new Integrated Agency
and the new Commission for Rural Communities will be required
to give.
The nature and calibre of the skills
required to give the advice required needs to be clearly spelt
out.
The social and economic needs of
rural communities are as important as the environmental needs
and need to be stated as such in the Bill.
INTRODUCTION
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
(RICS) represents the views and interests of 110,000 chartered
surveyors worldwide covering all aspects of land, property and
construction. Chartered surveyors are responsible for managing
in one way or another some 90% of the countryside. RICS is, therefore,
well qualified to comment on the publication of the draft Natural
Environment and Rural Communities Bill. The Under the terms of
its Royal Charter, RICS is required at all times to act in the
public interest.
When considering the draft Bill it is important
to be aware that we are witnessing ever greater demands on our
rural areas. Our rural heritage is increasingly important for
the nation as a source of food and as a place of recreation, conservation
and environmental protection. For many, though, the countryside
remains a workplace, with a population requiring access to education,
housing and many other services. The economic well being of our
rural communities cannot be divorced from the principles of sustainable
management and development. We need policies flexible enough to
facilitate appropriate economic development in rural areas, to
promote diversification where necessary and to sustain a viable
agricultural and forestry sector.
RICS has argued continuously for a strategic
approach to rural delivery which is "joined-up". We
therefore welcome the Bill's objective to create a "one-stop
shop" for advice and grant dispensation. However, it is important
that there is a clear division between regulatory functions, and
advisory and grant aiding functions. We are concerned that effective
rural delivery in England will be hampered by the fact that their
are no linkages in place between the Agency and the Regional Development
Agencies (RDAs). To ensure good land management and for it to
be economically sustainable we recommend that the two need to
be brought together. There is also a strong argument for the Agency
to incorporate the Forestry Commission and parts of the Environment
Agency which have responsibility for water catchment and rivers.
A further concern is lack of "joined up
thinking" about agricultural policy which seems to be increasingly
divorced from the Government's broader rural policy. It is not
clear how farming will be integrated with the other needs referred
to in the Bill. For example, in the foreword to the Bill, the
Secretary of State for the Environment, Mrs Beckett refers to
"The Rural Strategy 2004" and the need "to put
rural people and businesses first and bring better management
and protection of natural resources, all within a sustainable
development framework . . .". But, thereafter nowhere is
reference made either in the Foreword, the Policy Statement, the
Explanatory Notes or the Bill itself about how the two new bodies
will integrate with farming.
In the Curry Report of 2002, which is held out
both by the Prime Minister and Mrs Beckett as the basis of the
Government's way forward, it states that: "The central theme
is reconnection" and on page 6: "Farming has become
detached from the rest of the economy and the environment"
and on page 18: The Government"s job "is to facilitate
change not to fund stagnation". In the Government's "Strategy
for Sustainable Food and FarmingFacing the future"
on page 5 the Prime Minister says ". . . I created DEFRA
to bring together food, farming, rural and environmental policy
under one roof." And on page 7 Mrs Beckett says ". .
. the challenge is to rebuild a food and farming industry which
is sustainable. And on page 12 facing the challenge: states as
a key principle: "Sustain the resource available for growing
food and supplying other public benefits over time, except where
alternative land uses are essential to meet other needs of society".
We have a number of other concerns which we
detail below.
PART 1: THE AGENCY AND THE COMMSSION
Chapter 1: Integrated Agency
1. THE AGENCY
AND ITS
GENERAL PURPOSE
It appears that the Bill has merely taken the
duties of the Commission and English Nature set out in the National
Parks and Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968, The
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1985, The Environment Protection
Act 1990 and CROW 2000 and brought them together without providing
enough information and interpretation of how the new Agency will
operate.
It is not clear how a corporate body is going
to function in dealing with the statutory matters of a former
government department nor whether this is an appropriate vehicle.
There is also confusion about the independence of the Integrated
Agency and the Commission for Rural Communities. Whilst the independence
of the Agency and Commission is stressed unambiguously in clause
14 on page 5 of the explanatory notes the concept of independence
is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. Furthermore, in both cases
the terms of reference seem unclear. Appointments for both the
Chairman and CEO of the Agency and the Commissioner of the Commission
are via the Secretary of State. Beyond that it seems to be up
to the bodies themselves as to their composition.
The general purposes of the Agency are vague
as well as weak on the economic issues (see clause 2(2)(e)) and
yet this is a body that will hold great sway in terms of the former
marketing boards for certain commodities. The current malaise
of UK agriculture in the context of the MTR is largely due to
a lack of focus and forward economic vision. There is nothing
in the Bill which indicates that the Agency will improve that
or have any regard to it.
References to "sustainable development"
as the benchmark modus operandi of the Agency are almost meaningless
in this context. If this is to mean anything, it must be a fair
balance between the economic, social and environmental issues
and needs to be stated as such. This is particularly important
in a Bill which is also dealing with rural communities whose social
and economic interests have often been ignored in favour of a
larger national agenda.
6. FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE BY
THE AGENCY
Section 6(1). The terms of reference for provision
of financial assistance appear very loosely defined. Given that
it is proposed this Agency shall not be a servant or agent of
the Crown consideration should be given as to whether or not it
would be appropriate to introduce independent monitoring of the
use of financial resources.
7. MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENTS
Section 7. A code of practice and procedure
for management agreements would be beneficial.
Sections 7(3) (b). Management agreements should
also be enforceable by those persons against the Agency.
10. ADVISORY
AND CONSULTANCY
WORK
It is not clear what level or nature of advice
will be required; who will give it, and what those advisors and
training will be.
11. POWER TO
CHARGE FOR
SERVICES AND
LICENCES
The services and licences that it is authorised
to charge for should be defined and the amount of any such charge
should be subject to Parliamentary decision and scrutiny.
Chapter 2Commission for Rural Communities
23. INCIDENTAL
POWERS
We are concerned about the proposal to allow
the Commission to do anything incidental or conducive to the discharge
of its functions as it appears to be a rather wide ranging power.
PART 2NATURE CONSERVATION IN UK
31. JOINT NATURE
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
We note that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
as described in Schedule 4 is apparently a private limited company.
We are surprised that government agencies would seek to be limited
by guarantee.
PART 3FLEXIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Chapter 1Arrangements with Designated
Bodies etc
Given that this section appears to provide for
outsourcing of functions of the Agency, there should, in our opinion,
be UK guidelines for the provision of any services and objectives,
as well as independent monitoring.
44. ELIGIBLE
FUNCTIONS
Section 44(5). Powers to enter and inspect property
should be limited as far as possible to Crown agencies and not
corporate bodies.
Chapter 2: Powers to Reform Agricultural
etc Bodies
49. POWER TO
ESTABLISH BOARDS
Part 3 of the Bill deals with Powers to Reform
Agricultural etc. bodies but this comes out of the blue in a Bill
otherwise concentrating on mainly environmental matters. Apart
from scant reference on page 14 of the Policy Statement to the
Strategy for Sustainable farming and food setting out a new strategic
direction for the industry there is no satisfactory explanation
about the likely direction Government proposes in seeking these
quite wide ranging powers.
50. PERMISSIBLE
PURPOSES OF
BOARDS
The purposes of clause 50 seem to perpetuate
and consolidate a regulatory environment which we do not think
is appropriate when what is needed is guidance, encouragement
and direction.
53. POWER TO
DISSOLVE EXISTING
LEVY BODIES
Such bodies should not dissolve the bodies listed
in this section until their functions have been transferred to
other boards or agencies. This proposal raises concern about whether
it is a short cut for the Secretary of State and/or a circumvention
of the parliamentary process.
PART 4INLAND WATERWAYS
A "person with sufficient interest"
should be defined for the purposes of this Act as it is insufficiently
clear as to what is meant.
Finally, I confirm that RICS would be willing
to give oral evidence on the draft Bill during early March should
we be invited to do.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
February 2005
|