Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Countryside Alliance (Appendix 28)

1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.1  The Countryside Alliance was a lead voice in calling for a Department of Rural Affairs four years ago, but the key failing of that resultant department, DEFRA, has been its inability to implement policies at local level. Its London base has left it disconnected to the communities it serves, this Bill has the potential to bring a real opportunity to shift the balance of power out to rural areas.

  1.2  The Alliance gave a provisional welcome to the Government's Rural Strategy. However, we felt bringing together the key players to create a single integrated agency is sensible only if it incorporates all dimensions of land management, whereas the proposed agency would only bring together the environmental aspects. This arrangement also runs the risk of disjointed land use policy with social and economic land use priorities being subordinated to environmental protectionism—this works against the interests of a sustainable landscape.

  1.3  The proposed integrated agency needs a clearer remit—at the moment it is trying to be jack-of-all-trades master of none. The present aims of the new agency have the potential to be contradictory, such as the protection of wildlife and landscape might be at odds with encouraging outdoor recreation, this needs to be addressed to ensure ideals set out in the rural strategy are delivered.

  1.4  We are disappointed in the draft bill that there is no provision for cross border rural integration with Scotland—it is vital to engage with devolved administrations, this will ensure sustainable development in its truest sense is achieved. We also have a lot to learn from experiences in Scotland, such as Scottish Natural Heritage which now has a large remit to deliver to rural Scotland—but not enough funding—there is potential that the same will happen with the new integrated agency and the rural commission.

  1.5  Nowhere in this bill is a commitment made to working with local communities. Local community perspectives and participation in environmental management will continue not be accommodated. This legislation will continue to perpetuate a protectionist, centralised, command and control conservation management system which will persist in being fragmented and ineffective in managing complex conservation issues.

  1.6  This bill could be fatally compromised by trying to do too much, but, yet not really making a difference in protecting and delivering for wildlife, landscape and ensuring a better way of life in the rural communities it is supposed to help.

2.  INTRODUCTION

  2.1  The Countryside Alliance's purpose is to campaign for the countryside, country sports and the rural way of life. Through campaigning, lobbying, publicity and education the Alliance seeks to influence legislation and public policymaking so as to ensure the sustainability of rural community life—for the benefit of everyone who believes that a real countryside is worth saving.

  2.2  The Alliance is a membership organisation, soon to have incorporated company status, with over 100,000 full ordinary members plus some 250,000 associate members through affiliated clubs and societies.

  2.3  The organisation is politically non-aligned and has devolved operations in all four parts of the UK. Our countryside needs policy, not party politics. It is up to the Governments of the day to provide constructive, coherent policy, which helps rather than harms rural families. This can only take place if politicians consult rural communities, gain their consent for proposed policy and legislation, and wherever possible empower them to help find and implement their own solutions. The Alliance aims to help ensure this happens.

  2.4  The Countryside Alliance welcomes the opportunity to respond to the EFRA Committee inquiry on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. Our response will focus on the terms of reference laid out by the EFRA Committee, but will also include specific comments and amendments regarding the draft bill and policy statement.

3.  TERMS OF REFERENCE

"Whether the provisions of the draft Bill differ significantly from the institutional arrangements proposed in the Government's Rural Strategy."

  3.1  The Countryside Alliance was a lead voice in calling for a Department of Rural Affairs four years ago, but the key failing of that resultant department, DEFRA, has been its inability to implement policies at local level. Its London base has left it disconnected to the communities it serves, this Bill has the potential to bring a real opportunity to shift the balance of power out to rural areas.

  3.2  The draft bill is similar to the institutional arrangements laid out in the Rural Strategy, which the Alliance gave a provisional welcome to. However, we felt bringing together the key players to create a single integrated agency is sensible only if it incorporates all dimensions of land management, whereas the proposed agency would only bring together the environmental aspects, and fails to include provisions for the full integration of the Forestry Commission, this is just one element that demonstrates the lack of commitment to true rural integration. This arrangement also runs the risk of disjointed land use policy with social and economic land use priorities being subordinated to environmental protectionism—this works against the interests of an integrated sustainable countryside. The Alliance believes that the draft bill will fail to deliver the vision set out by Defra in their Rural Strategy.

"Whether the provisions of the draft Bill, if enacted, would in your opinion allow the Government to implement its proposals in an effective way."

  3.3  The Countryside Alliance welcomed the publication of the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill but had serious concerns about several of the recommendations, such as the current form the Integrated Agency is going to take, these were concerns that we have raised since the publication of the Rural Strategy last summer and outlined in paragraph 3.2.

  3.4  We are disappointed in the draft bill that there is no provision for cross border rural integration with Scotland—it is vital to engage with devolved administrations, this will ensure sustainable development in its truest sense is achieved. We also have a lot to learn from experiences in Scotland, such as Scottish Natural Heritage which now has a large remit to deliver to rural Scotland—but not enough funding—there is potential that the same will happen with the new integrated agency and the rural commission.

  3.5  The proposed integrated agency needs a clearer remit—at the moment it is trying to be jack-of-all-trades master of none. The present aims of the new agency have the potential to be contradictory, such as the protection of wildlife and landscape might be at odds with encouraging outdoor recreation, this needs to be addressed to ensure ideals set out in the rural strategy are delivered.

  3.6  The draft bill offers greater protection to wildlife and habitat protection—but through greater enforcement of existing legislation to secure better compliance, rather than using the opportunity to making a commitment to working with local land-management communities in achieving better habitat conditions through "practical integration on the ground". This is contrary to Government's commitment to working with communities to achieve sustainable development. It is also contrary to the Secretary of States forward in the policy statement, which stated:

    "devolving responsibilities closer to rural people and rural businesses,

    . . . putting rural people and businesses first . . . within a sustainable development framework which gives real meaning to the ideal of practical integration on the ground"

  3.7  This bill could be fatally compromised by trying to do too much, but, yet not really making a difference in protecting and delivering for wildlife, landscape and ensuring a better way of life in the rural communities it is supposed to help because of its lack of commitment to working with local rural communities.

  3.8  We must also question the timing of bringing forward publication of this draft bill ahead of the scheduled timetable for spring. To then rush through parliamentary scrutiny is ludicrous and belies the commitment to stakeholder consultation. The point of introducing a detailed and complicated Bill of this kind that will have far-reaching consequences for rural economies and communities at this stage is hard to discern, therefore it is important to give the relevant amount of time for scrutiny, to ensure this bill has a positive impact for wildlife, landscape and rural communities, which we feel is not being given.

  3.9  The proposed agreements with designated bodies will create confusion not clarity by taking the sense of direction out of the purpose of this proposed legislation and remove accountability for delivery. This can hardly be expected to allow Government to implement its proposals in an effective way.

4.  PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

4.1  Part 1. Chapter 1. The Integrated Agency

  Clause 2  (1)  A mere "contribution" is not a convincing commitment to sustainable development as one is led to believe in the Policy Statement (P5, Point 6 "The Bill will give statutory underpinning to this (the sustainable development) agenda" and Margaret Beckett herself ". . . our commitment to a better quality of life for all with sustainable development at its heart" (DEFRA press release 10 February). This also fails to take into account the economic contribution of the land and how that can contribute to the enhancement of the natural environment.

  (2)(d)  This purpose of the agency could be at odds with its other objectives. Encouraging outdoor recreational activities is a positive step forward—this needs to be sensitively implemented when there are fragile habitats and ecosystems involved.

  Clause 7  (2)(a-b)  "Imposing" restrictions and obligations on land managers is not in the spirit of the sustainable development agenda, nor the fresh approach to natural environment and working with "others" as expressed in the Policy Statement (P5, Point 7), nor is it in the spirit of either the Berne or the Biodiversity Conventions. This is not about "engagement" (Policy Statement Foreword), but disengagement with rural communities.

  Clause 8  (4)  The compulsory purchase of land for "experimental purposes" is the antithesis of sustainable development in countryside where habitats and landscapes have evolved because they have been and continue to be worked by rural communities. Sustainable land/conservation management can only happen with the involvement and commitment of local communities. This could potentially pitch the Commission for Rural Communities against the Integrated Agency.

4.2  Part 1. Chapter 2. Commission for Rural Communities

  Clause 18  (2)  Defining "rural needs" as just purely social and economic is shortsighted—any definition needs to be underpinned by all three tenets of sustainable development.

  Clause 19  (c)  This is presumably reference to rural proofing? If so, rural proofing is not just about looking at "policies which meet rural needs" but also policies which have a negative impact on them. The rural proofing function must be more overtly stated.

4.3  Part 2 Nature Conservation in the UK

  Clause 31-32  Giving the JNCC a "UK" wide remit is to be welcomed. It is an anomaly that Northern Ireland was outside of it, particularly in terms of a co-ordinated approach to implementing obligations to the Habitats Directive and developing the Common Standards Monitoring for favourable conditions.

  Clause 33  (2)(b)  That the UK agencies should only have the "desirability of contributing to sustainable development" is not a commitment to delivering on sustainable development (c/f Policy Statement P5), neither does it resonate with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) commitment (Article 2.3).

4.4  Part 3. Chapter 1. Agreements with Designated Bodies etc

  Clause 41.  While this may allow the Integrated Agency to take-on responsibilities from the RDS, it is not a statutory commitment to this integration, contrary to the press release and the Policy Statement (Page 4. Point3 (b))

  Clause 42.  Obviously non-designated bodies are not listed therefore it is possible that certain organisations who may also have a political agenda could become non-designated bodies, therefore allowing them to perform DEFRA functions. Who will check the appropriateness of the organisation—will there be an opportunity to appeal against a non-designated body being appointed to carry out these functions?

  Clauses 41 and 42 effectively take the sense of direction out of the purpose of this proposed legislation and remove accountability for delivery. Effectively any Secretary of State can delegate functions (defined by this piece of proposed legislation), to any DEFRA designated body. This will create confusion not clarity (Policy Statement P2 Foreword). Is the purpose really to weaken DEFRA rather than institute a truly integrated agency? These clauses "tell the lie" behind the purpose of this legislation.

  Clause 44.  Eligible functions include powers to enter, inspect or take samples. Although the Agency's general purpose will be to deal with conservation and biodiversity, and the Commission's general purpose will be to promote and meet the needs of rural communities, there is a risk that organisations, who could become non-designated bodies, may abuse their powers.

4.5  Part 3, Chapter 2 Powers to Reform Agricultural Boards

  4.5.1  This section gives enormous, almost unlimited powers to the appropriate Minister (as it is devolved matter, this will mean Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Assembly etc) to dissolve, create and re-create various agencies and boards with possibly extensive regulatory powers through secondary legislation. The Alliance opposes more power moving away from Parliament to Ministries and Quangos, which the proposed boards are going to be. There is far too much legislation and regulation done by this method already.

  Clause 50  The permissible purposes of boards introduces the idea of far greater control and regulation to be exerted over agricultural and related industries. The latter will presumably mean most food-producing industries, which are already complaining bitterly about the excessive regulatory burden they have to carry.

  4.5.2  The idea of new boards to improve efficiency and productivity etc goes against avowed government and EU objectives of liberating agriculture and other rural industries from regulation and planning, and encouraging greater market orientation. The Alliance has always supported all reforms that encourage movement towards market dependence. We are disappointed to note that with the Bill the government proposes to reverse that move towards greater planning and regulation.

  4.5.3  We have always maintained that British agriculture and related industries, particularly the food industries are potentially highly competitive on the world market. But, in order to be that, they must not be shackled by the large number of Quangos, regulations, taxes, levies etc and that the government clearly sees fit, if this Draft Bill becomes law.

4.6  Part 4 Inland Waterways

  The Countryside Alliance supports a co-ordinated approach to policy where all interests are taken into account when determining the correct management of the waterway. Where authorities and other organisations want to determine management policy, this should be done with consideration to the previous management undertaken, and with acknowledgment of the best practice undertaken where appropriate.

The Countryside Alliance

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