Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill |
|
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware of the necessity for research into bovine tuberculosis. Is that a responsibility that the new integrated agency might pursue almost from its day of inception? Jim Knight: I am, perhaps, grateful for that intervention. I shall have to reflect on that question. My instinct is that that responsibility lies principally elsewhere, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members when I get some clarification on that point. Mr. Paice: I suggest that research into TB and wildlife would fall under Natural England’s remit. I should probably have tabled an amendment to extract this information, but perhaps the Minister can answer my question. When the body carries out research, will its conclusions automatically become public knowledge? I ask because, as we have discussed, it will be a corporate body, so it is not obvious that such information will automatically be made public. Any such research will be paid for with taxpayers’ money, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that any findings will automatically be made public and not subject to some fee. Jim Knight: There will be no obligation on Natural England to publish research results. Such an obligation is not necessary because under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, with which I am sure he is familiar, all results from Natural England’s research will generally be disclosable—so disclosure would be the norm—unless they fall into certain narrow exceptions within the regulations, such as that the research is incomplete. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. Question put and agreed to. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 56 Clause 4 Advice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con): I seek clarification from the Minister on Natural England’s involvement with planning applications. English Nature had a role in many planning applications whether or not it was a statutory consultee. I am interested to know what the new organisation’s role will be because it would have a wider remit than English Nature. There was one of those controversial byway-open-to-all-traffic applications in my constituency, and English Nature’s point was, “Well, regardless of any damage that could be caused, if there was no damage to flora or fauna, we would not have a view on that.” 4.30 pmWith regard to the new organisation taking on some of the responsibilities of the Countryside Agency for the environment and landscape, I presume that it will have considerably more input into planning applications. An example might be a wind farm application. Under its remit, English Nature might have said that as far as it was concerned, there was no wildlife implication from the construction of a wind farm, because it did not affect flora and fauna to any extent. However, the new organisation might argue that the wind farm could damage the landscape, and therefore the organisation would have a much stronger view on such an application. It is also interesting that clause 4(4)(b) gives Natural England the power to intervene “on its own initiative”. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us some advice about the new organisation’s planning powers. If that matter is complicated at this stage, I would be happy to receive a letter explaining it. Jim Knight: One of Natural England’s major roles will be as a key independent advisor to the Government, public authorities and its stakeholders and customers. I say to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that Natural England will inherit the positions of English Nature and the Countryside Agency as a statutory consultee in planning and other processes. He is right in that Natural England will be expected to contribute proactively to regional plans, such as regional spatial strategies, to which we will return under clause 15. Clause 4 reflects the Government’s expectation that Natural England will provide public bodies with advice on request. I have a long and exhaustive list, which I am happy to lend to the hon. Gentleman, of all the various Acts, regulations and schedules in respect of which the various constituent bodies are already statutory consultees. One efficiency that will be gained by bringing the three organisations together in one relates to the fact that the Countryside Agency and English Nature are often both consultees in respect of the same legislation. Rather than both having to work
The clause gives Natural England powers to advise any person either on request or on its own initiative. In order for Natural England to become the powerful and determined environmental advocate envisaged in the rural strategy, it will also have the power to ask public authorities for a written statement should it believe that its advice has been sought and not acted on. Mr. Breed: Bringing together the Countryside Agency and English Nature could produce one of the first examples of conflict between Natural England and the Environment Agency, which are also statutory consultees. A number of bodies have talked, particularly in the Select Committee, about clearer guidelines and clearer lines of demarcation between the responsibilities of the Environment Agency and those of Natural England. Involvement in planning consultation and regional spatial strategies are two areas in which the Environment Agency and Natural England may come into conflict. Jim Knight: I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the relationship between the Environment Agency and Natural England, because it was the subject of debate on Second Reading. Their functions will remain distinct. Natural England will be able to use its incentive-giving powers, including administration of the agri-environment schemes, to complement the Environment Agency’s regulatory powers. I mentioned earlier the memorandum of understanding that is being drawn up between the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the three bodies that will come together to form Natural England. That partnership working provides a great opportunity for improved environmental and land management. That point was reinforced by the Environment Agency’s evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the recent parliamentary briefings from the Natural England confederation of partners and the Environment Agency, which I trust Committee members have received. The documents dismiss the idea that there will be confusion in the respective roles, and they welcome the distinct but complementary roles that they will have. I assume that the spirit of partnership with distinct approaches will remain in respect of their roles as statutory consultees for planning. There may be circumstances in which the two bodies take a different view, and it will be then up to the planning authority—even East Cambridgeshire might be capable of making difficult decisions—to choose between the Environment Agency and Natural England. The bodies will fulfil their own distinct purposes and functions, but I am satisfied that, through the memorandum of understanding and considering the other indications that we have had, the two will work closely together. I am meeting the chair and chief
Question put and agreed to. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Management agreements Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out
and insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in clause 7, page 3, line 28, leave out
and insert
No. 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 40, at end insert—
Mr. Paice: The clause deals with management agreements, which, the Minister will realise from my earlier comments, I entirely support. Indeed, I want to see much of the work achieved through agreements between Natural England and various people with an interest in the land. However, the definition of interest in the land in the Bill slightly puzzles me, and I have tabled the amendments to clarify it. The Minister may tell me that they are unnecessary, but I hope that he will clarify the situation. Subsection (6) states that the definition is the same as in clause 97 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which I have of course looked up. That Act states that interest
That definition is fairly all embracing, so many people with different interests in the land could exist side by side. An interest may derive from somebody else’s interest, but not always. At the top of the tree, obviously, will be the owner of the land, although even that is not 100 per cent. exclusive. Alongside the landowner could be a separate owner of, for example, mineral rights, which are often held by organisations or individuals separate from the owner of the land overall, so there could be two people at the top of the tree. Below that, there
Subsection (3) clearly states that an agreement is binding on people who derive title under or from the person who made the agreement. In other words, if the owner has made the agreement, it is binding on anybody whose title, such as a tenancy or sporting lease, derives from that ownership. However, I am trying to avoid a situation in which an agreement made by, for example, a farm tenant is binding on somebody who does not obtain their title from the farm tenant. It might be desirable, but it should not be enforceable. If, for example, a sporting tenant or forestry leaseholder had a separate lease from the owner—alongside a farm tenant—the farm tenant should not be able to bind the sporting or forestry leaseholder and, of course, vice versa. Mr. Atkinson: I shall add another example to the list; those who have common grazing rights, which are historic, and are capable of making their own agreements currently under the stewardship scheme, regardless of who is the landowner. Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I was remiss not to refer to that myself. We have an entire Bill on this matter to face in this Session of Parliament. Jim Knight: We look forward to it. Mr. Paice: We look forward to it. That Bill will, I know, be extremely tortuous and technical. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who has large areas of upland common land in his constituency, is right. I have lowland commons in my constituency. The division of responsibility and rights between owners and common holders is very difficult. The purpose of these amendments—I will not detain the Committee any longer in explanation—is purely to try to confirm that people can only bind those others with an interest whose title derives from the person who signed the agreement. I am a bit concerned with subsection (2). Subsection (2)(a), for example, says that management may
It does not say the person who signed the agreement. To me that implies anybody who has an interest in the land. The same comment could apply to subsection (2)(b) particularly. I hope that I have made the point clear. Although, for the purposes of Natural England, everybody going along with the agreement and adhering to it is desirable, the fundamental point is that one person should not be able commit another person with an interest unless that interest derives directly; in other words, if the owner signs an agreement or otherwise. I think that I have made the point clear. Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): I want to ask the Minister a brief question before he replies. Column Number: 60 The common meaning of ‘impose’ seems to suggest that Natural England can enforce its will against an unwilling landowner. Could the Minister explain the process for that and what the sanction is if a landowner does not wish to co-operate with Natural England? This is not giving Natural England a power, but giving it a power with a sanction. What is the sanction? What happens if the landowner does not co-operate? Jim Knight: I am grateful for both those interventions and comments. Dealing with the hon. Member for Banbury’s comments first will help us considerably. He has focused, understandably, on ‘impose’. I would ask the Committee to focus on ‘agreement’. These are agreements between two parties. Once the agreements have been made, they may impose different things on the two parties to that agreement, but they will not be imposed upon anyone in the first instance. I would suggest to the Committee that it would be wrong to exclude anyone who might have an interest in the land from being able to enter into an agreement. I accept the spirit in which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire tabled the amendments, but I am advised—this is pretty complicated and tortuous—that the wording could, unwittingly, potentially exclude some people who might have some interest in the land from entering into agreements. That, in turn, would deny them access to funds and other assistance that might be available through those agreements. 4.45 pmThe amendment is unnecessary given that any agreement is entered into willingly by both parties. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire understandably fears that one person might enter into an agreement containing obligations or restrictions that would affect the interest of another. It should be borne in mind that that would depend entirely on the agreement-holder already having legitimate control or influence over the interests of the other person. The agreement would not give such control, because no agreement would have been made with the other person. Technically, I am told, clause 7(3) means that the agreement would remain in force over any person who succeeds to the interest of the agreement-holder. It does not mean that the agreement would bind other interest-holders. I hope that that clarification and the suggestion that the starting point should be agreement and that any imposition must flow from that agreement is sufficiently helpful to enable the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. His assertion that people will not be able to bind somebody who does not have an interest deriving from their own is certainly welcome. That was my objective in tabling the amendment, so my objective has been met. I was puzzled, however, by his assertion, which he seemed not to understand himself from the way he phrased it, that somehow my amendment would exclude others from making such an agreement. I had no intention of doing that, and he might like to explain to me at some
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 Experimental schemes Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Atkinson: I have a quick question for the Minister. Every time I see a newly created organisation that is not a Government Department, such as Natural England, being given the power of compulsory purchase, an alarm bell rings in my mind. I have always believed that such powers should not be granted to organisations such as Natural England, and I cannot envisage a situation in which it would want to apply for them. What is his view on that? If such powers are granted, why should National Trust land be exempt? I am a member of the National Trust and would hate to see any of its land subjected to compulsory purchase, as I would hate to see that happen to anyone’s land, but I wonder why the trust is singled out for special treatment, although I realise that the National Trust Acts may be relevant. However, I should first like to know why compulsory purchase powers are needed. Perhaps the Minister will give examples of situations in which they might be used. Mr. Breed: My thinking is along the same lines. My deeply suspicious nature makes me think that an experimental scheme might be one involving genetically modified crops that no landowner particularly wants to pursue for various reasons, and that such a scheme might be able to take place through compulsory purchase despite not being wanted by many people. Is that the sort of experimental scheme in the Minister’s mind? It may be helpful to have that point illuminated, or to hear examples of the sorts of experiments that might be the subject of what is, in many respects, a draconian power. John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): I have a simple question. Will the Minister explain, in the context of subsection (2), the difference between a concept, a method and a technique? Jim Knight: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his imaginative and interesting simple questions and I will return to that point once I have dealt with the matters raised by the hon. Members for Hexham and for South-East Cornwall. The clause gives Natural England powers that already apply to the Countryside Agency in relation to experimental schemes, so in that respect we are not
The powers in subsection (4) on compulsory purchase powers, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Hexham, also come from countryside legislation. They are very much reserve powers. They are not intended to be used as a matter of course and the Secretary of State’s approval would be needed. I stress that the Secretary of State would take a considerable amount of persuasion before compulsory purchase powers were ever used—indeed, they have never been used by the Countryside Agency. However, it is appropriate to retain the power for the new body to guard against circumstances such as a landowner asking for an unrealistic payment or holding a piece of land as ransom, or the owner of the land being untraceable. The hon. Member for Hexham asked about the National Trust. National Trust land is held inalienably, meaning that it cannot be sold. As he suspected, that is provided for in existing legislation and we do not propose to interfere with that. In respect of the interesting question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw on methods, concepts and techniques, I seek to help him—I do not know whether I will entirely resolve the matter—by suggesting that methods are practical things that one might do, concepts are ideas that one might apply, and techniques have a practical application and perhaps bring the other two together. I hope that that is helpful. John Mann rose— Jim Knight: Although it is tempting to resist giving way to my hon. Friend, it would be churlish not to do so. John Mann: My intervention, like my original question, is not intended to create mischief for the Minister. However, as we go through the Bill clause by clause, the language appears to be getting more flowery. Although that might be appropriate in the context of the Bill, there is a danger that we end up with legislation with words that are not precise. I suggest, perhaps more to my hon. Friend’s drafting officials than to him, that the application of a concept has to be either a method or a technique. Jim Knight: I am sure that, like me, the drafting officials will have noted the comments that have been made. I am responsible for those officials and very good they are too. We are seeking to give as wide a coverage as possible so that we do not inadvertently miss something out, hence the exhaustive use of language in the clause and possibly elsewhere in the
Mrs. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I wonder whether it would be helpful to look at the full sentence. One develops and tests a concept. I appreciate that techniques would be needed to test and develop those concepts, but one needs to have the capacity to develop concepts if one is doing anything experimental, which is exactly what the clause deals with. For the Minister’s information, I, too, wondered what the acquisition of land referred to. I therefore spoke to environmental bodies in Wales, who informed me that the sort of things that could, for example, be used in such cases, would be sea defence issues, flood plains, and wetland area developments. Was that what he also had in mind? Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, which are helpful. In the number of Committees that I have attended in my four years in the House, there tend to be moments when we have short debates about words, and this has been one of the more interesting ones. However, I hope that we have now explored the vocabulary sufficiently to be able to move on. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the research and work that she has done in preparation for attending the Committee, including talking to some local bodies. I am sure that the ideas and schemes that they have come up with and to which the provision might apply would be the kind of thing that we would want to give Natural England the room to explore, so that it could respond to the local requirements that she has found in her constituency. I hope that we have discussed the matter sufficiently for the Committee to support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill. Mr. Atkinson: I apologise for intervening again on the Minister, but I remain unhappy about the compulsory powers that are contained in the clause. As the Minister said, the Countryside Agency has not used those powers in the past, so why do we need them now? On the question of the National Trust, I want to say that it does give up land. In my constituency, it had to give up some land to allow a bypass to be built. The National Trust formally objected to the proposed route, but when the inspector in the public inquiry ruled that the route should go partly through land owned by the National Trust, it conceded the point in the interests of the community that was to be bypassed. I ask the Minister to undertake to re-examine the issue to ensure that those powers are not just being put in because Sir Humphrey would like them to be included—just in case they might be useful one day—and that they really are needed. Perhaps the Minister could review that matter before the Bill returns to the House on Report. Column Number: 64 Jim Knight: I would say yes and no to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I am happy to seek clarification for him about the National Trust. I suspect that there are legal reasons relating to how it was set up by Act of Parliament that would prevent us from easily applying compulsory purchase orders to it, but when I said that the land could not be sold, that may not have been accurate. I will seek advice on the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman and to other members of the Committee to clarify the position. I will, of course, reflect on everything that is said in the Committee, but in respect of reflecting on whether we need this provision, I remain persuaded at present that the situation that I used as an example, in which the owner of land was untraceable, applies. Such situations may arise. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 22 June 2005 |