Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill |
|
Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to join him in paying tribute to the work of the staff of the various agencies and of the RDS, which we are talking about in the context of this clause. They have done and continue to do excellent work and I look forward to them doing equally good work in the new organisations of which they will be a part. My hon. Friend asked specific and valid questions about property and the vexed issue of IT—of course I welcome those questions hugely. The Countryside Agency and English Nature hold freehold or leasehold interests in land in two distinct categories. The first is property held for the public benefit, such as national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, where the land has been acquired by the body. The second category is property such as administrative office buildings held to enable the body to carry out its functions. The property in the first category and attendant rights and liabilities will be transferred from the Countryside Agency and English Nature to Natural England. I hope that that is clear. It is clear in the Bill that the commission and Natural England will have the power to buy, own and dispose of property. Property in the second category is expected to be transferred to become part of the civil estate, held on behalf of the Department. The transfer will be from the Countryside Agency or English Nature to the Secretary of State. As a matter of detail, in practice the property will be held by the Secretary of State on behalf of DEFRA, but the legislation needs to provide only for transfers to a Minister of the Crown. That transfer of property will allow flexible estate management to meet rapidly changing business needs, and the better management of public sector property assets in the light of the recent Lyons and Gershon reviews. In future, the Department may want to transfer property with attendant rights and liabilities to Natural England and, if appropriate, the Commission for Rural Communities, or vice versa, according to business needs. Column Number: 130 Paddy Tipping: I have entirely followed the process and I hope that we will reach that end stage, with the new bodies responsible for their own property, as quickly as possible. Jim Knight: Certainly. As part of the Department’s response to the Gershon report, we have said that the estate properties will possibly be held and managed on a corporate basis for Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities. It is also worth saying that the estate’s footprint should reduce significantly from the 80 or so sites across the country occupied by the existing organisations, particularly in the light of the more flexible and customer-focused ways of working envisaged and the joining up with partner organisations across the DEFRA family and beyond. Over time, we expect the final estate figure to be in the order of 50 sites across the country, subject to the introduction of more flexible and customer-focused ways of working, to IT to support that reduction and to Natural England’s final business need. There was a request for an assurance that the IT will be delivered on time and to budget. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) raised that point on Second Reading and I have written to him accordingly. If the Committee wishes, I will circulate that letter to members of the Committee—seeing nodding heads, I will do that. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that I am aware of the difficulties involved with IT, including those of the Rural Payments Agency, and my officials are considering the matter very carefully. We are not complacent, but it would be rash of me to make promises about the outcomes. It is clearly our intention that the IT should be on-time, on-budget, effective and work well to allow staff to get on with the job they want to do, rather than wrestle with IT problems. That is our intention and I have a fair degree of confidence from the conversations I have had that the IT challenge in respect of setting up the new organisations is considerably simpler than the problems of the Rural Payments Agency: the establishment of single payment systems, the entry-level system and the consequent issues of digitisation of maps and so on. As far as I am aware, there are no digitised map issues attached to the formation of Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities. Mr. Paice: Those bodies will be responsible for access, so presumably they are taking over the whole of the responsibility from the Countryside Agency for mapping all open country. Presumably, they have a huge mapping exercise to undertake. One would assume that they will use the same maps as the RPA rather than reinvent the wheel—even if it has been badly invented. Jim Knight: Certainly there would be no intention to reinvent the wheel. The hon. Gentleman makes interesting points regarding rights of way and the relationship with registration, but the reassurance I am trying to give is that we are aware of the IT issues. The letter that went to the right hon. Member for Fylde was
Mr. Williams: That point has been raised with me in the context of the maps that delineate the open access land. Presumably copyright will stay with one of the bodies—perhaps Natural England—and because of the cost of obtaining the copyright, mapmakers will not be able to afford it. Therefore, people will not have quite so much information. The copyright for maps of open access land could be made available without charge to other mapmakers so that there would be a greater amount of information for people who wanted to make use of that land. Jim Knight: I shall give some thought to the hon. Gentleman’s point. Suffice it to say, in respect of this clause, rights of way mapping will transfer as part of the transfer of functions from the Countryside Agency to Natural England. If there are issues related to the practice of the Countryside Agency or the future practice of Natural England, I will consider them and we can have a separate discussion. I hope that I have given sufficient explanation of the transfers for the Committee to be content for the clause to stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 Transfer schemes Question proposed, That this schedule be the third schedule to the Bill. Jim Knight: I want to speak very briefly on this for the benefit of staff, in many ways. Schedule 3 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to provide for the transfer of property rights or liabilities that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or signed. Schedule 3 schemes can cover the rights and liabilities under contracts of employment that are transferred by virtue of a scheme. This is the point that I wanted to make sure was clarified: the transfer of staff will be carried out so that staff are protected and they do not suffer detriment to their employment rights as a result of that transfer. That will be accomplished
Question put and agreed to. Schedule 3 agreed to. Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 Joint Nature Conservation Committee Question proposed, That this schedule be the fourth schedule to the Bill. Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in schedule 4, page 50, line 29, at end insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 88, in schedule 4, page 50, line 30, at end insert
Mr. Williams: On Second Reading, I reminded the Minister that this was, to a large extent, an England and Wales Bill, although the previous parts of it that we have been discussing have referred mainly, if not entirely, to England. Sometimes we MPs with constituencies in Wales are extolled by Ministers at the Wales Office; although we complain that there is not enough Wales-only legislation, they point out the number of Bills that affect Wales and England. However, I find it disappointing that there is not a Wales Office Minister on this Committee to deal with Welsh business. We deal with a lot of legislation that affects England and Wales, and it is important that the primary legislation that comes from Westminster and affects the devolution settlement is appropriate for—and, more importantly, sympathetic to—that settlement, the progress that it makes and the evolution that takes place. Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 are only minor. They are just a reminder to the Minister that it would be legislatively polite if the Secretary of State, in appointing the chairman of the Joint Committee and its five members, consulted the devolved National Assembly for Wales and Scottish Ministers. I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect on that and understand that it would strengthen the relationship between Westminster and the devolved Governments. It would be an advantage in making sure that the committee worked better and that the relationships between Westminster, Wales and Scotland were enhanced. I urge the Minister to reflect on that and agree to these minor amendments, which would mean so much to the devolved Administrations. Jim Knight: The clause defines the UK conservation bodies and the Great Britain conservation bodies that are used in later clauses when the functions that they deliver through the Joint Committee are defined. For the benefit of this Committee, I should say that the UK
I have no objection to the principle behind these “legislatively polite”—as the hon. Gentleman puts it—amendments. However, the Scotland Act 1998 already requires the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers— The Chairman: Order. I remind the Minister that we are on schedule 4 at the moment. Jim Knight: I apologise, Mrs. Anderson. I was coming to address schedule 4, but I seem to have just given you the justification for clause 32, which was a flaw in my juggling. Occasionally I drop the ball. Schedule 4 covers the funding arrangements for the Joint Committee. The main change is to provide for the participation of Northern Ireland, in the form of funding arrangements. As I began to say before you so rightly corrected me, Mrs. Anderson, I have no objection to the principle. However, in respect of Scotland it is unnecessary because the Scotland Act already requires the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers on appointments to cross-border bodies. While there is no equivalent provision relating to Wales, the Secretary of State routinely consults Welsh Assembly Ministers on exactly the same basis as Scottish Ministers, and would continue to do so, as we have on this and every other part of the Bill. The amendment, as drafted, does not cover Northern Ireland, and would therefore create a differential approach. I therefore ask the Committee to resist the amendment on that basis. The extension of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s remit to Northern Ireland through this legislation means that Ministers there—and, should the Assembly be restored, Ministers of any devolved administration—should be treated on the same basis as their counterparts in Scotland and Wales. I will reflect on what he says but, given this, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for that, and for clarifying the difference in the legislation between Scotland and Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland. I hope that he will reflect upon the matter, because these things may seem small but they are important. Given his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in schedule 4, page 52, line 40, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) and insert—
Column Number: 134
I hope that I am using the right piece of paper. Paragraph 14 of schedule 4 covers the funding arrangements for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. As drafted, the Bill would follow the approach set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, by leaving decisions on the budget, and the share of costs to be borne by its body, to the bodies that contribute funding—that is, Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and, as a result of the extension of the JNCC’s remit, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. This amendment would not change the requirement for the so-called funding bodies to contribute towards the budget of the JNCC, but it would leave decisions on the budget level, and the proportion that each body should pay, in the hands of the Government. In effect, it would reflect what happens in reality, and the belief is that it is better to reflect reality than some other process that may go on. The appropriate authorities—that is, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland as JNCC sponsors in Government—in reaching their decisions would be obliged to have regard to the views of the funding bodies and, in the case of the budget level, the views of the Joint Committee as well. As I have said, this reflects the recommendations of the last financial management and policy review of the JNCC, which were endorsed in the Government’s response issued in November 2002. Additionally, the changed wording omits references in the original text to budgets being set with reference to a particular financial year, in order to be consistent with the wording in schedules 1 and 2, for Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities. This wording might also work against our desire to provide the JNCC with three-yearly budget settlements, as we do for our other sponsored bodies. I would like to apologise to the Committee for our not getting this situation reflected in the original text of the Bill, but we were busy consulting our friends in Wales and Scotland when the Bill was introduced and we have therefore had to include this provision as a Government amendment in Committee. Mr. Atkinson: I should have intervened in the Minister’s speech, but I was not quick enough. There seems to be a rather intriguing change of phraseology about this because there has apparently been a change of emphasis. In the original document the funding bodies
The new version, however, says:
It seems that the stealthy hand of the Treasury is getting in the way. Column Number: 135 Jim Knight: As I said before, that reflects what happens in reality and it is better, for the sake of transparency, to have such clarity in the Bill and it better reflects the 1990 Act. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 Purpose of functions under this Part Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 33, page 11, line 25, leave out ‘desirability’ and insert ‘commitment’. The Bill refers in several places to sustainable development. Now is not the time to debate what that may be, or precisely how the various aspects of it—social, economic, environmental—fit together. Mr. Atkinson: We can. Mr. Paice: We can debate it if my hon. Friend really wants to, but I suspect that he would give me short shrift if I started to do so. How committed are we to sustainable development? We debated earlier whether Natural England was to be promoting or contributing, and in this clause the JNCC is to
which is extremely vague. The words “have regard to” are vague and “the desirability of contributing” is pretty vague, so when, as in this subsection (2)(b), the two are put in train, we end up with a serious lack of commitment. The JNCC’s responsibilities are fairly narrow and we will support them, but if it is going to have any relationship with sustainable development, surely it ought to be as committed to the principle as everybody else. That is not to suggest that it should abandon its principles about being primarily a conservation body with the responsibilities set out in clause 33(1), but it should be committed. I am concerned that the double phrasing of “have regard to” with “the desirability of” is too vague to be meaningful. Article 2(3) of the habitats directive, which we are signed up to, refers to the commitment to sustainable development. The Government are committed to that concept, as are the Opposition. If the habitats directive can refer to the commitment to sustainable development, it would be odd if the JNCC—the very body that has to report to the Government about the habitats directive—were not committed to sustainable development. This is another short, sharp, self-explanatory amendment and I hope that the Minister will not say that it is unnecessary, because it slightly firms up what we are trying to achieve. We want to ensure that the JNCC, like other bodies, is committed to the overall objective of sustainable development. Column Number: 136 2.30 pmJim Knight: The original wording of the clause requires the United Kingdom conservation agencies and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to have regard to the desirability of contributing to sustainable development when exercising their functions. We must remember that the primary role of the JNCC is that of an adviser on nature conservation. The phrasing in the clause was chosen carefully, so that the JNCC could set its advice in the context of sustainable development, without having to moderate it to take into account socio-economic factors. The amendment would require the JNCC to take account of the commitment to sustainable development and to have to take into account socio-economic issues, by implication. I do not believe that that would be appropriate. It is for those whom the JNCC advise, including Ministers, to weigh the considerations of the other pillars of sustainable development when making decisions. We want the JNCC to provide objective and sound scientific advice on nature conservation issues. The hon. Gentleman referred to the European Union’s habitats directive. Socio- economic, cultural and regional considerations are delivered through other provisions in the directive, such as in article 6, rather than providing a sustainable thread throughout the directive as a whole. I ask him to reflect on the argument that, as a closely defined body advising on nature conservation, it is appropriate for it to
but such a function is so closely defined that it is then up to Ministers when they receive such advice to have stronger regard for sustainable development than he is after. Mr. Paice: When I go back to the organisation that suggested the last three amendments that I have introduced, I shall tell them that the Minister was not able to accede to them and that I shall not accept any more of its suggested amendments. The record is beginning to become monotonous. It is the role of the Opposition to put forward suggestions from outside bodies and—to be serious—I am happy to do so. I understand the Minister’s argument. At the end of the day, it is for advisers to advise and for Ministers to decide, which is as it should be. We should all be committed to the principle of sustainable development. To me, it is not sustainable development if the interests of the environment are not taken into account seriously and put at the forefront, as I implied in an earlier debate. However, I am happy to accept the Minister’s assurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 34 to 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned.—[Tony Cunningham.] Adjourned accordingly at thirty-four minutes past Two o’clock till Tuesday 28 June at half-past Ten o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 24 June 2005 |