|
Mr. Paice: Well, Mr. Forth, we are starting Tuesday in a good mode. It is not often that I am told that I am not going far enough, and I am grateful to the Minister for saying that. He is right that clause 71 is restrictive and clause 70 is not. Even more seriously, though, there is clause 72. That covers what I would call the second-tier agreement between a designated body and another body. Under clause 70, the Government could make an agreement with a designated body—one of the 19 listed in schedule 7, including the Wine Standards Board, the National Forest Company, a very small but worthwhile body, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which the Chancellor has announced that he is getting rid of, and many others. Then clause 72 allows one of those to contract with any non-designated body. Therefore, if it is not a DEFRA function in clause 70, it certainly is not in clause 72. I appreciate the point, and I am grateful to the Minister for having read all the clauses that are in front of him, and for having picked up the general purport of my amendments. I look forward to seeing what he comes back with on Report, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): On clause 70(4), in respect of his power to add a body to the list in schedule 7, or to remove one from it, is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of any bodies that are in line to be added to the list, or that he would expect to remove from it?
Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, as I am to all hon. Friends for theirs. The short answer is no, but we set out the powers in order to allow ourselves to deliver a streamlined, more customer-focused service. While the answer now is no, we want to make sure that the legislation stands the test of time, and that is why we have set it up as we have done.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
11 am
Clause 72
Agreement between designated body
and another body
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in clause 72, page 29, line 16, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
In rejecting my desire in a previous amendment to remove the word ''unconditionally'', the Minister sought refuge, to a degree, in the fact that the Bill
Column Number: 297
provides that the Secretary of State ''may'' rather than ''must'' enter into an agreement. I now propose precisely the reverse. I am concerned that the Minister's approval ''may'' be given in relation to a particular agreement or in relation to a description of agreements—in other words, unconditionally or subject to specified conditions.
One of the 17 designated bodies listed in schedule 7—as the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, it could be a longer list—could make an agreement. It is right, given the channel of accountability, that the Minister should be required to give his approval. That is why I challenge the use of the word ''may'' in subsection (2). I suggest that the Minister ''must'' give approval for any such agreement because of the consequences for the Government.
Although the Government could terminate an agreement under clauses 70 or 71, there does not seem to be an equivalent provision in clause 72 whereby a designated body could instantaneously sever an agreement with a non-designated body. In other words, if the Forestry Commission contracted out some sort of benchmarking scheme or forestry stewardship scheme, there would be no provision for the contract to be terminated; but the Government could terminate the agreement under clause 70. In that example, the Forestry Commission, a Government-owned body, would be stuck with an agreement even if the Government's agreement with it was terminated. That is why the Secretary of State's or Minister's approval should be given before such an agreement is made.
I hope that I have made my case clearly. When considering second-tier agreements, I believe that ministerial approval should be given—and certainly so if it is to be unconditional. I accept that the Minister has to go away and consider DEFRA's functions, but in that context I hope that the Minister will at least agree to reconsider whether ministerial approval should be necessary in such second-tier agreements.
Jim Knight: The amendment would change clause 72 to require that the Minister's approval ''must'' be given in relation to a particular agreement or in relation to a description of agreements between a designated body and another body, and that that agreement must be subject to specified conditions.
The purpose of subsection (2) is to give further flexibility in order to allow the Minister to give approval for generic agency agreements. Subsection (1) states that a designated body
''may, with the approval of the relevant Minister, enter into an agreement with a designated or non-designated body''.
The agreements themselves have to be approved by the Minister. Subsection (2) deals with generic agency agreements, so that it will not be necessary subsequently to seek approval for similar types of arrangement. In particular, it would avoid agencies having to ask the Minister to agree separately to almost identical, commonplace arrangements between various bodies.
Column Number: 298
I hope that I have clarified the matter for the Committee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Maximum duration of agreement
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in clause 74, page 30, line 28, leave out '20' and insert '10'.
I was concerned when I read the proposal for the maximum period—I readily accept that it is a maximum period—for which an agreement may authorise a body to perform a function is 20 years, which is a long time. Schedule 7, which we discussed a short while ago, contains a list of 19 bodies—I am sorry, I said earlier that it was 17. Their functions have changed over the past 20 years. Earlier this morning, we discussed devolution, which has affected a large number of those bodies. The Broads Authority has become more of a national park authority. The whole context of agriculture has moved from a bipartisan policy to encourage self-sufficiency towards decoupled arrangements and a wholly different system of agriculture. Forestry strategy has changed from timber production to amenity and landscape. Wine standards have changed and there has been a proposal to abolish the Wine Standards Board because English wine is now quite good, but 20 years ago it was not considered so. The milk industry has changed considerably. I could go through the list of bodies. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority did not even exist 20 years ago.
I use those bodies as examples to demonstrate what a long period 20 years is. Although we may say today that it is fine to sign up to deliver something in 20 years, it is a very long period. The Minister will almost certainly say that the Secretary of State can terminate the agreements and that clause 72 requires an agreement to be reviewed every five years, so this does not matter. However, 20 years is an exceptionally long time and very few organisations, other than train operators and so on with which we are not concerned, will think about such a time scale. Conservation takes a long time, but delivery of functions, which is what this chapter of the Bill is about, operates on a shorter time scale.
My amendment would reduce the period from 20 years to 10 years. In terms of our democracy, that is, as you know, Mr. Forth, two full Parliaments, which is a considerable period and allows for huge variation in government policy. Ten years is a reasonable period for which to expect any outside body to make a contract, to make a significant investment and to be able to write off that investment in staff, training, equipment, capital
Column Number: 299
assets and so on. Ten years is reasonable, but 20 years is far too long.
Having said that, I confess that I have not waded through a vast amount of previous legislation and the Minister may tell me, as he did a short while ago, that the period in another Act is 20 years. That would not make it right in this context and that of the delivery of DEFRA's functions to the rest of the community. Ten years is reasonable.
Jim Knight: Mindful of the opening song at Saturday's concert, I will dub this the Sergeant Pepper amendment.
Clause 74 provides for a reasonably long maximum duration for an agreement of 20 years to allow for major delivery operations to be delegated to a suitable body. The clause provides a framework for long-term stability in service provision and confidence on the part of customers and the service provider. We must bear it in mind that much of the Bill refers to work on the environment and, to my mind, 20 years is not a long time in the life of an oak tree, for example, or much environmental management.
The amendment could result in delivery bodies being reluctant to take on functions if the lifespan of the agreement seems not to justify the required investment. In turn, that could hinder the development of joined-up services by bodies such as Natural England. In practice, both parties would agree on an appropriate period for an agreement to suit the circumstances of the function. In many cases, it will be below the maximum period of 20 years.
Agreements will in any event be reviewed by the Secretary of State in the normal course of business. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire predicts well my arguments. As he said, clause 72 already provides that agreements between designated bodies and other bodies must be reviewed by the Minister concerned at least every five years. That clause will ensure that the arrangements continue to be effective and appropriate regardless of the length of the agreement, and that they reflect the wishes of the Government of the day. As he pointed out, we must be mindful of that as well.
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to cancel an agreement should it be necessary in the light of such a review, although that remedy would be used only as a last resort.
| 
