| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bach: The noble Viscount has made an important point and has given the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, a chance to come back at me on the issue. The noble Viscount asks whether this is a power of last resort or for administrative purposes. I plump very much for the last resort. It will not be used carelessly or in a cavalier fashion, but as a very last resort. It is a long-stop power that I understand is taken with all NDPBs.
There are three reasons for directions. The first is accountability of public funding if it goes completely awry. Secondly, they may be used for an NDPB—I do not mean the CRC but, for example, Natural England—where there is an enormous conflict of policy between that exercised by the board of the body and government policy. Thirdly, they may be used at the request of a board of a body on a highly political issue on which the board itself does not want to come down on one side or another, but seeks the direction of the Minister. Those are the three classic reasons for directions.
7.15 pm
Let us return to the Commission for Rural Communities. There, the power is an absolute last resort. The noble Baroness asked me what would be absurd. Of course Ministers decide whether something is absurd, but can the Committee imagine the outcry if the Secretary of State decided to make a direction on something that the CRC had done that was in every reasonable person's view something with which the Government should not be intervening? The Secretary of State of any department—a political animal—would certainly not intervene in a body such as the CRC unless it was an absolutely extreme case. This is a back-up power that I would never expect to be used.
The noble Viscount asked whether there are any draft directions. There are none. If there were to be any before Report—I am pretty certain that there will not be—of course I would make sure that the House knew about them.
Viscount Eccles: I thank the Minister for how he replied to the questions that I put. The famous case on
8 Feb 2006 : Column 717
this matter dates from 1976. It was the Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Borough Council. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that Lord Denning gave a judgment, as did Lord Scarman and Lord Lane. On either side, there were advocates named—I cannot get them quite in alphabetical order—as Bingham, Brittan, Lloyd, Caldecott, who is not a Member of your Lordships' House, and Woolf. It is an extremely distinguished case which turned on the question of the difference between being wrong and being unreasonable.
Clause 26 [Transfers on dissolution of English Nature and Countryside Agency]:
Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 260:
The noble Baroness said: Here we begin to deal with transfer schemes under Chapter 3. I want the Minister to explain the circumstance in which property rights and liabilities of either English Nature or the Countryside Agency would be transferred to a regional development agency. Will she also make clear whether that transfer may affect any rural development agency, only one, or more specific ones and whether it is in fact likely that English Nature property rights and liabilities will be transferred to the rural development agencies? Although the dissolution of English Nature and of the Countryside Agency is covered in the Bill, it is very vague and we want to be clearer what will go and where it will go. It would be helpful if the Minister would also clarify whether the rights and liabilities may include duties and responsibilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 26 provides for the transfer of property rights and liabilities, covering matters such as land staff, employment contracts, agreements and any outstanding liabilities arising from the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency. With that background, my understanding is that duties are included. I shall be corrected rather quickly if I am wrong.
The transfers will be achieved through transfer schemes made by the Secretary of State. They may be made to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities, RDAs or Ministers of the Crown. As part of the measures to redeploy staff displaced by the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency, staff in the affected organisations will be eligible to apply for new posts created in RDAs.
It will be important that the rights of any staff who secure jobs in RDAs can be transferred to their new employers. The transfer of staff will be carried out in such a way that staff are protected so they do not suffer detriment to their employment rights as a result of such a transfer. In the same way, RDAs may need to assume responsibility for liabilities in relation to the staff they employ that continue beyond the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency. This does not apply to duties; it is only about assets and liabilities, not about duties.
8 Feb 2006 : Column 718
Although there is no proposal to transfer property or property rights and liabilities to RDAs, the facility to do so would be helpful should the need arise. It will be important that all property matters that continue after the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency can be comprehensively transferred to the appropriate body. The noble Baroness asked whether this related to any RDA. It does. It is not envisaged that Natural England property will go to RDAs and, as I said, it will not include duties and responsibilities.
I hope that I have answered the points that the noble Baroness made, and that she feels confident to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response, but I am not confident. I understand that English Nature is currently in one unit in, I believe, Peterborough, and that the Countryside Agency is based down in Cheltenham. When I read the Bill, I was trying to bring to mind the reason why English Nature might be required to move to be part of an RDA. At this stage, I can see no reason why it should, so it seems unusual for this to be in the Bill. The Minister is looking perplexed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was less perplexed with the noble Baroness than with whether I could work out the answer.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that comment. Bits of the Countryside Agency may well be transferred, although again we are none the wiser about where the whole of English Nature and the part of the Countryside Agency that will go to the CRC will be based. As the Minister knows, we had debates about that earlier on. We also had fairly big debates about the cost-effectiveness of leaving them where they are when the idea was to draw them under one umbrella. We still do not know where the CRC itself will be placed, so I realise that there are outstanding issues.
This is really about the possibility built into the Bill that some of this property will be transferred to the rural development agencies. That is why I raise the matter with the Minister.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I fully understand the noble Baroness's concern that too little information is available. That is because the legislation setting up the new body is going through Parliament at the moment. I reassure her that there is no present intention whatever for English Nature to go to the RDAs. That is not envisaged. I think the difficulty is that until decisions are taken about which property is to be used, there is obviously the uncertainty to which the noble Baroness has rightly drawn attention, and that in drafting the legislation, it has to be comprehensively possible for transfers to be made, even though, as I said, there is no intention for English Nature to go to the RDAs.
8 Feb 2006 : Column 719
I hope that more information will be available between now and Report, because I can understand the noble Baroness's frustration.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that suggestion, because the RDAs, as we debated earlier, are unaccountable bodies. It seems very strange for there to be the possibility that a body that is supposed to be independent will be put with another body which, so far as we are concerned, is undemocratic. However, I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance. I shall read what she has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This may be a convenient moment at which to resume the House. May I suggest that the Committee not begin again before 8.25 pm? I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |