| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 5:
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1256
"( ) The functions of the Rural Development Service are divided between the Regional Development Agencies and Natural England."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals again with the Rural Development Service. In Committee, the Minister stated:
"A large part of the Rural Development Service's functions, including the delivery of the agri-environment schemes . . . will be the responsibility of Natural England".—[Official Report, 24/1/06; col. 1101.]
He also said that it was neither legally necessary nor appropriate to mention that fact in the Bill. At that time, we agreed to disagree with him.
Our main reason for bringing this issue back on Report is because of the doubts surrounding the funding of Natural England. The money that goes out of the door in the form of agri-environment scheme funding is presumably not in question. It will be what it will be, and will be made available either via Defra or directly from the Treasury. We do not know. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to disabuse me if I have got it wrong.
The money that enables Natural England to administer the schemes is, however, a rather different matter. If there is no reference to the transfer of responsibilities, will the necessary funding be made available at the same level as when the task was part of the RDS? Or will there be discussions about how many staff are needed and which computer hardware or software is required? Or will they all be transferred? How much will be devoted to the accountancy systems which are, presumably, fairly sophisticated?
It seems fairly well accepted that the Government are trying to cut back on expenditure wherever possible. Part of that is simply reducing the funding that they allow for certain items—national parks, for example, as we discussed in Committee—and shifting responsibility for the delivery away from government to, for instance, local authorities. An example of the latter is the Chancellor's promise of free local transport for the over-60s, which has resulted in some councils having to consider raising council tax by up to 2 per cent. We should not like to see the delivery of agri-environment schemes compromised by lack of funds.
I refer to the Minister's letter to me of 29 January, as it underlines my concern. It says:
"Following the Curry Commission recommendations, the Government has made clear its desire to shift resources by modulating . . . funds from Pillar 1 subsidies to Pillar 2. The UK has been at the forefront of voluntary modulation for several years. It is true that modulation will have an effect on the amount of subsidy that farmers receive but our industry has remained amongst the most competitive and sustainable in the EU. The agreement reached also provides for the possibility to allow transfers of up to 20% of Pillar 1 funds to Pillar 2. There is a provision in the agreement which allows Member States to choose whether or not to co-finance transferred funds, adding incentive to transfer funds to rural development".
However, the letter goes on clearly to state:
"No decision has yet been taken about whether the Government will match-fund additional transfers from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2. It is clear that the decision reached will have an effect on the amount of funds needed to transfer to deliver rural development, including the agri-environment programme".
That is why I have returned to the matter today. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches have concerns such as those expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Funding is an issue. We are aware that Defra is under extreme pressure in terms of funding. One of the reasons I was unable to support the previous amendments was my fear that a lot of expense in reprinting letter headings and so on would be entailed. Funding is an issue. This is an interesting question.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I apologise for missing the earlier stages of the Bill, which was a great disappointment to me. I declare an interest as the Minister who oversaw the Wildlife and Countryside Act and who was responsible for rural affairs in this country. I support the amendment because the Government seem to be obsessed with commissions, committees and agencies. The more that can be spelt out clearly, the easier it will be for those who live and work in the countryside. It is an absolute headache to discover which authority to go to, particularly where local councils are involved. The amendment gives us an opportunity to spell out exactly where certain sums of money will be placed. Any form of clarification in this world that has now become so complex is an advantage to those who try to earn a living in the countryside, which I assure noble Lords is a jolly difficult undertaking at the moment. I support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this amendment seeks to clarify the position of the Rural Development Service. It is not a separate legal entity from Defra. It is neither legally necessary nor appropriate to mention that in the Bill. It is, however, appropriate to provide that clarification in the Explanatory Notes and I have already given assurances that we will seek to do so.
The noble Baroness was right that the RDAs will take responsibility for socio-economic funding, as we made clear in the Rural Strategy 2004, though this will be effected by means of the RDAs' own powers and changes to secondary legislation, which do not need to be mentioned in the Bill. So the EU rural development regulation schemes that are run by the RDS, such as vocational training, processing and marketing grants and rural enterprise grants, will in future be administered by the RDAs.
The large part of the RDS functions, including the delivery of agri-environment schemes, will be the responsibility of Natural England, as the noble Baroness recognised. Chapter 1 of Part 8, which relates to powers to enter into delegation agreements, provides a mechanism to delegate RDS functions. We expect to use those powers for some of the RDS functions. Others will be managed by changes to secondary legislation or using Natural England's own
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1258
powers conferred by the Bill, such as the power to enter into management agreements that is established by Clause 7.
It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Monro, back in his place. We missed him at earlier stages of the Bill. I accept fully his point about the difficulties facing those who seek to earn a living in agriculture and the countryside. It is our intention in this Bill to make the system easier for people to understand. With regard to agri-environment, it is difficult to say anything more about funding. The agri-environment budgets for 2007 are still being discussed with the EU. It is much too soon to make decisions on items such as match funding while that is going on.
6 pm
For the constituent bodies of Natural England, the Government intend that the outcome sought and the level of programme funding for 2005-06 to 2007-08 will be set out in their approved corporate plans. This year's programme funding for those constituent bodies will be £246 million. Future budgets will be set by the Secretary of State as part of corporate planning rounds.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I think she was saying that the budget for the Countryside Agency in the year ahead would be £246 million. Can she remind us what the budget for that agency was in the present year, which is nearly past?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that inspiration might come to me in answering that question. It is possible that I shall get help; I do seek to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, if possible.
Returning to the future, Natural England's budget will be set by the Secretary of State while its future services, programmes and priorities will be a matter for its board, when established, in consultation with Ministers as part of the corporate planning round. I am delighted to be able to tell the noble Lord now that £65 million is currently the approximate Countryside Agency budget. I have no absolutely detailed figures, but it is in that region. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for her response, I believe she would accept that I am still quite concerned for the long term. In her reply, she mentioned that some responsibility would go down to the RDAs and that some things would be done through secondary legislation. Can she share with the House what sort of things would come in secondary legislation? If not, I should be grateful if she could come back to me on that between now and Third Reading.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |