| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full response. I am well aware that we are at Report stage, but I wish to clarify matters with him, otherwise I might not be able to speak again when my amendments are reached—they will either be moved or not moved.
I hope that the Minister will understand—and I accept his apology because these past few hours have been a nightmare—if under those circumstances I need to reconsider the matter. I should make that clear, because if I do not say that to other noble Lords, they will not be aware of it, and when the time comes, the amendments will either be moved or not moved. I also thank the Minister for agreeing to reconsider Amendment No. 50 and bring back an amendment that, I hope, will deal with local communities. I am more than happy with that and am grateful to him. I am only too aware that the Bill deals with both urban and rural communities, and that is part of the dilemma that we face. Perhaps some of us who live in very rural areas get worried that the rurality will be swamped in the whole.
Just to be technically correct, I hope I have made it clear that while I accept the Minister's explanation, I will need to seek advice, because my colleagues in another place may return to the matter—but I cannot say that at this stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister said in his response said that this was a group of five separate amendments. Indeed, to a certain extent we have had five separate debates wrapped up within this single
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1275
debate. That makes the position difficult, because under the conventions of the House what happens to the first amendment commits the rest.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should make it clear that when amendments in a group are so disparate, and when noble Lords have spoken both for and against different amendments within the group, it would not be wise to apply the outcome of the first amendment to all the amendments. We would end up with Members unable to vote—having voted in favour of the first amendment, they may wish to vote against on the second, for example.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness who has taken the words out of my mouth—I was going to suggest that for the convenience of the House we should treat this group in that way. That happens to make my task more simple, but I am somewhat hesitant in any event.
The Minister was right in saying that global warming is part of the context in which Natural England will work. However, there must be a point at which it is appropriate to start to force this subject into legislation and into the actions of all government departments. In his reply to me, the Minister gave us some hope. I am not sure that he clarified the matter sufficiently, but equally I am not sure that I am so dissatisfied with what he has said that I wish to press the amendment to a Division, particularly at this stage of the evening.
However, it is only fair to say that it is extremely likely that I will bring back the amendment yet again at Third Reading, because, whether we like it or not, this subject will drive everything. It will drive the country's economic programme, its energy policies, possibly its budgetary balance and its social programmes in the widest sense, until we get things under control. It is not just a question of this country doing that, it is the major international issue.
For this evening, the question is the point at which this subject intrudes, and has inevitably to be put, into the consideration of all public bodies. I am close to concluding that we have to do that, but I am prepared to defer the issue until Third Reading, only so that I can look at the Minister's precise words and consider their meaning. I am not sure that an implicit understanding is sufficient any longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Review and research]:
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 55:
"( ) In exercising its functions under subsection (3), Natural England must have due regard to the purposes of the National Environment Research Council."
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1276
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment takes us back to research into biodiversity—and other issues—which I raised in Committee. When we debated it, the Minister said that the National Environment Research Council's decisions on the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology were out for consultation until the middle of February and that,
Now that they have been made—and I am sure that noble Lords will have received the very helpful letter of 13 March from Professor Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council—can the Minister say whether the Government are satisfied with the outcome? I do not think he will be surprised to learn that I still have severe reservations. Although there have been slightly fewer cuts and a very slight increase in funding, meaning that slightly less of the programme will be cut, I stand by many of the arguments I advanced in Committee. Such research is particularly critical at this time. As we face enormous pressures due to climate change and our understanding of the inter-relationship of these things leads us to conclude that more research is needed more urgently than ever, it is particularly unfortunate that such a cut has been proposed.
Other facts have come to light since we debated this in Committee; I have, naturally, carried out further research. It seems that the Select Committee on Science and Technology's fifth report stated that, following the settlement for science announced in the 2002 spending review, NERC's income from the science budget will increase from £219 million in 2002-03 to £350 million in 2005-06. The rationale behind this increase was to allow NERC to take the lead in science, the Earth's life support systems, climate change, and so on. Last year funding reached £314 million, but that is still well short of £350 million. Having committed to that budget in 2003, have the Government now decided to make cuts in it. If so, such a position is particularly unfortunate. A breakdown of the funding for the Natural Environment Research Council shows that £8.1 million comes from the UK private sector. I wonder how the UK private sector feels about the proposed cuts and what percentage of the programme that is being cut is indeed funded by the private sector?
Finally—and I was not as aware of this when we debated it in Committee—there is the responsibility line for the Natural Environment Research Council, which was set up under the Science and Technology Act 1965, I believe by Royal Charter. I only recently became aware of the difference between that sort of set up and the normal sort of quango we debate in your noble Lordships' House. Under the set up of the Natural Environment Research Council, Parliament is given a much wider overview of what is happening under the council. Indeed, the council's own website helpfully gives a diagram that shows Parliament sitting at the top, represented by the Secretary of State. The advertisement for the two vacancies on the Natural
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1277
Environment Research Council, which appears on its website, helpfully says that the council is responsible to Parliament and other citizens.
When something is as contentious as this, is there a mechanism that should be employed to refer the matter at least to the Select Committee in order to review the situation? It is surely very unusual that such a body of eminent scientists as have been very assiduous in writing to the press, in contacting us, and talking about this, speak with one voice, so concerned are they about cuts in the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology's programme. This is of central importance in NERC's work now, so they are frustrated at having been unable to change the direction of the decision taken. When the Royal Charter refers to Parliament being in prime position with regard to the research council, I wonder what that means, given that there is deep unhappiness over decisions taken. Where is Parliament's role in making its voice heard? I beg to move.
7.16pm
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare my interest, in that I am on a fundraising committee for an environmental research station in Scotland, which also receives funds under the Natural Environment Research Council's powers. It is very important that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has raised this subject and it is good that we should see what can be done about this. The amendment states that:
Presumably they must also have regard to the findings of the bodies that are brought out by the Natural Environment Research Council. In that case, we wish to support the amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |