| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bach: My Lords, I take it that this is really a probing amendment, in the sense that the noble Baroness wants to start a short debate—which she has done very successfully—on the Natural Environment Research Council and the decisions it has recently taken. I appreciate that there are strong feelings on this issue and I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing this to the Floor of the House.
NERC is an independent body. Decisions of this kind are solely for its council, which is made up of many eminent scientists. The NERC council, as we were told, has published its response to comments made during the consultation that preceded its recent decision. That, and the responses of Defra and its agencies, are all in the public domain. I understand that the NERC council has confirmed its plans to restructure the CEH. It agreed that the original drivers for restructuring—namely, funding only the highest quality science, reducing the trend in external income and ensuring long-term financial sustainability—all remain.
However, after consideration of the various issues raised within what is described as the "stakeholder consultation" it has made some amendments to its
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1278
original proposals. I understand that these changes will result in up to 40 of the 200 posts at risk in the business plan being saved. A plan to focus staff and research on four of the existing sites at Bangor, Edinburgh, Lancaster and Wallingford is unchanged. There are still plans to close the four research sites at Banchory, Dorset, Monkswood and Oxford. I also understand that to reduce any risk and ensure that critical work is not only maintained but enhanced, the NERC council has revised its funding allocation, adding £1.3 million to the original £15 million per year.
Defra, for its part, agrees with the importance of placing the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on a secure financial footing for the future. We welcome NERC's reassurance that that existing contractual obligations will be fulfilled to the highest standards.
It is our intention, and the intention of Defra's agencies, to endeavour to work closely with NERC in the longer term to ensure that the research carried out following restructuring continues to be relevant to, and consistent with, Defra's priorities.
We also welcome the amendment of the restructuring proposals to strengthen biodiversity and climate change research areas. I was asked whether Natural England, once established, can provide financial support to the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. It is clear that Natural England will have broad powers to enter into agreements with, and fund, other bodies where it is in its interests to do so and where it will help its objectives. However, a decision on whether or not to do so in any particular instance will, of course, be a matter for the board of Natural England.
I cannot help the noble Baroness in relation to Parliament's role but, for my part, I cannot see any reason why the issue surrounding this decision cannot be raised in the normal way by any Member of another place or in this House, if that is what the Member wants to do. But, as I understand the legal position—I am repeating myself now—NERC is an independent body and the decisions that it reaches are solely for its own council. I do not think that I can help very much further.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, this is a DTI and not a Defra matter, and presumably discussions do take place between them. What overall responsibility to Parliament or to the DTI does NERC have in the first instance? Presumably there are rules which it must observe. If the Minister could follow that up with a letter, I should be very grateful.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I will do so, of course. I suspect that it has the same relationship with the DTI as other research councils have with that department. Defra has a relationship with it because it does work that we require to be done. However, I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for the encouragement, as I see it, to pursue some of these issues through a different mechanism. He is right that
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1279
this will probably no longer be the mechanism through which to pursue them. I recognise that the £4.5 million for NERC that comes from Defra is only about 50 per cent of its funding and that £7 million of the funding comes from other sources and other departments.
There is a very real issue concerning both the external funding, which, as the noble Lord said, is diminishing, and the fact that half of the funding of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology comes from external sources. I do not think that the publicity that has taken place will be helping the case; nevertheless, it is something of which the council needs to be aware. I am fundamentally concerned about this issue. From what I can gather from its website and from historical research, the council seems to be responsible to Parliament, but at the moment I cannot understand what form that responsibility takes and I will pursue it through other, possibly more appropriate, means. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 63 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Carrying out proposals etc.]:
Clause 6 [Financial and other assistance]:
Clause 7 [Management agreements]:
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 69 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Experimental schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 72:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have moved to Amendment No. 72 with considerable rapidity. This government amendment would remove the power for the Secretary of State to authorise Natural England to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for experimental schemes. The inclusion of powers for the Secretary of State as a last resort to enable Natural England to do that would have carried forward existing powers that are currently available to the Countryside Agency.
However, in the light of the very persuasive concerns voiced during Committee in this House and the fact that the Countryside Agency's powers have never been used, we are now happy to remove the provisions contained in subsections (4) to (6) of Clause 8 and the consequential amendment in Clause 100. I beg to move.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1280
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Having moved an amendment in Committee to the same effect, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for having agreed to remove these subsections.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we could never see the need for this part of the clause, and we welcome the Government's recognition of that fact.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we, too, welcome the fact that the Government have taken this matter on board. The subsection in Clause 100 about compulsorily acquiring Crown land appeared rather strange. You would think that the Crown could make up its own mind what it needed to do. We welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Information services etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Consultancy services and training]:
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 79 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Power to charge for services and licences]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 81:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment addresses an issue raised in Committee by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. It seeks to clarify the circumstances in which it would be permissible for Natural England, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to charge for providing advice. The amendment excludes from any charging regime advice which Natural England offers without having received a request to provide such advice. In other words, the amendment restricts the power to charge for advice to cases where advice is sought. I trust that the amendment meets the original concerns expressed by the noble Duke. I beg to move
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |