| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's attitude to these issues. I think that a good dinner must have been available around the House, because there seems to have been a lively debate on this subject from all those who have participated, and I thank them.
I would quarrel slightly with the Minister about the idea that we were in any way bearing down on the tourist industry. As far as I know, the tourist industry is one of the great planks that those who live in rural areas use to maintain their way of life. I am not sure which bit of the tourist industry does not live in rural areas—perhaps bus tours. At the same time, it has been useful to sharpen our minds a little about the different roles of the two commissions, or whatever we like to call them, being set up under this Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for explaining his attitude to the amendments that we have tabled. In light of what he said, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 109 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 110:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Transfers on dissolution of English Nature and Countryside Agency]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Continuing powers to make transfer schemes]:
The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 9, line 21, after "may" insert ", by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament,"
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 112, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 117, which is grouped with it.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has wide powers under a large number of Acts. Some of these Acts are the result of parliamentary deliberation in which many of us have taken part. I do not recall the passage of a single Defra Bill that has not been accompanied by the suggestion that the Secretary of State was about to be given excessive power. To be fair to the Minister, such accusations have not been confined to his department; it seems to be endemic to those who find themselves in government.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1321
The first of the amendments relates to schemes by which the Secretary of State may transfer property, rights or liabilities of a Minister of the Crown to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities or to a person acting on behalf of either. I think that my questions are quite natural and normal. Which Minister? Why should the Secretary of State be transferring property, rights or liabilities of another Minister anywhere? If the Minister in question is part of the Defra team, cannot the Bill just say so? Does the occasion of the transfer arise from another department's legislation? Do Natural England or the CRC have any choice in whether they accept the Minister's property?
Then there is the question of "a person". Would this be a solicitor, for example, acting as a front man to protect the identity of the true recipient? Would such a manoeuvre occur only when the gift was to be shared and the person was, as it were, taking delivery before parcelling it out?
Amendment No. 117 relates first to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions on the conduct of functions of national or international importance, to be carried out by the UK conservation bodies acting through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Secondly, it relates to the power to give directions to the JNCC on the giving of advice to any of the UK conservation bodies. In both cases, the Secretary of State has to consult with her opposite numbers before giving tongue, and must publish the full text. We feel, however, that the power to transfer property and to issue high-level directions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, my name is associated with these amendments. What rightly comes before Parliament and what does not is a matter of continuing concern. With the Regulatory Reform Bill in the offing, this is likely to become a much more pressing issue. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, after the fourth Committee sitting, we wrote to Peers who had spoken in Committee on 27 February with more explanation, among other transfer scheme matters, about how the Secretary of State might need to use the continuing power within Clause 27 to make a further scheme. I reassured noble Lords that the clause would not permit the general acquisition of property held by other public bodies, nor would such a scheme allow the Secretary of State to move assets other than those currently held by English Nature and the Countryside Agency between public bodies in pursuit of achieving government targets.
In response to a question put by the noble Duke, let me make it plain that "Secretary of State" covers all government departments; it is a single post, occupied by any individual Minister. Clause 27 permits the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to transfer property rights or liabilities of a Minister of the Crown to Natural England, the Commission for Rural
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1322
Communities or a person acting on their behalf, or from the bodies in question to a Minister. Such transfers are intended to cater for the efficient management of property rights and liabilities, and will be related to the setting up of the new bodies. In particular, we envisage that we might need to make a further scheme when something was inadvertently missed in the original scheme on the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency.
The ability to make the proposed transfer schemes is required to further the efficient management of property rights and liabilities. The schemes can relate to rights and liabilities affecting staff as well as property. It will be important that where the business need arises, the transfers can be made quickly. Making such subsequent transfer schemes subject to the statutory instrument procedure would add an excessive burden and delay to the process, the principle of which would already have been agreed by Parliament. I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness on some of the constraints on the Secretary of State in those circumstances.
On Amendment No. 117, powers of direction such as those provided by Clause 38 are very much reserved powers that we hope never to have to use, but are also part and parcel of the safeguards that are normally built into the framework when setting up an NDPB.
We oppose the amendment because it would allow Parliament to countermand instructions that the Secretary of State had issued. That cannot be right. It would leave the joint committee in the position of not knowing what it should do if a Motion was tabled to annul the statutory instrument.
A further and arguably more practical consideration is that a delay might result. If a direction is to have value, the joint committee must be able to issue it as soon as the Secretary of State has decided to make it. Given JNCC's status as a cross-border body, any statutory instrument would need to be considered also by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. That would again involve further delay in issuing the direction.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the scope of the movement between the bodies concerned is limited. I invite the noble Duke to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation as far as it went. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her support. Amendment No. 112 applies to Clause 27, which refers to continuing powers to make transfer schemes, but the Minister said the powers would be needed particularly in the winding-down of the existing bodies and the setting-up of the new body. If that is all the powers are required for, would it not be better to confine them to that element rather than make them continuing powers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Duke. Should any problem arise because an area of property has been
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1323
overlooked, there would be a need to tidy up afterwards. Having been involved in local government for many years and seen transfer of property in the public sector and higher education, I know that some things are sometimes inadvertently left out. I think that the clause is intended only to cover that sort of issue. Should I be wrong, I will write to the noble Duke.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |