Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is exactly the point that I am making. I hope that we can achieve some sort of rubric that at least allows local authorities to consider in the interim the environmental effects of a BOAT—byways open to all traffic—application. Of course, the law is structured in such a way that such things cannot be considered. There is an immediate transition from the legal fact of the previous use as a carriageway into permission—something on which I hope we can reach agreement on the need for change. The second part of the Bill that we can welcome is part 3. It deals with biodiversity and wildlife and several of my hon. Friends and Labour Members have already mentioned that. It is clear that the duty on public authorities to conserve biodiversity, which appears in clause 40, is a good one. However, we will want in Committee to consider the effect on local authorities of the lists that the Secretary of State is empowered by the Bill to draw up so as to ensure that local authorities do not find themselves with an undue and unbearable duty to implement lists of actions prepared by her. Clause 43 has been mentioned in questions to the Secretary of State, and we recognise that the offence of using pesticide to poison wildlife should exist. However, we will want in Committee to consider carefully the test of intent. The case I have in mind is that of a farmer who has a perfectly legitimate and lawful pesticide and who maintains that he or she is about to use it in order to do proper things with pesticides on the farm, but where the authority believes that there is an intent to use it for another purpose. What will be the test in such a case? We clearly need to ensure that, in our correct and consensual ardour to prevent effects on biodiversity, we do not end up with an assault on civil rights and civil liberties. Clauses 46 to 50 contain the protections for wildlife, including those against invasive non-native species that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). I am delighted to see those provisions. As he pointed out, they are a valuable part of the Bill but, again, we will want to look at the details in Committee. Finally in this category, I want to mention part 4 and the protections for sites of special scientific interest. Again, we welcome the offence of recklessly and/or intentionally destroying SSSIs and the idea of court restoration orders. However, we have doubts about the provision for a penalty to be placed on public authorities. To have a criminal offence for a public authority may not be unprecedented—it may apply in the case of the manager of a nuclear power station in certain circumstances—but it is very unusual. We will want in Committee to consider exactly how the provision will work and whether it can be sustained in its present form. Beyond those parts of the Bill that we welcome, there are at least three parts that we do not think are particularly controversial. The first relates to the joint nature conservation committee covered in part 2, but we will want to consider its scope in Committee. Part 5 refers to the national parks and the broads and, when we consider them in Committee, we shall certainly want to take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire. Part 7 on inland waterways also looks relatively uncontentious. Chapters 2 and 3 of part 8 are contentious in point of process rather than substance. Ironically and perhaps suitably, chapter 2 is essentially a Henry VIII clause—in fact, it contains a whole succession of such clauses. We have no concern about the general idea of the Government continuing their current review to its conclusion and restructuring the levy boards. There is wide agreement in the industry on the need for restructuring, but we have concerns about the use of such a wide power to change primary legislation. We recognise that there is an affirmative order provision in the Bill, but we will want in Committee to look very carefully at whether it is sufficiently constrained and whether, in practice rather than in form, the House will have an opportunity to debate sufficiently what emerges. Perhaps we shall receive ministerial undertakings in Committee that will satisfy us and help to ensure that the provision is properly scrutinised. In the same vein, clause 89 in chapter 3 of part 8 deals with financial powers, and we will want to look carefully at the scope of those powers. As I read the Bill—I may have missed a subtle point of drafting—it gives the Secretary of State powers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet fully understood. Someone in the Treasury might not have been as eagle eyed as they might have been, because I think that the Secretary of State would be able to do something that this Secretary of State would not wish to do—subsidise any number of nuclear power stations. However, the Secretary of State would also be able to do something that this Secretary of State might wish to do—subsidise any number of people complaining about nuclear power stations. In fact, the Secretary of State could do both, the powers are so widely drawn. Broadly, anything that the Secretary of State takes into her head to do—which could be described as anything to do with the environment, which is really almost anything when one comes to think of it—she could pay for, subject to the Treasury providing her with some funds. We shall want to examine the clause carefully to ensure that it is not over-widely drawn. Having said that there are parts of the Bill that we welcome—parts of it that are uncontroversial and other parts that are questionable only in terms of process—I fear that we have big problems with one part. That is why we have tabled a reasoned amendment. I refer to part 1, which is the largest and most important part. I shall deal first with chapter 2, which establishes clearly, as the Secretary of State said, a commission for rural communities. It is pretty clear in the Bill, in policy statements and in previous ministerial statements what the commission is meant to do. There is no complaint about that. Clause 18 provides that"““The Commission’s general purpose is to promote . . . awareness among relevant persons and the public of rural needs””" and to promote meeting rural needs. It defines relevant persons as a ““public authority””. It provides that the commission"““must take such steps as appear to it to be appropriate for . . . representing rural needs to relevant persons””," namely, to public authorities. So far, so good, it might be said, except when we come to clause 25, which makes it clear in subsection (1) that the"““Secretary of State may give the Commission general or specific directions as to the exercise of its functions.””" As if that were not sufficient, subsection (4) states:"““The Commission must comply with any directions given under this section.””" Either the commission is an independent rural advocate or it is not. If it is not an independent rural advocate, what is it for? If it can be given directions by the Secretary of State without limit, and if it must comply with those directions without qualification, it is not an independent rural advocate. Indeed, the Secretary of State might just as well appoint one of her officials, one of her Ministers or herself as the independent rural advocate. It is an advocate that will have to do exactly whatever the Secretary of State tells it to do. What is the point of spending public money on having an independent rural advocate that is not remotely independent?