Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

In following the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I speak to Amendment No. 10, which is grouped with Amendment No. 9. We are well aware—because we have been told—that the Rural Development Service will be transferred en bloc, I think, to become a part of Natural England. But that is not in the Bill. The other two organisations are in the Bill because they have to be dissolved in order to come back into being: there has to be a dissolution and a re-birth. I understand—please correct me if I am wrong—that that does not apply to the Rural Development Service, which is why it is being transferred in this way. I have some questions for the Minister with regard to the development service, and where its raison d’être lies, which follow on from my Question earlier today on the Rural Payments Agency. I was surprised that when the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, was asked to carry out this review, the Rural Payments Agency was not included in this remit. I do not think that it was, although I am sure that the Minister will clarify that. What is the Rural Development Service supposed to do in addition to what it has done in the past? What is its relationship with the Rural Payments Agency? Once it is up and running, even after my Question today, and it is a success—we wish it good speed—will the Rural Payments Agency still be necessary or will the Rural Development Service undertake to take on some of its responsibilities? The concept of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, was to establish a new agency bringing together under one roof what had been done by several agencies, thus reducing costs, personnel, overlapping and regulation. This point was just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I have a concern which we shall touch on later, but I want to raise it now and leave out the detail at the later point. The original proposal was to set up a new agency under one umbrella. I understand that the new agency, Natural England, will be based in Sheffield but will be staffed by only 12 to 25 people. The rest of the organisation, English Nature, will remain in Cambridge, while parts of the Countryside Agency will remain in Cheltenham. At this stage, I do not see how cost savings will be made when staff and management costs still have to be met at three different bases. However, the idea behind the Haskins proposal was to bring these functions together in one place. The fact sheet published for the Rural Development Strategy 2004 makes reference to this:"““The Integrated Agency will have structures at national, regional and local team level. Staff from the parent organisations will over time be co-located, to deliver operational benefits and achieve efficiencies through estates rationalisation””." But that is not made clear in the Bill. I suspect that the costs assessment is flawed. I put this to the Minister carefully because so far I have not been able to get an answer: where will the savings be made if in fact there is not to be an amalgamation of all three agencies? That is my current understanding. Haskins made it clear that this would be done to save costs, reduce regulation and to bring the body corporate together. I want to add one more thing to the melting-pot. At a time when the CAP is under pressure and further reforms are likely, resulting in a possible squeeze on Pillar One, what effect will that have in the future on the amount of money available to the Rural Development Service compared with what it has now? Some of that money may well not be forthcoming in future years. Has the Minister addressed this? I have covered the reasons for tabling my amendment. I am also slightly troubled at the way Defra itself is the corporate body responsible, at the way this new agency is to take on an arm’s-length government role—we shall consider the detail of that later—and where the individual elements each has its own responsibilities, linking with the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and many other bodies which obviously were not included. I should like some clarification of the position regarding the Rural Payments Agency if the Minister has it to hand. However, I am happy for him to come back to us with guidance because it would be of enormous benefit.