Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I will deal with these amendments in terms of why the Bill is as it is drafted. I will do my best with that. As far as these important broader questions of governance are concerned, the noble Baroness is right: I will not be in a position today to answer her and other noble Lords satisfactorily. With the leave of the Committee, I intend to write a substantial letter to noble Lords setting out some of the issues that the noble Baroness and others raised in this debate, which they will then be able to read at their leisure. If amendments are required after that, they can be brought at a later stage. I would rather do it that way than attempt to get note after note, and half-answer the important issues that have been raised. I shall of course answer some matters today. The intention behind Amendment No. 9 is to help clarify where the functions of English Nature and the Countryside Agency will be transferred on their dissolution. Our intention is to transfer functions variously to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities and the rural development agencies. Indeed, some of the work of the Countryside Agency has already been transferred to the RDAs. I appreciate that the Bill might seem incomplete because Clause 1(4) could be read as implying that all functions are to be transferred to Natural England. I can confirm, however, that subsection (4) is legally accurate as drafted, because no legislative powers are otherwise being transferred to the CRC or RDAs. Other bodies are not mentioned or cited in subsection (4) because those functions that are being transferred to the CRC and RDAs—for example, advice and funding powers—do not require amendments to primary legislation as they are covered in new or existing statute or will be done by secondary legislation. The addition of the words ““or other persons”” in Amendment No. 9 is therefore superfluous, although I hope that I have to some extent clarified that it does not prevent some of the work of these bodies being transferred elsewhere. I concede that this is a complicated issue. I shall be happy to take it away and consider whether there is a clearer way of dealing with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 in due course. Amendment No. 10 deals with a similar point. It is an attempt to clarify the position of the Rural Development Service, which is a division of Defra and not a separate legal entity. As such, the Rural Development Service is—this is a rather unpleasant phrase—an emanation of the Secretary of State and it is neither legally necessary nor appropriate to mention it on the face of the Bill. It is appropriate to raise this sort of clarification only in the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill. However, I am happy to clarify the position on the RDS as best I can for the Committee. As Amendment No. 10 suggests, the existing functions of the RDS will largely be divided between Natural England and the RDAs, although some will remain with Defra or its agencies. The RDAs will take responsibility for what is described as socio-economic funding, as we made clear in the 2004 rural strategy, although this will be effected using the RDAs’ own powers and changes to secondary legislation which do not need to be mentioned in the Bill. A large part of the Rural Development Service’s functions, including the delivery of the agri-environment schemes—which we all believe will become central in the years to come—will be the responsibility of Natural England. The Bill provides a mechanism to delegate RDS functions using Chapter 1 of Part 8, powers to enter into delegation agreements, to which we will come later in the Committee but I fear not today—I hope not today—and we expect to use those powers for some of the RDS functions. Others will be managed by changes to secondary legislation or using Natural England’s own powers conferred by the Bill, such as its powers to enter into management agreements established by Clause 7, which we may well debate later today. I can give no assurances that there will be any clearer way of dealing with the points raised by the two amendments but I shall look again at the Explanatory Notes and offer some alternative wording which sets out the position more clearly. I shall now do my best to answer some of the questions that have been raised. As to the issue around local authorities, since the Government’s response to the EFRA committee’s March 2005 report, we have altered Part 8 of the Bill, the flexible delivery arrangements, to add all local authorities to the list of what are described as ““designated bodies”” in order to bring them within the scope of the delegation agreements under Part 8 to permit functions to be exercised by local authorities. Indeed, so far as the governance of rural England and city regions is concerned, I hope I understand the issues. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to be a little patient and allow the debate on these issues to be taken when we discuss the Commission for Rural Communities. There is a line of argument that says that if the noble Baroness is right about the effect of city regions, it is an argument for the CRC rather than one against it. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether the Rural Payments Agency was included in the Haskins review. The answer is no, because its functions continue. Its main function is as a specialised accredited paying agency under European Community law. Although what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said was of considerable interest, and although we seem to have spoken of little else today but the RPA, it is not really relevant to the issues that the Committee has to debate. So if he will forgive me, I will not go down the road of mapping and the issues we have already debated. To return to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as far as Haskins and democratic accountability are concerned, it is true that only NDPBs have replaced NDPBs. However, my noble friend Lord Haskins did not recommend a continuation of the social and economic roles of the Countryside Agency. By agreeing to create the Commission for Rural Communities, the Government’s proposals will retain a broader range of bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised some important issues around the budget and the way in which costs have been estimated. I have some answers today. On Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 expenditure, she will know about the arguments around voluntary modulation. We will be able to modulate up to 20 per cent from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 as a result of the December European agreement. On the budget for Natural England, there are still some important details to work out. I would rather write to the noble Baroness and copy the correspondence to all other noble Lords who have spoken. I hope that that explanation is reasonably satisfactory and invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.