The noble Lord has indeed gone part way to answering my questions, but has left some questions in the air. I am not going to press him at this stage. I thank my noble friend Lord Jopling for taking us down memory lane because it is important that, in planning for the future, we reflect on what worked in the past, and perhaps on where some of the disadvantages were. I do not know that the Minister has clarified or reduced his anxieties about it. My noble friend is shaking his head, and my head is going to shake in the same way. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Minister will no doubt resolve his anxieties as regards his particular question.
To return to the issue I raised on the long-term funding of Natural England, the Minister has suggested—I will have to read it carefully—that the main core funding will come from Defra. When he says ““main core funding””, is he talking about 50 per cent, 60 or 90 per cent? How much is actually committed at this stage from Defra or from other sources? How much of that money is going to be sought from other areas as the Minister has described? How much of the use of lottery and other moneys is actually desirable in the long-term interests of a non-departmental government body, and even further on those who might be applying to the lottery? Our concern is for organisations that work out in the community which wish to seek lottery money. If they seek to cover or be involved in some of the aspects covered by Natural England, their moneys may not be forthcoming because the lottery could say that Natural England has applied for that particular purpose, and that it will distribute money as and when to causes it feels are worthwhile. Although I thank the Minister for his attempt in answering, we must return to this issue because it is unsatisfactory. If between now and Report he could let us know what degree of core funding is likely to come, that would be helpful. Perhaps a message is coming, so I will keep chatting for a minute. As I say, I am not at all happy that some proportion of that money will be sought from organisations such as the lottery that could grant money one year and not be in the position to grant it another. That does not give Natural England a good base financially. Perhaps the Minister has some news for me. No, I see that he does not. Then we will return to the issue later, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Byford
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c292-4 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:01:00 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296956
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296956
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296956