Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I thank the noble Viscount for raising this topic in relation to Clause 88, as he has on previous occasions during the consideration of this Bill in Committee. The clause confers powers on the appropriate authority to give directions to a board as to the exercise of its functions and requires of course that such directions be published, which is an important step. The latter requirement was a specific one made last spring by the Efra Select Committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny and has been accepted by the Government. Perhaps I may point out that in current legislation general directions may be served on the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, two of the existing bodies. The noble Viscount asked how he thought these might be used, and I give an example of how they have been used in recent times. A clarificatory direction was used in April 2004 to make it clear that the MLC was operating within proper parameters when delegating levy collection and distribution functions to the newly created devolved body, Quality Meat Scotland. The direction ensured that for accountability purposes, there was proper written authorisation for this delegation. Of course the noble Viscount has pointed out that it is only right that these powers of directions are standard for all non-departmental public bodies but, thankfully, they are rarely used. Nevertheless we think that Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament for the levy bodies, must be able to issue directions where it appears necessary to do so. The noble Viscount was kind enough to set out the three main reasons I have argued in support of the need for this standard inclusion. I shall not repeat those reasons, but I want to make it clear that they are not a tool to undermine in any way the independence of the levy bodies. Rather we believe that they act more as a safeguard for levy payers if, to use his expression, matters go awry or, as in the case of the Meat and Livestock Commission, nothing had gone wrong but it was necessary to provide a formal record for accountability purposes. We do not see these directions being used very often; indeed, we think that they will seldom be used. I emphasise again that they are essential for accountability purposes. On a previous clause stand part debate, I said that I would write to the noble Viscount about this matter, and I, copied my letter to noble Lords. Given the interesting points he has raised during the course of our Committee proceedings, I think it would be helpful for me to put in writing our thinking on this important constitutional issue. However, I hope that I am not giving it too great a significance. I have not written so far because we needed to debate Clause 88, the last of the clauses under which we intend to set up such a system, so I shall now write to the noble Viscount. However, I hope he will forgive me if that is all I say about it tonight.