I endorse the Minister’s remarks about the work done in the other place. That is a first class example of the value of the other House, and the knowledge and diligence that peers apply to our legislative process. The Bill is considerably improved since it left this place, largely through the power of persuasion, rather than votes in the other place. That is good.
I am delighted that, as the Minister said, virtually every amendment that we are considering is a Government amendment. I am also delighted that almost all of them were tabled in response to arguments advanced by my noble Friends, and in many cases by my colleagues and me when the Bill was before this House. Perhaps with slightly less power of persuasion, or dare I say less power behind us, we were less successful here than in the other place, but I am grateful that the Minister and his noble Friend have agreed with them.
Amendment No. 1 is an example of the point that I made a moment ago. I argued strongly in Committee for Natural England to work closely with local businesses and communities. I am grateful to the Minister for conceding the point. Amendment No. 1 is a sensible step forward. On compulsory purchase, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), whom I am pleased to see in his place, argued that it was not necessary. The Minister resisted, but I am delighted that he has conceded the point.
I will not go through all the amendments. Suffice to say that we believe that they are sensible changes to the legislation. Some of them are extremely minor and need not detain the House.
We remain of the view that Natural England, which is a very large new organisation, has a lot to do to prove its merit, and many concerns have been expressed in this House and the other place about different aspects of it. An amendment has not been tabled on the issue of conflict. The Sandford principle was widely debated in both Houses, and we have discussed it with the Minister. I wish that such an amendment had been tabled, but I recognise reality when I face it and understand that such an amendment would not have been successful. Nevertheless Natural England has a vital role to play, and I think it fair to say that we will all watch it closely, because, bar a nod and a wink from Buckingham palace, the provision will become law once this group of amendments is agreed, which will allow Natural England to go ahead according to its original timetable. We are taking a major step forward by agreeing this group of amendments.
On the Commission for Rural Communities, to which the Minister also referred in his opening remarks, our concern is whether that organisation really will have the ability to rural proof. Again, we will watch with interest to see how it develops over the first year or two and whether it has the authority to hold the Government to account and to challenge any Department on whether it is really delivering a service that is powerful enough and important enough for our rural communities. The role of the Commission for Rural Communities will be central, and we shall watch it carefully.
I am happy to agree with the Minister on the importance of the amendments. I am also happy to agree with the Lords on those amendments, not least because most of them include proposals that we introduced in this place.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Paice
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c936-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:06:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313478
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313478
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313478