Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2005.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill - Standing Committee A

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I commence by welcoming everyone to this Standing Committee, which, along with the one next door, is the first of this Parliament. In welcoming all, I particularly welcome the Minister. It is his debut in taking a Bill through Committee, and we all wish him well. I also welcome new Members, for whom this will be their first Standing Committee. I hope that they find our proceedings enjoyable and productive.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 21st June at 10.30 a.m.) meet—

(a)at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 21st June;

(b)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 23rd June;

(c)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 28th June;

(d)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 30th June;

(e)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 5th July;

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 17, Schedule 2, Clauses 18 to 28, Schedule 3, Clauses 29 to 31, Schedule 4, Clauses 32 to 51, Schedule 5, Clause 52, Schedule 6, Clauses 53 to 70, Schedule 7, Clauses 71 to 78, Schedule 8, Clauses 79 and 80, Schedule 9, Clause 81, Schedule 10, Clauses 82 to 95, Schedules 11 and 12, Clauses 96 to 99, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 5th July.

I begin by warmly welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Forth, and I look forward to serving under your guidance. Having observed you in my first four years as a Member of Parliament, I have consistently admired the rigour with which you seek to apply the rules of the House. I am sure that you will apply them with equal rigour in this Committee, and I look forward to that. You also are my mother’s Member of Parliament and I know that you represent her very well. I was brought up in Bromley and Chislehurst and much of my appreciation of natural England came from the woods around Chislehurst, Petts Wood and the other areas that you represent. It seems particularly appropriate on my first outing as Minister that I am here under your guidance, though not quite parenthood.

You were right to mention the fact that it is my first outing as a Minister, and I am looking forward to it. It is also the first outing for my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), who is guiding us through this process, and for many of my officials in managing a Bill. We shall all be learning as we go along. It is also the first Standing Committee for my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith), and for the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Herbert) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill). I wish them well, and I trust that we all enjoy our learning experience.

We have provided a generous 10 sittings to debate the Bill. When we met in the Programming Sub-Committee, the Opposition were pleased that we did not seek to impose any knives on the debate so we are hopeful that we will cover everything in the Bill with the due amount of diligence and care. We must scrutinise it properly for Parliament during the 10 sittings without trying to restrict debate in any way.

The Bill has already undergone a period of constructive pre-legislative scrutiny, in the light of which we have made some improvements and amendments to it. In passing, I would like to pay tribute to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee during the last Parliament for managing the process of pre-legislative scrutiny, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who chaired the Sub-Committee that undertook that task. The process will make the job of this Committee much easier.

I have also met the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), as well as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) who leads for the Liberal Democrats on the work of my Department, to run through the measures in the Bill. That gave them an opportunity to talk to officials about them. I am grateful to those hon. Gentlemen and my officials for having that meeting.

During the meeting, I promised to supply Committee members with Keeling schedules that show how we are amending existing legislation, which, with the leave of the Committee, we would like to distribute to them today to make it easier for them to understand the changes that we will make. We were advised that we could not distribute them in advance of this sitting because it would be out of order in respect of parliamentary protocol.

We recognise that many provisions in the Bill are of interest and we shall debate some points on which we might disagree, but I am confident that the debate will be constructive and that we shall co-operate as a Committee to ensure that we cover all the necessary points in the time allowed.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I simply wish to respond to your introduction, Mr. Forth, and to the Minister’s opening remarks. First, I would like to welcome you to the Chair, and secondly I endorse your comments of welcome to the Minister. I express my appreciation of the fact that we held the meeting to which he referred a moment ago and at which he and his officials gave me an introduction to the issues relating to the Committee. I also join him in welcoming new Members from all parties, and the hon. Member for Sherwood, whose work in chairing the Sub-Committee of scrutiny has been recognised throughout the House. I look forward to his contributions, which leads me to my first point.

Although the Minister rightly says that the Government have made some changes since the scrutiny, the Select Committee proposed a number of things that the Government have not gone along with, those aspects are the subject of a number of our amendments. I look forward to the support of the hon. Member for Sherwood on them.

We made clear our overall view of the Bill on Second Reading. We have big reservations about Natural England, on which we have tabled amendments to address the major concerns, and about the Commission for Rural Communities. We largely support the rest of the Bill in principle, although there are issues of detail on which we have tabled many amendments. I hope that the Minister understands that all our amendments are designed to be constructive. I and my hon. Friends have great personal interest, involvement and experience in many of the issues dealt with by the Bill, besides our political role as Opposition Members.

Our approach will be constructive and, from earlier conversations with the Minister, I am sure that he will be constructive in response. Even if he feels, as is quite likely, that he cannot accept the precise wording of amendments, I hope that he realises that the gist of them has been put across seriously and that he will take away the points made wherever possible to consider our remarks further.

Finally, I would like to place on record—not that I am required to do so by any rules of the House—that I am a trustee of the Game Conservancy Trust and there will be times during the proceedings when I shall refer to advice and scientific research carried out by that body. It is an honorary position, but I would like to place it on the record for avoidance of doubt. Otherwise, I am happy with the motion.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Forth. I hope that our deliberations will produce a Bill that is worthy and will address some of the many issues that people in rural communities feel have not been adequately addressed by the Government so far. As a member of the Select Committee that undertook the pre-legislative scrutiny, I am pleased that the Government have taken on board some of our recommendations and suggestions, but, as has already been said, some remain that I am sure will be discussed during our proceedings.

There is much agreement, which I welcome, and I hope that our deliberations will be constructive—they certainly will be from this quarter. I hope that we will end up with a very important Bill. It deals with the major issues of the environment and rural affairs, and I am pleased that it will be the first Bill to be passed in this Parliament.

I hope that 10 sittings will be sufficient; they should be, but that will depend as much on the Government as on the Opposition and on the Government recognising that there are strongly held views on some aspects of the Bill. I hope that the Government will reflect on some of those views and perhaps even accept the odd amendment.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

May I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and Ways and Means resolution relating to the Bill, copies of which are available on the Table as usual? I also remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairmen do not intend to call starred amendments, including those that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Clause 1 - “Constitution”

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

‘(4A)The functions of the Forestry Commission for regulation and the provision of advice and incentives, so far as those functions are exercisable in relation to England, are transferred to Natural England.’.

I am pleased to be able to move the first amendment in our consideration of the Bill. It refers to an issue that was debated extensively by the Select Committee and which arose in Lord Haskins’s report, which gave rise to the legislation. The issue is that of forestry.

This is largely a probing amendment. The Select Committee quite clearly believed—as did Lord Haskins—that much of the role of the Forestry Commission relating to England should be transferred to Natural England. We appreciate that, since devolution in Scotland and Wales, the issue of the Forestry Commission has become more complicated. However, the Government are already proposing to shift policy from the Forestry Commission back to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If they shift policy back to DEFRA, what will be left are regulatory matters and the issue of grants and incentives in the forestry sector. Those things differ from country to country in the devolved authorities. The grant and regulatory systems in Scotland are different from those in England. Reading the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s proposals, I came to the view that the Government’s argument for not shifting the remaining function to Natural England was somewhat thin. Their argument seems to rely entirely on the idea that that would lead to even greater complexity in Natural England than exists at the moment.

There are already problems with forestry and the Forestry Commission. The commission is suffering ever-increasing losses and there are costs to the taxpayer year on year. I accept that some of that is to do with the collapse of timber markets in the past few years, but it is also to do with the fact that the commission has developed into activities that it perhaps should not be involved in, such as holiday cabins. There is a serious comparison to be drawn with the support that is going into the private forestry sector, which is of course by far the biggest overall owner of woodland and forestry in this country. About £20 million is being spent on the private sector in England, in terms of grants, compared with a loss of £350-odd million in relation to the Forestry Commission’s activities. That seems a huge imbalance.

The development of Natural England is about land use and conserving the natural environment. A great many of Natural England’s functions, which we will debate later, refer to the relationship between Natural England and land managers. We will discuss management agreements. Natural England will be responsible for implementing the Government’s changes to environmental care schemes. There are the replacements relating to stewardship, including the entry-level scheme and the higher-level scheme. All those schemes will be dealt with by Natural England.

Those of us who take an interest in these things—by which I mean members of this Committee and others—know that there is an ever-increasing trend in the countryside for land use to be more all-embracing. Many more farmers are planting woodlands or forests on their land and the whole interrelationship between forestry and other forms of land use is becoming ever closer. I therefore find it much harder to understand why the Government seem to insist that the implementation of forestry and woodland policy should remain distinct from all the other issues that Natural England will take on board. That is the gist of the amendment.

I am content that the Government are shifting the policy issue back to DEFRA, but that enhances the case for saying that the rest of the work of the Forestry Commission—I am not talking about managing the forestry estate; I am talking about the regulation and incentives side of the commission’s work—should transfer to Natural England. We already know that some 10 per cent. of the English landscape is covered in woodland. Many people would like it to be considerably more. There is ever-increasing interest from landowners and managers in developing that idea.

The concept of biomass is also on the horizon. You can rest assured that I am not going to go very far down that road, Mr. Forth, but there is ever-increasing interest from the Government, and the Opposition and other outside bodies, in the planting of crops or woodlands—in the form of poplar or willow coppice—for biomass production. In such a situation, we really would see an interaction between agriculture and forestry policy. If there is going to be—as many believe is possible—a huge development in the planting of coppice in the next few years for biomass production, it seems an even better argument for dealing with all the issues under one roof. Otherwise, we have a recipe for confusion.

As I said at the outset, I will not pretend to the Committee that I have necessarily chosen the precise words that do the job properly in this amendment, but I wanted to take the opportunity to challenge the Government to explain more clearly their reason for rejecting the Select Committee’s proposals. I note with interest that the hon. Member for Sherwood has absented himself from this debate because it deals with an issue where the Select Committee was at odds with the Government. I hope that the Minister will go a little deeper into the Government’s reasoning rather than simply referring to the issue of complexity. As I have tried to explain to the Committee, that has been partly resolved anyway by the Government’s decision to shift policy out of the Forestry Commission and by the current devolved set-up within the commission.

We are considering why we cannot integrate that process with the overall purposes of Natural England in order to have a genuine one-stop shop—the phrase used by many organisations—for land managers, farmers, those in rural communities and others who are involved with the landscape and the countryside so that they are not subject to the confusion I referred to; not knowing who may be involved with a particular policy area.

There is no need for me to repeat any of my points, and I hope that I have made my case clearly to the Minister. I ask him to take the opportunity to explain to the Committee in a bit more detail the Government’s reasoning for rejecting the Select Committee’s proposals on this point.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, which I assume is a probing one designed to tease out from the Minister some of the Government’s reasoning. The Government’s response to the Select Committee report was a little thin and even at the stage of pre-legislative scrutiny, the Forestry Commission recognised that the issues were what it called “finely balanced”. That is probably as close as it can get to saying that it cannot understand why we are not moving in this direction.

There needs to be a clear, close working relationship and it has even been suggested that Natural England and the Forestry Commission would have shared targets. If they are going to share targets and be operating in similar spheres it is difficult to see why they are not part of the same organisation.

It was also suggested at one stage that the Bill creates a big enough amalgamation and incorporation anyway and that to include another large organisation might be too much to swallow in one go. Perhaps in two years’ time the Government could consider a relationship that would be so close, with shared targets and shared work, that it made little sense for the organisations to remain separate. There should at least be a consideration of the situation to establish whether there is a more efficient way of issuing guidelines, and whether controlling and examining forestry matters might be done better by one integrated organisation.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I begin by drawing the attention of the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, which shows that I am a consultant for the Countryside Alliance. I do not think that that will be relevant to today’s affairs, but I would like to make my position clear.

I would like to support my hon. Friend’s amendment, which I take as a probing, but important, one. My constituency contains what I think is the largest man-made forest in Europe, certainly in England. Forestry is an important part of the local economy. Ever since the Forestry Commission was, in effect, split into three—England, Scotland and Wales—the large northern commercial forests have been left slightly on a limb, with the emphasis of the Forestry Commission England being much more on the environment and sustainable land use. That is why it is important that we hear the Government’s thoughts about the future of forestry in this country and the Forestry Commission.

The forests in Northumberland, and no doubt in other parts of the north, play a substantial part in our local economy. In my constituency, there is a large chipboard mill, which relies on a large quantity of timber coming from the Northumbrian and Scottish border forests. It is a major employer and puts something like £30 million into the local economy. So, the future of forestry in this country is extremely important.

The difficulty that has arisen in England since the emphasis, under DEFRA Ministers, was switched to environmental issues is that the commercial forests have tended to be slightly sidelined. Foresters from Forest Enterprise in the north often say that, in many respects, they wish that they could move the border further south so that they would be in Scotland, where the emphasis is much more on commercial forestry.

Having said that, the Forestry Commission has made tremendous steps locally in improving access to the forests and encouraging visitors. Our forests are now a major visitor attraction, so I do not wish to denigrate anything that the commission has done to improve access and recreation. That has been extremely important. However, it is necessary at this point to emphasise the importance of commercial forestry in the UK. The argument about the environment, sustainable forestry and looking after the ancient woodlands of Kent and Sussex is worth while but, as agriculture continues to change, commercial forestry has an important role to play and I would hate to see it being marginalised or sidelined in any way.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The Committee will see that the amendment would mean that the Forestry Commission’s work on regulation, incentives and advice would be incorporated into Natural England. I accept what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has said about this being largely a probing amendment and I welcome that. There are some technical issues in respect of the way in which it has been drafted, which, as I accept the spirit in which it has been tabled, I will not dwell on. The debate is useful in that it allows us to flesh out how the provisions work.

I also noted what Lord Haskins said in his “Rural Delivery Review” and what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said. Lord Haskins said:

“it is logical to integrate or closely align functions”.

The Select Committee said:

“it seems anomalous that the delivery functions of the Forestry Commission are not to be included in the remit of the Integrated Agency. If the territorial problem cannot be resolved easily, we recommend the closest possible working between the two organisations”.

The Select Committee and Lord Haskins, like those who have spoken in the debate, rightly pointed out the close and clear links between the work of the Forestry Commission and Natural England. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has said, both are concerned with sustainable land management. The Forestry Commission must be a close working partner of the new agency and work is already in hand to look at how the Forestry Commission England and Natural England can align their functions.

The straightforward answer to the probing amendment would be to say that, in essence, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to get the bodies to work together as closely as possible, but, for technical reasons to do with the fact that the Forestry Commission is a British body, we do not think that it is appropriate to have complete integration. We think that aligning their functions is the more pragmatic route to take so that they can act as one organisation where that will deliver additional benefits for the customer and the environment. That might include, for example, sharing specialist staff and establishing first-stop shops; the hon. Gentleman used the phrase “one-stop shops”. To that end, a memorandum of understanding is being developed between the Natural England confederation of partners—English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service—and the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission. It will set out shared environmental outcomes and collaborative work programmes so, as far as possible, where appropriate, the individual customer will liaise with a single body.

The hon. Gentleman raised a very good example about the number of landowners developing more woodland who do not want to deal with a large number of agencies. I hope that through that memorandum an understanding can be reached with shared staff.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

May I challenge the Minister a little more on the issue of the Forestry Commission as a GB-wide body? We have already seen that in Scotland all these functions are carried out completely separately; there are totally different delivery mechanisms in Scotland to those in England. Having made that division, I cannot understand why the Minister is saying that the delivery section, which is already completely discrete for England, cannot be shifted into Natural England. To me, that is its natural home.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall come back to that in a moment. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman raises a very good point that needs to be fleshed out. I would like to give him one further example of joined-up working first, which is the issue of biomass that he mentioned. I can confirm that we are looking at that issue as part of the funding streams review that is being carried out at the moment. We shall certainly try to ensure that the Forestry Commission and Natural England operate in a seamless way to simplify structures for customers. That is another good example of the direction in which we want to go.

The schemes run by the Forestry Commission will be part of an environmental land management fund, one of the three major funds that we will have under the simplified funding arrangements that I just referred to. The Forestry Commission and Natural England will share targets and objectives in many areas, although one of the aims of alignment will be to drive out duplication and inactivity.

The delegation powers that we shall debate later mean that the Bill will allow that close partnership to work. When we come to those provisions, it will be worth the Committee’s while to bear in mind that one of the main reasons for those powers is to allow such activity to take place.

On the issue of the body being a cross-border one, transferring functions from the Forestry Commission to another body could impact on the commission’s work in Wales and Scotland. As well as the delivery functions of regulation, provision of advice and incentives mentioned in the amendment, the Forestry Commission has other delivery functions related to the management of the public forest estate and the protection of the health of woods and trees. If delivery functions were transferred in England, Wales and Scotland would doubtless wish to consider their own arrangements and any changes there would require their own primary legislation to come into effect.

The Committee should also be aware that the Forestry Commission has other GB-wide functions, which, with the agreement of the Northern Ireland authorities, mean that it acts as the lead department for international forestry matters, such as trade and statistics, EU policy development and sustainable forestry on an international scale. It also has GB-wide research functions through its forest research agency.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

May I push the Minister a little more on this issue? In reality, it has been some time since forestry became a devolved matter. The Forestry Commission has operated on a UK basis on matters such as research and plant health perfectly happily. However, the delivery that the Minister mentioned becomes more and more different and separate.

The other day, the Scottish Minister responsible for forestry announced a scheme—a madcap scheme in my view—to use taxpayers’ money to allow Scottish communities to buy state forests. That is a completely different policy from the one we operate in England. There is a real difference between delivery in the different devolved Administrations. I cannot see why there cannot be a UK-wide basis for matters such as research and plant health but complete devolution in the other countries that would allow most English forestry activity to be transferred to Natural England.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful for that. The way of thinking behind this is that we agree that a reasonable amount of delivery happens in England, or in Scotland and Wales. We agree that there are GB-wide functions such as research and international forestry which require an arrangement to take place. The debate then is whether we create an even smaller organisation to carry out the GB-wide functions and possibly make it uneconomic for it to properly function as an organisation, or maintain the existing institutional set-up, but seek to align the England delivery functions closely with Natural England through the memorandum of understanding that I referred to earlier.

The Government have taken the view that we want to do the latter, not the former. I would understand if other people chose to take a different view, but we believe that that is the less risky option because we are dealing with currently constituted bodies and we do not then have to take the risk of trying to unpick all those GB-wide and devolved functions in order to put them back together in a new or emasculated body.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

As my hon. Friend has said, all this joint working may go swimmingly and the opportunity may come later on to decide to go the whole hog and make the transfer from the Forestry Commission to the new agency. He says that that would take primary legislation and he knows how difficult it is to get a slot in the legislative programme. With all the enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches, why does he not snap their hand off and include in the Bill provision for a later scheme, to be made under secondary legislation, for the transfer?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

My hon. Friend seeks to tempt me, but I will resist his temptation. I could go away and mull over his suggestion to see whether that is something we would want to do at a later stage, but I am pretty sure that we would decide to resist it. We have reflected on this matter. As I said at the outset, the issue was raised by Haskins and by the Select Committee, so we have had a good look at the intricacies and complications of reinventing the institutional infrastructure. We have concluded that, for now, we are best off with things as they are, but I will certainly reflect on the interesting notion that my hon. Friend has offered.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I concur with the hon. Member for Hexham in the sense that we have always considered that forestry responsibilities have been, to a large extent, devolved to Wales. When I put questions to DEFRA on forestry issues that relate to Wales, I am told to address them to the Welsh Assembly. I can therefore see the problem that the Minister faces. However, within the Bill, he sets up GB-wide institutions that could take over the residual functions of the Forestry Commission, such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the nature conservation body for the whole of Great Britain. Surely that would be a fine resting place for the residual functions of the Forestry Commission.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It has been an interesting debate, but I come back to the delegation powers that we have included in the Bill and which we will debate later. They give us some room for movement in respect of shifting some of these things around within the basic infrastructure that we are setting up in this legislation. We will re-evaluate things on a rolling basis to see whether they are successful. Ultimately, we regard the Forestry Commission as a relatively successful body and we shall continue to support it in its present structure, as Lord Whitty said in reply to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in relation to the Government’s rural delivery strategy last year.

We have considered whether we can achieve our objectives of sustainable land management and better customer service with the arrangements set out in the Bill, without the institutional disruption that we have debated. We are satisfied that the Forestry Commission and Natural England will be able to work closely together to deliver the benefits that we want for the environment and for customers. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw his amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

May I start on a slightly sour note? I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) will make more constructive comments in future.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I was trying to help.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

No, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really was trying to help. This is a serious amendment, as the Minister has appreciated. It was designed to provoke the sort of helpful and explanatory answer that the Minister has given. I will not pretend that I have been entirely convinced by everything, not least because of the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that the Bill already includes the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which will do the umbrella work on the conservation side. Whether that becomes the repository for the remains of the Forestry Commission or whether there was to be a joint forestry commission would be a moot point, but the principle is established for the rest of conservation.

The Minister also referred to the forestry estate, but I hope that I made it clear earlier that I was not talking about that. Part of the Forestry Commission’s problem is that, to use a phrase that is now politically incorrect, it is trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, inasmuch as it is managing a forestry estate and trying, unsuccessfully, to run it commercially, while trying to support the private sector. I referred earlier to the imbalance of resources between the two. To shift the issue of dealing with the private sector to Natural England would be a constructive way of addressing the contradiction that already exists.

The Minister somewhat tantalisingly raised points about the later part of the Bill, in which the Government propose to grant powers and responsibilities to outside bodies. He tempts us to think that that is a way around the problems that we have discussed; perhaps we will examine that when we reach that part of the Bill. However, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister. He has done exactly what I hoped that he would do in response to the amendment, which is to clarify Government thinking. I am not entirely convinced and we may wish to return to the problem at a later date, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause establishes Natural England as an independent, non-departmental public body; if ever I slip into using the acronym, NDPB, later in the Committee’s proceedings, that is what I am referring to. Its general purpose and functions are set out in subsequent clauses. The clause also introduces schedule 1, which sets out the constitution of Natural England and other details that will be covered later.

Schedule 1 - Natural England

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in schedule 1, page 41, leave out lines 10 and 11.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 54, in schedule 1, page 44, line 2, leave out paragraph 22.

No. 49, in clause 13, page 6, line 3, leave out from ‘acquire’ to end and insert

‘only such property as is necessary for the administration of Natural England and dispose of such property or other property acquired on the dissolution of predecessor bodies;’.

No. 56, in schedule 2, page 45, leave out lines 8 and 9.

No. 55, in clause 23, page 8, line 15, at end insert

‘used for the purposes of administration’.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The amendments largely hang together, although amendment No. 49 is slightly different. Again, they are probing amendments. Having studied my phraseology when preparing my speaking notes, I realise that there are some faults, but the probing nature of the amendments stands. I hope that the Minister will explain a little more precisely how he thinks Natural England will operate and the precise meaning of some of the terms in schedule 1.

I shall deal first with amendment No. 51; amendment No. 56 is virtually the same but refers to the Commission for Rural Communities. In schedule 1, there appears to be a statement that Natural England will not be able to claim Crown immunity and should not be regarded as an agent or servant of the Crown except as far as nature reserves are concerned, subject to paragraph 22 of schedule 1. I find that somewhat odd. Amendment No. 51 would delete the words

“Natural England’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.”

Perhaps the Minister will tell me on whose behalf it is being held. If I am correct that “the Crown” is the phrase used to describe the state, the people or the Government, who is Natural England holding the property on behalf of if not the Crown? Exactly the same point applies to amendment No. 56 for the Commission for Rural Communities.

Amendment No. 54 would delete paragraph 22. I do not necessarily want to delete all of it, but I would like to challenge the Minister to explain the Government’s position on nature reserves. My understanding is that Natural England will take over English Nature’s property portfolio, which includes some 17,000 hectares of national nature reserves which it owns and another 31,000 hectares that it leases. There will of course be other property, but I am particularly concerned about nature reserves.

There are many other ownership arrangements of national nature reserves. They are certainly not all vested in English Nature, nor should they be. My colleagues and I are unashamed advocates of the private ownership of such sites. That is a valuable way forward, and I would not want Natural England to see its role as being to acquire large swathes of the English countryside and turn them into nature reserves. I have a fundamental opposition to the concept of oases of conservation in the countryside.

Natural England’s function, like that of its predecessors, should be to promulgate pro-environment practices across the whole countryside, so that we improve the landscape and conserve the environment and wildlife, rather than just create oases. I hope that the Minister will confirm that Natural England will not be going out there to expand massively its ownership of national nature reserves.

We return, however, to the exception in paragraph 2 of schedule 1, which says:

“Subject to paragraph 22 (nature reserves), Natural England”

will not receive Crown immunity. Implicit in that is the notion that somehow, on a nature reserve that Natural England owns, it will have Crown immunity. That implies that it will be able to breach, for example, the wildlife protection measures or the site of special scientific interest measures contained elsewhere in the Bill. I strongly suspect that the Government do not mean that, but that is my layman’s reading of the Bill.

It would be absurd if the very body set up to conserve and protect the natural environment were not required to comply with the same legislation as everybody else, especially as it is also the enforcement body for everybody else, as we shall discuss later. I am sure that the Government do not intend that. The purpose of the amendments is to get the Minister to explain what Natural England will do as regards national and other nature reserves.

Amendment No. 49 is distinct and reflects my hope that Natural England will not go out and acquire great swathes of countryside, inevitably using taxpayers’ money. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred to what is happening in Scotland; I know that you, Mr. Forth, would want neither the debate to turn to what is happening in Scotland nor to support what is happening in Scotland. However, there is concern that public money is being used to buy up large swathes of Scotland and I would be concerned if that happened again.

Amendment No. 49 would restrict the power of Natural England to purchasing property purely for the purpose of administration. Although I want Natural England to be involved in management agreements, I would hope that that could be done by agreement with existing landowners, rather than by using large sums of taxpayers’ money to buy up great swathes of the countryside. Natural England should concentrate on encouraging good practice across the whole countryside.

Amendment No. 55 is similar, but even more important in respect of the Commission for Rural Communities. In your inordinate wisdom, Mr. Forth, you have grouped the amendments in such a way that I need now to refer to the commission—albeit obliquely, because we have not reached that part of the Bill. I note that the Liberal Democrat amendments to that part of the Bill will be discussed later.

As was said on Second Reading, we are concerned about the concept of having a Commission for Rural Communities. I am anxious to ensure that it, too, restricts its operations in the property market to those buildings necessary for administration. If we are to have a commission—I suspect that we will, regardless of our views or those of the Liberal Democrats—we need to ensure that its property dealings relate directly to its administrative needs. That is the purpose of amendment No. 55. I see an analogy with British Waterways, which has gone into property dealing per se rather than into making transactions that relate directly to the future of our waterways. I would not wish to see the Commission for Rural Communities going down that road. The amendment therefore seeks to restrict its property purchasing practices.

This group of amendments deals with two separate issues. The first is about nature reserves and what they are for, and whether it will be Natural England’s policy to continue buying them. I hope that it will not as I would rather that it entered into agreements with existing owners and managers. Related to that is the question of Crown immunity for anything done by Natural England on its nature reserves. The other issue is the distinct question of the purchase of property relating to administration. That is the reason for the two slightly different variations in this group of amendments.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As the hon. Gentleman made clear, amendments. Nos. 51, 54 and 56 deal mainly with the position of Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities with respect to Crown immunity. He started by asking a straightforward, sensible question: for whom does Natural England hold property if not the Crown? It holds the property for itself as a body corporate. In some ways, I was confused when I first read these helpful amendments; I needed intellectually to grasp the notion that Natural England is a body corporate—we need to consider its relationship to Crown immunity—but that the property owned by Natural England as the body corporate has a separate relationship to Crown immunity. It will help to keep that point in mind when considering the amendments.

Lines 10 and 11 of schedule 1 and lines 8 and 9 of schedule 2 make it clear that the property of Natural England and of the Commission for Rural Communities does not benefit from Crown immunity. That is perfectly normal for non-departmental public bodies of this kind. Because of the difference between Crown immunity for the body corporate and that for its property, the amendment would make all Natural England’s property subject to Crown immunity, but I shall deal with the point that I think the hon. Gentleman was trying to make.

Quite simply, giving nature reserves Crown immunity would continue the current arrangement of protecting such sites from compulsory purchase orders, such as those that would allow road-building schemes. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who has said much about the importance of beauty in the environment. We certainly agree that nature reserves tend generally to be more beautiful than roads. In essence, we are trying to protect our nature reserves—for instance, from CPOs to build roads. There are other implications in respect of Crown immunity that people might want to discuss, but in essence the Bill maintains the status quo. At the heart is protection from CPOs.

Amendments Nos. 49 and 55 deal with the subsections that give Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities powers to take action that will help them to exercise their functions. In debating this issue, we shall have the first of many debates in which we try to balance the independence that we want for Natural England and the commission to perform their functions with sufficient flexibility to allow them to do so independently.

The Committee will be probing and debating whether we narrow everything down and remove that flexibility, as these amendments would do, for instance, by saying that someone is allowed to have property only for administrative purposes and for offices. The amendments do not foresee any circumstances in which the bodies might want to do something different, and would not give them the flexibility to anticipate what might happen in the future.

The powers in the clauses are standard: they apply to all statutory public bodies. Such a body, in any event, would have to seek ministerial approval for capital acquisitions and the disposal of assets. Amendment No. 49 goes further than amendment No. 55. Clause 13(2) gives a list of examples of conducive and incidental powers that are standard for any non-departmental statutory public body. I know that later on we shall debate the amendment in respect of conducive and incidental powers.

Amendment No. 49 would modify the list to allow Natural England to acquire property only for administrative purposes—for example, office blocks—and not for the pursuit of its purposes. I hope that the Committee understands that this has the potential to restrict significantly how Natural England is able to further its purposes, such as the example given in clause 2(2)(c) of securing the provision and improvement of facilities in connection with the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment. For example, Natural England might want to have an interpretation centre in connection with one of its nature reserves. That is not an administrative function and it would not require an office block. It would be too restrictive on the ability of Natural England to further its educative purpose if we did not allow it to acquire such property.

I should also like to reassure hon. Members that, because Natural England must behave in a reasonable manner in all that it does, they need not be concerned that it will aim to become a large estate holding body. I know that that is a key concern of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. The Countryside Agency currently holds property only for administrative purposes. However, as with the commission, I do not want to put a straitjacket on it with regard to what may happen in the exercising of its functions. I confess that it is difficult to anticipate how a watchdog might need to acquire or dispose of property, but I do not want to put that straitjacket on it at this stage in a way exceptional to that for the other similar statutory bodies that we have already set up.

English Nature holds or leases 218 national nature reserves. Its policy is to purchase or lease land only when it is manifestly the most effective way of securing public benefits. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, we expect Natural England to continue this policy and, crucially, its budget will be set accordingly. It is unnecessary to restrict the power in the manner proposed in the amendment. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I confess that the issue of compulsory purchase had escaped me, and I entirely understand and support the Minister’s desire that nature reserves should be exempt from compulsory purchase.

The Minister did not touch on something else that I am concerned about: the other possibilities of Crown immunity to which I referred in my opening remarks. Although Crown immunity is there because of CPOs, it is not restricted to them. My concern is that the bodies could claim Crown immunity on grounds that seriously undermine what they are doing. The SSSI protection and wildlife protection legislation that is found later in the Bill and that exists in much other legislation might even—to be absurd—allow hunting to be permitted on a national nature reserve. I am not suggesting that it would, but why should they have Crown immunity over everything when it should be possible to exempt them from compulsory purchase orders without giving them blanket immunity?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I ask the hon. Gentleman to recall the notion that, as with all public bodies, Natural England would have to act reasonably and within its purposes. I suggest that using Crown immunity to escape damage to the SSSIs that it looks after would not be reasonable or within its purposes.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. We shall come back to the issue of reasonableness in a later amendment, but we shall have to beg to differ on the point.

I want to extract from the Government a little more of their thinking. I am concerned that they do not want to put any constraints on either body, particularly the Commission for Rural Communities. Given that their purposes are quite limited, I cannot see why they should need the power to buy property other than for administration purposes. However, it is not a big issue, and I do not want to force it at this stage. In light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in schedule 1, page 41, line 33, at end insert—

‘5AEach member shall be appointed for a term of four years.’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 53, in schedule 1, page 42, line 15, at end insert

‘after the first term of office, but no member shall be eligible for reappointment having served two full terms.’.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

This is another group of relatively minor amendments. However, they are important and self-explanatory and do not need much introduction. On reading schedule 1, I was concerned about the composition of the board. The Select Committee itself referred to its concern about the widespread power of the Secretary of State to nominate members of Natural England, and whether that conflicted with its independence. These amendments address a slightly different aspect. They are simply about how long people are appointed to the board and how long they can serve. It is important to lay down the term of office, and there is nothing in schedule 1 to determine that. I have suggested four years, which I think is a reasonable period.

The second amendment simply says that members should not be able to serve more than two terms of office, because such bodies need to be regularly renewed. I am sure that the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea of regularly appointing new blood on to such boards. I specifically included in amendment No. 53 the term “two full terms”, because obviously, there may be occasions when somebody is appointed to replace somebody who has resigned mid-term. They would be allowed to do two further terms in their own right so, in theory, they could do almost 12 years. The key point is to put into the schedule the issue of how long people can serve on the board. I have also addressed the same issue with the Commission for Rural Communities. The provision is self-explanatory, and I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why it is not in the schedule.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Schedule 1 contains provisions for appointments to the board of Natural England. In line with the flexible and future-proofed approach taken with the Bill, we have not included provisions for maximum terms of appointment for board members, or included limits on the number of times that any member can be re-appointed, as the hon. Gentleman has noted. That is in part to ensure flexibility within the appointments process—I referred to flexibility earlier—and to guard against succession planning problems. The board of Natural England will be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and hope that hon. Members will find the rules, which I shall sketch out in a moment, reassuring.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to probe, and clearly there is an advantage to his approach of ensuring that the board is frequently refreshed with new members. The disadvantages concern loss of skills and experience and succession planning, which is sometimes overcome by staggering the periods of appointments.

The rules of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments state that all appointments will be made by open and fair competition and that appointees can serve only two terms, although OCPA does not regulate the length of the terms and a third term can be awarded in exceptional circumstances, again following an open competition. In addition, no board member may serve longer than a total of 10 years in the same post. The OCPA rules help to ensure that boards do not become stale and that new members are regularly appointed, while allowing departmental flexibility to handle unforeseen resignations or events. The rules therefore provide the safeguards in the appointment process that I suspect hon. Members are concerned about. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in schedule 1, page 44, line 10, leave out

‘As soon as possible after the end of’

and insert ‘For’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 90 to 102.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The purpose of the amendments is to provide for a combined annual report and accounts for Natural England to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, and for a similar requirement for the Commission for Rural Communities. It is a Treasury requirement to adopt that method of laying the accounts before the House as best practice. It is more efficient than previous practice, which was to lay the report and accounts before the House separately, the report being dealt with by the Secretary of State and the accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

When, under the amendments, the Comptroller and Auditor General has completed his audit of the annual accounts, he will send the accounts, which will include his audit report, to the Secretary of State. The accounts will then be combined with the annual report and laid before the House as one document by the Secretary of State.

The amendments also provide for the Secretary of State to give direction to Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities on the timetable for producing the accounts. That will facilitate a Treasury requirement for establishing faster timetables for the production and presentation of public sector accounts.

Clause 2 - General purpose

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 39, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out from ‘generations’ to end and insert

‘within the context of sustainable development and the retention of viable local communities.’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 40, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to second ‘the’ and insert ‘promoting’.

No. 41, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert

‘through the provision and improvement of suitable facilities and by other means.’.

No. 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ‘promoting’, insert ‘sustainable’.

No. 42, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after ‘recreation,’, insert—

‘(da)working with rural communities and businesses in the achievement of its purposes,’.

No. 43, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after ‘recreation,’, insert—

‘(da)contributing to sustainable development through the involvement of farmers and other rural businesses in the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment,’.

No. 44, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

‘(3)In exercising any of its functions under this Act, Natural England shall, if it appears that there is a conflict between any of the purposes including those in subsection (2), attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural environment.’.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Here we come to something slightly different; clause 2 is one of the most important in the Bill, and was the subject of considerable debate in the Select Committee. I see the hon. Member for Sherwood nodding in agreement.

The amendments deal with different aspects of the purposes of Natural England. They do not all necessarily originate from the same perspective, but because so many different organisations have expressed concerns about the phraseology of the clause and the absence of certain points—particularly in subsection (2)—I have tabled amendments that I thought relevant. Inevitably some of them may embody differing or even almost conflicting points of view, but it is only right and proper that the Committee has the opportunity to discuss them, and that the Minister is able to respond.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it may be helpful to the Committee to know that I take the view that it is likely, given the scope of the amendments, that we shall cover most if not all of the content of clause 2 in the debate. Therefore we may well not have a debate on clause stand part. I tell the Committee that so that anyone who wants to speak on clause 2 may seek to catch my eye.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Thank you, Mr. Forth. I was not planning to say any more than my slightly more significant earlier contribution. This is a pretty critical part of the proposals.

Amendment No. 39 would replace the phrase “contributing to sustainable development” in subsection (1). There are different views about whether that is the right phrase, including those of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Country Landowners Association, the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers Union, who say, with considerable force, that the phrase is not sufficiently strong and that it should be replaced with “promoting sustainable development”, for example. Views have also been expressed by organisations including the group known as Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust.

The Country Landowners Association said that it

“strongly believes that the remit for Natural England should be a more straightforward one to contribute to sustainable development. This does not weaken the primary purpose...rather it reminds the agency that true sustainability is a three-legged stool and that in order to achieve environmental objectives the agency should work within the bounds of practicalities of individual businesses.”

It goes on to refer to the development of environmental stewardship schemes over the last 10 to 15 years under Governments of both parties, which have delivered considerable environmental benefits.

The NFU said:

“We believe there is merit in placing emphasis in the definition of its general purpose on working with rural communities business and farmers,”

which relates to some of the amendments. In contrast, other organisations, such as the Wildlife Trust, support the wording in the clause which refers to Natural England contributing to sustainable development; the Woodland Trust and others made similar comments.

There is a disagreement and, daft as it may sound, I am not sure which side I want to come down on—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman has discovered a third way.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am certainly not looking for a third way, but it is important that the Committee examines the matter further—the hon. Member for Sherwood kindly nodded when I referred earlier to the Select Committee’s extensive debate on the subject. The phrase “contributing to sustainable development”, which is the Government’s choice, has several interpretations. The amendment would change the phrasing to “within the context of sustainable development”, taking it as read that sustainable development is part and parcel of what is going on, and also refers to the

“retention of viable local communities”.

In amendments Nos. 42 and 43 I have tried specifically, in different ways, to emphasise the point about rural communities and the people who work in them, be they farmers, landowners, managers or others. We cannot separate the natural environment from the communities that live within it; in many cases, they are part and parcel of its management and have an impact on it.

Events in past centuries show that the English landscape has been fashioned almost entirely by people. It is not the original natural landscape of England in the days of the wild wood; it has been changed ever since Mesolithic man began to cut back that wood some 12,000 years ago, and it has been evolving. Many of the features that the 80-odd per cent. of the population who live in our conurbations want to protect, and the flora and fauna that live in those features, exist because of man’s activities over the years. Not all those activities, judged by today’s standards, have necessarily been benign, and some may have been malign to the interests of wildlife or the countryside, but nevertheless that is why those features exist.

If one goes to the Peak district, the Lake district or the fenland in and around my constituency, one sees a landscape fashioned entirely by man. The hedges and dry-stone walls were not put there with an Arts Council grant, but because they were required to contain stock. The woods were used for feeding and sheltering stock, for timber and for many other purposes. I am trying to emphasise that we cannot look after that natural environment without the involvement of the communities who live in it.

Moving into today’s world, the development of the entry-level and higher-level schemes, both of which we support in principle as excellent schemes that do what should be done to reward landowners and farmers for positive actions to look after the environment, require the active participation of communities. That is why clause 2 on Natural England’s general purpose should refer to the importance of involving communities in one way or another.

As I said, there are different phrases in the amendments, and I will not put my hand up to say that any one is the right one. However, I would like the Minister to accept the principle behind them, which is that we need to involve communities and ensure that Natural England’s role contributes to communities remaining viable. Now is not the time for the Committee to discuss the trials and tribulations facing the farming community—let alone what the Prime Minister with or without Mr. Chirac may do in future—but we are facing serious economic problems in parts of the countryside. It is important that Natural England has a role of understanding that and working with communities.

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 clearly hang together. They address a different aspect, which brings us back to your point, Mr. Forth, about the all-embracing nature of the debate. They refer to subsection (2)(c) and the

“facilities for the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment”.

The Minister touched on this point in his earlier rebuttal of my amendment on property. The amendments refer to a critical part of the role of Natural England. As somebody who was born and brought up in the countryside and who loves it, I am for ever concerned that so many of our fellow citizens do not understand the reality of what goes on there. While different bodies make sterling efforts, the role of Natural England has to be focused on that function.

I am therefore concerned about the apparently restrictive nature of paragraph (c). I accept readily that it uses the word “includes”, which means that it is not exclusive, but the Bill refers only to Natural England

“securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment”.

I do not see why the body needs to be restricted to the issue of facilities, which is why I have tabled amendments that would broaden its role to promoting the understanding, education and enjoyment of the countryside by any means, although I have added the provision of facilities as part of that. English Nature undertakes that work now, which is why I am puzzled as to why the clause is seemingly restrictive.

Amendment No. 44 is, in effect, a debate in its own right. It refers to the statistics and what is known as the Sandford principle, which relates to the potential for conflict between the many aspects of the general purpose of Natural England. The Select Committee was very clear that the Sandford principle should be used. On page 41 of its report, it clearly states that

“we recommend that provision be made in the Bill for the ‘Sandford principle’ to apply in those exceptional circumstances where there is an irreconcilable conflict, to make clear that the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural environment takes precedence over other purposes.”

I entirely concur with that view.

I have made my point about sustainable development, rural communities and all the other issues, but at the end of the day, Natural England has no function if it is not about conserving the natural environment. We therefore need a conflict resolution clause to deal with irreconcilable conflict, which is the phrase that is being used to describe the Sandford principle. The Woodland Trust, the Wildlife Trust, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have all made similar statements, and they are right to do so.

There are, of course, many ways in which one could phrase the principle. Again, I do not take any great pride in the phrasing that I have used. Others have recommended different phraseology, but I wanted to raise the issue in debate because it occupied a great deal of the Select Committee’s time, and I suspect that it may well engender comment from other members of the Committee. It certainly arose on Second Reading, and Ministers implied—I do not want to put words into their mouths—that they were sensitive to the issue.

I particularly wanted to identify the areas in which such conflict might arise. One can imagine all sorts of scenarios, but I believe that there is pretty widespread agreement on situations in which there is potential conflict concerning the purpose of conserving and protecting the natural environment. That brings us to paragraph (d), which refers to

“promoting access to the countryside”.

Most country people and organisations concerned about the environment recognise that there is sometimes a conflict between the objectives of increasing access and conserving nature. Access can cause erosion problems and can seriously disturb wildlife or perfectly normal economic, commercial activities that take place in the countryside. It is quite clear that a conflict could arise.

Almost coincidentally, one of the leading opponents of including the Sandford principle in legislation is the Ramblers Association, which has said that it does not believe that there is a need for a method of conflict resolution to be included in the Bill. That implies that it recognises that there is the potential for conflict, and that it does not want its objectives for access being overridden by concern for the environment. I am afraid that, in this case, I beg to differ with the association. If such a conflict did arise, care for the environment should be pre-eminent. That is the purpose of the objective.

There are, as I say, many ways of arguing the case and many scenarios that one can imagine, but there is a view that is almost universally held, with the major exception of the Ramblers Association, that the Sandford principle should be incorporated in the Bill. Study of the evidence that Ministers and DEFRA gave to the Select Committee seems to suggest that they accepted in every way that the potential for conflict existed, but that somehow it was not necessary to deal with it in legislation. This is one of the larger aspects of the Bill and of this group of amendments.

I look forward to what the Minister has to say about the amendments. They cover a number of aspects relating to the purpose of Natural England, and I accept that subsection (2) begins by saying

“Natural England’s general purpose includes”

so it is not an exclusive list. We all know the problems of trying to put an exclusive list into legislation. Nevertheless, those purposes in the list will be seen as the primary ones because they are specified in the Bill. I believe that the context of sustainable development and the involvement and viability of local communities, be they farmers, sporting interests or other interests such as the forestry industry, should all be included in the Bill.

Finally, there is the question of a conflict resolution clause, which would most logically fit into this part of the Bill. Arguably, it might fit somewhere else, but I believe that it should be under clause 2, which is why I have tabled the amendment at this point. As I said earlier, I am not wedded to the particular words that I have chosen. These are important issues: the question of Natural England’s purpose has occupied a great deal of discussion in this Committee, in the Select Committee and in many other quarters. It also took up the largest part of the submissions to the Select Committee and seems to have taken up the largest part of all the submissions made by various bodies to members of this Committee. I look forward to contributions from other hon. Members, and commend the amendments to the Committee.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I want to make some brief comments in support of what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has said. I suspect that we have all received a considerable number of briefings from various interested groups on what is to them, and to those of us who were on the Select Committee that examined this issue, the heart of the Bill and crucial to the way it will operate, if and when it is passed.

In that context, “sustainable” and “sustainability” can sometimes mean rather different things to different people, depending on whether they approach the matter from an environmental or economic direction. Mention has been made of the three-legged stool principle, with which I entirely agree. It is clear, however, that it will be vital for positive working partnerships to be created between Natural England, rural businesses, rural communities, farmers and those who use the land. That will require considerable trust and understanding, and a certain amount of shared vision.

I think that it would be true to say that many people who live and work in the countryside, and many of those who work in agriculture, have not had positive recent experiences with Government, whether they dealt with the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or with DEFRA. It is therefore only natural that when they look at these proposals it is with a certain amount of suspicion, concern and dismay. Natural England will have to recognise that rural communities and farmers—those who live and work in the countryside—will have to play an important part in trying to realise the laudable intentions behind the Bill.

The people who live and work in the countryside want Natural England, in its fullness, to be vibrant and viable, not set in some sort of aspic jelly, trying to maintain or regain a nostalgic vision of the countryside. “Natural” means something different to those who want to work and make the land productive.

The countryside is there for everyone. Natural England will have a real role in ensuring that not only those who live and work in the countryside but those who live and work in urban areas have access to it and understand it. We must ensure that our countryside is the best that it can be. The situation is similar to that of old buildings, which are often best preserved through their use for proper purposes. Buildings can go through different stages of use, which preserves them as real buildings.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to define exactly what he means by a rural community, given that in many rural areas there is a mix of urban and rural usage? There are industrialised rural communities in many parts of the north, for instance, including in my constituency.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

That is absolutely right. Many people have a rural setting around their community. Not only those who live in villages but those who live on the edge of large slices of our countryside want to ensure that it is preserved and enhanced, not just for those who live there but for those who have access to it. I agree that we must ensure that all people have an understanding of what the countryside is for. To return to my analogy, I hope that we recognise that the land will change, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. Whatever we see as natural today might not have been natural a few hundred years ago. Changes will take place.

Our amendment would insert the word “sustainable” before “access”. There is the potential for conflict in various ways where access is made available, and we need to strike a balance. The difficulty with this part of the Bill is in striking the right balance between the differing and competing interests in respect of the land. The potential for conflict is real, and I support the Sandford principle for conflict resolution because there need to be at least some guiding principles. The word “irreconcilable” is used in relation to that principle, so I take it that it will apply to the sort of cases that we hope will be few and far between. The essence of the Bill is co-operation, understanding of one another’s viewpoints and the need to share that vision. I hope that Sandford will need to be used only in extreme cases, but I believe that it should be referred to in the Bill, as suggested during the Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny.

I, too, look forward to the Minister’s comments. No doubt he, too, received many of the briefing notes, if not all of them and more, that other hon. Members received. He will therefore know that there is a strong sense that this is a crucial part of the Bill in which the wording has to be right. It is sometimes difficult for Opposition Members to get exactly the right wording, as has been said, but I think that we share the same objective. The question is how the provision will be used and how Natural England in particular will conduct itself. English Nature has conducted itself in a reasonably positive way, and the Environment Agency strives to ensure that it has the right sort of relationships, but the provision that we are discussing is crucial. The wording of the clauses and the meanings behind them need to be as clear as possible if we are to develop those vital partnerships.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am pleased to follow the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for South-East Cornwall. Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest: I am president of the Nottinghamshire Ramblers Association. I am demoted when it comes to the national Ramblers Association, as I am a vice-president of that organisation. I shall make the association’s position on access and conservation clear later. I want first to reinforce the points that both hon. Gentlemen made.

Clause 2, on the general purpose of Natural England, is perhaps the most lively part of the Bill. There has been intensive discussion and, as has been said, conflicting views have been expressed to hon. Members.

There are conflicting views because there is conflict in the countryside. We want a living, working and changing countryside. I was struck by the example given by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). As a youth I often went, as I still do, up Buckden pike in the Yorkshire dales and looked down over Wharfedale. My children say to me, “It’s great; it’s never changed,” but it has always changed. The landscape is man-made—and woman-made—and it will continue to change. Changes in agriculture will drive changes in the environment and landscape even further, so there will be change and conflict.

A living countryside must have economic value. Farmers are landowners and custodians of the countryside; that conflict is brought into sharper focus by recent Government policy changes, and we must be aware of it. Natural England should have the resources and expertise to handle that conflict. Having seen the staff involved with the new agency, I think that it will have.

There are problems with access, and there can be conflicts. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 recognises that access must be restricted in certain places and at certain times of the year. People who walk in the countryside, particularly members of the Ramblers Association, accept the need for restrictions. They will argue about their scale, but if there is a straight conflict between conservation or biodiversity and access, they will always fall on the right side of the line.

I was interested in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall about sustainable recreation. I would like the phrase “quiet recreation”, which is used in national parks legislation, to be used, but, much as I hate to admit it, there is scope and a need for venues in the countryside for motor cycling. Some Committee members are clay pigeon shooters—that activity also has environmental consequences in terms of noise. It is difficult to resolve those conflicts and tensions. The Select Committee considered that issue, and myriad groups have written to each of us individually and collectively on it. There is no easy answer, and we could get into a theological debate about it and argue about a pinhead, but I am confident that, with good land-management practices, good consultation and a great deal of thought, most such conflicts can be resolved on a case-by-case basis. This is not the major issue that several organisations that have written to me seem to think it is, but I accept and am pleased that the Government accept, as shown in their response to the Select Committee report,

“that in areas where the level of importance of biodiversity and landscape has been predetermined, the Sandford principle should continue to apply—for example in National Parks and AONB conservation boards.”

If that approach is good enough for national parks, it should be good enough for areas of outstanding natural beauty. We must consider the wider countryside. There will be odd cases in the wider countryside in which conflicts cannot be resolved with the best will in the world, but they will be few and far between and Natural England will be able to manage the process. Clearly, if there is irrevocable conflict, conservation and biodiversity interests must take precedence.That will probably work out in practice. There may be no need to put this provision in the Bill, but I know that the Minister is aware of these issues, as are his officials. I know that in private discussions the issues are being considered, but I do not expect that this issue, which is a pretty difficult one, will be resolved today in this Committee Room.

I say gently to the Minister that the Bill has just started in Committee and has a long way to go. I suspect that, even if he is not prepared to give commitments today, this will become a real, live issue at a later stage and perhaps in another place. There will have to be some more significant thought and, more particularly, more significant reassurances given than are on the table.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I am sure that the Minister heard that appeal. I do not see how anyone could resist such an articulate argument for the introduction of the Sandford principle into the Bill. I utterly agree with what the hon. Member for Sherwood said about there undoubtedly being occasional cases that are hard to resolve and that such a good principle should appear in the Bill.

I am less confident in what the hon. Gentleman said about the staff of Natural England being able to do the job as well as the different component parts have done until now. I hope that he is right, but some of us have doubts. We have to get this clause right. We need to worry this clause like a dog with a bone to make sure that we get it right. By the end of this clause, if we get the balance wrong between the demands of nature, conservation and so on and the necessity for those who own, manage, farm and make a living off the land, we will miss an opportunity to enhance the countryside and biodiversity.

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said earlier. It is wrong to suggest that the principle protects bits of the countryside. We need to look at the countryside as a whole, so that we can manage the entire countryside and improve the landscape and biodiversity. The danger is that Natural England could become, if the balance is wrong, a regulatory body saying that one cannot do this or one must do that, rather than taking the broader remit of encouraging good stewardship of the countryside by those who actually work in it all the time.

My hon. Friend’s amendments are important to the Bill, because they raise the issue of the desire for sustainable development. “Sustainable development” is rather an awkward expression and not a happy one, but it is probably the best we have that lays out what we are aiming for. My hon. Friend said that he was not quite sure where he stood on the balance of looking for the third way. I am a bit unreconstructed on this point and I know where I stand. The importance of the interests of farming and of the farming community must be recognised.

Whatever happens, we have heard eloquent speeches on both sides about the changing nature of the landscape. It is important that people can make a living off the land. If they cannot make a living, if they cannot move to biomass or from farming cereals and that kind of thing, the viability of the countryside will decline. Once that happens, all the little extra things that landowners and farmers do to enhance the countryside will be lost. They simply will not be able to afford to do them.

The landscape changes and perhaps we do not like that. I mentioned earlier the huge man-made forests in my constituency that were once wonderful moors. Some of the best grouse moors in England are now planted with forestry. Some people regretted that change while others have accepted it as important new land usage, which provides jobs in the area and provides an opportunity to have a different type of biodiversity. That happens and it cannot be helped; one simply has to accept changes or we will not have the prosperous countryside that we need.

If we cannot get changes to the actual wording of the clause, it is important that we obtain from the Minister commitments that it is intended to ensure the viability of rural communities. By that, I mean the viability of those directly involved, such as the people who work on the farms and not us who are perhaps merely spectators. We want commitments that their future is not going to be damaged and that they will be allowed to run their enterprises without undue interference from the new body.

We in the north have had a reasonably good relationship with English Nature. Its staff—certainly those in the north country—have shown that they understand the needs of local communities. We have a special landscape in the north because we have large upland commons, which are grazed in an ancient system called stint-holding. I shall not give the Committee a lecture on stint-holding—the hon. Member for Workington will know a bit about it—but it is a very strange, archaic and complex system of husbandry that has existed for centuries. In the upland communities, many thousands of sheep were slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease, and that caused a great many problems with stock management. There was a recent case in which local stint-holders wished to put up a fence in order to stop sheep wandering over a large area of countryside. There was a conflict between those stint-holders and English Nature, but because the local staff understood the way in which the system worked, a compromise was reached.

My fear is that, in a big, all-encompassing organisation, the staff who have the expert knowledge of a locality will be transferred elsewhere and that we would lose their expertise and unnecessary conflict would arise. I approach the matter with caution, and I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee and the wider farming community that what is being proposed in the Bill will look after their interests and will appreciate the fact that their contribution is vital for improved biodiversity and an enhanced countryside.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I have been impressed by the poetry of the discussions on the development of the English landscape to such an extent that, at one moment, I thought that Mr. Dimbleby might pop his head in to bless our proceedings.

In the context of clause 2 on general purpose, there are some things that never change, and I am sure that the Minister would want to consider whether things should change. One is the ownership of the English countryside. My constituency is one of the largest in England and, in the dukeries, the Newcastle family and the Liverpool family own the land as they have always owned it—ever since Norman times in the case of the Liverpools. They have tenant farmers, and the Bill seems to miss an opportunity to consider their right to buy and the expansion of the democratic right that is so popular with council tenants across the county. The right to buy for tenant farmers, who have managed for generations the land in my constituency, has not been included in the Bill. Perhaps the general purpose of Natural England could include the opportunity for those who work the land to have greater ownership of it.

In the development of the British countryside, we can be over-poetic. I recall in recent weeks visiting the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and the constituencies surrounding it. I studied the churchyards at the bottom of the coffin roads, which took millions of people out of the countryside over a period of 300 years—in that case, to work in the collieries of Merthyr and that area. They returned dead, following accidents in mines, to be buried and to fill those quaint rural chapels and churches. Constituencies such as mine have seen their development very much marked in that context.

An opportunity presents itself to the Minister in relation to those who once came from the countryside and were then put into, for example, mining villages that were near and part of the country but did not have full access to the variety of country living; he has the opportunity to visit the countryside. I find that young people, such as school pupils, who live in mining communities do not have the opportunity or the aspiration to see the full range of the country that they live in, and that has major ramifications. One of the simple ones that I have identified is the fact that the basic cooking skills of the British nation have declined. We are a burger-and-chips nation and increasingly so.

Natural England should have a broader role relating to enjoyment of the natural environment, which could reinforce other Government agendas that are cross-party, not least with regard to healthy communities and healthy people. I specifically ask the Minister to contemplate whether under the auspices of clause 2(2)(c), it is time for the Government to take a leaf out of the book of an enlightened Conservative Government of the 1930s, who, in places such as Brecon and Radnorshire and Hexham, contributed Government grants for the development of a labyrinth of youth hostels to allow young people from the cities to participate in activities in the countryside.

A number of the establishments in Brecon and Radnorshire were converted from existing buildings thanks to a Government grant in the 1930s, and they still exist today. There is an opportunity now to build on the excellent work done in the previous Government by the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), who is now the Minister for Industry and the Regions. We could take the opportunity of establishing whether grants could be given for environmentally friendly developments in the buildings that give young people in areas such as mine access to areas such as Hexham and Brecon and Radnorshire. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether additional Government assistance could be given for the environmentally friendly enhancement of those buildings. That would fit very much within the remit of clause 2(2)(c).

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth, and your reputation for flamboyant ties means that you will wake us up in the morning when we attend the Committee at a very early hour. I would also like to place on record my interests as they appear in the Register of Members’ Interests, not in relation to Natural England but to various other aspects of the Bill.

I knew that these provisions would engender a considerable amount of debate. Nothing is more enjoyable than being in the countryside, but talking about it is almost as enjoyable. We have certainly done quite a lot of that this morning, and my constituency has been mentioned more times in the debate on Natural England than it deserves given that it is in Wales. I will try to keep myself to the English aspects of the provisions.

It was interesting that the Sandford principle should emerge so early on in the debate. As Members will realise, that principle came to the fore when national parks were set up in this country under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which was a great step forward and built on the work that had been done in America in setting up national parks.

It seems to me that the conflict within Natural England will be less than that between Natural England and other Government bodies, such as trunk road agencies and local government bodies. Certainly, the experience of the national parks is that little regard is given by Government agencies and local government to the purposes of those national parks. The Minister might like to consider whether there should be something in the Bill that puts a duty on Government bodies and local government to pay respect to the general purpose of Natural England

Reading the description of the general purpose of Natural England in subsection (2) reminds me of the purposes for which national parks were set up and the duties involved under the 1949 Act and the Environment Act 1995. I am not entirely sure whether it is the purpose of the Bill to designate the whole of England as a national park, but it seems that that is the effect. The Bill sets out very high requirements for all the work that Natural England might do in whichever part of England it might decide to operate. That is an interesting concept. Everybody is looking for higher environmental standards throughout the nation and this definition of the general purposes goes some way towards that.

I am much taken by the comments made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about the importance of communities in the countryside in maintaining the environment. In the past century, there have been times when, for whatever reason, there has been an abandonment of the countryside. For instance, in the 1920s, when there was a severe agricultural recession, people could not find tenants to farm land. The result was not a huge improvement in the quality of the environment or in biodiversity; it was dereliction. Although I do not believe that there is going to be depopulation in the English countryside, people might use the countryside as a place to live and to have weekend parties without engaging in the management of the land and conserving the environment and biodiversity. It is for that reason that we ought to ensure that it is a part of the duty or general purpose of Natural England to further the interests of communities.

The hon. Gentleman talked about conserving viable communities, but my experience has sometimes been that the communities that we need to look after are the ones that are almost non-viable. They need the extra support to maintain their village school, their village shop and whatever other facilities there are. Without those facilities, the communities die and the people are not really engaged in the countryside. If they are not engaged in the countryside, they are not engaged in maintaining the environment and looking after biodiversity.

There are many issues that the Minister should take on board, but I particularly commend to him the concept of putting a duty on Natural England to look after communities, particularly in the deep countryside.

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

I approached this debate with some shyness because I was not involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny and I did not take part on Second Reading. It was with some joy that I discovered late last night that the Whips had joyously added me to the list of Committee members because they knew how much I would enjoy serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth.

I generally want to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, particularly amendments Nos. 42 and 43, which relate to the need for Natural England to work with rural communities and the involvement of farmers and rural businesses. In a previous incarnation, I was fortunate enough to serve as a Minister in the Department of the Environment and also in MAFF. None of the agencies in the Department of the Environment that dealt with the countryside ever totally worked. One reason was that the farming and countryside community often perceived them as being regulatory, imposing, external, non-partnership organisations. During a natural Sunday morning conversation that I had with a landowner in my constituency this week, there was a lot of talk about “they” and “them”—people whom he felt were imposing conditions on him. I cannot understand how the Bill would be weakened in any way by accepting amendments Nos. 42 and 43 or something like them.

There have been so many organisations in recent years—English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Commission have all come and gone. How does the Minister think that Natural England will be perceived in the countryside in three or five years’ time? To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, does the Minister think that Natural England should be concerned about the farmer who is perhaps so stressed that he is contemplating suicide because of what is happening in the agriculture industry? Should Natural England be concerned about the village shop, post office and bus service? Is that part of Natural England’s role, or will it be seen as an external agency telling the countryside how it should behave and that it should grant access to townies? I caricature to make the point.

I suspect that we all want Natural England to succeed, but it will do so only if it is co-operative and harmonious and if everyone feels that they have a sense of ownership in it. I suggest that these two modest amendments, which make it clear that Natural England is meant to be a co-operative partnership with people living and working in the countryside for the viability of the countryside and which acknowledge that those people have a major role to play in the stewardship of the countryside, would do an enormous amount to ensure that Natural England is recognised as being a partner and not just seen as a foe.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

May I first draw attention to my entry in the as yet unpublished Register of Members’ Interests? It will indicate that I am engaged in agriculture and have been involved in many of the schemes that this and earlier Governments have put in place to promote rural conservation. I look forward to filling in my form for the entry-level scheme.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sherwood that this is merely a theological debate and that cases of conflict will be few and far between. He alluded to the CROW legislation—the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000—in which some flexibility was shown to allow ground-nesting birds to breed. That included the grouse that live on the North York Moors national park, 60 per cent. of which is in my constituency. It is important that, while we welcome ramblers from the Ramblers Association, we recognise that they are often armed only with a thermos flask and a package of sandwiches and do not contribute the serious euros, dollars and pound notes that come to the north York moors from shooting interests, so I am pleased that that flexibility was shown.

I suspect that there will be even more conflict in connection with the 2 m strips around field margins, which I am sure that the Ramblers Association is already viewing with a degree of hopeful anticipation that ramblers may be allowed access to those bits of land. I tried to explain to my daughter at the weekend that she will not be allowed to ride her pony—a somewhat shaggy and Thelwellesque pony, I hasten to add—around those field margins because they are there for conservation. I hope that the amendments will underline the fact that conservation is the primary reason for the field margins and I hope that they will not be opened up to all and sundry to be used as footpaths.

We also have a conflict of another type in my constituency about the moors centre, which is a visitor information centre in Danby run by the North York Moors national park. Plans were recently put forward to extend the centre to encompass not only the current gift shop, but a rather large retail outlet, with a view to bringing people in by bus and reducing the number of cars in the rural community. However, the plan is viewed with great concern by local shopkeepers, who feel that the development would put them out of business. I understand that the suggestion has been withdrawn. That is another potential conflict, between the national park wishing to promote information and tourism in the area, and the rural communities that depend on the small rural businesses referred to in amendment No. 42.

I hope that the Minister will understand that we are not making theological points. Such conflicts will not be few and far between, but will happen over and over again. It is important that we have a hierarchy of precedents, between the environment and other interests that may be brought to bear on Natural England.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

As a Member for another rural constituency, which includes much of the South Downs, I take a great interest in the Bill. I echo the concerns of my hon. Friends and other Members about the conflict that the Bill might create between those who seek to use the countryside for recreational purposes and those who wish the landscape to be conserved, and about the absence of any mention of rural communities and farming as general purposes. I consider that a significant omission.

I was lucky enough to be asked to go gliding in my constituency on Saturday morning, as part of the 75th anniversary celebrations of the South Downs gliding club. Gliding is not an activity that I would recommend to anyone who has taken part in a charity ball the night before, as I had. Being furnished with a parachute, as the precursor to getting into the glider, was a tense moment. However, I had the opportunity to glide over much of the South Downs on a clear day, which was a great reminder of how much we enjoy that landscape precisely because of farming’s contribution to it.

The changes under way in farming are serious and are resulting in there being far less stock in much of that landscape—there are fields in parts of West Sussex being mown rather than grazed. Nevertheless, the continuing viability and the beauty of the landscape is maintained by farming. It is therefore surprising that farming and the contribution of rural communities are absent from the general purpose to ensure that the natural environment is conserved.

There is a structural flaw in the drafting of the clause. It says that the

“general purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved”.

The Minister relied on that in his response on Second Reading, when he said that

“we expect natural England to be a trenchant champion of the natural environment, as its statutory purpose makes clear.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1089.]

That is a noble expectation. Similarly, the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report said that Natural England would have a duty to ensure that the natural environment was conserved. However, I do not understand how the Minister can rely on that general purpose, when subsection (2) sets out additional general purposes, which include, in paragraph (d),

“promoting access to the countryside”.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggest that the Sandford principle should be supreme, and that where conflict arises Natural England should always have regard to the conservation of the environment over the other purposes that the Bill sets out for it. However, I have concerns about the application of the Sandford principle. Although it is right that the Bill takes account of conflict, the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned are similar to those set out by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England in a briefing note. Giving the example of a place near Canterbury in Kent, it suggests that there is the development of “horsiculture” in an area of outstanding natural beauty and complains that

“fields are being divided up, the ground is littered with brightly coloured jumps and shelters are being erected”.

It is questionable whether that is detrimental to the landscape, and I wonder about a provision in the Bill that would prevent such activities.

I hope that the Minister will address the two related concerns in the Bill. The first is the general purpose list that includes farming and rural communities. The second is that an inherent conflict is being set up in the Bill and we are being advised by different parties that it need not be addressed or that it should be subject to the Sandford principle. I shall listen with great interest to how the Minister thinks those conflicts will be addressed in the absence of the application of Sandford.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As predicted, we have had a good, full debate on a crucial clause setting out the general purpose for Natural England. I am grateful for your advice about the stand part debate, Mr. Forth, and without following up the remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire on verbal rambling I will seek to knit together my thoughts and various pieces of paper in respect of the stand part debate and the amendments.

I will make some general comments about the clause. Subsection (1) is deliberately broad, enabling and flexible. The Government want Natural England to contribute to current environmental policy objectives while allowing sufficient flexibility to avoid restricting its ability to respond to future challenges—the future-proofing to which I referred earlier.

The new non-departmental public body is being established to ensure that the precious resource of our natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for present and future generations. It is about managing and enhancing places and nature and encouraging people to enjoy and benefit from them. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire repeated:

“Our natural environment helps to make England what it is, from our beautiful coastlines to our historic dry stone walls and hedgerows. We have stunning landscapes, rivers and lakes, set in Shakespeare’s ‘silver sea’, a unique geodiversity and the flora and fauna that rely on this rich variety of habitats and ecosystems.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c.1005.]

My right hon. Friend is right; in many ways the landscape is a reflection of the interaction between the natural environment and how man—in the broadest sense, in terms of gender—works the land.

We need a strong and powerful organisation to build on the successes of the past. I reassure the hon. Member for Hexham that the expertise of English Nature, which he rightly identified, will transfer to Natural England; we will not lose it. We also need to build on the strengths of the past to ensure that this wonderful resource is rich, diverse and resilient and that its potential to generate social and economic benefits, including those to farmers, are realised. It must be more than the sum of its parts.

I shall give an example of how that might be achieved. If we are to develop, for example, a new long-distance coastal footpath on a part of the south-west coastal path it will be necessary to draw on all three elements that are coming together to form Natural England. It will take the expertise of English Nature, because of the many sites of special scientific interest along the coast and the need properly to protect and enhance them while access is provided. Access is currently a function of the Countryside Agency. Equally, it will be necessary to make sure that landowners are, through environmental stewardship schemes, properly compensated for any coastal path scheme that may emerge. A single body to carry out such a scheme, if we came up with such an idea, would significantly simplify the process and make it much more coherent for everyone working on it.

As I have explained, to give clarity and focus to this broad and challenging agenda, subsection (2) elaborates on some of the activities that fall within the general purpose. I shall beg the Committee’s indulgence while I emphasise that subsection (1) sets out the general purpose

“to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.”

I want Natural England to be, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, a trenchant champion of the environment.

Subsection (2) states that the purpose should, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire acknowledges, include the five listed items, ending with social and economic well-being, which denotes the rural economy and communities that many hon. Members have mentioned. However, that is not an exclusive list. It is important that the House and people generally understand that the purpose of Natural England is set out in subsection (1). Subsection (2) gives examples of how it might work, which are included to reflect the three constituent bodies that will make up Natural England.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I accept, as the Minister kindly acknowledged, that the list in subsection (2) is not exclusive. However, does the Minister accept that specifying five items in the Bill would lead most observers to consider those the five main aspects of the general purpose and to view matters not listed as somehow secondary? That is why the amendments are so important, particularly as they deal with rural communities. Their exclusion implies that they are not seen as part of the primary purpose, even though the general purpose covers them. Not being specified in the Bill will lead to their being seen as less important.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I accept that that is a potential problem. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) raised the question whether Natural England would be able to grant aid to youth hostels. It is clear that it would be able to do so, if that is within the general purpose set out in subsection (1); however, we have not chosen to specify that in subsection (2).

There is a danger of what the hon. Gentleman described, and we are trying throughout this process to balance the different voices that many hon. Members have spoken of during the debate—the voices of the various non-governmental organisations, and others, that have sent briefings. Each of them is coming from a different place.

If we had left clause 2 as just subsection (1), and had not included subsection (2) with its list of responsibilities drawn from constituent bodies, we should instead be debating whether Natural England was really English Nature by another name, whether the Countryside Agency had been forgotten, and what was happening about the Rural Development Service. By including the specified matters as an inheritance from the constituent bodies we are clarifying the fact that Natural England will genuinely be three bodies coming together to form a stronger, single body with a general purpose. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

The general purpose sets Natural England’s activities in a sustainable development context. It is important to understand that. I know that the hon. Member for Hexham pointed out that some hon. Members wrestle with the question whether sustainable development is a useful term. For the sake of argument and clarity I should explain that, in my understanding, we need to have regard to three pillars of sustainable development: the environment, the economy and social well-being. We must sustain all three of those for future generations.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

We are well aware of the analogy of the three-legged stool, but does the Minister believe that the Sandford principle should be applied to it?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The Sandford principle, which I shall talk about later, is useful for conservation boards and for bodies with responsibility for, say, national parks and areas of outstanding beauty, which have embodied the principle to give precedence to the importance of biodiversity and landscape and to protect the very precious things that those bodies are set up to look after. However, if we were to apply it to all bodies that are to have due regard to sustainable development, it would not be a three-legged stool but a stool that would fall over regularly, because one leg would be longer than the other two.

Applying the Sandford principle to regional development agencies would be very difficult. We want RDAs to take a lead in the economy but with due regard to sustainable development. We must be cautious about setting up bodies with a sole focus on the environment or on the economy and with no regard for those other things, because we would be setting up institutions and an infrastructure that would be in conflict with themselves. Members have referred to that notion of conflict, and I will return to it later.

After that general preamble on the clause, I shall now discuss the amendments. I remind the Committee that amendment No. 39 relates to the retention of viable local communities. I am quite clear that Natural England will need to engage with local communities and land managers if it is to deliver its remit as an environmental body operating in the sustainable development context to which I just referred. Indeed, it would fail in its duty and its purpose if it did not do that. In doing this—for example, through giving grants for the agri-environment schemes—Natural England will contribute to the viability of communities. It will, however, be an environmental body. There should be no ambiguity about that. That is where its expertise will lie.

As an environmental body, Natural England cannot be charged with delivering viable local communities. That is a much broader issue than Natural England is charged with. It is about the delivery landscape as a whole. It is about RDAs championing the economy and economic development with due regard to the environment and society, and working with Natural England, which is championing the environment with due regard to social and economic development, for example, to deliver viable local communities. Clearly, local authorities, other Government offices and many other public and private agents have that due regard.

Local authorities have a crucial role to play in economic development and in delivering on the environment. In many cases, they also take the lead in promoting social well-being. Indeed, we have given them the general duty of promoting economic and environmental well-being in order for them to do that.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

It might be better if I intervened now on the Minister’s answer to the amendment, because a longer response later might be difficult to follow.

The Minister is right, and I was going to make the same point, about the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. I accept that Natural England cannot have a responsibility for developing viable local communities or for turning non-viable local communities into viable ones. That is the responsibility of other bodies. Amendment No. 39, however, refers to

“the retention of viable local communities”

in that context.

The objective was simply to ensure that Natural England understood that part of its function was to enable retention, by which I mean almost a double negative; not to do something that could damage the viability of rural communities. It is quite conceivable that Natural England could, using its myriad powers, do things that would damage the viability of local communities; for example, by making farming impossible in certain areas. I wanted to ensure that that aspect was covered so that Natural England realised that it must not ride roughshod over local communities willy-nilly and do things that might damage them, even though it might be the responsibility of another organisation or local authority to enhance viability. A local authority could not undo such damage if Natural England had done it.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful for that. I am sure in my mind that considering the good record that the constituent bodies—the Countryside Agency, the Rural Development Service and English Nature—come with, Natural England will want to retain viable rural communities as the hon. Gentleman describes. In Committee, we will constantly wrestle between the extent to which we trust an independent body and give it flexibility and the extent to which we prescribe what it must and must not do. There is a degree of trust involved in the relationship.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) asked about how Natural England would be perceived as an organisation. Would it be a body that told people what to do, or would it have due regard to the mental health of farmers, village facilities and so on? Would it be seen as a partner? I believe that it should be seen as a partner and an enabling body working at a regional and local level with regional development agencies, local authorities, parish councils and other bodies on the ground to deliver sustainable development for communities. It will be a champion of the natural environment, but as we have said, it must have due regard to social and economic well-being through its management of that environment.

The hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby and for Arundel and South Downs talked about the conflicting bodies, and I will return to that in discussing the Sandford principle. However, it is important that they and the rest of the Committee understand how we see Natural England working with the RDAs and local authorities to deliver with local communities at its heart. There will be negotiation, but there would be whichever way we chose to set up the body. One could specify a much purer purpose that excludes things, but that would set up a conflict at another level. Much of the conflict mentioned will be resolved internally. In my constituency, there are conflicts among various environmental bodies and between those bodies and local authorities about the delivery of infrastructure. Those are resolved internally and externally, and that is a fact of life. I hope that, on the basis of my explanation of the institutional architecture, amendment No. 39 will be withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 deal with securing facilities. I listened with care to the passion that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire used in talking about the need for Natural England to educate and provide facilities for study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment. Perhaps he and I interpret the language that is used in clause 2 differently, as I think that the amendments are superfluous. How Natural England takes its general purpose forward is for the future board to decide. We should not dictate that by statute; that is the point of an independent NDPB.

I know that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire places great importance on the independence of Natural England; he and his right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said so clearly on Second Reading. I am clear that the legislation should not be used to force the hand of the board as to how it should achieve its purpose and the decisions that it should take. We have set out clearly in subsection (2)(c) an example of how it might achieve its purpose in respect of provision and improvement of facilities for study, and we all hope that it will deliver that outcome.

However, my concern about the amendments is that, on my reading, they suggest that Natural England must be a direct provider to fulfil its purpose. That is too restrictive. I see Natural England as an enabler that will secure provision without necessarily providing it, as part of the outcome of an improved facility for studying, understanding and enjoying the natural environment, which we share as a priority.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I certainly was not suggesting that Natural England should be a monopolistic provider, but I have no doubt that it will want to be one provider of facilities for education, understanding and enjoyment. Indeed, English Nature already does that. That is the reason why amendment No. 41 has “by other means” as a catch-all at the end of its phraseology.

My concern, however, is the Minister’s earlier comment that he did not want somehow to fetter Natural England. It is interesting that subsection (2)(d) includes the phrase “promoting access” but the Minister is resisting my amendment, which would include “promoting” in terms of study, understanding and enjoyment. In one context he is prepared to prescribe, and yet he resists that in another. I am puzzled by the conflict between the Minister’s own words.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I was not focused on the word “promoting”; I was focused on the phrase

“through the provision and improvement of suitable facilities”.

It is specifying the provision that I find more difficult. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

I now turn to amendment No. 1 in respect of sustainable access. The amendment was tabled by the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and dealt with clause 2(2), proposing that subsection (2)(d) should be amended to refer to sustainable access. As set out in the Government’s response to the Select Committee, I understand the concerns raised that references to access and open-air recreation in subsection 2(2) run the risk of Natural England promoting unsustainable activities. However, the Countryside Agency—again, I return to the record that we inherited of the constituent bodies—has the remit to promote access to the countryside, and its practical experience is that such fears are unfounded.

Returning to a familiar theme, Natural England must have the legislative freedom enjoyed by its predecessors. The legislation must not be used as an opportunity—as could be the case with the amendment—to reduce Natural England’s freedom to make considered and independent decisions. It would also be wrong to try to use the legislation as a straitjacket to prevent Natural England from making independent decisions that some of us might not like. That, of course, would detract from the point of setting it up as a non-departmental public body.

Of course, there are instances in which it is undoubtedly necessary for access to the countryside and open spaces to be controlled. Natural England will have an excellent pedigree in that respect. It will combine the Countryside Agency’s experience of promoting positive access management in conjunction with local access authorities, and of administering legal restrictions on CROW access where necessary, with English Nature’s experience of advising the agency on the need for nature conservation restrictions, and of enforcing byelaws in its national nature reserves.

Natural England’s ability to help manage less sustainable access in order to channel it away from more environmentally sensitive or valuable areas would be compromised by this amendment. Ironically, that might reduce Natural England’s ability to safeguard biodiversity and landscape.

The hon. Gentleman asked about partnership. We expect Natural England to work with its partners and believe that that will be crucial. It was a key theme of the rural strategy, which I am sure he enjoyed, as I did, and partners will include the DEFRA family. I referred earlier to the Environment Agency and Forestry Commission in respect of a memorandum of understanding. As I said, Natural England will also need to work in partnership with a wide range of other organisations, in the private, public and voluntary sectors.

In line with the flexible approach that we have applied throughout the Bill, we have not listed those partners in the Bill—because it would be a very long list and we do not want to be in a position of updating the Bill to reflect changes that might happen, for example, in the machinery of government. That is where we have left partnership.

I hope that hon. Members agree with me that all the Natural England agencies have done excellent work to date in promoting and managing access to the countryside, and are well placed to undertake that work even more effectively as a single integrated agency. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments.

I move on to amendments Nos. 42 and 43 in respect of working with rural communities and businesses. The amendments proposed the inclusion in Natural England’s purpose of a requirement to work with rural communities and businesses. Natural England’s purpose is all about what outcomes it is there to achieve. The amendments deal with one of the many methods available to Natural England in achieving its purpose.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill - Standing Committee A

Clause 2 - General Purpose

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

No. 40, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to second ‘the’ and insert ‘promoting’.

No. 41, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert

‘through the provision and improvement of suitable facilities and by other means.’.

No. 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ‘promoting’, insert ‘sustainable’.

No. 42, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after ‘recreation,’, insert—

‘(da)working with rural communities and businesses in the achievement of its purposes,’.

No. 43, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after ‘recreation,’, insert—

‘(da)contributing to sustainable development through the involvement of farmers and other rural businesses in the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment,’.

No. 44, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

‘(3)In exercising any of its functions under this Act, Natural England shall, if it appears that there is a conflict between any of the purposes including those in subsection (2), attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural environment.’.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Before I resume, Ms Anderson, I should like to welcome you to the Chair. It is a pleasure to see you there and I look forward to working under your direction and guidance. It has always been a pleasure to work with you during the last four years, and I know what interest you take in the matters that we are discussing today. I gather that the last Committee that you chaired considered the Identity Cards Bill; I trust that this Bill will not be quite as controversial as that one may have been, and that you will not be wishing that you had those identity cards as you gaze around a number of new Members on this Committee.

Before lunch, we were discussing amendments Nos. 42 and 43, which are concerned with working with rural communities and businesses. Hon. Members are absolutely right to place such importance on how Natural England engages with its customers. The main way in which it will carry out its business will be to deliver through others, particularly land managers and farmers, and especially via the £250 agri-environment programme.

I should stress that Natural England will not be a large landowner itself. Clauses 3 to 13 give Natural England powers and duties to work with, offer advice to and give grants to any person. It will therefore be well placed to work with farmers, rural communities and businesses, in any way that it chooses. The motivation behind the amendments, working with those elements, concerns things that Natural England will be able to do and that one would expect it to do. The bodies that will make up Natural England have a strong track record of engagement with stakeholders.

Hon. Members may take reassurance from the 2004 Rural Development Service customer survey, which found an 87 per cent. overall satisfaction rate, backed up by ratings of 90 per cent. and above for individual attributes of customer service such as courtesy, helpfulness and professionalism. Like their colleagues in English Nature and the Countryside Agency, RDS staff, many of whom have practical farming experience or backgrounds, have an excellent record in face-to-face work with farmers, providing environmental and scheme-related advice on farms and through workshops. I hope that that is the experience of members of the Committee who have a farming background, and that it demonstrates to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who has temporarily vacated his seat, that we want to carry through the notion of partnership into the new agency.

I have been very impressed with the culture that I have seen being established within the three bodies that will make up Natural England. As the Committee will know, since April they have been operating as a confederation of partners, meaning that they are increasingly working as a single body. From the start, the three bodies looked for early gains that could be made in making things simpler and more effective for customers. They are managing the aggregates levy sustainability fund from a customer perspective, as a single scheme. They are progressively transferring sites of special scientific interest wildlife enhancement scheme agreements—I hope that I do not have to say that again—into the higher-level environmental stewardship scheme. They are establishing only one contact point for all agreement holders. They are piloting a single regional voice in the area of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in the eastern region, and hope to follow suite with all other regions by the end of the year. Those are just a few examples where the three bodies have already been coming together to try to create a more coherent, simplified interface for the people for whom they work.

I hope that hon. Members will be as impressed as I am with the speed and energy with which the confederation has already gone about making those changes so that they can properly engage with and work in rural communities and businesses. I have mentioned—I may begin to sound like a stuck record in this Committee—that because Natural England will be an independent non-departmental public body, I am strongly of the view that it will be for its board to decide how best to further its purpose. At this stage, requiring Natural England to adopt a certain method of achieving its purpose on the face of the Bill, such as to work with communities and businesses, whether they are rural, urban or coastal areas—we must not forget that the body will not work exclusively in rural areas—would therefore not be appropriate. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw those amendments.

That takes me on to the critical issue of conflict resolution. Amendment No. 44, the last one that I need to discuss in this grouping, proposes the introduction of a conflict resolution clause. The issue was discussed in the Government’s response to the Select Committee—I am happy to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) back in his place. That I address the issue here is obviously very important.

Much mention has been made of the Sandford principle. For clarity, I can tell the Committee that the Sandford principle states that every effort should be made to reconcile any conflict between conservation and promotion of access or recreation, but where there is irreconcilable conflict, greater weight should be attached to conservation.

I can reassure the Committee that the Sandford principle will continue to apply to national parks, to areas of outstanding natural beauty and to conservation boards. In those areas the level of importance of biodiversity and landscape has been predetermined. That the Sandford principle should remain, to allow those bodies to protect that predetermined biodiversity and landscape importance, is important. Similarly, in nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, there is a strong presumption that biodiversity considerations will take precedence. However, I would argue with the Committee that it would be inappropriate to apply Sandford automatically to all land.

The view of the Government and of the affected bodies is that including a conflict resolution clause in Natural England’s purpose, applying to its work outside the designated areas that I have just been talking about, would seriously constrain its independent decision-making ability. For example, that Natural England’s role in managing the environment would automatically take precedence over promoting access and recreation is not intended. The rural strategy made it clear that the objectives are mutually reinforcing.

Natural England will, of course, be operating in our urban green spaces, as well as in our rural areas. It would be difficult to justify tying its hands so that it always had to give nature conservation priority in urban areas. We must bear it in mind that the primary motivation behind the creation of some of those green spaces is to give access to people who live in those areas—to give them some room to pause and reflect and to enjoy a natural environment.

I reiterated that sustainable development will provide Natural England’s decision-making context. Natural England will actively seek long-term economic and social benefits and avoid unnecessary negative economic and social impacts. A conflict resolution clause would effectively be a legislative straitjacket eroding Natural England’s ability to make independent decisions on a case-by-case basis. I put it strongly to the Committee that we should allow Natural England to sit as an independent body with the ability to make those independent decisions.

I shall respond in a little more detail to some of the points that were made in the debate. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire talked about the conflict between nature conservation and access rarely being irreconcilable. Conflict can normally be handled through management techniques, but what is far more common is to find conflict between different types of access and recreation, where the Sandford principle does not achieve anything.

This morning we heard about instances of conflict between nature conservation and access, but it may be helpful to point out to the Committee that the Sandford principle applies only to instances of irreconcilable conflict between nature conservation and access; those instances are rare. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) suggested that they might be becoming more and more common, but I can tell him that the latest English Nature figures about access on SSSIs show that more than 55 per cent. of them are on open-access land. They show that there are no SSSIs in access lands in England where preventing access to protect flora and fauna all-year round is necessary. Only 0.3 per cent. of SSSI access land has a partial all-year-round access exclusion, and only 1.06 per cent. of SSSI access land has seasonal exclusion. English Nature’s evidence shows that occasions on which there is any kind of irreconcilable conflict are few.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

We ought to put it on record that a large amount of England has not yet been opened up under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and nobody has had that access for more than nine months. It is terribly early to rush to judgment about the potential conflict between access and the environment. I accept that those are the presumptions that English Nature has made, but we should wait a bit longer before we immediately assume that there is no clash.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am willing to accept that point. I look back with fondness to being party, five weeks ago, to the opening up of access to the North Yorkshire moors, which happened on the same day that 2,000 square miles was given open access. That was a great achievement of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. These are relatively early days, but the substantive point remains.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I thought that the Minister was making a different point about SSSIs, which have been established far longer than the CROW legislation and over which there are few conflicts. In the Peak District national park—the biggest and most visited national park, where there has been access for nine months—there have been no conflicts between access and conservation because of good, thoughtful management practices.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that most helpful intervention, which requires me to add nothing more. I am sure that all members of the Committee will have taken that on board, and it reinforces my point that conflict is much more likely to arise between different types of access and recreation. We will, of course, discuss the rights of motorised vehicles and rights of way, which is a perfect case in point where real conflict is already occurring in the countryside. The Sandford, or any other, principle does not provide a conflict resolution mechanism in those instances—I wish that it did.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned the CROW Act and ground-nesting birds. That was an example of an agreement being made to accommodate access and nature conservation. Sandford was not needed in that case and the agreement has worked well.

Following the wise words, as ever, of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that the subject will probably not go away and given that we are at the relatively early stages of consideration of the Bill, I will reflect on his comments and those of others. I do not think that I will want to amend the Bill, but I would like to give further thought to whether, in a non-statutory form, the guiding principles by which Natural England will be governed should be published or made available to the Committee. That might help and reassure the Committee without constraining the ability of that independent body to make its own decisions. In some ways, the guiding principles that come from that independent body as it is forming might be a better indication of how it wants to work.

In summary, the general purpose of Natural England is set out clearly in subsection (1). Subsection (2) informs the general purpose and should not be seen as separate from or different to it. I reiterate that Natural England will principally be an environmental body and will contribute to sustainable development. It will need to have due regard to landowners, rural communities, sustainable access and everything that we have discussed in relation to the amendments. However, I request that the amendment be withdrawn because I do not want to constrain Natural England or its board by dictating too closely in the Bill the outcomes of its work or how we want it to deliver those outcomes.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I begin by adding my welcome to you, Ms Anderson. During all the years you and I have been in this House, this is the first time we have served together on a Committee. It is certainly the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, and I welcome that.

I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has responded to the amendments and to hon. Members from all parties who have spoken to them. As I intimated at the outset, this is one of areas of the Bill that is subject to the most discussion, and we have had the discussion that I envisaged. I shall not pretend that I am entirely satisfied with everything that the Minister has said, but I shall return to those points.

With the wise words just referred to by the Minister, the hon. Member for Sherwood said that conflicts will be few and far between. They are both right; they will be few and far between, but as the hon. Gentleman concluded, they may well occur and we ought to have some mechanism in place. I have an example from my constituency. It relates to English Nature, and not Natural England—because it does not yet exist—but the principle is the same.

I am referring to the Wicken Fen nature reserve, which is in the centre of my constituency and two or three miles from my home. It is the oldest such reserve, which has been protected for 105 years. There was a proposal by Sustrans to build a cycle track across the fen and they wanted to use asphalt for its surface. English Nature opposed it for understandable reasons with which I would concur—the damage that the necessary foundations and the substance itself might cause to the habitat—and proposed using crushed limestone, a more local and natural material, as an alternative. That position was supported by the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and others.

When East Cambridgeshire district council considered the issue at the beginning of April, they gave permission for the track to go ahead, subject to English Nature and Sustrans reaching an agreement. That took place three months ago and I understand that an agreement has still not been reached. I offer that to the Minister as a local example of conflicts that arise; there should be some mechanism to resolve them.

Other hon. Members referred to issues relating to the earlier amendments, such as the issue of rural communities and working with farmers. I accept what the Minister said and I hope that the general ethos of Natural England will be to work with local communities, farmers, land managers and everyone else with an interest in the environment, the landscape and the countryside, and the urban and coastal areas as well. I readily accept that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred from his own wide experience to the perception in many quarters that these bodies are not there to help but to regulate, and sometimes to interfere. There are such occasions; my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to the north Yorkshire moors, but he did not pick up on the point that I thought he might. There has been discussion—I use the word mildly—about English Nature’s attitude to heather burning, which is a traditional and essential part of managing moorland, but English Nature has been quite opposed to it on occasion. Again, we have seen conflict, which emphasises the need for some sort of conflict resolution but also the need to work with communities. In this case, my hon. Friend referred to the important, albeit localised, economic activities associated with grouse shooting on heather moorland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Herbert), who is not with us this afternoon, questioned my amendment on conflict resolution and referred to the issue of “horsey” culture and whether Natural England would get involved in preventing the use of brightly coloured jumps and so on. I am not sure that Natural England would have a role in that. However, the important issue that he identified takes us back to the question of working with local communities and of economic activity in the countryside, which is part and parcel not just of the creation of the landscape and the countryside, but of maintaining and nurturing it and, often, generating the resources to look after it. People sometimes seem to forget that it costs a lot of money to manage the countryside. A great deal of that management has been done, in effect for nothing, by farmers and others through their other activities. We must not ignore that.

I am quite disappointed by the Government’s response to amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 43. However, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said—the Minister confirmed this—we are at an early stage and I am obviously just raising issues that are of concern. I would be prepared to wager that the Minister will decide to concede on some of those issues during the passage of the Bill. On the issue of the Sandford principle, he almost appeared to make a concession at this point. The other issues will be the subject of major debate at later stages in this House and certainly when the Bill is considered in the other House. I would be prepared to wager that amendments will be made about the issue of local communities, in one way or another.

On amendments Nos. 41 and 42 and the question about the promotion of

“study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment”,

I intervened on the Minister this morning when he was responding to this point. I identified the fact that he suggested that I was proposing that Natural England would simply have a monopolistic position. That certainly was not the intention of the amendment. As I have said repeatedly, I am not wedded to the words of an amendment, and if what he suggested was the case, clearly the amendment would need to slightly change. However, in his response to my intervention he conceded that he had missed that the key is amendment No. 40, where I propose that Natural England should have the responsibility for promoting the

“study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment”

just as it has the responsibility for promoting access. The Minister said that he did not particularly want to constrain what Natural England did, but he is telling it to promote access and I do not see why he cannot also do what I have suggested.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

If it helps, I will say on the record that I envisage, and would be delighted to see, Natural England both promoting and securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study of the natural environment. That is all within the general purpose as set out in clause 2(1).

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I appreciate that, but the Minister will know when he checks what he said this morning that he was suggesting that changing the wording would in some way constrain Natural England, whereas I am talking about broadening its responsibility. The amendment is not about promoting the provision and improvement of facilities. That would all be taken out. I was simply suggesting that Natural England’s responsibilities should be to promote

“the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment”.

That would broaden its responsibility rather than restrict it. I hope that the Minister will take that idea away and look at it again because, as I said—he kindly referred to my emotion earlier—I passionately worry that so many people in this country do not understand the countryside and many of the aspects of wildlife and nature, and all the things that go with that.

That brings me to the Sandford principle and to amendment No. 44. I have already used the example of my constituency and there are others. In effect, the Minister, in his last few words, conceded that he will have to reflect on this issue. I suspect that the hon. Member for Sherwood carries more weight than the whole lot of us on the Opposition Benches on this matter, but I do not begrudge him that at all in terms of encouraging the Minister to have another look at this issue, because we are all interested in getting the Bill right.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Perhaps I should put on the record that, in private, I have found the Minister extremely sensitive on this issue.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am not sure whether the Minister is happy that that has gone on the record, but it is there now. I look forward to the day when he is as sensitive in public as he clearly is in private; I will add that he has been sensitive when talking to me, too, in private.

This issue is clearly going to take up more time during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. The Select Committee’s position was absolutely clear and the Minister understands that. He referred to the debate that we are yet to have on vehicular rights of way and suggested that the Sandford principle would not affect them. However, I suggest that it would because although there is a conflict with other users, there is also a big conflict with the environment, so the Sanford principle would have a significant locus.

We have had a good debate. It has been by far the biggest yet, and will probably be the biggest of all this Committee’s debates on the Bill. I am grateful to hon. Members and to the Minister, who accepts, I hope, that all these amendments were tabled with the genuine intention of improving the Bill or of drawing out aspects of it. I am grateful for his responses, to which we will return at a later date, but it is early days, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 3 - Review and research

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause places Natural England under a duty to keep up to date in all matters relating to its purpose, and gives it powers to carry out and assist others to carry out research. The clause is relatively straightforward and, I hope, uncontentious.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware of the necessity for research into bovine tuberculosis. Is that a responsibility that the new integrated agency might pursue almost from its day of inception?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am, perhaps, grateful for that intervention. I shall have to reflect on that question. My instinct is that that responsibility lies principally elsewhere, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members when I get some clarification on that point.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I suggest that research into TB and wildlife would fall under Natural England’s remit.

I should probably have tabled an amendment to extract this information, but perhaps the Minister can answer my question. When the body carries out research, will its conclusions automatically become public knowledge? I ask because, as we have discussed, it will be a corporate body, so it is not obvious that such information will automatically be made public. Any such research will be paid for with taxpayers’ money, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that any findings will automatically be made public and not subject to some fee.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

There will be no obligation on Natural England to publish research results. Such an obligation is not necessary because under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, with which I am sure he is familiar, all results from Natural England’s research will generally be disclosable—so disclosure would be the norm—unless they fall into certain narrow exceptions within the regulations, such as that the research is incomplete. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Clause 4 - Advice

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I seek clarification from the Minister on Natural England’s involvement with planning applications. English Nature had a role in many planning applications whether or not it was a statutory consultee. I am interested to know what the new organisation’s role will be because it would have a wider remit than English Nature. There was one of those controversial byway-open-to-all-traffic applications in my constituency, and English Nature’s point was, “Well, regardless of any damage that could be caused, if there was no damage to flora or fauna, we would not have a view on that.”

With regard to the new organisation taking on some of the responsibilities of the Countryside Agency for the environment and landscape, I presume that it will have considerably more input into planning applications. An example might be a wind farm application. Under its remit, English Nature might have said that as far as it was concerned, there was no wildlife implication from the construction of a wind farm, because it did not affect flora and fauna to any extent. However, the new organisation might argue that the wind farm could damage the landscape, and therefore the organisation would have a much stronger view on such an application.

It is also interesting that clause 4(4)(b) gives Natural England the power to intervene “on its own initiative”. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us some advice about the new organisation’s planning powers. If that matter is complicated at this stage, I would be happy to receive a letter explaining it.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

One of Natural England’s major roles will be as a key independent advisor to the Government, public authorities and its stakeholders and customers. I say to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that Natural England will inherit the positions of English Nature and the Countryside Agency as a statutory consultee in planning and other processes. He is right in that Natural England will be expected to contribute proactively to regional plans, such as regional spatial strategies, to which we will return under clause 15. Clause 4 reflects the Government’s expectation that Natural England will provide public bodies with advice on request. I have a long and exhaustive list, which I am happy to lend to the hon. Gentleman, of all the various Acts, regulations and schedules in respect of which the various constituent bodies are already statutory consultees. One efficiency that will be gained by bringing the three organisations together in one relates to the fact that the Countryside Agency and English Nature are often both consultees in respect of the same legislation. Rather than both having to work something out and feed information back to the planning authority, for example, only one lot of work will have to be completed.

The clause gives Natural England powers to advise any person either on request or on its own initiative. In order for Natural England to become the powerful and determined environmental advocate envisaged in the rural strategy, it will also have the power to ask public authorities for a written statement should it believe that its advice has been sought and not acted on.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Bringing together the Countryside Agency and English Nature could produce one of the first examples of conflict between Natural England and the Environment Agency, which are also statutory consultees. A number of bodies have talked, particularly in the Select Committee, about clearer guidelines and clearer lines of demarcation between the responsibilities of the Environment Agency and those of Natural England. Involvement in planning consultation and regional spatial strategies are two areas in which the Environment Agency and Natural England may come into conflict.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the relationship between the Environment Agency and Natural England, because it was the subject of debate on Second Reading. Their functions will remain distinct. Natural England will be able to use its incentive-giving powers, including administration of the agri-environment schemes, to complement the Environment Agency’s regulatory powers. I mentioned earlier the memorandum of understanding that is being drawn up between the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the three bodies that will come together to form Natural England. That partnership working provides a great opportunity for improved environmental and land management.

That point was reinforced by the Environment Agency’s evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the recent parliamentary briefings from the Natural England confederation of partners and the Environment Agency, which I trust Committee members have received. The documents dismiss the idea that there will be confusion in the respective roles, and they welcome the distinct but complementary roles that they will have.

I assume that the spirit of partnership with distinct approaches will remain in respect of their roles as statutory consultees for planning. There may be circumstances in which the two bodies take a different view, and it will be then up to the planning authority—even East Cambridgeshire might be capable of making difficult decisions—to choose between the Environment Agency and Natural England.

The bodies will fulfil their own distinct purposes and functions, but I am satisfied that, through the memorandum of understanding and considering the other indications that we have had, the two will work closely together. I am meeting the chair and chief executive of the Environment Agency tomorrow, and I will pass on the concerns that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) has raised today.

Clause 7 - Management agreements

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out

‘who has an interest in the land’

and insert

‘with whom the agreement has been made’.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 46, in clause 7, page 3, line 28, leave out

‘who has an interest in the land’

and insert

‘with whom the agreement has been made’.

No. 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 40, at end insert—

‘(3A)A management agreement may not impose on any person with an interest in the land other than a person to whom subsection (3B) applies—

(a)any obligations in respect of the use of the land, or

(b)any restrictions on the exercise of rights over the land.

(3B)This subsection applies to—

(a)the person with whom the agreement has been made;

(b)any person whose interest in the land is derived from the interest of the person with whom the agreement has been made.’.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The clause deals with management agreements, which, the Minister will realise from my earlier comments, I entirely support. Indeed, I want to see much of the work achieved through agreements between Natural England and various people with an interest in the land. However, the definition of interest in the land in the Bill slightly puzzles me, and I have tabled the amendments to clarify it. The Minister may tell me that they are unnecessary, but I hope that he will clarify the situation.

Subsection (6) states that the definition is the same as in clause 97 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which I have of course looked up. That Act states that interest

“in relation to land, includes any estate in land and any right over land, whether the right is exercisable by virtue of ownership of interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement and in particular includes sporting rights”.

That definition is fairly all embracing, so many people with different interests in the land could exist side by side. An interest may derive from somebody else’s interest, but not always.

At the top of the tree, obviously, will be the owner of the land, although even that is not 100 per cent. exclusive. Alongside the landowner could be a separate owner of, for example, mineral rights, which are often held by organisations or individuals separate from the owner of the land overall, so there could be two people at the top of the tree. Below that, there could be farm tenants, short-lease graziers, sporting tenants—there could be several of those with different sporting rights—and forestry leaseholders.

Subsection (3) clearly states that an agreement is binding on people who derive title under or from the person who made the agreement. In other words, if the owner has made the agreement, it is binding on anybody whose title, such as a tenancy or sporting lease, derives from that ownership. However, I am trying to avoid a situation in which an agreement made by, for example, a farm tenant is binding on somebody who does not obtain their title from the farm tenant. It might be desirable, but it should not be enforceable. If, for example, a sporting tenant or forestry leaseholder had a separate lease from the owner—alongside a farm tenant—the farm tenant should not be able to bind the sporting or forestry leaseholder and, of course, vice versa.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I shall add another example to the list; those who have common grazing rights, which are historic, and are capable of making their own agreements currently under the stewardship scheme, regardless of who is the landowner.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I was remiss not to refer to that myself. We have an entire Bill on this matter to face in this Session of Parliament.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We look forward to it.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

We look forward to it. That Bill will, I know, be extremely tortuous and technical.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who has large areas of upland common land in his constituency, is right. I have lowland commons in my constituency. The division of responsibility and rights between owners and common holders is very difficult. The purpose of these amendments—I will not detain the Committee any longer in explanation—is purely to try to confirm that people can only bind those others with an interest whose title derives from the person who signed the agreement.

I am a bit concerned with subsection (2). Subsection (2)(a), for example, says that management may

“impose on the person who has an interest in the land obligations in respect of the use of the land”.

It does not say the person who signed the agreement. To me that implies anybody who has an interest in the land. The same comment could apply to subsection (2)(b) particularly.

I hope that I have made the point clear. Although, for the purposes of Natural England, everybody going along with the agreement and adhering to it is desirable, the fundamental point is that one person should not be able commit another person with an interest unless that interest derives directly; in other words, if the owner signs an agreement or otherwise. I think that I have made the point clear.

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

I want to ask the Minister a brief question before he replies.

The common meaning of ‘impose’ seems to suggest that Natural England can enforce its will against an unwilling landowner. Could the Minister explain the process for that and what the sanction is if a landowner does not wish to co-operate with Natural England? This is not giving Natural England a power, but giving it a power with a sanction. What is the sanction? What happens if the landowner does not co-operate?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful for both those interventions and comments. Dealing with the hon. Member for Banbury’s comments first will help us considerably. He has focused, understandably, on ‘impose’. I would ask the Committee to focus on ‘agreement’. These are agreements between two parties. Once the agreements have been made, they may impose different things on the two parties to that agreement, but they will not be imposed upon anyone in the first instance.

I would suggest to the Committee that it would be wrong to exclude anyone who might have an interest in the land from being able to enter into an agreement. I accept the spirit in which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire tabled the amendments, but I am advised—this is pretty complicated and tortuous—that the wording could, unwittingly, potentially exclude some people who might have some interest in the land from entering into agreements. That, in turn, would deny them access to funds and other assistance that might be available through those agreements.

The amendment is unnecessary given that any agreement is entered into willingly by both parties. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire understandably fears that one person might enter into an agreement containing obligations or restrictions that would affect the interest of another. It should be borne in mind that that would depend entirely on the agreement-holder already having legitimate control or influence over the interests of the other person. The agreement would not give such control, because no agreement would have been made with the other person.

Technically, I am told, clause 7(3) means that the agreement would remain in force over any person who succeeds to the interest of the agreement-holder. It does not mean that the agreement would bind other interest-holders. I hope that that clarification and the suggestion that the starting point should be agreement and that any imposition must flow from that agreement is sufficiently helpful to enable the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. His assertion that people will not be able to bind somebody who does not have an interest deriving from their own is certainly welcome. That was my objective in tabling the amendment, so my objective has been met. I was puzzled, however, by his assertion, which he seemed not to understand himself from the way he phrased it, that somehow my amendment would exclude others from making such an agreement. I had no intention of doing that, and he might like to explain to me at some other time how it could be interpreted in that way. Nevertheless, the key point is that people should not be able to bind somebody whose title does not derive from theirs, and the Minister has confirmed that that is the case. I am therefore happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 8 - Experimental schemes

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I have a quick question for the Minister. Every time I see a newly created organisation that is not a Government Department, such as Natural England, being given the power of compulsory purchase, an alarm bell rings in my mind. I have always believed that such powers should not be granted to organisations such as Natural England, and I cannot envisage a situation in which it would want to apply for them. What is his view on that?

If such powers are granted, why should National Trust land be exempt? I am a member of the National Trust and would hate to see any of its land subjected to compulsory purchase, as I would hate to see that happen to anyone’s land, but I wonder why the trust is singled out for special treatment, although I realise that the National Trust Acts may be relevant. However, I should first like to know why compulsory purchase powers are needed. Perhaps the Minister will give examples of situations in which they might be used.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

My thinking is along the same lines. My deeply suspicious nature makes me think that an experimental scheme might be one involving genetically modified crops that no landowner particularly wants to pursue for various reasons, and that such a scheme might be able to take place through compulsory purchase despite not being wanted by many people. Is that the sort of experimental scheme in the Minister’s mind? It may be helpful to have that point illuminated, or to hear examples of the sorts of experiments that might be the subject of what is, in many respects, a draconian power.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I have a simple question. Will the Minister explain, in the context of subsection (2), the difference between a concept, a method and a technique?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am always grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his imaginative and interesting simple questions and I will return to that point once I have dealt with the matters raised by the hon. Members for Hexham and for South-East Cornwall.

The clause gives Natural England powers that already apply to the Countryside Agency in relation to experimental schemes, so in that respect we are not doing anything new but merely transferring existing powers. Experimental schemes are most likely to comprise pilot studies designed to look at new ways of working to further Natural England’s purpose. As a key Government delivery body, it is vital that Natural England has the power to pilot new delivery methods and test them to ensure that they achieve their intended objectives and are efficient and effective from Natural England’s and a customer’s perspective. I point to the successful piloting of the countryside stewardship scheme by the Countryside Commission as a good earlier example of how that power can be used.

The powers in subsection (4) on compulsory purchase powers, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Hexham, also come from countryside legislation. They are very much reserve powers. They are not intended to be used as a matter of course and the Secretary of State’s approval would be needed. I stress that the Secretary of State would take a considerable amount of persuasion before compulsory purchase powers were ever used—indeed, they have never been used by the Countryside Agency. However, it is appropriate to retain the power for the new body to guard against circumstances such as a landowner asking for an unrealistic payment or holding a piece of land as ransom, or the owner of the land being untraceable.

The hon. Member for Hexham asked about the National Trust. National Trust land is held inalienably, meaning that it cannot be sold. As he suspected, that is provided for in existing legislation and we do not propose to interfere with that.

In respect of the interesting question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw on methods, concepts and techniques, I seek to help him—I do not know whether I will entirely resolve the matter—by suggesting that methods are practical things that one might do, concepts are ideas that one might apply, and techniques have a practical application and perhaps bring the other two together. I hope that that is helpful.

John Mannrose—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Although it is tempting to resist giving way to my hon. Friend, it would be churlish not to do so.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

My intervention, like my original question, is not intended to create mischief for the Minister. However, as we go through the Bill clause by clause, the language appears to be getting more flowery. Although that might be appropriate in the context of the Bill, there is a danger that we end up with legislation with words that are not precise. I suggest, perhaps more to my hon. Friend’s drafting officials than to him, that the application of a concept has to be either a method or a technique.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am sure that, like me, the drafting officials will have noted the comments that have been made. I am responsible for those officials and very good they are too. We are seeking to give as wide a coverage as possible so that we do not inadvertently miss something out, hence the exhaustive use of language in the clause and possibly elsewhere in the Bill. That returns to my stuck record about creating an independent body with as wide powers as we can sensibly give it to allow it to carry out the functions that we want it to.

Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend)

I wonder whether it would be helpful to look at the full sentence. One develops and tests a concept. I appreciate that techniques would be needed to test and develop those concepts, but one needs to have the capacity to develop concepts if one is doing anything experimental, which is exactly what the clause deals with.

For the Minister’s information, I, too, wondered what the acquisition of land referred to. I therefore spoke to environmental bodies in Wales, who informed me that the sort of things that could, for example, be used in such cases, would be sea defence issues, flood plains, and wetland area developments. Was that what he also had in mind?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, which are helpful. In the number of Committees that I have attended in my four years in the House, there tend to be moments when we have short debates about words, and this has been one of the more interesting ones. However, I hope that we have now explored the vocabulary sufficiently to be able to move on.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the research and work that she has done in preparation for attending the Committee, including talking to some local bodies. I am sure that the ideas and schemes that they have come up with and to which the provision might apply would be the kind of thing that we would want to give Natural England the room to explore, so that it could respond to the local requirements that she has found in her constituency. I hope that we have discussed the matter sufficiently for the Committee to support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I apologise for intervening again on the Minister, but I remain unhappy about the compulsory powers that are contained in the clause. As the Minister said, the Countryside Agency has not used those powers in the past, so why do we need them now?

On the question of the National Trust, I want to say that it does give up land. In my constituency, it had to give up some land to allow a bypass to be built. The National Trust formally objected to the proposed route, but when the inspector in the public inquiry ruled that the route should go partly through land owned by the National Trust, it conceded the point in the interests of the community that was to be bypassed. I ask the Minister to undertake to re-examine the issue to ensure that those powers are not just being put in because Sir Humphrey would like them to be included—just in case they might be useful one day—and that they really are needed. Perhaps the Minister could review that matter before the Bill returns to the House on Report.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I would say yes and no to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I am happy to seek clarification for him about the National Trust. I suspect that there are legal reasons relating to how it was set up by Act of Parliament that would prevent us from easily applying compulsory purchase orders to it, but when I said that the land could not be sold, that may not have been accurate. I will seek advice on the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman and to other members of the Committee to clarify the position.

I will, of course, reflect on everything that is said in the Committee, but in respect of reflecting on whether we need this provision, I remain persuaded at present that the situation that I used as an example, in which the owner of land was untraceable, applies. Such situations may arise.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Those situations arise elsewhere, as the Minister will appreciate, and the normal way around them is simple purchase of a title insurance.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Perhaps I will have to reflect on that matter, because the hon. Gentleman has gone into an area with which I am less familiar. I hope that we have now been able to discuss this matter enough to make progress, on the basis that if there are issues that he has raised that I need to write to him about or return to at a later stage, I will do so.

Clause 9 - Information services etc.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

It is a great pleasure, Ms Anderson, to serve on this Committee under your chairmanship.

I should like to ask the Minister a question about the clause. It seems to me that Natural England will have great powers. It will accumulate a lot of personal information about people—about their ownership of land, or tenancy agreements, or leaseholds—and perhaps even more information about their businesses when it reaches management agreements on things such as SSSIs.

Does the clause cover that information? I can foresee a situation in which an individual might not want to enter into an agreement with Natural England if information about their private life and private business—their ownership of land, or leasehold or tenancy—was going to be made public, because that might in some way hamper their business activities or the carrying out of the business they wish to operate in terms of land management. Is there any confidentiality in this, or is it just absolute, so that any information may be provided by Natural England?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I had regarded this as a relatively straightforward clause that gives Natural England powers to publish and assist in the publication of information, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will of course be subject to both the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and data protection legislation. I am not an expert in either of those legislative areas, but my recollection—it is only that—is that protections are afforded to individuals around the sorts of circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers. They would apply in respect of the information gathered by natural England as much as they would to any other body subject to those two areas of legislation.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) raises an interesting point, and I want to make the following point to the Minister. He refers to the Freedom of Information Act and data protection legislation. However, he may not be aware—I expect that he is, as I am sure that he boned up on all the relevant things that took place before he took up his post—that in the spring there was quite a kerfuffle when all the payments made to farmers under the previous support system were published under the Freedom of Information Act. What many farmers felt about that supports the point that the hon. Gentleman has made; they felt that that was their private business. Natural England is going to be making management agreements and it will be responsible for a variety of stewardship schemes. It will have responsibility for handing out public money in return for various activities, and I think it would be useful to know well in advance—on the occasion I have just mentioned, farmers got only a week’s notice—if information is going to be published and therefore made public about, for example, farmers, landowners or whomever getting £x for a particular activity, or lack or activity. There is a key issue here that the Minister should look at, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point it out.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

That was precisely the point that I was going to make about information on the payments made to farmers. It is not just a case of people being embarrassed when it is generally known in the pub how much they are getting from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is the fact that landlords would often have a figure written on a piece of paper, and that would be the opening bid in rent negotiations. That has happened in my part of north Yorkshire, and it puts the tenant in a difficult negotiating position to know that the landlord knows how much the cheque from DEFRA will be for, and basically says, “Well, give me that as the rent, and you can have whatever you make otherwise.” That is worrying, quite aside from the embarrassment that a couple of very large landowners were subject to when those sums were published.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clearly, an interesting point has been raised; these Committee sittings are learning experiences for all of us. In essence, what I am saying is that the Rural Development Service is being brought into a new body called Natural England and it brings with it many of the rules and regulations by which it is currently governed. If there are problems associated with them, it may be possible for me to study them and see whether they can be addressed. In doing so, I will obviously have to balance accountability for public money with the ability of Members of the House and others to be able to scrutinise how the money is spent and, equally important, who has received it. I have listened carefully to what has been said. If I find a magic third way of resolving the problem, I will let hon. Members know.

Clause 10 - Consultancy services and training

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I rise to make another pedantic point, but such things are rather important when framing legislation. Subsection (2)(b) uses the word “thinks”, but the word seems rather ambiguous. Who is to determine whether something has been thought? It ought to be a word such as “determines”, otherwise someone may think that a thought has taken place and then enact it. That may lead to expenditure. However, others may think that it had not been thought; in other words, that it had never been determined in anything other than through the thought process. Although it is pedantic point, it is an accurate one.

The second one is about the use of the word “special”. Again, it is a rather broad and strange term to have used. The second use of the word may have some logic, as a specialist has some relationship to “professional”.

I make these points because of the danger of ambiguity, although I chose not to raise one or two examples in previous clauses that are open to some ambiguity. If ambiguity is built into legislation, problems may arise unnecessarily about what Parliament intended.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Were it not for the fact that he is such an excellent Member of Parliament serving the people of Bassetlaw, he would clearly have had a future as a drafting official.

I refer to a conversation that we had this morning, when I said that in forming Natural England we are forming a legal person, and one would hope that a person has the capacity to think. I suggest that the body corporate’s thoughts would be made by the board, and as such they would be recorded as board decisions. They would therefore be subject to more scrutiny than my individual thoughts or those of other hon. Members.

As for the second “special” in subsection (2)(b), I am inclined to agree that “specialist” might be better. I shall reflect on that, taking advice from my good assistants, who have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s wise words. In general, I would say that in order to further its purpose, Natural England needs to be able to use its expertise to help others deliver. The clause allows Natural England to place its staff on secondment and provide training to any person.

Clause 11 - Power to charge for services and licences

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 106, in clause 11, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

‘(1A) Before giving consent under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as appear to be affected by any proposals by Natural England to make charges for its services.’.

Seldom does legislation come before the House that does not give the Government the power to charge people for various services or other things that they may wish to dispense. That is despite the fact that the final regulatory impact assessment said about the provision:

“It is not intended that Natural England will impose any additional direct costs or regulatory burdens on small businesses. It should reduce costs and burdens by offering more effective and simpler relationships with land managers”.

However, clause 11 states that

“Natural England may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make such charges for its services as appear to it to be reasonable.”

My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult land managers and other people with an interest in the services that might be provided by Natural England. Until now, I understood that English Nature would provide free advice to land managers who might wish to enter into an agreement to protect SSSIs or some other natural conservation area. The suggestion here is that there will be a departure from that practice and that Natural England may start charging for those services. It would be just if the Minister assured us that he will consider the idea that before such charges are made, the Secretary of State should consult those people liable to pay them.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clause 11 gives Natural England, with the Secretary of State’s consent, powers to charge for its services. That carries forward similar powers that currently apply to English Nature and to the Countryside Agency in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Countryside Act 1968. Indeed, there are some things that they already charge for. English Nature, for example, might publish a leaflet or pamphlet relating to a reserve that it might charge for. We should bear in mind that we are thinking about that sort of scenario as much as we are thinking about scenarios where neither body currently charges.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is absolutely right to be concerned that before any future charge is levied by Natural England a thorough impact analysis, including not only the appropriateness of a charge but also the level at which it is set, should be carried out. At present, neither of the general charging powers for commercial services that apply to English Nature and the Countryside Agency requires the Secretary of State’s approval before charges are made. The Bill already moves that process forward and contains a more robust safeguard than is currently in place to ensure that any charges will be fair, proportionate and reasonable.

In essence, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we should view this in the following way. The accountability is between Natural England and the Secretary of State and we have put the requirement for the Secretary of State’s approval in the Bill to ensure that that accountability is clear and is maintained. The delivery body, which makes the charge, is Natural England. Therefore, it is appropriate for Natural England to carry out the consultation, rather than the Secretary of State, which is the other way round from the proposal in the amendment. It would be better for Natural England to carry out the consultation and to be accountable to the Secretary of State for that as well as the charge, which is why we have set the process up in that way.

It is not a matter of regulatory burdens but charging for services, and the two bodies already do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rest assured that before the Secretary of State’s approval is given Natural England will need to explain the detailed background to DEFRA in some detail. I hope that he agrees that it is unnecessary for there to be a requirement on the Secretary of State also to consult people—it would create an extra burden for them if they have to be consulted twice—who may wish to benefit from a new commercial service each time before such charges are introduced on a normal cost-recovery basis.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I have listened to the explanation from the Minister and I accept that it would be more appropriate for the consultation to be carried out by Natural England than by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on making it a requirement in the Bill that, before charging, Natural England should consult those people who would be liable to meet those charges.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

When I thought about the clause, I was thinking not only about those commercial services, but about whether, for example, any future charge would be applied for some of the licences that are currently issued at no charge. Before any such move or order could be made, we would certainly expect Natural England to consult widely. That would be implicit in the way that Natural England would go about its business as an enabler and as a partner organisation. We are going back to some of the points made during the argument and discussion on clause 2 relating to powers. The style—the modus operandi—of Natural England should be partnership and inclusion, and therefore should involve consultation, rather than vice versa. As I have said, I will reflect on everything and I will reflect on this issue as well. If I feel that there is a need to insist on consultation, I will, but I suspect that I will still say that that is implicit in our trust in the new body that we are setting up.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Minister has got a lot to reflect on. He has given us that commitment and I accept that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 12 - Power to bring criminal proceedings

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

A few minutes ago, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred to ambiguity. Nobody could pretend that subsection (1) is ambiguous. It is quite clear and blunt:

“Natural England may institute criminal proceedings.”

I want to take the opportunity of the stand part debate to probe the Minister on exactly what that means in practice. On the face of it, it is an extremely wide, bald power. He said just now that, as he said earlier, Natural England is a legal person. Subsection (1) implies that it can start prosecuting people for anything under the sun. He may want to reflect on whether that is right or whether there should not be something in the Bill that relates the provision to Natural England’s general purposes and to the protection of wildlife, the countryside, the landscape and the environment. The subsection reads as though the proceedings could almost relate to someone being drunk and disorderly on the streets of London. I therefore question whether the statement should be quite as all-embracing as it is at present.

I raise this issue purely as a matter of inquiry. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts; perhaps he could take the issue away and consider whether the statement needs to be quite as open as it really is, or whether it should be limited somehow to the purposes of Natural England in clause 2.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman said that the provision could be used for anything under the sun, but it is implicit, as with everything that follows on from the reference to its purpose, that the actions of Natural England would be confined to things that come within its purpose. There is a parallel with the Environment Agency. The Environment Act 1995 confirms that the agency can institute criminal proceedings in England and Wales. The provision is very straightforward and, read in isolation, it seems open-ended and as though it might allow the agency to prosecute people for anything under the sun. However, it is governed by the purpose of the agency as set out in that legislation. It does not go around prosecuting people for antisocial behaviour unless it is in respect of those aspects of the protection of the environment that it is responsible for. The clause provides certainty.

We have talked about ambiguity. In fact, the clause removes some ambiguity in existing legislation, in respect of English Nature and the Countryside Agency’s prosecution powers across their enforcement duties—for example, in relation to byelaws—which are not clearly expressed in legislation. We have used this opportunity to clarify the powers in respect of byelaws. I reassure the Committee that there is no intention for Natural England to become an enforcement body that goes wider than the constituent bodies that make it up.

I confess that the clause caused some confusion when the Bill was published, which is perhaps reflected in the comments that we have heard. Some stakeholders erroneously thought that it represented a wide extension of the predecessor bodies’ enforcement powers. There is no intention for those to go any wider. In some cases, in the existing legislation there are elements of ambiguity about whether the constituent bodies have enforcement powers. We have removed that ambiguity here.

As I said, Natural England will inherit the regulatory powers of the constituent bodies. I shall give some examples: English Nature’s various enforcement and regulatory functions in relation to SSSIs, nature reserves and some wildlife enforcements; the Countryside Agency’s relatively few enforcement powers, in relation to byelaw making and management agreements; and the Rural Development Service’s role in wildlife licensing and in direct enforcement, mainly monitoring and inspection activities on the ground. Those are the sorts of things we are talking about. We are not talking about going any further than that.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

The Minister will be aware that in the past quite significant damage has been done to SSSIs, but there have been virtually no prosecutions. Is the new integrated agency intended to be more robust in these situations, so that we do not see significant deterioration to SSSIs? The damage is quite deliberate on most occasions.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As we have discussed, we are giving Natural England the enforcement powers, and they are clearly and unambiguously stated in the Bill. We also have a public service agreement target of bringing 95 per cent. of SSSIs up to standard by 2010. If we are going to achieve that, then we need to make sure that the public out there believe that Natural England will use its enforcement powers if people are damaging SSSIs unnecessarily and without proper permission. I would hope that the new body will be robust. Certainly it will be strengthened by bringing the various bodies and enforcement powers together, so that expertise can be concentrated and, perhaps, economies of scale achieved in enforcement. On that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman is happy.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

Mention is made of cases being brought in the magistrates court. I wondered if the Minister envisaged Natural England participating in a case with the European Commission in the European Court of Justice where the British Government are in infringement of European environmental legislation.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

What an interesting question the hon. Gentleman puts. I had not anticipated it and will drop him a line and copy the rest of the Committee into the answer to that question.

Clause 13 - Incidental powers

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 48, in clause 13, page 5, line 39, leave out from ‘that’ to ‘the’ in line 40 and insert ‘is reasonable for’.

This is an important amendment. Clause 13 has the anodyne heading ‘Incidental powers’, but then goes on to say in subsection (1):

“Natural England may do anything that appears to it conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions.”

I read that, frankly, as meaning Natural England can do virtually anything. My reason for concern is the qualification, ‘that appears to it’. In other words, as long as Natural England itself—ultimately the board—is content ‘that it appears to it’ that what it is doing is okay, then it must be okay and, therefore, in pursuit of or ‘conducive or incidental’ to the discharge of its functions.

The Minister has referred to independence several times during the debate, and the Select Committee spent a lot of time considering that issue. I support the idea that the organisation should be independent, but there must be some limits on it, because it is a corporate entity, a legal person. The Minister said a few minutes ago that it would be accountable through the Secretary of State, but I believe that it has to be accountable ultimately to the community that it serves.

I refer back to the earlier conversation about rural communities and landowners and others, because my reading of these incidental powers is that they are so wide that as long as it appears to Natural England that what it is doing is right, it can do anything, which may be to the disadvantage of someone else. Among its many functions is, as we have discussed, the enforcement of various wildlife and natural environmental protection legislation. Its functions are also to enter into management agreements and, obviously, to interpret them, to carry out research, to advise, to give grants and to do all manner of other things.

It occurs to me that there could be a situation in which Natural England intended in effect to force an organisation or individual to do something that they did not like and which they genuinely believed to be beyond or irrelevant to the purposes outlined in clause 2. There needs to be an opportunity for ultimate challenge. I am certainly not advocating vexatious challenges or challenges on minor issues, but there needs to be some opportunity for someone who believes that the organisation has gone beyond reality to be able to challenge it in the courts, and I do not believe that that is possible given the phrasing of subsection (1). As I understand it, as long as Natural England could convince the court that it appeared to it that the action was conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions, that would be all that was necessary. Whether any reasonable person would have believed that does not seem to be relevant.

It would have been easy for me simply to propose deleting subsection (1), but throughout our proceedings I have tabled amendments that are designed to address in a reasonable—I use the word advisedly—way what we are trying to achieve. In reply to an earlier debate this afternoon, the Minister said that we were trying to set up—I think that I wrote this down verbatim—“an independent body with as wide powers as we can reasonably give to it”.

I understand that and do not really disagree with it, but it seems to me that he has gone beyond it in clause 13. That seems to me to go beyond reasonability, which is why I propose deleting the part about anything that appears to Natural England to be conducive or incidental, and simply saying that it may do anything that “is reasonable for” the discharge of its functions. It would then have the opportunity to judge whether something was reasonable. The proposal does not seem to offend that. My understanding—I do not pretend to be a lawyer—is that “reasonable” can be challenged in the courts, so someone who felt really aggrieved and that the organisation was going beyond what most people would think of as reasonable could challenge it. That is all I seek to achieve. I simply want to place a small constraint on what I see as the completely open-ended ability of Natural England to do anything that it likes.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was the mention of lawyers that caused me to intervene, as a former solicitor. I forget the name of the case of half a century ago, but judges supervising statutory bodies exercising statutory powers have said since that time that those powers have to be exercised reasonably; if they are not, they are subject to judicial review. There is no necessity to say that they must be reasonable, which is why the draftsmen left it out. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right; they must be reasonable.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that I do not receive a bill for his advice in the morning. I noted that he said, “As a former solicitor”; I did not think that they ever stopped charging. However, I am grateful for his comments and for his support for my fundamental point that what Natural England does must be reasonable. However, having said that and accepting his advice, I do not understand why that point should not be covered in the Bill.

As legislators, hon. Members must remember that we are producing legislation that applies to everybody else out there. People watching or reading our proceedings and reading the legislation could, with some justification, look at clause 13(1) with a degree of apprehension—I put it no more strongly than that—that Natural England appears to be able to do whatever it likes. I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether there is a way—perhaps as I described—simply to say that it should act reasonably in the discharge of its functions as a way of mitigating any concerns.

I have made my point and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has endorsed my objective, although he said that it is not necessary to put such a provision in the Bill. It might not be necessary—I will not argue that point—but it would be helpful and advisable to do so and I should be grateful if the Minister would consider it.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The conducive and incidental powers in clause 13 are standard powers for any non-departmental public body. However, the powers are also frequently the cause of confusion. Indeed, it has been pointed out to me that we had a similar amendment and a similar debate in the House on the Food Standards Act 1999 when the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), deputising for the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, described the clause we were debating, with some wit, as the Martini clause, “Any time, any place any where.”

This debate will happen regularly and it may therefore be helpful and reassure the Committee if I clarify the standard powers, and spell out what they are all about. Their purpose is to ensure that there is clarification of the flexible powers that are implicit for non-departmental public bodies. They do not give Natural England carte blanche to do anything that it wants; they are secondary powers—a similar point was made on the last clause—that support its main powers and duties set out in clauses 3 to 12 and are informed by clause 2. In all cases, and in common with all public bodies, Natural England would be able to exercise its functions only in a reasonable manner, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said.

The need for public bodies to behave reasonably in the exercise of all their powers is a cornerstone of public law. It is implicit in giving any power to a public body that the power will be exercised reasonably. In some ways, the amendment goes wider than might have been anticipated. It is better to limit it to a power to do things that are conducive and incidental, which is already limited to doing things in a reasonable way. Because it is implicit that it is reasonable, we are limiting it further by adding extra objectives.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am interested in what the Minister is saying. He is addressing the issue of conducive or incidental and I accept that those words would be omitted by my amendment. However, my main concern is the phrase “appears to it”, which is the issue of who makes the judgment as to whether something is conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions. That was my intention, even if I did not make it clear.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

My interpretation of what the hon. Gentleman says is that it becomes very subjective for Natural England to make its own judgment about its actions. I reassure him that this is not a subjective issue. Natural England’s decisions can be legally challenged if those decisions are not reasonable and if they are not considered to be conducive or incidental. That is the reason for the clause, and the reason why it is a standard clause for all the non-departmental public bodies that are set up. I hope that that explanation is sufficient and helpful, and that he will withdraw the amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. I have no grounds for not accepting his assurance that a decision taken by Natural England will be challengeable in the courts if someone wants to challenge its reasonableness. He is right that my concern is about subjectivity and that Natural England can do anything as long as its decisions appear reasonable to it. I must accept what he said, but I still do not quite see why the clause could not be slightly constrained, again without necessarily sticking to my phrasing of the amendment, to make it a little less confusing to those who might see that possibility. However, I am happy to accept his words at this stage.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I just want to help the hon. Gentleman on the point about reasonableness. By the way, half the name of the case was Wednesbury Corporation; I remember that much.

It is true that an organisation has to decide whether the decision is conducive or incidental, but the objectivity of the reasonableness test is what the judge will apply later on. In other words, the judge will still strike it down if no reasonable person could have said, “I think this is incidental to our powers.” That reasonableness is the overriding test, and the judge has got the organisation if its judgment has not been reasonable or sincere.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s advice. The bill is totting up. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 14 - Grants

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Briefly, why does the Minister believe that clause 14(1) sits well with the independence of Natural England?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State powers to fund Natural England and to place conditions on its funding. The agency will be accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State, which is why the Secretary of State needs powers to place conditions on the funding. That does not necessarily prejudice the independence of the agency; it simply ensures its accountability. We will be for ever debating how those elements are balanced up.

Throughout the day, I have been discussing the need to grant Natural England its independence. We are now discussing a clause on the powers of the Secretary of State and I will now be saying that we need to ensure that Natural England is accountable to Parliament while others will argue that we need to preserve its independence. Such is life when one is setting up such a new body. In essence, however, the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the clause is about accountability, which is the reason for the clause.

Clause 15 - Guidance

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I wanted to say a few words about the clause, because clauses 15 and 16 were the subject of some comment and debate on Second Reading, so I thought that it would be helpful to say a little more rather than simply allowing them to go through on the nod.

The clause gives the Secretary of State powers to give guidance to Natural England. That will help to ensure that Natural England continues to focus on achieving Government outcomes, and allow the Secretary of State to give guidance as to how its purposes are to be achieved. That is a necessary provision for a body that will deliver many of the Government’s policies and be the source of the Government’s expertise in key areas.

The requirement to publish any guidance given will ensure transparency. I remind the Committee that, following pre-legislative scrutiny by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, subsections (3) and (5) were inserted to make the clause clearer. Subsection (1) was introduced following the Select Committee’s recommendation that Natural England should have a duty to contribute to regional spatial strategies. We thought about that carefully.

I am quite clear that Natural England will, like English Nature and the Countryside Agency before it, be a statutory consultee in the process. However, there are several other important regional-level processes to which it is equally clear that Natural England will contribute—regional sustainable development frameworks, regional environment strategies, regional economic strategies and so on. I do not want to suggest inadvertently that any of these are more important than the others; also, a long list in the Bill might render it out of date more quickly than I would want. Therefore, subsection (1) places a duty on the Secretary of State to give Natural England guidance on the exercise of its functions in relation to regional planning and associated matters without specifying them all. I hope that that is helpful.

Clause 16 - Directions

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 16, page 6, line 32, at end insert—

‘(2A)At least 30 days before giving any directions under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report containing—

(a)his intention to give directions,

(b)a draft of the directions, and

(c)his reasons for giving the directions.’.

This is the last amendment on Natural England, although we could have a stand part debate on the subject, if you were to grant it, Ms Anderson. The Committee will remember that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred to the concerns and contradiction to do with the independence of Natural England—with some justification, I think; there was some sympathy with his point, at least from the Liberals. The argument, as the Government and Ministers have repeated several times today, is that they are creating an independent body; and yet, ultimately, clause 16 gives the Secretary of State the power to give general or specific directions as to the exercise of its functions. That is a highly interventionist possibility.

The Minister may well start by reassuring me that the provisions are no different to lots of other bits of legislation on similar bodies, but even if that is so, that is not a very satisfactory situation. I do not see how there can be complete independence while the Secretary of State, according to law, can give general or specific directions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall says that the two are mutually exclusive, and I entirely agree; it simply does not seem to fit. Just because something has been in other legislation, it does not automatically make it right. I believe that the Government should address the matter now.

As with previous amendments, I could simply oppose clause 16; there would be a lot of merit in doing so. I do not wish to put words in their mouths, but it is conceivable that the Liberal Democrats might wish to oppose the clause; I do not know. However, I am realistic enough to know that if I did oppose it, I would lose. That is the nature of these things. Therefore I have put forward an amendment that at least creates some sort of accountability and public discussion before the Secretary of State can use these very interventionist and draconian powers. I am sure that the Minister will wish to reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State would use them only in exceptional circumstances. Subsection (3) clearly states:

“The Secretary of State must publish any directions given under this section”,

but the next subsection says:

“The power to give directions under this section includes power to vary or revoke the directions.”

To me, the whole thing smacks of the possibility of a Secretary of State getting extremely involved in how Natural England exercises its functions.

I am proposing that, before the Secretary of State issues those directions, they should be published in advance and reasons for them should be given. In amendment No. 50, I suggest that 30 days before directions are actually given,

“the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report containing—

(a) his intention to give directions,

(b) a draft of the directions, and

(c) his reasons for giving the directions.”

That would not stop the Secretary of State giving those directions, but it would at least give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether the Secretary of State was being sensible in issuing directions.

As I mentioned when speaking to earlier amendments, the Select Committee spent a lot of time on the issue of independence, with a lot of justification. I could detain the Committee by reading out some of the things that the Select Committee said, but I will not do that. The hon. Member for Sherwood is nodding again to affirm that the general thrust of what I am saying is correct. The issue of independence is crucial and is clearly at odds with the idea of giving directions.

In many ways, the amendment describes itself. It is straightforward. It is intended—to use the Prime Minister’s words in a totally different context from last week—to give time for a pause for reflection. In the Prime Minister’s response to the question how long a pause needs to be, he said that it was as long as it takes. I am suggesting a 30-day pause in this context. That is a sensible precaution to allow time for reflection on what the Secretary of State is proposing. If the Minister is determined, as I believe he is, to create an independent body with as wide powers as it is reasonable to give it, to use his words again, that independence needs to be given a bit of a shove. The power of the Secretary of State to give directions seems to counter that entirely.

I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. It is not intended to remove entirely the power to give directions, but it would give the House an opportunity to reflect on them. I hope that he will feel it is a sensible addition to the Bill and does not ultimately detract from the power of the Secretary of State.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

We could have a discussion about the interpretation of the word “independent” similar to that about techniques, concepts and methods. However, most people understand what “independent” means. Although the Minister has stated clearly that he wants the body to have independence, the powers for the Secretary of State in clauses 14 to 16 remove the whole concept of independence. Clause 14 takes away Natural England’s power to spend money how it wants; for example, on resources that it would need to do anything and initiatives that it might want to take. Clause 15 covers the guidance that can be given and clause 16 deals with directions.

I recognise that the Government wish to ensure that there is accountability. However, it is difficult to understand how a non-departmental public body is distinct from a departmental aspect of Government if the Secretary of State’s powers over an NDPB are virtually the same as those over his own Department. I should have thought that Natural England would want recognition that it is independent from Government, at least to a reasonable extent. Otherwise, it will not be seen in the areas in which it has responsibility as anything more than another arm of Government. It will not be able to criticise policy or suggest improvements without being seen as having the Government as its paymaster.

I suppose that there could have been opportunities for independence under the grants, but there are definitely opportunities here for the Minister. He should at least recognise that if the powers are so tightly drawn that everything that Natural England spends or grants has to be approved and if, as it says in subsection (5),

“Natural England must comply with any directions given under this section”,

that is the body—lock, stock and barrel. Whatever has gone before in the other 13 clauses, and however much we would want to create the impression of independence, clauses 14 to 16 take it away. There is no balance—it is gone—and to say that there is would be to misunderstand the Secretary of State’s powers.

I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will explain how he can remain true to the concept of an independent NDPB when we are asked to approve clauses 14, 15 and, in particular, 16.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Throughout the day, we have tried to be as consensual as we can, but I must be clear that I reject the comment of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall that everything that we have said about independence is annulled by clauses 14 to 16.

The Secretary of State needs to be able to give Natural England directions; that is the case with all NDPBs. That provision is a bottom line to ensure that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the money that is spent on the policies delivered through the NDPB. We do not want a situation in which a future Secretary of State says, “I would have stopped the NDPB doing that, but I could not”.

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting debate, which is both philosophical and practical in the context of what the Committee is considering, about NDPBs and whether a public body can ever be independent, given that it spends taxpayers’ money and therefore needs to be accountable in some way to the taxpayer. It would be tempting to get bogged down in that debate, but there is a clear difference between a service delivered directly by DEFRA and one delivered by an NDPB.

The Rural Development Service is currently a part of core DEFRA, as we seem to describe it within the Department, and it is reshaping itself in anticipation of the formation of Natural England to become part of an NDPB. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members who are interested in the difference that it can make that they spend time talking to those who are responsible for the Countryside Agency, English Nature and, in particular, the RDS. They have seen the change in governance that has come about from having a board and achieving semi-independence from DEFRA, as well as the change in how its advice is seen in consultation with planning authorities. As a statutory consultee, Natural England will need to be seen to be independent from Government and not just repeating the Secretary of State’s advice on a planning application.

The NDPBs will have some negotiation with each other. Regional development agencies are NDPBs, and Natural England will need to negotiate with them on an independent basis. If it is seen as just a part of DEFRA, that will not work. It is clear that we are doing nothing different in the Bill from what has been done in establishing other NDPBs. The Government response to the Select Committee stated:

“Natural England will be an independent...body operating at arm’s length from ministers and making its own day-to-day decisions about how best to achieve its statutory purpose. However as an appointed, not an elected, body, ministers remain responsible to Parliament”.

It necessary to understand that process in considering the clause.

The parliamentary briefing from the confederation of the three predecessor bodies states:

“As Non-Departmental Public Bodies we accept the need to account to Government in fulfilling our statutory duties as set down by Parliament. We therefore accept also the powers for Government to guide and, in the last resort, direct Natural England”.

The consortium added that it welcomed

“the reassurance given in clause 15 and/or 16 by the requirements to consult”

and “the transparency of publication”. Indeed, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was involved in an exchange with the right hon. Member for West Dorset in which he pointed out the merits of our moving things on by making the process more transparent, in that the Secretary of State would have to publish the direction that would be given to Natural England, and Members of Parliament, the general public, and customers and stakeholders involved with the agency would be able to judge whether the Secretary of State had been reasonable in issuing the direction.

Natural England will be no less independent than any of the predecessor bodies. Powers for Secretaries of State to give directions are normal throughout Whitehall. They are required to ensure proper accountability for a publicly funded body. The Secretary of State can give English Nature and the Countryside Agency directions at present, and the Rural Development Service is, as I have said, part of DEFRA, so we are not changing the status quo. Hon. Members can be assured that the direction provisions in the Bill are in no way an attempt to undermine the independence of Natural England. They are included to ensure proper accountability.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I accept a great deal of what the Minister says, but there is some disparity between clause 15, where the guidance is out for consultation, and clause 16, where it is not. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could give practical examples of how clause 16 might be used. Perhaps he could provide some reassurance for the many people who want true independence by outlining situations in which clause 16 directions might be used.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall do so, and at the same time attempt to speak more directly to the amendment. I fear that I have strayed into more of a stand part debate in my comments so far.

A good example of a relevant situation would be a foot and mouth outbreak—an emergency involving pressing issues of animal health and farmers’ livelihoods, in which we should need to act quickly. We should not want to become involved in negotiation with an agency about how to act; one would hope that we would previously have agreed how the agency was to act, but I should still not want to anticipate whether there would be a need to issue directions in such an emergency. Equally, with reference to the amendment, I should not want to have to give 30 days’ notice of the direction. I should want to allow the agency to get on with the action that the Government required it to take to respond directly to the problem in hand.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me to get back to the amendment. I hope that the example has been helpful in showing why I think it would be a mistake to apply a 30-day delay to the coming into force of any directions, and I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw the amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. That last exchange with the hon. Member for Sherwood was helpful. Of course, none of us would argue against the idea that something as catastrophic as foot and mouth requires some pretty instantaneous decision-making. I entirely see his point about not having to give Natural England 30 days’ notice, as he was planning to do.

I would suggest, however, that, even though he may give Natural England 30 days’ notice, it would be astonishing if they did not act immediately in such circumstances. Just because the directions did not necessarily come into legal being for 30 days would not preclude Natural England from doing whatever it was he had asked it to do immediately. One would hope that, if it is the organisation that he has repeatedly suggested it will be, it would act responsibly and immediately to deal with something as catastrophic as that.

My concern is wider. Again, it deals with a point that I made on an earlier amendment. The perception is one of conflict between independence and the giving of directions. That is the point that the hon. Member for Sherwood and the Select Committee referred to. I hear the Minister when he says that the confederation’s predecessor bodies are happy with this. Well, there is a bit of the Mandy Rice-Davies about it—“They would say that, wouldn’t they?”—because they have lived with it for all that time.

I am not suggesting that that power has necessarily been abused in the past, but the Government potentially can give direction. Our concerns about the credibility of Natural England seem to fly in the face of the argument for independence that the Minister has made. I happily accept his intentions, but I would suggest that the direction power goes against it.

I hear his views about the 30 days—I have thoughts on the issue of foot and mouth, and I understand his point—but I suggest that what we are discussing would have happened anyway if that sort of situation arose. Much more worrying is the scenario where a Secretary of State concludes that care of the environment should be going off in a totally different direction; that those concerned should be looking at buying large pieces of land or at all sorts of different types of agreements. There are all sorts of potential things that some—dare I use the phrase?—maverick Secretary of State might do in the future, and would have the power to do.

Although the Minister is right to say that the issue of publication takes us a step forward in openness—the public would have an opportunity to consider whether what the Secretary of State had done was sensible, wise or reasonable—they would not have any counter to it. The Secretary of State would have served the direction. There is nothing here to require that directions be published before they are served. It could all take place in one moment in time.

In the normal course of events, there should be a requirement that the directions, and the reasons for them, should be published ahead of their effective date, notwithstanding the point about foot and mouth.

I am not going to detain the Committee by forcing a division at this stage, but I do think it is an important point, on which I hope the Minister will reflect. There is obvious general support from the Select Committee about the point we are making on the perception of independence. If the Minister could find a way of moving towards either consultation on the point that his hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood referred to, which is absent from clause 16, or prior publication with reasons, it would go some way towards satisfying the concerns of people who believe that this somehow negates the issue of independence. It is an important area, and something I am sure will be returned to several times during the proceedings of this Committee. For the moment, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I want to turn to another aspect of this independence, and how the body is going to work. What sort of people will give their time and expertise to Natural England if the whole process will be under the control of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State? The type of people whom we want to attract are those who can think independently, have initiative and are energetic. What will be the opportunities for them to express such qualities?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Returning to the debate on Second Reading for a moment, the legislation for English Nature provides mainly for similar directions and the legislation for the Environment Agency certainly does. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the people who serve on those bodies are not willing to undertake such work and are not of good calibre?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Not at all. I have tremendous admiration for people who serve on such bodies. I know several such people and have worked with them on a number of issues. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, many matters are about what perception people will have of the organisation. Its independence has been queried. Surely it could have been expressed more explicitly in the Bill that the Secretary of State would set targets or objectives for Natural England to achieve, but that he would not want to micro-manage matters and that the way in which the objectives and targets were met would be up to the board of Natural England. I want it to be given the opportunity to exercise its talents, expertise and experience, but the way in which the Bill is drafted gives the impression that the Secretary of State will be micro-managing matters, be entirely in control of Natural England and not give people the opportunity to add value to the organisation.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I do not have much more to add in response to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire to what was said in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). Given that we are not doing anything new, that we are not altering the status quo in respect of powers of direction and that English Nature and the Countryside Agency have no problem in recruiting people of excellent calibre who are responsible for the governance of those bodies, I have no worries that the inclusion of clause 16 or clauses 15 or 14 would cause problems with the recruitment of the best possible people to be in charge of Natural England when it is formed.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about targets and other ways of having a lighter touch. I do not anticipate directions being used much at all. I anticipate that the guidance provision under clause 15 will be used a little more and that the responsibility of Natural England towards guidance will be different from its responsibility in respect of directions. It will have to carry out what it is directed to do and it will have to have regard to guidance. There will be a tiered approached.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen on direct election in respect of other bodies, such as national parks, a matter to which we shall return. However, on reflection, I hope that he will say, short of direct election to the governing body of Natural England, that the Secretary of State must have powers in return for the independence that it will be given, so that it will be accountable to Parliament.