Column Number: 1
Standing Committee A
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
†Mr. Eric Forth, Janet Anderson
†Atkinson, Mr. Peter (Hexham) (Con)
†Baldry, Tony (Banbury) (Con)
†Breed, Mr. Colin (South-East Cornwall) (LD)
†Chaytor, Mr. David (Bury, North) (Lab)
†Cunningham, Tony (Workington) (Lab)
†Goodwill, Mr. Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
†Herbert, Mr. Nick (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
†Kidney, Mr. David (Stafford) (Lab)
†Knight, Jim ( Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
†Mann, John (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
†Moon, Mrs. Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab)
†Paice, Mr. James (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
†Palmer, Dr. Nick (Broxtowe) (Lab)
†Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab)
†Tipping, Paddy (Sherwood) (Lab)
†Williams, Mr. Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Alan Sandall, Libby Davidson, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 3
Tuesday 21 June 2005
(Morning)
[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]
10.30 am
The Chairman: 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.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jim Knight): I beg to move,
(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
Column Number: 4
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.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): 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.
Column Number: 5
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.
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): 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.
Question put and agreed to.
Column Number: 6
The Chairman: 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”
Mr. Paice: 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.
Column Number: 7
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.
10.45 am
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
Column Number: 8
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.
Mr. Breed: 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.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con): 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
Column Number: 9
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: 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”.
Column Number: 10
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.
Mr. Paice: 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: 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.
Column Number: 11
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.
|
