Issues raised during pre-legislative scrutiny
This page provides a non-attributive summary of the comments received during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Bill. It includes comments on both the measures within the draft Bill itself and the measures put forward for possible inclusion in the accompanying policy statement.All 69 responses received have been placed in the Defra library where they may be viewed by the general public. Of these, 33 are duplicates of those submitted to the Efra Select Committee and have also been published as part of the Committee’s report (HC 408-II).
The revised Bill, published on 19 May, builds on many of the points made by stakeholders. Readers may find it helpful to refer to Defra’s evidence to the Efra Select Committee ![[Click to download Adobe Acrobat Reader]](/graphics/buttons/pdf.gif){kind=small}
[131KB] and the Government’s Response to the Select Committee Report [248KB].
Defra would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed.
Overview of responses received
The overall response to the draft Bill was favourable. Out of 69 stakeholder responses, 40 received the Bill positively, 26 were neutral, and 3 broadly negative. Responses were received from 6 Defra delivery/advisory bodies, 14 other delivery/advisory bodies, 4 levy boards, 38 stakeholder organisations and 7 individuals.
All of the Defra and non-Defra delivery bodies who responded broadly welcomed the Bill, in particular the creation of Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities and measures to streamline and simplify delivery, subject to some specific comments on the detailed provisions. The proposal for powers to implement the levy boards review was welcomed, in most cases subject to consultation on implementation of the review.
Neutral or negative responses stemmed principally from bodies stressing that the social or economic aspects of rural delivery were not given enough weight or should be integrated with natural environment issues, requesting adjustments to the detail of Natural England’s functions, or expressing concerns about powers to be taken by the Secretary of State.
Key Issues Raised
- Natural England
- Commission for Rural Communities
- Levy Boards
- Powers of Delegation
- Joint Nature Conservation Committee
- Inland Waterways Advisory Council
- Wildlife and Habitat Protection
- Implications for Staff
- Other Issues
Natural England
General Purpose
The vast majority of respondents supported the broad, enabling purpose and the principle of giving Natural England a sustainable development remit. Comments focused on issues of detail.
Most respondents appeared to think that the sustainable development duty was about right. Some conservation NGOs made the point that Natural England should be able to pursue environmental solutions which do not result in social and economic benefits, and that the environment should be treasured for its own sake, not just the benefits it can generate for the public.
Conversely, rural stakeholders were concerned that economic issues would become subservient to environmental, and that the importance of the economic viability of land management businesses as a vehicle for environmental conservation and enhancement would be ignored. A few NGOs argued that the purpose was weak on economic issues and that Natural England should be more active in promoting socio-economic well-being.
Functions
A large number of respondents pointed to the differential wording used in Clause 2(2) in relation to Natural England’s functions (to “promote”, “conserve”, “protect” and “enhance”); they argued that this created the false impression of a hierarchy and should be amended. Some wanted to see a clearer sense of priorities reflected in this list of functions, but a larger number of respondents argued that there should be no priority order and that this should be made clear in the Bill. This point was made by a wide range of organisations, but above all by the recreation NGOs, who raised concerns that recreation and access considerations might be crowded out by nature conservation and biodiversity issues.
A recurring theme was the proposal that the Sandford principle should apply to Natural England – that is, should a conflict arise within Natural England’s remit, conservation of the natural environment should take priority, consistent with current arrangements for National Parks. Views were divided.
Several respondents wanted ‘protection’ to be extended to landscape (as well as biodiversity) or put in the general purpose, arguing that the draft did not afford equal status to landscape as biodiversity, undermining the level of landscape protection afforded under current arrangements with the Countryside Agency and hampering effective integration of these interdependent activities. A number also argued that Natural England’s remit in relation to promoting the study, understanding and enjoyment of nature should be extended to landscape.
A number of respondents wanted the reference to ‘open-air recreation’ in clause 2(2) to be limited to ‘quiet’ recreation and ‘facilities’ to be broadened.
Some respondents suggested that Natural England’s functions should specifically include an advisory role, or at least make clear that it should contribute to informing and shaping Government policy, arguing that the current provisions focused too heavily on the delivery aspects of its role.
One respondent proposed an additional clause for the Bill to place a duty on Natural England and local authorities to maintain and make good use of Local Records Centres in England, for effective collection, collation, storage and utilisation of biodiversity information at local level.
A minority of respondents objected to Natural England not delivering the Project Based Schemes.
Powers and Duties
Natural England’s powers and duties were largely welcomed. A number of NGOs argued that Natural England should have powers to carry out surveys and monitoring as well as research. Some bodies expressed concerns that Clause 12 could lead to Natural England becoming a wider prosecuting body.
Several respondents noted that partnership working with other public bodies, with regional and local organisations and with the private/voluntary sectors would be crucial. Some welcomed the commitments made in the policy statement to that effect and looked forward to seeing more detailed proposals from Natural England; others believed there should be some kind of more specific provision on the face of the Bill.
Secretary of State powers
Many of the respondents questioned whether the provisions for the Secretary of State to give guidance, direction and set the number of Board members affected Natural England’s independence, or argued that they required further justification. Others welcomed the provision for guidance but specifically asked to be consulted when it is drawn up.
Other issues
Some concern was expressed about whether the creation of Natural England would really result in a change of culture within the organisation. There were suggestions that plans for effecting this change should be made public.
Commission for Rural Communities
Most respondents welcomed the proposed creation of the Commission for Rural Communities.
A number of NGOs and local delivery bodies raised concerns about the definition of “rural deprivation” or “rural need”, suggesting that this would be inadequate to address hidden deprivation that exists in much of rural England.
Some also argued that to restrict the Commission’s remit to addressing social and economic need was short-sighted and overlooks other potential causes of rural deprivation (such as environmental degradation); it was suggested that the remit to address rural deprivation should cover all three tenets of sustainable development. Some argued that the Commission’s general purpose should explicitly refer to environmental needs as well as socio-economic.
One respondent suggested that as well as rural deprivation, the Commission for Rural Communities should be charged with identifying positive opportunities for rural communities and examples of best practice.
Regional and local delivery bodies stressed the need for greater clarity of remit to ensure there is a clear relationship for customers and the activities of other bodies are not duplicated. There was some suggestion that the Commission’s independence would be compromised by the fact it receives funding from Defra.
Local delivery bodies, some national organisations and individuals expressed concern about Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) taking on Countryside Agency responsibility and funding for rural regeneration due to their apparently urban and economic focus and inconsistencies in the extent to which RDAs prioritise rural needs.
A number of respondents argued that there should be more focus on engagement with local level strategies and partnerships for delivering sustainable land use and ensuring adequate local scrutiny on matters of importance to rural communities, such as affordable housing provision in local land use plans.
Levy Boards
The levy boards generally welcomed the Defra review of levy boards and the proposed introduction of powers to enable the review to be implemented. However, there was consensus that the implementation of the review must be subject to consultation. One respondent suggested drawing a parallel to existing legislation by enabling changes to be made based on proven consensus or a chorum within the industry. Another argued that checks and balances would be needed to ensure parliamentary accountability.
Powers of Delegation
There was strong support amongst national, regional and local delivery bodies for the proposed powers of delegation, with a number arguing that this would bring important flexibility and better services for customers, and facilitate much greater partnership working in the delivery of rural and environmental services. The essential point for most was that any delegations would be based on mutual consent.
Some NGOs argued conversely that the powers would create greater confusion for customers and obscure accountability. One respondent argued that the provision had potential to cause regulatory uncertainty and confusion for customers, companies and investors, and that the relationships should be set out clearly in the Bill. Another asked what would happen if the Secretary of State or a designated body chose to delegate to a political organisation and whether there would be a mechanism for others to appeal.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
No objections were received on the JNCC measures. It was suggested that the Bill could also include provision for JNCC to provide advice on landscape issues affecting the whole of the UK, and that the Bill should also include a new name for the JNCC.
Inland Waterways Advisory Council
This measure was welcomed by the key stakeholders. One respondent suggested that the Council should also be subject to a sustainable development duty.
Wildlife and Habitat Protection
There was some support for the proposed measures to strengthen wildlife and habitat protection, including the extension of certain offences. The proposal to extend the duty to have regard to the need to protect and enhance biodiversity to all public bodies was generally welcomed, but also received some resistance on the basis that it may be overly prescriptive and that the end result could be achieved more effectively by other means which allow for local flexibility.
Implications for Staff
A few respondents raised concerns about the implications for staff of: (a) the rationalisation into Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities; and (b) the proposed powers of delegation.
Other Issues
Some organisations asked to be made a statutory consultee either on guidance issues to Natural England or more generally in relation to rural and countryside issues. A number commented that there should be further consultation on additional measures before being included in the Bill.
There was some opposition to the proposal to require un-powered vessels to carry third party insurance on the Broads on the basis that it is inconsistent with provisions elsewhere and would constrain participation.
Finally, a number of respondents were concerned at the potential loss of mechanisms to listen to local rural communities, and that it remained unclear how new delivery arrangements would work in practice at regional and local level. For this reason some were unsure whether the Bill would deliver the vision of Rural Strategy 2004. Some would like such relationships set out more clearly in a separate statement or in the documents accompanying the Bill (such as the Explanatory Notes); others wished to see them clarified on the face of the Bill.
Page last modified:
6 April, 2006
Page published: 15 June, 2005