Proceeding contribution from Lord Bach (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 February 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
I am afraid that I do not have very much to say on this issue except to remind the Committee that the clause gives the Secretary of State powers to fund Natural England and place conditions on its funding. That is an entirely standard provision, found in some form in the founding legislation of all non-departmental public bodies, which allows them to be funded through departments; that is to say, via the Secretary of State. Of course, I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is saying about the dangers inherent in government funding of an independent organisation, but that is what happens, and has happened for years, to some very independent and robust bodies. There is no reason to believe for a moment that Natural England will be any different from those. In our view the clause’s deletion would make a nonsense of funding of Natural England. Indeed, it would make a complete nonsense of the funding of any NDPB. That is why it is in the Bill and why it is an important clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to a letter that I had written to her and to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, with copies to all other noble Lords. I hope that it has arrived by this afternoon. In that letter was a proper discussion of Natural England’s budget. I was asked what proportion of funding would be provided by Defra and what it might be required to seek from other sources such as the lottery. I can look at the current year’s budgets of the bodies that will form Natural England. In round terms, that income represents £17 million, or about 5 per cent of the total expenditure of £360 million. I have not counted EU co-funding of the agri-environment programme or the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund as income, as I do not think that type of income is of concern to the noble Baroness. Much the larger source of income has been the lottery. Over the next two years, income is projected to drop to around £10 million unless it is supplemented with sums not yet awarded. We had much discussion about the financing of Natural England during the first three days in Committee. I repeat that we need the clause because we are setting up an NDPB; the noble Baroness need not worry about its independence.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 678 c660
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Biodiversity Advisory services Environment protection Functions Grants Joint Nature Conservation Committee Pay Powers Public appointments Pensions Property transfer Nature conservation Staff Non-departmental public bodies Regional planning and development Wildlife Rural areas Commission for Rural Communities Natural England
- Legislation
- Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:00:55 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298933
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298933
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298933