§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
§ Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
§ Mr. KingThe Government do not wish to enter into the proposal because of the heavy administrative costs in the early stages. We do not rule out, at some future date, the possibility of specifying that the Sandford arrangements should be extended to AONBs which are particularly vulnerable. I cannot accept the amendment, but, for the reasons that I have given, that is not a rejection for all time.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North made unaccustomed heavy weather of amendment No. 145. The amendment is defective, although I understand the principle behind it. The principle is not totally unfair, but it will not work as the hon. Gentleman described. If any relevant authority objects to a proposal, there will be discussions with a farmer about it to see whether changes can be made to make it more acceptable. If the changes produce a solution at a reasonable cost, the full cost of the works will be eligible for the MAFF grant. That should go a long way to meeting the hon. Gentleman's point. It would not meet it only if the cost were unreasonable. I cannot think that any hon. Gentleman would suggest that I should say that the scheme should involve unreasonable costs.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley became excited about the key amendment. The hon. Member for Gorton, who is sitting next to him, should have told him that what he is pressing for does not add up to anything. He said that the Minister of Agriculture, or the Parliamentary Secretary, should not have sole responsibility. He said that the Minister should be involved, not merely consulted. The hon. Gentleman should study what is meant by a statutory right to consultation. That is what hon. Members ask for. That is what we have included in the Bill. That is a powerful position in Government. Once a Department or Minister has the statutory right to be consulted, it is virtually impossible for another Department or Minister to decide anything unless there has been a resolution at a high level. In the end, somebody has to take a decision.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley made much of a comment by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheres and Food. He was saying that the appearance of the countryside owes a lot to farmers. The Parliamentary Secretary used a certain degree of hyperbole, but he was fighting a particular corner. In fighting for the countryside and fighting to prevent the automatic and easy erosion of agricultural land, in fighting on planning applications and development cases which come before the Government, I doubt whether there has been a Minister in recent years who has fought as hard as the Parliamentary Secretary. In many cases, he is quite a nuisance in these matters. He has been an effective nuisance in his defence of the countryside. As comments have been made about him, and as I failed to make my point clear in the previous debate, I now put my view on the record. We need a voice that is prepared to shout in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We have been absolutely firm in our determination to ensure that the clause provides the statutory right to consultation. I should be surprised if hon. Members 1260 thought that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends, having devoted so much time to achieving a number of developments and improvements to the Bill, would now allow a situation to develop in which we did not have satisfactory and proper protection for the interests of the environment. The statutory right to consultation is a vital safeguard that is essential for the protection of the environment. We have achieved that. Joint determination does not improve on that. That is why I cannot recommend the amendment to the House.
§ Mr. DalyellI asked about cash for the NCC. Will the Minister make a statement now, or on Third Reading, about that vital, crucial, central matter?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment made: No. 221, in page 36, line 5, after 'section', insert 'the'.—[Mr. King.]