HL Deb 27 June 1994 vol 556 cc596-8

7.7 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Duties with respect to the environment]:

Viscount Addison moved a manuscript amendment:

Page 5, line 37, at end insert—

("( ) In consulting the board under subsection (2) above the Minister shall have regard to the economic implications of any direction that he may give under this section.")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am aware that manuscript amendments such as this are unusual at Report stage. However, I believe that the issue raised is self-explanatory and of significance. I consulted my noble friend Lord Lindsay and my noble friend the Minister before tabling the amendment. My noble friends agreed that it would be useful to have further clarification and reassurance. I hope that the House will consider that the issue deserves debate.

I am concerned about the position of farmers who hope to benefit in terms of the development and running of their businesses from drainage improvements but are thwarted by a ministerial direction which prevents the drainage works taking place and provides no compensation for their economic losses. I ask, therefore, that Ministers look very closely at the economic implications for farmers, who could be adversely affected if a direction were made preventing a drainage board from carrying out drainage improvements. I beg to move.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill and as such we express no official opinion on it from this side of the House. At the Second Reading debate I indicated my personal view that it was in many ways a worthy Bill and adopted an attitude of what I hoped would be construed as benevolent neutrality. However, coupled with that attitude is the financial prudence which one would expect from someone like myself born north of the Border. I understand that the amendment is a probing amendment in order to gain from the Minister some reassurance about the manner in which the powers of the Minister in Clause 6 of the Bill may or may not be used. In order not to stand between the Minister, the sponsor of the Bill and the House, I give way at once to hear the words of wisdom falling as ever from the Minister's lips.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)

My Lords, I hope that I can provide my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, with some reassurance.

As I have emphasised throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government's intention with regard to the proposed Ministerial power of direction over internal drainage boards is that it would be used only very sparingly, in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort, and only where there is firm scientific evidence that the actions of an IDB are causing or likely to cause serious damage or destruction to an environmental asset of national or international importance.

The Bill expressly states that a Ministerial direction would be given only after the Minister had consulted with the IDB in question, except in an emergency. The prime purpose of this prior consultation with the IDB is to allow the Minister and the board to discuss the nature of the perceived risk to the environmental feature in question and for the board to advise the Minister of the implications of any action to counter that risk that the Minister may be considering for inclusion in a direction.

The IDB will be in a position to explain to the Minister the consequences for flood defence and for other local interests of changes in water levels or other IDB management practices which may be contem-plated. That would include, for example, the impact on agricultural practices or other land use in the affected area. The IDB, which includes representatives of the relevant agricultural drainage ratepayers and other local interests, will be well placed to assess the likely economic implications of a direction and make them known to the Minister.

The implications for farmers who may have to change their patterns of production in response to a direction to an IDB —for example, to raise water levels —are worth noting. I can assure the House that Ministers would wish to weigh that factor against the importance of the conservation interests at stake, case by case, before deciding whether to issue a direction and indeed what kind of direction to issue. As I explained in Committee, it is very likely that directions would arise only in areas such as SSSIs, or the equivalent, where management agreements may be available to farmers and landowners. The availability or otherwise of management agreements would have to be assessed case by case and would be one of the considerations a Minister would take into account in reaching a final view.

In those very rare cases in which a direction is considered I can confidently say that Ministers will have the potential economic implications very much in the forefront of their minds—whether for farmers, local businesses or residents —alongside the flood defence implications and the conservation implications. I hope that this explanation will assist my noble friend as he considers what action to take on his amendment.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am grateful for that very full reply from the Minister. I am grateful, too, for the support that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has given to the Bill, as indeed have the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on earlier occasions.

The effect of my noble friend's amendment would be specifically to require the Minister to have regard to the economic implications of a direction to an IDB when consulting that IDB about a proposed direction aimed at protecting an environmental asset of national or international importance. But it is implicit that the purpose of the prior consultation with the IDB that my Bill requires, except in an emergency, before a direction is issued is to allow for consideration of the various wider implications for flood defence and for economic activity in the IDB area in particular.

The IDB is ideally placed to bring those matters to the Minister's attention. I welcome the assurances given by the Minister that Ministers would have regard to the economic implications of a direction for landowners and for other local people in businesses before reaching a final view on using it.

As the Minister said, there are a number of ways in which the economic implications of a direction could be addressed depending upon the circumstances. That will need to be looked at case by case in those rare circumstances in which a direction has been considered. In view of the assurances given by the Minister I hope that my noble friend Lord Addison will not press the amendment to the Bill.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, I too, thank the Minister for his assurances, and reassurances throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.17 to 8 p.m. ]