Clause 70 - Agreement between a Minister and designated body
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
10:30 am
James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The Government have referred to part 8 of the Bill as a tidying-up exercise following the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and an opportunity to put into legislation the ability to make agreements with other bodies. Some of that is simply conducive to the pursuit of DEFRA's normal activities. The Opposition do not have a problem with the principle of what the Government are attempting. We do not believe in big government and therefore we are more than happy in principle for the Government to devolve some of their functions and activities to other bodies, as long as that takes things closer to the ground and the people who are affected by those decisions.
While I was studying the clauses, however, my eyes lit on the word ''unconditionally'', which causes me concern. The Government want, in clauses 70, 71 and 72, to allow an agreement to be made unconditionally with an outside body. Agreements under clause 70 would be with a ''designated body''; those under clause 71 would be with a ''non-designated body''; and those under clause 72—something of even more concern—would be between a ''designated body'' and a ''non-designated body''.
The clauses thus cover a sort of subcontract arrangement; the Government would be subcontracting to one body, and, under clause 72, that body could subcontract further. I do not believe that such an arrangement should be unconditional. It is essential that there should be, as the phrase goes in the Bill, ''specified conditions''. Those might be fairly wide-ranging, but the idea that a Minister might, to take the provisions of clause 70(1) as an example,
''enter into an agreement with a designated body authorising that body to perform an eligible function of the Minister . . . wholly . . . generally''
and ''unconditionally'' suggests a pretty wide-flung opportunity. It is too wide for the delegation of ministerial responsibilities. If the delegation is made ''wholly'', ''generally'' and ''unconditionally'', any strain of accountability has clearly been lost.
Clause 71(1) uses the same phraseology, but about an agreement between the Secretary of State and a non-designated body—one that is one step removed from Government. However, clause 72, as I suggested, gives me the greatest concern. Under that clause, the designated body A—perhaps half a step removed from Government, subcontracts with a non-designated body B, which could mean anyone
''authorising B to perform an eligible function of A''
That would be a subcontracted subcontract. The same phraseology is present in the clause, with the words ''wholly'', ''generally'' and ''unconditionally''. That causes me great concern and we need at least to challenge the Government on the use of the word ''unconditionally''. Some conditions should be attached to the agreements.
In a few moments, we shall consider another amendment relating to clause 72, hingeing on much the same points, but I shall not trespass on to that now. The point is clear: we support the principle of the Government devolving functions and agreeing their provision with other bodies, which is right and proper in a modern, democratic form of governance. Nevertheless, a theme of accountability to some elected body is necessary. As we are primarily dealing under the Bill with non-elected bodies, that must mean the Government. That is why the use of the word ''unconditionally'' causes me such concern. I hope that the Minister will allay my worries or at least understand my point, as we may wish to return to the matter at a later date.