Download Free The Governments Rural Strategy And The Draft Natural Environment And Rural Communities Bill Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Governments Rural Strategy And The Draft Natural Environment And Rural Communities Bill and write the review.

Dated May 2005. Response to the Committee's 5th report, HCP 408-I, session 2004-05 (ISBN 021502334X)
The Act is primarily intended to implement key aspects of the Government's Rural Strategy and addresses issues relating to the natural environment. The Act establishes an independent body - Natural England - responsible for conserving, enhancing and managing England's natural environment for the benefit of current and future generations. Natural England brings together the functions of English Nature and certain functions currently performed by the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service (a Defra Directorate). The Act also establishes the Commission for Rural Communities ("the Commission"). The Commission will be an independent advocate, watchdog and expert adviser for rural England, with a particular focus on people suffering from social disadvantage and areas suffering from economic under-performance. The Act also reconstitutes the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and renames and reconstitutes the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council (which becomes the Inland Waterways Advisory Council). The Act makes provision in respect of biodiversity, pesticides harmful to wildlife and the protection of birds, and in respect of invasive non-native species. It alters enforcement powers in connection with wildlife protection, and extends time limits for prosecuting certain wildlife offences. It addresses a small number of gaps and uncertainties in relation to the law on sites of special scientific interest. And it amends the functions and constitution of National Park authorities, the functions of the Broads Authority and the law on rights of way.
This policy document sets out the Government's draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill to implement its agenda for the sustainable development of services to rural communities, as set out in the Rural Strategy 2004 published in July 2004 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The publication contains the text of the draft Bill, together with accompanying explanatory notes and a Regulatory Impact Assessment, published for pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation.
The EU Single Payment Scheme replaced 11 previous subsidies to farmers based on agricultural production with one payment for land management. The European Commission gave some discretion to Member States over how to implement the scheme, and the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), which is responsible for administering the scheme in England, opted for the dynamic hybrid model which incorporates elements of previous entitlement and new regionalised area payments based on a flat rate per hectare. A NAO report (HCP 1631, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780102943399), published in October 2006, found that the RPA underestimated the risks and complexities involved in implementing the hybrid model, and the IT system was never tested as a whole before the scheme was introduced. It failed to adequately pilot land registration, and underestimated the amount of work involved in both mapping the land and processing each claim, having to rely on often inexperienced temporary and agency staff to clear the backlog. The difficulties were not picked up early enough, neither by the RPA nor Defra, for corrective action to be taken in time, resulting in the RPA's failure to meet its own payment targets. Delayed payments have cost farmers money in additional interest and bank charges, and caused distress to a significant minority of farmers, particularly hill farmers. The cost of implementing the scheme was budgeted at £76 million but rose to £122 million by March 2006, with further cost increases likely. Following on from a previous Committee report on the RPA (HCP 840, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780215027115), published in January 2006 and in light of the NAO findings, this report focuses on aspects of policy decision-making and political accountability raised by the problems with the Single Payment Scheme. The Committee concludes the Scheme has been a catastrophe for some farmers and a serious and embarrassing failure for Defra and the RPA, and Defra's fundamental failure to carry out one of its core tasks (that is to pay farmers their financial entitlements on time) differentiates this issue from the myriad of botched Government IT projects. There is a need for greater expertise within government in the delivery of such complex IT projects, and the report also criticises the quality of advice given by the Office of Government Commerce and the IT system designed by Accenture as the principal IT contractor. Defra determined the policies which it required the RPA to implement and Defra leadership was at fault for accepting RPA statements that implementing the complex hybrid model to deadline was "do-able". The Committee argues that responsibility for this failure goes wider than the dismissal of the RPA chief executive, and ministers and senior Defra officials should also be held to account, particularly Margaret Beckett (the then Defra Secretary of State), Sir Brian Bender, (the former Defra Permanent Secretary) and Andy Lebrecht (the Director General for Sustainable Farming, Food and Fisheries). It concludes that a departmental failure as serious as this should result in the removal from office of those responsible for faulty policy design and implementation, and it recommends that new guidance on Ministerial accountability is needed in the event of such serious departmental failure.
In December 2005 the Government launched a "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy", which was intended to stimulate debate and show how the Common Agricultural Policy should change in 10-15 years. This report examines the proposals and finds them a lost opportunity. The Government should have directed the debate towards scrapping the existing CAP and replacing it with a Rural Policy for the European Union. There should thus be a new Vision document, launched in a more subtle way so that allies for reform can be enlisted. The credibility of the document depends on the Government providing full and detailed evaluation of the impact of proposals on biodiversity, the environment, markets for agricultural goods and individual farm enterprises. This should be done by mid 2008. The long-term justification of the expenditure of taxpayers' money is the provision of public benefit. These public goods should be measurable and capable of evaluation.
With corrigendum slip dated June 2005 (1 sheet).
departmental annual Report 2005 : Fourth report of session 2005-06, Vol. 1: Report, together with formal minutes, and lists of oral and written Evidence
With correction slip dated May 2006.

Bovine TB

Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Published: 2006-03-15

Total Pages: 120


Get eBook

Bovine TB : Badger culling, sixth report of session 2005-06, Vol. 2: Oral and written Evidence
The current system of prices, production and import quotas for the EU sugar market, which has remained largely unchanged since its inception in 1968, is due to expire in June 2006. It has attracted criticism for its anomalous structure, especially given the reforms to other aspects of the CAP in 2003, and the fact that some elements have been declared illegal by the WTO has added to the pressure for change. Following on from an earlier Committee report on this topic (HCP 550-I, session 2003-04, ISBN 0215018257), this report examines the recent proposals by the European Commission to reform the regime, in the context of the wider Doha round of trade negotiations, focusing on the likely impact on sugar producers and processors in the UK and the wider EU, and the development of the UK Government's position on the proposals. The Committee's conclusions include support for the Commission's reform proposals to secure price reductions in order to bring the European sugar market into balance; and that the UK, in its role as EU President, should support the Commission in minimising any attempts to dilute the reforms.