Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, as we have heard, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill implements a key part of the Government’s rural strategy. We are all aware of the very serious problems that now face agriculture and many aspects of rural life. Some people might say that the proposed bureaucratic untangling and redesign in this Bill come rather in the category of shifting the deckchairs on the ““Titanic””. I do not agree with this rather cynical view. The Bill is important and, if we can get it right, the new agency and commission will have a vital role to play in dealing with the environmental, social and economic problems of the countryside. The Bill is a little unusual in that Clause 2 is a purpose clause. Purpose clauses used to be quite common, but they rather fell out of favour with parliamentary draughtsmen as it was felt that such clauses might introduce a degree of inflexibility of operation and possibly give rise to a judicial review of later actions by government. As a former business manager, I know that they tend also to produce a Second Reading debate in Committee. This view is illustrated by the briefing that we have all received regarding the wording of Clause 2. Should the purpose of Natural England be to ““conserve””, to ““protect”” or to ““protect and conserve”” the natural environment? I am attracted to ““protect and conserve”” as a general purpose, but the Government made a fair point in response to the comment in the EFRA Select Committee’s report; that is, that ““protection”” could imply that Natural England could not support necessary and desirable progress in developing landscapes—from recreating heath land to reforming the impact of agriculture. This matter, I am sure, will produce an interesting debate in Committee, as will consideration of the Sandford principle, which states that the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural environment should take precedence over all other purposes. At first sight, that also seems an attractive proposition, but, again, as the Government pointed out in their response to the EFRA Select Committee’s report, Natural England will have a remit which will extend far beyond designated sites such as national parks and AONB conservation bodies, where the Sandford principles certainly apply. Its remit will cover the majority of England’s landmass. Can it be logically argued that the Sandford principle should apply to everything that Natural England will do in such circumstances? Time does not allow a detailed consideration of all aspects of this important Bill, but I shall deal briefly with the proposed Commission for Rural Communities and the rather bizarre name of the new agency, Natural England. The new CRC is intended to retain the existing functions of the Countryside Agency which relate to rural advocacy, expert advice on rural matters and acting as an independent watchdog—the so-called ““rural proofing”” remit. I understand—and I have heard it said in speeches today—that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have some reservations about, and indeed oppose, this part of the Bill. Having read the debates on the Bill in the Commons, I find their arguments rather confusing. They seem to be saying at the same time that there is no need for the CRC, but that, anyway, it can all be done by local authorities. A number of Opposition speakers in the Commons debates called in aid the original proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to abolish the Countryside Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, made that point earlier. At this point, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on her being named Farming Personality of the Year at the Food and Farming Industry Awards last Friday. It may be worth quoting what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said about the concept of the CRC in his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at column 51 on 9 November 2004. He said:"““I was quite happy to see the policy advisory responsibility of the Countryside Agency continue. The argument was whether that was done through a revised Countryside Agency or through the Rural Affairs Forum. On balance, I think the Government was probably right to go for the Countryside Agency because I think it is more structured to give the sort of policy advice that is necessary””." So the noble Lord supported the concept of the CRC. It flies in the face of reality to assume that local authorities would be able to fulfil the proposed functions of the CRC. We would end up with a patchwork quilt of functions across the country. How on earth could local authorities ““rural proof”” policies? What body would do that? Who would be the rural advocate with direct access to the Prime Minister? I know that Defra has been mentioned as the right body to rural proof policies, but anyone with any experience of government will know the interdepartmental trading that goes on when policy issues are discussed. Would Defra be expected to rural proof its own policies? The 2005 report produced by the CRC, State of the Countryside, is 153 pages of enormously valuable material relating to the social and economic problems of the English countryside. There is also the annual rural proofing report. Perhaps when the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, reply, they could tell the House who under opposition proposals would be responsible for producing that vital information, who would do the rural proofing and who would be the rural advocate. They could also tell the House which of the nearly 20 organisations that have briefed us support their views on the CRC. The Liberal Democrats moved an amendment at Report in the Commons, supported by the Conservatives, to review the operation of the CRC after five years with a view to deciding whether its responsibilities should be transferred to the appropriate local authorities. It may be that the opposition parties have it in mind to move a similar amendment in this House, but I would ask them to think very carefully before they do so. The principal concern that we have all had since the Haskins report in 2003 has been that the expertise in English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural and Development Service should not be lost. Those three organisations are in the middle of a period of substantial change, with all that that means for finding and keeping competent staff. I cannot imagine anything more disruptive to the best use of skilled resources than to have a five-year axe hanging over the CRC. It is of course entirely right that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the CRC. There is a convention in this House that we have a debate each Session on defence. Perhaps there could be a similar convention with an annual debate on CRC reports on the state of the countryside and rural proofing. That would provide an annual opportunity to examine the work of the CRC. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is thinking that former Chief Whips go native very quickly. Clause 18 sets out the general purpose of the commission and Clause 18(4) requires particular regard to be given to the needs of people in rural areas who are suffering from social disadvantage and economic underperformance. I cannot really imagine that such a function could be carried out effectively by a multiplicity of local authorities, as many of them would have a strong urban bias. On the curious name for the new organisation, Natural England, I wonder if it occurred to those who dreamed it up to look at the Oxford EnglishDictionary for the definition of ““natural””. The dictionary says:"““Existing in or derived from nature; not made, caused by, or processed by humankind.””" If anyone thinks that the English countryside, landscape or environment fits that definition, they should remember that the countryside that we enjoy has largely been created by farmers. It is the very reverse of natural, as it was,"““made, caused by, or processed by humankind””." The bucolic vision of cows safely grazing means in fact groups of closely bred animals grazing on heavily fertilized leys and giving 5,000 to 6,000 litres of milk per annum or more, which is certainly not natural. The natural yield is probably about 1,000 litres. That lovely field of wheat without a weed to be seen, yielding 8 to 10 tonnes per hectare, is heavily fertilized and treated with pesticide to remove the natural fungi, weeds and insects. The natural yield would probably be less than 4 tonnes per hectare. I could multiply the examples many times over. Why not just call the new agency the ““Commission for the English Rural Environment””, to distinguish it from the Commission for Rural Communities? We would then have two agencies with distinct but related titles and functions. Or, perhaps, the ““English Rural Environment Commission””, which, I admit, has an acronym that sounds rather like ““earache””. Almost anything would be better than Natural England, which describes the exact opposite of the true function. This is an important Bill, and we can look forward to some interesting debates in its latter stages. It deserves the support of the House.