Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on his most authoritative and deeply sympathetic speech. With his background of having been a rural priest and now as chair of the Committee of Rural Affairs in the General Synod and member of the Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development and as Bishop for the Exeter diocese, it is not surprising that he speaks with such authority and deep understanding of the issues facing the grass roots of the rural community. I am sure that many others will be echoing the very sympathetic words that we heard from him throughout the rest of this debate. We hope that we hear from him very frequently in the future. I should start by declaring an interest. I was at one time chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and I am therefore a pensioner of English Nature. Until recently I chaired the South East Rural Affairs Forum, one of the six regional forums set up two or three years ago. I instinctively support any attempt to try to simplify delivery in protecting biodiversity and enhancing the landscape. Therefore, my attitude at first blush to the Bill is to be supportive. I think that many of us who have spoken often about the complicated arrangements for rural delivery must take this opportunity to recognise that the creation of an integrated agency is certainly going to be in the Bill’s favour. We have a particular responsibility to deliver biodiversity policies as well as landscape policies that deliver social and economic benefits. If the two new non-departmental public bodies can deliver those policies they will have served their purpose. We are, after all, signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity. We have a great obligation to the rest of the world to demonstrate that although we do not have a lot of biodiversity in this country—which is not our fault but an accident of the ice age; some of our overseas territories the size of the Isle of Wight have more biodiversity than we do in the whole of the United Kingdom—that makes it all the more important that we get our act together and have joined-up policies that address the issue of how to conserve and indeed enhance biological diversity, always remembering the complication that sometimes what we want to do with biodiversity is reduce it, not increase it. The moorland, for example, enriched by nitrogen oxides, is producing grasses and the like which is precisely what we do not want. Let us be clear when we talk about biodiversity that it is not always quite as simple as we would like. I turn to the real disaster with regard to biodiversity in the United Kingdom. It is not the terrestrial biodiversity which is greatly at risk—whatever you hear about agriculture and the common agricultural policy—it is the marine environment. Throughout Europe, and certainly in our own coastal waters, the marine environment is a disaster area in terms of biodiversity due to overfishing and inappropriate development. Although the Bill sets out to provide a platform for protecting biodiversity, I very much doubt whether the new body will be any different from English Nature. English Nature would agree that it has been hampered by the lack of a marine Bill in delivering the marine protection and enhancement of our biodiversity which is greatly sought. Having said that we should welcome the Bill, we should recognise that until we get the marine Bill we shall still have to explain carefully to those around the world whom we criticise for lack of appropriate biodiversity policies why it is that so much of our own biodiversity in the marine environment is not adequately protected. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, anticipated that some of us would be less than enthusiastic about the Commission for Rural Communities. I am enthusiastic about anyone who supports rural causes and rural advocacy. However, I have some concerns—which I have heard expressed—whether that commission will be the organisation which we are looking for to champion the rural cause. When I read in the policy statement on the Bill that it is to,"““undertake a programme of thematic studies and inquiries, to investigate particular issues affecting rural people””," I simply say to myself, ““Good gracious, yet again. Haven’t we done that already? Haven’t we had report after report””? We know what is wrong in rural communities. Time and time again we identify the relevant issues that arise from having an overcrowded island whose agenda is usually determined by urban rather than rural interests. As I explained earlier, I used to chair the South East Rural Affairs Forum. We dealt with the usual issues that other regions dealt with such as, first and foremost, affordable housing, the difficulty of finding work close to where you might be lucky enough to live in the country, the difficulty of siting your business, lack of transport, lack of shops, the cost of goods in small shops compared to the cost of goods in city centre shops and the lack of access to hospitals and further education. Those are the issues that, surprise, surprise, the thematic studies and inquiries will identify. I echo very much the words of the right reverend Prelate—for goodness sake, let us now start championing people who demonstrate best practice. Let us have a delivery organisation based on local best practice. I believe that is roughly what the right reverend Prelate said and I certainly go along with it. There are people out there with examples of affordable housing—shared equity and the like—who are doing an excellent job. That could be rolled out elsewhere, but you need local involvement and funding; you do not need a talking shop. I am afraid that I see the commission ultimately as a talking shop. I am not saying that something like it is not needed, but I would be much more interested in determining which body will deliver what we seek, how it is to be funded, how it will engage with local communities and how it will be relevant to those people who are at the sharp end of these issues about which we hear so much. I share my noble friend’s anxiety that the Forestry Authority is rather detached. If you want to demonstrate how rural communities can be self-sufficient, establish combined heat and power plants using local forestry byproducts. That is a demonstration of best practice. The Forestry Authority could demonstrate best practice by showing that its laboratories were heated and powered by its own products. Those are examples of best practice which have been rolled out in small communities elsewhere in Europe. I hope that the Forestry Authority will demonstrate how that is done. The Environment Agency will have to deliver the water framework directive. Stakeholders in each water catchment area will be encouraged to think through the consequences of the sustainable use of water. All those are practical issues which we need to address. I am not entirely sure that the Bill gives us guidance as to how they will be delivered.