Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to which my name is added. As I said at Second Reading, the inclusion of paragraph (e) in Clause 2(2) as part of Natural England’s general purposes allows for a presumption that the management of the natural environment will automatically lead to social and economic gains. I have no doubt that in some instances that might well occur but in other instances I suspect that quite the reverse could happen. I suggest—and this is a point that the CLA makes very forcefully in its brief on the Bill—that it is often the economic sustainability within rural areas which contributes to the positive enhancement of the natural environment. Natural England will undoubtedly be a very considerable force in the future. It will have great influence on rural affairs. So it is essential in my view that its role reflects that responsibility and that it has the confidence of its constituents. Of course I appreciate that Natural England’s role—as the Minister himself put it—is to champion sustainable development; that is fundamental. I also recognise that it is not its function to actively promote social and economic development as such. But all this amendment seeks to achieve is that when pursuing its principal objectives it should simply have regard to the other essential strands of life; namely, social and economic development. That seems a perfectly logical consequence. I appreciate that some have made the point that it is essential that Natural England should at all costs promote environmental issues, and that there are also other agencies whose role it is to encourage economic development. But we should remember that bodies such as the regional development agencies already have sustainability as part of their remit. I forget who it was but a noble Lord asked the Minister for a definition of sustainability. I shall refer later to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which comes up with a definition of ““sustainability”” that I suspect the noble Lord will be happy with, bearing in mind that the British Government have signed up to that convention. It defines ““sustainable”” as,"““the introduction and application of methods and processes for the utilisation of biodiversity to prevent its long-term decline””." That seems a sensible definition. But that being the case, as I have said, this imposition is already there so far as the regional development agencies are concerned. So I argue that in view of the fact that it is already charged with promoting economic and social development to take account of biodiversity as part of its remit, it is hardly unreasonable to expect Natural England to have regard to economic and social well-being. Finally, the parliamentary briefing sent out by organisations prior to this evening’s debate mentions, in regard to stakeholder engagement, a,"““pragmatic approach to achieve our objectives in ways which avoid unnecessary social and economic costs””." So I ask again: how on earth can that be achieved without Natural England having regard to the economic and social well-being of its constituents?