Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I speak now to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford and myself. One cannot say that this has been a wide-ranging debate; it has been very focused. We are all tackling the one subject and chipping away at the same rock from different angles. Our amendment has some merit because it tries simply to put all three objectives into one sentence, thereby giving equality to them. Amendment No. 120 would add the word ““environmental”” to the social and economic well-being referred to in Natural England’s remit. It is a probing amendment designed to find out why, as the Bill reads now, Natural England will not contribute in other ways to environmental well-being as well as social and economic well-being. I take some issue with a phrase as vague as ““contributing in other ways”” being included in legislation—perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee on that front—and I would be very interested to know why environmental well-being was not included at that point. As I have said, the intentions laid out in the clause are impressive, but this small section appears to be an aspirational flourish which concludes the statement about Natural England’s purpose. I would not necessarily agree with the lay-out of Clause 2 as I do not think it would be helpful to Natural England as an organisation. As it stands, it seems odd that Natural England’s general contribution—albeit ““in other ways””—does not include environmental other ways. I have received, as no doubt have others, a briefing in that vein from the Countryside Alliance. It states:"““The general purpose of Natural England is to conserve and enhance the natural environment, but there can be no successful environmental policy without economic viability””." Rather than tabling a new amendment, I think the Committee would like to hear the argument for the clause as it stands. I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on what effect the clause will have.