Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I was struck by one short comment by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron; he said that he thought that Clause 2 was ““all right as far as it goes””. I most strongly endorse that. It seems that many of us have been trying to pursue the aspirations already in Clause 2 for a very long time. If I might be allowed a moment of self-advertisement, Clause 2 almost exactly reflects the philosophy I had years ago when I was the architect, instigator and introducer of the environmental sensitive area schemes, which have done a great deal for certain rural areas. I refer to the Lake District and parts of the Yorkshire Dales, areas I used to represent in another place. The clause is all right as far as it goes but I strongly support Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lady Byford. It is all right having these aspirations—other noble Lords have also made these remarks—but unless they are backed up by a rural prosperity they will be doomed to failure. Quite understandably and quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, put his finger on the fact that there is very often a conflict between those interested in environmental matters and those concerned with economic matters. It is right to try to bring the two together, as he suggested, and the two amendments do exactly that. They introduce in Clause 2 the living together of the two aspirations: to protect and look after the landscape and, at the same time, to promote rural prosperity, which is by far the most effective means of creating what you want for the environment and the landscape. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about the problems of the uplands. How right he was. I am sure that the whole nature of Britain’s landscape will change with the changes going on in agriculture. That leaves aside what my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said about the economic prosperity—or, rather, the negative prosperity—of growing corn. I declare an interest in that. I have always taken the view that the uplands are one problem but perhaps an even bigger problem concerns land which is just slightly too good to be included in what we used to call the upland areas, the less favoured areas. Land around the periphery of high land, and which is just slightly too good, is perhaps most at risk today. I have always been anxious about such marginal land. I was able years ago to introduce for the first time special financial assistance for farmers in those areas. With the changes, we are likely to see a bigger change in the countryside and the environment in those marginal areas which surround the uplands. I may be wrong but I fear that that is where we will see the greatest changes. My plea to the Government is that they look most sympathetically at Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 and, if they do not like them, try to find a way of blending the importance of rural prosperity into the aspirations of this new body.