Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I shall be as quick as I can. This has been an important and interesting debate and, even though I cannot accept any of the amendments that have been moved or spoken to, I shall certainly take away the arguments that have been employed. We have just debated Natural England’s role in contributing to sustainable development. I have said that Natural England would achieve this by promoting environmental outcomes which also seek to achieve social and economic benefits. Let me briefly outline what the clause does. Clause 2(1) sets out Natural England’s general purpose and charges it with ensuring that,"““the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations””," which is not a bad definition of sustainable development. This general purpose sets Natural England’s activities within a sustainable development context. Clause 2(2) then elaborates on some of the activities which fall within Natural England’s general purpose. As I have said before, it is neither exhaustive nor hierarchical but provides elaboration and continuity with existing legislation. It takes into account the purposes, as set out, of the three bodies that are coming into Natural England. The general purpose in subsection (1) sets the activities of Natural England in a sustainable development context, as envisaged in the rural strategy. I repeat that it will be primarily an environmental organisation, contributing to sustainable development through its management of the natural environment, actively seeking social and economic benefits in town and country—not just in the country—and avoiding unnecessary negative economic and social impacts. I therefore do not feel it would be appropriate to take the reference to sustainable development out of the general purpose clause, as Amendment No. 107 would do. Amendment No. 118 would add the words ““contributing to sustainable development”” to Clause 2(2)(d). It would be appropriate only if I were to accept that the phrase should come out of Clause 2(1), since the items listed in Clause 2(2) are examples of what is included in Clause 2(1). As I have made it clear that I am not attracted to leaving the phrase out of Clause 2(1), the amendment would add nothing. All the items in Clause 2(2), in paragraphs (a) to (e), are conditioned by the reference to sustainable development in Clause 2(1). Of course there are instances where it is necessary for access to the countryside and open spaces to be managed carefully. Natural England will have an excellent pedigree in this respect. It will combine the Countryside Agency’s experience in promoting positive access management in conjunction with local access authorities and in administering legal restrictions on CROW access where necessary with English Nature’s experience of advising the agency on the need for nature conservation restrictions and enforcing by-laws on its national nature reserves. I hope that noble Lords will agree that all the Natural England agencies have done terrific, excellent work to date in promoting and managing access to the countryside and that they are well placed to undertake this work even more effectively as a single integrated agency. Amendment No. 121 suggests adding a further paragraph (f) to the list in Clause 2(2). It would add the words:"““protecting the nature of rural areas and contributing to sustainability within them””." That is already covered by the broad and enabling general purpose. It is important that the board of Natural England is able to come to its own view on where its priorities lie. As I said, it will listen to both rural and urban communities, review the evidence and then decide, in discussion with Ministers, what needs doing and where. It is not necessary to make a specific reference to rural areas. Amendment No. 120 would add the environmental well-being of rural communities to the economic and social contribution that Natural England should make. It is unsatisfactory in a number of ways. In effect, it would make this paragraph refer to sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—which repeats the reference in the general purpose, though with an emphasis on rural communities. It would undermine the reason for having this clause, which is to clarify Natural England’s role towards social and economic issues relative to its core environmental activities. Amendment No. 119, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would require Natural England to consider the impact of its policies and actions on the economic and social well-being of rural areas. It would invite Natural England to be challenged periodically, or on a case-by-case basis, to show that it had regard. But ““having regard”” does not require Natural England to take any specific action. We are clear that Natural England will be an environmental organisation. That is calculated in its purpose, powers and duties, and will no doubt be reflected in its expertise. As I said, the general purpose sets Natural England’s activities within a sustainable development context. Subsection 2(e) makes it clear that when considering the many ways in which it might contribute to sustainable development, Natural England should think about how to contribute towards social and economic well-being. The Explanatory Notes, which have been incorporated into Natural England’s management statement, to give it longevity, explain:"““The reference . . . to sustainable development indicates that Natural England is meant to seek solutions which, while achieving environmental benefits, also provide long-term economic and social benefits and avoid untoward economic and social impacts””." We believe that, taken together, this package of references in Clause 2(1), Clause 2(2) and the Explanatory Notes is better than requiring Natural England to ““have regard to”” social and economic issues. Our view is that ““having regard to”” something is passive. It is too easy a test to pass. It may smack a little of the old thinking of trading off one benefit against another, either environmental or socio-economic.  We have incorporated a positive test that Natural England should seek integrated solutions which meet its environmental and its social and economic aims—what we would classify, perhaps rather grandly, as true sustainable development. As I said, there are requirements for Natural England to have regard to urban as well as rural environments. With the most enormous respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others who spoke in favour of his amendment, I pose this question: would the noble Lord prefer to ask Natural England, at the end of any given year, ““Show me how you have had regard to social and economic well-being”” or ““Show me you have sought solutions which, while achieving environmental benefits, also provide long-term economic and social benefits and avoid untoward economic and social impacts””? We believe that a further attraction of our formulation in the Bill is that it applies to all of Natural England’s work, not just that which might benefit people living in rural areas. I shall try to deal briefly with a number of other issues which were raised. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that Natural England will be one of many advisers. Its own focus will be on the natural environment, while the CRC and the RDAs will advise on social and economic issues—and, indeed, champion them—or work in a sustainable development context. The point was made that Natural England must have primary responsibility for social and economic development. By way of example, the uplands were mentioned. We do not think that that is right. My noble friend Lord Haskins recommended that land managers and others were confused by the Countryside Agency having responsibilities for both the environment and social and economic development. We agreed with his recommendation that Natural England should lead on the natural environment but also try to achieve social and economic goals. The RDAs should lead on social and economic development, while also trying to achieve environmental benefits. The noble Duke asked about the ““other ways”” mentioned in Clause 2(2)(e). While Natural England approaches this responsibility from an environmental point of view, it should not feel too constrained by that when considering innovative ways in which it can integrate social, economic and environmental benefits. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that Natural England should have the same duty to social and economic aims as RDAs have towards environmental aims. We think that the Bill goes further than this. Rather than simply ““having regard to””, Natural England will be required to seek solutions which, while achieving environmental benefits, also provide long-term economic and social benefits and avoid untoward economic and social impacts. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about the JNCC and Clause 33. The JNCC has very narrow terms of reference—to give scientific advice across the United Kingdom and at the international level. We believe that the wording in Clause 33 reflects that narrower purpose. I have been as quick as I can in replying to this important debate. We will consider what has been said.