Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

As I understand it, no conflict resolution clause applies to RDAs; they make up their own minds. It is important that they should do so, bearing in mind the various issues that are set out in Clause 2 as far as Natural England is concerned. It has been suggested that RDAs give primacy to economic development, so Natural England should give primacy to the environment. Both take their decisions—or ought to—within the context of sustainable development, and we believe that helping people to enjoy the natural environment is an inextricable part of its conservation and enhancement. Bringing the two together in Natural England will help achieve the right solutions to conflicts. I do not think that the best solutions come out of adversarial debate between, for example, a public body with a total focus on protecting the environment and another with a total focus on economic development. That is why both the regional development agencies and Natural England are required to contribute to sustainable development. This reminds me of my promise to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to share a definition of ““sustainability”” with the House. John Locke, the great English philosopher at the end of the 17th century defined ““sustainability.”” Of course, when he uses the word ““man”” he covers humankind. He said:"““Each man is entitled to the fruits of his labour, as long, and as much, and as good, is left for the next [man]””." Not a bad definition. Our definition is a little more prosaic. Our strategy for delivering a better quality of life through sustainable development was set out in the UK sustainable development strategy, launched in March last year and copies of which are available in the Library. It explains the actions required to ensure that the care of the environment is an integral part of policymaking from the start, rather than just dealing with the consequences of neglect further down the line. The UK Government and the devolved administrations agreed to the following purpose:"““The goal of sustainable development is to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations””." It is against that background, or both definitions, that I believe this amendment to be wrong, both in principle and in practice. It would not lead to better protection for our most treasured natural resources, and it is inconsistent with practice elsewhere in the public sector. Why do I say that it is wrong in principle? Many of the proposals put forward for this Bill by noble Lords have aimed to secure the independence of Natural England. We support that concept, which is why we have created it as an executive, non-departmental public body. Natural England must have the freedom to engage in debate with interested organisations, customers and the public; then, in discussion with Ministers, to decide how it can best achieve its purpose. Frankly, that is the point of having a board of an independent NDPB. We do not believe that it should be told how to resolve any particular conflict. A conflict resolution clause would effectively be a legislative straitjacket. It would not give it teeth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggested. It would mean extracting its teeth; it would have no teeth. It would have, effectively, no independence. It would erode its ability to make independent decisions on how best to achieve its purpose. That is the principle. Let me give two examples of some of the problems a conflict resolution clause would create in practical application. First, how would it apply to urban green spaces? There are many areas of damaged and derelict land around our major towns and cities. Some have been designated as SSSIs, or local nature reserves, because of their wildlife variety. Priority should be given to biodiversity in these areas, which might, for example, lead to restrictions on public access. Other areas have less value for wildlife and here it may be judged—and judged is the crucial word—that access should have priority, even if the effect is detrimental to some plants and animals. This amendment would prevent Natural England taking part in any such project, despite its role as a leading national body on access to the natural environment. A project might well proceed under local authority or voluntary-body leadership, but Natural England would be excluded. We do not think that is right. Secondly, how it would apply to a designed landscape, such as a Repton parkland? Many noble Lords will know much more about the great landscape architect, Repton, than I do. Restoring the historical importance of the landscape by, for example, clearing undergrowth, or dredging an ornamental lake, might be detrimental to some aspect of biodiversity. Natural England would be required, if this amendment became law, to give the highest priority, without question, to enhancing biodiversity.