Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

The Minister has given a very good explanation of the reasons for government action to try to improve biodiversity. What we are arguing about here is the use of a particular word in a particular clause in a particular way. The truth is that we really do not know, in intimate detail, enough about what makes biodiversity work. There are a whole host of relationships wrapped up in it, which could be argued to be competitive or symbiotic. The truth is that it is a combination of such relationships. The use here of the word ““principal”” implies that one can be selective within that. Of course there are things that can be done to improve biodiversity; essentially, this is a programme of restoring areas of uncultivated bits of ground, which have not been interfered with. The difficulty with this whole area is the interference introduced by man. We are not doing specific things with specific species; we are providing opportunities for nature to take over again, in a limited way, in particular areas. This may take the form of field margins, or what I would call ““bug strips”” across the middle of very large fields. These are areas where we are permitting nature to take over again. What happens in those areas will be nothing to do with the Secretary of State or indeed any official of Defra. It will be a matter of good fortune as nature claws its way back into the countryside. You can do that without this sort of wording. That is the problem I have with the clause.