Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches also thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. We warmly welcome a Bill whose aim is to improve the natural environment and rural communities in England and Wales. I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. I live in Bideford, and every time I go to Exeter I appreciate the extent of his diocese and the difficulty of getting round all of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has already told us that the right reverend Prelate will be well qualified to speak on these issues. The speakers’ list reads like a Who’s Who of expertise in rural issues, and I am looking forward to hearing all the speeches. Most of this Bill can be seen as another step on the Government’s path to improve the way that we look after the natural heritage of England and Wales and the landscape and biodiversity. I congratulate the Government on continuing on that path. The CRoW Act gave both rights and responsibilities for the landscape and biodiversity of this country. It enabled people to access and enjoy vast tracts of land that they had not been able to access before, and at the same time it gave new powers for instance to AONBs and new responsibilities to people to learn the countryside code and to learn more about what is going on around them. The CRoW Act was something that we could build on. It gave government departments responsibility for biodiversity, after a bit of persuasion from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and me. I am glad that they took up our suggestion that they include that in the Bill and that they build on it today by extending that responsibility to local authorities. There is a great need for that, because SSSIs are still being damaged and are still in an unfavourable condition. Many species of all sorts of creatures are still in decline, from birds and butterflies to frogs and plants. With the added issue of climate change creating more extreme conditions, species will come under increasing pressure, so preserving their habitats and ensuring that they can become resilient to that pressure is even more important if we are to preserve biodiversity. It is also a time of change and opportunity, with the CAP reform that is going through. The reform means that as we move from production subsidies to the single farm payment and a proper emphasis on agri-environment schemes, there will be the opportunity that an agency such as Natural England can grasp. I was extremely pleased to hear the formal announcement this afternoon that Sir Martin Doughty will chair Natural England. On his past record he will make a wise and able chair, and I look forward to Natural England being given a strong start under his chairmanship. Having welcomed so warmly the way that the Government are dealing with the natural environment, I am afraid that I cannot say the same for the way in which they are addressing the outstanding social and economic concerns of rural areas. We have to look back and learn lessons from the past before we can look to the future. The Government were given a head start in that regard by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on bringing delivery closer to the customer. He made many good recommendations, only one of which I shall refer to this afternoon. The Government have not taken sufficiently to heart the lessons of that report and the things that were self-evident to everyone in rural communities that we all told them about for me to resist the temptation to try to amend the Bill fairly substantially in one or two areas. In particular—and this has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—is the issue of rural development agencies. The fact that they are not even referred to in the Bill, let alone made more accountable for service delivery in rural areas, leaves a huge gap to be filled. Then we must look at the role of Defra. In June 2001 the demise of MAFF and the birth of Defra were announced. Because we use the acronym all the time, we have forgotten that the last two letters of the acronym stand for ““rural affairs””. So it is the department for rural affairs, and I am sure it has the professional capacity to deliver on a wide range of rural affairs and advise other government departments. The department was troubled by its MAFF past and it found it easier to pass the responsibility to the Countryside Agency for vast tracts of that work. I believe that it still intends to slope its shoulders instead of taking back the responsibility for rural policy, by passing it on to the CRC—yet another quango, and yet another acronym. During the time in which the department sloped its shoulders, the problems in rural communities have got worse. We could all name those that have got considerably worse. Lack of affordable housing in rural areas is top of the list. The Countryside Agency brought the matter to the Government’s attention time and again. They have finally responded by creating a commission under Elinor Goodman to review the issue. In doing so, however, they have shown the way forward for themselves. They have created a commission to advise them about what to do on rural housing, and can create ad hoc commissions full of experts to advise. They do not need a full-time, stand-alone quango to fulfil that role. In Committee, we shall explore exactly why the Government thought another quango necessary. Before the Minister tells me the line about gathering the expertise together, I should repeat the wise advise of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, whose report in October 2003 was the starting point of the Bill, as the Minister reminded us. I am talking about local knowledge and local delivery. I shall quote recommendation 14 by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in full because it is so important. He says:"““Local authorities and local partnerships should assume the main responsibility for delivery of schemes and services to rural communities. They should be fully consulted by Defra and the Regional Development Agencies about any changes to policy and delivery arrangements and should be given the necessary flexibility to address local needs. The potential of Rural Community Councils as partners in community-based delivery is underestimated and should be enhanced””." I could not agree more with that statement. If the Government build on what is already there, in local democratic terms they will go a long way down the road of improvement. Is the Government’s position that they think that local government is still not capable of delivery? Since the Government took that view last time, vast amounts of energy and effort have been spent by the Improvement and Development Agency and the Audit Commission to strengthen the capacity and ability of local government. Either that energy, effort and money has been wasted, or local government is even more capable than it was in the first place. If the rural communities are truly to benefit, and if local democracy is to be renewed in the way in which the Government have said time and again that they are interested in doing, rural delivery must start with local councils. Changes of direction in rural policy that the Government are considering must be fed up from local councils through other bodies, including Natural England and regional development agencies, until we come out with a rural policy that goes up from the grass roots and can really work. The Government use all those words from time to time, but when it comes to it we do not see the action. The Bill should really define how rural communities work through their local authorities for social delivery, and how local authorities and regional development agencies interact to deliver the socio-economic side of the package. Why is that especially important now as we go through Second Reading? It goes back partly to CAP reform. When the funding packages come through and the money moves from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2—the rural development pillar—all the funds go through the regional development agencies. Unless we get the equation right of how they sit in the picture and of what role local government will play in fulfilling the aspirations and expectations of rural communities and is able to draw down the funding in a coherent way, there will be no real rural development. It will be a hollow aspiration. I hope that we can amend the Bill so that it will strengthen rural areas in the way that I imagine the Government envisaged that it would when they started to draft it. I welcome the provisions in Part 3 on wildlife, and the chance to examine them. Many are needed and worth while. On these Benches, we will look at extending the non-native species provision to birds. Before everybody thinks that that is simply a reaction to avian flu—although that is of course an important consideration—I would say that, as we look to protecting our own birds and realise that it is a criminal offence to catch a bird in this country, we should be affording that same protection to birds of other countries which are less able to spend money on protecting them. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will talk about rights of way. Indeed, he is something of an expert on the thorny issues in this Bill. I am particularly looking forward to working again with my noble friend Lord Greaves, as he and I worked together so much on CRoW. I will value his suggestions as to the way forward.