Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. Debates such as today’s gain immensely from Cross-Bench participation. The German scholar Wilamowitz once asked his Oxford contemporary Cyril Bailey what a spoonerismus was. Bailey, replying in Latin, answered with a Horatian echo, ““transponendarum litterarum curiosa felicitas””—a curious felicity in transposing letters. One of Warden Spooner’s own mangled texts—"““We are all but as clay in the ponds of the hatter””—" would serve us admirably today, not least on a Bill that the consenting parties are already describing as a NERC Bill, a transposition of letters that recalls the old acronym for the Natural Environment Research Council. I should declare four relatively de minimis interests—first, as a former Minister for the NERC that I have just mentioned; secondly, as a life member of the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust; thirdly, as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Wildlife and Conservation; and, finally, as a vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust, an office I hold representing my party in Parliament. The latter is perhaps the most relevant to mention in the context of the Bill, as it underscores the Bill’s urban perspective. One of my most satisfactory achievements in the other place was to play a reasonably salient role in securing large-scale charitable funding to computerise the London trust’s biodiversity base. The Bill and its consenting parties exude harmony—even trust. I cite as an index of the latter an egregious spelling mistake in their joint briefing, which implies that the three merging bodies were content to use one proof-reader rather than two or three. However, what is not clear from either the Bill or the consenting parties’ briefing is the nature of the chemistry between them. Too many mergers fail because of transplant rejection; I speak as one who, once upon a time, was the nation’s first ever headhunter. Natural selection also applies to mankind. I am delighted to learn implicitly from the consenting parties’ briefing that the new organisation will be well resourced. That will make it the envy of its conservationist confreres at English Heritage, whose funding slips further and further down the list of DCMS priorities. I am however concerned that, too often, the furtherance of conservation in the Bill is subject to those hoary old words, ““have regard to””—that most facile of amulets against judicial review—and that there is insufficient reference to necessary action. Clause 1 tells us that:"““Except where otherwise expressly provided, Natural England’s functions are exercisable in relation to England only””." I hope that the West Lothian question will not prevent Scottish Peers drawing attention to Section 1(1) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which requires every public body,"““to further the conservation of biodiversity””." I also hope that the application of regionality in the Bill will be highlighted in Committee. Much of regional policy in England, especially after the fig-leaf of referendums was ripped aside on 4/11 last year, is conducted through shadowy and insubstantial bodies, among which the environment has difficulty in asserting its importance. It is mildly ominous that one of the Secretary of State’s statutory, rather than permissive, roles in Clause 15(1) is that he must give Natural England guidance as to the exercise of any of its functions that relate to or affect regional planning and associated matters. The subject of climate change will occupy your Lordships’ House on Thursday, when we shall judge the Bill retrospectively on its relevance. Some of us have had our knuckles rapped in the past for going on about housing in the flood plains, but this very weekend has seen insurance companies warning that in future cover may not be sustained in areas vulnerable to flooding. On rights of way, I echo my noble friend Lady Byford. A bridle path in the next parish to our own in Wiltshire is under threat. In the short time since I took an interest in the matter, the number of applications to the county council has leapt from 87 to more than 150. Can the Minister tell us whether local authorities are being given any extra resources to cope with this separate version of flooding, or will the council tax payer be expected to meet the bill? In the same spirit, when we come to deal with invasive non-native species, will the Minister be prepared in Committee to tell us what his noble friend Lord Whitty, whom I see in his place and to whom I express no disrespect, declined to do on the Hunting Bill—namely, the Government’s intentions towards the control of wild mink, which have practically eliminated the English water vole? As to guidance and directions, the latter of which in Clauses 15 and 16 are described by the consenting parties as a ““last resort””, my mind goes back to a British employee going out to run the Australian operations of a multinational company, whose boss at headquarters told him, ““I shall not interfere; I hope I shall not have to intervene””. Is the general language of these clauses legislative boiler-plate or does it envisage particular contingencies? The issue is at the very heart of independence. In the same vein, I am less sanguine than the consenting parties that there are not contradictions in the general purposes expressed in Clause 2(2). In the Barker report debate last year, I alluded to the six households on our lane in Wiltshire, two miles from the nearest shop. Five of the six are permanently resident. The sixth house was then rented out to a London family, who were occasional visitors. They were understandably absent during the foot and mouth crisis, during which our own two dogs, apart from using our small orchard for exercise, were for three months confined to walks on leads on tarmac. Within an hour of the London family arriving for their first visit since the crisis broke, they went straight into the fields with their dog. On having reality gently pointed out to them, they said that there were no notices and they could not be supposed to know. I suspect that the Bill underestimates how far ignorance of town about country will prevent recreation going wholly harmoniously hand in hand with conservation. I remember the Greater London Authority Bill in another place and asking Glenda Jackson, the Minister, what would happen if the multitude of mayoral strategies that the Bill laid down were in conflict with each other. ““Oh, but the Bill won’t let them be””, she said. West Wiltshire has lots of footpaths and bridleways. On one such last spring, a Defra notice commended the welfare of ground nesting birds on the set-aside where the bridleway ran. The aim was commendable but, unless you closed the bridleway, frankly it was academic. It is on such points of detail that I hope the Committee stage of the Bill will properly fasten.