Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I welcome the main thrust of the Bill, particularly the amalgamation of English Nature and the bulk of the Countryside Agency. In so doing I declare an interest as a landowner in the north of England and an ex-member of the English Nature council. I hope that the combined package will provide a more efficient, streamlined and cost-effective body that will command the respect of rural communities and provide a forum by which environmental policies can be delivered in partnership between those with a statutory responsibility for carrying out such duties and those on the ground who must make them work in practice. In passing, I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the name Natural England is what I might describe as somewhat naff. Given that the English countryside is one of the finest examples of man’s endeavours, notwithstanding the problems and challenges that we all face, there is very little of the natural about it. The real theme of my contribution revolves around Clause 2 and the general purposes of Natural England. Although I support the formation of this large new statutory body, with its new size will come additional responsibilities, and with those will come an even greater need for sensitivity and the requirement to carry the respect of those whose hopes and aspirations will be affected by the actions of such a body. Clause 2 covers the general purposes of Natural England, which broadly concerns the promotion of nature conservation, access and the enhancement of landscape—all perfectly desirable objectives. However, paragraph 2(e) talks about, "““contributing in other ways””—" whatever that means—"““to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment””." That appears to demonstrate an inherent assumption that management of the natural environment automatically delivers social and economic benefits, whereas in practice it will depend on how the land is managed and what other factors are taken into consideration. As the Country Land and Business Association, in which I declare an interest as a member, put it,"““for Natural England to succeed in achieving its environmental objectives—which must be its priority””—" everybody agrees with that—"““it is essential that it works in partnership with land managers and with the grain of rural business””." I entirely subscribe to that view, for there is no point in attempting to drive forward environmental and nature conservation objectives if, in the process, the future of the individual or the enterprise is undermined to the extent that no one can deliver the original objectives. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, often we are talking about small, vulnerable businesses; we must take that into consideration. To that end, therefore, I feel that the Bill and Natural England’s position would be enhanced if it had, as part of its remit, an obligation to have regard to the social and economic well being of those who live and work in rural areas. I appreciate the scepticism demonstrated by my noble friend Lord Brooke about the term ““have regard to”” but I believe that it is appropriate in this case. I am fully aware that some conservation bodies argue that there are already sufficient government-funded bodies with an economic brief and that it is vital that we have a strong independent statutory body to champion the environment. I agree with that, but such bodies usually have an environmental duty within their statute, as is the case, for example, with the regional development agencies, which have to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development within the UK. So I see no logical reason why Natural England should not have a similar requirement to take heed of the rural economy when making its deliberations but which would not undermine its principal objectives. It would simply ensure that some form of equilibrium was maintained. Surely that is what joined-up government means. Before discussing the Commission for Rural Communities, I should like to say something about Clause 3, which requires Natural England to discharge its functions having regard to the common standards established under Clause 4. The common standards guidance for SSSIs is produced by the JNCC, and it is on the back of that guidance that Natural England will carry out its monitoring of such sites, make its environmental assessments and ultimately produce its management plans. From my experience of actively managing part of a moorland SSSI, I am bound to say that this process is far from satisfactory. I will not go into detail, but there appears to be no opportunity for consultation between the JNCC and practitioners on the ground, or their representative organisations, before the common standard guidance is produced. Furthermore, the criteria on which such guidance is produced appear to contain a rather high degree of hypothetical theory. Indeed, I asked one English Nature scientist to give me the basis on which a management plan was based, and he replied, ““Ecological instinct””. With the best will in the world, that is not good enough. While on this theme, we should not lose sight of the fact that the CROW Act demands that a VAM—views about management—is to be produced by English Nature on every SSSI prior to January next year, so once again I find myself wondering with some degree of trepidation on what criteria these will be based. It strikes me as odd that views on management can be produced without consulting the manager. I am aware that there is some scepticism about the future role of the Commission for Rural Communities, but I take the view that, provided that the rural advocate is properly focused on assessing, advising and, where necessary, criticising government performance in relation to rural England, it could have a useful role. It is important that it does not end up as a moribund research organisation simply undertaking endless surveys and academic studies that gather dust in some departmental corner. The Government must expect Parliament to be given direct access to the commission, and its reports should be debated in both Houses of Parliament, thus giving it the credit it deserves. Only time will judge its effectiveness, but the ingredients are there if they are used effectively. I particularly welcome Clause 58, which removes the expenditure constraints on national park authorities with regard to their duties to foster the economic and social well being of their local communities. This dovetails with my previous comments about economic development being an essential plank for a healthy rural economy from which sound environmental goals can be achieved. Finally, a quick word on the additional enforcement powers afforded to wildlife inspectors under Clause 51. These powers will be greatly enhanced, and there is deep concern that they go too far. It is to be regretted that there was no formal consultation on this proposal. I have no difficulty with the principle, providing that such individuals are fully trained in the same way as, for example, trading standards officers or environmental health officers who belong to professional bodies and are subjected to three years’ training. I am bound to say that, to date, the record of such individuals is mixed, to say the least, as they sometimes tend to be rather over-enthusiastic in their determination to bring a prosecution. This is an emotive subject, so it is essential that the legislation is properly drafted to ensure that professionalism and fairness prevail. This is a large bill, and it is easy to get carried away by any one of its many clauses and schedules. What I hope for is an improved system of environmental and wildlife delivery, based on a healthy respect between the public and private sectors. Both have their part to play, but this system can work effectively only if there is genuine consultation and respect on both sides and a mutual understanding of each other’s aims and objectives. There is still much to do in this respect.