Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Selborne and others who have said how much they welcome the contribution made in this debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. It was indeed a contribution which came from the heart and an understanding of the problems we face. We are very fortunate in your Lordship’s House to have such contributions from the bishops. I remember a while ago one bishop, who came from the south west, saying, ““Yes, the situation in farming is so desperate at the moment, that they really do need—as they have said so often—a level playing field. At the moment they need a level praying field””. That was said, I know, with some feeling. I declare my interests as a farmer involved in many rural organisations, and as a past president of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which is equally as beautiful as the south west, now of course the Cotswolds Conservation Board. It has proved itself in its work during the past five years in an area that covers the vast rural area from Bath up to the Warwickshire border. In its reports of restoration work in that area, it has proved the benefit of its effort to restore important grassland sites, in training and restoration of dry stone walling, of landscape character assessments and of farming studies. Above all, it has created a partnership with many organisations and local authorities. It is an example of the dedication of much voluntary work, especially from voluntary wardens, who are themselves country people who understand the importance of land management and wildlife. As my noble friend Lord Selborne said earlier, it is an example of the need for best practice. If, therefore, Natural England, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, is a strange name, is to streamline the functions of the present component agencies as set out in Clause 2, is the ultimate intention to try to include all bodies concerned with environmental issues, including the work of local authorities in that area? Will it really lead to a better focused source of land management advice for government and its agencies, as well as its primary customers, operating more efficiently and cutting costs, or will the integrated agency become yet another layer of bureaucracy and expense, which the countryside can ill afford? Already, we have an army of advisers ready to move in to help the farmer or those who are concerned with country affairs. Like others, I have many doubts, which will come up in Committee, about many of the provisions in various chapters, including those in Part 3 concerning wildlife and pesticides. In Part 8, I ask what is really meant by ““flexible administrative arrangements””. That could mean anything to anyone. I also hope that in his reply the Minister can reassure your Lordships that all representative interests will be consulted before proposed change orders are made. In his opening statement, the Minister referred to that point and said that it is intended that stakeholders, who have already been consulted as the Bill has been drafted, will be consulted again before the final draft is agreed. So, as a countryman, I hope that I may be forgiven for believing that, in the past, too much policy-making by government has been conducted with a strong bias towards urban citizens. We need a Commission for Rural Communities with a strong and independent voice for rural people represented by rural people. The much improved relationship between conservation advisers and land managers depends entirely on close contact. Farmers, for example, need assurances that the advice that they receive on SSSIs and the management of such from English Nature will not be subject to charges in future. There is concern that Natural England will not realise its full potential for delivery through its proposed two boards while still focusing on its own internal structure. If the object of the exercise is to follow the proposals for simplification so rightly proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the Bill must make it clear that the agency will be the chief adviser on policy for the natural environment across government activity as a whole and ministers must have due regard to its advice. There is concern about Clause 14, which provides for the Secretary of State to grant aid Natural England, enabling the Secretary of State to influence how it should be spent. An example of some of the problems comes from the Cotswolds. Provisions are intended to ensure that the electricity distribution companies are required to have regard to AONB purposes but fail, as the border is crossed, to require the same of British Telecom. In that area, planning authorities required a developer to underground the wirescape but, when it crossed the boundary, BT insisted on wires going overground via poles. That is one of those silly illustrations, an example of the sort of thing that makes nonsense of the work being undertaken at present. I hope that that can be improved. That is a landscape benefit lost. Finally, Clause 2 proposes that the agency should have a general purpose of ensuring that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed. The general purpose focuses solely on conservation and is silent on the agency’s importance as an adviser. If it is to be a strong and independent voice, surely it should be made much clearer that its responsibility is to advise on policy for the natural environment across all government activities and that Ministers must have due regard to its advice. It must be more, not less, independent. I hope that its main function will make the countryside free from more bureaucracy and red tape.