Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I speak today as president of a wildlife trust, vice-president of the RSPB and as a former chairman of English Nature. Those of your Lordships who have been around for some time and have long memories—a characteristic of your Lordships’ House—will recall that on two previous occasions a similar merger of English Nature and the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Commission has been proposed. On both those occasions, I must confess that I—and several others—fought like tigers to prevent such a merger because we were concerned that the interests of wildlife and conservation would be submerged in a bigger body. I am a turncoat and today support the Bill and the creation of Natural England as an organisation whose time has now come. The organisation will have the scale, working shoulder to shoulder with the Environment Agency—I should declare an interest as chief executive of the Environment Agency—to be an effective champion for wildlife and landscape and for their enjoyment as a vital part of the rural economy. Although I support the Bill and the creation of Natural England, I am keen to obtain reassurances on two points if I am to support the new body wholeheartedly. I mentioned the argument that this will create a body with sufficient scale to be an effective champion. Natural England will be blessed with considerable spending power in the form of the agri-environment funding and will use that is to achieve benefits for biodiversity, landscape and natural resource protection. I make no bones about the fact that when my noble friend Lord Haskins was writing his report, I expended considerable time and blandishment on him to try to persuade him to give agri-environment funding to the Environment Agency. My noble friend Lord Haskins said that he had listened to my arguments and gave me his understanding. But, alas, it was not his understanding that I was looking for, it was his money, and we did not get that. It is fundamental for the future that those agri-environment funds, which Natural England will control, need to deliver not only for the objectives of biodiversity, landscape, access and recreation laid out in the Bill, but also for the Environment Agency’s objectives of protecting the natural resources of air, land and water. I hope that the Minister can give reassurance that Natural England will be given clear guidance on using the substantial agri-environment funding—currently, in excess of £300 million—to deliver across both its and the Environment Agency’s objectives. The second area where I seek reassurance has already been raised. I am afraid that I rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but I do on this occasion. Clause 2 lays out clear purposes for Natural England. They are well written, distinctive and complementary to the purposes of the Environment Agency, which was a concern in early drafts of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity which emerged in successive drafts. The Bill gives Natural England a clear primary purpose to conserve, enhance and manage the natural environment and, thereby, contribute to sustainable development. It then elaborates those into five elements, which it is not beyond the bounds of possibility could come into conflict. Although the conflicts between the elements of the Natural England purpose should be rare, I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can have reassurance that in those very few cases where there is a conflict—say, between access duties and the protection of priority species, sites and habitats or important landscapes—the first two elements in the list of five of the Natural England purpose should have precedence; namely, those that cover biodiversity and landscape. Why should those two elements have priority? Although people who live in rural communities might not believe it, on looking at the history of the English countryside over the past 200 years, generally, social and economic issues have taken precedence. As a result of built development, changes in agricultural practices, impacts—including pollution from economic activity and the growth of our settlements—and the increase of our road system, wildlife has dramatically reduced in numbers and extent. According to the Government’s published figures in the biodiversity action plan and progress reports, quite a number of our most important habitats—salt marshes, reed beds, wet meadows, flower-rich meadows, heathlands and good-quality upland habitat—have been reduced to tiny percentages of their former extent—in some cases to less than 10 per cent—and, in some habitats, to less than 1 per cent of their previous extent. Many of our priority species of birds, plants, fish and mammals are reduced to tiny populations that are often beleaguered in open air zoos that we call nature conservation protected sites, which will be under increasing pressure from development, recreational pressures and, increasingly, climate change. I believe that history speaks for itself. Despite the protection given through the national protected site series—the sites of special scientific interest, the special areas of conservation and the special protection areas—and much of the effort put into the biodiversity action plan, we have not seen the restoration of both threatened populations and threatened habitats to anything remotely approaching their former extent. Much of our wildlife is drinking in the Last Chance saloon. Indeed, the extent and quality of landscape outside national parks and AONBs is often similarly threatened. So there is a real, evidence-based case for the priorities of biodiversity and landscape being the principal ones for Natural England. I thank the Minister for his commitment today to Natural England being a trenchant champion for the environment. In another place, much stress was placed on the vision and judgment of the chairman and the board of Natural England. I very much welcome the appointment of Sir Martin Doughty as chairman. But chairmen do not last for ever, although I earnestly hope that Sir Martin will, and the board is yet to be appointed. We need firmer assurances from the Minister in the specific area of conflict between the purposes of English Nature, so that when push comes to shove—to use a technical term—important biodiversity and landscape will take priority. I stress the word, ““important””. I am not talking about every occasion, every sparrow, every view, or every urban green space having to obtain prior consideration, but, in broad terms, the sorts of minimal priorities that were laid out in the biodiversity action plan by the Government. I will finish with another issue that, again, has been touched on by many of your Lordships; that is, the impact of some sorts of recreation on biodiversity and landscape and their quiet enjoyment. I welcome the assurances made by the Minister about mechanically propelled vehicles and the Government’s commitment to addressing that issue. But biodiversity and landscape, and the quiet enjoyment of the natural environment, can be vulnerable to other forms of open-air recreation. There needs to be clarity from the Government that in such disputes Natural England will take the role of championing the natural environment. There is considerable evidence that in some circumstances access, disturbance and recreation can damage biodiversity and landscape. Again, if push comes to shove, there is always somewhere else to go for recreation. But once biodiversity and landscape has been damaged or gone, most often it cannot be reconstituted. I hope that in the years to come we can look back on the provisions of this excellent Bill and the creation of a powerful force in Natural England for the natural environment. I would simply close in pondering on the name of the body that several of your Lordships have undertaken. In the early stages, there was a proposal that we should perhaps call it the ““Natural”” Environment Agency, which I can assume was only to distinguish it from the concept of the ““Unnatural”” Environment Agency.