Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I also have doubts about the title, ““Natural England””. The noble Lord and I share, at least in part of our education, a common institution, so perhaps it is not so remarkable that he and I should find agreement on this. It calls to mind that during my studies there was an agricultural research institution still then in existence called the Rothhampstead Experimental Research Station which, a century before, had put a field on one side and left it to see what would happen. After a century it had become oak forest. It was beautiful, completely unproductive for most human purposes and, if you stood in the centre of it, you had a very restricted view. Running through today’s debate there has been a real concern that what is now called Natural England should not finish up like that. I hope the Minister will agree that this is possible and that we should do something about the title, which is a little unfortunate. Clause 2 states that Natural England’s general purpose is,"““to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations””." That is fine. But whenever the Government are advancing a case about which they have some slight doubt, they add the wonderful catchphrase,"““thereby contributing to sustainable development””." I have never discovered with any satisfaction precisely what sustainable development is. I took the trouble to refer to the dictionaries before this debate. Both the Concise Oxford English Dictionary and Chambers Dictionary stated:"““Capable of being maintained at a set level””." Clearly, that does not work. The Brundtland report of 1987 contained a better definition:"““Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs””." That is admirable—I have no quarrel with that—but the trouble is that we are not doing it. Whether we like it or not, we have set in process the awful problem of global warming. We have destabilised the atmosphere and we do not know what the consequences are. The truth is that the natural environment has always been in a state of evolution in any event. Therefore, that catchphrase is unfortunate. I would prefer to see it taken out of the Bill all together. In fact, if the Government were wise, they would cease to use the phrase at all. As Clause 2(1) states, we can,"““ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations””." But the environment in 50 years’ time will be very different from that with which we are familiar today and if we are to beat the problem of global warming, we shall have to do things which some people will think are an offence to conservation. Solutions such as intensive production of crops for biofuels are at least as offensive from the point of view of the environment as any other form of intensive agriculture, but we are going to have to do those things—so there is good reason for concern. I have two other points of concern which are worth raising at this stage. I read in Clause 4 that Natural England—I will continue to call it that because that is the only name we have at the moment—"““may give advice to any person on any matter relating to its general purpose””." Under Clause 11, it is given the power to make charges. What worries me is that it has the power to give advice to people who have not requested it. Can it charge people for giving them unwanted advice? That is an interesting prospect. We will be exploring these matters with great care and in great detail in Committee, but that is an interesting juxtaposition of words. Worse still, Clause 13 states:"““Natural England may do anything that appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions””." When one looks at what its functions are, that is fine, but what worries me about that provision is that, under a different jurisdiction, in a different part of the world, it would be an invitation to malpractice of the most appalling kind. We need to examine what is meant by ““anything””. It has to have a restrictive meaning, because otherwise it could invite improper practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is looking at me as if I had suddenly developed horns and a forked tail. I know that no proper English agency would ever behave in an improper way and that there are restrictions on its doing so, but we have to deal with the law as we are writing it and we ought not to be writing that kind of language into the law. These are small, but important, matters. A number of others will unquestionably arise at later stages. The principle of the Bill is not to be quarrelled with too much, but we need to recognise that we are doing yet another lap around the course of administrative superstructure between the Government and the countryside. We do these laps with monotonous regularity. I am afraid that my conclusion is that this is a race that will never end. There is no satisfactory outcome. There will be no winner. There is, however, a potential loser. As the control of the countryside moves from the countryside to centralised administrative structures, the potential loser is the countryside itself. That which the Government are seeking to conserve could end up being destroyed.