Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, like most landowners and caretakers I have been a client of numerous government agencies, not only complying with their aims but also receiving funds to help achieve them—an experience not always to be recommended. Like other noble Lords I welcome the establishment of Natural England—NE—and its aims of managing and enhancing the natural environment from seabed to mountaintop, more efficiently and with lower costs, we hope. There has long been too much overlap between English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Forestry Commission and the Rural Development Service. Consolidation will provide a simpler interface for the clients and a clear list of objectives. Most important are the promotion of natural conservation and protection of biodiversity, the improvement of facilities for studying and enjoying nature, the promotion of sustainable use of the countryside through access and recreation, and the contribution to economic well being through the management of the natural environment—at less cost to the taxpayer and client, one hopes, than has been the case recently. However, there are three points that I should like to raise. First, there is currently no recourse in the Bill to arbitration should a landowner or caretaker disagree with the remit of NE. Given that many such disagreements could easily be resolved through arbitration, it would seem economically and practically prudent to put such a system in place rather than forcing every such challenge to be addressed directly to the Secretary of State, a complex procedure that is not available to many owing to the cost. Secondly, it is important that landowners be given some flexibility in carrying out the wishes of NE while accepting the need to conform to the aims and directions of NE. Too heavy a hand in the minutiae of execution is rarely productive. In short, while NE should set the aim, the client should be allowed to achieve the aim in his own way. Clients usually have great experience in their field and derive much enjoyment from the challenges of management. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, most of our countryside is man made. The maker is surely well qualified to manage it. Finally, the NERC Bill fails to clarify whether enhancing or conserving the environment should be considered the priority. Indeed, what is the definition of ““enhancing”” and ““conserving””? I am sure there will be a discussion—a little discussion—in Committee. Likewise, there is some ambiguity about whether wildlife or human access to the countryside should take precedence. The Woodland Trust and the CPRE are among others that would like to see a conflict resolution clause that makes it clear that when there is a serious or irreconcilable conflict between open-air recreation and conserving the natural environment, NE will give the greater weight to conserving the natural environment. I listened earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, articulate similar views. On the other hand, the Central Council of Physical Recreation believes that,"““access and recreation [should] . . . be given equal consideration as conservation and biodiversity””." I therefore believe that the Bill would be the better for clarification in this important area.