Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, as deputy president of the Countryside Alliance, I consider that this Bill is a distraction from the real issues facing the countryside today. I am certain that the Minister recognises it—he knows much too much about the rural community—but he has been landed with this Bill, which is nothing more than a new layer of bureaucracy. Does the Bill deal with the devastation of the countryside by wind farms? They produce very little electricity and when sited offshore cost more per unit than nuclear power stations, as was made perfectly clear in our debate last week. Does the Bill deal with the fact that every local newspaper is full of advertisements for new agricultural machinery because farmers are now contracting out their cultivations in the hope of trying to survive? Does the Bill deal with the squeeze that supermarkets are having on farm prices, the removal of subsidies and the ever-increasing red tape made worse by this Bill? Does the appointment of Sir Martin Doughty achieve anything? He has refused to meet or listen to the Countryside Alliance, which is a major player in the countryside today. We should spare a thought also for the rural community as a whole. It and the family farm are fast disappearing. Natural England would provide a single focus for those who manage and protect our countryside and green spaces. It will only be effective if it incorporates all dimensions of land management. We need a proper balance between social, economic and environmental priorities. The Bill offers greater protection to wildlife, but not in the right way. It does so by increased penalties, which is not the way to go. We have had a compromise reached on cormorants nesting inland. We have come to an agreement about the culling of Canada geese. We have to reach an agreement about hen harriers—some form of translocation. The economic and social consequences of an increase in the harrier population are unacceptable. The Bill concentrates on compliance rather than making a commitment to work with local land management committees. This is contrary to the Government’s commitment to work with local communities to attain sustainable development. I am, as others were, particularly concerned about Part 6 dealing with rights of way, which seems to have been tacked on to the Bill without proper consultation. If a path has been freely used by the public for 20 years, it becomes a right of way. That can only be stopped if a legal procedure is followed. The issue of rights of way for mechanically powered vehicles has caused considerable trouble over the years. That is because of the status of the path and partly because of the increasingly powerful vehicles, which have a disruptive effect that is much more than was originally envisaged. Clause 61 would prevent a new right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles being created. There are many complex issues in the Bill, and its impact could be fatally compromised by trying to do too much. Will it make a difference in protecting and delivering for wildlife, landscaping and ensuring a better way of life in rural communities? I doubt it very much; it is another layer of bureaucracy that will achieve very little.