Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, it is now several hours since my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer said that she was looking forward to the speeches in the debate. While that was chronologically a true statement, it was also an accurate statement in terms of the quality of the debate that we have had. In particular, we are grateful to the Minister for his clear and interesting—these matters are not always interesting—exposition of the Bill. We were privileged to hear the maiden speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who has such important local knowledge of his own part of the country, which is at the opposite end of England to mine, and we look forward to hearing further contributions from him, I hope, on the remaining stages of the Bill. I cannot continue without commenting on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who in his new role of gamekeeper-turned-poacher—a very friendly poacher—showed that he has lost none of his knowledge and expertise in this matter. Again, we are privileged that he considers it important enough to come back and share his knowledge and experience, despite the fact that he no longer sits on the Front Bench. The previous Bill on which I spoke at Second Reading was the Commons Bill, when I welcomed the Minister to the interesting experience of a Defra Bill in this House. The fact that he now has two Bills on the go at once suggests that he has a dedication beyond the normal and reasonable call of duty, and we hope that he bears up under the strain. My noble friend said that we welcomed the move to improve the natural environment, and of course we do, but we have some concerns about the Bill. We have to start off by asking, ““Is it right in principle?””; ““Is it sensible in practice in general?””; and, ““Will it actually work?””. The matters that the Bill covers are, by and large, right in principle. We have some concerns about the way in which it is proposed to deliver the provisions, particularly, as has been discussed, on the proposed CRC. We will have to discuss in considerable detail in Committee whether it will work. That is what we are there for. An overall concern, which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, is what some people have called the Government’s ““re-organisation mania””. Re-organisation is not always bad, and the re-organisation into Natural England makes a great deal of sense. However, there is a sense that the Government have the view that they must reform—““reform”” is the word of the day—and that they do so simply by re-organising the deckchairs. I am not by any means suggesting that Defra and its associated quangos resemble the ““Titanic””, but there is a sense that, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, the chaos engendered by that process is counterproductive if you do too much of it. There is an obsession with permanent change that causes us a great deal of concern. We would certainly go along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in his plea that when these changes have taken place they are given a considerable amount of time to settle down and to work in practice over a large number of years. We do not want people coming back in another four or five years wanting to throw it all up in the air again and see where it lands. My noble friend, who expressed concerns relating to Chapter 2 of Part 1 on the CRC, said that we were looking for—this is an apt metaphor—a grass-roots-upwards rural policy. There is a feeling that the quango structure that is proposed is top-down. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, we have to consider carefully in Committee whether it will take away more accountability from locally elected lay representatives. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why we are against what is being proposed. It is really down to a view of the nature of democracy and the nature of public policy-making and public administration in a democracy. It seems to us that a more grass-roots-upwards approach—a more democratic approach—is required, rather than the top-down approach that is being put forward. That is not to say that the top-down approach will not work in practice; it may work and if it comes about we will do whatever we can to help. Various noble Lords have discussed the rather strange title, ““Natural England””. We are told that it was the result of a competition among the staff. That is an argument against naming new quangos in that way, because it is always likely to come up with something odd. It is an odd name, although no one has yet suggested a different one. Perhaps someone will suggest one before we table amendments in Committee. It is the kind of title that the Government seem to like, which half means what it says but is not very clear about it. At least it is fairly clear what the Commission for Rural Communities is about; it is a name that people will understand and remember. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggested that ““Natural England”” was naff. That reminded me of the old slogan that people used to wave: ““MAFF is naff””. It was generally thought that that was why the department was called Defra instead of MAFF when it was reorganised. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, wants to call the body NE. I am not sure that that is a sensible idea. If it is to be called Natural England, let us call it Natural England, and not call it NE, which seems naffer than ever. It will all come out in the wash. One concern is the term ““natural environment””. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, very few environments in these islands are genuinely natural once you get outside the marine dimension—it was mentioned by the noble Baroness—in which some are arguably natural. Perhaps the summit plateaus of the Cairngorms are more or less in the condition in which they would be if there were no human beings on this island, but there are few others. ““Natural environment”” is not defined in the Bill, which simply assumes that we know what it means. I suspect that it is not defined because, if the Government tried to do so, they would get into all kinds of difficulties. We are really talking about vegetation and wildlife, but also about landscape. It is therefore a fairly vague term. The general purpose of Natural England and the five provisions set out in Clause 2(2) seem fairly sensible. They are sufficiently general not to require a detailed debate on which purposes should be superior and inferior. If we start getting into that debate, we will start to get into difficulty. They are sufficiently general that they can be applied in a sensible way to provide the necessary balance in particular circumstances, locations, pieces of land or local environments. I was a little alarmed when the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, started trying to put access on one hand against the environment on the other. There are enough safeguards in existing legislation, notably in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, to resolve those problems when they occur in particular circumstances. In one or two things that she said, she mixed up fairly low-level access—ramblers, climbers and people like that—with dramatic development, ruining the view and all the rest of it. We have to avoid getting too carried away with that, although I suspect that, in almost all circumstances, if she and I got together to resolve a situation on the ground, we would do so quite happily. There is not a great deal between us, and we should avoid trying to build up an ideological dispute on the subject when there really is not one. A number of noble Lords talked about the changes in the common agricultural policy and agri-environment schemes. I thought that I knew how the new system would work until I heard various noble Lords with different interpretations of it. Perhaps the Minister can help on exactly which of the Defra functions—the Rural Development Service, agri-environment schemes and so on—will be transferred to Natural England, and which will remain with Defra. We may need to go into that in rather more detail in Committee, so that we understand how the new system will work and, if we think it is wrong, we can say so and try to change the Government’s mind. I was going to say a great deal about the Commission for Rural Communities, but it is probably best if I save that until Committee. There is clearly a lot to be said in Committee about Part 6 and rights of way; my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will lead on that so far as we are concerned, but that is another part of the Bill that we have to understand, get right, and make the necessary changes to. We look forward to the new government proposals on that. The only other question on which I want to comment is that of flexible administrative arrangements, agreements with designated bodies and the whole of Part 8, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred. Part 8 seems to be a recipe for the Government—together with their friendly quangos—being able to do what they want in the area how they want, without coming to Parliament and without anyone apart from them agreeing to it. That is how it reads. The Minister is shaking his head; again, we look forward with some interest to the debates on that in Committee. This is an important Bill. It is a very technical Bill in many ways, but it raises considerable issues of important public policy. We understand that the Government have not yet decided whether they will take it on the Floor of the House or in Grand Committee; the Liberal Democrat Benches would be very strongly of the view that we ought to take it in a Committee of the whole House, given its importance, its range of issues, and the public interest in it. No doubt appropriate discussions will take place between the usual channels in due course about that. Having said that, we give the Bill a broad welcome—parts of it with great enthusiasm, and parts of it with reservations. We look forward very much to the Minister’s reply and to discussions in Committee.