Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 125. On page 47 there is a great list of things which Natural England has to do every year. A point that should be added is that that can become discretionary—that is, people can include in their annual report what they choose to put in it, rather than covering all the matters that are of importance. The value of the amendment is that it suggests that any report made should cover the whole waterfront and not be too selective. In Amendment No. 128 I am away from weighty philosophical matters. It may be that the Minister will be able to relax and say, ““Thank goodness, we are down to practicalities””. That leaves me to hope that he will have no problem in agreeing to my amendment. It intends to bring the relationship between Natural England and interested bodies into a better balance. Clause 3(2) currently reads:"““When reviewing any matter, Natural England must consult such bodies as appear to it to have an interest in the matter””." The wording is slightly different in the Explanatory Notes, which say that Natural England,"““consults bodies that it considers to have an interest””." If the amendment were approved, the subsection would read:"““When reviewing any matter, Natural England must consult such bodies as have an interest in the matter””." It is clear that the Bill, when enacted primarily as an enabling measure, will give rise to many declarations of interest, some of which are unpredictable and some of which can be controversial. For example, gardens are not much mentioned, yet the Royal Horticultural Society undoubtedly has an interest. No doubt Natural England would be willing to talk to the Royal Horticultural Society, but what about the horticultural development and research association or the Centre for Alternative Technology? Both have an interest in biodiversity and conservation. As drafted, the clause gives Natural England what amounts to a veto. Its officials will be busy people and would be able to say, ““Well, with regret, we did not consider at the time that you had an interest””. Any such conclusion would be subjective and difficult to challenge. As amended, Natural England would need to give due attention and weight to representations made to it, rather than being able to decide with whom it communicates. No doubt Natural England would be strong enough to safeguard its own position. Therefore, it does not need this right to decide unilaterally. This right is also undemocratic.