Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I remind Members of the Committee of the interests that I declared last week, in our debate on Wednesday, as chairman of the South Downs Joint Committee, which is a bringing together of the Countryside Agency locally, the Sussex Downs AONB and the East Hampshire AONB. I have listened very carefully to the passionate remarks in favour of the CRC made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who speaks with a great deal of experience, having been chairman of the Countryside Agency. I find myself with something of a paradox when thinking about the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has initiated. Of course, there is the instinct in me that, when the disappearance of the Countryside Agency was announced—that is, its merging with English Nature and the Rural Development Service of Defra—I assumed that there would be just one new body. That was very much the purpose behind the report prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—and I am sorry that he cannot be with us today. But what confused and amazed him was the number of different sources within Defra that put subsidy and money into the countryside. I think that he said there were something like 80 different ways in which a farmer or rural community might get money from Defra, either directly or through the Countryside Agency. He thought, rightly, that this was nonsense and far too complex. He made the comment, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will remember, that in some cases the Countryside Agency spent more money on administering the grant to the rural community than the value of the grant itself. There must be an instinct in some of us who have the privilege of living in the countryside, and to some extent working in it, of wondering whether the CRC is necessary. Would it not be better to merge its functions with Natural England? Would that not save some government money, which could go to the farming community instead? Let us imagine that I went round some of the small farmers in the lucky part of England where I live, who are so worried at the moment about low cereal prices; about what is going to happen when their single farm payment is reduced, as it is likely to be over the next seven years; and about whether, to go back to the point that we discussed at Question Time yesterday, there is going to be enough money from Pillar 2 of the CAP for all the green farming initiatives that they are being encouraged to take up. If I told them not to worry, because the Government are starting a Commission for Rural Communities, whose purpose is to do just the things that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has described—to rural-proof and create awareness among relevant persons in the public of rural needs—they would laugh. They would say, ““Big deal. What on earth is that going to do for us? We want to know what price we are going to get for our crop in two or three years’ time. We want to know what the CRC is going to do for us, if the CAP is reformed””—as we are all pressing for—““when we are totally dependent on the EU subsidy that we get to be profitable””. We have to face that fact. There is a danger at the moment—and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has a rather charming tendency towards this—of making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. That would actually be very good green farming policy, if one could do it. Life ahead for farmers is difficult, and will get worse before it gets better. There has to be a total rethink among small farmers in this country over what they will grow, how they will market it, and how at the end of the day they will make a profit that might keep their family in the farm rather than going off to do something else. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who was a devoted chairman of the Countryside Agency, and worked hard on it, what he thinks this new body will do that the Countryside Agency did not. Why will the new body be better? That is the argument against. On the other hand, there is the definite thought that, as the right reverend Prelate put it—more eloquently than I am doing—we live on a very small island. Those who live in rural areas are very close to those in urban centres, but the needs of rural communities, particularly of the rural disadvantaged, are very different because of rural isolation and changes in demography, apart from the monetary facts I have just cited. At the same time we fully understand now how the quality of life of those who live in urban areas and the state of the economy are so dependent on the quality of the countryside and the communities nearby. There is a tremendous inter-mix between the two. I must not go on. This debate is not Second Reading; it is specifically about leaving out a clause. I would be interested, when the noble Lord, Lord Bach, answers, to have his views briefly on the points that have been made, and particularly on what the new CRC’s budget will be. How much money will it have, and how much will it spend? Is it not at least questionable that that money could be better spent in a more direct way in helping, for example, the farming community?