Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

It is late at night to be having such a passionate argument, but this is an important issue and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for having raised it. I am going to disappoint the Committee tonight and I shall try to explain as briefly as I can why that is so. I start with Clause 40, which places a duty on all public bodies and statutory agencies to have regard to conserving biodiversity in the normal exercise of their functions. The definition of conservation in the Bill includes restoring and enhancing habitats and populations of living species. Amendment No. 277 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would change that duty to require public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity. Noble Lords will know that there were interesting discussions on this topic during the Bill’s passage through another place. As was said at Standing Committee there, the Government are comfortable that the existing words are strong enough to encourage public bodies to integrate biodiversity into their functions. The clause as it stands aims to enhance biodiversity conservation in England and Wales through improved integration into decision-making processes in the public sector. Although the duty does not pre-judge the outcomes for biodiversity, it should mean that decisions are more beneficial for the conservation of biodiversity than they might otherwise have been. As we are primarily trying to tackle instances where biodiversity loses out or is forgotten because it is simply not taken into account or considered, we believe that this duty is sufficient. An example given at Standing Committee in another place looked at local authorities and planning applications. Currently 67 per cent of local authorities do not include questions on biodiversity within their planning applications. This new duty, as set out in the clause, would address that. In short, our view is that the duty to ““have regard””, as set out in the clause, is the most appropriate response. I was asked why we are against strengthening this duty to ““furthering””, which appears in the amendment. We think that the provision as drafted strikes a balance between stakeholder views and provides for a duty that raises the profile of biodiversity and consolidates and clarifies existing statutory requirements without creating a new burden. With this duty—this is significant—we are trying to tackle instances where biodiversity is inadvertently damaged through not being considered in decision-making processes, and we are trying to cultivate a higher awareness of biodiversity so that positive outcomes are more likely. We have incorporated complete flexibility in delivery to stimulate innovation, so public bodies may go further if they want to. In those cases, they will realise the social, economic and environmental benefits that healthy diversity brings. We have incorporated complete flexibility in delivery to stimulate innovation, so public bodies may go further if they want to. In those cases, they will realise the social, economic and environmental benefits that healthy diversity brings. I was reminded of the Scottish experience. Thankfully it is not my place to comment on the practice of the devolved administrations. However, public bodies in this country and in Wales would be free to go beyond the duty,"““to have regard . . . to the purpose of conserving biodiversity””." In some cases, we know that they do so already. The Ministry of Defence, which I know reasonably well, and which was referred to in the debate, is an example. It is developing a biodiversity strategy across the UK defence estate. It is also MoD policy that all sites with a designated or protected species must have an MoD conservation group to advise on that nature conservation interest. If it is suggested that we are not doing a great deal for biodiversity, I would dispute that. We are doing a lot. That is an apt demonstration of how the duty to ““have regard”” delivers real benefits for biodiversity. There is no evidence—none has been put before us tonight—that the wording of the duty is not sufficient. We are, in effect, being asked to tell public authorities that they have to promote biodiversity. We support and encourage the promotion of biodiversity. We expect the duty on public authorities to result in raised awareness of biodiversity issues. None the less, while it will be appropriate for some public bodies, such as local authorities, to be involved in biodiversity, it may not be appropriate for others. For example, it may not be appropriate to expect a fire authority to be involved in the promotion of biodiversity issues. The generic nature of the duty allows appropriate flexibility in delivery, and allows public bodies to implement it in the way most relevant to their functions and opportunities open to them. Adding the requirement to promote biodiversity will only add complexity to the duty and make it harder to define what a public authority has to do to comply. I know that there is a lot of support for local authorities’ role in this field, but strengthening the duty further, as proposed in the amendment, would raise difficult questions for local authorities. I wonder whether they have been fully considered. Under such a duty, a local authority could be faced with a decision between two projects: one that is good for biodiversity, but bad in other ways; and one that is neutral. Would the authority be obliged to approve the first project? Those are the kind of issues that the courts would have to consider.