Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I am grateful to the Minister for seeking a little quiet so that I can move my amendment. Clause 41 refers to the Secretary of State drawing up lists of organisms and types of habitat, which is a good idea. However, the clause refers to,"““organisms and types of habitat . . . of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity””." I would argue that when we consider biodiversity or ecosystems, it is hard to see that any one part is unnecessary and therefore not of principal importance. For example, the small organism at the bottom of the food chain, which may not in the opinion of the Secretary of State be of principal importance, still plays its part. Meanwhile the animal at the top of the food chain, sometimes ourselves or perhaps the big raptors or cats and similar types of creature, depends on the chain holding all the way through. So where this clause refers to ““principal importance””, I believe it is simply wrong. It is wrong because everything must be considered to be of equal importance in creating both the food chain and contributing to the ecosystem. I take by way of example what it takes to create a fertile soil in woodland. The soil is created by the action of small insects such as ants breaking down leaf matter. Does the Secretary of State consider ants in woodland to be of principal importance? So the word ““principal”” as it is used in this clause demonstrates that the Government are not thinking correctly about the lists they intend to draw up. On habitats, surely we have lists of principal importance in the SSSIs and in all the European designations of habitats that are already in place. I wonder whether the energy and expense put into drawing up further lists is energy and expense well used. In conclusion, I return to a matter that we have discussed previously in Committee. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is to suffer a drastic across-the-board cut for exactly this type of work—maintaining lists and building databases. As I understand it, that is exactly the sort of record keeping that the Government are now proposing to introduce in Clause 41, except that, in the past, the work recognised the wholeness of the ecosystem and the wholeness of biodiversity. Work was done to build very broad databases and in-depth studies were carried out on particular species. This clause, as drafted, takes away that ability and makes us concentrate solely on points that the Secretary of State regards as of ““principal importance””. I believe that that is entirely the wrong way of thinking. I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain why there is such wording in the Bill. I beg to move.