Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I have much sympathy with this amendment. The clause as drafted is a typical example of the Government over-gilding their legislation. As a young, novice farmer I well remember the introduction of hormone weedkillers. They were introduced to kill extremely common, pernicious weeds which grew then in all cereal crops. Those weeds were also hosts to many insects which were the main food for a variety of wild animals. The English partridge, in particular, comes to mind. Effectively, within five years of the introduction of hormone weedkillers, it disappeared in this country. We cannot foretell the future, but what is sure is that none of the weeds killed by those hormone weedkillers would ever have appeared on a list of ““principal importance”” as put forward in this clause. They were just extremely common, pernicious weeds. The fact is that technology moved on and we found a way of ridding our fields of a particularly difficult problem in relation to agricultural production, a side effect of which was that a bird that had previously been common across most of the countryside effectively disappeared. The use of the word ““principal”” is, in my view, completely superfluous. The noble Baroness is right to table the amendment and I believe the Government need to consider the position very carefully.