Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall move a little closer to the microphone, which might help. Having dealt with high principles, the future of the House and a few other things in a debate that descended somewhat from my perspective, we now return to the detail of a Bill. In this group of amendments, we come to what we should be doing when we draft legislation. I am talking about the use of the English language and precision in the meaning of Bills. Part 1 of the Bill is entitled:"““Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities””." That could be read all sorts of ways. It is very imprecise and it could be positively misleading. It could perfectly properly be saying that Natural England is a function of the Commission for Rural Communities, but that is not what the Bill is about at all. One has to read the script following on from that title to find out what this is about. I therefore have a problem with the use of this brand-name title for Natural England. I know that the Minister will say that the predecessor organisations have chosen the name. They are perfectly entitled to have their say, but we are not dictating what they should call themselves but, in effect, we are writing their birth certificate. I have a birth certificate and, from time to time, I am called on to produce it to prove who I am, say, in a legal matter or sometimes in matters concerned with the Government. Nothing that appears on my birth certificate includes anything that I am normally called. That may seem to be a mystery, but it is no less a fact. I am called ““Bill”” by most of my close colleagues and that name does not appear on my birth certificate, and I am called ““Lord Dixon-Smith”” on more formal occasions and that does not appear on my birth certificate, but everyone knows perfectly well who I am. The title ““Natural England”” is not a natural title; Natural England is not a natural body. It is a wholly artificial creation; it is a government agency. For the life of me, I cannot see why we do not call it that. Of course, if subsequently it decides that it wants to be called by some abbreviated name, that is perfectly all right and it can do that. Here we are dealing with legislation which should be both precise and clear. That is precisely what Part 1 of the Bill is not. I am sorry that it takes a group of 90 amendments to rectify the situation. Once again, I give my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its help in deciding all the places the Bill has to be amended so that it should appear before us in proper English, in a manner that can be understood. When we discussed this matter in Committee, I put forward two different titles. This time I have put forward only one title. We should be consistent in what we are doing. I think Natural England should be called ““Commission for Natural England””. That would precisely describe what it is, an entirely human organisation, an entirely human creation, a government agency, or whatever one chooses to call it. ““Commission for Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities”” would be a consistent and understandable title for Part 1 of the Bill. In my view,"““Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities””," is certainly very unclear and not an appropriate title to appear in legislation. I beg to move.