Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I support my noble friend in his desire to have a wake-up call on the needs of not only conserving and preserving the countryside, but also to look at the effect that climate change will have on that very countryside. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 49 to 52, which are in the group. Amendment No. 49 raises an issue again, but with a subtle difference. We believe that this amendment would improve greatly Natural England’s natural purpose clause. The amendment would replace ““conserve”” with ““protect””. The difference between the two words is crucial; the word ““protect”” defines an active stance and, in the opinion of the CPRE standing council it makes the legal difference by placing a duty on Natural England actively to protect the landscape. In contrast, the word ““conserve”” defines a more passive stance, whereby the status quo is kept intact without a really active engagement. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, stated that, although the word ““protect”” is used in reference to biodiversity, it would not be applicable to landscape. She went on to say that using the word ““protecting”” in relation to biodiversity would prevent any,"““claims that Natural England should support activities that may enhance biodiversity adversely””.—[Official Report, 30/1/06; col. 118.]" She said that she had no intention of weakening that position. But she stated, too, that biodiversity and landscape were on an equal playing field and that one was not more important than the other. So it is not clear to me why they cannot be treated with the same terminology. Further to this, in the Government’s documents, the necessity is pointed out of using the word ““protect””. The Planning Policy Statement 7, published in 2004, in one of its key aims states:"““The Government’s objectives for rural areas are to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of the continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental resources””." We believe that our amendment would ensure the future sustainability of the landscape but, in the light of that statement, it seems a sensible addition to the Bill that would join up the Government’s aims in protecting the landscape across the board. Referring again to the PPS7, and enlarging on it, as it is the Government’s official planning policy, under their key principles on page 7, under 1(iv), they say that,"““the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all””." It therefore seems curious to us, and to the CPRE, that reference in the planning policy for local authorities should be stronger than that in Natural England’s statutory duty, which I have to say I still find puzzling. Our next two amendments seek to leave out ““in other ways”” in one case and, in the other, to leave out,"““contributing in other ways to””," and to insert,"““supporting rural communities in furtherance of””." Paragraphs (a) and (d) of subsection (2) contain fairly robust aims. I am sure that we would agree exactly what, for example,"““conserving and enhancing the landscape””," involves. ““Protecting biodiversity”” or ““encouraging open-air recreation”” are concepts that we can all comprehend, and some of your Lordships have great skills to ensure that those sorts of plans are implemented. After that, ““contributing in other ways”” seems rather vague and wishy-washy and, I would have thought, difficult to justify. Our suggestion for improvement is twofold: either simply to leave out ““in other ways”” or to reiterate Natural England’s affinity with the countryside by giving it a duty to support the work of rural communities in improving their social and economic well-being. I am sure that I am not the only one in this House who receives a constant and unrelenting stream of correspondence from people and organisations who consider that I can be of assistance in their efforts to improve social justice and the workings of the DWP, and the performance of a whole range of service providers, including the protection of our small post offices. It is quite clear that all is not well in our villages, small towns and in our countryside. Nor is it at all well, by any means, for there to be the continuing and growing problems of fly-tipping, litter and the flouting of planning laws, which obviously brings additional difficulties. We had a long debate on the substance of Amendment No. 52 in Committee. I said then, and I shall say again, that this is perhaps one of the most important amendments—and it is a matter of balance. I was grateful for the wide range of support that I received from noble Lords when we dealt with the matter in Committee. Some noble Lords suggested that our amendment might be more effective if it had been slightly redrafted. Having gone through the record for those days, I have come back with a slightly different wording, which I hope will encourage noble Lords’ continued support and perhaps gain support from others. The amendment is quite clear now. It is only in the event of significant conflict that Natural England would have to prioritise its objectives relating to conservation and the environment. The Minister said in Committee:"““Instances of irreconcilable conflict between access and conservation are rare in practice””.—[Official Report, 1/2/06; col. 258.]" That is the basis of introducing a conflict resolution provision—that it will be used only in those rare instances when Natural England and those other organisations are in a check mate situation. The amendment is emphatically not about giving an environment conservation priority on a day-to-day basis—and I stress that—or in giving conservation automatic precedence or a greater funding priority. I am only well aware that sustainable development is dependent not only on conserving the environment but on the social and economic factors as well. Natural England will be one among many. It is far from the only organisation that will be involved in the process of the decision-making or in resolving conflicts of interest. I am sure that in 99.9 per cent of instances that irreconcilable conflict would associate only with proposals by third parties rather than within Natural England itself. Natural England might be involved as a consultee or a stakeholder in the case of development of a policy or management proposal. The Minister made the point in Committee that no other organisation with statutory duty for conservation had a conflict resolution clause. I suggest that no other organisation has been given such a broad remit. The Minister mentioned the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Agency. When established, however, Natural England will be the sole statutory body for England charged with defending and enhancing the natural environment. It is concerned with all the issues that those agencies cover, and much more. It is precisely because of the contradictory nature of the definition that we believe this amendment is needed. The EFRA Select Committee suggested that the conflict resolution and policy implementation would be the job of government offices for the regions, yet at present I understand that those offices do not have the capacity to take on this role. The Minister might clarify that for me. In the absence of that support, Natural England, as the Minister has stated, will be the major champion of the environment, and should have the teeth to implement it. Along those lines, the Minister also gave an indication in Committee that he would undertake to put conflict resolution on the agenda in discussions with the Natural England confederation about statutory guidance. For the interest of other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, Jim Knight, who saw me on Monday this week, along with my honourable friend Jim Pace. He indicated that great thought had been given to this situation. I know the Minister will come back on this, but for the sake of the House I will repeat what was said in the letter sent to me on 13 March on conflict resolution:"““In Committee debate on Natural England’s purpose, (the Minister) promised to consider the inclusion of principles for dealing with conflict resolution in Statutory Guidance. We have done this””—" they have given it consideration—"““and concluded that it would meet several of the concerns expressed by noble Lords, while preserving the flexibility and independence of Natural England’s Board which we consider important””." The Minister should be able to respond to that at this stage. The Minister, Jim Knight, went on to say:"““I would stress that the Bill requires draft statutory guidance to be consulted on very widely before being finalised””," but he wanted to raise this issue with me. Subsequently the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has spoken to me, and I understand that circumstances have slightly altered. In fairness to him, and also to Jim Knight, I should make the House aware that I was made aware, at 3 o’clock today, that perhaps there is a change of heart. However, I hope that setting out why we think our amendment is important reflects the position we find ourselves in at this moment. I end up by having supported my noble friend in his amendment, and spoken to the other amendments standing in my name in this group.