Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, we have had another excellent debate around the topic of Natural England’s purposes. I take the view that each of these amendments is quite separate from another, dealing with different issues but on the common topic of Natural England’s purpose. I am quite sure that they are not consequential on each other in any way. Before I start addressing the matters that have been spoken about so well—it has been an example of the House of Lords at its best—we are all glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, back in his place. We missed him very much in Committee, although I have a feeling that he will make up for that during the rest of our hearings today and next week. So that noble Lords know our view, I say straight away that, although we understand and sympathise with many of the points made today, we do not agree that they should be dealt with in the Bill—with one possible exception, which I will come to in due course. As I said in Committee, Natural England’s purpose has been carefully drafted to be broad and enabling and to give Natural England the flexibility and independence to champion the natural environment. At the same time, Natural England is given the responsibility to find ways of doing such things so that wherever possible its environmental work also contributes to social and economic goals and, therefore, to sustainable development. Having said that, I have heard some powerful arguments since Committee, not least in today’s debate, and the House may be pleased to hear that I am not going to be dogmatic in considering this clause. Let us look at the amendments in turn. The effects of Amendment No. 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would be to make it clear that taking action in the countryside to assist in containing global warming was part of Natural England’s general purpose. No one could be more forthright or eloquent on the subject of global warming than the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and for that the House owes him a debt. That climate change is a vital issue is a given. Government expect Natural England, in common with all other public bodies, to play an active role in combating those effects. The issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, put it, is whether this would be a remit too far for Natural England. However, climate change has a wide-ranging agenda and one in which, frankly, Natural England would not be the lead player. As a key element of the broader sustainable development agenda, climate change would be an important part of the context in which Natural England operates. There is no doubt that relevant action to mitigate climate change could fall within Natural England’s general purpose, but it will approach it from the point of view of an organisation whose functions, powers and expertise lie in environmental management. The items listed in Clause 2, at subsections (2)(a) to (e), are a selection of the things contained within Natural England’s general purpose. The list could be made very much longer, but that would not necessarily increase its value as a means of clarifying the role of Natural England. Our view is that this amendment falls into that category. Amendment No. 49 is based upon the premise that the change of wording makes it stronger. I am afraid that I cannot accept that. Indeed, I believe that within the current wording Natural England could do all that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggests. Since the 1940s, ““conserve”” has been applied to landscape and natural beauty, including wildlife. References in existing landscape legislation to ““conserve”” and ““enhance”” have not curtailed the ability of the Countryside Agency to take action to preserve and/or protect landscapes should that be required. A further point is that neither the agency nor its predecessor, the Countryside Commission, have indicated at any time that they have been restricted by the use of ““conserve””. Amendment No. 50 would amend Clause 2(e) to make ““rural communities”” the focus of Natural England’s efforts to promote,"““social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment””." I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government are a passionate supporter of rural communities—the noble Baroness certainly is. That is why the Government are setting up the Commission for Rural Communities. However, Natural England’s interests are not confined to communities in rural areas. I believe that the rationale here, if not the wording, is something that we can look at further—to give added impetus to Natural England in its work with and for local communities, both rural and urban. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I am happy to take it away and, if I can find acceptable wording—discussing it with her before—then bring back a government amendment on Third Reading. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation of Amendment No. 51. We were not sure of the rationale for the amendment, unless it was to make clear that Natural England could also promote social and economic well-being through the carrying out of the other strands of its general purpose. While Natural England can and will, in some cases, promote social and economic well-being through its other activities, we do not believe that the current form of wording—which would hence be less restrictive—would rule out a more innovative approach, if that were appropriate. Amendment No. 52 is, as the noble Baroness said in her speech, very important. We covered conflict resolution in depth in Committee and I do not want to reiterate all the arguments. However, I must begin with an apology—which I do. As promised in Committee, we have considered whether it would be appropriate to guide Natural England on how to deal with conflicts between different aspects of its purpose in the statutory guidance which Clause 15 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to give. In order to assist our discussions tonight, my honourable friend Jim Knight circulated on Monday an example of the way in which this might be done. He said at the end of his letter that it was as an example of how conflict resolution might be covered, not as a draft for approval. To give noble Lords time to consider this, it was sent out, frankly, before we had completed our consideration of its merits. I have to tell the House that the conclusion of that consideration is that it would not be appropriate to cover conflict resolution in the statutory guidance. So, the note noble Lords received is no longer relevant to what I am about to say. I apologise for the inconvenience. Let me start with the core of our response: Natural England will be—the word has been used before, and I say it again unashamedly—a trenchant champion of the natural environment. No one reading the purpose in Clause 2 can be in any doubt, I would argue, that Natural England is an environmental organisation. It is about managing and enhancing places and nature and about encouraging people to enjoy and benefit from them. It will make decisions in the context of sustainable development. Through its environmental work, Natural England will contribute to sustainable development by actively seeking economic and social benefits for present and future generations. Sustainable development cannot be delivered by social, economic or environmental work on its own. We believe that Clause 2 and the Explanatory Notes—which I have just summarised—provide the right framework for the board of Natural England to decide how to address the diverse range of complex issues which will come to it for decision. As has been said in this debate, it will build its own reputation and it must be allowed to do that. It will be one of the Government’s key advisers on managing the natural environment. We maintain the view that it would not be right to constrain the judgment of the board on the face of the Bill in the way proposed in Amendment No. 52; nor should it be exposed to the threat of judicial review on this ground for every decision that it takes. I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has significantly adjusted the amendment she brought forward in Committee to refer to ““significant””, ““irreconcilable”” conflicts. I promised to go away and give thought to whether conflict resolution in those very rare situations could be dealt with appropriately in the statutory guidance which the Secretary of State can give to Natural England under Clause 15. Our conclusion, after considerable thought, was that it would not. We were looking for a form of words to include in statutory guidance that would, first, not unduly limit Natural England’s independence; or, secondly, not encourage it to pay any less heed to the social and economic implications of its activities and thus not contribute as fully as it could to sustainable development; or, thirdly, put it at undue risk of judicial review. We were not able to do that to our satisfaction. I recognise that this is a matter of judgment, but that is our firm conclusion. Returning to our overall aim, we are trying to strike the right balance—for once, I did not completely agree with what my noble friend Lord Judd said about balance—and it is the right thing to aim for. Of course he is right to say that those who put forward economic arguments for change in the countryside do so with great passion, but if I have learnt one thing in my few months in this job, it is that those who put forward an environmental argument do so with equal, if not sometimes greater, passion. So it is a question of striking the right balance between Natural England’s independence to make its own judgments as an expert on the natural environment—something many noble Lords have stressed when discussing other provisions in the Bill—and establishing a clear framework within which it will operate, which is important to its many customers and stakeholders, as well as to Ministers and Parliament to whom it is ultimately accountable. The combination of Clause 2, as drafted, and the Explanatory Notes to which I referred, does the job. On the basis of those arguments, and those that have been put forward during an excellent debate, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords not to move theirs.