Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his proposed amendments, which seek to clarify the focus of the CRC in meeting rural needs. He proposes an alternative version of Clause 18(1)(b) in his Amendment No. 103. That subsection gives the CRC a remit to raise awareness of the needs of rural England among public authorities and other bodies and to promote sustainable ways of meeting those needs which underpin our commitment to promoting sustainable development. The Bill puts meeting rural needs first and makes clear that meeting these needs should be done by the CRC in ways which contribute to sustainable development. The proposed amendment seems to turn that around, placing the emphasis on achieving sustainable development. To us, that does not seem quite right. The goal of putting sustainable development into practice by integrating environmental, social and economic objectives drives everything that Defra and its agencies do and the principle was restated in the 2004 rural strategy. The Bill will give statutory underpinning to this agenda by requiring Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to seek to contribute to sustainable development through the functions that each perform. In the case of the CRC, the function it will perform should be the promotion of meeting rural needs, as set out in the Bill, while paying due regard to sustainable development. In Amendments Nos. 104, 107 and 109, the noble Duke suggests adding an explicit environmental responsibility to the CRC’s purpose—we have touched on this at previous stages of the Bill—but, rather than have equal regard to the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainability, the CRC for its part will focus primarily on the social and economic needs of these communities. I can assure noble Lords that the CRC will not, however, be looking at social and economic needs in isolation from environmental issues because a thriving rural economy is inextricably linked to a thriving rural environment. While it will not be responsible for pursuing environmental goals directly, the CRC, we hope, will work to encourage others to consider such issues in a holistic approach to developing sustainable solutions for rural communities. In Amendments Nos. 105 and 108, the noble Duke suggests a slight qualification of the CRC’s target audience, as it were, narrowing it to persons ““living in rural areas””, rather than the broader ““persons in rural areas””. In assessing rural needs, the CRC is tasked with considering the interests of all those who live and work in rural areas, as well as those who visit such areas for recreational purposes. This goes far wider than the focus on just those living—that is to say, resident—in rural areas that seems to have been proposed. I am sure that he would not want the CRC to ignore the needs of the rural tourist industry on which so many rural livelihoods depend and which is susceptible to many factors outside its control. Nor do we believe that the CRC should ignore the needs of migrant workers, who, of course, make a valuable contribution to the rural economy in many parts of England. The CRC must be all about the many different people who live in, work in, visit and otherwise contribute to our rural communities. We do not think that just living there should be the test. For these reasons and arguments, I invite the noble Duke to consider withdrawing his amendment.