Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 2, line 17, at end insert—" ““(   )   In the event of any significant, irreconcilable conflict in the delivery of Natural England’s objectives, greater weight shall be given to those relating to the conservation of the natural environment.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, here we return to the issue of conflict, which has been very fully debated at various stages of the Bill. However, it still needs to be considered further, which is why I have tabled an amendment. On Report, there was some confusion about the Government’s position in response to the amendment that we had tabled. As a result, I reserved the right to take further advice and, if necessary, to return to the subject at Third Reading. As more and more rules, regulations, codes and strictures wind around our lives, it becomes ever more likely that irreconcilable positions will be assumed for the best of motives and in response to genuine interpretations of the law. We talk of Natural England as though it were a single entity such as a sculpture, but in fact it will be a body comprised of people each of whom will have a slightly different slant on any matter under discussion. They will be paid remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine, but they will not be employees. They will not be appointed because of their willingness to toe a line—at least I sincerely hope not. It is to be hoped that they will take a very independent stance. I believe that they will be people of independent mind with knowledge and expertise for the positions that they hold, but they will bring to those positions very different experiences and opinions. The purposes assigned to them will be the mainspring of their collective actions. The Secretary of State will issue directions or guidance that will tend to be fairly non-specific and couched in terms such as ““the board may””, if it is guidance, or ““the board must have regard to””, if they are directions. In those circumstances, a conflict resolution provision would give a firmer steer to Natural England. The issue could be viewed in the light, for example, of conserving and enhancing the natural landscape, or securing the provision of facilities for enjoyment of the natural environment. I have deliberately left out the words ““study”” and ““understanding”” because Clause 2(2)(c) does not make it clear whether all three requirements—““study, understanding and enjoyment””—have to be present at the same time. But that is a minor issue and presumably the Secretary of State will sort it out in her directions. I know that I am not alone in being concerned about the danger of conflict arising from these proposals. The EFRA Select Committee, speakers from all parties in another place and several noble Lords in Committee have all spoken in favour of some form of conflict resolution mechanism. None of us has sought to suggest that the process of decision making would be at fault, hence there would be no recourse to judicial review for anyone wishing to challenge a Natural England decision; nor has it been suggested that there should be an automatic prioritisation of the natural environment at all times. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ideas that are ““irreconcilable”” as,"““unable to be brought into harmony or made consistent””." We consider that neither the Countryside Commission nor the Nature Conservancy Council was given a brief which allowed for such opinion. English Nature and the Countryside Agency were not troubled by internal inconsistencies; they made recommendations which were either agreed to or ignored. To be a trenchant champion of the natural environment with a duty to contribute to social and economic well-being may nevertheless leave Natural England in a cleft stick, but our amendment would ensure that it could not happen. I emphasise that we do not anticipate this provision being used very much. We are concerned, however, as ““Farming Today”” stated this morning, that in instances of major conflict between government departments the argument should be brought clearly into the open. We support that: Natural England should not be called on to arbitrate in such circumstances. The Government should not be able to devolve their own responsibilities to it. We believe that, to be a champion of the natural environment, Natural England must be seen to be so. The most damaging event for its reputation will be an occasion where the board is unreconciled, the press is in hot pursuit, the Government are disclaiming responsibility and the various lobby groups are given tongue. I am sure that none of us wishes to see this solution being used at all, but I refer noble Lords to our debate on Report, when the Minister said:"““it would not be appropriate to cover conflict resolution in the statutory guidance””.—[Official Report, 15/3/06; col. 1275.]" If your Lordships remember, the Government did a U-turn; we were told one thing on Monday and something else on Thursday with no satisfactory explanation. I hope that the Minister will give us at least some form of explanation, because if it was not possible to do it through guidance then, I wonder what has changed or whether the thinking has changed. I seek clarity from the Minister. I beg to move.