Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I have been a rather wobbly supporter of the Sandford principle in the Bill’s context, mainly because the issue is more complex than it is in the case of national parks, where I am firmly behind Sandford. In Committee, the principle was going to apply only to Natural England’s first purpose, in the sense that it had precedence over the second purpose. That was a little odd, as at times it would be difficult to apply in such a situation. Under the noble Baroness’s amendment, it would apply to both purposes; at least, that is my reading of it. On Report, the noble Baroness referred to a letter in which the countryside Minister, Mr Jim Knight, had made a proposal. I received a copy of the letter, as did others, and I thought the proposal a sensible solution and a better way of dealing with the matter, because it took a more flexible approach. It turned out to be a red herring, because the Minister withdrew it, as we have just heard. I do not know what the problem was, but it was a pity that that happened. I would prefer to go back to that proposal. However, here we are back to square one, although not quite, because the amendment that we have before us is different from the one in Committee in a significant respect: it is wider. The amendment has three key features. First, it applies to the first two purposes as against the remaining three, to which I indirectly referred. It therefore deals with my original worry on how in practice we can deal with differences between purpose 1 and purpose 2—or (a) and (b), as it is in the Bill—or whether we would want to or even should. Secondly, the issue has to be significant; that is important. Thirdly, the conflict has to be irreconcilable; whatever is proposed must be incompatible with one of the last three purposes, as I have said before. That is a demanding test. The occasions when such a conflict occurs will be rare or at least fairly infrequent. The most likely cause will, I guess, be cases of unlimited access across an important SSSI, where irredeemable damage would be done. In most such cases, the issue would be resolved by limiting access—for example, by time of year, time of day or locationally. In other words, most such issues can be resolved by limiting access rather than by instituting a complete ban. The other area of conflict might have to do with economic development masquerading under the banner of the fifth purpose. I am left with one niggling worry: will it open the flank to the threat of judicial review? I am prepared to put up with that risk, so on balance I will go for the amendment if the noble Baroness divides the House. The guidance of Sandford is useful. Unlike the Minister, I do not think that it will unduly cramp the style of the new board.