Clause 2 - General purpose
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
11:30 am
James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Forth. I was not planning to say any more than my slightly more significant earlier contribution. This is a pretty critical part of the proposals.
Amendment No. 39 would replace the phrase “contributing to sustainable development” in subsection (1). There are different views about whether that is the right phrase, including those of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Country Landowners Association, the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers Union, who say, with considerable force, that the phrase is not sufficiently strong and that it should be replaced with “promoting sustainable development”, for example. Views have also been expressed by organisations including the group known as Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust.
The Country Landowners Association said that it
“strongly believes that the remit for Natural England should be a more straightforward one to contribute to sustainable development. This does not weaken the primary purpose...rather it reminds the agency that true sustainability is a three-legged stool and that in order to achieve environmental objectives the agency should work within the bounds of practicalities of individual businesses.”
It goes on to refer to the development of environmental stewardship schemes over the last 10 to 15 years under Governments of both parties, which have delivered considerable environmental benefits.
The NFU said:
“We believe there is merit in placing emphasis in the definition of its general purpose on working with rural communities business and farmers,”
which relates to some of the amendments. In contrast, other organisations, such as the Wildlife Trust, support the wording in the clause which refers to Natural England contributing to sustainable development; the Woodland Trust and others made similar comments.
There is a disagreement and, daft as it may sound, I am not sure which side I want to come down on—