Schedule 11 - Minor and consequential amendments
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
11:45 am
James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I wholly reject the argument from some quarters that neglect equals conservation. It does not. The countryside needs to be managed, and the flora and fauna within it need to be managed.
My example was of livestock being used to manage land for nature reserves. Nevertheless, grazing livestock is an agricultural activity, and I am concerned at the phraseology. The hon. Lady is right that the phrase that is used includes ''managed''; but it says ''managed solely''. I would have preferred to see ''managed primarily'', as it would have clarified the provision. However, these are not my amendments. I challenge the Government on their choice of words, with a view to discussing them later in our proceedings, and particularly on their use of the word ''solely'' rather than ''primarily'' or something similar to ensure that other activities can take place in a nature reserve.
My second question is about proposed subsection (2)(a), which defines land managed for a conservation purpose as land
''managed for the purpose of . . . providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into''—
and so on. That is a narrow definition of conservation. I do not equate conservation with protection—there is a subtle difference—but most people would define conservation more widely than
''the study of, and research into, matters relating to the flora and fauna of Great Britain and the physical conditions in which they live, and the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area''.
In layman's language, most people would say that conservation is about protection—managing rather than neglecting—but it is about more than study and research. For most people, it is about maintaining or enhancing populations and the wider good of the community and the world in which we live, as well as about study and research.
My third question relates to the phrase ''recreational purpose'' in proposed subsection (3). Exactly what does that mean? I shall not rehearse the arguments about recreation being contradictory to conservation needs, because they are covered in other legislation. The Minister will not be surprised to hear this, as we referred to the same subject earlier in our proceedings, but I am more concerned about the implications for traditional activities, and particularly game shooting and grouse shooting. Many would argue that such activities are recreation. If he is going to say that it is the Government's intention that such things should be considered recreational, that is fine; but I would like it to be on the record.
At the outset of the Committee's proceedings, I declared my role as a trustee of the Game Conservancy Trust. Work yet to be published provides even more proof of the interrelationship between higher populations of many bird species on managed grouse moors and managed shoots than those in areas that are completely unmanaged—areas that have been allowed to become derelict, where nature is allowed to take its course.
There is a clear correlation between the objectives of conservation and the role of shooting. I am anxious to ensure that we will not exclude that interrelationship by using the recreational definition, because shooting interests involve conservation as well as pest and predator control. I would not want to see that definition work against those interests. My concerns are not about the objective of the amendment, but about the Government's choice of phraseology. I would be glad to hear the Minister's comments.