| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1259
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I too should like to welcome my noble friend Lord Monro back to the House. We have missed him and I am delighted that he is here to take part today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 45 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 48:
"( ) action in the countryside to assist the containment of global warming,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill is clear that the purposes of Natural England are all to do with conservation, protection and preservation. That is absolutely fine, so far as it goes. It means that Natural England, with the Bill as presently drafted, is concerned with the past. My amendment seeks to make part of its functions
Global warming is the present; its more pernicious effects are the future. So, in a sense this little amendment—so simple and plain—brings the past and future together for once. It is here and now that they meet. If we consider global warming, the news is consistently bad. We have just heard that global atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased to its highest level ever. Well, we knew that it was going up, so every year will be the highest; more disconcerting is that it is now also rising at its most rapid annual rate ever.
The polar ice-caps are breaking up and melting; they are not reforming in winter as they used to. In countries like Switzerland, the glaciers are retreating. At the weekend, I asked someone who lives in Switzerland how the glaciers were being affected. He said that a track that he used to go up 25 years ago to visit a bar that used to be on the edge of the ice is now 40 feet above it. The track itself is dangerous as a result. If you miss your footing there is a 40-foot fall. We have recently had reports of increasing acidification in the oceans due to carbon dioxide absorption. That will damage the reproduction of shellfish, plankton and corals; more importantly, if they are unable to make their shells—which lock up carbon in the form of calcium carbonate—then we restrict the sea's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. As I have said, the problem of global warming is consistently worsening.
Many things can be done. When I last introduced this amendment, I suggested the word "development" to assist the containment of global warming in the countryside. That did not find favour, so this time I have used the word "action", which describes nothing in particular yet could be vital in one particular respect. An interesting research paper was published in Science in 2004, entitled Stabilization
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1260
Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. One of the writers' options was forest management; they suggested the planting of large areas of forests in temperate areas. Another was agricultural soils management. Those are both existing technologies; as things which occur in the countryside, they are actions which Natural England could perfectly well participate in and promote.
I make no apology for bringing forward this amendment. It is important that we get global warming under control for, if we do not, we have no certainty of being able to preserve anything in our present countryside. Two possibilities are being talked about. One is that the Gulf Stream—which produces the equivalent energy around our islands of 30,000 power stations providing heat for us—will cease to flow. If it does, ours becomes more akin to a Nordic climate. The alternative is that warming continues without that effect; if that happens, then we go to a more Mediterranean kind of climate. In both eventualities the continuation of the countryside, as we know it, will not be happening. Natural England will then have an impossible task.
So, I make no apology for bringing back the amendment. As I said initially, the past and future have to meet somewhere. They are meeting here and now. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on this amendment. The Bill is called the natural environment Bill. We know that global warming is the biggest threat not only to our natural environment but to our very future. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that the noble Lord so eloquently put as to why that needs to be addressed. I believe that Natural England as much, and probably more, than most agencies, needs to be in the forefront of addressing these issues, particularly with regard to adaptation.
My one small regret might be that we have not saved our voting energies. I have no idea whether the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House, but if we were to vote, we should have saved our energies for this amendment rather than the one on names. The issue that he raises is extremely important and I hope that the Government look kindly on including something in the Bill with reference to this important issue.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, in principle at any rate. He has given us a vivid description of the consequences of not coming to terms with the difficulties of global warming. I have no doubts on that matter at all. I have the honour sitting on Sub-Committee D under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. In a report that we produced on the EU Commission's trading scheme, we looked very carefully at the matter, and it became abundantly clear to us as the report proceeded that the problems of global warming are enormous. As my noble friend rightly said, the latest figures are frightening.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1261
We all have a huge responsibility to deal with this issue. Whether the amendment gives a remit too far to Natural England within this Bill is a moot point—and, looking at the Minister, I am pretty convinced that that is what he is going to say. He may well have a point. But in principle I entirely support what my noble friend has said—and I think that the Minister would have to come forward with a very convincing argument not to support the amendment. But I shall listen carefully to what he has to say.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend in his desire to have a wake-up call on the needs of not only conserving and preserving the countryside, but also looking at the effect that climate change will have on that very countryside.
I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 49 to 52, which are in the group. Amendment No. 49 raises an issue again, but with a subtle difference. We believe that this amendment would improve greatly Natural England's natural purpose clause. The amendment would replace "conserve" with "protect". The difference between the two words is crucial; the word "protect" defines an active stance and, in the opinion of the CPRE standing council, it makes the legal difference by placing a duty on Natural England actively to protect the landscape. In contrast, the word "conserve" defines a more passive stance, whereby the status quo is kept intact without a really active engagement.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, stated that, although the word "protect" is used in reference to biodiversity, it would not be applicable to landscape. She went on to say that using the word "protecting" in relation to biodiversity would prevent any,
"claims that Natural England should support activities that may enhance biodiversity adversely".—[Official Report, 30/1/06; col. 118.]
She said that she had no intention of weakening that position. But she stated, too, that biodiversity and landscape were on an equal playing field and that one was not more important than the other. So it is not clear to me why they cannot be treated with the same terminology.
Further to this, in the Government's documents, the necessity is pointed out of using the word "protect". The Planning Policy Statement 7, published in 2004, in one of its key aims states:
"The Government's objectives for rural areas are to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of the continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental resources".
We believe that our amendment would ensure the future sustainability of the landscape but, in the light of that statement, it seems a sensible addition to the Bill that would join up the Government's aims in protecting the landscape across the board.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1262
6.15 pm
Referring again to the PPS7, and enlarging on it, as it is the Government's official planning policy, under their key principles on page 7, under 1(iv), they say that,
"the Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all".
It therefore seems curious to us, and to the CPRE, that reference in the planning policy for local authorities should be stronger than that in Natural England's statutory duty, which I have to say I still find puzzling.
Our next two amendments seek to leave out "in other ways" in one case and, in the other, to leave out,
Paragraphs (a) and (d) of subsection (2) contain fairly robust aims. I am sure that we would agree exactly what, for example,
involves. "Protecting biodiversity" or "encouraging open-air recreation" are concepts that we can all comprehend, and some of your Lordships have great skills to ensure that those sorts of plans are implemented.
After that, "contributing in other ways" seems rather vague and wishy-washy and, I would have thought, difficult to justify. Our suggestion for improvement is twofold: either simply to leave out "in other ways" or to reiterate Natural England's affinity with the countryside by giving it a duty to support the work of rural communities in improving their social and economic well-being. I am sure that I am not the only one in this House who receives a constant and unrelenting stream of correspondence from people and organisations who consider that I can be of assistance in their efforts to improve social justice and the workings of the DWP, and the performance of a whole range of service providers, including the protection of our small post offices. It is quite clear that all is not well in our villages, small towns and in our countryside. Nor is it at all well, by any means, for there to be the continuing and growing problems of fly-tipping, litter and the flouting of planning laws, which obviously brings additional difficulties.
We had a long debate on the substance of Amendment No. 52 in Committee. I said then, and I shall say again, that this is perhaps one of the most important amendments—and it is a matter of balance. I was grateful for the wide range of support that I received from noble Lords when we dealt with the matter in Committee. Some noble Lords suggested that our amendment might be more effective if it had been slightly redrafted. Having gone through the record for those days, I have come back with a slightly different wording, which I hope will encourage noble Lords' continued support and perhaps gain support from others.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1263
The amendment is quite clear now. It is only in the event of significant conflict that Natural England would have to prioritise its objectives relating to conservation and the environment. The Minister said in Committee:
"Instances of irreconcilable conflict between access and conservation are rare in practice".—[Official Report, 1/2/06; col. 258.]
That is the basis of introducing a conflict resolution provision—that it will be used only in those rare instances when Natural England and those other organisations are in a checkmate situation. The amendment is emphatically not about giving an environment conservation priority on a day-to-day basis—and I stress that—or in giving conservation automatic precedence or a greater funding priority. I am only too well aware that sustainable development is dependent not only on conserving the environment but on the social and economic factors as well.
Natural England will be one among many. It is far from the only organisation that will be involved in the process of the decision-making or in resolving conflicts of interest. I am sure that in 99.9 per cent of instances that irreconcilable conflict would associate only with proposals by third parties rather than within Natural England itself. Natural England might be involved as a consultee or a stakeholder in the case of development of a policy or management proposal. The Minister made the point in Committee that no other organisation with statutory duty for conservation had a conflict resolution clause. I suggest that no other organisation has been given such a broad remit.
The Minister mentioned the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Agency. When established, however, Natural England will be the sole statutory body for England charged with defending and enhancing the natural environment. It is concerned with all the issues that those agencies cover, and much more. It is precisely because of the contradictory nature of the definition that we believe this amendment is needed.
The EFRA Select Committee suggested that the conflict resolution and policy implementation would be the job of government offices for the regions, yet at present I understand that those offices do not have the capacity to take on this role. The Minister might clarify that for me. In the absence of that support, Natural England, as the Minister has stated, will be the major champion of the environment, and should have the teeth to implement it. Along those lines, the Minister also gave an indication in Committee that he would undertake to put conflict resolution on the agenda in discussions with the Natural England confederation about statutory guidance. For the interest of other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, Jim Knight, who saw me on Monday this week, along with my honourable friend Jim Paice. He indicated that great thought had been given to this situation.
I know the Minister will come back on this, but for the sake of the House I will repeat what was said in the letter sent to me on 13 March on conflict resolution:
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1264
"In Committee debate on Natural England's purpose, (the Minister) promised to consider the inclusion of principles for dealing with conflict resolution in Statutory Guidance. We have done this"—
they have given it consideration—
"and concluded that it would meet several of the concerns expressed by noble Lords, while preserving the flexibility and independence of Natural England's Board which we consider important".
The Minister should be able to respond to that at this stage.
The Minister, Jim Knight, went on to say:
"I would stress that the Bill requires draft statutory guidance to be consulted on very widely before being finalised",
but he wanted to raise this issue with me. Subsequently the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has spoken to me, and I understand that circumstances have slightly altered. In fairness to him, and also to Jim Knight, I should make the House aware that I was made aware, at 3 o'clock today, that perhaps there is a change of heart. However, I hope that setting out why we think our amendment is important reflects the position we find ourselves in at this moment. I end up by having supported my noble friend in his amendment, and spoken to the other amendments standing in my name in this group.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |