Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I thank my noble friend for raising these two important amendments. All the amendments following the general purpose clause will overlap. It is impossible for them not to. The difficulty is that if you take them together as one batch, as I tried with my previous amendments, it becomes a nightmare. Noble Lords would get lost—certainly the Minister does not enjoy it very much at all. I will not repeat what my noble friend said. He has raised a very important issue. Whichever way you look at it—carbon dioxide, methane or light pollution—the question of pollution in the countryside and the way that Natural England will have to bear it in mind is very important. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, touched on the whole question of development. I fear that we shall keep returning to it. I make no apology that my noble friend has raised the issue, although the Minister will probably not like his words and not look at it. However, I have three questions as a result of his question: will Natural England be the lead spokesman—will its views take precedence over, for example, what the view of Defra may be on the issue raised by my noble friend? Where do the regional development agencies sit, because planning permission for future development will go to the regional development agencies? There is another issue there. My noble friend has raised an important issue in the broadest context, considering biofuels, biomass, microenergy, the use of combined heat and power and how we can get energy from waste. That brings me back to where the Bill sits, but also whether Natural England, Defra or the regional development agencies have the last say on the issue. It crosses so many departmental briefs; I should be grateful if the Minister would enlarge on that when he responds.