Perhaps I may clarify one point. We are obviously agreed that there is great purpose behind the amendment. It needs to be examined seriously—there is no difference between us on that—and there seems to be some agreement that it could be better expressed. However, the noble Baroness has just suggested that economic development and biodiversity might, for example, be in irreconcilable conflict. That is where we get into the quagmire. I would argue that the vital importance of people being able to regenerate themselves in a completely different setting from their urban existence—and to enjoy the richness of the countryside—could be in conflict with economic development. When we start making those comparisons, we immediately begin to see the complexities. I am therefore inclined to think that whichever amendment is put forward, it would have to be strongly argued because the Government have tried to get everything in the Bill, and thus to say, ““Right; Natural England now has the responsibility to get the right balance””.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c251-2 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:09:35 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296872
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296872
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296872