I am grateful to the noble Baroness. However, I still have some reservations about this. It is a difficult subject that raises many questions. Several noble Lords have discussed for over an hour whether there should be priorities, the conflicts, and how to reach difficult judgments. That position will persist. Given that we are being promised a strong, independent non-departmental public body, I really do not see why it needs the protection of being able to decide who has an interest. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but officials in non-departmental public bodies are good at drawing attention to and using the words set out in Acts of Parliament, and they do not need this protection. It is not just a question of a body being on the list; rather it is one of someone thinking outside the box and coming up with ideas. However, if they cannot get to Natural England, those ideas may never be heard.
I feel strongly that we need to return to the nature of the relationships between Natural England and the people with an interest in the subjects covered by Clause 2. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Eccles
(Conservative)
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 c267 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:09:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296898
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296898
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296898