My Lords, I also oppose Amendment No. 52. I was not present in Committee when we debated a similar amendment, but I made my feelings clear at an earlier stage in Committee when I said that I opposed any effort to write the Sandford principle into the Bill. It is most important that we retain a balance between the different interests, which conflict from time to time. We must also remember that the remit of Natural England covers urban areas as well as the countryside; that would make the amendment more difficult to work with. Things have been slanted slightly in favour of environmental issues as a result of the habitats directive already; that will have to be taken into account by Natural England.
I have been intrigued to see that a number of noble Lords who have spoken seem to have changed their mind since Committee. I do not know whether that is because of what the Minister said on that occasion, but I have not changed my mind—I still very much oppose Amendment No. 52. My noble friend Lord Erroll, who was here a moment ago, got called away to host a reception but would also have spoken against Amendment No. 52.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Greenway
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 15 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c1271 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:56:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309006
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309006
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309006