Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I just say a word about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. On this debate, and, indeed, on a number of debates we shall have on Clause 2, I am sure that my noble friend will remember the remark I made to him outside the Chamber about what happens when you have a general purpose clause—you have a series of mini Second Reading debates on the meaning of every single word in the general purpose clause. I think that the Minister now knows exactly what I meant. On the amendments, I do not think that Natural England—or, indeed, this Bill—is the right place for the function or the duty that the noble Lord has suggested. But, on the countryside and emissions, it is interesting to take a simple fact: if the acreage now used for set-aside were used for biofuels, it would provide all the fuel needed by British agriculture. That is sustainable development. In a sense it is already in the remit, although in practice that will be the result of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, which I introduced with all-party support into the Energy Act. It would be the Department of Transport’s job to see that that works. That is a good example. In Amendment No. 112, the noble Lord restricted himself to carbon dioxide emissions. The countryside is a major emitter of methane from livestock. So if you are going to look at carbon dioxide, you will have to look at methane as well. For all those reasons, this is a job which is way beyond Natural England.