Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I support my noble friend Lady Byford. Last time we were in Committee, the Minister gave me a definition of conserving and enhancing. He said,"““conserving means protecting from harm or destruction””.—[Official Report, 24/1/06; col. 1129.]" I hope that I do not get noble Lords in a muddle because I seem to get in a big muddle when I go through this. I think that that definition is wrong because when one looks it up in a dictionary, conserving means protecting from harm, decay and loss. If conserving is stopping decay, then it is unnatural in many ways. Clause 2(2)(a) includes ““promoting””, and the definition of promoting is subtly different. It is encouraging the process or existence. While ““conserving”” is rather like conserving jam in a jar and all the substance is there, ““promoting”” is allowing the natural progression of evolution. With climatic change, and while we are talking about a vibrant, living, ever-changing environment, I do not think the two words fit well alongside each other. I hope that we will come back to these arguments later on. I do not think I am nitpicking on this. In my dealings with English Nature, I have been somewhat muddled. English Nature wished to carry out scientific enhancement of a particular SSSI woodland, of which I am a caretaker, although that science was not proven. It felt that enhancing the area was better than conserving it. The difference was that it cut down well over 50 mature areas in a SSSI in order to enhance it. English Nature may be right or wrong, but the definitions are not clearly defined. If there were better definition, there would be less argument and confrontation between clients, owners or caretakers and English Nature. My noble friend Lady Byford also talked about the question of who has the ultimate say: the JNCC or Natural England. That point is relevant when deciding whether conserving or enhancing is more important. Will the Minister look carefully at these words that sit alongside each other? Perhaps he could come back with a changed wording so that there is less ambiguity when there is a confrontation between Natural England and the client or the caretaker.