Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

The Minister’s last response has made my resolve even firmer. This is a slightly unsatisfactory position to be in. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and I accept the comments made by noble friend Lord Peel. Obviously we want to increase biodiversity, or to have an awareness of it—and the noble Baroness is right to suggest that back in 1990 it was not something that was talked about. Do I take it from the Minister that he is content that England and Wales can do something, or try to improve things, but that Scotland can go its own sweet way anyway? It seems extraordinary that in one part of this UK-wide conservation body you cannot tighten up or improve on what you are trying to get the four parts to do. If that is so, I think that it is very sad and, I would have thought, slightly unsatisfactory. On my second point, I will look at Amendment No. 273 again carefully. I think that noble Lords have suggested that the issue might be more relevant to Natural England itself rather than to where it is in this particular part of the Bill. I hope that I interpret what the Minister said correctly. I know that it is just after supper, but Amendment No. 272 has been laid for some time—the typo of using the word ““conversation”” instead of ““conservation”” was in the amendment before dinner, not just after. I looked at the amendment earlier this morning and said, ““Whoops! This is not very good””. I thank the Minister for his response. I suspect that we may want to consider the issue a little further but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 273 not moved.]