Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

The Minister made it clear that he was going to disappoint us. This is obviously not—I repeat not—the equivalent of the Latin American diplomat in the margins of whose speech appeared the words, ““Weak point: shout””. The Minister was robust in his reply. More significant, perhaps, was the mild problem that he seemed to be having controlling his papers. I did not say that the Government or public authorities are not doing anything about biodiversity. Indeed, I paid tribute to what is being done. The Minister himself said that 67 per cent of local authorities do not at present have questions relating to biodiversity in their planning procedures. That is an index of present attitudes. The Minister implied that, under the Bill, everything that can be done will be done, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied on the related subject of global warming that everything that can be done is not being done. As my noble friend Lord Peel generously implied, our task is to expand what mankind can do. Human groups change their behaviour when those leading them want them to change. The Minister must forgive us if we wonder whether the Government really want to change us. I realise that it is late at night. The Minister is necessarily operating under greater fatigue than I am. Of course, I shall allow for that when I re-read in the morning what he said this evening. I dare say that he will re-read it, too. Any body under judicial review has simply to prove that, before taking action or making decisions, it thought about the words of the Bill. I am not myself a lawyer, but my brother is. I close by saying that the issue seems to have caught the interest of the Committee without the Minister being able immediately to extinguish the fire. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 not moved.] Clause 40 agreed to.