Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I also thank those who do not agree with me. The joy of this House is that we have to make judgments at times. Obviously there are times when we disagree, and this is a very important clause. I understand where the noble Lords, Lord Chorley, Lord Cameron and Lord Greenway, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, are coming from. I do not agree with their position but I respect their views. I think that some form of inclusion in the Bill, such as we are suggesting, would be of benefit. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her honest reflection of what happened when English Nature came into being. Although it was some years ago, and I accept that the noble Baroness said that times have moved on, it is clear that there may be times when the sort of amendment that we are proposing today would benefit the new board when it is set up. It is a difficult issue. In my opening remarks I asked the Minister about how the Government would come back with guidance if it were necessary. They considered the issue originally on that Monday, and then changed their minds three days later and decided that guidance was not relevant or that they could not do it. How, even if it were in a delayed period of time—I should like the Minister to clarify that for me—would the Government be able to come forward with some form of guidance? If it is not possible now, I do not understand how it could be possible in the future. Whatever reasons the Government had thought about at the time must be as relevant in the future. In his response to the amendment, the Minister said that if at some time in the future it were considered necessary, it would be possible to give statutory guidance, but he gave no indication how soon that might be or how it might be achieved. Only a week ago, we were told that it was not possible. This is Third Reading, so I am in the very difficult position of having to put the amendment to a vote, as the Minister is unable to give me answers to the legitimate questions that I have raised. In the normal course of events, I would have thanked the Minister for his guidance and accepted the fact that it could be reviewed. However, he is unable to tell me how he would achieve that or what the time limit would be. It is not being reviewed in a three-year or a five-year period. We have been given no indication whatever on that.