There are always calls, and I have heard them before, that buffer zones should, for example, be put into law. The difficulty with that is: where does it end? Do you end up with no planning policy and everything contained in a Bill, in which case there is no flexibility, or do you carry on with the situation where the planning system is set up by law, but planning policy and guidance are done through MTANs and through TANs? That is what we have to wrestle with. The difficulty with suggesting, for example—he did not suggest this, but it has been suggested before—that you introduce a buffer zone in law, particularly with regard to opencast mining, is why not do it for everything else? Why pick on only one particular area? Of course, that opens up the debate as to what the balance is between policy and law. In Scotland, for example, we know that even though there was, if I remember rightly, a wider buffer zone, there were still successful planning applications for opencast mining within the buffer zone; it is not quite what it appears to be on occasion. I believe that the approach that we have taken, historically, as a Government is the right one, namely to put in place a buffer zone, rather than the approach that has been taken in England by Governments of different parties, where, instead of having a physical buffer zone, there have been a number of criteria that have to be met. We do not think that that is the right approach, and we believe that the buffer-some approach is the correct one.