NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

HC Deb 03 July 1973 vol 859 cc455-502

10.30 a.m.

Resolved,

That if the proceedings on the Nature Conservancy Council Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Thursday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page)

I beg to move,

That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Nature Conservancy Council Bill [Lords] ought to he a read a Second time.

In its 24 years of life, the Nature Conservancy has had somewhat of a chequered career as an organisation in Great Britain. It was born by Royal Charter in March 1949, after six years of gestation in reports from committees,

Lawson, Mr. George (Motherwell)

Maclennan, Mr. Robert (Caithness and Sutherland)

Oakes, Mr. Gordon (Widnes)

Owen, Mr. Idris (Stockport, North)

Page, Mr. Graham (Minister for Local Government and Development)

Parker, Mr. John (Dagenham)

Spearing, Mr. Nigel (Acton)

Spence, Mr. John (Sheffield, Heeley)

Younger, Mr. George (Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office)

Mr. J. F. Sweetman, Committee Clerk.

commissions councils and surveys, and was given statutory powers by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

In origin, the Nature Conservancy was, as its name implies, a body aiming primarily to conserve and, as a secondary objective, to carry out research. Accordingly, the Royal Charter directed it to provide scientific advice on the conservation and control of the natural flora and fauna of Great Britain, to establish, maintain and manage nature reserves in Great Britain, and to organise and develop related research and scientific services.

The Annual Report of the Natural Environment Research Council for 1971–72 describes very well the position of the Conservancy within the Natural Environment Research Council. Page 81 of the Report states: When the Conservancy was established in 1949, its functions included giving advice on the conservation and control of native plants and animals, establishing and managing nature reserves, notifying Sites of Special Scientific Interest to planning authorities, and undertaking the appropriate research in ecology.

Since becoming a component body of the Natural Environment Research Council in 1965, the Conservancy has continued to carry out these functions on the Council's behalf. Only a part of the Conservancy's duties are those usually associated with research councils. Much of its work entails managing land on the nation's behalf, in addition to giving ecological advice. It was a Conservancy and, so far as was required for the purpose of conservancy, it organised and developed research.

At its origin in 1949, the Conservancy's guardian was the Lord President of the Council, but that guardianship passed in 1964 to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. That gave the Nature Conservancy a blessing for its courtship with research which had been developing since about 1960 in a number of other reports of committees and commissions. It was a courtship of marriage between the Nature Conservancy and the Natural Environment Research Council, and, if I may put it this way, the conservancy girl married into the research family. The wedding was solemnised by the Science and Technology Act of 1965.

It is the almost unanimous view that the marriage has not been happy. To put it bluntly, this present Bill is a bill of divorcement. I think that I should now abandon this analogy of the "Hatches, matches and dispatches" column or I shall get into trouble.

Although, generally, the divorce is accepted as the best solution to this unhappy union, there is an argument as to whether the decree should be absolute and the whole of the functions of the Nature Conservancy Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council be transferred to a new body, or whether only part of the functions should be transferred.

There are some who say that nature conservancy in all its aspects—the management of nature reserves and research into nature conservancy—should be within one independent body. Others say that the two aspects of nature conservancy—management and research—should be divorced one from the other, that only management should be placed in an independent body and that all research—I stress the word "all" should be undertaken by the comprehensive research body, the Natural Environment Research Council. There are, of course, many shades of opinion between those two extremes.

The Government, as the Bill shows, incline to the latter view, that is, for an independent managing body commissioning research but able to carry out a certain amount of research itself. As a tenet of general policy in matters involving research, the Government believe in the concept of a customer-contractor relationship, which makes the distinction between management and research—the customer being the executive or general advisory body and the contractor being the expert in research.

As some of the members of this Committee will remember, we applied that principle to the Water Bill in relation to the National Water Council and the Water Research Centre. But I think that it would be unwise—and the debates in another place show this only too clearly—to be dogmatic or rigid in the application of this principle to the new Nature Conservancy Council.

For the new council which we propose in the Bill, there will be some 100 scientists on the staff, and it is neither easy nor necessary to erect an insurmountable fence between, on the one hand, the maintenance and management of reserves, the advice and dissemination of information and the assessment of commissioned research, and, on the other hand, the research itself. There is an area between the two where the parties involved can work together in research matters. Therefore, although one of the functions of the council will be as set out in Clause 1(1)(a)(iii)— the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in the opinion of the Council is relevant to the matters mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above"— and that will be the general rule, the council will be empowered——

Mr. George Lawson

Does it say in "the opinion of the council"? I shall be quite happy if it does, but does it say that?

Mr. Page

Yes, indeed, as the Bill is now drafted, I draw the hon. Member's attention to Clause 1(1)(a)(iii).

Mr. Lawson

I apologise. The amended part of the subsection which concerns me does not say " in the opinion of the council", but perhaps we can come back to that point.

Mr. Page

I was quoting that as the general principle, and I was about to say that nevertheless the council will be empowered by Clause 1(4)(b) to initiate and carry out such research directly related to their functions under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above as it is appropriate that they themselves should carry out instead of commissioning or supporting other persons under sub-paragraph (iii) of that paragraph". The hon. Gentleman raises the question whether the council itself would decide whether that research was appropriate for it to carry out itself. I read the paragraph as meaning just that. I do not see that anyone else would be able to say what is appropriate to the council's duties as expressed elsewhere.

Mr. Lawson

Would it not be clear beyond doubt if in subsection (4)(b) we were to add after the words "carry out such research" words such as as the Council considers appropriate". Or as the Council consider they themselves should carry out"? That would leave no room for doubt. It could be considered in Committee.

Mr. Page

That is a Committee matter. Between now and Committee, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's observation.

I think that it would be wrong to say that the two quotations I have given from Clause 1 (1) and (4) overlap, or that the functions overlap, because that would give an incorrect idea that there is duplication. We want to ensure that the cogwheels engage smoothly so that the machinery of research runs effectively.

The customer-contractor relationship in research which I have tried to describe was not the only motive for setting up a management and advisory Nature Conservancy Council separate from a research council. In 1970, the Department of the Environment was created with the purpose of placing in one Government Department the total approach to the environment, the total approach to responsibilities stretching over both the built environment and the natural environment. The built environment, which includes, for example, reservoirs, roads, factories, blocks of flats, and so on, cannot be planned properly without full regard being paid to the natural environmental such as the hills, valleys, flora and fauna.

The responsibility for striking a balance between those two factors, the built and the natural environment, at once involves further responsibilities for conservation over a wide area including, again, conservation of both buildings and natural assets. Scotland has been fortunate in this matter, having always been in the happy position of being able to make a total approach by reason of the constitution of its Government. This has highlighted the fact that the omission of nature conservancy from the work of the Department of the Environment leaves a dangerous gap in its duties and responsibilities.

The Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on Land Resource Use in Scotland recommended that nature conservancy should be brought closer into planning development, that is, structure plans and other development matters which in England are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. It shows that Scotland is in advance of England and Wales in its total approach to the environment.

To leave the administration of nature reserves outside the Department of the Environment, and in a research body, the Natural Environment Research Council, rather than an administrative body—moreover, in a body under another Government Department—did not make sense. It is illogical for a Department responsible—in so far as the central Government is responsible—for conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks, rivers, lakes, coastal protection and so on to be deprived of nature conservancy responsibities, This function, too, should be within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment.

That is underlined, and, I think, will be more underlined, by the results of the nature conservation review, which was set up some six years ago as a thorough review of nature conservancy in this country.

I expect that that review will recommend a substantial increase in the area of nature reserves. This will have its impact upon land use planning, if the Government accept the recommendations which I expect the review to make. It may affect all sorts of development and development planning. A closer association of the Nature Conservancy Council with the Department of the Environment on these matters will make more effective our total approach to the environment, to planning, to land use and to the protection of the environment.

But—and here comes the issue which we shall find in discussion of the Bill—on the research side of nature conservancy, the Government think it right that it should benefit from being part of a wide research programme such as is carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council. That council has an overall responsibility for research, as we have an overall responsibility for the environment. It is right, I think, to leave the research side of nature conservancy to the Natural Environment Research Council. The NERC has indicated that the nature conservancy research side, which will be left to it if the Bill is passed as drafted, will become the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology—a part, as several other institutes are, of the Natural Environment Research Council.

As a consequence of the setting up of an institute of that kind within the Natural Environment Research Council, there will be a knitting together of the five geographically scattered stations at present under the Nature Conservancy Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council. The intention is that those research stations should remain under the Natural Environment Research Council.

If I may come back to my previous simile, if one is breaking up the matrimonial home there are bound to be some heartaches and nostalgia. The Nature Conservancy, as a committee of the Natural Environment Research Council, manages 135 nature reserves and the five research stations which I have mentioned—Merlewood, Monks Wood, Furzebrook, Norwich and Banchory. They will remain with the Natural Environment Research Council, as will some 250 of the 650 staff at present under the Nature Conservancy Committee.

The remaining 400 staff will become the staff of the new Nature Conservancy Council, and of that 400 about 100 will be scientists. Of the 250 who will remain with the Natural Environment Research Council, about 190 will be scientists; the others will be administrators.

If I may take an example to show how the change will work in practice—again, I shall be intrepid enough to take a Scottish example because it explains it well—research on the red deer is based at Banchory. That is where the desk and laboratory study of that important subject is carried out, by a team not only expert at the desk in a theoretical or academic way but expert in the field, in observation of the distribution and behaviour of the red deer.

That field work is done on the island of Rhum and at Glenfeshie. They are both nature reserves where the conservation branch of the Nature Conservancy Committee is carrying out both long-term and short-term projects on the red deer population and the range of vegetation. as well as other work, like re-afforestation, and all the work of managing a nature reserve and of animal husbandry. These projects need long-term and short-term research.

In future, with Banchory in the hands of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, and Rhum and Glenfeshie in the hands of the new Nature Conservancy Council, the council will commission its research from the Natural Environmental Research Council which will allocate it to the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. But some research will be undertaken by the Nature Conservancy Council itself—not only research, but the scientific aspects of conservation, in contact with the world of science—because the Nature Conservancy Council will be encouraged to take part in international work in an awareness of the trends and needs of science in relation to nature conservancy, in the collection and evaluation of the performance of species, to develop ecological insight which will anticipate changes and problems, to interpret the results of research and the application of it to executive action and provide advice to Government Departments, local authorities and public bodies upon nature conservancy matters. That is the scientific side of the Nature Conservancy Council as we see it in future. I express it more as the scientific aspect of its work rather than research. It will entail some research appropriate to its function, but a scientific evaluation of the executive work is needed.

How will the Nature Conservancy Council afford to do all this in a progressive way?—to do all this and commission and pay for research by the Natural Environment Research Council and make grants to other bodies, as permitted by Clause 3, and expand its work if the nature conservancy review recommends what I expect it to recommend, to keep abreast and, in many instances, give the lead in international developments?

The council will be financed by grant-in-aid from the Department of the Environment, as under Clause 4, but I cannot tell how much it will be. This year, the grant-in-aid £1¾ is million, of which £380,000 is for commissioning research. I shall be very disappointed if we are not able to improve on those figures as the Nature Conservancy Council develops.

I am anxious that the new Nature Conservancy Council should be in business as soon as possible. I have in mind 1st October next as an appropriate date for putting it into business. There are, of course, a number of preparatory steps to be taken for the setting up of the council.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced that Sir David Serpell, formerly permanent secretary of the Department of the Environment, will he the first chairman of the new council. Once the Bill has reached the Second Reading stage, the Department intends, in accordance with precedent, and in consultation with the chairman-designate, to take such further action on the preparatory steps as will be needed. In particular, steps will be taken—this is important—to facilitate the early selection, from a wide field, of the chief officer of the new council. The chief officer will be in a very important position as regards the success and progress of the council.

I hope that the Committee will approve the motion.

10.58 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes

We on this side do not oppose either the motion or the principle of the Bill, largely because of the amendment wisely made in another place by the Government, who suffered a defeat on the matter initially and then came back with a better amendment which would give some important research functions to the new Nature Conservancy Council. The Minister gave some very fair examples of the sort of division of research responsibility which might arise. But I hope that they were examples of what he foresaw, not of subsequent directions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), both of whom have a keen and long interest in all matters of conservancy, received a specific reply from the Secretary of State. He said that he intended, within the resources available to it from time to time, that the proposed council should itself decide what research it should initiate and have carried out by its own staff, and what research it should commission or support. I feel sure that the Minister was giving examples for the benefit of the Committee, not indicating, as I am sure will he made clear later, what will or will not be done by the Nature Conservancy Council by way of research.

The right hon. Gentleman pursued an interesting analogy with divorce, taking the council from conception through gestation, birth, marriage and so on. I shall not pursue the analogy because, if we were to give a bill of divorcement under the present matrimonial law, we should be concluding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. That would be a rather strong way to put it. Quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman stopped at a certain point.

I prefer to put my analogy in ecological terms. I agree that the Conservancy has had a chequered existence, largely because it suffered from so many transplants. Now, I think that it will be in its rightful home with the Department of the Environment. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is right that the Department which has overall control and responsibility for the whole of our environment ought to be the body with which the Nature Conservancy Council finds its natural home. When the council was set up in 1948, having nowhere else to go it was under the umbrella of the Lord President of the Council. In 1965, it came into the domain of the Department of Education and Science. In neither of those years was there a Department of the Environment, but now that that Department has been created it is obviously the proper place for the Nature Conservancy Council.

We ought to be concerned now about the new functions, powers and resources of the council since today, far more than in 1949 or 1965, there is acute public awareness and concern about our natural environment and what is happening to it, and a realisation that, unless steps are taken by way of research, reserves, advice and all the other ways in which the council has the power to act, there will be many species of plants and animals which, having lived for thousands of years in this country, will disappear. The problem is as acute as that. I am encouraged greatly by the knowledge that this concern is felt especially by young people at school, college and university who realise that, unless action is taken, and taken quickly, there will be many strains of wild life no longer in existence in this country.

The old Conservancy had three roles, the role of the land owner and manager of estates, the role of adviser to other bodies, and the research role. On its role as land owner, I say only that I was encouraged to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the likely report which would indicate that many more nature reserves should be created, that more money must be spent on this, and that it is hoped that the Government will give the necessary resources to the Nature Conservancy Council to carry out the likely recommendations in that report.

Nature reserves are important, but there is a danger that, when conserva- tion is considered in the context of a nature reserve, what is natural almost becomes artificial. There was a popular song recently on conservation, referring to trees, saying, We've taken all the trees and put them in a tree museum. And we charge a dollar and a half just for people to see "em". Although reserves are important in all parts of the country, and more money needs to be spent on them one must be careful not to over-concentrate on reserves and under-concentrate on the natural environment. The most important rôle of the Nature Conservancy Council to my mind, wilt be as an adviser and disseminator of knowledge about conservation—separate rôles, but both vital.

There have been many changes in our legislation on conservation even since 1965. There are the countryside parks. There are the nature reserves—I do not know how many, but possibly the right hon. Gentleman can tell the Committee—established by county and district councils in different parts of the country where there is obviously an important advisory rôle for the council, because these reserves are separate from the national reserves which it creates. I hope that the county councils which have responsibility for the countryside parks will have advice and assistance, and under Clause 3, if necessary, grants from the council for their work.

There are many other bodies which could benefit more than they have in the past from advice from the Nature Conservancy Council. The Forestry Commission is certainly a better organisation than it was. It has nature trails, and it allows the public to enter forests on its land. But does it do that to the extent that it could? The Forestry Commission is the country's biggest landowner, and I feel that the new council could do an enormous amount to conserve both flora and fauna by introducing co-operative schemes with the Forestry Commission to bring in, so far as practicable, members of the public, particularly children, on nature trails so that they could understand the country as a living thing and not merely something to be looked at in picture books.

When children, particularly town children, understand the country, they treat it with respect. It is important in these days of increased mobility that a knowledge and understanding of the country is got across especially to town children. The country child, because he lives there, knows what it is about. But the town child can often do a great deal of damage unwittingly. Sometimes he does it by vandalism, but that is a permanent problem in both town and country. A great deal of good would come out of cooperation between the Forestry Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.

Nationalised industries, particularly British Rail, could co-operate a great deal on conservation. In the old days very little could grow on railway banks because cinders that blew out of the engine burned grass and heath and nothing could take root. But, with the introduction of diesel and electric trains, the fire-free environment on the sides of railway lines offers greater possibilities for conservation. I hope, therefore, that British Rail will consult with the Nature Conservancy Council. Similarly, motorways, which to many minds despoil the countryside, nevertheless already have on their sides and banks, because there are no pedestrians on them, created places which present a natural, safe home for wild life.

Water authorities have already been mentioned. Here again, there could be good co-operation between the Nature Conservancy Council, the Water Space Amenity Commission and regional water authorities to great public benefit. All these are national bodies.

There is a rôle in the dissemination of knowledge as well as advice which goes more to the grassroots than that. There are many schools—I have one in my constituency—which are thinking of acquiring derelict land to turn into small nature reserves available not only to the school but to all members of the community surrounding it. The Nature Conservancy Council could advise such schools, which quite possibly would not be asking for a grant but would be carrying out the scheme from its own resources. Small schemes such as these are of vital importance in addition to the big land holdings and big reserves.

Small land owners such as householders also can help to preserve species. In my youth there seemed to be more moths and butterflies than at present.

Mr. Paul Hawkins

And frogs.

Mr. Oakes

And frogs. In an urban area where they have to contend with raids by biology laboratories as well as with traffic, frogs hardly exist. Once, they were plentiful in urban areas. Butterflies and moths are becoming a rarity in towns not merely because of insecticides but because of weedkillers. Many of the plants on which caterpillars live are no longer in plentiful supply. My point is that the householder can do something, too, if he sets apart a tiny area of his garden or allotment to allow certain wild plants to grow which will provide food for the caterpillars and butterflies so that the ecological chain of plant, insect and bird may continue in town areas.

In that respect also the dissemination of knowledge by the Nature Conservancy Council can be important. It could be done, in particular, through young people and children in schools and colleges because they are naturally interested in their environment and in conservation.

Basically, we wish the Bill well. We should like specific clarification of the right of the Nature Conservancy Council to determine what research it wants to do itself and what is to be done by the NERC. Apart from that, it is a question of resources, and I hope that the Government will give to the new council the resources it needs for the protection, preservation and conservation of the flora and fauna of these islands.

11.12 a.m.

Mr. W. Benyon

I have never been very keen on divorce, and I am not keen on this one. I understand the reasoning behind the Government's decision, but I still have not heard sufficient evidence to justify breaking up what seemed to be an arrangement which was working well. I am strengthened in this opinion by the fact that the late Lord Howick, who did so much work for the Nature Conservancy as its chairman, took the same view.

We have heard this morning that a large number of scientists will still be on what might be described as the administrative side of conservancy, and I believe that this will give rise to considerable muddle and difficulty among members of the public. I take as an example a naturalist trust which covers my constituency, the Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire Naturalist Trust. That trust runs a number of nature reserves and has had a good working relationship with the Nature Conservancy. The problems which it has put to the Nature Conservancy are in some respects purely administrative, asking how it should do this or that in its reserve. Other problems have concerned research. Now, are these requests to be channelled through the new Nature Conservancy Council or will they go straight to the NERC? That is one question.

We have heard that it is essential that the council should be under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. I question that. The Forestry Commission was mentioned a moment ago by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). That body is not under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. The National Trust, I appreciate, is somewhat different.

I feel strongly about this because the Nature Conservancy will have to fight, and fight hard, against a number of interests to preserve the country's nature resources. We all remember the episode concerning the reservoir in County Durham where they were up against industry. I have a more local problem, where a motorway went through an area which was not a nature reserve but was an area of special scientific interest. The Nature Conservancy was called in aid to resist that part of the motorway route or to move it slightly so that the area could be preserved. But in that instance it took a neutral view, and the motorway was built through the area.

Therefore, I question whether it will be to the advantage of nature conservancy and, indeed, the country as a whole, to have this body a child of the Department of the Environment. We must wait and see. It is not as though we were taking a cataclysmic and irretrievable step today. As we have already heard, there have been a number of changes over the years regarding the Conservancy, and we may not have found the right answer—indeed, I do not think that we have—in the Bill. Therefore, we must watch it and see what happens. That is as far as I am prepared to go this morning.

When one hears of the "Institute of Terrestrial Ecology". the mind begins to boggle. Whether a butterfly or a bird is terrestrial or celestial I do not know, but I assume that this organisation will take care of the whole. I shall be grateful for enlightenment when my right hon. Friend replies.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. Lawson

I should definitely have shared, and to some measure I still do share, the uneasiness of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). I have, however, been brought to the conclusion that, whether we like it or not, the separation of the Nature Conservancy from the NERC has virtually taken place. The dispute arose about whether, with the separation of the Nature Conservancy from the NERC—this is how the Second Reading debate in the other place went—the new council should be totally deprived of any research facilities of its own.

If the Bill had emerged from another place in that form, I should have been very much opposed to it. I would rather have seen it withdrawn than take that form, much though I understand that in both the Nature Conservancy and the NERC the staff want this matter settled so that they know where they are and can get ahead with the work.

The other place, however, came up with an astounding and most heartening display of interest and knowledge on this matter, and as a result of the discussion there their Lordships expressed a three-to-one overwhelming opinion that the Nature Conservancy Council must have research facilities. The appropriate amendment was subsequently agreed, an amendment not to the old function of research of the Nature Conservancy but giving a power to carry out research in pursuit of its function.

I am prepared to accept this description of how the new council will operate. I regret that, because we do not have HANSARD these days, members of the Committee will not have had access to a series of answers to Questions which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and I put down. They will appear as Written Answers in HANSARD of 21st June. The answers came from the Secretary of State himself, and I am taking what he said as the Government's opinion. I am concerned that the Government's opinion enunciated in answer to Questions should be clearly seen as setting out the position as it will be. I am not sure that the Bill as drafted properly clarifies that point.

For example, in answer to a Question as to the Council's powers to initiate for itself what research should be carried on in pursuit of its functions, the Minister said: … the proposed council should themselves decide what research they should initiate and have carried out by their own staff and what research they should commission or support. That is clear enough. I would like to see Clause 1(4)(b), drafted to remove the dubiety that appears in the present wording. It appears that somebody else might decide what is "appropriate" research. I should like to see it put beyond doubt that it will be the council itself which will decide what is appropriate research.

A Nature Conservancy Council set up with powers to commission and support research will be a very strange organisation if it is not at the same time recognised that it can itself sensibly decide the kind of research in which it should engage. I would say that that research bears directly upon its functions. I hope I do not appear to be too conceited, but I am prepared to say, "Let these stations go to the NERC, but let the new council work out for itself what it wants to do."

I was somewhat doubtful when the Minister talked about the research into red deer. The same might apply to research into grouse in the area. I was slightly thrown out when I questioned who would carry on the research into grouse, which has been conducted by the Nature Conservancy, to learn that this would be a function of the new body, the National Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Like the lion. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), I find the very choice of the name suggests something remote from the practices I should want to see.

My doubt about the National Institute of Terrestrial Ecology—the matter is referred to in another Question although the institute is not named—was that it would seek to duplicate the present functions of the Nature Conservancy Council and seek to grow up as a natural rival to council. I should not wish to see that come about.

I am prepared to take the assurances as satisfactory assurances, but I should like to see the Bill made clearer in certain respects. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and so I shall try to be brief. I have spent a good deal of time on this matter with my colleagues and we shall no doubt continue to study the subject. I am concerned that the new council shall be able to fulfil the kind of rôle that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs envisaged. I quote from paragraph 390 on page 98 of the Select Committee's Report: we recommend that an investigation should be undertaken of how best to extend the remit of the Nature Conservancy so that it is consulted by planning authorities in the formulation and implementation of their structure plans, and so that it might be able as of right"— it might slightly comfort the hon. Member for Buckingham to see that we use the words "as of right" so that it is an independent body, certainly Government financed, but independent— to express its views on important changes of use which are outside planning law, and bring the intention of section 66 home to all public bodies in respect of their functions relating to land. Section 66 of the Scottish Countryside Act, which, I believe, is similar to Section 11 in the English Countryside Act, draws the attention of all public bodies to the importance of their not doing things that will destroy conservation, amenity and so on. We were, and are, concerned that we should have a powerful body to deal with the conservation gap mentioned by the Minister. If the Nature Conservancy Council were confined to dealing only with nature reserves, it would not be of much interest to me.

I want to see the new council pervade the countryside, to have a voice, as of right, in what is happening. Conservation is not simply to preserve, but to understand all these multiple processes, processes which, unknowingly, we are setting on foot and which could destroy us as well as other forms of life.

When I hear someone say that he is more concerned with people than with ducks, I shake my head. That is the kind of statement which shows that some people do not realise how interrelated everything is. The body whose business it is best to understand the interrelationship is the Nature Conservancy Council.

I want to see it pervade the countryside and to have the resources to do so.

I should like to say to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is nodding in agreement, that I was disappointed that when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set up the advisory council on North Sea oil development he did not even ask the advice of the Nature Conservancy in Scotland despite the enormous amount of work it has done in the Moray Firth and Cromarty Firth areas. I would not suggest that it should be allowed to appoint someone to the council, but I should have thought that it would be consulted and invited to make suggestions. But it did not happen and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rectify the omission.

What I should like, and I imagine that it is what the Committee would want, is an effective Nature Conservancy Council. Let the NERC get on with its research work in various fields—it is a research organisation—but it is not the rôle of the NERC to intervene and give advice; that is the rôle of the Nature Conservancy Council.

Perhaps in Committee we can discuss other aspects in greater detail. I should like to know how some things are to be done and how resources may be built up. However, following the assurances that the hon. Member for Abingdon and I received, I should like the Bill to go through quickly soon to be followed by the setting up of the new Nature Conservancy Council.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. John Farr

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals, but I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has said about Departmental responsibility. It is true that the Department of the Environment is a gigantic administrative body and it must often find itself in internal conflict when, for instance, a new road project or a new housing estate clashes with the development of a nature reserve or a site of special scientific interest. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us more to justify this change of Departmental responsibility. I cannot help thinking that if I were in charge of a Department, outside the Department of the Environment, and in that Department's charge I had responsibility for the promotion and preservation of our natural resources, I would fight for my Departmental responsibilities with more vigour than the Minister of the Environment who, after all, will have the ultimate say in deciding whether land is to be used for roads, railways, housing estates or nature reserves. Therefore, in a way, with the proposed transfer of responsibility, there is a chance that in the long run the interests of the conservation of natural resources in this country may be losing out on the deal.

While I welcome the Bill I should like my right hon. Friend to assure the Committee that when the Bill is enacted and the new system gets under way a little more life and vigour will be put into the whole system of SSSIs—sites of special scientific interest.

A good deal of lip-service has been paid to these projects which were set up under Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968. Although about 3,000 of them have been established throughout the country, the reason why they are falling down and why they will not play a great part in helping to conserve our national resources in the future is that only very few—two or three—receive financial support through either the NERC or under section 15 of the Act.

I mention this because, as hon. Members will know, sites of special scientific interest have not necessarily to be acquired by the Nature Conservancy. More often they are the property of farmers, landowners, or sometimes small groups of naturalists. Naturalist societies in towns get together, buy a site here or there by clubbing together and then get the site registered as an SSSI.

Without some form of financial support these sites will not flourish. Land which is not earmarked for housing—land for agricultural use—has doubled in value and cost in the last 12 months. There is now a direct disincentive to any person concerned with agriculture to preserve a site as an SSSI. In the past, he might have been able to afford to leave a boggy acre or two here or there for one bird to nest in or perhaps for a particular type of flora to flourish. But with the cost of land today he is foolish if he does not get it drained quickly.

Unless my right hon. Friend takes steps to see that arrangements are made to support land owners and others interested in preserving our natural heritage with some form of financial encouragement and unless a more energetic outlook is taken, the whole scheme will be doomed to failure. If this does not happen one of the greatest opportunities which this change will bring about will be lost.

I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will give us some encouragement in this respect. It would be welcomed by both sides of the Committee.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop

I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for the possibilities that emerge for the development of the work of the new Conservancy Council. I share his enthusiasm partly because of nostalgic memories of being a member of the old Conservancy and memories of some of the work I have seen being done.

We are looking at the paper providing for administrative assistance but we are talking about a range of exciting and important work. Whether we are considering the exciting work in progress on the Island of Rhum and the excitement and joy of seeing some of the sheerwater colonies on that island, or whether we are talking about Merlewood and the link-up, in that case, with Moorhouse, it illustrates the fact that whatever provisions we make there must be a sane working relationship between the two sets of bodies, the NERC of the old days, and the longer-term research at the scientific centres that have been mentioned, and at the areas such as Moorhouse and so on away up on the Pennines.

There must be a well-intentioned good relationship between the long-term scientists and those on the spot both with management and reserves and, of course, with research too. I entirely share the views of others who were disturbed about the possibility that there will be an attempt completely to hive off the research people from those working on the reserves, whose interests are properly divided between management and research work. Many of us have seen the work going on and would not have believed that management and research could be separated. Therefore we are glad that a change has been proposed in another place that gives the Bill quite a different look.

I welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and others to achieve clarity in working out the Bill. Whatever we put in a Bill, whatever we say in regulations or in answers to Questions, at the end of the day we must come to a more human relationship between the two bodies because they will, on many occasions, be working on the same spot.

I was interested in the anxiety expressed about the dangers that might emerge from the Nature Conservancy Council being too tightly enclosed within the Department of the Environment. On balance it is right that it should be there. There are a lot of jobs I can see it undertaking. I hope that it may inform and, in the widest sense of the word, educate the Department.

I understand the anxiety lest there be any attempt to crib or confine it in any independent views it may wish to express. Conservancy work in the past might have been criticised because it was under a Government Department and therefore should not have been as free as it was. It undertook a great job of work among the whole range of the countryside campaigns and conferences held in 1970 and gave the initial lift to the whole concept of public understanding of some of the issues of conservation. It gave backing to both the European Conservation Year and the United Nations Conference at Stockholm.

The sense of independence and freedom it has always enjoyed has been very important. I hope and believe that that will be as true of the future as it has been of the past. I share the view that more and more people are coming to understand the importance of this area, the interconnection between different forms of living creatures in our society. The new Conservancy has an immense educational rôle to play. I hope that even though the direct links with the Department of Education and Science are being broken, in one sense, administratively, every effort will be made to maintain the closest contact with the whole range of educational development.

The new work we are undertaking in our schools, in early contact with problems of ecology, is very exciting and it can be an introduction to understanding wider planning needs, as well as ecological study. I regard the possibilities as very great.

May I mention one feature in the Countryside Act 1968? We wrote in a declaratory clause which said that all Departments had to give special attention to the environmental problems, to amenity and natural history. It was left at that. There was no way in which that excellent declaration could be carried through. I always wanted to see some way in which we could ensure that Departments were asked for some account of what they were doing in carrying out their part of the undertaking.

It could be that the Nature Conservancy Council might accept some rôle in this kind of supervision. That was a comment I made in a report on behalf on COENCO some time ago. That is one of the many ways in which the Nature Conservancy Council can properly play a big part within a wider Department as well as expressing its clear independence. In that hope, which I am sure we will examine in more detail in Committee, I welcome the changes that have been made and wish the staff concerned every good fortune in the future.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy

I am sure we would all agree with the expressions and hope which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has voiced. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Like him, I am extremely concerned about sites of scientific interest. Many people are unaware of the fact that they may live within a matter of a few hundred yards of such a site. I have one in my constituency, and I do not think that more than 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the local population is fully aware of it, although many people visit the wood which the site covers. We need a great deal more publicity, as well as more support, to protect and extend interest in these areas.

On the other hand, while I agree with the hon. Member for Harborough, I find myself in some disagreement with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Benyon). He expressed the hope that the enactment of the Bill would not be irretrievable. I hope that it will be irretrievable, at least for 10 or 20 years. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind the Committee that the former chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council. Lord Howick, did not wish to see the Nature Conservancy hived off from the NERC. However, at the same time, the Nature Conservancy Council discussed the matter in July 1971, and although the chairman may not have agreed, the majority of members were desirous of seeing the Nature Conservancy established as being independent. Those people are entitled to that view. Their experience may have justified it.

I hope that we shall see a permanent arrangement. There have been too many rumours of changes and too much experimentation in this area. What we need is a settled organisation which will have vigour in the capacity to promote the necessary causes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) was extremely clear in expressing the official point of view of the Opposition, that we need a period of settled arrangements for vigour to be applied. However, the Minister did not appear to accept in sufficiently good grace the fact the Nature Conservancy Council should operate a considerable research function. I hope that I am misinterpreting the Minister's comments, but I do not think that we have had a sufficient assurance from him. I hope that he will be informed of my comments.

The Minister seemed to be somewhat grudging in his acceptance of the decision of another place that the research capacity should continue. I hope that we can have an assurance and guarantee that that research function will be sufficiently adequate.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is correct, and the study of grass will be research undertaken by the National Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, not by the Nature Conservancy Council, then our fears as to the willingness and enthusiasm of the Government's acceptance of the change imposed by the other place will be justified. The Minister told us that under present arrangements the Nature Conservancy Council will operate on a budget of almost £1¾ million. The figure given in the other place was £1.74 million in the current year, which would be equivalent to the sum of £1.4 million in 1971–72.

That is a substantial increase but it is not an increase in terms of value, it is a reflection of the appalling inflation inflicted upon us by the Government recently. The Nature Conservancy Council will have £1.74 million, out of which it will have to pay for some, although only a modicum, of research.

Out of that sum the council will also have to administer the machinery, provide for the national committees, manage 135 nature reserves, and according to the figure given by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), 3,000 sites of scientific interest. Therefore, the council will deal with research, administration, management of the reserves and sites of scientific interest and a colossal number of inquiries from public and private bodies. It will have to be prepared increasingly to advise and inform bodies and individuals with a relevant interest. All that must be done with £1.74 million.

The Minister expressed the hope that the council would be able to lead international developments. I do not know how much leadership we could provide out of what remains of £1.74 million. It is not much. I should have thought that a cosmetics manufacturer, for instance, would be likely to spend that sort of money promoting a new brand of lipstick. I do not think that this is a satisfactory situation.

I agree that the Minister accepted that the position may not be adequate. He said that he would be disappointed if a little more than £1.74 million was not provided. But I do not consider that an expression of a possible disappointment is adequate. We need a guarantee and an assurance that money will he forthcoming so that the purposes of the Nature Conservancy Council may be served, and that we shall be able to play a part, let alone lead, international developments in this sector.

On the other hand, the Minister may be relying on one part in the Bill to which I do not object, but which in view of the £1.74 million argument one might look at somewhat wryly, namely, Clause 1(4)(a), which says: The Council shall have power— (a) to accept any gift". It may be that the Government are relying on private charity. It may be that they are relying on customers of the NERC paying for services. I hope that that will not mean that the Nature Conservancy Council will feel that it has to give priority of attention to those who can afford to make a grant or payment. I do not object to the capacity of the council to accept grants, gifts, bequests and so on. That is perfectly reasonable. It is a dangerous situation, however, and we need to be assured that adequate "defence" arrangements will be made to ensure that priorities are by merit and not according to payment.

I do not consider that the Minister should rely on the gap, which will clearly exist if it does not exist now, being filled from private charitable sources. One reason for saying this is that it seems to me increasingly that if charitable organisations wish to raise money they have to be prepared to put a great deal into the promotional campaign. They have to employ fund-raisers, who, I understand are not inexpensive. The Nature Conservancy Council does not have the money to embark upon a fund-raising campaign. I hope therefore that the Minister will not expect too much from that provision.

Subsection (3) will allow the Nature Conservancy Council to make grants. How the Minister expects the Nature Conservancy Council to provide grants out of £1.74 million is really bewildering. Yet grants are necessary. Some county trusts like the Oxford, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire Trust and the Yorkshire Trust—of which I am a member—are doing a very good job and succeeding. However, there are certain areas in the voluntary sphere where real needs exist and where trusts are insufficient to deal with them, and where a grant would he necessary and highly desirable. But £1.74 million would not equip the Nature Conservancy Council to carry out its obligation in those areas.

The Forestry Commission should be complimented on its tremendous work in recent years to provide recreational amenities. Unfortunately it has not received all the encouragement it deserves from successive Governments, and does not have a sufficiently adequate financial framework to allow it to devote proper resources to this work. In this respect I hope the Nature Conservancy Council will add to recommendations made elsewhere to ensure a reorganisation of the Forestry Commission's financial framework so that proper provision can continue to be made for the recreational amenities envisaged in last year's White Paper.

I realise that the White Paper has proved to be economically unsound because of the tremendous increase in the world price of timber. I hope that the comments in the White Paper relevant to the Forstry Commission's recreational and amenity rôle will not be dismissed in the same way as the false economic forecast deserves to be.

Last year, with a Conservative Member, I had the privilege of visiting the Everglades Nature Reserve in Florida. It was very impressive and both the hon. Gentleman—we were on a CPA delegation—and I agreed that the Everglades arrangement should be copied in this country. The Minister has said we should take the lead in international developments and that there may be areas in which we could give a lead. It is clear from arrangements at Everglades and one or two other national parks we visited in the United States, that an opportunity has been provided there for natural contact in an exciting and interesting way. As an amateur naturalist I would not wish to be so well organised that I walked along artificial gangways and so on, but the vast majority of people who do not know how to find natural objects for themselves need such guidance and arrangements. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council. in addition to giving a lead where it can, will be able and prepared to emulate the achievements of other countries.

The Government have said that the Nature Conservancy Council will have a degree of independence. The Secretary of State will, I hope, allow the members he appoints to serve on the council to have that independence. It is fitting and proper that he has the right of appointment. Schedule 3 provides for the Minister to approve any appointment of a chief officer which the Nature Conservancy Council might make. I would like the Minister to reconsider that provision. If delegation is done properly he will appoint members of the Nature Conservancy Council and will then allow them to get on with the job so that they do not have to run back to him before they appoint their chief officer. He may feel that ministerial approval is necessary in the first place but after that, if he has any confidence in his own appointments, he will leave them to get on with the job and demonstrate that independence by removing this particular provision from the Bill.

I believe that the Nature Conservancy has an important rôle to play. It cannot play that rôle properly until it is more vigorous in its expression, more vigorous in its informative capacity and more keen to extend information and advice. I believe that it should be prepared to express its opinion and offer advice, whether or not it is asked for that opinion or advice. The Nature Conservancy should not get involved in moral issues and it should not, for example, join debates about blood sports. On the other hand, it ought not to be afraid of treading on toes.

We have seen in recent years a considerable decline in the otter population. I believe that that decline was so serious and so sharp in England—perhaps not in Scotland—that the Nature Conservancy ought vigorously to have expressed the view that this was a species in very real danger of extinction and it should have been prepared, eager and able to make a real contribution to the debate which took place last year or the year before.

I think it was reluctant to do so because it was timorous of involving itself in a debate on a blood sport. It ought not to take sides on such moral issues, but it should be prepared to inform and advise where circumstances are such that there is a need for informed comment. I hope that it will be prepared to do this in the future and that we will not be in a position where a species will disappear because public bodies with responsibilities have not spoken sufficiently clearly.

We have found in the last few weeks that the Ministry of Agriculture is unable to say clearly how many miles of hedgerow have disappeared in Britain during recent years. I admit that the Ministry of Agriculture is beginning to show concern about the matter. Some of its officials have been involved in studying the question, an interesting pamphlet has been produced, and advice of an appropriate nature has been offered. But I feel that we do not know enough about this problem. Hedgerows are a vital part of our ecology and without them scores of species, of plants, animals and birds will disappear. The inadequacy of our knowledge is something which the Nature Conservancy Council ought quickly to examine.

Since there are many such problems I hope that the Bill will be passed speedily. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council will be able to address itself without delay to the many problems which deserve attention and that it will have the encouragement and the financial support necessary if its tasks are to be fulfilled.

12 noon.

Mr. Robert Maclennan

The prime need is for finality and expedition in establishing the new NCC to overcome months of acrimony which has not been good for the morale of those engaged in the task of nature conservation.

During a Second Reading debate it is perhaps legitimate for our discussions to range wider than the discussions of controversial matters which arose in another place. I would like to ask one or two questions of the Minister. I must first apologise to him for having missed the opening of his speech and it may be that some of the points I wish to make have been touched upon.

The measure of the task of the new Nature Conservancy Council is not fully given expression in the language of the Bill and in particular the Bill does not seem to encompass and place upon the Nature Conservancy Council the major rôle of active prosecution of a truly national policy for nature conservation.

I have read the Bill with some care and I think that it would be possible for the new Conservancy Council to undertake such a major promotional rôle in terms of Clause 1(1)(a)(ii) that part of the Bill which refers to the function of the Conservancy Council is being: the provision of advice and dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation". But that does not really go quite wide enough. It seems to me that we in Com- mittee ought to consider whether or not to spell out specifically this broad-based function of the promotion of the national policy for nature conservation.

The problem is that in years past the Nature Conservancy has done an excellent job with extremely limited resources in a number of chosen areas and it has had to be highly selective about those areas in which it was prepared to make a stand. I am bound to say that on the evidence we have had from the Government this morning and the kind of resources that they have in mind for the new Nature Conservancy Council, I am extremely doubtful whether the new Council can do anything much more than its predecessor in this respect.

Is it intended that there should be an increase in terms of money resources for nature conservation? The figures the Minister has given this morning are not encouraging. I recognise that the decision to hive off some of the functions to the NERC and the ITE will have some cost benefit for the Nature Conservancy Council. But if the new council is to be in a position to give advice on many of the social and economic planning questions in which one would like to see it involved, I do not believe that it can hope to do this on such a small financial base.

Turning to the controversial question of research, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is true that the financial arrangements which were adumbrated in the White Paper have already largely been implemented? Is it the case that seven-tenths of the research formerly undertaken by the old Nature Conservancy has already been passed over to NERC? We should know whether that is the case.

A question arises with regard to that research which has been hived off to the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Can we expect that in the medium term the ITE will continue to do work which has relevance to the questions which the Nature Conservancy has studied in the past? That is not the work which is being done on contract from the new Council but the rest of the work—if the three-tenths and seven-tenths figures are accurate. Will that have any relevance to the work of the Nature Conservancy Council?

It appears that the financial issue is serious for the Conservancy Council and in some ways the most fundamental, particularly at this time with the enormous inflation of land values. It seems that inflation of land values is likely to bring to a halt the programme of acquisition of land for nature reserves. The council may be increasingly dependent upon voluntary donations and arrangements of that kind and may not be able freely to enter the market. This would be very unfortunate.

It is unfortunate because if the NCC is to provide national advice about nature conservation in relation to planning, economic questions and such questions as the development of sites for North Sea oil, it is bound to draw upon experience it has gained in the nature reserves. It is plainly of great importance that the council should have a wide geographical scatter and that there should not be any restrictions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland had not invited the Nature Conservancy to give its views on the proposed sites for oil-related developments. Of course the Nature Conservancy has given evidence on a number of occasions in planning inquiries and most recently——

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger)

In justice to his hon. Friend that was not what he said. His hon. Friend complained that the Secretary of State had not consulted the Nature Conservancy in Scotland about whom he might appoint to the Oil Advisory Committee.

Mr. Maclennan

I see, I am sorry. I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make is that the Nature Conservancy has given evidence at a number of inquiries into proposed change of land use, notably at the recent Dunnet Bay inquiry in Caithness.

Some misconceptions may arise about the rôle of the Nature Conservancy in doing this sort of thing, partly about its locus standi before such a tribunal. It is spoken of as an objector to a scheme. As I understand it, though the Conservancy is spoken of technically as an objector, it is in the position of an expert adviser and it is there to describe the consequences of proposed changes of land use from the conservancy point of view.

If the Nature Conservancy is to carry weight at such inquiries it is of immense importance that its evidence is broadly based and not based simply upon a narrowly confined study of an area under examination. It has to be a comparative study, to some extent, and it is not adequate for the Conservancy simply to say, "There are X, Y and Z factors of interest here". It has to be in a position to make comparative assessments about the relative importance of these questions from a national point of view. This is where I have some anxieties about the Nature Conservancy Council's operations, if they are to be conducted on such a narrow financial base. I do not believe that it has the resources to make these kinds of comparative studies. That is what it should be expected to do.

My final question is about the relationship of the Nature Conservancy Council to the Countryside Commission. My impression has been that the Countryside Commission in Scotland, at least, has shown itself to be singularly insensitive to conservation questions, and, although it has done useful interstitial work in helping to promote certain schemes for opening up the countryside, I am not sure whether it has always seen the possible nature conservancy implications of what it is doing.

For example, the Chairman of the Scottish Countryside Commission, Mrs. Balfour, who is a constituent of mine, has spoken of a large area in Sutherland which she owns—the estate of Scourie—as being nothing but rock and water and, therefore, incapable either of being developed or of providing any sort of employment. On the face of it, that is an extraordinarily insensitive description of one of the most interesting ecological areas in the country, and a neglect of the possible interests of the community in the nature conservation of that area.

I quote that example because it is known to me, and reflects an attitude of mind which one would not expect to see in a person fulfilling such an important public office in Scotland—a "keep out" attitude, because the area is of relatively little interest. Perhaps it is because she has a personal interest in the area that she does not appreciate the public interest in it.

I welcome the Bill, and hope that it will bring to an end the bickering and squabbling which has occurred about the work of the Nature Conservancy Council. I also wish the staff and the new members of the council well in their endeavours.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas

I shall be extremely brief, because I recognise that other members of the Committee may wish to speak. I believe that the kernel of the Bill relates to the research function of the new council. In this connection, I refer the Minister to the evidence given by the Nature Conservancy to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. There is an interesting ecological equation in that the Conservancy suggested that conservation equals research plus assessment plus implementation. If we relate that equation to the Bill, the latter is revealed as inadequate, since it subordinates the research operation to the overall impact. One cannot easily divide this equation and transfer its elements from one side to another. In order to deal properly with conservation in this modern age it is essential that the function of a Council appointed to perform the task of conservation should be that of research.

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and others have sought to probe the Minister in this context. Again I relate my views to the eviddence given to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 21st December 1971, paragraph 3.2(i) of which states, under the heading "The Broad Layout".

The Conservancy's functional organisation has evolved to meet its varied responsibilities and the requirements of its conceptual basis as a research, management and advisory body. Research is the essence of its operations and we cannot in line with the desired legalistic approach subordinate this concept in a Bill of this magnitude and importance.

I am interested—and I may probe the Minister about this in Committee—in the exact relationship between the new Council and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. I am intrigued by the title. Is it possible to have any ecology other than terrestrial? Is the Minister implying that the Institute of Oceanology will have other functions, or will there be overlapping between the ecology of the sea, rivers or lakes and that of the land? The relationship in the Bill is not clear, and I hope that the Minister will at some stage endeavour to clarify the situation.

As some of my hon. Friends have indicated, we in Scotland are concerned about the impact on the environment which is likely to be made by North Sea Oil. I hope that the Scottish Minister present this morning—although I realise that the Parliamentary niceties may prevent him from speaking on the Bill—will take note of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the Opposition's desire to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council is not only consulted but will form part of any organisation of a Scottish nature to assess sites, either for the development of oil or for the production of rigs or production platforms. Twenty-eight sites have been designated in Scotland for possible development, and the Nature Conservancy Council should be consulted before the Secretary of State or anyone else allows them to be developed.

As persuasive evidence of this, I cite Clause 9(1) of the Maplin Development Bill, which states that it shall be the duty of the Maplin Development Authority, before beginning any work of reclamation authorised by this Act, to consult with the Nature Conservancy about the likely effect of the work on any flora or fauna. Subsection (2), which I shall not quote at length, empowers the Maplin Development Authority to pay money to the Nature Conservancy to assist in this purpose.

A similar obligation is involved here. For that reason, it is important that the Nature Conservancy Council should be part of any body examining sites in Scotland. If we are to impinge on the totality of the Scottish environment in terms of North Sea Oil we need to ensure that we do not irreparably damage the environment.

Mr. Younger

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I very much take the point he has made. It is my right hon. Friend's intention that the Nature Conservancy Council should be consulted on any matters associated with planning applications in which its advice might be helpful.

Mr. Douglas

I welcome that assurance. Nevertheless, in view of the comments that have been made I hope that I may press the Minister a little further by asking that the new Nature Conservancy Council should have at least one direct member on the new organisation created to advise on Scottish oil. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to give me a reply this morning.

Thus I give the Bill a guarded welcome. For my part I shall seek by amendments to strengthen it, with particular reference to its initiation and operation of research. I trust that some of the worry and concern of individual members of the Conservancy will be removed by its speedy passage through the House.

12.22 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing

My hon. Friends have welcomed the Bill with guarded reservations. While they have said that in principle they are in favour of it, one after another they have shown why the Bill does not go far enough. I will add one more dimension.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has commented on the financial allocation, which is very small. I have known the Greater London Council to allocate sums greater than £1.7 million almost on the nod. If that is all that the Government can provide for a body of such significance in an age concerned with such vital topics, and after creating the Department of the Environment, something is wrong.

That is not all. Honourable Friends have mentioned that the issue has not been free from acrimony and argument. The whole procedure reminds me of the parallel situation in the Water Bill debates where a complex new structure was imposed upon existing machinery, and where the contractor-customer relationship—the Government's view of how it should work—has been written in. There are a large number of impressive names, including the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, which I fear will not live up to its impressive title. I do not see how it can within the structure that has been outlined.

The greatest drawback of the Bill is that it does not take the national problem by the scruff of the neck. I put a Question to the Department of the Environment recently, following an Answer from the Prime Minister, asking for which bodies, other than those inside the Department, is the Secretary of State responsible. I have not yet had a reply. The Department of the Environment does not quite know where it is on this matter. Nothing the Minister has said this morning gives me any cause to think that the Government realise the size and complexity of the problem with which the Nature Conservancy Council should be concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) paid lip service to a total approach. I do not think he realises that we are up against the problem of the pressure of techniques on the environment—techniques not only of science, but of finance. It is these that are ever-pressing upon the ecological environment and we therefore get the effects mentioned by hon. Members today.

We must make sure what those effects are and, where they become serious, modify the technical and financial mechanisms that are undermining the ecological coherence on which society rests. It is not a question now of nature reserves, but a question of the total conservation of our ecological resources. There is nothing in Clause 1 which would place a duty on the Nature Conservancy Council to look at that total problem.

But if the council is not to look at it, who is? Who is qualified to do so? I do not see any body inside the Government, or outside, with power and finances to look at this problem. It arises in particular in relation to husbandry of the soil. Everyone realises that with new agricultural techniques, and the new agricultural economy facing the country as a result of our entry into the Common Market, there is a limit to the amount by which we can press yields up. That limit may already have been reached. Who is to judge? I do not know.

There was a recent report from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Research Council about soils. It did not go into the problem in sufficient depth and detail. I cannot see that with the limited amount of money the Nature Conservancy Council will have that it will be able to finance research of that kind. It may be that he who pays the piper—in this case the Minister—will not regard that as a suitable area for research, even if the council thought it was. Behind the scenes there may well be greater controls on the theoretical freedom of the council than has hitherto existed.

The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) put his finger on the point when he said that land values had risen so much that the commercial cost, or the theoretical cost, of retaining anything of our natural ecology goes up and up. That is an example of the total pressure I mentioned earlier.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley mentioned the Everglades National Park and the experience in the United States. Its historical experience is one where natural resources have been plundered. There have been some extreme and unfortunate experiences. I do not think that our results in plundering the natural environment may be so spectacular, but they may be as fundamentally important to this island's ecological resources.

I hope, during the course of the Committee stage, that we shall probe further what the Government intend to do. I do not believe that the money available, and the attitude displayed by the right hon. Gentleman show that the Government know what they are up against and what the nation requires of this important subject.

12.27 p.m.

Mr. Oakes

By leave of the Committee, there are one or two matters I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the debate.

First, there has clearly been expressed, especially by the Opposition, a concern that the Government mean to implement the research function that another place gave to the Nature Conservancy Council. My hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) have made it clear to the Government that we should like the Bill to spell out that the Nature Conservancy Council shall exercise its own discretion and opinion as to what research it will do and what research it will give to the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology or the National Environment Research Council. When we reach this point in Committee, the Bill should be amended to make clear what the Committee intend, and what the Government, in pursuance of their amendment in another place and in response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, have said they would give power to the council to do.

There has been some discussion of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. I confess that I do not like the name. It is an ambiguous name. When one uses the word "terrestrial" is it, as one hon. Gentleman said, the connotation that this is terrestrial and not astronomic? That is one connotation of the word "terrestrial", relating to the earth as a sphere. Another connotation of "terrestrial" would be in conjunction with marine or oceanographic. Presumably, that is what the Government mean by "terrestrial ecology", that this is concerned with land as distinct from water. The word "terrestrial" may mean "relating to soil". Will this body be construed as dealing only with the soil and what pertains to the soil and not necessarily animals, birds, and so on, that live on land?

It is not a good name. A much more simple and straightforward name would be more attractive for the important work that this body will carry out. It is a forbidding name. It is a name that most members of the public will not understand and they will certainly be confused by it.

The other topic raised by the Opposition, especially by my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and East Stirlingshire, concerned the independence of the council and ministerial powers. I agree with my hon. Friends that it is being a bit grandmotherly of the House to say that we shall set up this Nature Conservancy Council, the members of which are appointed by the Secretary of State, but that one must come back to the Secretary of State for him to approve whom one chooses as one's chief officer. It has to be seen to be an independent body, especially with regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire said about Scottish oil. It is no use the Nature Conservancy Council giving advice about Scottish oil if it is felt by the public, even though it is not true, that the council is only a puppet of the Department of the Environment or of the Scottish Office concerned basically not with the issues of the environment but with placating the Minister.

We have had something similar to this with Maplin. It was felt that certain reports concerning Maplin were a little too tinged to the Government's point of view to be as independent as we should have liked. These reports were from the Civil Aviation Authority and so on, and one report was a little different from another. Certainly in an independent function like nature conservancy there should be no trace of that, so let us not be too grandmotherly about what staff the Nature Conservancy Council appoints.

Finally, and, as always, most important, there is the question of money. As my hon. Friends have said, for a body which has to maintain so many nature reserves, which has responsibility for research, which will be acquiring more nature reserves as a result of proposals likely to emerge from the review, which will be providing advice and disseminating information to schools—that in itself could cost nearly El million a year—and which in addition is to provide grants to county councils, and others, £1.74 million a year—about the cost of providing one mile of motorway—is insufficient to preserve the fauna, flora and natural heritage of the British Isles.

Having set up this body, we and the Government must look at the financial implications and realise that a considerably greater amount must be spent if it is satisfactorily to carry out the functions given it in the Bill, to the benefit of the British people.

Mr. Page

With the leave of the Committee, I shall try to answer some of the questions put during this interesting debate. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for the contribution they have made in their constructive criticism. We shall take all these matters into account both before and after the Committee stage of the Bill. I apologise to the Committee for depriving it of the words of wisdom of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland but he has listened to the speeches, particularly those of Scottish Members. and will take many of the points into account, some of which I may be able to answer as I go along.

The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) ended by asking certain specific questions, but I think that I shall have dealt with those if I work through from the beginning of the debate. The hon. Gentleman asked about directions which might be given by the Secretary of State to the Nature Conservancy Council. The reference to directions in Clause 1(5) relates only to the functions under "subsection 1(a) above", that is sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause 1(1)(a). There is no intention of giving detailed directions. The directions in Clause 1(5) are to be "of a general character" and only in connection with the general functions of the Council.

The hon. Member asked also about the number of nature reserves established and run by local authorities. The figure is over 30—between 30 and 40—but there are some 350 nature reserves run by voluntary organisations. One of the main objects of the Nature Conservancy Council will be particularly to encourage voluntary organisations, as well as the local authorities, and to give them as much advice and help as is possible.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's ideas about the sides of railway lines and the verges of motorways were most valuable. We have made a lot of progress with the motorway verges, which receive special study and the planting and encouragement of the flora and fauna there.

Next, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the dissemination of knowledge to schools. In my own constituency coastal protection work is under consideration, to enable development to take place on what is now marshland, and in this connection I received one of the most interesting letters I have ever had from a constituent. It ran to 15 or 20 pages. and described exactly the flora and fauna within the area which might be destroyed by the development. The writing was clearly that of a schoolgirl, and her knowledge of the area was astonishing. If the Nature Conservancy Council could assist in the dissemination of that sort of knowledge to schools, I am sure that it would be of great benefit to the whole country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) opposed the idea of the council coming under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. It will not lose its independence by being brought within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment any more than the Countryside Commission does. Indeed, the Conservancy has often in the past made its case at various inquiries. It will do so in future. I believe that once these organisations are within a Department that has responsibility for the environment, there will be far less possibility of issues arising than if the Nature Conservancy Council remained in a different Government Department.

Under the Bill, the Nature Conservancy Council becomes the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment. He will not fight himself. As far as possible, he will accommodate the views and pleadings of the council, as happens with the Countryside Commission now. I believe that the council will therefore possess greater power to its elbow in its new home within the Department of the Environment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham raised the subject of naturalists trusts and so on. We are keen to encourage the voluntary organisations in this sphere. My hon. Friend, like others, commented on the name "Institute of Terrestrial Ecology". This is not the Government's choice of a name. The Natural Environment Research Council chose this name itself, for the purpose of describing the knitting together of the functions now undertaken by the research branch of the Nature Conservancy Committee. The Natural Environment Research Council has a number of other institutes—the National Institute of Oceanography, the Institute of Coastal Oceanography and Tides, the Institute for Marine Environmental Research, the Institute of Marine Biochemistry, the Institute of Hydrology, the Institute of Tree Biology, and so on. The choice of name lay with the NERC. As a layman Minister. I would not try to suggest what title the NERC should choose for any of its branches.

Under this title are collected together the research functions which the NERC will retain after the Nature Conservancy Council has been set up. If the Committee agrees, I shall be glad to circulate an interesting letter written by Professor Stewart describing the setting up of this side of the institute, and the relationship between the institute and the Nature Conservancy Council in the future. I shall not read it now because it is a long letter, but it expresses the matter well.

Mr. Douglas

May I refer the Minister, in view of the title referred to, to the evidence given by Dr. Poore to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on Land Resource Use in Scotland, where—this is page 74 of the evidence—he defines the word "ecology" in the scientific way? I do not believe that the terms can be mixed up. It is either the Institute of Ecology or it is nothing.

Mr. Page

I duck that by saying that it is a Committee point. It is perhaps a little outside the present argument. However, I believe that it would be helpful if the Committee had a copy of Professor Stewart's letter. I shall, therefore, circulate it.

Mr. Lawson

I am happy that the Committee should have a copy of the letter mentioned by the Minister. I have a copy, and it was this document which so alarmed me that I decided to take an interest in the subject. It seemed to me that this "terrestrial" body was swallowing up the Nature Conservancy Council in everything except the running of parks and activities of that nature.

Mr. Page

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I explained in my opening speech the sort of scientific work which would still be in the hands of the Nature Conservancy Council.

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for the advice he has given to the Department and the discussions we have had with him outside the Committee, which have influenced our minds in developing our proposals for the new Nature Conservancy Council. I am indebted also to the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for the Questions put down to the Secretary of State. If I may, having regard to the fact that HANSARD has not been printed, I shall circulate those Questions and Answers to the Committee rather than read them out now. I am sure that they have relevance to what we shall wish to discuss in Committee.

The particular issue raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell was the division of research between the two bodies, and whether the Nature Conservancy Council would have the right to make its own decisions about what research it would be appropriate for it to undertake. I hesitated over this because here we have two bodies, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, and what is given to one would be taken away from the other. I do not mean to set up a sort of Joe Bugner-Joe Frazier fight, with the Secretary of State as referee, but someone must act as referee, because the more one gives research to one side, the more one is necessarily taking away from the other.

If there is any issue over the matter—I do not believe that there will be—as between the NERC and the Nature Conservancy Council, we must leave someone to act as referee and not say that one party may decide exactly what it can take to itself. That is why I hesitated. I am sure that the matter will be debated again in Committee.

The hon. Member for Motherwell was right in saying that the influence of the Nature Conservancy Council should pervade all planning issues relative to the countryside. It should be consulted on development plans, such as structure plans. He asked specifically about the research work it should do: Would anything in the Bill prevent implementation of any of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on Land Resource Use in Scotland? The Secretary of State for Scotland is considering very thoroughly the recommendations of the Select Committee and will be giving the Government's reactions to them as soon as possible.

The provisions in the Bill for setting up the Nature Conservancy Council would not prevent the Council being able to undertake any of the tasks suggested by the Select Committee as appropriate for it to undertake. Where it is already involved in a programme of research, this will continue. New research work also may be undertaken. In all these cases it will be a matter of deciding—I hope on a friendly basis between the two councils—whether the subject is to be one of management research or one which requires more expertise than the council can undertake. For example, in an area such as North Sea oil, if the Nature Conservancy Council was asked what effect it would have on the flora of etc area. I imagine that the council would at once consider whether it was just a matter of collection of information, or a matter requiring research to be commissioned from the Natural Environment Research Council.

That answers the question of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop): how does the public know where to go for information? When there is a problem, I imagine that if it is a conservancy problem an inquiry will be made to the Nature Conservancy Council. If the council feels it needs to commission research on the subject, it will do so from the Natural Environment Research Council. It would not be right at this stage to draw a firm line between the various types of information and research required.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked about the SSSIs—the sites of specific scientific interest—under Section 15 of the Countryside Act. I was astonished to learn that as many as 3,000 such sites exist. He has asked that we treat them with more "life and enthusiasm". The Nature Conservancy Council has to notify local planning authorities of sites of special scientific interest in areas which are not nature reserve areas. The significance of this is that local planning authorities have to consult the council before granting any planning permission for development in such areas.

The extent to which the Nature Conservancy Council will use Section 15 of the Countryside Act for this purpose to enter into agreements with owners of land in such areas will be a matter for the council to consider in preparing its future programme of sorting out priorities within the available resources.

In future, the proposed council will have new powers under Clause 3 to make grams to other persons towards the cost of nature conservation projects. The ownership of land does not change under the SSSI scheme. The co-operation of owners, therefore, is needed to safeguard nature conservation interests in those areas. We need to ensure that the interests of owners and of nature conservation are properly in balance.

The hon. Member for South Shields said that there must be a good relationship between the long-term scientists and those working on the spot. I commend to him the letter from Professor Stewart, in which there is a lot of sound sense. I think that it describes what the hon. Gentleman called for in terms of a "sane, rational, human relationship" between these two bodies.

I like the idea of the declaratory clause in the Countryside Act, and perhaps we might consider in Committee whether such a clause might be included in this Bill.

The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) spoke about resources, and said that I had given a somewhat grudging welcome to the amendment from another place. It was not at all grudging. I was pleased to welcome it. It is a great improvement to the Bill, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the other place for its constructive work.

The £1,740,000 is the DOE's estimate for 1973–74 which we inherited from the Department of Education and Science. I quoted these figures not necessarily as a forecast for the future but to show the extent of the work being carried out at present, expressed in money terms.

We shall need to consider future levels of expenditure in the light of the proposals of the new council for its work and for the priorities in that work. I shall not, therefore, make any statements or promises about the level of resources at this stage. Let us have a look at the new council's programme and see what is proposed.

The money for the conservation side of nature conservancy—the £1,740,000—has been transferred from the Department of Education and Science to the Department of the Environment from 1st April last in accordance with the White Paper, and it incorporates the £380,000 for the commissioning of research from the Natural Environment Research Council.

Mr. Hardy

The Minister said, "Let us have a look at the council's programme". The council will be composed of very sensible people, and they will have to have regard to the resources available. Therefore, they will have to tailor the programme which we look forward to seeing in order to take account of the resources currently available. We should have an expression of possible generosity to guide the council so that its programme may be as ambitious as some of us would like it to be.

Mr. Page

This is the chicken-and-egg situation which arises in any form of government. One must consider the resources available, what one wants to do, and tailor one to the other. I cannot forecast what the national resources situation may be when we come to look at the Nature Conservancy Council's programme. I do not stand here as a Treasury Minister, and, indeed, if I did, my lips would, I suppose, be sealed. Of course, there must be a balance—what is the programme and what can be spent on it; what are the resources and therefore what is the programme? I do not know exactly how it is resolved, but when the Nature Conservancy Council becomes part of the Department, the problem will be minimised.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) put a number of points, and the one which I wish particularly to answer concerned the active prosecution by the Nature Conservancy Council of a national policy. It is ultimately the Secretary of State's job to form the policy. The Council will be encouraged to be as independent as it wishes in the expression of its views and in the presentation of facts and advice on those facts. But the ultimate duty of forming a national policy lies with the

Secretary of State. I should like to answer the rest of the questions put by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and, in so far as I have not managed to do so now, I shall write to him.

This is as far as I can take the matter at this stage. I am sure the Committee will wish not to stretch the Second Reading over a second sitting, because we have had a valuable debate today. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will look carefully at the criticisms made today and see to what extent we can meet them.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that

The Following Members Attended The Committe
Davies, Mr. Ifor (Chairman)	Hawkins, Mr.
Allason, Mr.	Lawson, Mr.
Benyon, Mr.	Maclennan, Mr.
Blenkinsop, Mr.	Oakes, Mr.
Bray, Mr.	Owen, Mr. Idris
Douglas, Mr.	Page, Mr. Graham
Dunn, Mr.	Parker, Mr. John
Farr, Mr.	Spearing, Mr.
Hamilton, Mr. Michael	Spence, Mr.
Hardy, Mr.	Younger, Mr.

the Nature Conservancy Council Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at three minutes to One o'clock.