Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill

HL Deb 29 June 1999 vol 603 cc1-48GC

Tuesday, 29th June 1999.

The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)

Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.

The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.

Title postponed.

Clause 1 [Purposes of designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 11, leave out ("maintaining") and insert ("sustaining")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. To some Members of the Committee, this amendment may be seen simply as a matter of linguistic pedantry. However, if this Bill is to become law, it must be absolutely clear not only what it intends to achieve but also what is to be enforced in order to protect and enhance our areas of outstanding natural beauty. The key word is "enhance". We must not simply maintain an area of outstanding natural beauty as though it were something preserved in aspic at a random moment in time, but we must sustain areas of outstanding natural beauty.

In "sustaining" as opposed to "maintaining", we are allowing for areas of outstanding natural beauty to continue to be dynamic—a living part of the rural environment. Ideally, they should be managed in such a way as to be sustainable areas. Where possible, they should contribute to the overall well-being of the local area in economic as well as recreational terms.

We must avoid the creation of a series of dead, museum-like areas in the middle of a living countryside. That would be harmful to the countryside as a whole, to rural communities as well as to areas of outstanding natural beauty themselves. There are virtually no areas in England that can truly be considered to be natural. Our countryside has been moulded by the presence of man. That includes those areas of outstanding natural beauty. When we talk of any part or aspect of the countryside, we must remember that we are not talking simply of the flora, fauna and wildlife, but also of the people who own, live and work on the land. Thus, the use of the word "sustaining" as opposed to "maintaining" is not mere pedantry but a crucial difference that takes account of the needs of AONBs and the countryside in its full meaning.

On Amendment No. 2, I would say that in wishing to alter the word "maintaining" to "sustaining", we are attempting to harmonise the preceding subsection with this current one. Not only do the addition of the words "livelihood" and "communities" help to make this clause of the Bill clearer, more harmonious and consistent with what has gone on before, but it also gives due recognition to the fact that the countryside must be seen primarily as its people.

As it stands, this clause fails to see AONBs as part of the wider countryside. AONBs are not all isolated wildernesses that can be preserved as if man were nothing but a dispassionate observer and preserver. In fact, most of them form part of a living and working countryside. Our landscape is a managed environment and it has been moulded and shaped over the centuries by the people who live and work on that land. For example, the magnificence of our heather moorland still exists thanks to man's custodial care, yet it is economically viable because of game conservancy and shooting.

It is precisely because of man's role—an active role—in the natural order of things that this balance is maintained and the countryside can be enjoyed by the nation as a whole. This amendment recognises rural people and ensures that in the designation of AONBs and the subsequent activity of sustaining them, the needs and roles of rural people are properly integrated into that strategy. AONBs must not become a burden on rural communities but a much treasured, loved and viable rural asset for the present and future generations. Without this amendment, the Bill falls short of adequately recognising this intrinsic relationship between the land and the people.

Amendment No. 3 seeks to substitute "incongruous and insensitive" for "intrusive". It is quite clear what is meant by "intrusive". At least, I know how I would interpret it. However, it is a word open to abuse by those who would oppose any future change and development in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Any development or alteration is, by the very nature, an intrusion: it alters and therefore intrudes upon the status quo. Similarly, by intruding it has an effect. That may sound to some Members of the Committee as though it is nothing more than a lawyer's argument. We are, however, only too well aware of how badly-worded legislation can be used by those misguided persons—for example, of the eco-warrior type—who would like to see the British countryside perhaps frozen, like some preserved relic at some undefined point in time.

While such people and other campaigners, wrong as their methods so often are, draw our attention to the threat proposed to our countryside in our time, it is important that the countryside is allowed to live. It must not become a decaying museum but must continually develop and thus be stimulating in its freshness. As any biologist will tell, one of the characteristics of something living is growth or change. Healthy living things and environments are also, generally speaking, self-sustainable. Therefore, AONBs must not become little enclaves of an imaginist rural ideal. Rather, they should continue to grow and develop as an integral part of the rural landscape, including rural communities and livelihoods.

As everywhere, a balance must be struck between preservation, progress and the need for people. This amendment would ensure that continued progress and development in areas of great beauty was possible where such changes were genuinely needed for the future of a community and/or an AONB. Any activities or developments would be judged for their sustainability on their individual merits and according to the two eminently sensible criteria contained in this amendment of congruity and sensitivity. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford

I rise to support my noble friend on the first of the three amendments, particularly with reference to "sustaining". "Maintaining" has very specific implications and those of us who work and live in the countryside would very much support "sustaining".

I take this opportunity to thank all Members of the Committee for the kind messages I received and give my apologies for not being at Second Reading, in particular to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. My brother unfortunately died the previous night and I had to go home. I am very grateful for the messages of support and sympathy that I have received.

I am anxious to try to respond to the sensible suggestions that have come forward from my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry with the amendments he put forward. I hope that, in this instance, he will be able to accept "sustaining" as it is a very good word which expresses exactly what we need. The countryside must be a living and working environment.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I thank all noble Lords who are attending this afternoon for the attention that they are giving to the AONB Bill. I believe that this is a rather unique occasion. I do not know that a Private Member's Bill has ever moved into Grand Committee before; and it is the subject of some interest that we are causing a little piece of history.

More important, of course, is what we shall do to areas of outstanding natural beauty. In his more general remarks, my noble friend Lord Rotherwick spoke about areas of outstanding natural beauty and the need for them not to become, in his words, "little enclaves". I should like to touch upon that briefly on the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the debate. That might give everyone an opportunity to express some more general thoughts about the purposes and designations of areas of outstanding natural beauty.

I have listened to what has been said about Amendment No. 1 which inserts "maintaining" rather than "sustaining". If that is the general wish of the Committee, I should certainly not wish to block it. It is arguable that "sustaining" implies putting your hand underneath and holding up, whereas "maintaining" means more regularly pushing forward. I do not believe that "sustaining" is a better word. However, it is not a matter of huge importance and if, as my noble friend has just said, she and others feel that it would be a better word as regards our common interest in the improvement of AONBs, I have no problem in accepting it.

I should have difficulty in accepting Amendment No. 2, because the idea of sustaining livelihoods and communities has too much an impression of sustaining the past rather than moving forward. All of us will say, I am sure, in a debate on the Question that Clause 1 shall stand part that we want to see the AONBs as living active communities. However, inevitably people change jobs. They change the work they do; they change their livelihoods. I do not believe therefore that "livelihoods" and "communities" are the right words to insert. It gives an impression of looking backwards rather than forwards to how there should be active communities in the AONBs in the future.

On Amendment No. 3, I should prefer the word "intrusive" to "incongruous and insensitive". I am sure that noble Lords do not wish to spend time arguing about differences of definition, but to me "intrusive" is a rather stronger word and something we wish to avoid in, safeguarding such areas from intrusive development and its effects. "Incongruous and insensitive" in my book would be open to more subjective interpretation than the word "intrusive". For that reason, therefore, I prefer not to see Amendments Nos. 2 or 3 go forward. However, if it is the wish of the Committee I for one would gladly go along with Amendment No. 1.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I am pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, welcome us here. I am afraid that by the end of this Committee stage he might wish I was not here. I have to declare an interest. Most of the times that I have come into contact with conservation do-gooders have not been particularly happy as far as I am concerned. The amendment on which I wish to dwell is Amendment No. 3, which leaves out "intrusive". I gather that the noble Lord would like to keep this in the Bill, although I have to say I disagree with his views on Amendment No. 2. I am more interested in people than I am in birds and plants. However, as regards "intrusive", I wish to make the point very strongly that any development is naturally intrusive. These developments are absolutely essential to our rural well-being, which at the moment—noble Lords may be unaware of this—is in a state of crisis. Very few farms today are making money unless it is from outside agriculture, and I speak with great feeling both for Wales and Oxfordshire. At present activity outside agriculture is keeping us going, and allowing us to do all the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and other noble Lords want us to do, such as keeping up our hedges. If there is no money we cannot do so.

I am worried about that, but I would not cross swords about the words. However, I am most anxious that we should be encouraged to do "intrusive" things. I hope that the noble Baroness may change the word perhaps to "diversification", but diversification always requires some form of intrusion. Perhaps I may give one perfect example. At the Oxfordshire farm, we wished to make a reservoir. It was encouraged by the water authority. This was strongly opposed by conservation bodies because while we were making it—and I make no bones about it—there was a horrible mess. However, now it is finished I have yet to find anybody who does not think it is absolutely delightful because it has improved the environment altogether. I should be worried if the Bill does not accept the whole principle that the first priority of the countryside is human beings; and I should also be worried if there was any form of stopping development.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My name was added to this amendment in error. There may have been a misunderstanding as I have had to ask for my name to be added to two other amendments. I should like to say that I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Renton say that he would accept Amendment No. 1 if other Members of the Committee were so minded. I would hope that Members of the Committee would accept "sustaining" rather than "maintaining". Perhaps I might give some encouragement to my noble friend Lord Renton. I believe that there is an active part of the word "sustaining" in the modern sense when we talk about sustainable development. It has taken on a completely new meaning in the past few years. Whereas perhaps when I was studying 30 years ago, I might well have agreed with him as to the difference in the application of the words "sustaining and maintaining", in the context of this Bill and within the context of modern political understanding of sustainable development, the "sustaining" might well meet his original objectives.

In deference to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley on this occasion, as in some others, I have to disagree with him on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and on this occasion agree with my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Chorley

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I do not really mind one way or the other on Amendment No. 1. Being old-fashioned, I suppose I shall stick with "maintaining".

Again, like him, but for different reasons, I object to Amendment No. 2 because the main purpose of the 1949 Act, and therefore of this Bill in relation to that Act, concerns landscapes. We picked up livelihoods and communities, but as a subsidiary, socio-economic factor when we come on to later amendments—and my Amendment No. 6—that is where the emphasis should be. This is not a Bill about non-landscape issues. The primary purpose of this Bill is about outstanding landscapes. I do not agree with Amendment No. 2.

Again I do not have any particularly strong views one way or the other in relation to Amendment No. 3. Is the Minister, who, incidentally is to be congratulated on her birthday today, able to tell us whether there are any technical connotations—for example in planning—which might affect the absence of the word "intrusive"?

Lord Jopling

I came here today having spoken at Second Reading and having declared an interest as a farmer but in neither a national park nor an AONB. I came here with no great feelings of enthusiasm for this Bill, but no great feelings of antagonism either. I must say that the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton frightened the life out of me when he spoke of his reactions to Amendment No. 2. He used a phrase which I do not begin to understand. He said that to insert the words "livelihoods" and "communities" into the Bill was looking backwards. I urge him to explain to us exactly what he meant by that.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I must say to my noble friend that it is coupled with the word "sustaining". I was making the point that, in my judgment, if we couple the word "sustaining" (which I am prepared to do) with the words "livelihoods" and "communities", that has too much of a backward look to it. We are not arguing about livelihoods. We are going to move on to amendments which I support in relation to AONBs having social and economic purposes. That is the amendment which I support. My specific reference was to the phrase "sustaining livelihoods".

Lord Jopling

I am sorry but I still do not understand that. I should have thought it was immensely important, if we are going to impose on these areas the possibility of a new layer of democracy, that one of its first and prime objectives should be to sustain livelihoods and communities. We are not talking about the situation in the United States where national parks are areas where people do not live. They are desolate areas. We are talking about something totally different. As I said at Second Reading, I speak with some experience on this, having previously represented in another place areas containing two national parks and two—I said one before—areas of outstanding natural beauty which were part of them.

If we are going to impose a new layer of bureaucracy, it must be prepared to have as one of its prime objectives, as well as looking after the landscape and the flora and fauna, the sustenance of the local communities and their livelihoods. It has been said many times before that so much of the beauty of these places is man-made by the local communities and the people who make their living in those areas. It is therefore essential that we include those words in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick will not give way on this. We can discuss it again on Report and, if necessary, vote on it. I am happy to vote on this issue, which is very important.

Lord Bridges

Perhaps I may approach these amendments from a slightly different direction. It would interest me to know whether the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, would fit well with the Department of the Environment's existing policy of planning guidance—I believe it is No. 7—on what is permitted inside an area of outstanding natural beauty. From recollection, what the PPG notice says is that no major commercial development shall be allowed inside an AONB unless it meets two tests: first, national need; secondly, absence of an alternative site. It seems to me that if we are to avoid major developments of a quasi industrial nature from outside, we ought to know about that. Possibly the noble Baroness could take an opportunity to inform us in her comments.

I should like to make one other comment which derives from a visit last year to the Italian national park of the Abruzzo in the central Appennines to the east of Rome. I was interested to discover from the chairman of the park that they had a very intensive debate on precisely this matter. It is an area of pretty high mountains going up to 6,000 feet, largely cloaked in mature historic beech forest—a very beautiful place. The local inhabitants were resistant to the creation of a national park because they felt that it would destroy the economic activities which they and their predecessors had enjoyed for many years. However, the park has been going for some 20 or 30 years and it is evident that the prosperity of the inhabitants has substantially increased because of the number of visitors to the villages in the park and the economic activities to which it gives rise. It is to be borne in mind that the maintenance of these parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty does not necessarily mean fossilising the economy; it can lead to additional sources of income from the people who visit the park.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for his good wishes. The only thing I can think of that would be more pleasant than discussing this important issue of areas of outstanding natural beauty would have been to have spent the afternoon visiting at least one of them and then to have gone for a quiet evening meal in a countryside setting. Failing that, I am pleased that the Committee has the opportunity today to consider the possible content of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.

The Government will take into account the views which Members of the Committee express today in their continuing consideration of their response to the former Countryside Commission's advice on the future management and protection of our AONBs. An announcement of the Government's intentions can be expected soon although it might be helpful if I made clear at this stage that there is no certainty that an announcement of the Government's intentions on the South Downs and AONBs will be made before the Summer Recess. It may well be later. I should explain that, although I propose to indicate in appropriate cases the Government view on amendments coming forward, the Government consider that the hurdles to be surmounted by the noble Lord's Bill are such that it cannot be expected to reach the statute book.

I turn to the three amendments before the Committee. The established purpose of areas of outstanding natural beauty is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty. There are advantages in sticking with that accepted central purpose. The Government cannot therefore accept Amendment No. 1.

The drafting of Clause 1 and some of the amendments to it demonstrate the difficulty in trying to come up with new words. The debate so far underlines that. There is little to chose between "maintaining" in the clause as drafted or "sustaining" natural beauty as proposed in Amendment No. 1. However, it is doubtful whether either of them are any better than "conserving" or "enhancing".

The Government cannot accept Amendment No. 2 either. We should wish to look at the question of socio-economic duties in the context of the wider powers and duties of local authorities. Amendment No. 2 would provide for the continuing conservation of livelihoods and communities in AONBs. We need to look carefully at how the interests of communities in AONBs are taken into account, and what responsibilities conservation boards should have if those boards come into being. I am not convinced that the phrasing of the amendment is likely to prove the best choice.

Unfortunately, the Government also cannot accept Amendment No. 3 because we consider that the terms employed are too imprecise. Descriptions such as "intrusive development" or "incongruous and insensitive development" are extraordinarily difficult to define. I fear that they would give lawyers, consultants, objectors and NIMBYs a field day. Were the Bill to progress further towards the statute book, the Government would wish to look carefully at how to address the concept which various Members of the Committee are trying to define.

Lord Rotherwick

I thank Members of the Committee who have spoken to the three amendments. I am grateful for the support for Amendment No. 1, but it is not possible to accept it because it has not achieved the consensus of the whole Committee. We may return to that issue.

On Amendment No. 2, as my noble friend Lord Jopling said, it is extremely important that we go back to the point about accepting "sustaining livelihood". We are going in the same direction; that is, that we are both anxious not to be stuck in the past, but to be moving forward. I am sure that at the end of the day we shall devise a solution with which we all agree.

I understand the arguments that Members of the Committee have put forward on Amendment No. 3 but perhaps we may return to this matter at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say a few general words about my approach to the Bill and why I tried to introduce it as a Private Member's Bill in the first place.

We all accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, told me. None of us expected this to become law. It would be a pleasant surprise if it went to the other place in early July and no one objected. I am enough of a realist to know that as, I am sure, is everyone else here today.

My aim was to set out a template with noble and like-minded friends as to which areas of outstanding natural beauty may find it useful in the future as a means of setting up a conservation board, if that were the wish of local people, local authorities in the area, local amenity groups and so forth.

I stress the point strongly. Comment was made in the Second Reading debate about this being prescriptive. My noble friend Lord Marlesford made the point that it is very definitely not so. This is intended as an opt-in arrangement. It would be a template for those AONBs whose local people think that a conservation hoard would be useful to have a template. They could then say to the Secretary of State, "This exists. Why do you not now pass secondary legislation to enable us to set up a conservation board that particularly suits us, with representation from local people, from the NFU, from the CLA and such-like?".

The reason for that was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, just now when she told us not necessarily to expect any announcement from the Government this side of the Summer Recess. It was only yesterday that I heard Michael Meacher, the Minister for the Environment, saying at a conference to launch the Countryside Agency that he expected "pretty soon" to announce a package that AONBs and national parks would find very interesting, and by "pretty soon", he meant this side of the Summer Recess. In 24 hours the views of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have obviously changed. That is very worrying for some of us involved with AONBs.

We were very interested 12 months ago when the Countryside Agency published its proposals on the future structure of AONBs. That is a pattern which I have followed in this Private Member's Bill, with some personal alterations for which I take responsibility. When these proposals were announced we were told that the Government would respond "very soon". Very soon became "later", and it has now gone down in history that when Michael Meacher—or Alan Meale, another Minister in the DETR—was asked to define the difference between "very soon" and "soon" he said, "Very soon is sooner than soon". We now have the "pretty soon", and that has gone as well.

There is a problem here for some AONBs. The Sussex Downs is one such area where I am chairman of the conservation board. I suspect the Chilterns is another of those areas. Currently we find ourselves in a position in which we are very much dependent on local authority and Countryside Agency funding which has no guaranteed future and which is short-term. If we are to plan ahead and employ good people on our small staffs, we need to know what the future holds. We shall come to the clauses on finance and so forth in a few minutes. However, it was against that background that I felt it was worth going through this exercise of introducing a Private Member's Bill, with the help of other noble friends in this House, in order to show the Government that this is a template which could work. For that reason, parliamentary counsel have looked at the Bill and have come forward with their suggestions. I very much hope that even though someone may object to this Bill, it will nevertheless provide a template which the DETR, sooner rather than later, will look at and incorporate into legislation, as a way to help conservation boards to be set up in those areas of AONBs which want it. It does nothing more than that.

From my own experience of 18 months as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, a job which I inherited from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who had performed it extremely well for five years, I have learned that that board concentrates on the values of conservation, enhancement and restoration of landscapes, and encouraging biodiversity. That is very much within the context of a living and active community. No one that I know in Sussex talks about AONBs as being a chocolate-box rural scenery. It is not in our language; it is not in our thinking.

I would point out to my noble friend Lord Jopling that my objection to the use of the word "livelihoods" is that Amendment No. 2 would refer to the continuing conservation of their livelihood. That is what I mean about looking backwards rather than forwards. I do not believe that that is appropriate. The AONBs must look forward and consider how, with the pressures on farming today—sheep farming is the speciality of the South Downs and industrial development presses in on that beautiful narrow belt of downland, only four miles wide, stretching from Winchester to Eastbourne—we shall conserve, enhance and protect it for the next century within the context of people working there, having a livelihood and keeping a community alive. The pressures are so great that it is not easy to see how we shall do that. We need a strong voice in strategic planning which is referred to in the Bill. However, in our judgment, we do not need to be the sole planning authority. Quiet enjoyment and improving access for walkers, bikers and riders also must be part of our objective.

In putting down the purpose of designating areas of outstanding natural beauty, it was my wish to do so. The Countryside Commission would have preferred me to stick to the existing words: for the purposes of preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the areas specified in subsection (1) of the national parks Act.

We need to go further than that. That definition was written 50 years ago. AONBs have moved on too and we must expose AONBs to the argument as regards their purpose now. When the national parks Act was passed 50 years ago, it set up national parks and a system for running them. It set up AONBs but no system for managing or funding them. That is the situation we are considering today and at which the Government will have to look in the near future. I hope that "pretty soon" will become very soon and that we shall have an announcement as soon as possible. For some of us in the AONBs, this continuing uncertainty makes it very difficult to enter into long-term plans on a purely co-operative basis with local farmers, for example, on ideas for land management. It makes it increasingly difficult for us to employ staff. It causes staff unease in a situation, which I am sure the Government do not want.

4 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government well understand references to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and I was remiss earlier in not responding to the query about PPG7. It was quoted correctly and neither the words "intrusive" nor "incongruous and insensitive" are compatible with current planning guidance, which is why we would wish to look very carefully at the possibility of the introduction of any new concepts such as these.

I appreciate the stress on urgency which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has reiterated today. From my short experience of your Lordships' House, compared with that of the noble Lord, if anyone were to be able to define to the exact day or week the meaning of "soon", "pretty soon" or "fairly soon", pretty soon the civil servants would come up with another term which was not as capable of precision. The noble Lord's first experience leads him to understand that it is impossible to be that precise in a department where work is being considered carefully.

Lord Jopling

I have listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry explaining the background to the Bill, as I did at Second Reading. I am sorry to appear so querulous and difficult about this Bill but one particular phrase was used to which the noble Lord referred twice in his remarks. He began by saying that these boards would only be set up if it was the wish of the local people. Can he say where, in his Bill, it is made clear that these boards will only be set up at the wish of the local people? Since he spoke, I have not had time to go through every paragraph of the Bill, but I cannot recall it being stated that they would only be set up if it was the wish of the local people.

I make this point because I referred to this situation at Second Reading. Around 10 years ago the North Pennines area of outstanding natural beauty was created and there was massive local opposition to it. A good many changes were made in the proposal at that time, which to a certain extent allayed local opinion. But the truth is that when the North Pennines AONB was set up, it did not have the support of local people. Both I and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, whose former constituency was also affected, were involved in all that and neither of us was at all happy about it. The previous government did, however, push through—against local opinion—the creation of that area of outstanding natural beauty.

If the government of the day can override, as they did, the views of local people and create an AONB, would the noble Lord please explain to us what is different here that would prevent the government of the day pushing a board of this sort into creation against the wishes of the local people? I am not at all clear how the sticky fingers of central government could be prevented from going totally against what the noble Lord said in his speech. He said, twice, that they would only be created if it was the wish of the local people. This is why I am so concerned about it.

I stress that I detected no desire from the AONBs for boards of this sort, except on very few occasions. It may be that the Sussex Downs AONB board is running out of money but it does not seem a good enough reason to have this new layer of democracy foisted on areas which do not want it. I would be most grateful to know from the noble Lord what is different here that would prevent government again from overriding the wishes of the local people.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

In brief reply to my noble friend, I know that he made this point in the Second Reading debate and past experience clearly sits bitterly with him. The Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty made it plain to us that it supports this Bill because it is clear that it is not prescriptive as such. It is simply setting up a mechanism—and I quote the words again for the noble Lord—for local people to use. I refer my noble friend to new Section 88B, subsection (2), Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult—

1. (a) the appropriate countryside body or bodies;
2. (b) every local authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of the area of outstanding natural beauty; and
3. (c) such other local authorities as he considers appropriate".

An amendment adds to that, "any relevant body", which we will be discussing later. Apart from consulting the appropriate countryside body or bodies, local authorities are democratically elected; they are locally accountable. The board which I chair has 24 members of local authorities on it. It would never have come into being if it had not been the wish of the local authorities with the Countryside Agency, supported by their own electorates. I feel, therefore, that my noble friend's fears, which are based on unhappy past experience, are unjustified.

I was at a meeting for AONBs yesterday: Cotswolds, Chilterns, High Weald in Sussex and West Sussex. All four are, I think it is fair to say, strong supporters of this Bill, though it is only likely that the Chilterns will make use of it.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to conservation and enhancement of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:

4.15 p.m.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 4: Page I, line 23, after ("authority") insert ("and any land occupier or manager")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I wish at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 22. One of the great weaknesses of this Bill as it currently stands is in its general and, I hope unintentional, failure to take due notice of rural communities and the rights of landowners, occupiers and managers. A Bill that does not give adequate weight to human dimensions of an AONB will not only be bound to fail but also will be deeply resented by country people.

It is surely not unreasonable that those individuals and communities who will be most affected by this legislation, and indeed may even bear some of the indirect costs, should be adequately represented and consulted. This amendment ensures that that will be the case. It plugs an unfortunate oversight in the Bill as drafted, and recognises that at the day to day level it is the owners and occupiers who will be the most significant factor in caring for and developing AONBs, and as such it is they who must address this Bill.

Amendment No. 22 again attempts to address the major weakness of the Bill: the indifference of its effect on the stakeholders. The people most directly affected by the management plan are the only parties ignored in consultation. I assume that the management changes will place new responsibilities, liabilities and restrictions on the stakeholders, and that they would be informed of them. It seems reasonable that the stakeholders should be made aware of the proposals and the new responsibilities and restrictions before they are adopted. That is the argument underlying the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I follow the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton on Clause 1 stand part. He referred to the representation on his particular AONB by local councillors and bodies, to which I am not objecting. In many areas of outstanding natural beauty the local authority, indeed the parish council representation, is increasingly from immigrant populations who commute out, or are retired. (I know that it will be said, "I would say that, wouldn't I".) They are in the countryside but they are not part of it. They are not, therefore, representative of those who work there. Those people are more articulate than we are as farmers, and they also have more time to express their views.

Perhaps I could add one point, and perhaps the noble Lord will explain the position to me. At the end of the day the membership of the boards will be will be similar to that for national parks. As I understand it—and I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—at the moment the Secretary of State appoints one half minus one, and one half plus one are representatives of the wider national interest; the remainder are parish representatives. Therefore, it is argued that that is local representation of people who live and work within the park or, in this case, the AONB. As I pointed out, I do not believe that that is so.

I am sure that the Countryside Commission will put this forward as a reason as to why we should not adopt my noble friend's argument about those who work and live in the countryside. As I said, they are not necessarily representative—in fact, far from it—of those who work and live there.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I speak first to Amendment No. 4. The Government cannot accept the amendment. We see the attraction of the principle but it is not a practical suggestion to bestow a legal duty of this nature on private citizens. That was not done in the 1995 Act for national parks and we should need to look at that point very carefully indeed.

The Government also cannot accept Amendment No. 22, which requires copies of AONB management plans or proposed amendments to be copied to every property manager, owner or occupier. That would be a very wide group and difficult to define. There are many thousands of such people in many AONBs.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

With the greatest respect, I believe that we were debating Amendments Nos. 4 and 20.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 22.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

But Amendment No. 22 refers to, every affected property manager, owner or occupier". I thought that the noble Baroness was talking about the consultation process.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

No, Amendment No. 22.

Lord Rotherwick

I am grateful once again to Members of the Committee. I am slightly sad that the Government have difficulty in accepting the first amendment in this group. The aim of both the amendments is to make certain that the people who are at the sharp end have an ability to put forward their views. Likewise, Amendment No. 22 tries to make sure that everyone knows what those conservation boards are doing. We must return to that matter at a later stage. We are very worried that conservation boards may embark upon a course of action which the land occupiers and managers know nothing about and have no opportunity to put right.

However, since I cannot achieve a general acceptance of the amendment, I must therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Management and conservation of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 22, after ("promote") insert ("and ensure")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 8. It may be important to find new ways to promote wildlife, habitat and landscape. But it seems even more important to seek traditional solutions to conservation problems. The steps that have been taken to create those areas of outstanding natural beauty are likely to be needed in future to enable them to continue to be beautiful.

The word "ensure" supports the notion of sustainability. We must take a long-term view when considering these matters. The structures which we put in place will have a profound impact on our countryside for many years. If we run from one promotion to the next without an eye on sustainability, we shall be left with the ruins of conservation rather than the living, working countryside which we desire. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I speak first to Amendments Nos. 5 and 8. The Government cannot accept them. We do not believe that they are a practical suggestion. These amendments would place a duty on local planning authorities and conservation boards to ensure, as well as promote, the conservation and enhancement of the AONBs. We are not sure it is practical to give these bodies a duty towards outcomes in this way. Many things which might affect the AONBs could be beyond their control. They should certainly try their best, which would support a duty to promote conservation and management.

Turning to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, these too we cannot accept. We would wish to look very carefully at the precise groups which should be consulted. We think that the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult "any relevant body" (Amendment No. 10) would be far too imprecise. Those who wish to add to the list of bodies to be consulted should come up with a researched list. The bodies and persons introduced by Amendment No. 11 might be difficult to define, but we would want to look further at who should be consulted.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I should have risen before but, in relation to Amendment No. 11, I can see us getting into a muddle over this Bill. It probably goes better with my Amendment No. 15, and I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said on that, but I would wish to speak to that again later.

Lord Rotherwick

I thank the Minister for what she had to say. I suppose it was a little too much to hope that I could table such a strong amendment and obtain her agreement. I agree with her that it is a little strong, and we would probably seek to come back at a later date with something less strong. We are all after the same thing and are just trying to find how best to describe it.

At the same time, I failed to speak properly to Amendment No. 10. Again, we come back to the same argument; that is, we are anxious that the conservation boards do not just talk among themselves and with official bodies. We are anxious that they make the workings of these bodies open to groups of concerned citizens and that those concerned citizens have a chance of making their feelings known.

Since I do not have the agreement of the whole Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Chorley moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 24, at end insert— ("(1A) Subject to subsection (2) and in pursuance of its duty under subsection (1), every local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of an area of outstanding natural beauty shall also seek to foster the economic and social well-being of communities within the area of outstanding natural beauty.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to consequential Amendments Nos. 7 and 9. During the Second Reading debate, and again today, reference was made by a number of speakers to socio-economic considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, readily agreed in that debate that they needed to be taken on board. Indeed, the drafting of the amendment is his rather than mine. I am delighted also that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, added their names in support. I hope that this is one of the least controversial amendments.

All our AONB landscapes depend in large measure on the hand of man; on farmers cultivating over many centuries. However, these landscapes do not depend solely on farmers. As farming in many AONBs becomes less economic and is likely to continue to become less economic, it is important that alternative activities are furthered. Sensitively handled this need not be to the detriment of those landscapes. I can think, for example, of a number of National Trust projects which have facilitated alternative activities, in particular in finding new uses for redundant farm buildings such as barns. A great deal can be done. These AONB landscapes depend on the people and the communities who live and work in them. If we want to protect those landscapes we cannot ignore those people. They are the stewards. This is the view of the National Trust. In response to the Government's invitation to consult on the forthcoming rural White Paper, the CLA said much the same. There is common ground between us. I beg to move.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I support the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. The purpose of these amendments is to place a duty on both local planning authorities and conservation boards to foster the economic and social well-being of the communities within areas of outstanding natural beauty. Concern about this was expressed by several noble Lords in the Second Reading debate. I understand that the amendment has the support of the Country Landowners' Association. I very much hope that the Committee will accept it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I am glad that the amendment has been moved, and wish that the Government would place a duty on all local authorities to pursue the economic, social and environmental well-being of their communities. I look forward to their bringing in a Bill to do so.

We have not tabled amendments on this Bill, mainly because much in the Bill needs to be encompassed in a wider countryside Bill. We have heard comments from noble Lords about those people who should be heard and those who do not deserve to be heard because they may have retired to such areas. Such comments miss the point that it is a community. Social and economic well-being must involve the entire community. Those who retire and leave the towns are often the people who volunteer to build stiles and clear footpaths because they have the time to do so.

The amendment encompasses the belief that it should be an inclusive process. For that reason I welcome the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

This is one of the occasions when I am in agreement with my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I support the amendment to which I have put my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for moving them and for the support that my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has indicated. The amendment meets the objection which I raised at Second Reading, when I spoke on tourism. I voiced my concern about the position of those who live and work in the areas of outstanding natural beauty, and whose livelihoods might be jeopardised by the Bill in its current form.

Comments have been made in Committee that the Bill does not face any realistic chance of getting on to the statute book. Those outwith this Chamber may wonder why so many of us in this quite well-attended room take such a deep interest in the issue; and why a shadow spokesman on tourism might be so interested. I say to such people, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, that there is a deep significance in this Bill. The noble Lord seeks to provide a template which might be adopted later. At this stage we should take the opportunity to probe the intentions behind this Bill. We are aware that some aspects of this Bill may subsequently become part of the government draft Bill. This is something one has to bear in mind. Therefore it is proper to take a fairly detailed view of the issue at this stage—and perhaps even at Report stage as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley commented.

Also one must have regard to all those who have done so much work in preparing the briefings for this Bill, and those whose views they represent outwith this Chamber. I have received more briefings on this from interested bodies than on many a government Bill.

Reference has already been made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley to the fact that farmers are now facing their worst crisis in 60 years. When I was the opposition spokesman in this place for agriculture last year I was very much aware that farm tourism might at one time have been a way of bringing pin money into the family income system. However, it is now taking a much greater part in the importance of their economy. It is a vital source for other people carrying on other businesses within AONBs.

It is important, therefore, that farmers should be able to diversify into farm tourism. It is something which will grow over the coming years and not diminish and it is vital that the Bill does nothing to hinder that ability to diversify.

Consumers have already shown that they want farmers to diversify into tourism, including in areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is proved by the fact that farm visits is the area of tourism that has boomed over the past few years. The Deloitte & Touche Visitor Attraction Survey of 1996–1997 revealed that the biggest percentage growth in any tourist activity in that period was for farm visits. So tourism of this kind is not only beneficial to the farm owners and managers who are setting up businesses, but it also brings an income stream into other businesses within the area.

I was pleased to see the launch of the English Tourist Board's listing of top farm attractions last year. It illustrates a new professionalism in the way farmers approach the business of catering for tourists and it points to the enormous potential that exists for well-run farm attractions to thrive.

If I may be forgiven for directing a comment at the Government—though I appreciate that it is not the duty of the Minister to answer questions today from Members of the Committee—I have a concern with the re-launch of the English Tourist Board into the English Tourism Council; its metamorphosis is on 19th July. The change in its powers may mean that we will lose this excellent new publication for farmers because the English Tourism Council has been stripped of the English Tourist Board's remit for marketing and for promotion nationally. I am, therefore, concerned whether the national listing of farm attractions will be one of the casualties of this change into the English Tourism Council. This is something I shall take up with the Minister and her colleagues in DCMS as I hope this is a publication that can be assisted to survive.

I am delighted that the amendment has the support of several Members of the Committee and I hope it will receive the Government's support as well.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I shall try not to be the black sheep with my noble friend Lord Renton or my noble friend Lady Anelay, particularly as one cannot even get rid of black sheep's wool at the moment—we have to burn it to the detriment of the environment.

I am delighted to put my name to this amendment. It raises the point that I referred to on the first amendment. I do not believe we shall agree entirely on how far we should go down the road of commercialism in relation to farming. I shall perhaps not be able to get my point over as to how serious it is and how much we do not want to be hindered. Some of these bodies hinder us in the way in which my noble friend Lord Jopling pointed out so ably earlier on.

I put my name to this amendment because earlier on my noble friend Lady Anelay tabled a similar amendment in which she suggested that it should not cost any money. I feel strongly about this and was going to amend her amendment, which no doubt would have caused some wrath. If there is one thing that has cost me more money in my life even than getting married and having children, it is conservation. It is the most expensive form of amusement that anybody can take part in and it always costs money. Let us not bluff our minds that it is not. That is why, to confess, I like making money on the farm because I have reached the stage where I like to improve it.

It is vital for the Committee to realise that, if any conservation body is going to work, it will need money and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is looking at me and smiling because he knows from the National Trust that it eats money. That is one of the reasons that I put my name to this amendment; that is, in order to—I do not want to use the word—"spite" my noble friend Lady Anelay. She did, however, bring home to me that we may be going down the wrong path and I hope that the Committee does not do so.

Lord Rotherwick

I, too, support this very important amendment. It is something which we need very badly in the countryside. It is vital that we embrace this type of amendment. I can only say that some of my farm buildings—and they include Grade II buildings—are now used as office blocks. That means that not only do we derive the majority of our income from those office blocks but it means also that we are able to take forward the renovation and conservation work to which we are dedicated.

It is interesting also to note that the team that does that work on those office blocks is four times larger than our farming staff; and the office blocks now have approximately 100 people employed in them. The number of people on our estate is now approaching the number which there would have been at the turn of the century. That is particularly important, because the estate is beginning to breathe and live again, as it used to. Perhaps the most important impact, however, stems from the fact that those 100 people are commuting locally. They are not commuting into Oxford and helping to create those long traffic jams. I have seen at first hand how important this type of amendment is and I can only hope that everybody in this Committee, including the Minister, will accept it.

Baroness Byford

I rise to support this amendment, moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. It is indeed a very important amendment, which I hope the Minister will be able to accept. As other Members of the Committee have said, farming has been going through a dreadful time. One important factor which has emerged from that has been the shrinkage of the numbers involved in the farming industry. I believe that this amendment would allow a better use of facilities; the ability to encourage small rural businesses of which we are greatly in need today; and for our young people to look to be able to go to work, in whatever capacity that may be.

It is sad, but is a fact, that we now have fewer farmers and there are increasing problems for tenant farmers and for part-time farmers. I do not live in an area of outstanding natural beauty but many of my farming friends have diversified in many different ways. Perhaps I may take up a comment made by my noble friend Lady Anelay. Our neighbouring farmer farms only about 250–300 acres—so it is a small farm—outside Leicester. It was a great joy to us when, last year, his farm won an award as a tourist attraction in Leicestershire. He had some 33,000 visitors to his farm, which he opens so that people may visit and get to know what goes on on the land.

Therefore, I feel that this is a very important amendment for us and for the future and particularly for young people. We want to be able to offer them the facility to be able to work within the rural environment, as was said previously. It means that they do not have to travel miles to the towns and cities. Therefore, we need this degree of flexibility. This amendment will be welcomed and supported and I am very pleased to support it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9. The Government are not prepared to accept them in their present form, although we would wish to look very carefully at the possibility of a socio-economic duty. We certainly accept the principle that we need to have regard to social and economic issues, as well as those concerned with natural beauty when planning for and managing AONBs.

The precise way in which this may be expressed in legislation needs further careful consideration. Local authorities already have economic, environmental and social powers and duties in respect of the areas included within AONBs. The Government's agenda, set out in a White Paper last July, said that local authorities should be weighing economic, social and environmental considerations when deciding what actions to take to improve local quality of life.

The Government are committed to providing a legislative framework which allows local authorities to further all these aims. The position regarding AONBs needs to be looked at in terms of our wider agenda. If the Committee will forgive me, I shall continue at a little greater length because it is an important area and it is important for me to express views on the record.

Amendment Nos. 6 and 7 would provide that in pursuance of the new duty to promote the conservation and management of AONBs which the Bill would create, local planning authorities will also have to seek to foster the economic and social wellbeing of local communities. Amendment No. 9 would impose a similar duty on a conservation board in carrying out its duty to promote conservation and management of an AONB and seek to foster social and economic wellbeing.

As for statutory conservation boards, if they proceed towards the statute book we will consider what duties are necessary. Under the 1995 Environment Act national park authorities have a socio-economic duty, but are prevented from spending significant sums in carrying this out. This is to ensure that their focus remains on their primary purposes, which in the case of national parks are conservation and education recreation. We might want to consider a similar legislative constraint for AONB conservation boards. Otherwise there are significant implications for overall funding levels and for the relationship with other bodies, not least the local authorities.

I apologise for speaking at length, but I thought it would be helpful.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Chorley

First of all I should like to thank all Members of the Committee for the wide measure of support for this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, rightly said that conservation does not come cheaply. On the other hand, if we do not have conservation we will lose the nice things we have, and it has to be funded.

To turn to the noble Baroness's reply on behalf of the Government, I am not sure whether she was voting against the amendment—she probably was, being not content with it. I would be happy to take it away if we could have some help from the department.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

If I may put words into the noble Baroness's mouth, she would not accept this on behalf of the Government, but in fact she does not accept the Bill as such. I do not believe that the Minister is voting against these amendments, rather she does not wholeheartedly agree with the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

We are in danger of getting into difficulty. Perhaps I may go back to my first point. We are not prepared to accept these amendments in their present form, though we would wish to look very carefully at the possibility of socio-economic duty which is raised in Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9.

Lord Chorley

For my part I would be quite happy to take this away and, perhaps in conjunction with officials, to try and find a form of words which is a bit closer to something with which the Government could agree. My difficulty is that we do not necessarily know that there will be a Report stage of this Bill. I should like to press the amendment as it stands, but I am not sure if I have that right.

The Chairman of Committees

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. Does the Minister want to say "Not Content"?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

No, I abstain. My understanding was that there must be total agreement to amendments. I must seek the guidance of the Chairman. My understanding of the procedure in Grand Committee in the Moses Room is that either all noble Lords speak in support of an amendment or it is not put. That was ray understanding and I think I have been in error. Therefore I shall abstain.

The Chairman of Committees

The noble Baroness is correct: we cannot have any Divisions in Committee. Since it has not been possible to agree the amendment I must declare it to be withdrawn, but the matter may be returned to on Report if there is to be a Report stage on the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 not moved.]

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 12: Page 3, line 4, leave out from ("of) to end of line 6 and insert ("parish council members")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. We all agree that these areas of outstanding natural beauty are national assets, but we must also recognise the impact that these management schemes will have on the local people and their livelihoods. The local people have been custodians of these areas for generations. They live and breathe this environment. They are the reason that these areas are beautiful. They were, on the whole, the creators. To give them anything but a central role in the preservation of these areas is unreasonable.

Amendment No. 13 is on a slightly different tack and I am not sure that it should be coupled with No. 12. However, I shall speak to it at the same time. These bodies will wield enormous power in their influence. To represent the people most affected, we should allow the widest participation by the local communities. To limit the nomination period would lead to positions being filled by unusual suspects. Public service should seek to include the widest range and highest number of participants. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Amendment No. 15 is tabled with Amendment No. 11. I start by apologising to Members of the Committee if I repeat myself, which I am afraid is inevitable in this Bill because it goes round one or two main points. However, I should like to put on record rather more clearly what I have previously stated.

The amendments deal with who should be on the boards. The object of my amendment is as follows. The Secretary of State is being given a strong steer in terms of ensuring that those persons who are actually managing the landscape (the outstanding quality of which has led the area to be designated in the first place) are represented on the board—a point that I have already raised. In practice, that will invariably mean appointing farmers and landowners after the Secretary of State has consulted organisations which represent them. That may answer one of the questions that the noble Baroness raised on my previous amendment; perhaps that is the way to do it.

Marking the card of the Secretary of State in that way is necessary because his consultations with the Countryside Commission, English Nature and local authorities is likely to produce a list of candidates—dare I say it?—who are strongly committed to conservation but are not necessarily involved with encouraging the economy of these often fragile areas. I speak with feeling. A constructive partnership between those agencies that I have just mentioned and authorities with farmers and landowners is vital if the boards' environmental as well as other objectives are to be achieved.

Amendment No. 15 is really tied up with Amendment No. 11. These amendments do not impose a specific formula or proportion for land manager appointments. I fully understand that it is important to have flexibility, to tailor the boards to the circumstances of the various AONBs. We should remind ourselves that the Bill does not deal only with the AONB about which the noble Lord is rightly concerned. We wish to obviate the absurdity of a board which excludes the only people, such as I have mentioned, who are in a position directly to affect the maintenance and enhancement of the AONB.

Perhaps it is too easy for a farmer to ruin an AONB—sometimes intentionally, I am sorry to say, and sometimes unintentionally. It is vital that they are heavily involved in the representation on the boards.

Lord Chorley

I wish to speak primarily to Amendment No. 14 which stands in my name, but also to refer to Amendments Nos. 12 and 15. Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, is directly contrary to my amendment. Leaving that aside, for the membership of conservation boards to consist of local authority members and parish councillors is too narrow. I disagree with that.

The purpose of my amendment is to draw attention to the fact that our AONB landscapes—in the terms of the 1949 Act being "landscapes of the highest quality"—are of national importance: that there is a national dimension. In appointing members to a conservation board, the Secretary of State needs to strike a balance between national and local community interests.

How the balance should be struck may well—and I suspect usually would—vary from case to case according to local circumstances, and for several reasons. I doubt whether it would be wise to be prescriptive. I hope that my amendment strikes the right note on the basis that there should be a national voice on a conservation board.

I turn briefly to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, with which, subject to drafting, I should be entirely happy. He makes a valid point. If I understood him correctly, a farmer could wreck a whole landscape in a single season simply by unsuitable, albeit economic, farming and we should end up without an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is important to have farming interests and knowledge on board. I am happy with the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

There is one point about the nationally appointed members. Generally there should follow some nationally supplied finance. We shall come to that later in the Bill. Apart from trying to widen the expertise, one of the reasons why the Secretary of State would want to appoint people to the board is that the AONBs represent an asset nationally—they are beautiful landscapes. Also it is to be hoped that by that stage the Government will have secured the funding and it will be necessary to ensure that the representatives also have regard to how the funding is spent.

I have looked carefully at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. While I find nothing wrong with it I hope that some of those who derive their livelihood from the occupation and management of the land might also be on local authorities and parish councils. Indeed in the AONBs and national parks of which I am aware which have successful consultative committees, frequently the people who own and manage the land are among those who have been very active members of the boards or committees. If local people are to be on the boards I hope that it would be mainly through that route.

Lastly, as I mentioned at Second Reading, the Secretary of State appointees would be people who do not live miles from AONBs. I know a number of national park appointees who, for reasons known to the Secretary of State, live two or three hours' drive away. Although I do not deny that they bring considerable expertise from their previous employment, nevertheless they are not really part of that community and can only visit it for specific meetings and occasions. If the Secretary of State were to trawl thoroughly, he would be likely to find people to appoint who lived more locally and had a day-to-day understanding of the local issues.

5 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

The noble Baroness raises an important point, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Unfortunately there is only about one farmer left in Great Britain at the moment, and there will only be half at the rate we are going. Sadly, we now have less and less representation on parish councils and local authorities. My noble friend nods her head. They used perhaps to be packed with farmers and landowners. That is why I want the amendment. As I shamefully said—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, caught me out—we can easily ruin an AONB, or might do so by default. I can think of one or two things I have done that I wish I had not done.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I very much sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. It is very important that the inclusion of persons who derive their livelihoods from the occupation and management of land within the area of outstanding natural beauty should be specifically referred to at this point in the Bill. As others have said, each board will have different characteristics. That is the purpose of having an order brought in by secondary legislation that fits the Board to the particular AONB. I strongly support Amendment No. 15.

I do not wish continually to refer to the example of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, but it is a paradigm that exists. It was much discussed, I believe, when that board was set up eight years ago. There was a request at that time that a specific number of those from the farming community should be included in the board. It did not end up like that: it is made up of 24 members of local authorities, 12 nominated by the Countryside Commission. However, in my time on the board 12 of those three have always been farmers. It is very important to have them there but some local authority members may also be farmers or concerned with the occupation and management of land. It is an important point. I hope that it goes some way to remove the fears that have been expressed earlier by my noble friend Lord Stanley and others concerning the lack of representation of the farming interest in such conservation boards.

On Amendment No. 12, I agree with others. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick means to confine the board only to local authority members and parish councillors. I suspect that something may have gone wrong with the drafting there. I am sure that he would wish to see others on the board as well. It is not an amendment that I can support.

Amendment No. 13 states that, where public notification has been made of vacancies not less than eight weeks prior to election, Why not? That is a good idea and it makes quite certain that vacancies are widely known and that many people put their names forward. I should like to think that they would be working members rather like working Peers, bound to turn up so many times to board meetings.

The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, picks up the same point that board members should reflect, both national and local community interests", which, again, seems to me to be an obvious requirement and I hope that the Committee can accept that amendment.

Baroness Byford

I rise briefly to support these amendments. All of the amendments tabled by Members of the Committee reflect their concern about membership of the boards, and that they should have a strong influence locally on people who are very much involved in those local communities and should also perhaps include one or two people on those boards who have a wider brief.

As regards parish council members, I believe I know from whence my noble friend Lord Rotherwick is coming. He is trying to make a clear point that parish level is the first elected level of government. It is important that thought should be given to including on those boards somebody from the very first level of elected government Comments made by other Members of the Committee reflect our hope that the boards would have a broad membership and that they would include people who have work experience, are involved locally and would also have at heart the interests of the board not only as a living, working place but as a place of beauty to which other people outside the area will come.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government cannot accept Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, dealing with the conservation boards for the reasons referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. We feel sure that the Secretary of State would wish to have a certain number of appointments which he may delegate as appointments to, for example, the Countryside Commission.

There may well be a case for parish council representatives as there are on the English but not Welsh national park authorities. We should welcome some clarification on the effect of Amendment No. 13. Is it the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, to set up a new system of parish elections for representatives on conservation boards and, if so, where is that provided for? This sort of proposal would need to be thought through carefully.

On Amendment No. 14, we accept the principle that Secretary of State appointees should reflect among them both national and local interests. We do not accept Amendment No. 15. We wish to look in some detail at the make-up of membership for the sort of reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred. I am sure the Secretary of State would wish to include landowners and managers among appointees but would want to consider whether a specific reference is needed.

Lord Rotherwick

The contributions by Members of the Committee have unearthed a great deal of useful material certainly in Amendment No. 12. I have great sympathy with what has been said and both the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, have brought up exceedingly good points.

The boards we are talking about should be properly defined as to their composition and balance. In my amendment I mentioned about parish council members and the more diverse the members are, the more chance that the information regarding what these conservation boards are talking about will filter down to all parts of the rural communities.

On Amendment No. 13, I shall accept the advice I have been given and I shall go away and give further thought to the matter. I therefore now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

Lord Chorley moved Amendment No. 14: Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("so as to reflect both national and local community interests")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15: Page 3, line 7, at end insert— ("() In making his appointments to a conservation board, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to include persons who derive their livelihoods from the occupation and management of land within the area of outstanding natural beauty.")

The noble Lord said: I should like to make a few remarks, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness has just said. I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness cannot agree to this amendment in its present form but also that she agreed with the principle of the matter. This will make it essential for me to return to the matter on Report to try to clarify it, because although I would not for a moment wish to be described as a working Peer—as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton—both he and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, agreed that I had raised a valid point. Somehow we must try to get this issue included to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness.

[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 16: Page 3, line 12, at end insert— ("() The decisions of the conservation board shall be subject to appeal by affected landowners to the local authority and representative bodies.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16. It is quite simple. Surely it is only right that those affected by this clause should have the right of appeal. To allow such powers to a conservation body without the right of appeal would be contrary to natural justice. I beg to move.

Lord Chorley

I am terribly ignorant about planning law and procedure. However, I should have thought that there is always right of appeal in these circumstances anyway. In other words, it is not necessary.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It may help if I make the Government's position clear on this. The Government cannot accept this amendment. It would be unworkable. There would need to be clarification as to how this proposal could possibly work. On what legal basis would all the decisions of a conservation board be subject to appeal? Would it be to a local authority or to representative bodies? If conservation boards are set up, with their own powers and duties, separate from local authorities, it is not easy to see how we could, or would want to, make them generally subject to being overruled by local authorities. What representative bodies would be involved? What legal vires would exist to allow them to overrule decisions by a properly constituted conservation board? I regret that I am unable to support this amendment.

Lord Rotherwick

I thank the Minister for her comments. Perhaps at a later stage, we shall return with an amendment that may be more workable and will clarify the situation to which she referred. I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 17: Page 3, leave out lines 13 to 15

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment. The powers of acquisition and ownership are already present in the local authority. If the conservation boards are to operate properly, they will need to co-operate with the local authorities and co-ordinate their efforts. The power of acquisition and ownership is too much to give to an appointed body. This power should reside with an elected local authority and it should be used in the protection of AONBs, through the advice from the conservation board. I beg to move the amendment.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I speak to Amendments Nos. 32 to 38, which have been grouped with Amendment No. 17.

The purpose of these amendments is to remove the powers of compulsion from the ability of the conservation board to acquire and dispose of land. This was a point that was made very strongly by noble Lords in the Second Reading debate, and I confess that I have considerable sympathy with it. I must point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that the conservation board would still have the right to acquire and dispose of land, but not to acquire it compulsorily. It is at that point that my amendments disagree with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick.

There are, of course, those who would ask why an AONB conservation board should have any reason to acquire land. There will be occasions—a typical example would be the Sussex Downs—when a piece of land becomes available that others wish to use, perhaps for a travellers' site or a waste disposal site. It is available; it is within the AONB. The local authority may be unwilling or reluctant to incur the trouble and expense of buying it because it will have passed on the duties of looking after the AONB to the conservation board. Thus it is an important point for the future.

I hope that, in the future, conservation boards will have the right to acquire and to dispose of land, and of course, the funds to do it. Many on this Committee may say that they will have the power, but will never have the funding; and that may well be true. I can think of an instance where there is a small piece of land available at the moment in an area by Cuckmere Haven. It is a small stretch. It is between National Trust land and a working farmer's land. It is an area through which a lot of people would like to pass on their way down to the beach, and it may be available for sale. It would be a very sensible piece of land for our conservation board to acquire by agreement.

There is no intention whatever that the conservation board could make widespread use of this power. I fully accept that private landowners and farmers should continue to exercise their historic stewardship, and I would expect them to do that. It is very unlikely that the conservation board will have much money with which to acquire land, but they should have the powers. I hope, therefore, that this Committee will agree to these amendments which would, while removing the compulsion altogether, still leave the board with the right to acquire and to dispose of land. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I had not intended to speak on this point, but the noble Lord mentioned one particularly painful difficulty; that is, a travellers' site. Having experienced the difficulty of a travellers' site in an AONB, I feel that it is important to realise that the board might be pushed down a road, if it was left with this power to acquire land, that would bring it into conflict with local authorities. I feel also that the board may begin to feel that buying land as a way of solving problems was easier than resolving those difficulties, which would take a long time and an awful lot of negotiating.

I feel that the spirit of the board embodies an entity that manages, negotiates and brings parties together in the interest of the AONB. I would be nervous that, first, it would be diverted from that duty in the place of boards that perhaps develop acquisitive tendencies. Secondly, there might also be a difficulty where a board felt that by acquiring land it would solve problems in a particular way—not necessarily by excluding travellers but, for example, by excluding affordable housing in an area where it did not want it, whereas it would be better negotiating where those houses might go rather than buying its way out of that difficulty. I support the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I speak first to Amendment No. 17. The Government cannot accept the amendment at this stage because it seems possible, without prejudice to the eventual decisions, that statutory conservation boards may need some power to acquire or dispose of land in particular circumstances, leaving aside, for the purposes of Amendment No. 17, the question of compulsory purchase.

The Government also cannot accept Amendments Nos. 32 to 38. We should wish to look very carefully at the question of whether or not conservation boards should be given powers of compulsory purchase. Amendments Nos, 32 to 38, taken together, remove compulsory purchase powers for AONB conservation boards from the Bill. The Government have not come to a final view as to whether AONB conservation boards, should they come into being, should be allowed compulsory purchase powers. I said on Second Reading that we would not expect such powers to be needed very often.

Lord Jopling

I am slightly puzzled because on page 3 of the Bill, Clause 3(5) says: A conservation board shall have the powers of ownership and acquisition of land set out in the Third Schedule to this Act. However, there does not appear to be a Schedule 3. Before we go any further, it would be quite helpful to know what this is all about.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

Perhaps I can help my noble friend. It is the Third Schedule as quoted at the top of page 7. It is the Third Schedule to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which appears in the present Bill as Schedule 1. These are all references to the Third Schedule of the national parks Act in which we are omitting certain sections which would otherwise have given us compulsory powers.

Lord Jopling

That is helpful. I thank my noble friend. I become first depressed and then encouraged as the Committee stage goes on. I am deeply depressed to hear the comments of the Minister when she says, as I understood her to say, that she wants compulsory powers left. I thought she said she would not use them very often.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I expressed myself very carefully. The position is that the Government have yet to reach a conclusion. At this stage the Government take the view that compulsory purchase order powers may be desirable, and were that to be the Government's view when they reach a final conclusion in due time, it would be in the context of them being used very occasionally.

Lord Jopling

I have sat in this building now for 35 years, either reading out ministerial briefs like that or listening to them, and if I know anything about ministerial briefs, it is a straw in the wind that the Government would like to see a board of this sort having compulsory powers. That is why when I heard what she said—and I believe I heard it correctly the first time—it made me infinitely depressed. If we are to have such boards, the last thing in the world they want are compulsory powers. I applaud my noble friend for seeking to remove the compulsory powers from the Bill.

I understand that there may be occasions when such a board might wish to acquire land, if only to have an office. Therefore I should not go to the wall over subsection (5), but I certainly should go to the wall over compulsory powers.

Baroness Byford

Perhaps I, too, may add a few comments on these amendments. I am personally disappointed but I can perhaps clarify the matter and I hope that the noble Baroness will follow my line of thinking. She is in a slightly difficult position today in that obviously the Government—soon, soon and very soon and maybe soon—will be bringing forward proposals.

These amendments perhaps touch on aspects of their forward thinking on which the noble Baroness is not allowed to disclose her hand. I hope my English is reasonably balanced on that, for the noble Baroness does not know what the final intention of the Government will be, and therefore is being careful in her views on compulsory purchase.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for giving way. She understood my point. We are not saying that we would require or wish to have compulsory purchase powers. We are saying that at this stage we do not wish to rule it out. That must not be interpreted as ruling it in. We are ruling nothing in and nothing out in this context. We are not even ruling in or out the boards to which they would apply.

Baroness Byford

I thank the noble Baroness for coming back to me. I felt that was the position, but I have to say I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Jopling because I too become more and more disheartened, and even more frightened, by the fact that whatever power they have might be used occasionally. I have been in this Chamber not quite three years and other Members of the Committee have been here for much longer, but one thing I learned very quickly in listening and taking Bills through this Chamber is that, if it is not written in the Bill, one should be aware of it. It can sometimes bring complications.

I support my noble friend and am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton who obviously listened carefully to the views of people at Second Reading in relation to the use of compulsory powers. I also support the other amendment which is being put forward and hope that I clarified the position for the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. She is in a difficult position at the moment.

Lord Chorley

As we are having a useful discussion on compulsory purchase, which I hope is of use to the Minister and her officials, I must say that I had not thought about compulsory purchase until it cropped up at Second Reading. I said then, on the hoof, that I was not in favour of it. The more I think about it, the less inclined I feel that it is a good idea to have compulsory purchase powers in the Bill. I therefore support this series of Amendments Nos. 32 to 38. It is simply a bridge too far. One needs to be careful about who has the right to compulsorily purchase.

With regard to Amendment No. 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, it would be a mistake to circumscribe a conservation board by not being able to acquire or dispose of land. One cannot envisage specific circumstances where it may be important to deal with an issue by buying land or disposing of it and therefore the board should be given those powers. But like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I assume that they would be rarely used, not least because the board probably would not have the money to do much buying.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I hope when I leave this Chamber in November that two things will be written on my obituary: one is opposition to compulsory powers at any time and, I am afraid, promoting dog registration. Therefore I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Renton said about not intending to have compulsory purchase powers in this Bill, which was supported strongly by my noble friend Lord Jopling.

I was extremely worried by the remarks of the noble Baroness. She sounded just like the potential bride who says, "No", fully knowing that in the end she is going to give in. I felt all along that that may happen. I sincerely hope that it does not. I presume that the noble Baroness will object to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as she has to the others. I should like to have some provision in the Bill that we would not have compulsory purchase. I feel strongly about this. If the issue comes up again, I shall press the matter.

Lord Rotherwick

I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Renton, for having taken on board all we said at Second Reading about compulsory purchase. However. I have difficulty in finding sympathy with anything he said about acquisition and disposal of land. There are some basic problems with this attitude. We are talking about an unelected board. Earlier we talked about the provision being a template and something one could opt into. What happens if we want to opt out of this conservation board? Who then holds the title of the land? These are real problems. I am sure that the conservation board could advise the local authority to purchase the land and dispose of it on its behalf.

I also raise the question of funding. If the conservation boards have continuity of funding year in, year out, I should have thought that the level of that funding would not be able to take in these large purchase prices. What would happen if a large chunk of money came in?

I cannot see a way around this problem. I have to put on record and inform the Minister that time and time again we shall come back to this issue and do all that we can to stop the compulsory purchase acquisition or the ability to dispose of land by an unelected body. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Jopling

May we not have the opportunity to vote on Amendments Nos. 32 to 37 which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton?

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo)

I inform the Committee that amendments are taken in order. Those will come later.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 18: Page 3, line 19, after ("order") insert ("including representatives of the land managers affected")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 18, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 19. We cannot ignore that most of the land affected by this legislation is private property. The legislation already represents a degrading of the landowner's right. This should not be done without representation. If the management scheme is to succeed it must involve the stakeholders and their unique experience in that landscape. Some argue that this would be like making inmates into wardens, but despite such malicious propaganda, it is the vast majority of the landowners who are the guardians of the land. Their involvement would create a better atmosphere as well as incorporating significant local knowledge. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government would not wish to accept the amendment until we have had an opportunity to look carefully at the desirability of having advisory councils and consider their membership in depth. The amendment would require that land managers' representatives would be among the membership of such an advisory council.

We have no doubt that by their very nature, representatives of many groups with an interest in the AONB—including importantly not those that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, feared he saw as inmates and wardens, but as partners in the many diverse circumstances of AONBs—would not wish to be tied at this stage.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I am somewhat surprised at the view the Minister has put forward with regard to advisory councils, and the suspicion, almost worry, about them. I should have thought that this was a development that would be widely welcomed by the Government as without dealing with the board's composition as such, it enlarges the area into which people could come on an advisory basis in order to give the benefit of their advice and their experience to a conservation board.

The Government have not yet made their mind up about this matter and therefore the Minister opposes the amendment. I submit that that is true of the whole Bill. The noble Baroness has said that all along and it seems somewhat otiose, therefore, to say it in detail about an advisory council. The Government make a point of believing in people power, consultation with and advice from as many bodies as possible. I went out of my way to include this advisory council without any suggestion, I may say, from the Countryside Commission that I should do so, simply in order to widen the brief, bearing in mind the comments that I expected to hear, so that those who would be consulted would have a chance to air their views about the direction in which the conservation boards were going.

I do not agree with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. I find the Minister's response very odd because the Government do not have to reply in depth on every point in the Bill. We know they do not accept it as such; we know that someone will object in the House of Commons when it arrives there. As a result of her brief, rather as with the question of comrulsory purchase on which we shall have to vote, she is giving us the impression that she is more of a dragon than she wants to be. Some of the things she is saying she cannot accept are, I suspect, things which she would very much like to see as developments.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I would like the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to know that not only is it my birthday but my Chinese horoscope sign is a metal dragon! So he hit home more accurately than I suspect he realised. I appreciate that I am giving the noble Lord a very difficult time in advising him that there are many areas in which the Government would like or prefer to see options left open. Therefore, I try with brevity, where I feel that brevity will suffice, to indicate those areas where we would not wish silence to be interpreted as support.

Lord Chorley

I wonder if it would help the noble Baroness if, instead of using the words, may also provide for the establishment of an advisory council it should read "to provide for the establishment of a focus group"?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is shortly to be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who is about to talk to me about people's juries.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I have been tempted. I mentioned on Second Reading that I did not much see the point of the advisory council. I am sure that many people will advise the board and so they should, but I do not see that the establishment of yet another body has any advantage. Whatever we call it—"advisory council", "focus group"—the board will call for advice from those appropriate when appropriate.

Lord Rotherwick

Since birthdays have been mentioned twice now and all my amendments have not been accepted by the Minister, I wonder whether, if I were to wish her a happy birthday, she might be able to accept some of the amendments in the future?

I am grateful that she is indicating some of the Government's thinking on this. It probably goes back to Amendment No. 12 where, at some later stage, whether it be in this Bill or in government Bill, we shall take we will take some considerable time looking at what the balance of a conservation board would be and what national dimension it would have. These are important subjects and ones on which we will spend a considerable time later on, but perhaps not at this time. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 20: Page 3, line 33, at end insert— ("() The area of outstanding natural beauty management plan shall be published in draft form for consultation purposes. () Written submissions will be accepted for a period of six weeks beginning on the date of publication. () Submissions will be taken into account by the local planning authority and the conservation board in producing the final management plan.")

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments is vital if consultation is to become a firm part of this legislation. It will ensure a local voice for the management plan, and that is important if we are to have an harmonious approach to land management. It is the diversity and the regional character of the areas that make them beautiful, and this sort of management is not one that benefits from best practice. The tendency to overcentralise and homogenise can be overcome by consultation. The time limit will allow the orderly production of a final plan. I beg to move.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I should like to speak to Amendment No. 21, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 20, and sets out to serve very much the same purpose. My amendment is somewhat less prescriptive. It is more general in its effect, but I do not know that that makes it any better an amendment than that of my noble friend.

The principle of wider consultation is an extremely good one. A lot of people will be affected by the management plan for the AONB. It is clearly necessary that it should be published in draft form; that written submissions should be accepted for a reasonable period; and that the submissions should then be taken into account. If it is the wish of the Committee I shall very gladly withdraw my amendment in the hope that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick wins the support of the Committee.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It may assist the Committee if on this occasion I give the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, the answer he is seeking. The Government can accept this amendment in principle. It would be highly desirable for AONB management plans to be open for comment before adoption. Of course we would need to look at the precise timetable and framing in greater depth, but I can assure the noble Lord that his good wishes did not bring this about, otherwise we will be littered with "Happy Birthdays" for the rest of this Grand Committee.

The Government also feel that Amendment No. 21 contains a sensible suggestion which they can accept, extending as it does the list of organisations which a conservation board must consult in relation to new or amended plans, to include any other such bodies, organisations and members of the public as the board thought fit.

Lord Rotherwick

I am grateful, especially to my noble friend Lord Renton for withdrawing his amendment in favour of mine.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

Thanks to the spirit of generosity of the Minister, she is prepared to accept both our amendments. They cover slightly different ground.

Lord Rotherwick

In that case I need not say anything more.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 21: Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("and (c) such other bodies, organisations and members of the public with an interest in the area as they think fit.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

5.45 p.m.

Lord Jopling

The discussion we have had so far with regard to the noble Baroness and her birthday reminds me of an occasion once in the other place when a great friend of mine had failed to catch the Speaker's eye. We asked him whether he had done anything for the Speaker for Christmas. We had great difficulty in persuading this hapless Member to put a brace of pheasants in the Bag and stick them behind the Speaker's chair. We nearly succeeded in doing this.

I have been pondering on the comments which my noble friend Lord Renton made when we discussed Clause 1. I come back to the remarks I made at that time because they are very appropriate to Clause 3 stand part. He told us, as I said, that these boards should be set up only if that were the wish of the local people. I think Hansard will show that he said that on two occasions. I did ask, when I spoke on Clause 1 stand part, where those remarks were enshrined in the Bill, and I said I had not been able to find them. I was referred to the part of Clause 3 at the bottom of page 2, where it refers to Section 88B. That is the relevant part of the Bill which refers to the process of setting up these boards.

I think that I was correct in saying there is nothing on the face of the Bill which reflects the very firm view of the noble Lord that these boards should be set up only if that were the will of the local people. Therefore, if he would agree to what I am about to suggest, I should feel infinitely happier about this whole Bill. I wonder if he and I might get together between now and the Report stage to see whether we could find some words to insert in the Bill at the very bottom of page 2 after subsection (2) which refers to whom the Secretary of State shall consult.

I am drafting aloud here, and I hope I shall not be stuck with it. But after it says whom he shall consult perhaps we should add words to the effect, "and shall only make the order if there is the broad consent of those he has consulted". It seems to me that if we could transfer that very clear aim as regards this Bill on to the face of the Bill, it would make it a great deal more attractive to many of us.

When my noble friend responds to the debate on the question that Clause 3 stand part, I plead with him to agree that we should include words to make it quite clear that these boards would be set up only if there was broad local agreement. I am not suggesting for a moment that there should be 100 per cent agreement, but broad agreement. Then it would make this Bill much more digestible for very many of us.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I know that the contents of Clause 3 bear considerable resemblance to the advice on future management of the AONBs received by Ministers from the former Countryside Commission, and which the Government are still studying. I am not, therefore, in a position to take any definitive line today in respect of the Government's intentions.

Clause 3 would place a duty on local authorities in relation to the conservation and management of AONBs and provide for the creation of statutory AONB conservation boards in suitable places. We are looking carefully at these questions. It would also require the compilation of AONB management plans. We are in favour of those but we are still considering their possible statutory status and how they might fit with the statutory system of development plans.

Clause 3 also provides for conservation boards to be levying bodies. This question will need to be settled as one of the core questions about funding of conservation boards if they come into being. The Government have not reached a conclusion in their considerations. It may be helpful if I say that I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and will wait before commenting on the outcome of any discussions he may have between now and Report stage.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

Those are helpful comments by the Minister. Perhaps I may first say to my noble friend that we are more used to being in concord with each other than in discord. The suggestion that some such words should be added on the face of the Bill is well worth considering. Indeed, I should like to get together with him and any other expert advisers in the days ahead before Report stage, to see what can be suggested that is workable and that clearly makes his point that there should be a broad belief among the people involved that they want a conservation board. That is a perfectly fair proposition and I shall be delighted to work with him on it in the hope of finding some agreed words before the Report stage of the Bill.

I should like for a moment to speak about the financing of the conservation boards, because the noble Minister kindly touched upon that. There were no amendments tabled to it so it has not in fact been discussed. One of the most frequent points made to me is how conservation boards get to be financed. A parallel is drawn with national parks, which draw 75 per cent of their necessary funding from the Secretary of State, with the balance of 25 per cent being raised from the local authorities by way of a levy. To many local authorities, and indeed to many local people, it is a very attractive thought that that is the way the long-term funding should be available.

This is an absolutely essential issue in my judgment. One of the problems for those of us who simply have joint committees with the local authorities, like the Chilterns or ourselves—a combination of local authorities and Countryside Agency funding—is just a matter of how long the funding is going to be there. In our case, I have to say that there is a conservation board and there is no promise of funding after April 2001. It was only my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, who was able to negotiate a further three years' funding that takes us up to April 2001.

At the same time, with the greatest respect to the Minister, I went to the Countryside Agency launch yesterday and heard a great deal from the Government about how important AONBs are—with which I agree; about how important all the things we stand for are—with which I also agree; but no clear view yet as to how, in our case, the funding is going to appear. Obviously, we now enter a situation when it is difficult to keep good staff because they only see a clear future for 18 months ahead.

This is a very good reason for the Government to move forward with announcing their decision. There has been too much uncertainty for too long and, in that context, I should point out to the Committee that the wording I used in new Section 88D at the top of page 4—I make no bones about it—is simply lifted from the Environment Act 1995, which applies to national parks.

The effect of this would be to require. local authorities to contribute financially to the work of AONB conservation boards and to enable the Secretary of State to contribute, thus providing a secure financial partnership on which the conservation board—when that is required by the local people—can build. Of course, if we are a conservation board continuing in the South Downs and if we in due course can persuade the Government that 75 per cent should come from central government and only 25 per cent from local authorities, that would be magnificent. Maybe the percentages will be slightly different from that in the end but the key point, and I say this to the Minister, is that this is one of the key areas where we need a decision very quickly. It is for that reason that it is included in this clause of my Bill.

Lord Chorley

I was not going to intervene at this stage on Clause 3 stand part. However, I wish to underscore what the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said in a general sense about the need for the Bill to become an Act of Parliament, and in the meantime the particular problem of the South Downs Conservation Board. I recall about three years ago when my noble friend Lord Nathan was still the chairman: its original five-year funding was coming to an end. My successor as chairman of the National Trust. Mr Charles Nunelly, and others from conservation bodies wrote a letter to The Times emphasising how important it was to get proper, long-term funding in this instance. Here we are, two or three years on, and we still have not resolved the issue. I know that the Government have a great deal to consider for their Countryside Bill but I suggest that the matter is becoming rather urgent.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I wish to support those comments. On funding, if the CAP reform had produced something more substantial and different in terms of rural development, we might not view funding of AONBs as such an urgent issue. However, I believe that they should have a statutory basis for their funding, in particular those which have to struggle with a large number of councils, any one of which may have a difficulty during that year or the next which means that it would wish to reduce its contribution. For AONBs to have to rely on handouts from their local councils—often it will depend on the influence the local authority member who represents the AONB to its council—is not a good way of ensuring that things happen.

Because CAP reform and rural development money has not been forthcoming in the amounts that we had hoped, this funding is all the more important. To undertake anything in an AONB is far more expensive than elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said earlier, conservation costs money. I contend that conservation brings in money.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, is no longer in her place but she made a number of points about tourism, and one could regard the money as being a good investment.

If one wants to develop any form of building for light industry, or pump prime a project within a sensitive area, it is far more expensive because the materials that will need to be used are likely to be more expensive. I have seen a number of examples of good buildings which have brought employment to areas. However, they cannot be of other than a high standard in an AONB.

Finally, funding is important because of the way that such items as leader programmes are funded. If the board responsible for trying to get some of the social and economic programmes going has a little pump priming money it usually brings in further funding. In the case of boards, however, they are unable to make that sort of plan. They are therefore unable to draw up long-term bids which are also important to them.

For all of those reasons, I very strongly support this part of the Bill. In fact, I feel that it is the most crucial part of the Bill.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

6 p.m.

Clause 4 [Development plans and applications for planning permission]:

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 23: Page 4, line 27, leave out ("or adjacent to")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 24, 27 and 30. I shall be brief on this as I am certain it will not be contentious.

What is the definition of "adjacent"? The lack of clarification leaves the Bill open to misinterpretation and exploitation by misguided people such as eco-warriors. If this phrase is not withdrawn, we may end up with unwarranted restrictions of necessary development in the countryside thereby limiting economic development and prosperity. The inclusion of "adjacent to" will adversely affect property prices due to the planning controls incumbent on AONBs. It may act as a disincentive to developers who could bring economic and social improvements to our countryside.

The Bill proposes that conservation boards should be constituted from members of local authorities lying within an AONB in addition to the appointed members. The amendment removes the possibility of local authority members dictating planning decisions to areas lying "outside" the authority which they represent, and the potential conflict of interest therein. Incidentally, this is a power which even the national parks do not have. I beg to move.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

As my name is also to these amendments, may I say I am convinced by my noble friend's speech. I wholeheartedly support the amendments.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government could accept the amendments, removing as they do the application of various provisions of the Bill from areas adjacent to AONBs. For the record, it is important to say that this is likely to be the right approach, although we should wish to find a way for a conservation board to make its views known and have them taken into account in the case of the large scale development close to an AONB which was likely to have a significant impact upon it.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I understand that the noble Baroness is going to accept the amendments. Is that correct? I would add how important this is. I have had personal experience of being outside a national park and having people complain about a certain development—which I will not mention because everyone will have hysterics—on my farm which was 40 miles away from the area and could be seen from Snowdon. I suspect that most of Wales on a clear day can be seen from Snowdon. If we do not have this kind of amendment, people will complain that we cannot have a development 40 miles away from an AONB—in this case it was a national park, I agree—as cars can be seen from that area. It is not acceptable. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is sympathetic to this.

Lord Rotherwick

I beg to move Amendment No. 23.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 24: Page 4, line 35, leave out ("or adjacent to")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 25: Page 4, line 37. at end insert ("and the appropriate countryside bodies")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, and speak also to Amendment No. 26. Amendment No. 25 will ensure that appropriate expert advice is available to a land planning authority in co-ordinating development in their area in sympathy with the regional environment. The expertise will include knowledge of conservation issues and appreciation of the repercussions of development. It will ensure a degree of national consistency in planning decisions whilst enabling the planning authorities to have access to bodies which have experience in such matters.

Amendment No. 26 is overly draconian. Conservation boards are being established under the Bill as bodies to promote the conservation and management of the area, no more and no less. This clause would greatly expand the powers of the conservation board, enabling it to veto proposed development. It makes a mockery of the existing local planning authorities by enabling the conservation board to instigate public inquiries. In some cases this may go against the explicit recommendation of the planning authority thereby emasculating the very body set up to deal with such issues. Local authorities are elected to provide local governance and decision-making. This section entirely by-passes that concept. If the section were to remain in the Bill, who would fund such inquiries or public examinations? The associated costs would undoubtedly be borne by the taxpayer, diverting resources from worthwhile conservation projects.

Sufficient checks are already in place to allow due consideration from all perspectives, be they economic, social or conservation, of the effects of development thereby rendering this section obsolete. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It may facilitate debate if I indicate the Government's position. We would want to resist Amendment No. 25 but would accept the principle of consulting relevant countryside bodies. We would not wish to accept this amendment now because we would wish to consider carefully how to provide for the consultation. We would support the principle of the Countryside Agency and English Nature in England and the Countryside Council for Wales being consulted about the drawing-up of development plans in respect of areas contained with AONBs. As for making them statutory consultees as such, there could be a problem because the Government indicated that they intend to end statutory consultees for local plans. There are other ways of ensuring that specific bodies are consulted; for example, by a suitable reference in the planning guidance.

The Government could accept Amendment No. 26 because the provision in lines 38 to 47 is unlikely to be necessary. There already has to be a public inquiry if objections are made to a local plan and not withdrawn, unless the objector decides to rely on written representations. For the structure plan, an examination in public has to be held unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. For that reason we could accept Amendment No. 26 and would resist Amendment No. 25.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord that I do not have any problems with Amendment No. 25, but I could not possibly accept Amendment No. 26. The whole question of the amount of planning powers or planning involvement of a conservation board of the future is a matter of delicate balance.

We have consistently taken the view, supported I believe by the Countryside Commission, that we do not want to be the sole planning authority. We feel that is totally inappropriate in a case like ours, which would be an area of nearly 100 miles stretching over more than 16 local authorities, and which would have 2,000 to 3,000 planning applications a year. We do not believe that to be appropriate, but it is necessary that we should be a statutory consultee, or whatever the Minister suggests in place of statutory consultees.

We want to make certain that when there is a development that affects an AONB we are consulted about it, and that if we do object there should be a proper consideration in public by the Secretary of State or by the local planning authority as appropriate, differently spelt out in this amendment, before a decision is made. Without that degree of involvement by the conservation board it will be found to have very few teeth indeed in local planning, even when that affects something important within the AONB.

This mechanism will ensure both that a conservation board is able to present its case in public as to why a particular policy in the development plan should be omitted or amended, and that other interested parties may have their say. It does not say that the conservation board will win at the end of the day, but that it will have the opportunity of putting its case in public. That will be a necessary feature of conservation boards.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I wonder whether the noble Lord could clear my mind on this? Is he saying that the conservation body will have a right to force the Secretary of State to call the planning application in?

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

In the next series of amendments in which I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, we are not saying that.

Lord Chorley

I am rather confused. I thought we were discussing development plans, and in particular whether there was an objection process, not about planning applications at all. It seems to me that planning applications are dealt with in the next series of amendments. I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in wanting at least for the moment to preserve the new Section 52A(2) in order that the conservation board can have some power in influencing development plans.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

That is quite correct. What I was trying to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is that the call-in procedure will be discussed in the next series of amendments.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

As regards Amendment No. 26 and new Section 52A(2), I feel that both the structure plan and the local plan system at the moment provide ample opportunities for everybody, including the boards, to put their point of view. It is a very long process which includes a great deal of consultation. The local inspector will examine all the objections made. I entirely endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that there is already in place an elected body whose job it is to go through that process. I feel that for the public, to leave in Clause 2 will simply complicate the issue and make it less clear who is to be the final arbiter. For that reason I support Amendment No. 26.

Baroness Byford

Perhaps I may add a couple of comments. I wonder whether it might be easier at this stage to degroup Amendment Nos. 25 and 26. I hope that is a sensible suggestion, and then can I come back and comment on Amendment No. 26. Perhaps we should go back to Amendment No. 25 and clarify the situation.

Lord Rotherwick

In relation to Amendment No. 25, I understand in this case I do not have the support of the Minister. On the other hand I do have the support of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. At this point it may be better for us to have discussions and come back with an amendment at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 26: Page 4, leave out lines 38 to 47

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I wonder if I can clarify yet further the points I made. Amendment No. 26 seeks to leave out the provision in the Bill which would require an examination in public for a structure plan, or a local inquiry in the case of a local plan, in cases where a conservation board objects to proposals in the making, revision and so on of a plan. For local plans there already has to be a public inquiry if objections are made and not withdrawn, and unless the objector decides to rely on written representations. For structure plans an EIP must be held unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. So the provisions in the Bill as drafted are unnecessary.

Baroness Byford

I thank the Minister. That was indeed my interpretation of her response. Again, I understood her to support my noble friend's suggestion. That leaves me in a slightly difficult position with my noble friend on my left, who is perhaps not in agreement with that. But I hope we are all going down the same route at the moment, and the noble Baroness has kindly indicated that the Government would support this.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I listened with care to what the Minister and my noble friend had to say. I cannot at this stage accept the amendment but I shall certainly go away and think about what both the Minister and my noble friend said and return to it at Report stage.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Rotherwick

I thank my noble friend for saying that, but it is obviously important to us. If he cannot agree to it at a later date, we would wish to push it further. I know that there is considerable support for that. However, at this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 27: Page 5, line 4, leave out ("or adjacent to")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 28: Page 5, line 20, at end insert— ("(3A) Where an application has been made for development and, in the opinion of the local planning authority or a conservation board established under section 88B of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the development will materially affect an area of outstanding natural beauty or any part of it, or will materially conflict with any development plan which relates to the affected area of outstanding natural beauty, the local planning authority shall give notice of the application to the Secretary of State."")

The noble Lord said: I felt that I should move this amendment because it was my idea that the original clause should be in this Bill, not that of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I should therefore take responsibility.

I should take responsibility also for withdrawing it and suggesting this amendment instead. The original clause did, indeed, require that if in simple terms a conservation board objected to a planning application that was within their purlieu and the local authority wished to go ahead with it, the Secretary of State would have to call it in. We put it more politely but that was the effect of the amendment. There are probably quite a number of people who would like to see that happen, particularly if it was a case of a local authority giving itself permission to develop land within an AONB, which would mean in fact that the local authority would be judge and jury in its own case.

However, I accept the point that was made very strongly by the Minister in the Second Reading debate; that is, that it is impossible to require a Secretary of State to call in such an application. For that reason, we drafted this new Clause 3A, which appears as Amendment No. 28. This states that in the case I envisaged—where the development materially affects an area of outstanding natural beauty or any part of it or materially conflicts with any development plan which relates to the affected area of outstanding natural beauty—the local planning authority shall give notice of the application to the Secretary of State.

This would, in simple terms, be a way of making certain that the local authority calls this application to the attention of the Secretary of State. Presumably the conservation board might wish to support that with a letter or a representation of its own and one would hope that the Secretary of State, when he received such a notification, would regard the matter as "particularly persuasive"—I believe that is the technical language. The exercise of this mechanism would, however, possibly be the subject of departmental guidance in future.

This amended edition is indisputably a compromise. It is a compromise between the original situation in the Bill and the fact that one cannot require the Secretary of State to call in applications. I hope, therefore, that the compromise as spelt out in my Amendment No. 28 will be acceptable to the Minister and to the Committee.

Lord Chorley

The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has spoken to this amendment very fully and I need say little more, other than to support him.

Lord Rotherwick

I wish to say briefly that Amendment No. 29 contains a similar argument to Amendment No. 26 and should perhaps correctly have been coupled with it. It is over-draconian. This power is really more appropriate to an elected body such as a local authority. I would also question how it would be funded.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I have reservations about this. I referred to the principle in debate on the first amendment. We are providing further controls and hurdles for anybody who wishes to develop an area of outstanding natural beauty. I am therefore concerned that those who want to keep the place alive with new development will have yet another hurdle. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is virtually forcing the Secretary of State to call in an application.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 relate to the important question of call-in procedure. Amendment No. 29 would delete the provision in the Bill which, as drafted, would have the effect of deeming planning applications to have been called in by the Secretary of State. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for his detailed description of this provision and for the reasons that he outlined in his support of this amendment and we would therefore support it too.

Amendment No. 28 would provide for the local planning authority or conservation board to give notice to the Secretary of State in the case of a development proposal which would materially affect an AONB or materially conflict with the relevant development plan. The Secretary of State would then be able to take a decision on whether to call in in the usual way.

Although we would wish to look further at the precise wording, this is the sort of provision the Government are likely to be able to find acceptable in the event of conservation boards becoming a reality. As drafted, it may be defective and, therefore, we would wish consideration to be given to it between now and Report.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I have a problem. I could support Amendment No. 29 if Amendment No. 28 were agreed by the Committee. I cannot support Amendment No. 29 if Amendment No. 28 is not being supported by the Minister because I want some reference to this issue in the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I sought to make clear that we support the principle behind Amendment No. 28, but that the wording is defective. Therefore, it may help the noble Lord if both amendments are withdrawn at this stage and there is discussion before Report stage.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28 and look forward to discussion at Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 29: Page 5. leave out lines 22 to 38

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 30: Page 5, line 25, leave out ("or adjacent to")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 31: Page 5, line 40, leave out paragraph (c)

The noble Lord said: This amendment gives the conservation board the right to be heard in call-in cases. Currently, this extends only to the local authority and the applicant and this right is not extended to other organisations. The current call-in procedure is sufficient to address genuine concerns without putting applicants to unnecessary delays and costs that would be incurred at inquiry. Such decisions are best made by the local authority, applicant and Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I am afraid that I cannot agree to that, it is necessary that the conservation board should be able to be heard on these issues and the wording in the Bill as it stands is correct.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government do not accept the amendment since the principle needs closer scrutiny.

Lord Rotherwick

I should be grateful to have the opportunity to scrutinise this more closely and bring it back at a later stage when I shall see whether we cannot put up a good argument to persuade my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry to agree to it. Sadly, therefore, I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Schedule to be inserted as the Third Schedule to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949]:

Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 32: Page 7, line 9, after ("120") insert ("(except subsection (3)")

The noble Lord said: I am not quite sure of the Minister's position in relation to the six amendments which withdraw the powers of compulsion. They are only withdrawing something that is in the Bill to which I do not imagine she objects. If she does, I will not move them. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My understanding was that this amendment had been debated. The noble Lord is asking whether Amendment No. 32 and the subsequent five can be accepted. The Government cannot accept them because we wish to look more closely. I am sorry.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Rotherwick

All of us here have a great affinity to the countryside and those who work and live in it, and we wish to sustain that. We want it not to remain a decaying museum but we wish to renovate and conserve it. To that extent I welcome the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, which is his response to that challenge.

However, we have two main concerns about the Bill. First, do we really need the Bill? That is the question that I find the most difficult. There is a good deal of sympathy from various people around me that it is unnecessary to go forward with the Bill. I shall come to that later.

The other main concern is: how are we to fund all these additional costs? My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has partially answered this, but why does he see it as so important to increase all the powers for areas of outstanding natural beauty? Are we not getting rather too close to the idea of areas of outstanding natural beauty becoming a national park? I know that there are some serious differences, one of which is that national parks offer greater opportunities for open air recreation. National parks are also stand-alone planning authorities in their own right. Apart from that, it seems as though we are trying to make an AONB similar, apart from those two important differences, to a national park. I question whether that is necessary. I question whether this is necessary. I question also whether this vehicle that is being built will be sufficiently flexible for all the AONBs to operate within. We are talking of AONBs from the Isles of Scilly right up to the Northumbrian coast, and from the Norfolk coast right up to the North Pennines. I know that my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has his doubts about this, because in a recent letter he stated, "It is unlikely that such boards would be needed for any but the largest and most complex AONBs".

It is also a great concern of the local communities, because this would produce a double whammy for them. Not only would they be required to fund the additional costs of a conservation board, but also they would end up funding the requirements of that conservation board.

Sadly, my noble friend Lord Kimball had to carry out duties in the North and I was left to do this without his help. However I should like to quote something he said at Second Reading, the awful thing is that countryside officers in various guises now outnumber farmers, farm workers and foresters".—[Official Report, 21/5/99, col. 547.] That brings this crucial point home. At this moment our farming industry and our local communities are in crisis. The world price for wheat is £65 a tonne. Though I am fortunate to be a very efficient farmer, like many others I can only produce wheat at this moment for £75 a tonne, and with subsidies that means that there are only a couple of pounds' profit per acre.

We are talking about spending considerable sums of money on the landscape. On Second Reading I was grateful, as will be all those living and working in the countryside, that the Minister stated that there will be, an additional £2.5 million for work in AONBs and other similar landscapes this year".—[Official Report, 21/5/99, col. 588.] She goes on to say that that money will help in putting into place new management plans and programmes. But horror of horrors, she goes on to say, and in helping to attract additional expert staff". Everybody must make up their minds whether this is the sort of Bill that should be imposed on the countryside. We are looking at the balance of the needs of the people against the needs of the landscape. If we have a profitable local rural economy, they have the ability and desire to do the conservation and renovation of the landscape. If one neglects that area and puts all the emphasis and constraints on the landscape, then we have the balance wrong.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

Perhaps I may say a few words in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. We have all been here for a number of hours and I am grateful to all of those who have taken part in this debate.

I do not want to repeat all that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick said in relation to Clause 1 stand part, but his first question was: "Do we need this Bill?". My answer is clearly, "Yes". If I did not believe it, and if I felt that a lot of my noble friends did not believe it too, we would not be sitting here this afternoon.

My noble friend talked briefly about the difference between what we are proposing in this Bill—it is not prescriptive; it is a template which local people could follow if they wanted to—and national parks. There is of course a difference. National parks have set out to encourage recreation, but there is the much more substantial difference in that national parks are sole planning authorities. What we are proposing in this Bill is not that conservation boards should be sole planning authorities, but that they should have a role to play. That role involves working with local authorities rather than imposing a new jurisdiction upon them.

I do not believe we are talking about a new level of bureaucracy. That is certainly not the case in the conservation board of which I have been chairman. I bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, that in relation to the setting up of conservation boards, we should see whether we could find some words to go into the Bill that the Secretary of State would make the order if there is the broad consent of those who have been consulted. That is well worth working on. I hope it will go some way to allay the fears that have been expressed about more bureaucracy, more interference, and so forth.

It is certainly not what I want to see. It is not what the Countryside Agency wanted to see in making these proposals. I hope very much that at Report Stage we can move forward in finding a sensible but forward-looking compromise that would put conservation boards where AONBs want them and feel they need them, and make that possible while allaying some of the fears that have been expressed this afternoon.

I thank the noble Lord, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, and the clerks and others who have been in attendance this afternoon. I know that we have been in the unusual process of requiring an extra team of Hansard reporters which I gather adds considerably to the House of Lords' costs, but I am grateful to them.

I would also like to thank John Godfrey and Paul Amis from West Sussex County Council, Martin Beaton from my own Sussex Downs Conservation Board, and Ray Woolmore and Lynette Leeson from the Countryside Agency who have been here this afternoon, and have given me a great deal of technical help in getting this far.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo)

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for those remarks which are greatly appreciated.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

The Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes before seven o'clock.