HL Deb 15 May 1973 vol 342 cc783-807

8.10 p.m.

LORD HENLEY

My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Question: Whether they intend to take any action on the Fifth Report of the Countryside Commission 1971–72; and, if so, what and when. That means that I want to explore the Government's attitude to the work of the Countryside Commission as a whole, and to ask them how they envisage its future role. The terms of the Countryside Act are so wide that it is difficult to know in its many roles exactly what the Commission should be doing. It is not answerable to Parliament. It is to the D.O.E. that it looks for its funds, its staff, and indeed for its very being. It is all the more important that we should know what the Department's attitude to the Commission is because the Commission's only access to Parliament is through its Report. My Unstarred Question is directed at my inference from its Fifth Report about its role and its future.

What is the role of the Countryside Commission? Some eighteen months ago it put a Paper before the Department of the Environment setting forth what its role should be, and more or less ever since I think discussions have been going on within the Department as to how it should evolve. An hour ago I received a paper called The Guidelines for Priorities in the Work of the Commission. It is two pages long. The first half page summarises the Countryside Act, and the next paragraph states that conservation and recreation are complementary. Well, my Lords, they may be complementary, but they are frequently conflicting. The paragraph goes on to say that they are interdependent and of equal importance. Then it lists certain priorities: National Parks and key areas—that means areas of outstanding natural beauty, heritage coasts and Green Belts. It then goes on to mention recreation. It then mentions recreation again, and then recreational information. This is most useful, so far as it goes, but I presume that it is not the whole answer to what the Department of the Environment feel should be the role of the Countryside Commission. It is in order to try to elicit that from the Government that I have put down this Question.

My Lords, so far as amenity societies are concerned, I do not believe there is any great difference of opinion as to what the role should be. It falls into two parts. I think the first part is that the Commission should act in some measure as the environmental conscience of the Department of the Environment—that is not my phrase, but I think it is an extremely good one. I recognise fully that the Countryside Commission is not itself an amenity society; it does not pretend to be, and could not be. Nevertheless, it can offer leadership of a kind which even the very best amenity societies cannot give. It should not be afraid to oppose the Government and the Department, though again I can see that it cannot be seen to be lobbying too directly or to be opposing too frequently and too blatantly. It can, however, adopt a forceful public role as guardian of the countryside. That is the first aspect. I think all of the amenity societies, and the voluntary bodies see this as being perhaps the most important thing that the Countryside Commission can do.

Secondly, I think that it should concern itself with recreation. I said a moment ago that there was often a conflict between recreation and amenity, and it is the duty of the Countryside Commission to try to resolve that conflict. It is its duty, within the framework of recreation, to try to devise means whereby recreation can fit into all the other aspects of what goes on in the countryside—agriculture, forestry and a thousand and one things—whereby the land, as such, earns its living. Recreation is in some ways an explosive problem, because it has grown upon us so fast. So that research must be carried out into how one can enable the many millions of people who now have the means of getting into the countryside to enjoy it without destroying what they have come to enjoy, and at the same time without seriously damaging those aspects of it which relate not only to its amenity but to its workshop aspect. It may be said that this is too wide a term of reference for any body such as the Countryside Commission to be able to cope with. I am inclined to think that at present this is true, and that it can do this only if much more money is forthcoming: and if more money is not forthcoming, then these wider aspects, which are the ones I put first, with regard to its being the environmental conscience of the Department, cannot be implemented and the Commission must inevitably restrict itself to the rather narrower problems of recreation.

My Lords, I want to praise what the Commission has done and is doing—how good some of its Reports have been, how well thought out—but at the same time I want to enter one small hint of criticism. It is that it sometimes seems to me that when advice or Reports have come up against opposition, the Countryside Commission perhaps has tended to give way too easily. I wonder whether the reason why it does that is because it is not sure of its standing with regard to the Department of the Environment. One sometimes gets the feeling that there are a number of people in the Department who feel that there is no future for the Countryside Commission and that perhaps it could conveniently at some future date be wound up. I am looking forward to the answer that the noble Lord is going to give me, and hope he will say that I am very much wide of the mark and that that is nothing near what the Department think.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Commission is being compelled to spend too much of its time on research into recreation on the ground that the environmental conscience side and planning control (shall I say?) can already be dealt with by planning authorities; secondly, that that conscience is better supplied by the voluntary bodies; and thirdly, that the impact of recreation on the countryside is so explosive that this is something which must be considered first and foremost and almost all the time. I do not accept any of those three propositions. First of all, I think the planning authorities themselves sometimes commit outrages. In a town riot a thousand miles from here the activities of its planning authority are so outrageous that it looks as though they will have to be taken over by the Government Department. Again, I am not at all happy about how, under the new Local Government Act, the district councils which are to be responsible for the detailed aspect of planning will have enough expertise to be able to carry it out. It seems to me, from a purely conscience planning point of view, that the Countryside Commission not only can advise in every direction, but should do so.

With regard to the voluntary bodies, the feeling exists, I believe, that this environmental conscience of the Department can be exercised by the voluntary bodies. Well, it cannot. First of all, however effective they are—and, as we all know, they are not all that effective— they cannot give that leadership which a body like the Countryside Commission can give. They have not enough money; there are too many of them, and it is too easy for the commercial interests (because the prizes are enormous) to get the Commission to do something which the amenities societies might think to be wrong. Therefore, as I say, it is too easy and they can be picked off individually, one by one. If they are going to be stronger—though this conies into another context—is there any chance that the amenity societies might be able to get some of the money—£3¼ million, was it?—that it is suggested might come the way of the voluntary bodies? Perhaps the noble Lord could give some information on this when he replies. No money has yet come their way, nor does it seem likely that money will be given to them. It may be given to projects which are perhaps more emotive than the Countryside Commission.

Lastly, I do not believe that the recreational explosion is so acute a problem that in fact the Countryside Commission should be devoting all its attention to it. It is an explosive problem, and a very difficult one. It is extremely difficult to sort out the conflict between amenity and recreation while at the same time leaving the countryside to earn its living by traditional methods. So it does not seem to me necessary, on that score alone, to say that it is a problem to which the Countryside Commission should be entirely devoted.

When the Countryside Commission put out its Report some months ago, I put my name down as the mover of a Motion to call attention to that Report. Indeed I would much have preferred to do this. I could then have gone over the Report in detail and given it the praise which I feel it very much deserves in all its different aspects. However, I have not been able to get time for such a Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked whether I would be willing to allow my Motion (as it then was) to call attention to the Report of the Countryside Commission to be linked with his own Report on National Parks, which is due any time within the next few months. I was not willing to do this, because I thought the two things were totally different. The Countryside Commission has of course a particular regard for National Parks, which it inherited from the old National Parks Commission. Nevertheless it is in fact something quite different. That is why I felt it would be wrong to put the two together, and I have settled for an Unstarred Question on a rather narrower issue than would have been the case with my proposed Motion.

There are two questions relating to National Parks which concern the Countryside Commission very closely. I should like to mention them now because they are outside the terms of reference of the noble Lord's Report on the National Parks. The first question concerns members of National Parks boards and committees. The Secretary of State is under an obligation to consult the Countryside Commission about this matter. As your Lordships know, these boards and committees will shortly be reconstituted. Two-thirds of them are to be county council appointments, and one-third will be made on the nomination of the Secretary of State after consultation with the Countryside Commission. In the past some of the Secretary of State's appointments have seemed to my friends and me to concern people, with, shall we say, no special aptitudes or qualifications for looking at the wider aspects—that is, national aspects as opposed to local interests. The local interests are very well taken care of by a two-thirds majority on the boards and committees and the remaining one-third —and a great deal has been made of this in connection with the administration of the Parks—should be people who are not only concerned with the narrower local interest but who also look at things from the wider national point of view. I hope very much that the noble Lord and his friends will look closely at this point when the time comes.

As for National Park officers, it was central to the idea of the Local Government Act that each National Park should have its own officer, who would be a man of senior status. May I remind noble Lords that this was part of a compromise which the Government accepted as between the County Councils Association and the Countryside Commission. It will be remembered that what the Countryside Commission would have liked best were autonomous country parks. The County Councils Association wanted country parks which were part and parcel of their set-up. A compromise was reached. part of which meant that National Parks officers should be, as I have said, of senior status and, as far as possible, independent of the county councils. It seems to me there is now a suggestion that some county councils are going to depart, at least from the spirit, if not the letter, of this compromise because they are appointing officers who will not be whole-time independent officers dealing with a Park. I am not sure of the full facts here, but I have heard it suggested that Yorkshire may be appointing one officer to deal with two Parks. I mention that single aspect of Park administration because it does concern the Countryside Commission and it does not come within the terms of reference of the noble Lord's examination of National Parks.

Having said that, my Lords, I do not really want to discuss National Parks but rather to concentrate on the Countryside Commission. This is the Fifth Report, and the impression sometimes gained in (shall I say?) the amenity movement is that the Commission is being quietly strangled by the Government because they see no fuure for it. The impression is also sometimes given—and I do not think this is altogether a fault of the Commission but is a result of the situation in which it finds itself—that the Commission is compounding this felony (if that is the right word) by being afraid to take up an unequivocal position against the Government when it feels that the Government are wrong. I think that some members of the Commission probably feel that there is a constitutional position here, and that although the Commission is not a Government Department it is a para-Government Department. if it might be so described, and therefore it is not possible boldly to criticise what the Government are doing. I cannot take that view. It seems to me that in the kind of world in which we live, with bodies of this kind set up by Government Departments and paid for by them, it is the duty of such bodies to stand firm and, when they think the Government are wrong, to say so absolutely definitely. I do not think there is any constitutional difficulty about that.

What I have said amounts to a suggestion that it is necessary to clarify and strengthen the role of the Countryside Commission lest its scope be further restricted. I want to know how the Government see it, and indeed what they are going to do about it. Are they going to strengthen it? Are they going to clarify it? If they are not going to strengthen it, what are they going to do with it? Will it be turned into a mere agency for dealing with country parks? If that is what the Government intend, what will they do with their agencies when they have got it working properly? I hope it will not be like Thomas Cook and be just sold off.

My Lords, I hope the Government are going to give a satisfactory answer, not only regarding the amount of money they are going to give, but how they see the Commission acting, and also as to the two small points about National Parks.

8.30 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, first of all, I want to say that I agree with every word the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said about the Countryside Commission's Report and its role; every word about National Parks administration and a senior officer needed in each, and the danger of having one officer spread between two parks; and every word about the desirability of independence and courage on the part of the Countryside Commission itself. I have only one quarrel with him: he said he hoped that the Government would clarify the role of the Countryside Commission. I hope that they will do nothing of the sort. It is up to the Countryside Commission to clarify its own role. I shall return to this point.

If I may, I will first take up two or three major points in the Report before coming to the position of the Countryside Commission. In their general review, which is usually the part of the annual report of a para-Governmental body to which you must turn to find out what they really care about, they make two points on which I should like to hear what the Government have to say. The first is about afforestation on high ground in general, especially in National Parks. The Commission says that it has not proved possible to achieve the protection of landscapes from afforestation satisfactorily by voluntary agreements; and adjustment of taxation and estate duty relief to the same end would be a complicated task. The Commission goes on to say that something more must be done. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether he agrees with that and, if so, whether the Government will do something more and admit that voluntary agreements have failed and that planning control over afforestation is now necessary.

The second point is the closely related one about agricultural processes in general which, as the House will remember, are free of planning control. Here the Commission says that powers for local authorities to enter into agreements with farmers and landowners about this matter exist, but none is specifically related to landscape conservation. It goes on to complain that the cost to local authorities for negotiating and operating agreements is not covered by grant assistance (I am looking at page 3 of the Report), and it comes to the main point of the complaint that there are no reserve powers allowing orders to be imposed in cases of complete intransigence. This is something which we were aware of when we were in Government. I wonder whether the present Government have found the same thing and whether they have any plans to rectify it.

My last question to the Government on the Report is about the North Wessex Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. Is it yet designated'? I apologise for my ignorance. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, nods. It is designated and I deduce that it has been designated since the Report appeared. This is good news. I should like to point out that it is now seven years since the 1966 Election and since we in the Ministry suggested to the Countryside Commission that it should propose to us that this A.O.N.B. should be designated. Is seven years a normal time? Is it fast enough'? If the Government agree with me that it is by no means fast enough, would they consider having a look, with the Countryside Commission, at the possibility of somewhat reducing that time in the future?

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, spoke of the guidelines for priorities in work for the Countryside Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was courteous enough to give the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and me a copy before this discussion. I know it is always difficult and perhaps wrong to discuss a document which is not before the House; but I take it that it is available to any Member of the House who wants it and so it is not out of order to talk about it. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has described the document. It is only two pages long. Half of it is devoted to reminding the Countryside Commission of the contents of the Act under which the Commission operates. A quarter of it is devoted to praising the virtues of orderly administration and a quarter is devoted to a series of objectives—in effect a list of priorities of all the things the Countryside Commission ought to be doing with an implied order of preference: most important first, least important last. it so happens that I agree with that list of priorities; I think the things are in the right order. What does it matter whether I agree with this? What does it matter whether the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench agrees with this? It is a most extraordinary document. It is a profoundly paternalistic document. It assumes, in a way, that the Commission is incapable of reading the Act which governs its activities. It assumes that it needs to be told how to carry out its duties by that very Government machine which has set it up because it felt the need of something independent.

I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that I remember from the inside the setting up of the Countryside Commission. It was by no means our intention that it should be a mere offshoot of the Department; it was by no means our intention that it should be for ever in leading strings, subject to guidelines from time to time if it looked confused or was doing the wrong thing. We in the Government then—and this is not what is important—proposed to Parliament that there should be set up a statutory body under Parliament to do certain things the Government could not do, or should not do, which would be perfectly free to oppose the Government, to tick the Government off, to advise the Government what they ought to do, to criticise them publicly when in its own free judgment it judged right so to do. Parliament accepted that view—this is the point—and the Countryside Commission is the creature of Parliament, which wanted that done.

What is this document telling the Countryside Commission how to execute its functions and what relative importance to place on its different functions? Has the document been agreed to by the Countryside Commission? I hope it has not, because it seems to me that if the Countryside Commission is going round agreeing to these apron-string guidelines from the Government it might as well pack up shop and go home. I consider it an improper document in itself, and if it is accepted by the Commission I consider that an ignominious acceptance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can tell us that this is merely a statement of what the Government hope the Countryside Commission will do, which of course the Government are as free to send to it as to any other body that is free—the C.P.R.E. for instance—and the Countryside Commission will do no more than take it into account along with representations from all other sources that it may receive on the execution of its duties.

8.39 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I too find myself in general agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said. I particularly like the thoughtful way in which he attempted to put the work of the Countryside Commission in perspective, against the principle, so to speak, which he suggested ought to be governing it. I am not sure that I go quite so far as he did in admiration for this Report which his Question has given us the opportunity of discussing tonight. We have not discussed one of these Reports for a long time. It is high time that we had the opportunity of doing so. Lord Silkin, who was the begetter of the National Parks Act, in a series of valuable speeches used to make a habit of calling attention to these Reports. And from time to time of course, over the last few years particularly, we have had the noble Lord, Lord Molson, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, himself, calling attention to certain matters in connection with the Countryside Commission. I hope that Lord Henley, whose developing interest in the problems of the countryside and in the protection of rural England over the last few years has been a great encouragement to what I might describe as the "old soldiers" in this campaign, will in future give us the opportunity of discussing these Reports as they come out because it is a valuable way of reviewing the work of the Countryside Commission and an opportunity which your Lordships ought to have at regular intervals.

I do not propose to attempt to discuss this Report in detail. It is a short document. When you pick it up you think it is perhaps substantial, but there are only 15 pages of Report; the rest of it is a series of appendices. I must say think it is too short considering the importance of the work which the Countryside Commission does. It shows that a good deal of useful work has in fact been done during the period with which it deals, mainly, as appears from the Report itself, advisory and promotional work—that is a quotation from the Report itself: "advisory and promotional activities"—such as the development, which again it draws attention to particularly, of information services. All this is in what is I think the longest section of the Report. Services of this kind are of undoubted value, but it seems to me that they should hardly be the core of the Report of the recent work of the Countryside Commission.

It is good to note that three areas of outstanding natural beauty have been declared over the period, and yet another one, apparently, more recently. I was particularly glad to find that the Commission is persisting in its work of trying to get another National Park established in Wales. And of course there is one more—a long-distance footpath; and these long-distance footpaths are, I think, one of the outstanding achievements of the Commission in the past, and I am glad to note that it is still working on them. But it does not, I think, amount to as much as one would expect and hope for. And so much attention and concentration on this side of it very largely bears out the criticism that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was making, that the Commission is not in fact showing that leadership which I think the voluntary societies to which he referred are entitled to expect from it and certainly, I say from my own knowledge, hope will be given to them. As Lord Henley has said, there are a number of them which are rather broken up, financially not too well off, but which are doing splendid work, the value of which is hardly realised by the general community. They really need the kind of leadership which the Countryside Commission can give. I regret to say that they are not feeling at the present that they are getting this leadership. In fact, they are feeling a bit disgruntled and feeling that the Countryside Commission has been rather letting them down. The Report, many of the members of these societies feel, is a rather humdrum affair: it does not show that real energy and leadership is being put into the work in the way that they would like to see.

Does this mean that there is something wrong in Regent's Park, or does it mean it has not enough money to employ the personnel it needs? I am inclined to think that that is true to some extent under both heads. I am a little worried about the situation at Cambridge Gate. It is obvious from this Report that money is lacking and that the personnel which ought to be employed by the Countryside Commission is not there—not enough of it and perhaps not sufficiently expert.

The Report seems to me to make it clear that the Commission is in fact rather falling down in this way; that it is not prepared, as Lord Henley suggested, to stand up to the Department itself when it ought to be doing so, and that the attitude which it is taking up in many of these matters is not sufficiently stiff. I was particularly interested and rather upset by what is said in the Report about water space recreation. Over the last years water space recreation has been of developing importance, and very great developing importance, and the work of the Inland Waterways Association deserves the very highest praise. But it is all part of the general business of amenities and of the recreation which the Countryside Commission, to a large extent, at any rate, exists to develop. As I say, it mentions the discussions and negotiations about the establishment of a space amenities commission and says it is disturbed. I think the fact that it uses the word "disturbed" indicates the rather placid outlook which it has about things. It ought to be a great deal more than disturbed about such an encroachment and inroad into the work which, quite obviously, it ought to be doing. I do not like that business in the new document about its, as it were, negotiating with all these other societies in respect of the job which Parliament has given to it in the Countryside Act. In spite of the fact that I am a very old soldier in this movement—and I am afraid that this has been developing very much over recent years—it is because of reasons of this kind that I find in the voluntary societies a feeling that the Countryside Commission is rather letting them down.

How far is this due to the sort of attitude which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned. as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and which I myself have been saying something about in the earlier passages of this speech? I think to a quite substantial extent it is; but where the Countryside Commission really blotted its copybook so far as the voluntary societies were concerned was when it threw the Longland Report overboard and, in effect, gave way to the County Councils' Association. It certainly ought to have stood cut. We have had a debate about this and I do not propose to go into the pros and cons of it. It is dealt with in this Report in about 12 lines—one of the most important matters which have happened over the last years —without any attempt to discuss the pros and cons of it, as one would expect to find. It is true that in an appendix the agreement with the county councils is set out. There is no question at all that in the voluntary societies this has blotted the copybook of the Countryside Commission, and I hope that this kind of thing will not happen again. Of course I know that the Countryside Commission does not feel that it has let the side down. It feels that it has scored a diplomatic victory. I do not agree, but even if it had, there are diplomatic victories which can be achieved at too high a cost; and this was certainly one of them because the movement really cannot afford to forfeit the respect and confidence of the voluntary societies.

I remember having a discussion with Mr. Hookway, the energetic director of the Countryside Commission, just about the time when these negotiations with the county council were going on. One of the points that he made was that his principal offices which were to be established in the National Park regions was a very great achievement, and I can quite see that point of view. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, drew attention to this particular point, because it is very important indeed that when this scheme comes into operation next year each of the National Parks should in fact be equipped with a really first-class man. Anyone who has watched this from the beginning, before the National Parks came into existence, roust know perfectly well that the outstanding success which has been achieved in the Peak National Park, and perhaps not quite to the same extent in the Lake District, has really been a success rather of personalities than of the administrative arrangements, which obviously are much better there than they are in the other National Parks.

But administrative arrangements by themselves cannot achieve anything. The point is that the man who ran the Peak District for a long time, Mr. Foster, was an outstanding man. He was not only a fine planning officer but a very fine manager and leader, and he was supported tremendously well by the personnel of his planning board in the Peak District. I could mention several other names; and all the names that one could mention in this connection are always the national nominations. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is absolutely right when he emphasises the great importance of getting good national nominations.

It is the same in the Lake District. Mr. Himsworth, who is the clerk to the Lake District planning committee, has done a first-class job of work from the very beginning. How he managed to carry it all, with his heavy burden as clerk to the county council, it is difficult to tell. But the work that they have done shows that the personal qualities of the men who are in the jobs are of the greatest importance and I hope that this evasive action on the part of the county councils will be nipped in the bud by the Department. I should like to know from the Minister when he replies what steps the Department are taking to see that good men are in fact appointed in the National Parks because this compromise, so to speak, can work satisfactorily only if first-class men are installed in these jobs. I am not only referring to planning officers, because planning is not enough; it needs leadership and competent management as well.

In the same way it is very important that the right men and women should be appointed to these committees. Some of those who were chosen in the Peak District (I suppose by the late Lord Silkin) were outstanding people who have carried the burden from that time to this, and it was to a large extent the same in the Lake District. I hope that the Minister will have this particular matter very much in mind, because it is one of outstanding importance.

The last thing I should like to refer to is in fact the Minister's own committee. It is the Aims and Purposes Committee, which is referred to in the Report in a paragraph which I should say was easily the most important paragraph in this Report. The National Parks have now been in existence for a quarter of a century. They have not really been properly looked at during the whole of this period because they had to settle down and get to work. But that all happened a long time ago, and it is high time that a really careful examination was made on the spot of what they are doing and what their aims and objects should be. The tours about the country of the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, have been received with warm appreciation inside the voluntary organisations. I can assure him of that. We are greatly looking forward to his Report, but I do not propose to try to forecast what he is going to say because undoubtedly it will be something which we must debate in your Lordships' House as soon as we are in a position to do so, and we are looking forward to that. This, so to speak, is just an interim discussion on some of these important matters and we hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that his Report will be published very soon indeed and that an opportunity, not just to ask an Unstarred Question, but for a proper full-dress debate, will be accorded to us in your Lordships' House.

8.57 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for providing us with this opportunity of discussing the valuable work undertaken by the Countryside Commission for the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside, and for the encouragement of the provision and improvement of facilities for recreation and enjoyment in the countryside. think those are its twin functions. In reviewing the particular aspects of its work in this last Report, the Commission very properly expressed views on action which would help to advance the work with which they are entrusted by Statute. Not only were many of the matters to which its Fifth Report refers already the subject of discussion with myself and my Department, but by now many matters have been carried quite a long way forward, and I will speak about a number of them.

I agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that it is important for the role of the Countryside Commission to be strengthened and to be clarified. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet (if this was his implication), that that is not something which my Department can impose on the Commission but something that we have to do jointly. Because of that, I agree that one of the most significant matters referred to right at the beginning of this Report is the discussions which I have been having over recent months with the chairman of the Commission on questions affecting its future programme. The Commission refers at the beginning of its Report to an earlier stage of these discussions. We have considered the possibility of altering the present footing on which the Commission operates, under which the Commission's expenditure is borne on the Departmental Votes, the accounting officer is within our Department, and its staff are civil servants. We have been considering that to see whether some more independent status for the Commission could be arrived at, under which it would be a grant-aided body—and I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would prefer. But this change would involve legislation, and earlier this year the Commission accepted that in view of the present pressures on Parliamentary time the right and best course would be to concentrate instead on streamlining the existing arrangements so as to give the Commission as much freedom of action as possible in drawing up and carrying out its programme as is consistent with the constitutional framework under which it is at present operating.

I am glad to say that agreement has now been reached, as set out in that note which describes the priorities to which the Commission will have regard within its statutory responsibilities. And I am glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, agrees broadly with it. The copies which I have made available to noble Lords are a summary only of a larger document amounting to about 14 pages going into the whole thing in rather more detail. Together they provide for the Commission to give priority to matters in which it is the main expert among the central agencies in England and Wales. These are, principally, the National Parks, with particular reference to the new provisions relating to National Parks in the Local Government Act 1972 as well as other key areas of the countryside, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty, heritage coasts, Green Belts, and other areas of special significance in relation to the conservation of landscape or informal countryside recreation.

As noble Lords who have seen this document will know, they also include the rapid provision of more facilities for informal countryside recreation such as country parks and picnic sites. Here we have to acknowledge our debt of gratitude to the previous Administration who provided for all this in the 1968 Countryside Act. The priorities go on to include the enhancement of the quality of existing and new recreational facilities by encouraging higher standards of management and design—I think everybody will welcome that—and also the development of countryside interpretative and information facilities and services to improve the visitors' appreciation of the countryside; to put it in a nutshell, a better understanding between townsmen and countrymen. That is important also. With the Commission, we intend to review these priorities from time to time to reflect any further changes in policy or emphasis.

We have also undertaken a complete review of the arrangements under which the Commission will enter into commitments to expenditure and on the staffing implications of a programme devised in accordance with these priorities and guidelines. I believe that this review, by facilitating the decisions by the Commission, will enable its work in future to be more purposeful and effective than it has been so far. I know that the Commission itself is unanimously of the view that what has been done represents a considerable step forward and the Chairman has expressed his appreciation and thanks to me and to my officials for the efforts we have been making to respond to this first item in its review and to get relationships with the Departments on a satisfactory footing within the present statutory framework. This of course fully recognises the fact that the Commission has an independent voice of its own which it is entirely at liberty to use and which is entirely right for it to use whenever it sees fit. Therefore, far from strangling the Commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was saying, we have enabled it to increase its expenditure from £600,000 in the last year of the last Administration to £1 million in the last financial year in this Administration. I do not think, therefore, that it can be said that we are strangling the Commission in any sense.

So far as finance is concerned, and talking now about the National Parks, I have personally given an undertaking that the lion's share of the cost of administering National Parks should in future be met by the Exchequer rather than the ratepayer. Further legislation is still needed to give effect to this and it is not possible for me to say precisely when it will be introduced, but we intend at the earliest possible moment to introduce, alongside a newer and fairer system of rate support grant, a National Park block grant towards expenditure on National Parks. Moreover, eligible expenditure under that will include not only the cost of projects of a kind which have qualified for specific grant in the past but the full cost of administration and expenditure on such things as management agreements, surveys, and so on—all essential for the efficient administration and management of the Parks—and the exacting process of consultation which must underpin all National Park work in the future and which requires staff to do it. My Department are already in consultation with the local authority associations on the form of this proposed National Park block grant and the way in which it might be administered. It is also intended, with the demise of many specific Government grants to local authorities, to provide for the Countryside Commission to give financial assistance for countryside projects to local authorities and other public bodies, as well as those which it already gives to private interests. That, again, will extend both its influence and its effectiveness.

In response to the noble Lord's question, I should like to refer briefly to some of the other principal matters that are referred to in the Report. The Commission, with its special responsibility towards the National Parks, has of course been closely associated with the preparation of the guidance to local authorities on the implementation of the provisions relating to the National Parks in the Local Government Act 1972, and we have recently sent out, in Circular 63/73 which the noble Lord will have seen, I think, our further guidance on that matter. I absolutely agree with noble Lords who have spoken that the selection of suitable candidates to be nominated by the Secretary of State for appointment to the National Park Committees and boards is of the greatest importance and I am most impressed by the thoroughness with which the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Commission have been conducting the consultations on which they are basing their advice to us about these particular candidates. I spent the last weekend with the Countryside Commission and all 10 National Parks at a three-day conference in which I was at pains to stress the various things that need to be done in order to get the new National Park authorities set up with their new members and their new staff. I was at particular pains to stress the cardinal importance of the National Park officers; and if I may I will send the noble Lord, Lord Henley, a copy of my remarks dealing with that and other kindred matters.

Three members of the Commission, Sir Jack Longland, Mr. John Cousins and Dr. Margaret Davies, and the Director, all serve on my Committee reviewing National Park policies. That committee has, right from the beginning, been working on the horns of a dilemma, because, on the one hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Choriey, was saying, we are doing a job which has not been done before in respect of the National Parks. It is 25 years since they were set up. It is important, therefore, that the job, if it is done at all, should be done thoroughly. We thought it necessary to go round to ail the National Parks in turn, to consult separately with all the various interests, and hold public meetings in them. This has meant that the work has taken us nearly two years, but I think it was necessary. On the other hand, it is important that the new National Parks authorities should have our report in their hands while they are being formed and establishing their new policies. Therefore, to that extent we have had to hasten. I hope we shall manage to achieve both objectives of being thorough and still being able to give them something worth while within the course of this next year. I hope the full report will be published some time this autumn.

Turning from the National Parks to another category of countryside for which the Commission has special responsibilities, the areas of outstanding natural beauty, I would mention that three further areas—the one which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was asking about, the North Wessex Downs, together with Arnside, Silverdale and the Mendips—have been confirmed since the report was published. A further area, the Lincolnshire Wolds, has been designated by the Commission and the Order for that confirmed by my right honourable friend. And the Commission has more recently announced the programme for the designation of a further ten areas of outstanding natural beauty.

I turn now to the Green Belts. Approved Green Belts already comprise something slightly under 2,000 square miles. Just under 4,000 square miles are now under active consideration for addition to the approved Green Belt, 1,100 of those in the Metropolitan Green Belt, which will have the effect of doubling it. The area of land which the local authorities are asked to review in the Metropolitan Green Belt following the Government's White Paper Widening the Choice: the Next Steps in Housing, amounts to 2,000 acres, something under four square miles.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, before he leaves that point, whether the area of possible extension of the Metropolitan Green Belt, which he says would double it, is the same area which has been under consideration since the late 1950's?

LORD SANDFORD

Yes, my Lords, these are the Green Belts in various stages of less than full approval which we are trying to bring forward and finally firm up into approved Green Belt status. They are the ones which we announced some months ago we were considering, so that we could get them into full approved Green Belt status.

There are 730 miles of undeveloped coast at present being considered by local planning authorities in conjunction with the Countryside Commission, with a view to their being shown as heritage coasts in structure and local plans. These special areas altogether amount to 40 per cent. of the total area of England and Wales in countryside under some form of designation for protection, conservation, special management or enhancement. The fifth report also draws attention to the Commission's efforts to promote the provision of long-distance bridle paths and footpaths. It has already designated 1,500 miles. The long distance Cornwall coastpath is the next one, and that is due to be opened on May 19, later this week.

With an eye to the future, the Department continue to give every encouragement to experimental schemes undertaken and research commissioned by the Countryside Commission, and the plans for the development of information services. We consider these activities are of great importance to allow an assessment to be made of how the requirements of the general public can best be met in the countryside, with the prospect of greater leisure opportunities, increased mobility and more cars, and to ensure that those for whom facilities are provided get the maximum benefit from them. This is the connection in which I want to mention the work of the Commission over country parks. The Commission has been particularly active in encouraging and advising local planning authorities on the creation of country parks, helping to meet the needs of town dwellers for countryside recreation. My right honourable friend and I have continued to pay grants towards the expenditure incurred by local authorities in this field. As the Commission's Report indicates, 84 country parks were being provided in England and Wales by September, 1972, six more have been approved since then, and a further 142 are under consideration by the Commission at the present time.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about forestry policy. The present position is that the Forestry Commission have been holding discussions with the forestry interests on the possible outlines of a future grants scheme. We intend shortly to open discussions on the amenity aspects with the local authority associations, and we are aiming to arrive at a solution which will ensure the continuance of a healthy forestry industry, within a framework that pays greater regard to environmental and social objectives.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, do the Government intend to bring it under planning control or not?

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, I prefer not to be drawn further on what I have just said. It is clearly important that forestry should have greater regard to environmental considerations, as I have stated. But what I was going to say was that coming at it, as it were, the other way, we have in the course of this year, Tree Planting Year, organised a couple of regional conferences, one sponsored by Gloucestershire and one by Essex, to stimulate local authorities generally to follow the lead taken by these two counties and a few others to prepare comprehensive replanting programmes on a county-wide basis, involving landowners, farmers and voluntary organisations in the planning process. By this means we seek to renew, over a period of thirty years or so, the woodland landscape in counties which have suffered either from modern agricultural processes, such as the grubbing-out of hedges and so on, or from Dutch elm disease, or from incongruous and unsightly intrusions and developments. This is a positive approach which I particularly welcome and I envisage, from what has occurred at these particular conferences, considerable progress in this field of replanting the landscape and renewing it.

LORD MOLSON

My Lords, if my noble friend is discussing with the local authorities the undesirability (shall I say?) of the planting of forests on open moorland, mountains and so on, is he discussing it also with commercial interests which are planting those forests for commercial or financial reasons?

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, discussions are going on, as I explained, under two headings. The first are between the forestry interests, which include the commercial interests and private woodland owners and the Forestry Commission. For our part we in the Department of the Environment are about to open discussions with the local authority associations with a view to ensuring that afforestation and forestry generally pays greater regard to amenity considerations. The point I was making was that we are approaching this subject from two points of view: first of all, to ensuring that new schemes of afforestation should have greater regard to environmental considerations; and, secondly, to building up co-operation on a county-wide basis between woodland owners, planning authorities and county councils with a view to renewing the woodland landscape, particularly in areas which have been badly affected by the Dutch elm disease.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about management agreements. I would confirm that these are very much favoured, both by the Commission and by my Department, as a way of ensuring that the countryside can be used for more than one purpose at a time, and for reconciling and harmonising the different interests of the visitors, the landowners, the farmers and the people living in National Parks. Existing powers permit agreements covering the growing of timber crops, the conservation of flora and fauna, the conservation of sites of special public interest, public access to the open country and to woodlands, and regulation of the development and use of land. There is a set of general omnibus powers in Section 11 of the 1949 Act enabling local planning authorities to take any such action as appears expedient for the accomplishment of the purposes specified in Section 5 of the Act; that is to say, preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Parks. It would appear that these powers are sufficiently wide to cover the making of agreements with landowners, though it may be that they have not been used for this purpose. But certainly management agreements are something which ought to be used more. My Committee have been giving a lot of attention to this point.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, are the Government going to allow the Countryside Commission or the planning authorities the reserve powers of compulsion to forbid upland ploughing which the Countryside Commission Report asks for?

LORD SANDFORD

Yes, my Lords, there will be need for compulsory powers in reserve; but, for instance, it is significant that the Peak National Park Authority have secured nearly 75 square miles of access for the public, and I think I am right in saying that they have hardly used, if they have at all used, access orders. It has ail been achieved by agreement. I have had occasion to use Section 14 in regard to a ploughing case in Exmoor in the past few months, but clearly the more one can harmonise the different interests of the farming and landowning community on the one hand, and the visitors and the recreational interests on the other, by agreement rather than by the use of compulsion or orders or recourse to public ownership, the better. This is certainly the line that we are concentrating upon.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that we had not given any help to amenity societies. I will not catalogue all the forms of grant that we have given to all amenity societies, but of those concerned with the countryside we have given a fairly substantial grant to the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers which has enabled them enormously to extend their range of activities, the great majority of which are in the countryside; and as I have mentioned in another context in another debate, we have through the Development Commission grant-aided or offered to grant-aid rural community councils in, I think, about 10 or maybe 11 counties to assist in the appointment of an officer who can promote and coordinate the work of amenity societies. I think that is proving to be useful.

My Lords, I will not further prolong the debate. I hope I have said enough to demonstrate the excellent practical progress that is being made by the Commission in the discharge of its wide responsibilities, and the steps whch we have made together with it in keeping the pattern of the partnership between Government departments and the Countryside Commission and the local authorities properly tailored and up to date, according to the policies and emphases prevailing at the present time.