Lords Sitting of 12 February 1981

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.
The Lord Greenhill The Lord Greenhill—Took the Oath.

Lords Abolition: Referendum Provision
Lord Alport: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration is being given by Ministers to the possibility of introducing legislation in the next Session of Parliament to ensure that any attempt by a future Government to abolish the Second Chamber is submitted to a constitutional referendum.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I informed the House during the debate on the Second Reading of my noble friend's Constitutional Referendum Bill in December last that the Government would consider whether measures should be taken to protect the existence of the Second Chamber. This they are doing, but no conclusion has yet been reached.
Lord Alport: My Lords, in view of the Answer of my noble friend, may I ask leave of the House to take time to consider the impact of that on the progress of the Constitutional Referendum Bill which had its Second Reading before Christmas, and then consider what action to take?
Lord Soames: My Lords, yes, of course; that is up to my noble friend.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us how you prevent a subsequent sovereign Government from repealing a referendum Bill in just the same way as it could repeal any other Bill, if necessary, by creating an adequate number of Peers?
Lord Soames: My Lords, if I remember rightly, this was a point made by the noble Lord during the course of the debate. It is one of the many knotty problems associated with this question, and that is why the matter is still under consideration.

Canada: Statute of Westminster, s. 7(1)
3.8 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce legislation to repeal Section 7,
278
subsection (1), of the Statute of Westminster (22 Geo. 5. c. 4).
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to introduce legislation to repeal Section 7(1) of the Statute of Westminster, except at the request and with the consent of Canada.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I say that it is not necessary for legislation of this kind to be brought into the United Kingdom Parliament to have the request and the consent of Canada? In view of the fact that it is now 114 years since the passing of the British North America Act and 50 years since the passing of the Statute of Westminster, may I ask my noble friend whether it would not be right, in order to prevent any disagreement or misunderstanding between the United Kingdom and Canada, for the United Kingdom Parliament to take action unilaterally to repeal what is really a last relic of the colonial status of Canada, which would then place Canada on an equal constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom with other Commonwealth countries such as Botswana and Bangladesh?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, unilateral action by the United Kingdom to patriate the Canadian Constitution would be contrary to the Request and Consent Convention recited in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord take this opportunity of denying an apparent allegation in the press that agents of Her Majesty's Government, in this context, have been tapping the telephone lines of the High Commissioner for Canada?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, it is the convention in Parliament and outside that we never make comments on that kind of thing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to define what is meant by the "request and consent of Canada"?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, it means that they ask and they want it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect, that avoids the question entirely. Does it mean the Provincial Government, the Federal Government, or both? Would the noble Lord be more precise?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, it means the Federal Government.

Reading Glasses
3.11 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

279
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, despite their continued ban on sale over the counter of cheap reading glasses, they will make it clear that patients are entitled to buy such glasses and that shops can openly offer them for sale to those armed with their prescription, wherever it has been obtained.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the Opticians Act lays down that only registered medical practitioners and opticians may sell optical appliances to patients. However, under NHS arrangements, patients have a legal right to ask for their prescriptions and take them to any registered practitioner of their choice to be dispensed.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, would the noble Lord take steps to give some publicity to that part of his Answer which indicates to people that they need not buy their spectacles where they have their eyes tested and that, if they know places where they can buy these cheap imported spectacles for £5 or less per pair, they are entitled to go there and buy spectacles if they have obtained their prescription somewhere else?
That is my first question. My second question is this: does the noble Lord realise that, despite the progress that this indicates, we are still in the ridiculous position that people like myself who, as we get older, simply want increased magnifying power in order to be able to read, have to put the state in the position of incurring testing fees in connection with our eyesight, whereas many of us would be glad simply to buy these glasses off the peg, and that many medical people reckon that there is no harm whatsoever in that?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, we have been into this question on a number of occasions before. The situation is that anybody with a prescription can take it to someone who is prepared to sell him glasses. On the other hand, anybody who is selling glasses without an optical practitioner present to make sure that the patient is getting the right glasses is going against the dictates of the General Optical Council and can in fact be prosecuted.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, should not the word "patient" be used with the greatest circumspection, since a great number of people have absolutely nothing wrong with their eyesight? If they are compelled to take eyesight tests, are they not therefore victims, rather than patients?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the situation is that a patient may have nothing wrong with him, except the fact that he is getting a bit older and cannot see as well as he used to. On the other hand, he could have something else wrong with him, such as hypertension, diabetes or glaucoma, which can easily be seen in an eye examination.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister care to repeat the statement he made the last time we had exchanges of this sort, about the advisability of being able to buy glasses without prescription,
280
in order that it will be quite clear that those in the profession agree with what he said on that occasion?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am sorry, my Lords. I really cannot remember what I did say at that time. I am sure that it made very good sense, and if anybody wants to check it he has only to read Hansard.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether one way out of the present difficulty, which the Government cannot seem to overcome, is to invite Woolworth's to supply the service they supplied 40 years ago?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, Harrods and Selfridge's have been providing this service for some years. Debenham's have now started doing so in most of their shops. Anybody else can have a go as long as they have the services of a registered practitioner.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that anybody buying spectacles off the peg is being utterly foolish, because in so doing he can ruin his eyesight instead of improving it?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, to the tedium of noble Lords I have tried to make that point many times before.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, as there is a good deal of contrary evidence about this subject in the medical profession—I ask your Lordships to read the editorial in the British Medical Journal of 13th December last—would it not be a good idea if the noble Lord conveyed to his right honourable friend the suggestion that it would be beneficial to have a medical inquiry into this issue to find out whether this monopoly and this restriction are any longer justified?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister of Health will make a note of what the noble Lord has suggested.

NHS: Fund-Raising Proposals
3.16 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the proposals for fund-raising in the National Health Service as outlined in Circular HC/80/11th December 1980 conflict with assurances given during the Committee stage of the National Health Services Bill.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, there is no conflict. The circular HC(80)11 merely elaborates on the detailed uses of the primary power, as discussed in debates in Committee and at other stages of the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she made a statement during the proceedings on the Bill, that the circular giving the general outlines of the Government's intentions would be readily available to Members? Is she further aware that I personally was not aware of the issue of the circular until I received a letter from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and, further, that it took two telephone calls and delay of a week before I received a copy, which was sent to me by special messenger? The other point is that I am involved with the League of Friends, as president, and there are many other active voluntary organisations, and the Government have said at all stages that the activities envisaged in the Bill would be of a comparatively minor character. How does this line up with something that was not stated at any stage, that there would be interest-free loans from the Government to help authorities; and, secondly, the use of professional organisers, all of which indicates large-scale efforts, when, at the moment, charity is doing a considerable amount of work and making efforts which are to the benefit of the health service?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. I am sorry that the noble Lord should have had any delay in getting a copy of the circular which, of course, was sent to the appropriate health authorities. Should any noble Lord wish to have a copy, there are some available in the House today and I will certainly send one to anyone who would like a copy. On the other two points raised, there is no discrepancy between the information that was given when the Bill was debated and the circular that has been sent out. It is, I think, a rather elaborate term to talk about interest-free loans, when what is being suggested is that some members of health authorities may be willing to give their time to fund-raising activities. There will be no pressure put on anyone who does not want to do so, and health authorities may use some of their funds for this purpose, provided that they are all replaced at the end of the money-raising activity. This is, after all, what any voluntary organisation would do and it seems to us quite appropriate. Furthermore, if the noble Lord looks at the main circular he will see that the point about using professional fund-raisers occurs in the last sentence of paragraph 5, with suitable arrangements for that purpose. We see this activity as raising money at the margin of the health service, where a relatively small sum can make a lot of difference.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the noble Baroness now give an assurance to the House that there will be full consultation with charitable organisations? It is only at a very late stage that this has happened and there are still serious objections. There should have been consultation, but this happened only at the very last moment and there are still serious doubts about the effect of the Government's proposals on the activities of charitable organisations.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. I can confirm that my honourable friend in another place is discussing the effect of this with voluntary organisations. Of course, we will take account of the points that have been raised this afternoon.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness the Minister agree that the amended guidelines should prohibit the use of public funds in the form of interest-free loans and the working time of public administrators to support private fund raising agencies, since this is a principle to which this House has objected successfully throughout the life of the modern Civil Service?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is being rather unrealistic about what will in fact happen on these occasions. Where an authority decides to use the powers now available—no authority has to use them if it does not want to—there could well be people who would like to give their services, or the authority could decide to make use of some of its money as a pump-priming exercise. Provided they keep, which they must do, to the law; that the money is put back so that there is no loss of money from public funds for this purpose, the effect of the exercise will be that extra money will be available for patients in the National Health Service. This must be a good thing. It is worth remembering that in the year 1979–80 as much as £20 million was raised from voluntary sources. It is not a new idea.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for approximately one hour. The Second Reading of the European Assembly Elections Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to the revocation of special hours certificates. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

County of Kent Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Humberside Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

House of Lords' Offices
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report read as follows:
1. PARLIAMENT OFFICE: SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee have considered the staffing of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Committee recommend that there should be no immediate successor to the Select Committee on Unemployment and that, when it has reported, the clerk to that Committee should be assigned as a second clerk to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. In the event of an urgent requirement for a clerk to service an unexpected select committee, such a clerk should be drawn from either the European Communities Committee or the Science and Technology Committee.
2. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
The Committee were informed that the Treasury had agreed to new financial assistance for the Refreshment Department and that the Civil Service Catering Organisation was conducting a review of the workings of the Department. The Committee welcomed the new financial support for the Department.
3. HOUSE OF LORDS BULLETIN
The Committee agreed a recommendation by the Administration Sub-Committee that the House of Lords should no longer publish a Weekly Information Bulletin when current Stationery Office contracts expire later this year.
4. TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY FILMS ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The Committee have considered a request from the BBC to produce four short documentary films on the House of Lords. They agreed this request in principle, subject to detailed consideration being given to it by the Administration Sub-committee who would have to agree appropriate conditions with the BBC. The Committee agreed, however, that no filming should be allowed in the Chamber when the House is sitting, nor in a Committee Room when a Committee is sitting.
5. PICTURE OF THE HOUSE IN SESSION
The Committee agreed in principle that it would be desirable to commission a further picture of the House in session. The Works of Art Sub-Committee were invited to consider the names of possible artists to undertake this commission.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Film Finance Corporation Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill will consolidate into one Act the enactments relating to the constitution and functions of the National Film Finance Corporation, at present contained mainly in the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act 1949, which established the corporation, the Films Act 1970, which enlarged its functions, and the Films Act 1980, which severed the financial links between the corporation and the Government.
The Bill is pure consolidation, without any amendments. If given a Second Reading it will, in the usual way, be referred to the joint committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Film Levy Finance Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a twin of the Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading. In this case the enactments consolidated
284
are those which provide for the imposition of a national levy on exhibitors of films, for the constitution of the British Film Fund Agency, and for the functions of the agency in relation to the proceeds of the levy. The Acts mainly concerned are the Cinematograph Films Act 1957, the Films Act 1970 and the Films Act 1980.
Like the previous Bill, this is pure consolidation and will equally, if given a Second Reading, be referred to the joint committee. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Judicial Pensions Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
Viscount Long Viscount Long rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order consolidates the law relating to weights and measures. It makes no change of substance to the existing law but brings it together in one order.
It may help your Lordships to know that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills considered the order on 4th February and reported that in their opinion it is pure consolidation and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved.—(Viscount Long.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
Viscount Long Viscount Long rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th January be approved.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order consolidates the law relating to legal aid, advice and assistance. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills considered the order on 4th February and reported that in their opinion it is pure consolidation, and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th January be approved.—(Viscount Long.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this would seem to be an extremely helpful order. Can the noble Viscount say whether there is yet a Great Britain equivalent to it? Perhaps I should be addressing this query to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If the information is not immediately available, perhaps I may be communicated with.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I shall be most happy to do so after I have communicated with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble and learned Lord has said and give him a reply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The Chairman of Committees: The first amendment that I have to call is a manuscript amendment, No. 374A, in substitution for Amendments Nos. 375, 398, 402 and 403.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 374A:
Before Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Orders designating certain areas of special scientific interest
.—(1) In the case of any land which is designated by the Nature Conservancy Council as a Site of Special Scientific Interest under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, by order apply subsection (2) to that land; and the provisions of Schedule 10 shall have effect as to the making, confirmation and coming into operation of orders under this section. An order made under this section may be amended or revoked by a subsequent order so made.
(2) The owner or occupier of any land to which this subsection applies shall not carry out on it any operation appearing to the Secretary of State to be likely to destroy or damage its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features and specified in the order applying this subsection to the land, or cause or permit the carrying out of such an operation, unless—

(a) one of them has, after the commencement date, given the Council notice of a proposal to carry out the operation, specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out; and

(b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (3) is fulfilled.

(3) The said conditions are—

(a) that the operation is carried out with the Council's written consent;

(b) that the operation is carried out in accordance with the terms of an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act.

(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (2) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.

(5) It is a reasonable excuse in any event for a person to carry out an operation if—

(a) the operation was authorised by a planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; or

(b) the operation was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 374A. I know that it is customary for manuscript amendments to be read in full when they are moved in this way, but I hope that noble Lords will excuse me from that rather onerous task if I briefly explain how it comes about that I am moving a manuscript amendment.
What happened was that late last night somebody noticed that the Marshalled List which we have been working from since the amendments were first marshalled had the first three amendments which we were to deal with today in the wrong order. That is why the Fifth Marshalled List has the amendments out of numerical order, Amendments Nos. 376 and 376A coming before my Amendment No. 375. In order to avoid everybody having to change the order of proceedings which we were prepared for, in particular those noble Lords whose amendments were accepted—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on behalf of the Government, my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who have their names to Amendment No. 375—it was agreed that I should move this manuscript amendment, which has the effect of altering Clause 26 as it would be altered if my Amendment No. 375 and the amendments consequential on it, which were Nos. 398, 402 and 403, were carried. In other words, the purpose of the manuscript amendment (for which I apologise to your Lordships) was that the Marshalled List was altered very late in the day, but none of us knew until rather late this morning, and it was felt to be simpler for everyone concerned if we could keep to the order that we were all expecting.
Having explained that technicality, I should like to move on to explain the purpose of these amendments. We now start Part II of this Bill and I should like to say a brief word about the importance of wildlife habitats before turning to the effect of the amendment. In Part I of the Bill, which we have now debated in your Lordships' Committee for a number of days—more days than most of us care to remember, I suspect we have taken a number of steps to stop the killing of protected and rare birds and animals. We have taken various steps to prevent rare birds and animals being killed by all sorts of different means—bows and crossbows and catapaults were under consideration. We have taken steps to protect the structures and the places used by wild animals for protection or for shelter, and in Part I of the Bill we have taken a number of other steps to protect particular species and plants. But without the adequate protection of habitats where wild animals live and breed and feed none of the measures in Part I of the Bill will achieve the objects which we all hope they will achieve. Without the protection of habitats where wild animals live this Bill is in effect of little value, at least so far as Part I is concerned.
I think there is fairly widespread agreement—and certainly in the weeks leading up to our debates on Part II today from a number of sources there has been widespread agreement—about the importance of taking further steps in addition to those already included in the Bill to protect habitats. In a recent leading article in The Times it was pointed out that it is changes in farming itself which have done the damage to sites of

287
special scientific interest. The leading article goes on to say:
"At present these sites are being destroyed at a frightening rate".
In a speech last year on 25th November, the Minister, Mr. Monro, said:
"In September last year"—
that is, 1979—
"I signed the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats in Berne. This accepted a fundamental obligation to safeguard natural habitats".
Later in the same speech the Minister went on to explain how the provisions currently in the Bill would operate. Having, incidentally, in the previous paragraph in his speech, acknowledged that the otter in Scotland was being protected under this Bill, something which was welcomed on all sides of the House, the Minister went on to say that the most likely reasons for the otter's decline were the depredations to its river habitats; but he then went on in the very next paragraph, explaining how this Bill would protect habitats, to say that there would be new measures to protect particularly important habitats, but, he said:
"These will only be applied to a comparatively small number of sites".
I had come today, as no doubt had many other noble Lords, prepared to talk about a rate of loss of sites of special scientific interest of about 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. a year. I even had a graph which somebody kindly prepared for me, which showed that, at that rate of loss, by the year 2000 we should have lost over half of the existing sites of special scientific interest. But that information—and I hope a lot of your Lordships' prepared speeches, and I certainly hope the Government's prepared response to these amendments—is now redundant, because yesterday the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's official advisers on nature conservation, announced that in a survey last year they had found that the rate of loss and damage to sites of special scientific interest was dramatically and appallingly higher than anyone had previously suspected.
We knew, when people spoke of an average loss or damage of 4 per cent. a year, that things were very bad and that that average hid some much worse figures in particular counties. Certainly in Norfolk, where I farm and live, our experience was that the rate of loss was a good deal higher than 4 per cent. in recent years; but the NCC's survey in 1980, for which they currently have the results for 20 counties in England, shows a rate of loss or damage on average of 10 per cent. Ten per cent. of the sites of special scientific interest in this country in 1980 were seriously damaged or lost, in the words of the NCC and, most dramatically, in Dorset 32 per cent. of the sites of special scientific interest—one-third—were seriously damaged or lost. The figure in Northamptonshire was 17 per cent.
That rate of damage to the cream, the top layer, the most important, the most significant nature conservation sites in this country is a catastrophe. It is appalling. I do not think anybody was aware that this was going on to such an extent. The Nature Conservancy Council are, first, to be congratulated on doing this survey work and producing it in time for it to be
288
considered by your Lordships when we debate Part II; and, secondly, they are to be congratulated for saying as firmly as they have done that the provisions which the Government are proposing in this Part do not go far enough. Now that we have the information which the NCC released yesterday we can see why that is so.
This is not something which happened last year or which is decelerating, or anything of that sort. There are two incidents which are actually occurring at the moment which will give noble Lords an idea of the problem. Sixty acres of a 450-acre Grade 1 site of special scientific interest at Horton Common in Dorset has already been destroyed. It is still in fact being ploughed at this moment. That is in an area where half the heathlands in Dorset, intact in 1960, have now been destroyed and most of what is left of the Dorset heaths, which have suffered a massive decline since the war, is severely fragmented. Horton Common, the one that is currently being ploughed up, is one of the few remaining areas large enough to support viable populations of the wildlife which depend on heathland, such as the silver-studded blue butterfly, the Dartford warbler, the smooth snake and the sand lizard. To some of these species your Lordships have given what I would call nominal protection in Part I of the Bill, but unless we get Part II right those species will disappear.
Also in Dorset, another Grade I—top grade—site of special scientific interest at Slepe heath, on which the Nature Conservancy Council were negotiating to make a national nature reserve, is going under the plough and is to be planted with conifers. By a somewhat ironic chance the Nature Conservancy Council's regional office is a couple of hundred yards away from that site.
The figures that the Nature Conservancy Council have revealed are a national and international scandal. The Minister said at the Berne Convention that it implied a fundamental obligation to safeguard natural habitats. There is no hope of carrying out this international obligation without immediately stopping the catastrophic destruction of our sites of scientific interest; and that is what this series of amendments would do. They would ensure that an order-making power which is provided in the Bill would be applied to all sites of special scientific interest after the Minister had consulted with the Nature Conservancy Council. Without a measure of that sort in this Bill I believe that we shall have wasted the many long hours that we have spent on Part I, and we shall have no hope of stopping what I have called the catastrophic destruction of sites of special scientific interest. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: The Nature Conservancy Council are remarkably good at feeding to the media such statistics as they feel may help their case. They did it to me not so very long ago, by feeding a story to the media about a site of special scientific interest which lies upon my land at a time when it was still being considered under appeal procedure by a forestry advisory committee; it was still in the process of appeal procedure and about to come before the Secretary of State. I feel that one cannot let this spate of statistics go by without some comment, because I have an interest in this.

289
Upon land which I own or manage on behalf of members of my family I have no fewer than eight sites of special scientific interest, one of which is about 6,500 acres in extent. On my own land 30 per cent. of the land which I own consists of sites of special scientific interest. If I put together the area occupied by sites of special scientific interest upon land I manage, it is something like 0·2 per cent. of all the sites of special scientific interest in the British Isles, in number that is, not necessarily in area—although it may be quite high in area, having one site which is 6,500 acres in extent. This site of 6,500 acres is in fact part of a larger site of 13,500 acres in extent, affecting two of my neighbours as well, and it is designed to preserve 1,000 acres of bog.
If we are to preserve habitats, there is one habitat in which I am extremely interested; that is, the habitat of the native Highlander in Scotland. There is a feeling very much abroad in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland that proper development and proper land use are being inhibited by the imposition of the title of sites of special scientific interest upon land without any questioning before bodies which are accountable publicly or have to budget publicly for their actions.
In looking at these amendments which we shall be considering from now on, and when we come later to an amendment which I shall move myself, I think that we should bear in mind that sites of special scientific interest have never been proved ever by public debate. The idea of a site of special scientific interest was that the Nature Conservancy Council would look at land which it considered might be of special scientific interest, and would warn planning authorities that a special scientific interest might exist, in case somebody desired to carry out a development upon it. They are not nature reserves. If we want to protect the habitats of special flowers, plants, birds, animals, rocks or whatever, we must create nature reserves; we must do the thing properly. We must go for co-operation with the people who have to live and work and have their being in these areas. In the creation of a site of special scientific interest nobody asks permission to walk upon your land to look for it; nobody tells you about it until it has been so declared by the Nature Conservancy Council—and by that time there is no appeal against it.
I feel we must be exceedingly careful as to how we deal with the status of sites of special scientific interest. This is not to say that I am in any way against the preservation of habitat. I believe this to be truly important and I believe that it will only be successful if it is done with the full co-operation of the people who live upon the land to be so protected. I feel that we must in this Bill see that we create a climate in which there will be understanding and co-operation, and not a climate in which people sneak upon your land, declare that you may no longer do something to which you have a right, declare things about your land which devalue it in cash terms, and then create this situation against which you have no appeal. We must look exceedingly carefully at these amendments. It is not just a simple way of protecting habitats. To protect habitats we must get the real and genuine co-operation of the people who live in the country areas, and this the Nature Conservancy Council are not doing today.
The Earl of Avon: The aim of the amendment is to require owners or occupiers of land which forms part of a site of special scientific interest to notify the Nature Conservancy Council of any operation specified by an order made by the Secretary of State. Currently more than 3,800 sites would be involved. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government's proposals on Clause 26 encompass a wide range of powers, including substantial cost implications for the most threatened and important of these areas of special scientific interest which have been identified by the Nature Conservative Council—I mean, Conservancy Council—as requiring super protection. To apply this concept of super protection to all the 3,800 or more sites of special scientific interest would be a draconian measure. It would also mean that both the physical and financial resources of the Nature Conservancy Council were so strained that the whole object of the Government's intentions might well be jeopardised.
In effect, the result could simply be that, with a considerable waste of staff effort and bureaucracy, protection would effectively be offered only to those most threatened and important, which is precisely what our proposals set out to do without the staff increase and bureaucracy. There is absolutely no point, by passing this amendment, in giving the impression that all sites of special scientific interest will be given the full protection offered under this clause. The result would simply be the giving of a false impression to those throughout the country who could expect such an amendment to be fully honoured in practice, and this the Government do not think would be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, produced some statistics, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, commented. We, of course, have also seen these statistics provided yesterday by the NCC. They refer, I must say at once, to damage on sites of special scientific interest and not "of". We have as a Government not yet had time to analyse the actual effect, in terms of percentages, of losses of sites of special scientific interest or land area. I think it would be premature to comment further on these figures before we have analysed them further. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and we ourselves all wish to safeguard natural habitats. What we feel about it is that there is a difference of degree in the measures which need to be taken.
I would correct one impression that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, gave which is that the Nature Conservancy Council sneaks up on people. That is an unfair remark, if I may say so. Wherever possible, they do seek permission.
Viscount Thurso: May I tell the noble Earl that they have never yet asked me for permission before declaring a site of special scientific interest.
The Earl of Avon: I am sorry to hear that. As we are coming to this question later in the debate, I hope the noble Viscount will be pleased by what we are proposing.
If I may return to the amendment, another more minor reason for seeking its rejection lies in something which we believe is incorrect. It is incorrect to refer to land "designated by" the Nature Conservancy Council as a site of special scientific interest. Land is

291
not designated by the Nature Conservancy Council. What happens is that local planning authorities are notified by the NCC of land which for the time being is not managed as a nature reserve but is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features. These sites are commonly known as sites of special scientific interest, but that is not actually a statutory expression.
I hope that your Lordships will not feel carried away by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, as regards this particular amendment. We in the Government believe—and we shall explain why in a little more detail when we come to later amendments—that the policy in Part II is the correct policy. I very much hope that this amendment will not be accepted.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl, in a slip of the tongue, which he corrected, referred to the Nature Conservancy Council as the Nature Conservative Council. I do not think that that is an unfair description as far as many of the voluntary organisations in this country are concerned. They have tended to look upon the Nature Conservancy Council as taking a very conservative line in these matters. It has been cautious and it has in many areas taken enormous trouble—most of the voluntary organisations would say far too much trouble—to try to reach agreement with landowners over the designation of sites of special scientific interest. Often that procedure has led to those sites being destroyed while the negotiations were still going on. That is in total contrast to what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, had to say about his own experience. In all the cases that I have heard of over the past few years the complete reverse has been the case—the Nature Conservancy Council has delayed designating sites, while destruction has gone on under its nose, in an attempt to reach a compromise or agreement.
I would simply say to those who have suggested that it is a compromise and agreement that are wanted, that that is the system that operates at the moment. The Nature Conservancy Council and nobody else has any legal powers to stop this rate of change. Compromise, agreement, getting on with landowners and not upsetting anybody is the order of the day at the moment. It is under that system that we have lost sites of special scientific interest, at the rate last year of 10 per cent. If that is the system which noble Lords think so marvellous then they must explain those figures or say that they do not mind them, that they are quite happy, and that that rate of loss does not matter to them. I cannot believe that that would be seriously suggested.
The noble Earl on the Government Front Bench said that this amendment was a draconian measure. I suggest that when the Government have had time to study the Nature Conservancy Council's figures they will come to realise that draconian measures are what are needed in the face of these massive losses. The noble Earl said that there was a difference between us in the degree of how far we wanted to go in the Bill. There may have been a difference in degree before yesterday, but now that we know that the rate of loss is so much more serious than we ever expected, I would hope that the Government would reconsider
292
their attitude and—if they want seriously to honour the Berne Convention—take steps to protect all sites of special scientific interest.
The noble Earl has pointed out one technical error in the amendment. We have a number of other amendments down to this clause which I hope the Government might be able to respond to a little more favourably than they are obviously prepared to respond to my amendment. I intend to come back to this matter at the Report stage unless the Bill is amended substantially in the meantime or unless the Government change their mind, as I hope they will, when they have had a chance to look at the Nature Conservancy Council's advice to them. It is scientific advice. The Nature Conservancy Council's figures, as I understand it, are not checked by the Government. The Nature Conservancy Council offers scientific advice to the Government and the Government can accept it. That is the advice they have been given. I hope that when they have had a chance to look at it they might be prepared to come a little nearer to what I am proposing in my amendment. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Orders designating certain areas of special scientific interest]:
3.54 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 376:
Page 23, line 37, at beginning insert—
("(A1) The Nature Conservancy Council shall serve on every owner and occupier of any land which in the opinion of the Council is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features a notice specifying—

(a) the nature of that special interest; and

(b) any operations appearing to the Council to be likely to destroy or damage such interest;

and the notice shall have effect as from the day on which it is served.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 376 and, with the approval of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 379, 384, 386, 390, 391, 394, 397, 399, 404, 407, 413, 415, 417 to 420 and 423. My noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa apologises to the Committee that he is not present. He is in the Falkland Islands, where he has a long-established appointment, and he has left me to move for him the amendment which bears both our names. I have listened to the two Front Bench speeches and I hope that on this occasion I have, as it were, a middle way that will be acceptable to the Minister.
I shall not repeat the points made so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the condition and the need at the present time. It was only this morning that I, too, learnt to my horror that sites of special scientific interest are being destroyed not, as I thought, at a rate of 4 per cent.—which is bad enough—but at an estimated 10 per cent. I sympathise with the Minister. Of course he cannot accept without inquiry the correctness of those figures. However I am quite sure that it will not be 4 per cent. but much nearer 10 per cent., if the figures prove to be at all accurate. In the light of that information, Part II of the Bill is now clearly inadequate. I am glad that we have received the bad news in time to do something this afternoon to try to stop the rot.
I shall illustrate my amendments in two ways: first, I shall show how, if they are accepted, the new procedure would work; and secondly, I shall explain the effect of and reason for some of the more substantial amendments that are involved. Under the new procedure, all owner-occupiers are to be notified that some land under their control is an SSSI and that certain specified operations might cause damage to the heritage value of that land. That is a long-felt want which farmers and all concerned will appreciate. This is not the first time that we have heard it said in this House that farmers do not know enough about the SSSIs on their own land. This time, if my amendment is accepted, they will know all about them officially.
Supposing, having had a notice, the owner wishes to undertake an operation that would cause damage to his site. He will have been told what would cause damage in the notice. His plans will have been drawn up on the understanding that implementation may be delayed. Indeed, he may have been discouraged from developing his plans because of the constraints involved in the notification process or because he had no wish to damage the national heritage. In the end he notifies the NCC of his intention. The NCC considers the implication and chooses to offer a negotiated agreement. It is hoped that such agreements will be commonplace and that most problems will be solved at this stage. Perhaps, however, negotiations drag on and on and it becomes apparent that no agreement to manage the area for conservation can be reached. In the light of that, the NCC may make an application to the Secretary of State for an order prohibiting the intended operation. The Secretary of State will deliberate and may decide to make the order under Schedule 10. What happens then? The owner may take no further action. He may say: "It is not worth my while". He may agree to a management arrangement or he may offer to sell the land to the NCC. In all cases, Clause 27 compensation applies. That is the plan.
How do the amendments achieve that moderate and workable solution while retaining so much of the present Clause 26? My Amendment No. 376, enabling the NCC to advise all owners, is new and very much overdue. Amendment No. 379 deletes the opinion of the Secretary of State because SSSIs are decided by the Nature Conservancy Council under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Acts. The present provision in the Bill limiting just a few sites to special protection is one of the most objectionable to all shades of conservation opinion and should be done away with. The Minister's new amendment in changing "national interest" to "national importance" seems to be even further restrictive than the Bill as printed. The conservation world considers that this is probably the most important point to be dealt with since the Bill was printed.
The six amendments, Nos. 384 to 397, provide for the new situation in subsection (1). In Amendment No. 399 the obligation on the Nature Conservancy Council to decide whether or not the farmer can go ahead and alter an SSSI is reduced from three months to four weeks. That will be welcomed by the farming community and I am told that there are good agricultural reasons for this.
I am sure that the new subsection (5), which is
294
Amendment No. 404, is an improvement on the present one. With our wording, if an agreement is hanging fire, the Nature Conservancy Council can get an order made by the Secretary of State to prohibit work on a permanent basis, with compensation. But the order can be revoked. Under the present subsection (5) if the agreement is hanging fire, the only recourse is compulsory purchase or to let the site be destroyed. Amendment No. 407 is consequential, although if it is agreed I am not happy about the drafting.
Amendment No. 413 is very worth while. We suggest that whatever is worth retaining on an SSSI should become a local land charge. Without such a provision a new occupier would not be bound by the Nature Conservancy Council notice unless the NCC wrote to him again. This provision is very necessary because there are cases where a new occupant has done work—perhaps drainage—on an SSSI for which the previous owner has been refused grant application. Furthermore, much administrative work would be saved. The last six amendments are consequential. I have made my case. I think that we have a moderate, middle way approach, and I very much hope that the Minister will say that he can accept these amendments, or accept this approach in principle and include it as an amendment at the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I share the concern of many noble Lords, that existing site protection may not be effective in preserving the dwindling number of places that provide habitats for wildlife species. Their concern is based on much knowledge and expertise—especially that of my noble friend Lord Craigton—and also on the amount of damage that is already reported to have taken place in declared sites. That some damage has been done is not in dispute. Reluctantly I have to support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in saying that a contributory cause has, in many cases, been the failure of the Nature Conservancy Council to provide information as to the nature of the conservation interest in many sites. Therefore, I welcome the first of my noble friend's series of amendments for what it will do to rectify that situation.
I do not like his other amendments, for reasons which I shall explain. It is now being suggested—and we have heard this dreadful story from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—that 10 per cent. of SSSIs are being damaged each year. On the face of it, these figures are appalling. But when we look into actual cases of alleged damage, the issues, the reasons and the responsibilities are never clear-cut. I mentioned the doubts that arise in one's mind when one delves, even superficially as I have done, into what precise damage is being done to sites; not in order to minimise the danger to habitats but to shine, as it were, an amber light before we get carried away (as my noble friend Lord Craigton would have us do) into enlarging the scope of very restrictive legislation which creates new criminal offences. That is just what the Government's Clause 26 does. I make no complaint about it. It enables the Secretary of State to make an order in respect of any land where certain criteria apply. These criteria are pretty wide, either as drafted or if the wording is altered, as it probably will be in a later amendment.

295
Restrictions of future use of the land by owners and occupiers will be set out in the order. Any contravention will be an offence, carrying penalties of up to two years in prison. This is stern stuff, and rightly so. But is it desirable or practical automatically to extend here and now this new statutory procedure to all 3,816 sites?—as, broadly, would be the effect of my noble friend's amendment and also that of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to which we shall come later.
One difficulty is that the Nature Conservancy Council may well have been over-enthusiastic in the past about designation. I know that my noble friend Lord Avon does not like the word "designation", but he knows what I mean. The NCC appears to acknowledge this by the process of review which is now taking place. Therefore, the label, "SSSI" already may not be appropriate to all our existing sites. I am sure that the desire to provide better and wider protection is prompted by the limited number of Clause 26 orders proposed for selection by the Government and also by the unsatisfactory current designation procedure. As to the limited number proposed, I can very well understand the Government's policy, which was explained to us just now by my noble friend Lord Avon. There are just not sufficient resources available to apply more widely the Clause 26 order procedure. When we consider the manpower and the financial requirements that would be needed, the sheer volume of public inquiries, management agreements, compensation payments, compulsory purchases, and so on would be overwhelming. The Government's way must surely be the only practical way forward.
Once Clause 26 is enacted in its present form, or near to its present form, I wonder whether there will be any need for restrictive legislation to cover all sites, as is envisaged by my noble friend Lord Craigton. As resources become available it would be perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to cover more sites by Clause 26 orders. The very fact that the power is there would be a very useful and, I think, effective back-up where any site may be under threat. In my view, this back-up power, coupled with better designation procedure, should be enough to be effective in securing the degree of protection which we all want to see.
As regards NCC procedure, I am not convinced that it is necessary to provide for it in the Bill, as the first amendment of my noble friend would do. I believe that it could be done administratively. But however it is done, owners and occupiers must be told—and I think that this is the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—specifically and clearly what is being protected and what operations would damage the site. No doubt they will also be told about Section 26 of the 1981 Act, as it will be, lurking in the background. I am sure that the provision of information will go a long way towards ensuring willing co-operation from owners and farmers. I am sure that the owners' and farmers' organisations will do everything in their power to assist, educate and encourage their members, who are very much more conservation-minded that than they are given credit for. That kind of improved practice by the NCC, coupled with the creation of as many Clause 26 orders
296
as can be coped with, would constitute a more realistic and practical conservation programme than is proposed in this group of amendments. With the possible exception of Amendment No. 376, I hope that the Government will resist my noble friend's group of amendments creating super-special sites and extending the Clause 26 procedure to all the others. I think that the Government have it about right and deserve the Committee's support. That I shall certainly give, if necessary, if it comes to a vote.
Lord Underhill: As reference has been made to an amendment in my name, I wonder whether it might be convenient if I speak to that amendment during this debate in order to avoid going over the ground on two or three occasions. The important point about Amendment No. 377 is that it brings in the national nature reserves, which none of the other amendments does. I am sorry that I was not present to hear my noble friend Lord Melchett move his amendment, but I was engaged in a Committee upstairs. From what I have heard, I think that my noble friend undoubtedly explained—and I think that everyone accepts it—the threat that there is to a great number of SSSIs which are designated by the Nature Conservancy Council.
But we also want to bring in the question of the NNRs. The Nature Conservancy Council has said that quite a number of these are at risk. According to the NCC, half of the 167 nature reserves will be at risk within the next 10 years—and we may not get another Wildlife and Countryside Bill before that expires—and 15 per cent. are under imminent threat. We have to keep in mind that only 35 of the reserves are owned by the NCC and therefore fairly safe.
On Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was able to assure the House that the Government only had in mind dealing with some 40 to 50 SSSI sites, and yet the figure was given of a total of 3,816. So we have the situation where only some 1 per cent. of the sites are going to be given adequate protection. I am sure, as I said on Second Reading, that there is absolutely no reason whatever why this country should not give the same consideration to the heritage of our wildlife as we do to the heritage of our buildings. Moreover, in a way it is more serious because once you damage the wildlife habitat that has been built up over centuries, you and I will not see them replaced, and maybe many generations will not see them replaced. What we are discussing is of the greatest importance.
Amendment No. 377 says that all sites, SSSIs and NNRs, must be brought within the proposed protection of subsection (2) of this clause. While I should prefer the amendment which we shall move in my name, No. 377, I can understand and appreciate the approach made in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. It is a great improvement on the Bill in so far as all sites designated by the NCC as of special interest shall have the relevant notice served on them in the first instance. Where the amendment does not go far enough is because any subsequent action will depend upon the Secretary of State, though admittedly after consultation with the NCC. But if the Minister repeats today what was said on Second Reading—that the Government have in mind only some 40 to 50 sites—then we have something over

297
3,700 SSSIs which are not in here as well as the balance of the NNRs which are not owned by the NCC itself. The Government amendment is only a slight improvement, if that, upon the dubious proposal in the Bill.
The points of Amendment No. 377 are, first, that all sites are brought within the desired protection. That is, all SSSIs and all NNRs which are designated as such by the Nature Conservancy Council will be brought within the provision of subsection (2). The noble Earl said that we obviously could not deal with all the 3,816 sites, but that will be covered by the second part of the amendment, which provides that the Secretary of State may, after he has had consultation with the NCC, exempt from action under subsection (2) any areas of land which he feels do not come under the three criteria laid down.
Therefore, the important part of the amendment is that in the first instance there will be no argument at all: every single SSSI and every single NNR will come within the protection of subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State considers that any one of the three criteria does not obtain, and that will be agreed after consultation with the NCC. Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 377 is the one which gives the greater protection, bearing in mind what I have said already—that if we miss the opportunity in this Bill I doubt whether I shall be speaking to your Lordships trying to move an amendment to a future Bill that comes up some decades ahead.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill—and I am sure all your Lordships agreed with him—said that this was perhaps the most important clause in the Bill. It is indeed so, because arrangements which have existed since the 1949 Act and which attempted to protect the habitat have completely broken down. We have had a lot of evidence about that. I do not wish to add any examples except two rather telling ones from my former constituency of Huntingdonshire, because I know it so well. There, in Huntingdonshire, 88 per cent. of all hedgerows have been destroyed in the past 30 years. That must have had a tremendous effect on the habitat of wildlife and small birds. Another example is that 31 years ago we had a wood at the side of a fen where the swallowtail butterfly flourished. But an over-zealous river authority decided to lower the level of the water table, and that destroyed the vegetation on which the swallowtail butterfly depended and we have never had it since. Something must be done.
We are on the fifth day of Committee but I hope nevertheless that we shall take a bit of time to try to get this right. The Government's purpose is clearly expressed in subsection (1), but clearly from the remaining subsections there are anxieties on both sides of the fence both the owner-occupers and the preservationists, and the RSPB, of which I happen to be a member—about the way in which the remaining parts of the Government's clause will work.
I was gratified to hear my noble friend Lord Middleton say that he at any rate supported Amendment No. 376 moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton. That clearly must be right because we ought to give the owners and occupiers the earliest opportunity of being brought into the picture, of making representations
298
and so on, instead of the Nature Conservancy Council, splendid people though they are, starting off by simply making an order and then, without the owner-occupier really getting seized of the matter, perhaps the thing could have gone too far. Therefore, I should have thought that Amendment No. 376 must commend itself to your Lordships.
I do not, however, agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Middleton when he tends to accept the view that to deal somehow with the 3,800 existing sites, which we are told are rapidly being destroyed, would be a draconian thing to do. Somehow we need to have those sites studied further. With those that are worth keeping, preserving, doing something with, bringing within the new procedure, that should be done.
Perhaps it is my own fault, but I have not picked up exactly what the Government's attitude is with regard to dovetailing the existing fact of those 3,800 sites with their proposals for declaring future sites to be of scientific interest in future. But this somehow has to be done. We cannot just say, "No, we will neglect the existing sites, and whether we start again or not does not very much matter". We have to build on what is there while giving a good opportunity to the owners and occupiers.
I very much fear that, taking the Bill as a whole, and this clause in particular, we are going to place an enormous administrative burden on the Nature Conservancy Council. It is a burden which they will no doubt willingly try to bear, but to the extent that we make it obligatory for them to have dealings or consultations at an early stage with those who are going to be affected by their decisions, then we shall indeed be lightening their task. It is for that reason that I hope that your Lordships will give sympathetic attention to all of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton, although it may be that there will be disagreement on some points of detail in them.
Baroness White: I was deeply disappointed by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, because he did not seem to appreciate the full gravity of the position in relation to sites which have, after all, been examined with some thoroughness by the Nature Conservancy Council. There can of course always be differences of view as to the relative significance of various factors, but I will quote from a speech made in the other place last June by a Junior Minister at the Welsh Office because in Wales we have at the moment an important exercise on the Berwyns where the Nature Conservancy Council wishes—we all tend to use the word "designate" because it comes readily to the lips—to designate a major site of special scientific interest. The colleague of the noble Earl in the other place said:
"it is important that right honourable and honourable Members should know that the council"—
the Nature Conservancy Council—
"does not lightly undertake the scheduling of an area of land as a site of special interest. The council has laid down a very strict and comprehensive set of procedures for its officials to follow. They are designed to prove conclusively the scientific value of the area under consideration, and its officials are required to be meticulous in their observation of those rules".—(Official Report, Commons, 16/6/80; col. 1310.)
That I believe to be true. There may always be exceptions, but knowing with some intimacy the work

299
of the Nature Conservancy Council, at least in the Principality of Wales, I would support that as a general description.
I warmly support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, because it is totally undesirable that anyone should suddenly wake up, so to speak, to find he has a designated site on his land. I cannot understand how that ever occurred, but I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and others have said, and it has arisen in the area in Wales I have described, the Berwyn Hills. On the other hand, one must put the other side of the picture, and I take the liberty of again quoting from the speech of the Welsh Minister in another place when he said in relation to this exercise:
I am assured that its officials have made regular personal contact with more than 90 per cent. of those … in the area … who are likely to be affected. A small percentage have, however, steadfastly refused to discuss any part of the matter".—(Col. 1311).
That is one of the difficulties we face—the fact that there is always the minority, the odd man out, the awkward customer.
We had an instance reported in The Times this week of the intention of Mid-Suffolk District Council to put a tree preservation order on a woodland of centuries' growth, but the gentleman concerned, the farmer or landowner, said, "This land is mine and I can do what I like with it", and he brought in the chain saws on Sunday afternoon and cut the lot down. We know that the great majority of farmers and landowners are conservationists at heart; they are the closest to nature of anyone you can find. But there is always the person who spoils the game, and that is why we must have legislation, regulations and so on.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Baroness has quoted a case about which I know nothing. Nor do I suspect she knows the details of this farmer in Suffolk. She is talking about having statutory controls to stop that. In that case they had them but they did not work. I am absolutely in agreement with her in suggesting that what he did was terrible, but the controls did not stop him, did they?
Baroness White: Because the controls were applied too late; the order was available on Monday afternoon and he cut everything down on Sunday. That happened because the persons in the locality had not woken up quickly enough to the possible threat to this area of woodland, and it had not of course been designated as a site of special scientific interest. Had it been, then conceivably even he might have recognised the situation and not carried out the destruction for which he was responsible.
I repeat, the vast majority of such situations can be settled by negotiation and discussion, by some give and take, and we in the Principality are trying very hard indeed to secure the acceptance of this concept by a bringing together under what is called the Loft-house pattern—after the name of Mr. Lofthouse who will be well known to some of your Lordships, who was called in for consultation on the Berwyns. That involves bringing together the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture (which in our case is the Welsh Office Agricultural Division) and the Nature
300
Conservancy Council, and discussing the matter on a tripartite basis to try to get rational agreement on land use; and sites of special scientific interest are one example of intelligent and concerned land use.
I was also disappointed at the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and I would remind him that I am a member of the Country Landowners' Association and a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and I hope he is too. His attitude is that we can say, "We can catch up later on. We do not have the resources to do a thorough job now, but as resources become available we will catch up". We cannot catch up later on in the majority of these sites of scientific interest. If you destroy a raised bog, you destroy it; you cannot put it back. If you plough up a chalk downland, you destroy the habitats of all the creatures great and small on which this noble House spent so many hours when discussing Part I. It is pointless to have wasted our time on Part I if we do not have adequate provisions under Part II and I hope noble Lords in all parts of the Committee appreciate that.
That is why I find attractive the proposal of my noble friend Lord Underhill, and we want to be sensible about this. Obviously it does not mean we can rush out and do things with, say, 3,800 sites next week. On the other hand, the concept of the Government—that we can do anything approaching meeting our responsibilities to future generations by selecting some 40 or 50 super special sites—is incredible. For anybody with any real sense of the natural inheritance of which we in this country have been so proud (think of our natural history writers, of Gilbert White's Selborne, Richard Jefferies and the rest of them on whom some of us were brought up) to suppose that by selecting 40 or 50 special sites we shall save our British natural heritage is really flabbergasting. How, by saying that, can any responsible Government really believe they are doing their job properly? They cannot.
Therefore, as I say, I am very much in favour of the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, particularly his proposals aimed at trying to get reasonable co-operation. As I say, in 95 per cent, of cases, if the matter is properly discussed and explained, co-operation can be secured. I say that with a proviso relating to where someone is prevented from carrying out operations. I know this is a difficult point, but there are compensation arrangements. The amount of compensation is so derisory at present that unless one can make certain that there is some rationality—that has been one of the great weaknesses of the NCC in the past—unless one can be sensible and responsible, the negotiations will be much more difficult; and that I grant.
I believe that this is a great occasion for this noble House to rise to. As the discussions on Part I of the Bill dramatically indicated, we have among our Members many noble Lords who are very knowledgeable indeed about our natural heritage. I am sure that the great majority of noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber, whether they be landowners, farmers, or merely those who love the beautiful things that are still left, will want to rise to this occasion. This is probably the most important part of the Bill. There are others, but I believe that Part II is what really matters.

301
Therefore, I can only hope that we shall have a far more imaginative response from Her Majesty's Government than has so far been indicated. I hope, too, that those, like the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, who speak for the country landowners will recognise that there are other interests in life that matter, even over and above possibly maximising the production of food. One has to strike a balance; but these sites are relatively small in relation to the total of land in our countryside. They matter very much indeed. Let us be quite sure that we try to reach the right decision on this matter.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Gibson: I want to give general support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. There seems to be some confusion about how special scientific sites are actually designated. I do not think that they are designated as such. Some noble Lords who are present are on the Nature Conservancy Council, while I am not, but I understand that the council simply tells a planning authority what it regards as a site of special scientific interest, and the planning authority then has to observe that before giving planning permission. But, of course, all those changes which take place outside of planning control are not affected.
It seems to me that the problem lies in trying to get serious and adequate protection for sites which have been agreed by all seriously-intentioned and reasonable people—especially those most closely affected—as being in need of protection. We cannot claim that conservation is always paramount—if it were, the site in question ought to be a nature reserve—but it should be given due weight. It seems to me that the Government's proposals are inadequate in that they would lead to the selection of a few super-sites. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, takes the matter further, as far as I should want to go, and above all, Amendment No. 376 takes care of the essential point which emerged from what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said; namely, it is quite wrong that owners and occupiers should be in a position of suddenly finding themselves subject to SSI control—or however one wishes to describe it. They must be adequately consulted early enough and they must be given adequate appeal procedures. That is envisaged to some extent in the Bill; Schedule 10 relates to appeal procedures. But it is essential that there should be time for negotiation of management agreements—I believe that this is the key to all progress in this area—which lead to the balanced management to which several noble Lords referred on Second Reading. We need a system of control which encourages agreements of that kind, but in my opinion one cannot have them without a stick in reserve, and a carrot.
The National Trust, with which I am connected, as some noble Lords know, has 200,000 acres of SSIs—nearly half of the trust's total holding. We try to arrange with our farm tenants management agreements which preserve the nature conservation value of this very large area, and we nearly always get them, but in our case we have the reserve power of being the landlord. If you are not the landlord, you must have the reserve power by law. I think that we are doing what the Bill seeks to achieve for the country as a whole,
302
but the law will need to be strengthened rather more than the Government's proposals at present envisage if the objective is to be achieved, and for that reason, I commend the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to the Committee.
Experience has taught us the value of scientific observation of the results of different courses of action on our properties, and that we try to inject, as it were, into the management agreements which we make with our tenants. As I say, I think we need a carrot and a stick. The Government say that they have no money and that they are setting up a framework for the provision of money when it can be afforded. So in effect they are providing the framework for the carrot, but hardly any stick. The stick is being provided only in the case of a very small number of sites. I feel that that is not really quite good enough, and I plead with the Government to think again between now and Report, so as to strengthen the degree of protection for sites which have been agreed by means of an altogether more consultative process than exists at present.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Craigton in his Amendment No. 376, and I also wish to say that I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. I had a SSI notice served on me some time ago, but I knew nothing about it. It so happened that I was quite pleased, but had I not been pleased it would have been extremely aggravating for me. I happened to learn about it because merely by chance I saw a map showing that quite a lot of my land in Scotland had been declared a SSI. I should have thought that out of common courtesy, apart from anything else, the landlord and the occupiers ought to be informed in such cases.
During the course of my life I have seen natural and semi-natural woodlands virtually disappear from the hills. I remember one wood in a beautiful glen, Glencannel. It was a small wood of about 30 acres, and it has to all intents and purposes disappeared. That has been due to over-grazing by sheep. I know of several natural woods that due to that cause have to all intents and purposes disappeared. The old trees—birch, ash, hazel, even oaks, sometimes—are blown down and there is no further natural regeneration because of the sheep.
If you farm the land yourself—I farm some of mine, but not all if it—you can control that situation, but if you have tenants, especially in Scotland, you cannot control it because you have no power over them. They can have the farm tenancies for many generations, right down to a great-great-great grandson—in fact, forever. They can have them for 1,000 years. If we are to stop the destruction of our natural and semi-natural woodlands, I cannot see how it can be done unless we use the stick. One does not like using the stick, but I think it is necessary in many of these cases.
I do not wish to detain the Committee, but may I say that I hope that when a SSI is declared for the avowed purpose of protecting the flora, and fauna in particular, that will not mean that thousands of people will appear and walk all over the land and destroy the flora and fauna. How are the SSSIs going to prevent that? I do not know how you can

303
prevent it. Are those responsible for the SSSIs going to allow notices to go up saying, "Please do not stray from the path"?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I help the noble Viscount? The position will not be changed from what it is at the moment in any way. The landlord, the owner of the land, has the right to have his land respected. The fact that something is an SSI has no effect whatever.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am talking about Scotland at the moment, but I think it will be difficult. Regarding trees again, in many areas in the Western Highlands the only parts in which you can see natural trees is in the burns and in the ravines, because the sheep cannot get down to eat them. But I will leave that. The other thing I was going to say my noble friend Lord Denham has just driven out of my mind. Yes, I remember. If the Government keep Clause 26(7) it will mean that in fact it will be very little use having SSSIs at all, surely, because farming and forestry operations do not come under planning permission. You could really drive a coach and four through the Bill regarding subsection (7) of Clause 26, and I hope something will be done about that. I think I am right in saving that; it appears to be a great loophole.
The other matter is that, surely, regarding farmers, the whole thing is compensation. When we come on to Clause 27, providing farmers get adequate compensation I am sure there will be no trouble, they will be perfectly satisfied. I am all for having a great number of SSSIs. Even with 3,800 only 5 per cent. of the country is covered, so it is really not so disastrous. You are not going to get a vast amount of food out of 5 per cent. of the country. A lot of that goes to afforestation, anyway. In the EEC we have far too much food as it is which goes at knock-down prices to Russia. So that is what I think, with due respect. I farm, but I think farmers are making too much of a fuss over this, and I heartily support my noble friend. Also, I have a sneaking sympathy—no, not sneaking; I have a great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I cannot follow the noble Viscount in all his obiter dicta, but I would leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who is to reply to us, to deal with subsection (7). I think there is a point which needs answering there which is not for me to answer. I am obviously in the very fullest support of this amendment, but I want to give the Committee a little sense of proportion about this There are 3,900 sites, with an acreage of just over 5 per cent. of the whole nation's land—not cultivable land, but land. Of these, only 3½ per cent. are in danger of any kind from agriculture; others are sites with ruins, mountain tops or things of that sort. So we are speaking of 3·5 per cent. of the nation's land being protected in order to preserve the national heritage, which is a very small figure. Farming has got to go on and has got to develop—and, having brought up my children entirely as a professional farmer with small
304
capital, I know the difficulties—but there must be some room for some small areas which are protected.
I will give your Lordships an instance here from some of the figures I have been given. For example, in Wiltshire, on the chalk grassland 28 out of 50 (that is to say, 58 per cent.) of downland SSSIs have been damaged by agriculture, and "damaged by agriculture" means damaged by better farming. Make no mistake about that: we are deliberately asking the farmer to farm in a less modern way. In other words, the reasons given here are conversion to arable—that is ley farming (long live Sir John Stapleton and our past!)—and the improving of grazing by fertilisation. These are things which every good farmer does, and, nowadays, there are very few farmers who do not. When I started farming just after the war it was exceptional either to plough up old pasture or to use enough fertiliser, but that is done now, and it is done everywhere. What we are asking is that in certain designated areas, chosen by people who know what they are talking about, this should not be done except by arrangement and agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council.
The figure is extremely low when you come to think of it, and in nearly every case agreement can be arrived at; but there must of course be compensation, and we shall discuss that under the next clause. I remember ploughing up land for the first time. It was a fearful sweat, and if somebody had come to me and said, "Look here, I will pay you so much an acre not to do this for good reasons", I should have accepted that—for one field, of course. So I think it is very important that farmers—and I have particularly in my mind the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who is a farmer and who seems to express the bitter side of the farmer rather more than makes me happy—should realise that they are being asked for very little and that they are being offered compensation for what we ask of them.
Following this up, the Government, in relation to our total number of SSSIs, are speaking of doing 1 per cent. of the total number. There are 3,900, and they are speaking of doing 40 SSSIs and giving them special attention. It really is totally ludicrous. My noble friend Lady White said the last word on this, and I will not say it again. They are not responding to the need; and there is no reason to hold back the safeguards for which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has provided. In particular, Amendment No. 376, which the CLA has agreed to as well, I am glad to say, makes absolutely certain that the people concerned, the owner and occupier of the land, are informed before anything is done and the thing discussed with them. Of course, this ought always to have happened, and the fact that it has not (if it has not, and we are told it has not) is a very bad thing.
I have very little to add to those two main points. I feel one thing about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. In so far as we could remove imprisonment from one of the sanctions, I should be strongly in favour of it. I rather believe there may be legal difficulties in doing this, but I am glad he said that. If you are dealing with a farmer who is making a certain amount of money I do not mind having very high fines, but imprisonment seems to me totally unsuitable. Amendment No. 413, asking that the order should become a local land charge, is, of course,

305
absolutely vital, because otherwise it will change hands and it goes.
We have had so much support here. I suppose a number of noble Lords opposite are very much larger land-owners than Lord Gibson's organisation, which has got only 200,000 acres, but I only hope that they manage their estates, especially in Scotland, where many of them are a great deal larger than that, as well as he does. What we have been offered is totally unacceptable, and I very much hope that the noble Earl will have something better to say to us.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in his remarks cast a certain aspersion on some of the accuracy of the damage report figures. That is what I understood him to say. I was going to give your Lordships two or three examples. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge has already nicked the one about Wiltshire; on the upland heaths Galloway has lost 90 per cent. of its rare breeding waders and birds of prey since the 1950s. Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology said that between one-third and one-half of our ancient deciduous woodland in Britain has been destroyed since 1947, a loss equivalent to that of the previous 400 years; Horton Common is being destroyed by a farmer today despite objections by the NCC, in particular.
Broxhead Common is one of the few places near where I live where the Dartford warbler nests. If anyone goes and nicks a Dartford warbler's egg, they will be subject to special penalties. However, a sports club applied for planning permission to put up a pavilion, which they did, and a car park, which they did, and found that it was not necessary to apply for planning permission to make some playing fields. The DoE told them that this was the case. The plateau above the slope was an area of original heath-land justifiably designated by the NCC as a site of special scientific interest. It was also a nature reserve under Section 21 of the 1949 National Parks Act. The bulldozers arrived before the Secretary of State had taken cognisance of the fact. The trees and the gorse were smashed down, piled up and burned. The fire was left unattended, the sparks flew and the resulting fire spread throughout the Dartford warblers' nesting area, incinerating the SSSI. I do not think that any of the careless contractors will be subject to special penalties. They did not nick one egg. They burnt the whole place down.
This is possibly using slightly colourful language, but I have a suspicion that the situation is so serious that we perhaps need colourful language to bring the points to your Lordships' attention. I have the further suspicion that this Government, excellent though they are in many ways, are not quite giving this matter the sympathy which I think has been shown to be needed on all sides of the Committee.
4.52 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: This is an emotive issue and one must analyse the practicalities of the amendments on the Marshalled List. The amendments in the name of my noble friends Lord Buxton and Lord Craigton, maintain two tiers of SSSI—super and ordinary—but with both having a higher level of protection than is currently envisaged in the Bill. With respect
306
to my noble friend, I do not call that the middle ground. The first question which must be asked is this. Have the NCC the manpower, finance and expertise—
Lord Melchett: Can the noble Earl explain how the amendments create two tiers of SSSI? I understood Lord Craigton to say that his proposals affected all SSSIs; in other words, procedure for notifying change to the NCC applied to all.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that there are two tiers of SSSI but at a higher level than at the moment; in that my noble friend Lord Craigton envisages a super SSSI where there would be a complete ban on all agricultural operations—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: No.
The Earl of Caithness: I will take advice on that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I believe the noble Earl is wrong.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall be happy to have a look at it, but the point I am making is still a valid one. The first question is whether the NCC has the manpower, finance or expertise to control the production of food and the livelihood of, perhaps, thousands of farmers on about 1·5 million acres in this country. The answer is, surely, no. Despite the hopes that they might be able to do it, I do not believe that they can. If the answer was yes, then the structure of British farming as we know it today would have to change. I do not think this is the opportune moment to arrange for such a change or to take the debate on it a stage further. There is no question that certain sites must be protected. The farmers themselves would be numbered among the most dismayed if no increased protection were given to our most endangered animals and plants.
The answer as to which sites should be protected was given to noble Lords by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on the first day of the Committee, on 27th January, when he said (in column 653):
"I do not think the fact that animals are disappearing in one area in an island like this is very important provided that there are plenty of them elsewhere".
I agree with him. I believe we ought to preserve the rarest animals and plants and that these should be afforded special protection where necessary in order to secure their survival. I think that this is provided for by the Government, also taking account of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. It appears to me that the Government, with their own amendments, have now achieved the right balance. I understand that some 50 sites are under consideration at the moment for special protection but the wording of the Government amendments does not prohibit an extension of the special protection, where finance and manpower are available, to all NCC Grade 1 sites, which number about 600.
There is an aspect which has not been touched on yet and that is the advantages which can be achieved for tax relief where one has a site of special scientific interest. Under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act 1976, the Treasury may give relief from tax to any

307
land which, in the opinion of the Treasury, is of outstanding scenic, historical or scientific interest. The exemption is conditional on the owner giving an undertaking to maintain the land and preserve its character and to secure reasonable access to the public. The statutory machinery is already in existence, ready to be used. Nevertheless, doubts linger in the mind of landowners because the Treasury interpretation of that statute does not give an unequivocal assurance that relief will be granted to owners of SSSIs. I feel that the decision whether or not a piece of land is of special scientific interest is a matter for the NCC and that the Treasury, having taken the advice of the NCC, should accept it and be prepared to grant tax relief automatically.
Lord Melchett: I agree with the noble Earl, but does he not think it more likely that the Treasury would take another line? The last Government pursued this with them vigorously. If Lord Craigton's amendment is accepted and all owners of all SSSIs have to notify the NCC when they are going to make a change, then the Government's proposal, which the noble Earl has said would only affect 40 or 50, seems to me to give the Treasury a perfect argument, which they will exploit to the full, for giving tax relief on that 40 or 50 only.
The Earl of Caithness: I will read what the noble Lord has said. It would help if the NCC told the farmers where they were designating land and also what the farmers were supposed to protect. As was stated on many occasions at Second Reading, the countryside is ever-changing. It is not something to be preserved in a glass case. Our heritage, which is so important to us, is best managed by mutual agreement and by a good understanding between the NCC and the farmers. I believe the Government have got it right. I think it is a fair balance. I think that one is already seeing, notwithsanding some remarks made earlier, an improvement in the state of our wild life due to this happy arrangement.
Lord Burton: I sympathise and agree with the intention of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, but it may have the reverse effect from what he and many others desire it to have. It seems that if you implement the last words of the particular amendment:
"the notice shall have effect as from the day on which it is served",
then you are showing the stick straight away. There is nothing in this, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, about consultation. Had the position been as Lord Donaldson has said, that there was persuasion (and I shall not go into compensation now; but it is a type of persuasion) then this would be a different matter. If you suddenly get a notice out of the blue which tells you that you may not do something, then immediately you say: "Why not? This is ridiculous. I have not been asked. So far as I know no one has looked at my ground". It is the wrong way to go about it. The Government's attitude is much more correct; it gives a much better chance of having persuasion and having discussion.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to keep bobbing up and down. I have a nasty feeling that the noble Lord is confusing my amendment with Lord Craigton's amendment. My amendment would stop people doing things straight away. The amendments we are now discussing simply mean that the landowners would notify the NCC if they intended to do something. Then there would be an opportunity, as the noble Lord is saying, for negotiation and discussion. Under the Government's proposals there would not because the NCC would not know that these changes were taking place; they would simply carry on except on the 40 or 50 selected sites.
Lord Burton: The noble Lord, with due respect, is wrong. The amendment clearly says:
"The Nature Conservancy Council shall serve on every owner and occupier of any land … and the notice shall have effect as from the day on which it is served".
There is nothing which says that there should be prior consultation.
Lord Melchett: But that notice does not stop the landowner doing anything. The noble Lord needs to look at the set of amendments together. It is a later amendment which says that if any of these operations in the first one are contemplated, then the landowner should notify the NCC and discuss that with them. This amendment does not stop the landowner doing anything. That comes in a much later amendment and is only when the Secretary of State makes a decision to that effect.
Lord Burton: I do not know whether the noble Lord heard what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, had to say. We do not get a warning; suddenly a notice appears. It says you will get a notice. It does not say that there will be prior consultation. You get the stick straight away.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so, the noble Lord is misleading the Committee. That is not what this amendment does. This amendment simply says that the NCC must notify the owner of operations about which the owner should consult the NCC before going ahead. That is not the big stick.
Lord Burton: May I move on to what the noble Lord, Lord Gibson said; this matter can be looked at again. The problem seems to arise where there is no planning control. So far as I can see, there is no great difficulty where there is planning control because before anything is done the planning committee will be consulted and the NCC will have their say before the planning committee. The problem arises—if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, correctly—where there is no planning control, such as in ploughing up some ground or blanket planting of an area of ground. Some of us have complained bitterly about the Forestry Commission doing this. There is no planning control on that. Also, for that matter, in some cases destroying a natural area.
There should be some control on this, and perhaps the Government can look to see whether an amendment could be put down to make it possible to bring in some control where there is no planning permission.

309
If there is planning permission, I can see no difficulty in this amendment.
5.5 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, called for a sense of proportion on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, called for colourful language. Personally on this particular amendment I would prefer a sense of proportion to colourful language. I think that a sense of proportion requires facts, and facts are hard to come by. I find it almost impossible to recognise the NCC that I know in the description of what goes on in Wales given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady White. But in the Highlands of Scotland we have a very different situation. There is already in the Highlands 1 million acres of SSSIs. That is in the seven crofting counties. It is widely said all over the Highlands that the NCC intend to expand that until 8 per cent. of the whole area of the Highlands is under an SSSI.
It is also widely said that they intend to make the entire coast of the Highlands of Scotland an SSSI. That may be rumour. But that is the kind of impression they are putting about. What I know as a fact from talking to officers of the NCC is that they are deliberately creating more areas of SSSI in order that some of them may be lost. There is something wrong here. We cannot assume that every area that up to now has been designated as an SSSI—certainly in the Highlands—is the only area that is of special scientific interest. We must assume that some of this has been put down in order to make sure that there is no encroachment upon some other area.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: That is not a damaging statement; but the statement that the noble Viscount made before is a very damaging one. I want to be sure that I heard him right: that the NCC are deliberately creating more SSSIs than they need in order to be able to give some back. That is what I understood. Did I misunderstand the noble Viscount?
Viscount Thurso: This is what I understand from my conversations with officers of the NCC.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I repeat that I think that that is a very damaging statement to make in this Committee without written evidence of a very clear kind.
Viscount Thurso: I will give some evidence which shows the extent to which they throw blankets around areas. Again, I refer to an area which is on my ground. At the centre of this area is about 1,000 acres of flat blanket bog. This is the area which the NCC consider should be preserved. Around it they have thrown an area of about 12,500 acres. They have done this, they say, just in case anything happened to the hydrology of the area that might damage this wet bog in the centre. Yet, all over the area are sheep drains that were put in at the time of my great grandfather. There are other sheep drains that were put in with Government grant under the Hill Farming Act scheme. They now want to prevent these drains being kept clean in order to preserve an area that has
310
successfully been a bog throughout the lifetime of these drains.
It may well be that there is some remote, interesting reason why this great waste place should be preserved. I personally do not see it. It may well be that in order to preserve it it is necessary to stop anybody cleaning the sheep drains on the place. But there is a part of this area which I know is over the watershed, it is on the other side of the water table on a neighbour's ground. I know the watershed runs between this bog and the area of my neighbour's ground which is part of the SSSI. The mind boggles at the amount of protection that it seems has to be put upon an area in order to protect it from the possibility of development of any sort.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out what could happen when a water authority lowered the water table and destroyed the habitat of the swallowtail butterfly. There are reasons on both sides of this argument. His could have been better protected by bigger SSSIs. The noble Viscount's one may be unnecessary, but it is not all as simple as he tends to make out.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Earl has got it wrong. Nobody can lower the water table by draining on the other side of a watershed. If the noble Earl can tell me how to drain a bog by making a ditch a mile away from the bog on flat peatland, I shall be very glad indeed of the information, because it would be vital information for the hill farmers in Scotland.
No; let us have a sense of proportion and let us in particular have a sense of proportion in relation to the SSSIs. They were a tool that was designed for the planning departments and not things that were designed to be nature reserves. I come back to that. If we want to protect a specific habitat, then that habitat should be looked at carefully, and if it requires preservation in order to ensure the continuance of the species it ought to be made a nature reserve and properly and fully protected and properly and fully managed by co-operation between everybody who is interested in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said he would be delighted if he was paid not to plough up land. But the fact is that if this goes through there will be thousands of places where people will be prohibited from getting grants to which they were previously entitled—thereby being able to carry out farming operations which previously had been urged upon them by the country in the interests of food production—by the fact that these places are declared to be SSSIs. Whether it is right to prevent people getting grants in perpetuity because they have some special scientific interest should surely be questionable.
Lord Melchett: The noble Viscount said that people could be stopped from getting grants simply because the ground had some special scientific interest. But surely that seems to be misleading the Committee as to the nature of these amendments. The noble Viscount seems to be entangled with my own amendment rather than these. Under these amendments it is the Secretary of State who decides whether the grants are given or whether the area is protected. It

311
has nothing to do at that stage with a decision of the NCC. If you are to be stopped from doing something under these amendments, it has to be by a decision taken by the Secretary of State.
Viscount Thurso: I would be glad if I was sure that was so; but it seems to me you may well find that you are unable to get your drainage grant, and so on, because a place is declared an SSSI. Now at the—
Lord Melchett: I really do not think—
Viscount Thurso: I wish the noble Lord would allow me to finish my sentence. What I was going to say was that a place is declared an SSSI without consultation—because on none of the existing sites that I know of has there been any form of consultation or discussion before the label "site of special scientific interest" has been imposed. Does the noble Lord wish to come in now?
Lord Melchett: If I may. I apologise for interrupting the noble Viscount in the middle of a sentence. I was simply going to point out that what he is describing is already the position and it is not affected at all by these amendments. Under the changes in the farm capital grants scheme which the Government introduced last year, anyone who wants to apply for a capital grant on a site of special scientific interest has to give the NCC prior notice. That is already the position. All these amendments do, as I understand it, is to give the Secretary of State the decision-making power, if the NCC go and ask the Secretary of State to make a decision in order to stop a landowner doing something. It is the Secretary of State and not the NCC. The question of capital grants was decided last year.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Lord may have described it more accurately than I have, but certainly it becomes a very difficult procedure to go ahead with a normal farming operation and I do feel there are anomalies. Many of the SSSIs which exist should be examined, if they are to be given greater status, because many of them are extremely awkwardly shaped from the point of view of the farmer and the owner of the ground. I think that just to make it an obligation on everybody to notify their intention to carry out farming operations is placing a greater restriction on the farmer than already exists, because at the moment all that happens if he applies for a grant is that the grant may be withheld, but if he has to notify every farming operation which he is going to carry out in or near an SSSI, that is a greater imposition upon him than exists at the present moment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am extremely sorry to keep on interrupting, but it is rather misleading. If the noble Viscount looks at Amendment No. 376, Lord Craigton's amendment, he will see that the Nature Conservancy Council can serve a notice, and in it can say whether it is an area of special interest and say what is the special interest—in other words, if it is a particular butterfly, or something, they will know what it is—and mention any operations which in the council's opinion are likely to destroy or damage
312
such an interest. To describe this as meaning that you have to get permission before you attempt any farming operation, is really not serious discussion at all.
Viscount Thurso: If I have over-stressed the case, apologise to your Lordships' Committee; but certainly it does make it more difficult to get on with many common farming operations, and the reason for declaring the area to be an SSSI will have been to prevent those operations taking place, in all probability.
Finally, I should like to say that, in looking at the number of SSSIs which now exist, I think we must bear in mind that merely to carry out afforestation and so on in the hills or highlands is not necessarily to damage wildlife. In fact, in many areas where afforestation has taken place there has been a great increase in the wildlife able to live in the newly afforested area than lived there before, and indeed they are able to live there in much greater variety. So that the activities of people who wish to afforest and to drain are not always harmful—and during this debate there has been a tendency for the impression to get abroad that the activities of farmers are always harmful to nature. This is definitely not so.
Lord Foot: I should like to make three comments; if I may, and also to make one thing clear, if it is not clear already to the Committee, which is that this is possibly the only matter in the world on which my noble friends on these Benches are not absolutely united. They are almost united. It is arguable whether "almost united" is or is not a grammatical error. However, I will leave that on one side; and I think I speak now on behalf of the great majority of my colleagues. I very much welcome both amendments and I should like to ask a question of both the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in order to clear my mind somewhat. I am in favour of both amendments. I think there is great virtue in the proposal that the Nature Conservancy Council shall serve this notice upon people, telling them that it is a site of special scientific interest and stating also what the interest is. There is great virtue in that. I also think that there is considerable virtue, if it were to follow upon that, in attaching the terms of this section of the Bill to all SSSIs and then leaving it to the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, to make exclusions. I should have thought that that would go a very long way to overcoming any of the administrative difficulties about which we have been hearing this afternoon. I should like to know if I could, from both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, whether the two amendments can be combined together.
Lord Craigton: I do not think so. The noble Lord will have heard his noble friend Lord Thurso behind him, who made a case which the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite answered. But my amendment goes a long way towards meeting that case. I believe that the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would give the Secretary of State dictatorial powers which would be unacceptable to the farming community and which the conservation bodies that I represent do not think is essential.
Earl De La Warr: I suppose that this debate will have to come to an end in due course, and I hope that it does so before it becomes either more complicated or more colourful. To me it is certainly very complicated. But in an endeavour to try to simplify what has been said, I should like to suggest that there is a quantitative element in what we are talking about, as well as a qualitative one. Certain noble Lords have said that 3,900 SSSIs is far too many for the Nature Conservancy Council, at its present size, to deal with. Others have said—and the noble Baroness, Lady White, said it very trenchantly—that to go as low as 40 is quite ludicrous. I agree with both statements.
But what occurs to me—and this point was originally made by my noble friend Lord Middleton and, subsequently, by my noble friend Lord Caithness—is that, with the new amendments which the Government have tabled, it is perfectly easy for them, if they so wish, to continue to designate up to a point where it can be said that all the really important SSSIs are covered, so that the Nature Conservancy Council can gradually build up its forces and its contacts in an orderly way. We can surely satisfy practically all parties in this House, by asking my noble friend Lord Avon to say that that is the intention of the Government. If that be his intention, then I, for one, will find myself wholly satisfied by the Government's clause as it stands.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I could say a brief word in support of my noble friend Lord Craigton. There seem to me to be two compelling reasons why his amendment, or something very like it, must be accepted. The first is that it is quite clear, from abundant evidence in this debate alone, that the Nature Conservancy Council have not been serving notices on the owners and occupiers of land for which they want the title SSSI. That is obviously very desirable. The second reason is because of what my noble friend Lord Mansfield said in this House on 6th August, in connection with farm capital grants. I quote from col. 1572 of Hansard. He said:
"I leave your Lordships with the following point so far as conservation is concerned"—
we are concerned with conservation here—
"The obligation on the farmer will be exactly the same as it has been previously. Before he makes his application for grant"—
and I should have thought that this was important for all of them—
"he will have to certify that he has informed and consulted the appropriate body".
That is about what he can do and cannot do. Unless we have the amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, and particularly that part of it which reads,
"…a notice specifying—
(b) any operations appearing to the Council to be likely to destroy or damage such interest",
neither the farmer, nor those advising him, will know where they stand.
Lord Melchett: May I make one point before the noble Earl on the Government Front Bench comes in? It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding—at least, compared to how I understand it—of what the Government are proposing. The Government's proposals do not protect any sites at all. All they do, in
314
the Bill as it stands, is provide for a notification procedure on a small number of sites. The only way that those sites can be protected is if the Nature Conservancy Council compulsorily purchases them. That is clear from Clause 26(5) which deals with compulsory purchase.
But there is no protection in notification procedures. All that notification procedures do is to ensure that people know that something is going to be destroyed. They do not lead to anything more than that. So the Government's proposals, if they were to be extended, would lead to a massive extension of compulsory purchase, if that was to be the procedure. I suppose that some of us would like to see a lot more land going out of private ownership and into the ownership of the Nature Conservancy Council. But I cannot believe that is really the intention of the Government.
Lord Burton: The noble Lord accused me of misleading the Committee. I think that he is misleading the Committee now. He said that it is only a matter of serving a notice. In fact, if you have to get planning permission, the planners must look at the SSSI. Therefore, there is a control.
Lord Melchett: Yes, but we are not talking about planning permission at this stage. We are talking about operations which are not covered by planning control—
Lord Burton: I would not say so.
Lord Melchett: I am sorry, but the whole debate has been about operations not covered by planning control. I apologise if it was misleading for me not to make the point in what was intended to be a brief intervention. The Government's proposals do not cover operations covered by planning control. They cover other operations. They would allow the Secretary of State to put an order on a site which would lead to the landowner or farmer giving notifications on that site—this is one of the 40 or 50—if they intended to do something which would damage the site. Then there would be a period for negotiation. At the end of that, the only thing that the Nature Conservancy Council could do, if the farmer or landowner continued wanting to destroy one of these 40 or 50 sites, would be to purchase it compulsorily. It is important to be clear about that, if anyone is to suggest that the Government's proposals in the Bill are capable of extension, because they are clearly not.
Lord Middleton: I shall not pre-empt what my noble friend Lord Avon is going to say, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, really has not read Clause 26.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked whether I thought the two amendments could be combined. As they stand, the answer is, no. There are exceptional points in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, but the amendment which I moved reverses the situation. Whether or not they could be amalgamated, if the Committee is unwise in not taking a decision, we may see as we go along.
The Earl of Avon: We have had a very good innings at the start of Part II. I should like to start by saying

315
to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I am sorry if I gave a wrong impression to start with that I was not worried about the state of conservation. I am, of course, worried and the Government are very worried. That is surely why we are now at our fifth day of discussion of a very comprehensive Bill, which the Government themselves have brought forward. Perhaps I may say the same to my noble friend Lord Onslow that we would not be discussing this Bill in such detail unless we were concerned about it—and we really are.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, raised a number of points about the Nature Conservancy Council, which I feel I should put right. No specific sites are, at the moment, under consideration for designation. That will happen after the passage of the Bill. There have been lots of rumours about what will be and what might not be, but no decisions have been made. It is not true that the NCC have been over-enthusiastic in notification of SSSIs. They are selected on the basis of strict criteria and future notifications of SSSIs will be on the same basis as they are now. The noble Viscount referred to his bog, and I am delighted to know that it is such a good one. It is recognised by the NCC as an internationally important site and, according to them, it is necessary to conserve the whole hydrological unit to ensure its survival. I am sure the Nature Conservancy Council will read what the noble Viscount has said and will come back to him on any points, other than that, which he may have raised. The noble Baroness, Lady White, said that the Berwyn Mountains had been notified. I do not think that they have been notified. I am informed that the Nature Conservancy Council deferred notification to allow further consultation.
Baroness White: I am sorry if I was misunderstood. The procedure has been going on for quite some time. It has not yet reached finality.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for confirming that. The Nature Conservancy Council accepts that the afforestation of certain kinds of ground can increase its wildlife content, but where afforestation affects sites of special scientific interest it invariably reduces the scientific interest.
May I examine the list of amendments referred to by my noble friend Lord Craigton? I need not list all the numbers. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I outline, as I understand it, the essence of the proposals. First, they recognise the need and retain the Government's own proposals for giving extra protection—perhaps I should say super protection—to certain sites of special scientific interest. May I correct an impression which may be gaining ground? These sites are not super; it is the protection that is super. Of the present total of some 3,800 sites of special scientific interest which the Nature Conservancy Council consider to be areas of special scientific interest, there are some which are of special quality, for one reason or another. Many of them are of international as well as national value. At present these have ultimately no statutory protection, other than where they are owned by the Nature Conservancy Council itself, or a conservation body, or where the
316
owner is willing to reach agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council.
Not all these sites are threatened, but the Government consider it vital that some means should be available to ensure that, where it is merited, either because of the value of a site which is particularly threatened or because the Government has entered into a specific international obligation, full protection could be given. Clause 26 for the first time offers the opportunity of total statutory protection to such sites. Sites are not super, except to the extent that they would invariably be one of the sites listed in the Nature Conservation Review. But the protection afforded, I think we can all agree, can fairly be described as super.
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, accused me of not having read Clause 26. As the noble Earl is dealing with Clause 26, can he explain—if I have misunderstood it I apologise—what happens under subsection 3(c), which deals with a site which is protected and where the notice has expired? As I understand it, this super protection at that stage involves compulsory purchase and nothing else. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to agree with me and not with his noble friend behind him.
The Earl of Avon: I agree with the noble Lord, but I think he muddled the Committee by the use of the word "notification" instead of "designation".
Lord Melchett: To be absolutely clear, the protection which the Government offer in the Bill at the end of the day if the owner wants to go ahead is compulsory purchase and nothing else, is it not? I want to be absolutely clear about that.
The Earl of Avon: That is correct—after all agreements and everything else has been discussed. My noble friend's amendments seek to deal with the rest of the sites of special scienctific interest which would not be covered by such super protection. My noble friends Lord Middleton, Lord Sandford and Lord Burton spoke on this, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. First, the amendments impose a duty upon the Nature Conservancy Council to notify all owners and occupiers of such land that the land is of special interest. Secondly, the landowner is to be told precisely why. Thirdly, he is to be told what operations will be damaging to that interest. The amendments also require owners and occupiers to give 28 days' notice of any of the potentially damaging operations, during which time the Nature Conservancy Council must either reach agreement with the owner or ask the Secretary of State to impose super protection, which he must also do within the period of 28 days, otherwise the owner is free to proceed. Finally, they propose that all sites of special scientific interest should be a land charge.
I hope my noble friend will forgive me if he feels that I have unduly condensed these proposals. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government's aim is to keep to a minimum the extent to which the state applies restrictions not only to landowners but to the public at large. At the same time, we seek to encourage positive conservation measures by landowners and the general public so as to avoid the need

317
for Government intervention. Let there be no doubt that there is a large body of landowners and the public who willingly respond to such appeals. However, all too often I hear the plea from concerned parties, "How can I protect my site of special scientific interest if I do not know that I have one, or why, or what would damage it?"
So far as the Nature Conservancy Council's role is concerned, the Government accept the general burden of the first part of my noble friend's amendments. It is common ground therefore that the Nature Conservancy Council should have a statutory duty to inform all owners of land which is of special scientific interest why it is of interest and what operations might damage the land. Accordingly, the Government will be tabling amendments. I should like to make it clear that, whatever happens, it would not be possible for the Nature Conservancy Council to notify everybody of all these things the day after the Act is passed.
One of the problems with sites of special scientific interest is how to ensure that subsequent owners are aware of their existence. It was clearly for this reason that my noble friend and others have proposed that sites of special scientific interest should be made a land charge. The Government are attracted to this idea. The sites designated by the Secretary of State for super protection will automatically constitute local land charges, as will any land subject to agreements which have a binding effect on successors. This will not be the case in relation to the generality of sites of special scientific interest.
Lord Craigton: Am I right in understanding that my noble friend is accepting in principle Amendment No. 376, which allows the Nature Conservancy Council to advise all landowners, and that he is also accepting Amendment No. 413 which says that the land charge is an acceptable policy?
Baroness White: Before the noble Earl replies, may I ask him about his remarks concerning Amendment No. 376? He said that it would be unreasonable for the notice to be effective from the day on which the Bill becomes operative. That is not what the Amendment says. It says: "from the day on which [the notice] is served". There are situations where, if you are served with a notice which is not immediately operative you then proceed rapidly to destroy, if you are so minded.
The Earl of Avon: To take first the points raised by my noble friend, yes. To take next the point raised by the noble Baroness, I probably went into that sentence too quickly. The Government will be tabling amendments for the three facts which cover my noble friend's amendment. I then said, after a long full stop: "I should make it clear, however, that, whatever happens, it will not be possible for the Nature Conservancy Council to notify everybody of all these things the day after the Act is passed."
May I now refer to the Government's attitude to landowners being required to notify the Nature Conservancy Council of these operations which the Nature Conservancy Council have told them might risk damaging the site. The Government consider that most landowners would quite voluntarily wish to
318
protect the scientific value of the land, provided they knew what operations would place it at risk. They would do so, either because of a genuine interest in the aims of conservation or perhaps to ensure that they could achieve the not inconsiderable benefits accruing from capital transfer tax exemption, about which I shall say more in a moment. In addition, for any more substantial land developments for which a landowner would require a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food he is now required to consult the Nature Conservancy Council beforehand, unless he wishes to risk forfeiting that grant, and in such cases the Nature Conservancy Council have two months in which to reply.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, has mentioned already that of approximately 3,800 sites, about one-third are not, by their very nature, susceptible to such damage or disruption.
Lord Craigton: Before my noble friend leaves that point, is he accepting four weeks instead of three months?
The Earl of Avon: I am not quite sure to which amendment my noble friend is referring.
Lord Craigton: No. 399.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I could come back to that in a minute. With regard to capital transfer tax, as your Lordships have been made aware by my noble friend Lord Caithness, there is a provision for the Treasury to agree exemption from the application of capital transfer tax in relation to a site of special scientific interest. I can assure the Committee that an SSSI can be expected to satisfy the criteria under Section 77 of the Finance Act.
This provision can be of considerable value to an owner, and the Treasury will grant exemption only if they can be satisfied that adequate measures have been taken by the landowner to secure the scientific interest of a site for posterity. May I give an example. Without an agreement, an area of land valued at £200,000 would normally be liable on lifetime transfer or bequest to a sum of about £45,000 to £75,000 of tax, approximately, depending upon whether the transfer took place during or after a person's lifetime. This, of course, would be exempt. I will add that of course the NCC will be only too willing to discuss with landowners how best to maintain that interest for posterity in order to satisfy the Treasury in relation to capital transfer tax exemption. In fact, this is a three-way partnership between the Treasury, the NCC and the landowner.
In these circumstances, the Government do not consider that they are justified in placing a statutory obligation on all landowners of SSSIs to notify the NCC of all operations which might damage the site. However, the Government are prepared to urge the farming and landowning communities through the NFU and the CLA and Government officials voluntarily to notify such operations, and I am sure that the bodies will do their best to co-operate. As to the question of informing people of the existence of SSSIs, as I have said the Government are totally behind this and will table amendments accordingly.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl said that the local land charge would only apply to the 40 or 50 SSSIs on which the Government envisage having an order placed, rather than the 3,800 which are in existence; so successors in title to land will not know about SSSIs unless they happen to be one of the 40 or 50. Is that right?
The Earl of Avon: The land charges will affect any restriction which is placed on the land for future use; in other words, it would be the 40 and also the CTT. What it does not affect is where there is an agreement which does not bind one's successors. Of course, there is no land charge then.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so, the noble Earl was, in a somewhat convoluted way, agreeing with me that the local land charge would not apply to almost all SSSIs, except the very few where these alternating powers or some other agreement were in force.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Lord is correct, although quantifying these things is slightly difficult, as we have already discovered once or twice.
Lord Chelwood: If I may intervene, the noble Earl has been extremely patient with the Committee, but on this subject he will remember that at Second Reading I raised the question of the conditional exemption from capital transfer tax. Does it not go a little further than that, and is this not another advantage of which owners of SSSIs ought to be made aware? Are there not certain capital gains tax benefits also associated with this conditional exemption under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1976? If that is the case, which I believe it is, may I ask my noble friend whether the Treasury will look at this question of the douceur, which is 25 per cent. where objects are concerned and only 10 per cent. where land is concerned? That seems to be quite illogical. I would be extremely grateful if, perhaps even during the Report stage, my noble friend would be good enough to comment on that as well, and also assure the Committee that what he has just said will be made widely known to all owners of SSSIs, bearing in mind that in the first four years after the 1976 Finance Act only seven owners took advantage of the fiscal reliefs which were available.
The Earl of Avon: It is a little difficult with questions coming left and right. My noble friend Lord Chelwood asked for clarification on CTT. I was not aware of the douceur that he mentioned and I will indeed look into it. I am sure that it will come up in the House later and I shall be able to clarify it to the House anyway. My noble friend Lord Craigton asked me about the days. We are not accepting the notification by the landowner, but we are accepting notification by the NCC, so actually I think his question about the 28 days does not really apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, mentioned the question of imprisonment, and I think I said in Committee on the last occasion that I hoped to be able to inform him by today what the answer is. The answer is that the departments are still talking and it is still under consideration, but directly I know the answer I will of course inform the Committee.
320
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, in his interesting speech, mentioned quite a lot about trees and afforestation. I should tell him that there is, of course, a tree preservation order which should cope with the problems he mentioned. Of course, afforestation is carried on by the Forestry Commission, where they pay a lot of attention to wildlife and conservation. My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned hedgerows. This is a difficult topic which I feel sure will come up again. They are not, of course, affected by anything that has been mentioned so far on SSSIs, but I have always said that there is no earthly reason why hedgerows should not be an SSSI in a certain area if the NCC so wished.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, kindly spoke to his amendment. Nature reserves declared by the NCC, which are generally known as national nature reserves, are reserves owned or managed by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust or any of the county naturalists' trusts. I understand that there may be about 1,000 of these. They have been regarded as being safe from damaging development and would not normally be regarded as candidates for a Section 26 order. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Chelwood has tabled an amendment which removes the anomaly created by the 1949 Act that a nature reserve shall not be notified as an area of special scientific interest. The Government are pleased to accept the thought behind this amendment and are tabling their own amendment to the same effect. The result will be that SSSIs, henceforward, will not artificially exclude areas of land which are managed by nature reserves.
I have tried to cover most of the points which have been raised. I have indicated those areas in which the Government are prepared to table amendments; that is, NCC notification of sites, of what is of particular interest and of the area of damage which could be done in that site. I have tried to meet my noble friend's aims and the extent to which the Government consider that we should rely on voluntary co-operation and the provision of incentives; that is to say, MAFF grants and the CTT agreements. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, might like to know that we have produced some incentives as well—incentives to landowners to protect the generality of SSSIs. With these assurances and the obvious consideration that we have given to this, I hope my noble friend Lord Craigton will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Melchett: I have listened very carefully and I am astonished at the inadequacy of the noble Earl's reply. I cannot believe that I have understood it correctly. He seems to be saying that we shall end with a position where there is no notification of SSSIs in general, so there is no way of knowing when damage is going to occur, unless somebody happens to volunteer the fact that they are about to destroy a site of special scientific interest. If there is no notification, we shall continue to be faced with figures, as we have been in this debate, of what happened in 1980, when we had 10 per cent. lost or damaged; but we shall have no way of knowing what is going on at the moment, except, of course, for the 40 or 50 sites where there will be notification provisions, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and I now agree upon. Those 40

321
or 50 sites will only be able to be protected through compulsory purchase powers and by no other means at all. All the rest of the SSSIs will be left totally unprotected, as they are now.
The Earl of Avon: Once again the noble Lord is using the word "notification" rather haphazardly. As I have just informed the Committee, we are progressing because we are doing notification by the NCC to landowners on three different points. When it comes to designation orders that is somthing different. Designation orders are new in this Bill and they are the basis of Clause 26; and those orders which we are bandying about as being 40 or 50 can be any number. There is no reason why it should not be more, and, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr has said, we do not know how many more. If the Government turn the economic corner by October, we may have a lot of money and be able to expand the NCC and we may be able to designate more, but at the moment this is our plan. We think it is a good plan and we think it goes a long way to meet most of the points which have been raised today.
Lord Melchett: I am not misunderstanding; the noble Earl interrupted me before I had finished. As I understand it, "notification" means the landowner or farmer notifying the NCC when he intends to do something which will damage or destroy the SSSI. That does not happen at the moment. It will only happen under the Bill on 40 or 50, or however many there may be, sites. That is what I mean by notification. The noble Earl is saying notification is the NCC telling owners they have an SSSI and what is important about it. Thatis certainly helpful to the landowners. It is of no help at all towards conserving the SSSI, unless owners simply say, "All right, we will not destroy it". There is no element even of ensuring that there might be negotiation about it. Unless landowners are required to notify the NCC that they are going to damage the site, you do not have any assurance even that there will be voluntary negotiations. At the end of the day you are still left with the designation order. All that does is to ensure that landowners have to notify the NCC that they intend to damage or destroy the site. The only thing the NCC can then do is to compulsorily purchase the site. In other words, the noble Earl's very mild sounding response has not changed at all the position as it currently stands in the Bill.
Viscount Thurso: Before the noble Lord, Lord Craig-ton, replies, I should like to say that I have been thinking very carefully about what has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on this side of the Committee, and my noble colleagues. I think I may have been mistaken about the effect of this amendment and that I am not really so far from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in what I would like to see done, as I said earlier. I hope that I may now be able to support him if he wishes to push this matter any further.
Lord Underhill: Before Lord Craigton replies, could the noble Earl comment upon the principle contained in the amendment which I have not yet moved, or
322
would he prefer me formally to move it and then make his observations?
The Earl of Avon: Rather than protracting this argument, I would prefer the noble Lord to move the amendment.
Lord Craigton: I am a little bewildered. I am in the hands of the Committee, but as I understand it I am grateful to my noble friend and safe in withdrawing Amendment No. 376, the first amendment, because he has undertaken to comply with the spirit behind it without any reservation: that is, that every owner will be notified of what is worth keeping on his site. If that is so, and if it covers my points, I should be very glad to withdraw the amendment if none of my colleagues wishes otherwise. I should like my noble friend's assurance that that is so.
The Earl of Avon: I can assure my noble friend that those three points which I made in my speech do cover that first amendment, and the Government will be tabling amendments to that effect.
Lord Craigton: I thank my noble friend and I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw Amendment No. 376.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Amendment No. 376A. I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if this amendment is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 377 to 383.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 376A:
Page 23, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 24 and insert—
("(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State expedient to do so—

(a) in the case of any land to which this paragraph applies, for the purpose of securing the survival in Great Britain of any kind of animal or plant or of complying with an international obligation; or

(b) in the case of any land to which this paragraph applies, for the purpose of conserving any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features,").

The noble Earl said: I did not mean to stop the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, speaking, and if this amendment is carried I suppose I shall. Perhaps I could clarify his point later.
The purpose of this amendment is to make clear the three conditions, one of which would need to be satisfied before the Secretary of State could make an order requiring notification of destructive or damaging operations. The effect would be to restrict the order-making power to those situations where, first, it was necessary to secure the survival in Great Britian of any kind of species of animal or plant; secondly, to comply with an international obligation; or, thirdly, to conserve any flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical feature of land of national importance.
It would be an offence if any person carried out on land which had been made the subject of an order any operation which appeared to the Secretary of State to be likely to destroy or damage the fauna, flora, or geolo-

323
gical or physiographical features which led to the land being designated and which are specified in the order.
A number of noble Lords have spoken to or have tabled amendments relating to the points covered by this amendment. I hope they will be happy to support the Government's new wording. I beg to move.
Baroness David: We are not very happy about this Government amendment. It seems to redefine the criteria by which sites are selected for the order process, and paragraphs (a) and (b) are later qualified by Amendment No. 387A. In the case of paragraph (b), which is supposed to be a more generous interpretation, Amendment No. 387A deliberately restricts this to sites which are "of national importance". The words in the Bill are, of course, "in the national interest". "Of national importance" is not defined, but we suspect the Government has in mind only the 735 sites published in the Nature Conservation Review, leaving 3,000 SSSIs excluded from the order-making process. We want to have a definition of "national importance", and we feel we must challenge the Government on this point and draw from them the commitment, or not, as the case may be, that all SSSIs are eligible. There does not seem to be any gain from this except that instead of the owner-occupier all persons are now prohibited from carrying out operations under subsection (2)(a).
I was interested, as it happens, to read last night a letter which my noble friend Lady Stedman was sent from the Country Landowners' Association, and which she passed on to me, in which it says:
"It can be said that the present proposals go too far in that the criterion of the national interest as a reason for designation is very vague and questionable. The Government has indicated that only a tiny minority of existing SSSIs would receive the special treatment under this clause. But the national interest could justify a very considerable number of designations in the future."
So, rather naturally, we look on this with a certain amount of suspicion. The Government appear to be narrowing and making the clause worse rather than better; and after all that has been said in the Committee this evening on the previous amendment, rather naturally we are not happy about this one.
Lord Underhill: As has been made quite clear, if this amendment is carried I shall not be able to move Amendment No. 377, on which I said a few brief words earlier. I hope the Government amendment will not be approved; it is only a slight improvement on the proposals in the Bill and in no way moves towards Amendment No. 377, because the Secretary of State will determine which land shall come within the provisions of the clause. We have already heard from the noble Earl that it is a question of selecting the areas of land to be given special protection. What we want to ensure is that the overwhelming majority of these sites will be given some protection. After having designated the limited areas of land, the Secretary of State has the decision—admittedly, after consultation with the NCC—as to whether or not he shall apply protection to that number.
The amendment I tabled, in which a number of noble Lords declared some interest, reverses the whole situation. The provisions of subsection (2) would apply to all sites unless the Secretary of State, after consultation with the NCC, believes that they should
324
be exempted. That seems to be a very sensible way. Therefore, I hope the Government's amendment is not carried, so that I can proceed to move mine.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: First, I should like to respond to the noble Baroness. We were really trying to tidy up this section and not in any way trying to restrict it. She mentioned the words "national interest". Those words were difficult to define and I hope that the words "national importance" give, as it were, a little more flavour. Certainly all SSSIs are eligible for it. Your Lordships may remember that during earlier discussions in the Committee stage we had some arguments about "owners" and "occupiers". For that reason we have put in at present the word "persons". We have no wish whatever to narrow the definition. The aim was to tie it in with conservation.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned his Amendment No. 377. I think that the noble Lords who have put down this amendment and the Government are at one with the aim of Clause 26. We are aware that our precious nature conservation reserve is being eroded. We want to halt that erosion so far as is reasonable. It is on the method, the mechanics where we differ.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to apply subsection (2) to all areas of special scientific interest, which have been notified to the local planning authority, I am advised that "notified" is a correct term as the NCC is not required by the 1949 Act to designate, but only to "notify"—except for those which the Secretary of State, after consulting the NCC, has decided should be scheduled. Subsection (2) would also apply to nature reserves declared by the NCC.
The amendment also extends to land declared by the NCC to be a nature reserve. Although I have spoken to this matter once before, it may be helpful if I dispose of the point. Your Lordships will recall that my noble friend Lord Chelwood has put down an amendment which removes the anomaly created in the 1949 Act. The Government are pleased to accept the thought behind the amendment and will be tabling their own amendment to the same effect.
I come back to the amendment in hand. The noble Baroness was kind enough to bring in Amendment No. 387A and I hope that she will not call me to order if I say that I was speaking to Amendment No. 387A as well, and also the consequential Amendments Nos. 402A and 405A. We think that this is a tidying up amendment which has made the clause easier to understand and, therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady David, that there was nothing sinister about my Amendment No. 381. It was simply to get better drafting, which has now been achieved. I am grateful to the Government.
Baroness David: I think that we are still a little suspicious about the narrowing effects of this Government amendment and we are not satisfied about it. Therefore we shall oppose the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not know whether I am allowed to speak at this stage, but I should like to make one point to the noble Baroness. This amendment describes the conditions that are needed to become what I call a super site of special scientific interest, and I think we are right in that respect. As regards the point that I think the noble Baroness has made, I understand that the NCC grade their sites: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I think that there are about 600 Grade I sites. They would in fact fall into this category of a super SSSI. The point that I am trying to make—and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett knows this—is that there are only 50 of those at risk; the other 550 are not at risk—may I say, thank God!—because of farmers and landowners who are not putting them at risk. So when it is said that there are only 50 that will be covered by the clause, we are, in fact, talking about 600, which is a rather different story. I hope that that encourages the noble Baroness.
Lord Melchett: It certainly does not encourage me. We are talking about 50 or 60 out of the 1,800 SSSIs which we agree are capable of being altered by agriculture, forestry or similar operations. I must say that I find that the amendment imposes a very considerable restriction and I cannot think why the Government have found it necessary to change the words in the Bill if it is not for the purpose of restricting this. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, went a long way towards confirming my fears by saying that this would allow these provisions to apply to the Grade 1 SSSIs—in other words, not to the rest—which contradicted what his noble friend on the Front Bench said. I must say that I prefer the interpretation of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
In the Bill, the criteria to which the provisions can apply are set out as (a), (b) and (c), with no proviso. In the amendment the same or similar words apply, but the reference to the special scientific interest of the land at the beginning of Amendment No. 377 is qualified by the Secretary of State needing to be convinced that it is applicable for various reasons—(a), (b) and (c). In other words, there is a considerable qualification compared to the original wording in the Bill, which we much prefer and which we hope the Committee will agree to retain.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, loves twisting my words a little. Of course these provisions could apply to all the sites of special scientific interest. I was just trying to point out that we are talking about 600 and not 50.
Lord Winstanley: I, too, feel a little uneasy about acquiescing too precipitately in this particular course of action. Perhaps I am a little confused after the lengthy excursions that we made, some time ago into the noble Viscount's bog. I am trying to collect my thoughts. It seems to me that in acquiescing in this amendment we are immediately closing the door on a number of other possibilities on which I would have preferred to indicate my support, such as Amendment No. 377 and so on, which will not be able to be moved. Therefore, I am bound to say that I—and I think some of my noble friends on these Benches—would side with
326
the noble Baroness in feeling a little uneasy about acquiescing in this particular amendment because it closes the door on other possiblities, and, like the noble Baroness, I think that it narrows things somewhat rather than the reverse.
The Earl of Avon: I can only say that it is certainly not the Government's intention to narrow it. Certainly all SSSIs are there, and obviously we prefer this amendment to what was in the Bill previously or we should not have tabled it. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a point about (a), (b) and (c). I agree that the older form looks more simple, and I am afraid the form of the present amendment is the work of the parliamentary draftsman.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 376A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Avon, E.

Margadale, L.

Balerno, L.

Marley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Bolton, L.

Middleton, L.

Burton, L.

Milverton, L.

Caccia, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cathcart, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chelwood, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moyola, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

de Clifford, L.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Elibank, L.

Portland, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Radnor, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ridley, V.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Just, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gainford, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gormanston, V.

Soames, L.

Gridley, L.

Spens, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanworth, V.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Teynham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tollemache, L.

Inglewood, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kemsley, V.

Vickers, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Waldegrave, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Westbury, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Windlesham, L.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Yarborough, E.

Lyell, L.

327

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hughes, L.

Avebury, L.

Hunt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jacobson, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kaldor, L.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boothby, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Melchett, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Northfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Peart, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Robbins, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Rochester, L.

Craigton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Rugby, L.

Cudlipp, L.

St. Davids, V.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Segal, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stone, L.

Foot, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Underhill, L.

Garner, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Gibson, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gosford, E.

White, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gregson, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hale, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hampton, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 375 and not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: we pass to Amendment No. 384.
Lord Craigton: Do we not discuss Amendment No. 378?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 378 is obliterated by what we have just done.
Lord Craigton: Amendment No. 378 is on an entirely different subject; it is about marine reserves.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The instructions are that if Amendment No. 376A is carried, it deletes everything down to Amendment No. 383.
Lord Craigton: I believe the instructions must be wrong because I was proposing to move Amendments Nos. 378, 380, 382, 392, 394 and 470, which are all about marine reserves.
The Earl of Avon: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I might suggest to my noble friend that he could speak to these amendments when we come to Amendment No. 392, and then he can either retable them or withdraw them.
[Amendments Nos. 378 to 383 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We pass to Amendment No. 384.
[Amendment No. 384 not moved.]
6.16 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 385:
Page 24, line 5, after ("land") insert ("and such areas shall be known as "sites of special scientific interest"").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 385. It is rather extraordinary that although we are talking about sites of special scientific interest all the time and Clause 26 deals with them, as we see from the side note, there is in fact no reference to such sites in the clause itself. It seemed that we should have some kind of reference to them there, more especially as we are told that they are to become registrable land charges, and I should have thought that when they reach that stage it would be an advantage for the term of art to have been introduced to the statute law.
Therefore, I must confess that this is a rather poor attempt on my part to deal with the matter. I would not expect my drafting to be accepted on this occasion, but at least it gives us an opportunity to consider whether we should not have a reference to such sites, and it gives the Government an opportunity to say whether they will, in the light of what I say, perhaps at the next stage of this Bill introduce even a definition. However, I would just remind your Lordships that in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, Section 23, and the Countryside Act 1968, Section 15, there is reference to areas of special scientific interest—not "sites", but "areas". It is strange but nobody has called them that in real life, I suppose because the abbreviation would amount to ASSIs. But they are always therefore euphemistically referred to as SSSIs. Let us try to get this right for the sake of clarity. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is an amendment to this amendment to which we immediately pass.
Lord Melchettmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 385, Amendment No. 385A:
Leave out (""sites of special scientific interest"") and insert (""wildlife conservation areas"").
The noble Lord said. This is a simple amendment. I have much sympathy with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had to say about clarifying the position, but I hope that we might be able to clarify it without continuing to use the term "sites of special scientific interest". We have already had in your Lordships' debates on this Bill a varying number of S's applied to these particular sites. They are either SSIs or SSSIs, or what have you. I think all of us find the nomenclature extremely confusing. Those outside your Lordships' Committee who might not be quite so familiar with the terminology find the name SSSI even more confusing maybe than some of us do.
My amendment is to suggest that we get rid of the triple SIs and call them "wildlife conservation areas". This Bill, as the Government have reminded us on numerous occasions, is about conservation. It is about the conservation of wildlife as its title says, and I should have thought that this description of the area would be much more readily understood by all those concerned. Certainly the landowners and the farmers who have this designation placed on some of their

329
land might more readily understand what the Nature Conservancy Council was about, and I should have thought that members of the public, when they heard this name rather than SSSI, would have a clearer understanding of the designation.
May I stress that I am not suggesting any change in the scientific criteria—and nor would that follow from my amendment—which the NCC use to select these sites. The noble Earl described those to us earlier and gave an assurance that they would continue to apply, as I think all of us would want them to. This is trying to make life a little simpler for everyone. I beg to move.
Baroness White: May I ask my noble friend if he can tell me what happens then to the sites of geological or physiographical features of which there are about seven or eight?
Lord Melchett: I must confess that that was not a point I had thought of, and I apologise to my noble friend for not having done so. A simple description might be applied to those sites similar to what I am suggesting for wildlife areas. In other words, we might get rid of the SSGI, or whatever the nomenclature is for those sites, and have something like a geological conservation area, which would be fairly straightforward. It would not need a large amendment when we come to Report stage.
The Earl of Avon: May I say a word about the amendment of my noble friend before moving on to Lord Melchett's amendment? The difficulty about "site of special scientific interest" is that it is a term used by, among others, local planning authorities, water authorities, and conservation movements. To use the term solely for those areas which have been designated by an order made by my right honourable friend would, we think, cause considerable confusion.
Moving on to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, we are happy with the noble Lord's general suggestion and we think it would be helpful to have some easily recognisable term to identify these areas. We did not think that "wildlife" was sufficiently embracing, as it conjures up pictures of animals and plants. But for orders to cover areas which are important not for wildlife in that sense but perhaps for geological features as well, the name that the Government want to put forward—and it is no more than what we are putting forward—is "nature conservation order", which might fit this particular term. We should like to give this further consideration, and I hope that, with that undertaking, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged to my noble friend. What he has in mind may well produce a fruitful result, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure that I do not have to withdraw my amendment to the amendment first. I was delighted with what the noble Earl said. It seems a pity that the Government are prepared to be so accommodating on these points of little substance while we are going to continue to preside over the
330
destruction of whatever we call these sites at the rate of at least 10 per cent. a year. Still, I must not be churlish. I am grateful to the noble Earl. I take it that he meant to say "wildlife nature conservation area" rather than "nature conservation order", which was what I heard him say, but I hope he may be able to confirm that before I withdraw my amendment so that I have it on the record.
The Earl of Avon: I actually said "order", but I think "area" would be much better.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 386 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 387:
Page 24, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of any land which in the opinion of the Council is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna,or geological or physiographical features the Council shall notify the owner or occupier of the scientific criteria used for selecting such areas of special interest.").
The noble Baroness said: As Amendment No. 376 was accepted, it will cover this, so I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 387 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 387A. If Amendment No. 387A is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 388 and 389.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 387A:
Page 24, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
("(1A) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) apply to any land which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is—

(a) of special interest; and

(b) in the case of paragraph (b) of that subsection, of national importance,

by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features.
(2) Subject to subsection (2A), no person shall carry out on any land to which this subsection applies any operation which—

(a) appears to the Secretary of State to be likely to destroy or damage the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is land to which paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) applies; and

(b) is specified in the order applying this subsection to the land.

(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to any operation carried out, or caused or permitted to be carried out, by the owner or occupier of the land if—").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: Would it be wise for me to speak to Amendment No. 389 while we debate Amendment No. 387A? If the Committee is agreeable, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 389. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, or the

331
noble Lord, Lord Stanley, or their colleagues wish to speak to Amendment No. 388. If we are going to cover those two amendments with this one, it might be sensible to take them in numerical order.
Lord Middleton: I was not going to speak at any length to Amendment No. 388, simply to say that the point raised by that amendment and Amendments Nos. 392, 395 and 396 would all be met by the Government's amendment because it is a redrafting which would take them all into account.
Lord Melchett: I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 389, which raises an important point of principle but it is by nature of a probing amendment, and with it goes Amendment No. 436. It has been brought to my attention that there are major problems in some areas, rather in contradiction to what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said earlier, where areas have been declared sites of special scientific interest, or indeed are nature reserves owned by local naturalist trusts. The trust that has brought this to my attention is the Norfolk Naturalist Trust, of which I am a member of the council, and to that extent I should declare an interest in the problem.
I have in mind particularly Brayden Marshes and Martham Broad in North-East Norfolk, which are probably the finest wetland sites in the whole of England, and indeed one of England's seven sites designated as a wetland area of international importance under the Ramsar Convention; but despite that rather resounding title these sites are being dramatically ruined by drainage schemes which are carried out by local internal drainage boards and financed by the Ministry of Agriculture.
The problem is that the drainage schemes are not on these internationally important sites themselves but on adjoining land. The Martham Broad has a scheme near it which is currently discharging large quantities of silt and fertilisers into one of the few broads left, or lakes and broadland left, which have relatively pure water, and tenders for a second pump, which would increase the flow into the broad, have just been sent out.
Brayden Marshes, which is criss-crossed with a number of ditches and a particularly good haunt for bitterns—one of our rarest birds—is more or less completely destroyed. The ditches are filled with silt and the bitterns will probably starve this year. That has happened in the space of three years from a pump which could easily have had its output diverted into safer waters had anybody been consulted on the conservation side. Again the Ramsar site is probably destroyed, or very largely destroyed, from a wild life point of view.
Both those cases are illustrations of the problems which arise when works are carried out adjoining a nature reserve, in this case two of our most important wetland sites. This is not any sort of conservation versus farmer dispute. In one, if not both, of these cases a number of local farmers have been extremely upset at what has happened, and particularly the farming tenants of the Norfolk Naturalist Trust feel that their farming activities have been severely jeopardised by the actions of neighbours without any consultation
332
and certainly without any agreement. In a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley (at column 1280 on 18th December of last year) the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that 11 of the key sites—that is, the sites listed in the Nature Conservation Review—had been damaged as an indirect consequence of other agricultural or forestry activities.
I hope I have said enough to describe the sort of problems the amendment is aimed at. The objective is to ensure that people should not carry out operations near a site designated under Clause 26 in a way that would destroy it. The amendment is accompanied by a necessary amendment to the schedule to ensure that orders were served and neighbouring landowners were informed that they should not carry out operations which would affect a designated site. I hope the amendment will commend itself to the Government, even though I will not be in a position to move it in Committee and will have to return to it on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that Amendment No. 387A pre-empts everything down to No. 395A. If any noble Lord wishes to say a word arising out of those, as we have already strayed into Amendments Nos. 388 and 389, an opportunity should be left to do so, otherwise I will put the Question.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I might just say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that we accept this in principal and will consider tabling an amendment along the lines of this point.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl. We are making marvellous progress, a little late in the day, I am afraid, for some of us, and I look forward to seeing the Government's amendment on that point.
Lord Craigton: I am wondering whether I will be in order, bearing in mind my Amendments Nos. 462 and 470, to raise the subject of marine reserves.
The Earl of Avon: From the Government's point of view, that would be perfectly in order, if the Committee so agrees.
Amendment No. 387A agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 396 to 400 not moved.]
6.35 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 401:
For galley 52—
Page 24, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Council receives notice of a proposal to carry out an operation and paragraph (b) of the previous subsection does not apply, the Council shall—

(a) publish notice of the proposal in two successive weeks in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the area in which the land is situated on which it is proposed in the notice to carry out the operation, and, not earlier than the day following that on which the first publication of the notice is completed in pursuance of the preceding provisions of this paragraph, to publish such a notice in the London Gazette; and

(b) consider any written representations relating to the proposal which are made to the Council by any person within the period of three weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of the proposal is published in the London Gazette, and the Council shall not give consent in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the previous subsection before expiration of such period.").

The noble Lord said: The operations which may be proposed to be carried out in SSSIs and nature reserves are matters of concern not only to the owner or occupier and the NCC but to the general public as well. On Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed concern at the fact that the designation of sites did not receive sufficient publicity, and that is true not only of proposed alterations to an SSSI or NNR as a result of any operations that may be carried out. The amendment seeks to rectify that situation and says that where the condition of subsection (3)(b) does not apply—that is, where there is an agreement, the terms of which cover the proposed operations—the NCC must publish notice of the proposal in two successive weeks in a local newspaper and must also publish the proposal in the London Gazette. If the NCC is considering giving consent to the operations, it must not do so until after a period of three weeks from the date the notice is published in the London Gazette, and the NCC must then give serious consideration to any representations that may be received during that period of three weeks.
This is a small but important amendment because the publication of the notice and the opportunity for any person to make representations will enable the fullest consideration to be given to proposals which may involve the damage or destruction of these important sites to us nationally, and I hope the Government will accept the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Burton: Does the noble Lord want this to apply to Scotland? If so, is he aware that it should also be published in the Edinburgh Gazette?
The Earl of Avon: The intention of the amendment is to give publicity locally and nationally to an individual's intention to change the way in which he is currently using his land. It will become a requirement for the Nature Conservancy Council to publish notices in the local papers on two successive weeks and in the London Gazette—or, should it be applicable the Edinburgh Gazette—once they receive notice of the owner's or occupier's intention. Effectively, they would not be able to give the owner their written consent to the operations until three weeks had elapsed from the date that the London Gazette carried the notice of the proposal, which at the earliest would be three weeks and one day after the date when the notice first appeared in the local papers.
We may argue that a delay of three weeks is neither here nor there when we are talking about actions which could materially affect the scientific interest of a site which has already been recognised as of considerable importance to the country and requiring protection, and I think we would agree. But the purpose of a notice is presumably to alert local people or national organisations to what is proposed. They would have the opportunity to make written representations to the Nature Conservancy Council and the council would have a duty to consider them. I am not convinced that this duty is necessary or that the amendment strengthens in any way the protection of an important site.
An order covered by Clause 26 will be made by the Secretary of State after he has consulted the council.
334
The council will have provided the advice on which his action is based and will have included details about the operations which could prove damaging. They will have a very good idea about what can be done without detriment to the scientific interest. If they are in doubt once they had been notified of its owner's intentions, I am sure that they would in the normal course of affairs actively seek outside expert advice and move quickly to do so. I do not think their actions, unless they are sure the proposal will have no adverse effect, should be circumscribed by a requirement to wait for written representations, which may or may not materialise Such a delay, even such a slight one as threee weeks, if it can be considered, should be. As the noble Lord will be aware from my reply, we hope he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Melchett: May I, without urging my noble friend to press the amendment at this stage, press the noble Earl to go a little further? I take his point about the possibility of delay, particularly if the NCC is required to wait for written replies which do not come. However, would the Minister address himself to the principle of the matter a little further?
It seems to me important that the NCC should maintain at least a public register of notifications. Regional offices would possibly be the best places for that, so that people who were interested locally would be able to find out what was happening. Perhaps going as far as inserting advertisements in the London Gazette, or the Edinburgh Gazette—I certainly take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, about the Edinburgh Gazette; what an important omission that was from our amendment!—would not be the best way of achieving the result that we want. However, I should have thought that it would be possible for the NCC in its regional offices to keep a list of notifications that it has received under the clause.
At a regional level the NCC would be in very close touch with regional representatives of the major voluntary organisations, such as the RSPB, and with the local county trusts, as well as the major national voluntary organisations that would be taking an interest in the matter. It does not seem to me that the proposal would involve a great deal of work. It would not involve any delay—which seemed to be the noble Earl's major problem about the current amendment. If my noble friend is disposed to withdraw the amendment, will the noble Earl agree to take away that particular point, look at it, and perhaps write to us in due course?
The Earl of Avon: I very much take the point that the noble Lord has made. Thinking through the matter as he was speaking, I wondered whether the Nature Conservancy Council itself might read about it and take it on board. Perhaps the point does not require legislation in this particular Bill, but I shall certainly think about it.
Lord Melchett: I am sure that if the Nature Conservancy Council gave an assurance that such registers would be kept, that would be an ideal solution, and it would save us all some time.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his proposal, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 402 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 402A:
Page 24, line 34, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment, which is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 403 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): I now call Amendment No. 404. If this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 405 and 405A.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 404:
Page 24, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) If it appears to the Council that any agreement specified in subsection (4) is unlikely to be reached before the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), or that paragraph as it has effect by virtue of subsection (4), the Council may make application to the Secretary of State for an order under subsection (1) to be made on the day upon which that period expires which may prohibit the operations specified in the notice under subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said. This amendment is an improvement on the present paragraph. With my wording, if an agreement is hanging fire, the Nature Conservancy Council can have an order made by the Secretary of State to prohibit work on a permanent basis with compensation, but the order can be revoked. Under the present clause, if the agreement is hanging fire, the only recourse is to invoke compulsory purchase, or to let the site be destroyed. I believe that this proposal might find some approval in the noble Earl's mind. I should be very glad to know what he has to say, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The Government have not really considered this particular proposition in isolation from the package originally presented by my noble friend. However, I undertake to consider this addition as a separate matter and then let my noble friend know the solution.
Lord Craigton: I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 405:
Page 24, line 45, after ("subsection (4)") insert ("and only in relation to land more than 10 acres in extent").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 405 I wish at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 406, 408 and 461. We have here a very important point, bearing in mind that we have not really made the progress that we had hoped to make on the whole question of SSSIs. Had we had a more co-operative reply from the Front Bench, I would have had to con-
336
sider whether to move this amendment, but now I am quite certain that it must be moved.
I have twice raised this point in your Lordships' Chamber. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Part IV, the Secretary of State compiles a list of buildings of special architectural and historic interest—just the same as SSSIs. Upon including such a building in the list, he serves on the owner or occupier a notice, and then if the person responsible executes any work that would in any manner affect the character of the building, and the work was not authorised, that person is guilty of an offence.
Under Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 the same provisions apply. The Secretary of State compiles a list and informs the owner that his monument is on the list—and for "monument" or "ancient building" read "SSSI". Thereafter, the owner is guilty of an offence if he carries out any unauthorised work on the monument or ancient building or undertakes any flooding or tipping operations in, or under, the land.
There are many SSSIs that are equally worth preserving as ancient monuments or historic buildings. They would not be SSSIs at all unless they concerned something of great value to the nation. As we have heard this evening, many, though by no means all, SSSIs occupy comparatively large plots of land. They compete, in greater or lesser degree, with claims of agriculture, forestry, planning and recreation. Those are completely excluded from my amendment, which covers only an SSSI of an area of 10 acres or less. I have suggested 10 acres, but even that may be too big an area.
I cannot for the life of me see the difference in common sense between an SSSI, an historic building, or an ancient monument. The owner of an SSSI has part of our heritage which should be preserved, and he is as proud of, or as annoyed about, having been asked to preserve it as he now is in regard to his historic building or ancient monument. He can ask no more and no less restriction or compensation. The Acts of 1971 and 1979 already demonstrate that their provisions, which I have copied in my Amendment No. 461, are workable. These are Acts that are on the statute book and are working. Certainly I create two classes of SSSIs, but why not?—there are five schedules of them now. They are easily distinguished by size, which is the only limiting factor. Certainly I create an arbitrary maximum size, but what would matter would be the actual size within that limit.
We have in the amendment a simple, workable alternative, and it would be cheaper, too, because there would be no recourse to compulsory purchase. I do not believe that the Minister is going to accept this proposal, but I would ask the Committee to decide whether it is not completely workable and whether we should not treat the smallest SSSIs as ancient monuments or historic buildings. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I do not think that this proposal will be received with enthusiasm in the crofting counties. There are hundreds and thousands of crofts of 10 acres or less. If people felt that the whole of their croft might suddenly be adversely affected by an SSSI and that their extra livelihood as a crofter was going to be affected, they would be very upset—
Lord Craigton: Will the noble Viscount tell me whether there are now SSSIs on crofts?
Viscount Thurso: There is a croft at Newlands of Geise just outside Thurso, and through the bottom half of the three arable fields on that croft there runs the main drainage from Thurso golf course. There is an area there of less than 10 acres which has been declared an SSSI in order to preserve such rare species as ragged robin and meadowsweet. If one looks at the Ordnance Survey map, one sees running through the middle two parallel lines with the word "drain" written alongside. This area has been declared the Newlands of Geise mire. That land really ought to be drained, and that drain ought to be in course of being cleared in the national interest and in the interest of everybody else. Indeed, the crofter in question has been trying to improve this land from an agricultural point of view, and when I objected to this site I discovered that the boundary had in fact been drawn round an area which the crofter had previously reseeded. So in the first instance they were proposing to designate as an SSSI an area which had already been reseeded.
Lord Craigton: The noble Viscount is a great purveyor of red herrings. By the same rule, I believe—I am almost sure—that many of the crofts are historic buildings already; and they are not allowed to alter them without permission. That does not cause any trouble but preserves them for what they are—part of the history of Britain. I am wanting to do the same thing in regard to SSSIs.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My crofters, provided they get enough money, are prepared to do anything.
Lord Melchett: I must say that our initial feeling on this side of the Committee was not to agree with the amendment set down in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because it seemed to us that it would cause a difficulty and would exclude some of the most important sites of special scientific interest that we have in this country. But the Government's extraordinarily unsatisfactory reply to the amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has left me feeling that anything we can get from them we must take, because theyclearly have absolutely no intention, off their own bat, unless your Lordships can persuade them on Report, of doing anything to protect most of the sites of special scientific interest in this country. We are, therefore, in the words of the Nature Conservancy Council's chief scientist, going to see large-scale extinction of British species by the end of this century. That seems to me the sum result of what the Government have said on Clause 26 so far—large-scale extinction of British species.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has told us about another SSSI on his land and the circumstances, as he sees them, in which it has been declared. I would simply make one point to him. The faster that landowners destroy the best sites—the raised bogs and other things which he has mentioned on earlier amendments—the faster those things which are left which are of special scientific interest will be areas which were, for example,
338
once drained but are now no longer. They should not, in any country which has any pride in its wildlife, be sites of special scientific interest; but if we succeed in destroying these sites at the rate at which we are destroying them now, we are inevitably going to be a country of second best sites of special scientific interest. But that is the fault of the people who destroy the top tier of sites, not that of the Nature Conservancy Council.
But, as I have said, I think that the response to any proposals to improve Clause 26 has been so abysmal up to this stage that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has a great deal of merit and we shall certainly support him to the full.
The Earl of Avon: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has behaved a little like a chameleon, because a little while ago he was pleased with me but now he has changed. However, I should like to bring the Committee back to discuss this particular amendment slightly more dispassionately than the whole of Clause 26, because what we do not want to do is to put on the NCC a task which it would be difficult for them to carry out. I take my noble friend's point that some things happen to ancient monuments and historic buildings, and, therefore, why should not small SSSIs be treated in the same way? The answer is that they have got to become an SSSI at some time, and I think they ought to become it directly they are not an ancient monument. This may sound a strange remark, but later on, in the case of some of the amendments set down, I shall be referring to the ancient monuments in regard to some of the points raised. We honestly believe that it is difficult to justify one mechanism for large areas and another for small areas, because our aim is to protect all areas of special scientific interest, whether large or small.
However, we also think that the amendments might not quite have the effect that the noble Lord intends. The proposed subsection (5)(a) does not state that subsection (2) is not to have effect in relation to land of less than 10 acres until notice has been served by the Secretary of State. Also, the amendment to subsection (5) would, assuming that Amendment No. 461 was carried, appear to have no effect, because that amendment would prevent compulsory purchase orders relating to land measuring less than 10 acres from being made by the council.
I fully sympathise with what my noble friend is trying to do, but I do not believe that this will be very easy for the Nature Conservancy Council to handle, and I would rather wish that my noble friend Lord Chelwood was here to give me little support on that. Having so said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl puts a lot of stress on what the Nature Conservancy Council could or could not do.
The Earl of Avon: What they would want to do.
Lord Melchett: I think the noble Earl said it was whether or not they would be able to carry out the effect of the amendment, and as I heard him from a sedentary position he added, "What they would like

339
to do". I just wonder why it is that the noble Earl has not told your Lordships at any stage yet in our debate what the chariman of the Nature Conservancy Council said yesterday, when he said:
"In order to protect these increasingly threatened wildlife habitats"—
that is, sites of special scientific interest—
"the NCC is calling for prior notification of activities inimical to nature conservation for all SSSIs".
That is what the Nature Conservancy Council are asking for, and the Government, as I understand it, have turned us down flat on that. It therefore seems to me very right and proper that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, should press this amendment.
Lord Craigton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that this gives complete protection at the least possible cost, which is very important. I believe the Nature Conservancy Council would be able to administer it, and I shall press this amendment.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 405) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aylestone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Melchett, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milverton, L.

Collison, L.

Northfield, L.

Craigton, L. [Teller.]

Peart, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Gibson, L.

Stone, L.

Gosford, E.

Thurso, V.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Tryon, L.

Gregson, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hampton, L.

White, B.

Hanworth, V.

Wigoder, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hooson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Hunt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Craigavon, V.

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Avon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Balerno, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Bellwin, L.

de Clifford, L.

Belstead, L.

De La Warr, E.

Bolton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Boston, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elibank, L.

Burton, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Caithness, E.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrier, L.

Cathcart, E.

Fortescue, E.

Chelwood, L.

Gainford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gormanston, V.

340

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Henley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hives, L.

Radnor, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ridley, V.

Ironside, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Kemsley, V.

St. Just, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Soames, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tollemache, L.

Margadale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Middleton, L.

Westbury, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Yarborough, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Young, B.

Northchurch, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

European Assembly Elections Bill
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretray of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the European Assembly Elections Bill be now read a second time. This is both a short Bill and, I hope, a straightforward one. It comprises one substantive clause, amending part of the second schedule to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. The purpose of the Bill is to relieve the three Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for Great Britain of the obligation to submit simultaneously with a report on Westminster constituencies a report on European Parliament constituencies.
As your Lordships will know, the rules which govern the operation of the four Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for the United Kingdom are set out in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts of 1949 and 1958. These require each Commission to submit to the Secretary of State a general report on the constituencies within its area of responsibility between 10 and 15 years after the submission of its previous report. All four Commissions reported last during the first half of 1969. Accordingly, each must report again during 1984—by April 1984 for the English and Scottish Commissions, by May 1984 in the case of the Welsh Commission and by June 1984 in the case of the Northern Ireland Commission. I should like to emphasise that this Bill does not alter that statutory time limit. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill which would change any aspect of the Boundary Commissions' work in reviewing constituencies for the Westminster Parliament.
When a Parliamentary Boundary Commission completes a report within the time laid down in the statute, the Secretary of State is required to lay it

341
before Parliament. He submits the report, except where it recommends no alteration to constituencies, with a draft of an Order in Council giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations. The Secretary of State must state his reasons for any modifications he proposes. The 1949 Act, to which I have referred, specified that the orders must be laid before Parliament "as soon as may be" after a Boundary Commission has submitted a report. In other words, there should be no unreasonable delay. This procedure ought to be a straightforward one. I have no doubt that the Boundary Commissions, consonant with their statutory duties and responsibilities, complete their work, involving the publication of provisional recommendations, considering representations, and, if necessary, holding inquiries before submitting final recommendations, as soon as they are able to do so. And certainly I can repeat assurances given both in this House and elsewhere that my right honourable friends the respective Secretaries of State, for their part, will present the reports of the Boundary Commissions to Parliament without any delay. But there was introduced in the provisions of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, an impediment into the workings of the Boundary Commissions in Great Britain which prejudices the swift implementation of Boundary Commission recommendations.
The 1978 Act obliges a Boundary Commission to submit simultaneously with a report on Westminster constituencies, a supplementary report on European Parliament constituencies. European Parliament constituencies, as your Lordships will know, are formed from whole Westminster constutuencies. No Westminster constituency may be divided between European Parliament constituencies. The effect of the provisions in the 1978 Act is therefore that, instead of a commission submitting its report on Westminster constituencies to the Secretary of State immediately on completion of the work, it has to set the whole matter aside for the period that it takes to formulate the consequential recommendations for the European Parliament constituencies.
The best estimate is that the delay that this procedure causes would amount to about 12 to 15 months. While a delay of this type in the submission of a report naturally is to be regretted, noble Lords may of course ask whether this is the price which has to be paid for an arrangement which was provided by the 1978 Act.
The answer to that question, my Lords, is twofold. First, as I have said, European Parliament constituencies are formed from whole Westminster constituencies. Logic therefore seems to us to demand that the review of European constituencies—which in practice has been shown to be consequential to and not simultaneous with the review of Westminster constituencies—should be based on the settled units of established Westminster constituencies.
I suggest that a great deal of possible trouble can be avoided if the two sets of reviews are conducted separately, one after the other. But the 1978 Act requires the commissions to build the proposed European Parliament constituencies from proposed Westminster constituencies and submit the two sets of proposals simultaneously. If the recommendations for Westminster constituency boundaries were altered, even slightly, during the course of the parliamentary
342
proceedings, when the orders are being looked at in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House, this in turn would invalidate a whole series of recommendations for the European boundaries. As the redrawing of one European Parliament boundary inevittably affects its neighbours, there might have to be a wholesale revision of the original recommendations for European Parliament constituencies. It seems far more sensible for the two sets of boundary reviews to be conducted separately one after the other. The two processes are independent in practice and, if this Bill meets your Lordships' approval, will be independent and separate in law.
My Lords, the second reason why the new procedure in this Bill is more appropriate is because of the gross and well-known disparities which presently exist between the electorates of different Westminster parliamentary constituencies. I should like to illustrate that briefly by reference to the office of Population Censuses and Surveys Monitor, EL 80/2, published on 20th May 1980, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This monitor indicates that in England alone there are 11 constituencies with more than 100,000 electors, while, at the other end of the scale, there are 14 constituencies with fewer than 40,000 electors. There are also—if I may put it another way—in England alone 58 constituencies where the number of electors on the register exceeds the electoral quota—the average number of electors per constituency—by more than 30 per cent. At the other end of the scale, there are 38 constituencies in England in which the number of electors on the register is more than 30 per cent. below the electoral quota. In 14 of these it is more than 40 per cent. below; and, in five, the electorate is less than half the electoral quota.
These discrepancies have arisen out of perfectly natural movements of population. But their consequences are most detrimental to the principle of fairness and equality of representation. In order to ensure some continuity of representation, the boundary reviews are only implemented at lengthy intervals. But I put it to your Lordships that, in the interests of democracy and fairness, it is not right to extend the time which is taken for constituencies to be reviewed. Our objection to the 1978 Act, which was introduced, incidentally, after the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England had given notice of their intention to review constituencies in England, is that it was bound to lengthen the whole procedure without any obvious gain.
So far as parliamentary constituencies are concerned, this Bill reverts to the procedures which existed before the 1978 Act. The substantive provisions of our Bill are contained in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 1. Having removed certain spent provisions relating to the initial truncated procedure for dividing Great Britain into European Parliament constituencies, which only refer to the 1979 election, these substitute a requirement that once an Order in Council has been made under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, following a review of Westminster constituencies, the appropriate Parliamentary Boundary Commission will thereupon review the European Parliament constituencies and, as soon as may be, submit recommendations on those to the Secretary of State. We believe that this procedure, taking the reviews one after the other, provides a firm base on which the

343
commissions may do their work.
When the Government began to consider this matter, I think the House will wish to know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary sought the views of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. The deputy chairman told us that the separation of the two procedures for Westminster and European boundaries proposed in this Bill would be very welcome to members of his commission.
I believe that it is widely recognised in this House and elsewhere that the Boundary Commissions have an extremely difficult task. I think that it will be widely agreed also that the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions in the past have carried out their remit with skill and judgment. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. The purpose of this Bill is to assist them in their task, by relieving them of a cumbersome and unnecessary procedure. The Bill, if enacted, will also help to ensure that the implementation of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions' reports into constituencies in Great Britain are not unduly delayed, and that the effectiveness of their reports is not undermined by the passage of time. I beg to move this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.18 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has, as is always customary from him, explained this Bill in a very clear and fair way. I want to make it quite clear on behalf of these Benches that we accept that the other place has passed a principle and therefore we accept that situation. Having said that, there are a number of points which we wish to put forward and we hope that we shall get the Government's view on them.
When the 1978 European Assembly Elections Bill was before Parliament, it had at that time the full support of the then Conservative Opposition. Their spokesman on that occasion was none other than Mr. William Whitelaw, the present Home Secretary, who introduced this present Bill in the other place. Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act is quite clear in setting out that in future when a Boundary Commission for any part of Great Britain submitted a report containing recommendations for the United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies, it would be accompanied by a supplementary report with regard to the European Assembly constituencies. The question must be asked: Why has the Conservative Party changed its view on that provision? So far as I can see from reading the Official Report of the debates, that met with no criticism whatever when it was introduced in 1978. It seemed to be accepted on all sides that it was sensible to submit reports for both United Kingdom parliamentary and European Assembly constituencies at the same time.
During 1980 the Government were pressed repeatedly about the progress of the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions. There appeared to be satisfaction expressed by Government Ministers that the commissions would meet the target. As far back as 27th March, 1980, a Home Office Minister stated in another place that he could well understand and appreciate the view that it is perhaps an unnecessary
344
requirement for reports on both the United Kingdom and European reviews to be submitted together. Later on it was stated that the Government were giving consideration to a possible change. That was 27th March, 1980, and subsequently.
Two years after the passing of the 1978 Act the Government consider that a change is desirable. We must ask why. Also, why did the Government vacillate for eight months from March—when the question was raised with them, they said they were looking into the matter—before introducing this Bill? Yet they now plead that there is some urgency, as without this Bill the Boundary Commission for the parliamentary constituencies might not otherwise be able to keep to the targets they wish to keep to in the light of the next general election.
On 2nd December 1980 in another place on Second Reading the Home Secretary said that this present Bill would provide a more logical and acceptable basis for the future work of the commissions. He also referred to the provision that both sets of recommendations had to be submitted together as an impediment which had been introduced, as he said at col. 427,
"quite unnecessarily and unjustifiably in my view".
But that is not what the right honourable gentleman said when the Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1978. He now says it is, in his view, an impediment introduced unnecessarily and unjustifiably; yet in 1978 the European Assembly Elections Bill was accepted apparently with very little criticism, and certainly not along those lines. What was considered to be satisfactory two years previously is now said to be illogical and unacceptable. Naturally I must ask why.
We all knew there were going to be disparities. There were disparities in the United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies. One must pose the question, although I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will wish to comment on it, but there must be some feeling about the disparities in electorates because they have to be straightened out. I wonder whether the enthusiasm for separating the two reviews, rather than keeping them together, as was regarded as essential two years ago, has something to do with estimates made by various political commentators as to the gain in seats there might be for the Conservative Party as a result of redistribution.
At what stage did the Government decide that the uncoupling of the United Kingdom and European reports was necessary? Why, apart from the point mentioned, did they consider it to be necessary? In the same speech to which I have referred, Mr. William Whitelaw said on 3rd December in another place at col. 428:
"Such a procedure could only be justified if it were thought that there was an overwhelming need to interlink recommendations made for parliamentary and European Parliament constituencies so that the boundaries were … coterminous".
He said there was no such need. I repeat: that was not what was said when the 1978 Bill was introduced. In fact the 1978 Act provides that no parliamentary constituency shall be spread over more than one European constituency, and, so far as I can see, that criterion is not changed by the Bill now before us. Therefore, it is still desirable that the boundaries of European and parliamentary constituencies should be coterminous, except that I understand that the 1978

345
Bill provided that the constituencies used for the first election could be used at the next election, a long as the provision was not superseded by Orders in Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said that the parliamentary constituencies are the blocks on which the European constituencies are built. If this Bill is approved, there will be instance where the proposed new parliamentary constituencies will have parts in more than one European constituency. Therefore there will be cases where the criteria laid down in the 1978 European Assembly Elections Act will be breached. In effect the Government are proposing that the Boundaries Commissions shall make the best of it so far as the European constituencies are concerned.
It would seem that the Government do not envisage any review of the present European constituencies in time for the next European elections. Thus the existing European constituencies may continue until the subsequent European elections in 1989, even though some of the boundaries will not be coterminous with those of the new parliamentary boundaries. Some of the electorates will show a disparity as well by that time. I must ask the noble Lord: why should the composition of European constituencies not have the same considerations of fairness and equity as we all say there should be for United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies?
When the 1978 European Assembly Elections Bill was before Parliament, there was widespread agreement that the first direct elections in Great Britain should be on single-member constituencies, with voting on the basis of first past the post. I must ask: has the Government's readiness to leave the European constituencies as they are, with any disparities there may be, anything to do with the fact that the Government may be envisaging changes in the European constituencies before the next European elections? If so, they must make a very clear statement on that.
On this side of the House, few of my noble friends wanted direct elections. We were content with the nominated delegations, which kept a close relationship between Parliament and those who were going to the European Assembly. But Parliament accepted direct elections with large constituencies and with voting on the basis of "first past the post". If the Government are envisaging any change in European elections, I think we must be told in good time so that the issue can be debated in this House.
In view of my previous work, I fully appreciate the work that has to be done by the parliamentary commissions: in fact I had the pleasure of meeting various commissions on various occasions. I understand their work and fully appreciate that the work of the commission for England was brought to a halt in consequence of legal proceedings taken by the Enfield London Borough Council arising from what they thought were wrongful procedures on the part of the Local Government Boundary Commission. Therefore, we ought to be able to see exactly how that was effected.
I understand that the English commission gave notice of its intention to start its review in 1976 and it stated that it would be able to report in 1979. I fully recognise, as I say, that the work of this commission was held up by these legal proceedings and I understand it was held up for some months; but that surely does not explain why we now have to wait until 1982
346
before getting the final reports of the Boundary Commission. That is a deferment of far more than just a few months because of the dislocation due to legal proceedings: it seems to be nearer a couple of years.
Does this mean that the English commission has already put on one side any consideration of any provisional review of European constituencies, even before the passing of this Act by Parliament? No one has suggested, I gather, that the 1984 date-line could not be reached, and the general election for the United Kingdom Parliament does not have to be until somewhere around May 1984—naturally we would like to see it as soon as we could have it, for obvious reasons, but it need not be—and the European elections about June 1984. The noble Lord has said quite definitely that if the procedure under the 1978 Bill has to be followed it could delay the final report to Parliament by some 12 months. That would still get it in time for a possible general election in 1984.
We regard the Bill as unsatisfactory on two grounds. First, it cannot possibly be said that what was generally agreed two years previously to be right and correct has now been found to be illogical and has to be put on one side. Secondly, it is highly desirable that the European constituencies should be considered as seriously by Parliament as we should want to consider the United Kingdom constituencies; but that does not seem to be the case. We should like to see the reviews conducted so that we can have revised constituencies for both the European constituencies and the United Kingdom Parliament. As I say, as the other place has agreed on the principle of the Bill we obviously shall not oppose it, but there are these important questions we should like the Government to answer.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his very clear explanation of the contents of this Bill. It is called the European Assembly Elections Bill, yet it is not intended to have an effect on the 1984 European parliamentary elections. But it would make it easier for the Conservatives to win the next election for the Westminster Parliament. The Bill detaches the review of European constituencies, as the noble Lord explained, so that the Boundary Commissions can conclude their Westminster reviews and present them separately.
The Government want the next Westminster elections to be fought on the new boundaries, which it is generally reckoned will give them around 15 to 20 seats on past patterns of voting; and they want to be able to hold a general election on a date which suits them, probably in the last 15 months of this Parliament. One can well understand that they would not be unhappy to see the boundary changes for Westminster completed early. If this Parliament goes its full term—and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has underlined this—the new Westminster boundaries will be in force under the existing legislation and the discrepancies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred, will have been removed.
The advantage which this Bill gives the Government is early dissolution on new boundaries. The ability

347
to seek a dissolution of Parliament at any time, gives very great tactical advantage to the Prime Minister, whose power is thus considerably increased. My party are of the opinion that it is unhealthy for the Prime Minister to have such power, and that is one of the reasons why we have been in favour of fixed-term Parliaments. It is bound to be extremely inconvenient to have European and Westminster constituencies out of phase—and, again, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised that point—and it must cause problems for electoral registration officers, party organisations and candidates.
Under the change proposed in the Bill, it appears that the European review need not be completed in time for 1984, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can give us an assurance on this point when he comes to reply. I am sure he agrees that it would be absurd to have Members of the European Parliament having to work in the late 1980s to boundaries that were last used nationally in 1979 and based on pre-1974 local government boundaries. This Bill, by keeping alive a procedure for new single-Member Euro-constituencies seems to assume that the present electoral system will continue, and on that point I put a different interpretation from that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
We on these Benches object to a European Assembly Elections Bill at this time, which completely ignores the commitment entered into by all the member countries that the next elections to the European Assembly should be by a uniform system throughout the Community. The single-Member Euro-constituency was a temporary expedient. In 1977, the Conservative Party accepted that there would be a uniform system for the second time round. Further, Mr. Douglas Hurd, now Minister of State at the Foreign Office, appeared to assume that the uniform system would be proportional, because he argued against the regional list system of proportional representation—which was put forward by the Labour Government—for the first round, because he said that we would simply have to change again to another proportional system, which might well be different, the second time round.
So the first-past-the-post system was kept for the first round, and we all know the appallingly unrepresentative result to which that gave rise, as many of us said, again and again, that it would. The Conservative Party got 77 per cent. of the seats, but only 50 per cent. of the votes; the Labour Party got 22 per cent. of the seats and 33 per cent. of the votes, while the Liberal Party got no seats, but 13 per cent. of the votes. Mr. Brittan, the Minister of State at the Home Office, speaking for the Government in another place on 3rd December 1980 said:
"We are in favour of a uniform system".—[Official Report, Commons; col. 534.]
and I welcome that, as far as it goes. It is, of course, for the European Parliament to put proposals for a uniform system to the Council of Ministers. If one of the recommendations is that the uniform system shall be proportional, will the Government accept that?
348
Are they prepared to accept the principle of a proportional system for Europe?
I very much hope, having seen the distorted representation which the United Kingdom secured in the European Parliament in 1979, that the Government will not be content with a purely passive role in this matter, but will actively seek to promote a uniform system on a proportional basis. Would it not be right to make clear in this Bill that, in so far as the provisions in this Bill affect the review of constituencies in the European Parliament, these provisions shall be in force only up to the introduction of a uniform system, when new procedures will be required? We on these Benches do not like this Bill, because we see it as conferring a tactical advantage upon the present Government, because we think it would cause problems for all concerned with European elections and because we consider that it appears to assume the continuation of a discredited electoral system.
Viscount Barrington: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, answers, I do not know whether it is worthwhile putting it on record, as the subject of proportional representation has been raised, that the number of Members on the Conservative side, the number of Members on the Labour side and the number on the Liberal side are exactly equal at the moment. That is a rare occasion.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill, even though not giving it a welcome from both Benches which have been represented in this debate. None the less, it has been a interesting debate, and the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, has added to our debate as well.
When I introduced the Second Reading, I ventured to say that this is a short and straight forward Bill. It seeks to relieve the Boundary Commissions of the duty which was laid upon them by the 1978 European Assembly Elections Act, of having to review the boundaries in both European constituencies and Westminster constituencies simultaneously. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me why it was that the Government had decided now that the Bill was necessary, and not at some previous date. One of the reasons why the Bill brings forward its provisions now is that the requirements of the 1978 Act place a burden upon the Boundary Commissions, which it is fair to say was not foreseen. If I may illustrate what I mean by that, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England gave statutory notice of its intention to review constituencies in England before the 1978 Act was ever introduced. Thus the time scale which that particular Boundary Commission had allowed to enable its review to be completed, within the 15-year maximum time limit, had been calculated before it was realised that the 1978 Act would place an additional duty upon the Boundary Commissions to review simultaneously the European constituency boundaries. The noble Lord also asked me when it had become clear to the Government that we ought to uncouple the two sets of reviews.
I think it follows on from what I have just said that this became increasingly clear, certainly since the

349
present Government came into office. Indeed, I said during my initial remarks that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had communicated with the deputy chairman of the English commission to ask at one time whether what was being proposed in this Bill would be welcome to the Members of this commission and received a reply in the affirmative.
However, as time went on over the last 18 months what became increasingly clear was that a period of time has to elapse after the Commissions have completed their work. After they have completed their work, first the Secretary of State has to consider the commissions' reports; then the relevant Secretaries of State have to lay the necessary orders; then Parliament has to decide upon those orders. If those orders are approved by Parliament—nobody will understand this better than the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, with his very long experience of administration in politics—new constituency organisations will then have to be formed, with all the work which goes into that. The need to see that these procedures are carried out fairly—I say that because they are procedures which affect all political parties—is accentuated by the gross disparities which have become evident between constituencies. I shall not repeat what I said on this in my opening remarks.
Both noble Lords who have spoken from the respective Front Benches suggested that in order to rectify these discrepancies and in order to apply the rules for the redistribution of seats, which are set out in Schedule 2 to the 1949 Act, some advantage will accrue to the Conservative Party. Only the voters can answer that particular allegation. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, as I know from the speeches which I hear the noble Lord make in Parliament, is as firmly a supporter as anyone of the principles and practice of parliamentary democracy. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that anybody who believes in parliamentary democracy would not wish to see the next general election contested on the present boundaries.
But the Bill has a further and very different advantage to which I referred initially and to which, very briefly, I will refer again because it arises from a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, put to me. When the 1978 Act was going through Parliament, Schedule 2, which required the reviews to be conducted simultaneously for both the Westminster Parliament and the European constituencies, was not debated at all in the other place because it was guillotined. Indeed, in your Lordships' House amendments were not made because time was very pressing. It is arguable that time was pressing because of the policies and steps which had been followed by the Government of the time. In his speech the noble Lord said to me: Why, when the Bill came before another place, did not my right honourable friend, the present Home Secretary, then oppose Schedule 2? I think I have given the answer. There simply was no possibility of doing so because the matter did not arise in Committee in another place; it was guillotined.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, that may be acceptable, but it was not criticised or opposed by the noble Lord's right honourable friend during the Second Reading debate.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is a perfectly fair point, but it is also fair for me to say that I think I am right in saying that my right honourable friend at no stage said that he thought it was a good idea. The reason why neither my right honourable friend nor, indeed, anybody else at that time could see very much further than that was because it was only later, when events began to unfold, that we began to realise the effects which the 1978 Act was having upon the work of the boundary commissions.
No real thought at that time therefore was given to the problem with which this Bill is designed to deal. The probability is that the requirement for simultaneous reviews would make it necessary for the boundary commissions to make premature disclosure of final recommendations for parliamentary boundaries if they are to be able to have the time to bring forward recommendations for European constituencies, which have then to be submitted to the Secretaries of State simultaneously with the Westminster constituencies. But when the simultaneous recommendations came to be made, as they would have to be made as the law stands at the moment, if Parliament were to reject any of the recommendations for the parliamentary constituencies and those recommendations therefore had to be modified, that in turn—I know I am repeating a point which I have already made—would throw into confusion the recommendations for European constituencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, chided the Government for not taking the drawing of the European constituencies with the same seriousness as the drawing of the parliamentary constituencies. With respect, I think that is a little less than fair. The danger to which I have just referred and, indeed, the previous danger to which I have referred—which is hurrying the commission's work on and making them put in premature recommendations—will be averted by the Bill. That is why I think that the two processes of review should be separate. And they will be if the Bill becomes law.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the period of time when the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies will be redrawn but the boundaries of the European constituencies will not be redrawn. Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act provides for precisely this. It provides that the existing boundaries can be used until new European Parliament boundaries are determined, even though the parliamentary constituencies have been changed. I am not suggesting for one moment that this is going to be a desirable situation, but I believe that the period of time when the European boundaries have not been changed in line with the Westminster boundaries is going to be comparatively short.
The noble Lord asked me, in essence, whether the European Assembly constituencies review is going to be completed in time for the 1984 elections. May I simply repeat the remark which was made by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place on the Third Reading of the Bill that I have no advice to the contrary.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me for an assurance that the European Assembly constituency boundaries would not still be being redrawn in the late 1980s. I can answer that question simply by

351
asking the noble Lord to glance at the Bill, where we find the words:
"… that the work of reviewing the European boundaries shall be proceeded with as soon as may be after the Parliamentary Boundaries Order is approved by Parliament".
As I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the period which the review of the European boundaries will occupy should not be overlong. I am advised that it will probably be in the region of, roughly, 15 to 20 months. I say that without any prejudice to the work which the commissions are doing, which is a matter for them. However, I understand that the bulk of the preparatory work for the European constituencies can be set in hand as soon as the commissions' reports on the parliamentary constituencies are ready.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me this: if the proportional representation system recommendation were to be made by the European Parliament, would it be accepted by Her Majesty's Government? The United Kingdom Government await any proposals which the European Parliament might put to the Council of Ministers on the matter and in considering such proposals we shall consult opinion in Parliament and in the country. If any change in our arrangements for electing representatives to the European Parliament seems appropriate, substantive primary legislation will of course be required.
This Bill is not designed to be a general measure of electoral reform. It is short and it is simple. By returning to the system which existed before the 1978 Act, this Bill will enable the Boundary Commissions to complete their work, which should be welcomed by all who believe in the fairness of parliamentary representation.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 7.49 until 8 p.m.]

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 26.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 405A:
Page 25, line 2, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments 406 to 408 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 409:
Page 25, line 13, at end insert ("for each hectare or part hectare affected by the operation.").
The noble Baroness said: This is an effort to make the fines for this offence more sensible. As it stands, the statutory maximum is £1,000. We wish to ensure that if an offence has been committed there shall be a
352
fine of up to the maximum for each hectare or part hectare affected by the operation. If this amendment is not carried, it will mean that committing an offence will really be worth while. I should like to say also, as we had some difficulties about fines the other day, that if the maximum of £1,000 is imposed for each hectare it is not necessary to impose the maximum fine. The circumstances can be taken into consideration. With that explanation of this simple but, in my opinion, important amendment, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I certainly take the point made by the noble Baroness on this issue. I think it would be difficult to tie the penalities for the offence to the area involved, as is suggested—
Baroness David: If I may interrupt for a moment, we have had it established that it could be for each egg.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Baroness is obviously basing the argument on the principle of each egg, as in an earlier case. Quite honestly, where there is power to proceed by way of indictment with a view to seeking the penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or an unlimited fine, I think that is serious enough.
Lord Melchett: But do we not all agree on both sides of the Committee that this is not an offence for which it would be suitable to send people to prison. The noble Earl is quite right, if the financial penalty is left at the level it is in the Bill, inevitably for an offence which involves more than one hectare, where the financial gain will be well over £1,000 the prosecuting authorities will have to proceed on indictment in an attempt to get a prison sentence, which is what none of us wants.
The Earl of Avon: I hope the noble Lord did hear me say "not exceeding two years or an unlimited fine". The position, as I think the noble Lord is well aware, is that I am trying to get clear what will actually happen with regard to imprisonment; and if we can get agreement that imprisonment is not the right answer, then we should take into account the fact that a fine could be increased.
Baroness David: I think that is quite a satisfactory answer, so we shall wait to see what amendments the Government table at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.5 p.m.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 410:
Page 25, line 14, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 15 and insert ("a fine").
The noble Earl said: At last we get round to imprisonment. We have discussed it a number of times, but this is the first time we have actually had an amendment on it. The purpose is to remove altogether from this clause the penalty of imprisonment, so the penalty would then be a maximum of £1,000 on summary conviction and an unlimited fine following conviction on indictment.
I feel very strongly that a fine is the appropriate punishment on this clause, and I feel even more strongly

353
that imprisonment is inappropriate for this sort of offence. It is not an offence against any person; public order is not involved nor the sanctity of possessions. Indeed there is practically no offence that I can think of which carries a penalty of imprisonment which is anything like this at all. I very much doubt whether Parliament ought to be creating even more imprisonable offences, particularly when magistrates and judges are being exhorted by the Lord Chief Justice to be more sparing in imposing sentences of imprisonment.
Until a short time ago I had hoped that the Government would be able to accept this amendment immediately and as it stood. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon, who has kept me in touch and he said a few words about it earlier this evening. I am not quite sure what his problem is, but I know he has one and I believe he will find it difficult to give a precise answer tonight. Nevertheless, I commend this amendment to your Lordships and I look forward very much to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: It must go in the face of all that is being said at present about the sentencing of criminals to create another offence carrying imprisonment, having regard to the nature of the offence mentioned in the clause. I think both sides of the Committee are not saying that those who wilfully seek to destroy our heritage should not be hit hard. They should be, but I feel sure that a tine is more appropriate.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As I said earlier, I entirely agree with this amendment. I have spent a good many hours saying exactly the same thing in this House and I shall not say it again.
The Earl of Avon: I had not realised that this amendment was following so quickly on the one moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. My answer is basically the same. I am trying very hard to get rid of imprisonment. It is being considered at the moment by the various Government departments and as soon as I have a solution I shall come back to your Lordships.
Earl De La Warr: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has been able to tell us and I shall be happy to withdraw this amendment, but in all fairness to the noble Earl I cannot do so without warning him in—if it is not too impertinent—what I might describe as the sternest terms, that it is my intention to get the word "imprisonment" right out of Clause 26, and unless that happens I shall have no hesitation in dividing the House at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 411:
Page 25, line 15, at end insert—
(" (c) on conviction to be ordered by the court to reinstate the land covered by the order and damaged by the operation by any means that the court may direct so as to return the land to the state that it was in before the operation was carried out, or that approximates as closely as possible to the state of the land before the operation was carried out.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would give the court the power (to put it briefly) to reinstate the land which was covered by the order which had been put on it by the Secretary of State, so that the person who had damaged the land illegally would be required to restore the land to the state that it was in before the operation was carried out, or as near to that as possible. The intention of this amendment is to give the courts power to impose this penalty should it be appropriate.
It seems to me that, of all the various penalities we have discussed, fine, imprisonment and so on, this is likely to be the best deterrent to somebody breaking the law under Clause 26. To take the example of a forester, rather than a farmer; some people may think we have had it in for farmers today. Somebody plants conifers on an area of moor which is covered by an order and therefore breaks the law. The court could ask them to take up those conifers, and, probably, if the trees had not grown very much and a lot of fertiliser had not been applied, the moor would very quickly revert to the state it was in before the planting was carried out; and also, of course, depending on the extent to which drainage operations had been carried out before the planting took place.
It would be possible to conceive of a number of situations in which reinstatement would be a realistic possibility. That, it seems to me, would be by far the most useful thing the court could do, which would most nearly meet the intention of putting the order on the land in the first place; namely, to preserve it for future generations in the state that it is in at the moment. I hope, on that basis, this amendment will commend itself to the Committee, bearing in mind the magistrates, or the county court judge, or whoever would be in a position to decide whether or not this was a realistic penalty to impose. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The idea is attractive. But, although the noble Lord was quite convincing, I think in conservation terms this may be a little unrealistic. I have sympathy with the amendment. I think it is designed, as the noble Lord said, to bring home to potential offenders the seriousness with which the Committee would view their transgressions. I am hopeful that we have provided sufficient deterrent in the penalties contained in the clause. I am still doubtful of the practicality that the land can be reinstated, although the noble Lord said it would be at the judge's discretion, to one which approximates to that state in which it was before the operation was carried out. Therefore, it is really on pragmatic grounds that I would ask the Committee to reject this amendment. Having so said, and without giving any undertaking, I should like to bear this in mind if we do change the penalties generally, as something which could be brought up with the legal people. I do not think I could give any better undertaking than that at this stage.
Lord Burton: May I just ask this. If it is to be the case that it should be mandatory, as it appears to be in the amendment, there was a case recently where a farmer who was very conservation-minded and consulted everyone, planning authorities, the NCC, planted up 300 acres in what appeard to be a very

355
desirable planting, and then after the work was done it was found that it was an SSSI. It was probably one of those many we have heard about; the 10 per cent. which have now been done away with. It was done entirely involuntarily. If this were to become mandatory, as the amendment appears to suggest, I think it would be very hard on this individual.
Baroness White: This surely could be a matter of phrasing, so that it was not mandatory, but open to the court. After all, if you are taking imprisonment out, which I am all in favour of—I think we are unanimous in that, and the Government must find a way of meeting it—you are left with monetary penalities only. That depends very much on the circumstances of the person concerned; it may be a genuine penality, or it may be something for which he does not care two hoots. But if he feels that it is possible that he may be obliged to waste all the work that he has done, surely this is making the penalty fit the crime. I would have supposed that psychologically, apart from monetarily, this could have quite a strong effect. I think most farmers would think twice before putting themselves in the situation where they risked, if it were contrary to the appropriate regulations, looking foolish, among other things. The farming community is a fairly closed community, and if a chap has done something and then has to go and grub it all up, he will not feel all that pleased when he goes to the Bull and Bear on the Saturday, because people will be pulling his leg about it. I am not being entirely frivolous. This question of the esteem of your peers is strong in most circles of society. I would have thought that was one reason among others why, at any rate, the idea contained in this amendment is a very sound one.
Lord Hunt: I should like to support this amendment if only because this is very much in line with what one might call progressive penal policy or thinking, to make appropriate reparations in the context of what has been done or misdone. I think it would be very right that this amendment should find its place in the Bill.
Lord Foot: Perhaps I may speak for one moment, to deal with this suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite, that you could have a case in which the offence had been committed involuntarily by somebody who did not properly understand the situation. There are, I suggest, two answers to that. One is that if one looks at the provisions of this clause, one sees very clearly that the owner or occupier of land will know perfectly well whether the Secretary of State has in fact designated his land as land which is of particular value for flora and fauna and the rest, and thereafter if he wants to undertake an operation, of course, he has to put in his application. Then his application is considered by the planning authority or by the Minister. So there is not the slightest chance that he could afforest a stretch of land without knowing what he was doing. Further than that, if you did have a case in which the defendant could show in subsequent proceedings that he had been genuinely mistaken, that would obviously be a circumstance which the court would consider in deciding whether to impose the additional penalty of having to restore the land. So I would
356
suggest the objections the noble Lord raises are not really of much virtue.
I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, that we have in recent years very much extended the capacity of the courts to impose appropriate penalties; and in particular, of course, we have developed a very large body of law dealing with matters of recompense and compensation to victims and so on. In this case, the victim is the public; the victims are the animals or the flora in this particular habitat. It would surely be very appropriate to require that the person who commits the offence should restore the situation so far as that could be done. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, it would be entirely within the hands of the court to decide whether they thought it fit that, in all the circumstances, this was the appropriate penalty. It may be that the court could also be allowed, if they thought it was not manageable to restore the land, to order the defendant to pay some additional penalty by way of compensation to the state for the injury which he had done.
The Earl of Avon: As I said right at the beginning, the Government are quite attracted to this, and bearing in mind what noble Lords and the noble Baroness have said, of course, we will have a look at it and see how we can package it up, if at all, with the other parts.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that. I dare say it is not drafted correctly. I did not intend it to be mandatory. I quite take Lord Burton's point. I do think it is practical in more cases than one might initially think. Perhaps I could give two examples which the Government might care to consider. There was a case where a landowner, who was about to be served with a tree preservation order on a woodland, sent in the bulldozer to smash down the trees before the tree preservation order could arrive, and succeeded in doing so. The wood was reduced to a series of stumps a few feet high. It was not even properly felled or anything like that. There was an attempt to destroy it before it could be preserved. In that case the Secretary of State confirmed the tree preservation order because it was felt that the woodland that was left, the flora and many of the animals, insects and other things that were left, even though all the trees were reduced to stumps, were worth preserving and that the woodland would itself naturally regenerate. It may be that it would take 100 years to do so, but it was still worth saving. That is a case where some sort of reinstatement might be a suitable penalty.
Also, the RSPB has experience of creating or reinstating wetlands throughout the country with enormous success in a number of areas. Minsmere is the most famous example, but there are many others. I should have thought that there are cases where this might be suitable. The Government have agreed to look at it and for that I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett: moved Amendment No. 412:
Page 25, line 25, at end insert (" and only if no possible means of meeting the emergency without damaging the land to which subsection (2) applies was available.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 412. This is a matter which we have to some extent touched on in Part I when we were dealing with what I think we described occasionally, by shorthand, as the "agricultural let-out clause" to the protection of birds and the part of the Bill dealing with the protection of animals. This is a similar paragraph, although it makes quite clear that what we are talking about is an emergency. We hope it might be possible to amend Part I so that this paragraph and the paragraphs in that part of the Bill have a similar wording; in other words, where it is necessary to take action in an emergency one could do so.
I wanted to be sure that action would only be taken to destroy a site—and we remind ourselves that we are talking of one of the top 40 or 50 in the country on which the Secretary of State has placed an order—in an emergency if there was no other way of dealing with that emergency. It may be that the wording of the paragraph already meets that point, in which case I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment; or it may be that the Government could find a slightly less clumsy way of meeting my point, in which case I would also be very pleased. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The effect of subsection (7) as drafted is to allow emergency operations to be carried out on land designated by the Secretary of State under Clause 26 otherwise than in compliance with the ordinary requirements of the clause. In emergency situations it would be unreasonable to expect compliance to be in accordance with the ordinary requirements relating to written consent. However, the person carrying out the operation would be required to supply particulars of the operation—including details of the emergency—as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation. It might not be feasible to consider other possible means of meeting the emergency which would result in the land not being damaged—and this is what we are really looking for—and we would not wish to place obstacles in the path of people who are seeking to deal with a real emergency. I would hope that they would consider the effects of their actions on the features of scientific interest, but in these situations the objective must be to act quickly.
The Government were really thinking on the lines, perhaps, of a firebreak or something like that when there was a risk and where to cut down something might be enough to save the lot. As with our other emergency amendments, I think that probably this will not be used at all, but it is something that the Government feel that they should put into the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to pursue it?
Lord Melchett: I should like to ask the noble Earl a question because I too had in mind something like a fire. Let us say that a heath, which is subject to one of these orders, catches fire and there are some buildings at one end. It might be possible to set fire to a large part of the heath to form a firebreak to protect the buildings, or it might be possible simply to cut a small track or to pump some water from somewhere. I was hoping that the Bill would make clear, when it becomes an Act, that it was necessary to try to take any measures that one could which were reasonable—and we are all
358
governed by a reasonable excuse at the beginning—to meet the emergency, which did not involve destroying the site. One is really thinking in the unlikely event of there being two equally realistic and sensible steps to take—one which involved destroying the site and one which did not—that people would take the one that did not involve destroying the site. It occurs to me that quite a small change in the wording somewhere might meet the point, but I am not a good enough lawyer to know where it should be.
The Earl of Avon: I take the noble Lord's point. As we have it at the moment the person carrying out the operation would be required to supply particulars of the operation, including details of the emergency, as soon as practicable after commencement.
That is a deterrent in itself, but if he panics anyway, of course, he panics anyway. The effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord would be to make the owner-occupier guilty of an offence if he could not establish that there was no other possible means of meeting the emergency without damaging the land, which I think probably goes a little too far the other way. We have taken the other emergency clauses back to have a look at them, and I am quite happy to have a look at this one, if that is what the noble Lord wishes.
Lord Melchett: I take it that someone has to notify the NCC about what they have done and about the emergency. What would the NCC do if it got notification that there was a terrible emergency that was going to engulf my walking stick, so I burnt a firebreak three miles wide through the middle of this heathland in an emergency? What would the NCC do then? That is a gross exaggeration, but I am not quite clear how far the existing wording covers that situation. Perhaps the noble Earl could look at it, although I do not think that it is a big point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 413 not moved.]
8.26 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 414:
Page 25, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) An order under this section is a local land charge.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 414. This is the first of four amendments that I have put down with the object of ensuring that restrictions on the use of land arising from the Bill are recorded and registered. In view of the restrictions to be imposed by a Clause 26 order, it is desirable that when land, on which an order under the clause has been made, changes ownership, the prospective purchaser should be made aware of the order. If it were registered as a local land charge then it would be discovered during the formalities leading up to the completion of the sale. I think that earlier the noble Earl, Lord Avon, accepted this amendment in principle, and I know that it is also accepted on the other side of the Committee. Nevertheless, I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: First, I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, withdrew

359
Amendment No. 413 because in our discussions I thought that the Government said they were going to accept that amendment. Perhaps the noble Earl in the course of conversation as we move on could remind me whether I am right or wrong. I do not want to press it at this moment. It is extremely important because Amendment No. 376, which was accepted, applied to all SSSIs. When the noble Earl said that he would also agree with, I thought, Amendment No. 413, I assumed that that applied to all SSSIs. This is a very important point. If it does not, it ought to do so. As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, I agree with the point he is making, but think also that this should apply to all SSSIs. I am in a state of total confusion as to whether either of these do or do not.
Lord Craigton: Perhaps I may say a word. The noble Earl gave a very qualified acceptance to the amendment. As I understand it, he accepted the principle of an order being made a land charge, but not a notice under the new subsection that we had. It was a very qualified undertaking. That was as far as I felt we could go, and that was why I did not move the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should only like to say that I am sorry the noble Lord did not, because I should have liked to go further.
The Earl of Avon: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, got carried away quite a bit there because we undertook to table some amendments if my noble friend withdrew his.
I return to land charges. We are guided here by the Land Charges Act 1975. I hope that my assurance to my noble friends that orders under Clause 26 of the Bill would automatically constitute local land charges under the Land Charges Act 1975 will be sufficient to persuade them to withdraw their amendment. It is not the practice to make express provision for local land charges where the 1975 Act already covers them. That is in the case of orders made under Clause 26. With land charges, if any restriction is imposed, there is an automatic land charge. If there is a case where successors are included, that would make a land charge. To that extent land charges will be automatic.
The other point I made when I spoke earlier was that if there was a normal agreement between the NCC and a farmer which did not cover successors, land charges would not be involved because a successor was not involved. That is, as it were, the position of land charges under the Land Charges Act 1975.
Lord Melchett: I should like to ask a question because we had a rather muddled debate on this before dinner—at least, I was muddled by it, which was probably my fault. Does that mean that if Clause 26 of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, does not include provision for owners of SSSIs to notify the NCC automatically, which is something that the Government appeared to turn down earlier, then all SSSIs cannot be a local land charge; but if it did, they would? It seems to me that there is a great deal of advantage in all SSSIs being a local land charge. None of us wants landowners or
360
farmers suddenly to find that a bit of land which they have bought, a bit of land on which they have become a farming tenant, or whatever it may be, is an SSSI. I do not see, without this land charge provision applying to all SSSIs, how we can get over that problem, which I think, although we disagree on other things, is a point that all of us have in common—that everyone ought to know if a bit of land is an SSSI.
People who succeed either to a farming tenancy or to the ownership of the land, or whatever it may be, also ought to know that it is an SSSI. Bearing in mind the Government's state of mind—confused as it is at the moment—I do not think that we shall achieve that, which is something about which there is unanimity.
The Earl of Avon: The Government's state of mind is not confused at all. I am perfectly happy about these land charges. The obvious safeguard is the fact that we are now tabling these three amendments which will notify the owners of the property if it is an SSSI.
Lord Melchett: But that does not meet my point.
The Earl of Avon: I am sorry, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did not acknowledge that point in his argument so the situation is not as it was yesterday; it is as it is tomorrow. If the Bill, as drafted, goes through, there will be notification to the owners of SSSIs as to that for which they are responsible and as to what it is, which has not happened in the past, as a number of noble Lords mentioned.
Lord Melchett: I accept that, but, with respect to the noble Earl, that was not the point which I was making. Let us assume that the NCC sends out all these notices and that next week 45 SSSIs change hands; that not even the ownerships change but that the farming tenancies change; that new tenants take over; that somebody dies and his son takes it over. The NCC will not tell all those people; it will not re-issue the notices because it will not know what has happened.
The only way that we can get over the problem of a change of ownership, a change in the tenancy or whatever, is by having something like a local land charge which runs with the land. I think that that would be of great strength from all points of view concerning the problems that we have been discussing. Now that I have made myself clearer, perhaps the Government might undertake to have a look at that particular point, because I notice that there was a great deal of nodding going on behind the noble Earl as I was speaking.
Lord Middleton: My amendment deals specifically with orders under Clause 26, which is the slightly narrower point. I am satisfied with the assurance that my noble friend has given, that such restrictions are automatically land charges. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 26, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Melchett: In the absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, I should like to suggest to your

361
Lordships that, even if we do not do it this evening, when we come back on Report—unless we see some change—it would be better to omit Clause 26 from the Bill. I say this having considered very carefully what the Government have agreed to do so far. But it seems to me that we are running the risk of ending up with a provision which nature conservationists will feel is a great deal worse, if anything, than the existing position.
Noble Lords know how bad nature conservationists think the existing position is. In the last 12 months we have lost about 10 per cent. of SSSIs through either damage or destruction, which is a disastrous situation and absolutely appalling. But, as drafted by the Government, and bearing in mind what they have agreed to accept so far during the passage of the Bill, Clause 26 does virtually nothing to right that appalling situation. In fact, in some ways the clause is an even worse clause now that we have finished with it in Committee than it was when we started, because the Government pressed an amendment which slightly, in our view—and maybe significantly—restricted the extent to which orders under this clause could be used, by changing the grounds on which the Secretary of State could designate a piece of land as having an order applying to it.
We know perfectly well that the destruction of SSSIs is accelerating. We know perfectly well that the Government, given their financial policies, will not give the NCC massive injections of funds in order to allow it compulsorily to purchase sites which are threatened or which are being damaged. Under the clause allegedly the only thing which we have to protect SSSIs is a very small number on which owners will be required to tell the NCC if they damage the site; then there is a three-month waiting period and then the owner can go ahead and damage or destroy it whatever the NCC, the Government or anybody else says, unless the NCC issues a compulsory purchase order.
The clause does no more than that. The NCC already has powers compulsorily to purchase SSSIs; in other words, the clause does nothing except give us a three-month delay on a very small number of sites, restricted in national importance, restricted in all sorts of ways which the Government have tightened up during our discussions on the clause in Committee. Those notification procedures will inevitably be applied to things that will be called super SSSIs, which everyone will assume—as many people do now about all SSSIs—are protected. That will be a sham and pretence because they will not be protected. The NCC will not be able compulsorily to purchase them, even if it wants to, because it will not have the funds, and it has shown no inclination towards using its existing powers up to now.
That is what makes me say that the clause is probably worse than useless. This is the clause which the Government have introduced to meet a number of international obligations in order to ensure that they protect wildlife habitats. I do not believe that it will; it will probably make the situation worse. I hope that, when we come to the Report stage, if the Government have not substantially improved this clause, your Lordships will delete it and make the Government take other steps to meet their international obligations, because this Bill as it stands definitely does not.
Lord Craigton: Speaking for the conservation movement as a whole, I believe that this clause, as we now leave it, is more disappointing—and we had high hopes—than I could have believed possible when we started debating today. The noble Lord should remember that we not only have the Report stage and even the Third Reading to come in your Lordships' House, but that there is another place which feels as strongly as we do. So I would ask the Government, "Please, between now and the Report stage realise that we cannot all be wrong". Every conservation society in this country, whatever its angle, agrees with what we have put forward today. I hope that my noble friend Lord Avon will think it worth while to meet some of the points that are so genuinely held when we come to the Report stage.
Baroness White: As a member of CoEnCo, of which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is chairman, I should like briefly to echo what he and my noble friend have said. We had supposed that, on this clause at any rate, the Government might have realised the strength of feeling in the conservation movement in this country. I am just lost for words. Thank you for nothing. That is all that one can say. It is deeply disappointing. We recognise that there are problems about some of these matters, but we have had no substantive encouragements of any kind. I can only say that we are deeply depressed and disappointed.
Lord Chelwood: I strongly support all three points of view that have been put forward. I had a self-denying ordinance during this debate. There was a lot I should have liked to say on this clause, but the reason I did not say it was because it was all said for me, and better than I could have said it. I am disappointed at the attitude of the Government here. I still feel that all self-financed operations in all SSSIs that are potentially damaging should be subject to advance notice to the Nature Conservancy Council just as those that attract capital grants have been since last summer. The Government set the principle last summer in a comparatively small way, but they at least admitted that there was merit in it.
Even though I confess that that would not bring to an end the serious loss of habitats, which nobody has sought to deny, it would at least mean there was a greater opportunity of voluntary agreements, and perhaps capital payments for restraints which owners were prepared to accept and for which the NCC could afford to pay, leaving only as an absolutely last fallback position compulsory purchase. I do not believe that many noble Lords have any idea how many times the Nature Conservancy in the old days, and the Nature Conservancy Council now, has actually made any compulsory purchases. There is quite a lot of misunderstanding about this. The general impression is that it might have been dozens of times, or even hundreds of times. It has been done only twice since they have had those powers. In both cases it was because there was a serious doubt about who had the title deeds, and what they said. This is a last fallback position. All the time the attempt has been, and will in the future be, to reach voluntary agreements, and that has been the rule with only few exceptions.

363
I confess to serious disappointment at the Government's attitude. For the last 20 or 30 years since 1949 we have been passing legislation for nature conservation knowing all the time in our heart of hearts that the destruction of natural habitats would continue. That is what we run a risk of doing again now if Clause 26 is not amended along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Craigton. I confess to great disappointment, and I beg the Government to read this exceptionally interesting debate with great care to see whether they can come back at Report stage with something which can really do the job.
Lord Foot: May I add just three sentences in support of everything that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said? I do not want to add anything to the argument. I agree with him that this clause is a bad cosmetic operation and is likely to prove absolutely futile in conserving these valuable places. I hope that the noble Earl will be impressed by the fact that this expression of opinion comes from all sides of the House. This is not a party matter, but it is a matter of desperate concern and disappointment to practically every conservationist body in the country that the Government have not been able to produce anything more effective than this.
We shall, I hope tomorrow, not tonight, be coming on to Clause 33. I am sorry to note that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, although he is wanting to strike out a lot of clauses, has not included Clause 33, because that is as hopeless as the one we are discussing now. We shall have an opportunity of going into that matter tomorrow. I hope the noble Earl will be impressed by the fact that there is this wide bank of opinion which almost without qualification believes that this affords us no protection for these valuable places.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, has had to go to America. He cannot be here.
Lord Hunt: The noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that there was an expression of view from all sides of this Committee in terms that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has eloquently expressed. I should be failing in my duty if I did not get up to express my view from these Cross-Benches; a view which is totally in favour of everything that has been said in criticism of this clause in the Bill and the Government's attitude generally towards the SSSIs. It is a crucial matter. When Lord Craigton said that this was a view shared by all the conservationist bodies, I can speak with knowledge of all those conservationist bodies in membership with the Council for National Parks.
Lord Monk Bretton: Before too many noble Lords condemn this clause altogether, I think there is something to be said for it. So far as the ordinary SSSIs are concerned—that is, those that are not subject to Clause 26—we now have the position that the owner is going to know what the NCC wishes should be preserved and what the NCC think will damage the site. That is a great improvement. If the owner of such a site proposes to do anything that would damage it, he really has two alternatives, as I see it. The
364
first is his sensible alternative, which is to go to the NCC and ask for a management agreement. The second and unwise alternative is just to get on with doing the damage without consulting the NCC, by which means he will forfeit any right to a management agreement anyway. I should have thought that that would be a powerful inducement to these people to do the right thing. I hope this is a correct interpretation of the Bill at this stage. I believe it is. That was a feeling I felt ought to be put forward.
Lord Melchett: Can the noble Lord explain to us why, once somebody has, say, ploughed up a piece of chalk grass downland and turned it over to wheat, he would want to have a management agreement with the NCC? This would seem to be the implication of his remarks.
Lord Monk Bretton: The noble Lord must realise that the owner and the occupier would perhaps forfeit a drainage grant. There must be advantages in seeking a management agreement, provided reasonable terms are offered and provided the NCC—which one hopes does have a little money—would come forward with it.
Lord Melchett: But that is exactly the position at the moment and we lost 10 per cent. of the SSSIs in this country last year, and in some counties over 30 per cent were damaged or destroyed. People already have to give notice if they are going to damage or destroy an SSSI and want to have a capital grant to do so. The Bill makes things worse, not better.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord is misinterpreting it. First, you are not likely to want to grow wheat in an SSSI. You are much more likely to be doing something marginal, and the management agreement would help you. The other point is over damage to these sites. The majority of sites have not been damaged, and that is the point that the noble Lord misses.
8.48 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I have written down such remarks as "Thank you for nothing", and "Worse than useless". It really is ridiculous. Here we have a piece of legislation aimed at conserving, and aimed at conserving sites of special interest. People are going too far in the wrong direction over this. We have had a great deal of talk from the conservationists today. May I remind everybody that this Bill was not drafted by a pen in 20 minutes. There was a lot of prior consultation. The aim of this Bill is to conserve and to get a balance of conservation among all the people who use the country.
It is self-evident that ultimately conservation of wildlife is impossible unless measures are taken to protect the habitats which support it, and this is what Clause 26 does. Under present legislation the only means available to the Government to ensure that the habitat is protected is by acquisition of the land, usually through the NCC. Even here we have no power to prevent the destruction of a wildlife habitat before the purchase is complete. In view of our history of wildlife legislation, this is a somewhat surprising situation.

365
To remedy this, the Government have sought modest powers to ensure the protection of certain very important habitats. This is vital not only to keep our heritage but to honour our international obligations. Some noble Lords have shown a wish for the Government to go further, and I have indicated that we shall be tabling some amendments in respect of certain suggestions that have been made. Nevertheless, I must reiterate that the Government have no desire to move extensively into the sphere of land ownership or unnecessarily to extend bureaucracy or to place unreasonable burdens on landowners. All must agree that the enabling powers are vital, and accordingly I hope the Committee will agree to Clause 26 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: I must take issue with the noble Earl when he tells the Committee that there has been a lot of consultation. What has happened is that the department sought advice from many bodies—the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and various voluntary bodies—received advice and then took no notice of it, which is precisely why there are so many amendments on the Marshalled List. If the noble Earl calls that consultation, I cannot go far with him in that direction.
Lord Melchett: I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said. In particular the Minister omitted to tell us that the Nature Conservancy Council's scienctific advisers are not happy with the Government's proposals in Clause 26 and do not believe they go far enough. Nor can I accept from the noble Earl that the clause provides measures which will protect habitats. It does not. The only way to protect a bit of land under this clause if the landowner or farmer is determined to destroy it is through compulsory purchase, and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has already told us how likely the NCC are, on past experience, to be able or to want to use that power. That means that the clause does not provide any protection for habitats, and that is why many of us think it is a sham. However, we hope the Government and noble Lords in all parts of the Committee who are concerned about this will draft amendments between now and Report which will substantially improve the clause. If we cannot do that, then at that stage the honest thing will be to leave it out.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Compensation where order is made under Section 26]:
[Amendment No. 415 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 415A:
Page 25, line 29, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Earl said: This is consequential on an earlier amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments. Nos. 416 to 420 not moved.]
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 421:
Page 25, line 40, leave out ("or").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is linked
366
with No. 425, but unfortunately No. 425 has been left out by the printer; as the Committee can see, there are Amendments Nos. 424 and 426, and in the middle should be an amendment numbered 425 in the names of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and myself. In moving No. 421, I shall therefore speak to No. 425, No. 421 being purely a drafting amendment.
This is concerned with the fact, as we know, that land which has been earmarked for some purpose or in any way altered so that it can no longer be saleable or saleable at its real value is a great handicap to those who wish to sell. It is obvious that there is no absolute right to compensation in the event of a reduction in the value of land, but I feel there should be some compensation if the legislation reduces the value of land very much.
It would be unfair if a person had just bought some land and found it was suddenly designated as an SSSI and he was therefore unable to use it as he intended or as he had found it, and obviously he could not sell it either because it would be worth much less than its market value, or indeed it might have no saleable value at all if it were so designated. We believe it would be only fair under those circustances that the value of the land should be recognised as having gone down and that there should be some possibility of compensation if and when the land had to be put on the market.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrerd: I support what my noble friend said on this issue. It is true that there can not be no absolute right to compensation, as my noble friend pointed out, but there should be certain circumstances where some compensation is payable, otherwise it would be most unfair. A man might find soon after buying some land that it has been designated an SSSI, and he might then find he cannot sell it. Indeed, he might have bought it with the object of selling it. Even if he could sell it only at a reduced price, it would be unfair if there were no possibility of compensation. I have sympathy with many of the remarks made by noble Lords in debating Clause 26 stand part. I suggest that if SSSIs are to be designated and if these provisions are to be operated peaceably, adequate compenation must be available for farmers who, say, cannot cultivate their land as they wish and for owners who find they cannot sell. We must remember that today more than in any other age land is changing hands much faster than in the past. There should be compensation.
Lord Craigton: I support the amendment, unless its purpose is already covered by an amendment standing in my name.
The Earl of Avon: I find it difficult to believe that any order under Clause 26 would make land unsaleable, as is implied by the terms of the amendment. Neither are the Government convinced that an order is likely to result in any appreciable reduction in the value of an interest in land when one weighs the advantages of designated land. In this respect, as I have said previously, we consider that the right to compensation for loss or damage arising from enforced delay in being able to carry out a specified operation after the service of an operations notice constitutes a valuable right, and that is what my noble friend Lord Craigton rightly mentioned.

367
Perhaps I can put it this way: The farmer will, in appropriate cases, be able to get the value of a crop without the work and risks involved in preparing the ground, sowing the crop and waiting hopefully for it to mature. This seems to me to be a substantial advantage, particularly if one adds to it the prospect of relief from capital transfer tax which the Treasury have indicated will be available.
There are in addition special problems in connection with the amendment. First, the basis of compensation is not actually stated, as it is in the case of existing paragraphs (a) and (b), and presumably paragraph (c) should result in compensation amounting to the difference in value, while in the case of paragraph (d) it would be the whole value of the land. However I think the real point is that it is impossible to envisage paying for the whole value of the land, except in return for the transfer of all interests in the land, and that is not provided for. I hope that with that explanation of what is already provided for, the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Has the noble Earl considered the following point? If there are these lovely tax reliefs on SSISs, they will probably be worth rather more, because there will be a market in SSSIs for capital transfer relief on deathbed schemes. Has the noble Earl taken that point on board?
The Earl of Avon: Personally, I have not.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I listened with great interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, had to say, but I am not very happy about it. In the farming world if the land has been designated and cannot be used for what it could normally be used for, it must lose its value; I cannot see how it can do anything else. I think it unfair that there should be no possibility of any compensation. In view of the noble Earl's explanation, I shall not press the amendment, but I do not like the answer very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 422 and 423 not moved.]
9.3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 424:
Page 25, leave out lines 43 to 45.
The noble Earl said: It seems to me odd that the Government have included the words which this amendment seeks to delete, which preclude an affected person from seeking compensation for the loss of value of his land. I should be grateful if the Government would explain in a little more detail why they have specifically made this exclusion. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I think that we might already have covered this point to a certain degree. The amendment seeks to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of a reduction in the value of an interest in land resulting from the making of an order under this clause. If the effect of making an order is in itself such as to cause a reduction in the value of land, we consider that any such reduction
368
will be more than offset by the possibility of obtaining compensation following the service of an operation notice, and by the prospect of relief from capital transfer tax.
The compensation which will be obtainable for loss or damage arising from enforced delay in being able to carry out a specified operation will, I submit, constitute a valuable right which, as I said in regard to the earlier amendment, will enable a farmer to reap the value of his crop without the work and risk involved in preparing the ground—sowing the crop. I hope that I have understood the noble Earl correctly and that my explanation will help.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that there is a parallel provision in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act under which anyone who thought that there was possible development on his land could claim compensation in connection with having to apply for planning consent where there was a possibility of refusal. There is always the possibility that land that becomes a SSSI is not farmland. For one reason or another, an area of derelict industrial land might become inhabited by some interesting species. If that land were declared a SSSI, and so could not be developed industrially, there could be a very considerable loss to the owner.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Why in this debate can we not hear a little more about the doctrine of the public good? We are now having an assortment of speeches from noble Lords opposite—all out of Burke's landed gentry. I consider that this pursuit of compensation, in all kinds of circumstances, for all kinds of reasons, is becoming a little obtrusive. After all, many sacrifices have to be made by people for the common good, and any proposal that is reasonable should be shouldered by citizens of different ranks, in different places, in order to contribute something to the national good. I am not a nationaliser by disposition, and I am not sure that I am a nationaliser by politics, either, but I think it was a mistake not to have nationalised the lot after the last war. I also feel that it was a serious mistake to repeal those sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 that dealt with development value—and so far as I recall that was done by a Conservative Government.
There is one thing in life which one should not exploit too freely; that is the ownership of land. After all, where did the land come from? How did many noble Lords opposite come to possess the land that they possess? I do not think that the question of source of ownership would bear very close examination in very many cases. I have heard in this connection concerning the offspring of Nell Gwyn, but I do not want to pursue that point because I am not informed as to the facts.
However, seriously speaking, it would be nice to hear a little more about what noble Lords are prepared to contribute to the safeguarding of our inheritance and to the perservation of our wildlife and the beauty of Britain. Heaven alone knows! it is being destroyed at an alarming rate at the present time.
The Earl of Avon: I should like to welcome back the noble Lord who has not been here all day, nor was he

369
present at the previous sitting of the Committee, and we have been missing his charming voice. May I say to him very briefly that whereas many noble Lords seated behind me are conservationists—and we have heard points from all around the Chamber—I believe that some noble Lords opposite also own some land.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to add a few words, since this amendment is exactly the same as the one to which I referred a few moments ago. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that those of us who do have land are desperately anxious to conserve it, to share it with as many people as possible and to do everything we can to improve it agriculturally and in other ways; and that some of us think that some of the things done in the name of conservation, or what-have-you, do not always improve the land. On the other hand, I would say that I am, on the whole, prepared to defend the farming population and the farming industry as being anxious to preserve the land and to do the very best with it—much more, for instance, than the people who, outside towns, use it for building houses, planning purposes and all that sort of thing, which does away with it.
So I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that so far as I am concerned I feel very keenly and very strongly about the preservation of land and the fact that it should be used for the best possible purposes. It may be that some SSSI uses are the best possible purposes, but we have heard a good deal from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, which impressed me very much, to the effect that sometimes they are not always in the best interests of land. Therefore, I think it is only fair that some of us should say quite honestly what we feel about these things; and I am being perfectly honest with your Lordships because I feel very strongly that I want the land to be put to its best possible use and shared with as many people as possible.
Baroness White: I am sure the noble Baroness would agree with me that if she were living in one of those charming border towns near her home—there must be conservation areas there; I think they have them in Scotland, too, do they not?—and if one was in a conservation area, it would be very similar to having an SSSI on one's land. In other words, there is something there which is of public value, as my noble friend said; and, of course, if you are so fortunate as to be in a conservation area in an urban setting, you are there because there is something distinctive about that area. But you are under various constraints as to what you may do with your property. Surely it is very similar if you have an SSSI on your land; you are under certain constraints. But you are under certain constraints for a reason—because that particular area of land is important for nature conservation. You get some tax advantage, which I do not myself understand, but I am sure it is significant, and surely the person in that situation can turn it into an asset. You can describe all the beauties of the estate and then say, "And we have even got an SSSI!". This is the attitude we should adopt.
Viscount Thurso: I think it is a misconception to think that we can turn it into an asset, because my experience of SSSIs is that once they have been
370
declared nobody wants anybody to set foot on them in case they get destroyed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think the noble Viscount's experience of SSSIs is worse than that of other people.
The Earl of Caithness: I will read with interest the comments made by everybody who has taken part in this debate, on this amendment and on the previous one, and perhaps we can come back to it at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 425 not moved.]
9.11 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 426:
Page 25, line 45, at end insert (", or in respect of any potential loss of revenue from any activity not carried out on such land in the previous twenty years and that is prevented by the making of the order.").
The noble Lord said: Every time I look at this amendment I find difficulty in understanding it, so I hope I shall be able to get it straight in attempting to explain it to your Lordships' Committee. The aim of it, at least, is that somebody should not benefit from a potential loss of revenue which would arise from an activity on the land in question but which was an activity that they had not actually carried out on that land during the previous 20 years. What I have in mind is that if land had been grassland and had been used for grazing sheep, say, on it for the last 20 years, somebody should not be able to say, "If I planted wheat on it, the revenue from it would be so many hundred pounds an acre rather than the £100 I am getting from sheep, and therefore I ought to be compensated at the rate of the loss of revenue if it was arable rather than if it was grassland". I do not know whether that is already covered in the codes of compensation which would apply under the Bill. It may be that it is, in which case I can withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am informed that the purpose of this amendment is to add the further restriction that compensation shall not be payable in respect of any loss in potential revenue arising from an activity which has not been carried out on the land in the previous 20 years. The effect of the amendment would be, I believe, to rule out of consideration most circumstances in which compensation for the loss of potential revenue would be payable; and we must accept that when in the national interest a person is prevented from carrying out an operation which, but for the making of the order, he would have been able to execute without let or hindrance, and with the expectation of increasing his revenue, he should be able to have the opportunity to obtain compensation, which we think this amendment also rules out.
Lord Melchett: I am rather glad I have ruled it out, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Houghton will be equally delighted. What is to stop somebody coming along and saying, "I intended to convert this to arable, and therefore you have to pay me for the loss of revenue

371
which would be involved", even if they had no intention of doing so? It is that false intention which my amendment would at least deal with, and I wonder how the Government intend to deal with that problem. I wonder whether the noble Earl can help us on that.
The Earl of Avon: I think the noble Lord is producing an area of deviousness which the Government have not been devious enough yet to have looked at. I will certainly have a look at it.
Lord Melchett: I am speaking as a practising farmer. I was hoping that the noble Earl would tell the practising farmers, devious or not, what to do about it. I think I heard him say that he would look at it. On that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 427:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert ("or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 437, 438 and 439. These amendments are necessary to make good deficiencies in Clause 27 and Schedule 10, as drafted, and take account of the parallel but distinct arrangements in Scotland. Amendment No. 427 provides that disputes about compensation in Scotland shall be resolved by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. The amendments to Schedule 10 similarly accommodate a description of planning authorities in Scotland as well as England and Wales and identify the apposite section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which has been omitted from the paragraph as drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 427A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was swift in withdrawing his Amendment No. 426 and I wanted to raise a small point on that part of the clause. I wonder whether the noble Earl when re-considering Amendment No. 426 (which is what I understood him to say) would consider that the right time is that which is included in that amendment, plus the possibility that it should be perfectly all right for the landowner to get compensation (even if he had not used the land in that way for 20 years) if he could produce any evidence at all from the time before the notice was served that he intended to use this land in this way. That is an extra matter that it might be useful for the Government to consider.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On a not very different point, I am a little puzzled about compensation. I do not think my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby will object to what I am going to say. I do not think you are going to get satisfactory agreements with working farmers if you are going to ask them not to do something by which they can legitimately make money by good farming unless some compensation is paid. I do not want to raise the question of how old
372
a ley has to be before you can get compensation for ploughing it. It is a very difficult point. But it seems to me that the figure of compensation may be extremely high. If somebody buys a farm which contains an SSSI with some old pasture and he is a corn grower and wishes to plough this up and take a crop from it and has paid a price for the land because he could do so, it seems that with wheat at the sort of price it is now, you may run yourself into large sums of compensations.
Who pays this? It is not good saying that the conservation body, the NCC, will pay. They have no money, we know. If you are going to deal with, as you say, 40 or 50—and this will be, we hope 40 or 50 a year; and we shall have to push the Government up to that because anything less is doing no good—that can run into a good deal of money. There is no reason to suppose, in anything in this Bill, that the conservation council, the NCC, will be given this sort of money and the whole thing could fall down on this; and I am unhappy about it.
Lord Burton: Could I draw attention to the Explanatory Memorandum under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill"? It says:
"The habitat protection measures may also increase the need for the Council to make greater use of its existing powers to make management agreements or acquire land … "—
and give extra money for this fact. This seems to have been omitted by a number of speakers this evening.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: That is what must happen. And I want to be jolly sure it will. With the Government's present attitude, I doubt it very much.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think that compensation comes into that particular paragraph. I will take what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said into account with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, and their amendment. The purpose of this clause is to provide for compensation in those circumstances where a landowner has suffered financial loss because of a restriction imposed upon him as a consequence of the imposition of an order under Section 26. It is not to provide compensation by virtue of the need to notify certain operations, except in those cases where he had already incurred expense before the need to notify arose and that expense had become abortive. Neither is it intended to provide for a hypothetical loss or gain in the value of land as a result of designation alone: I mean without subsequent restriction. Such compensation would be both contrary to Government policy and precedent and almost impossible to establish. In this we have a duty to the taxpayer as well as to the owner.
The Government believe, however—and I think that I have the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, with me here—that it is only proper that where a right to carry out an operation which has a financial value is in fact removed without alternative provision for recompense, they have a duty to provide for the payment of compensation. It is the Government which makes the payment. It is for this reason that this clause is necessary.
The Earl of Onslow: May I ask how much it is going to cost?
The Earl of Avon: That would be entirely crystal gazing.
Lord Denham: I wonder whether at this point I could say something very quickly; I do not want to hold up the Committee. We are now on the fifth or sixth day—I am rather losing count. Experience on this Bill has shown that sometimes we have lovely clear patches where we go very, very fast; and sometimes we seem to get bogged down in arguments which are almost philosophical and a little remote from the Bill. We have about an hour and a half left tonight, and I beg Members of the Committee to try to have a fast passage for that hour and a half rather than a slightly wavy passage that goes slowly.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 428 not moved.]
9.22 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 428A:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of hedges and trees alongside highway
.—(1) The local planning authority may make byelaws for the prevention of damage to the land, or any features on or in the land, within any area designated under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of special scientific interest.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, byelaws under this section relating to any area may prohibit, restrict or regulate—

(a) the riding of any bicycle, tricycle or similar machine,

(b) the driving, riding, exercising or breaking in of horses, and

(c) the use of metal detectors;

in the area, or any part thereof, except in the exercise of any lawful right.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a new clause. Members of the Committee will have seen the explanatory words:
"Protection of hedges and trees alongside highway".
This new clause has nothing whatever to do with any of those at all. That is clearly a misprint. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the terms of this new clause and will know that it appears here as a result of the highly commendable efforts and initiative of the borough of Barrow-in-Furness. I say, "highly commendable", because it is not all that common for a local authority with serious urban problems to involve itself and to show such enthusiasm about conservation matters. But there are special circumstances in the neighbourhood of Barrow-in-Furness which many Members know about.
Local planning studies of three nature conservation review sites in the borough area highlighted continuing and difficult problems of controlling things like horse-riding, motor vehicle and motorcycle driving, boating, temporary camping, lighting of fires, damage to plants, animals and fixtures on the land, unauthorised access, all without the owner's consent. It was the belief of the borough of Barrow-in-Furness, and others who took an interest in these matters, that the existing legislation is inadequate to control those activities which come broadly under the term of non-development activities. Those are activities not needing planning permission, but the Government's Clause 26 would not cover them. Indeed, the term embraces the actions which are listed in the new clause. These
374
are the kind of matters which have been causing, serious difficulties in those areas.
Initially, the borough of Barrow-in-Furness had consultations with others and this matter was put into a Private Bill, the Cumbria Bill, which is before Parliament at the moment. But, in the course of consultations about Clause 41 of the Cumbria Bill with other authorities, it was rapidly discovered that this was not purely a local problem concerning Barrow-in-Furness and Walney Island, with its particularly vulnerable sites, but it was in fact a fairly common problem. I have a list of something like 16 different areas which have communicated with the people concerned, such as the Cumbria Naturalists' Trusts. As well as Barrow-in-Furness and as well as those responsible for the Cumbria Bill, many people from many areas have said they believe that some kind of measure of this sort would be very helpful. It is believed that these kinds of non-development activities could pose as much threat to nature conservation as would larger developments or even agricultural improvement schemes.
There are only powers of persuasion available at the moment to the Nature Conservancy Council and to local authorities to ensure that sites of special scientific interest are not harmed by these non-development activities.
The new clause really does no more than afford similar by-law protection to sites of special scientific interest as already exist for statutory nature reserves. I think this could be a very helpful measure. Many noble Lords have had correspondence from people in many areas who feel it would be advantageous if that section in the Cumbria Bill could be included in this Bill, and I understand that the Department of the Environment have advised the sponsors of the original matter that it would be more appropriate in this Bill than elsewhere.
Lord Sandys: I think it may be appropriate at this stage if, in replying to the Amendment, I referred to a number of other matters since it may help to allay the fears of Barrow-in-Furness and 16 other areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. The vast majority of SSSIs are either on enclosed farmland or in areas not readily accessible to the public. I understand there are particular problems on some SSSIs, and Cumbria County Council are concerned about four sites in particular. But legislation already exists to control damaging activities, and it is this to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. Local authorities may make access orders under Section 65 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and the consequent power to make by-laws is contained in Section 90 of that Act. Therefore, the Government see no need to impose any additional legislative power over the generality of SSSIs or to impose any unnecessary costraint on their owners or occupiers, where powers already exist which enable local authorities to control access. I commend these powers to their consideration. I hold in my hand a photostat of the two parts of that particular Act to which I have referred and I shall be happy to show it to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, should he wish to examine it.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, to which I listened most carefully. I

375
am very familiar with the Act to which he has referred. As I understand it, he has said that the authorities concerned could in fact make access orders under Section 65 under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and thereby would have a consequent power to make by-laws as provided for in Section 90.
I wonder whether that really is a satisfactory explanation. I shall certainly think about it and consult with the various authorities, but it seems to me that the whole purpose of making an access order is to increase access to certain areas. In connection with some of the sites we are considering, and in particular that at the South end of Walney Island where there is a bird sanctuary, it seems to me that to increase access is the very last thing that local authorities might wish to do.
Of course, it might be perfectly possible to make an access order, in some kind of bogus way, to an area where there already is ample access. Indeed, the problem about some of these areas, such as the Knott in the Arnside and Silverdale area, which is an area of natural beauty, is that there is already too much access. Yet the noble Lord says that the remedy for those people is to seek an access order, whereby they will then be able to make consequential by-laws. It may well be that that is correct, but I shall need to think about it very carefully. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me, if I find his answer not as satisfactory as he hopes it is, if I come back to it on another aoccasion.
Lord Inglewood: May I say one word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley? Barrow-in-Furness is in the county of Cumbria where I live, and I think that the enterprise which they have shown by suggesting that this new clause should be included if not in the Cumbria Bill, at least in this Bill, is to be commended. As the noble Lord has just said, it is very important that we should bear in mind that in parts of this area the question of public access is not important, because there is a tradition that people have access to virtually the whole countryside. The difficulty is that there are so many people, at certain times of the year, in some areas of the Lake District and the surroundings, that that area is threatened with damage. It is important to consider here that the authorities concerned should have a chance of making sensible by-laws where such conditions exist. It may or may not be entirely true, in practice, as the noble Lord on the Front Bench has explained to us. I rise only to ask him to look at this again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 428B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 429. 430 or 431.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 428B:
Page 26, line 19, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) Where land in the countryside which consists substantially of limestone composed on or lying near the surface of the ground has been notified to the local planning authority by

(a) the Nature Conservancy Council as being of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features; or

(b) the Countryside Commission as being of special interest by means of its contribution to the landscape character of the area; and

376

(c) it appears to the Secretary of State, the Countryside Commission or the county planning authority that the character or appearance of the land would be likely to be adversely affected by the removal of the limestone or by its disturbance in any way whatever,

the Secretary of State or the Commission or that authority may make an order designating the land and prohibiting the removal or disturbance of limestone on or in it; and the provisions of Schedule 10 shall have effect as to the making, confirmation and coming into operation of orders under this section.
(2) The Commission or the county planning authority may amend or revoke an order under this section made by the Commission or authority respectively and the Secretary of State may amend or revoke any such order made by him or the Commission or that authority, but in the case of an order made by the Commission or that authority, only after consultation with the Commission or authority respectively.").
The noble Lord said: With regard to the further amendments to which the Lord Chairman has referred, it seems to me that these are very much related matters and, if I may say so—I do not know whether this is for the convenience of the Committee—we have now opened up the whole question of limestone pavement. All these amendments relate to it. My own happens to come first, but I do not disagree with anything in any of the others, and it seems to me that they are not incompatible. Perhaps the difference is that mine spells out a mechanism a little more fully, and goes a little further in certain ways. But in moving Amendment No. 428B, I would say that I entirely agree, if it is not out of order for me to say so, with what is stated in Amendments Nos. 429, 430 and 431. Indeed, to some extent, they are identical. But I hope that all the various matters which are raised by these amendments can be discussed at one go, as it were, here and now.
We are now discussing something which is very important indeed, not just from the point of view of flora and fauna, but also from the point of view of landscape and scenery of outstanding value. We are talking about limestone pavements. Various people, who have sent me copious advice on this subject, have all told me the same thing. They have said that most limestone pavements occur in Cumbria, with others in North Lancashire, North-West Yorkshire and North Wales. I must dispute that. It is my experience that nowadays most limestone pavements can be found in rockeries in Kendal, in Colwyn Bay and places of that kind.
This is the problem with which we are faced. Very few areas of limestone pavement are now undamaged, because of the removal of surface stone for rockeries. The question is whether such removal constitutes development for the purposes of the planning acts. "Development is defined in Section 22 of the 1971 Act as:
"the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land".
Removal by mechanical means clearly constitutes engineering or mining operations. But the question is whether simple removal by hand or crowbar constitutes "other operations". Local planning authorities seem reluctant to take enforcement action in these circumstances and so far no decided case has been discovered, at least by me.
The Bill provides that where the Nature Conservancy Council have notified the local planning authority that the limestone pavement is of interest and the county planning authority or the Secretary of State conderis that disturbance of the surface would affect its character

377
or appearance, either of those authorities may make an order designating the land and prohibiting removal or disturbance of limestone on or in it. Such orders are subject to the procedure in Schedule 10. They require confirmation by the Secretary of State within nine months. If opposed, an inquiry must be held. The only exceptions to the clause are those which would allow extraction of stone for roadmaking, the fertilisation of land and the maintenance or alteration of buildings for agricultural purposes.
First comes the question: why has the clause been drafted in this way? The problem seems to be whether removal of surface limestone by hand constitutes development. Superficially, it seems to me to be much simpler to declare that such activity constitutes development for the purposes of the 1971 Act. That is the procedure followed in Clause 1 of the minerals Bill which is before your Lordships' House and which provides that the removal of spoil from a former mine waste tip constitutes development. In view of the Secretary of State's stated unwillingness to apply the provisions of Clause 33, there must be some doubt about his willingness to designate areas of land under this clause. It is most important that assurances are obtained, if possible, from the noble Lord that this is not just an empty power in the clause as it now is, but that the Secretary of State genuinely has every intention of using it.
Secondly, if the clause is accepted broadly as it stands, the question arises: who should be able to make such orders, and on what grounds? Limestone pavements are features not only of botanical and physiographical interest but also of morphological and landscape interest. In recognition of this the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has proposed an amendment to enable orders to be made by counties on landscape grounds. As I indicated earlier, if we come to that amendment I shall support it in principle, but it raises the question of why the Countryside Commission, the Government's statutory advisers on landscape matters, are not given the power, first to determine that certain pavements are of landscape value and, secondly, to make orders prohibiting the removal or disturbance of limestone. The Countryside Commission has the power to designate a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty. Surely it seems both reasonable and appropriate that the Countryside Commission should also have the power to designate smaller landscape features, many of which are within national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is also important that the Countryside Commission should be able to act if the county planning authority itself declines to do so.
There are many other matters which arise from the whole of this section of the Bill, but I say most strongly to your Lordships' Committee that it is a mistake to forget about the visual value of these extraordinary areas of limestone pavement. We must all have looked at it with wonder. To rely solely on botanical considerations rather than on landscape considerations to me, at least, seems wrong. If we are to take landscape matters into consideration, the scenic value of these areas, surely it is right that the Government's statutory advisers on landscape matters, the Countryside Commission, ought to have an involvement. I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley: May I speak to Amendment No. 429 in case I lose it, in the event of the noble Lord's amendment being carried. I do not mind if I do lose it, because I do not fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. In Amendment No. 429 I am only trying to make quite clear what we are talking about when we refer to a local planning authority. Throughout the clause we are talking about the county planning authority. I believe that Amendment No.429 is a drafting error which has been repeated, I am sorry to say, by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in the first subsection of his Amendment No. 428B. I hope it can be inserted throughout the clause that we are talking about a county planning authority so that no doubt about this exists in the future; otherwise doubt will creep in, and that is not to our advantage. I hope that, for once, Amendment No. 429 is acceptable to the Government.
Lord Inglewood: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and to say that I think there is very little, if anything, between the sponsors of these different amendments. If we want to follow the advice of the noble Lord, the Chief Whip, and really make progress, the noble Lord on the Front Bench has only to nod and show that he accepts the principle behind these amendments, and I am sure that we should be able to reduce our remarks to very little or nothing and get on to the next group of amendments. Shall I give him the chance?
Viscount Ridley: I hope he will not nod immediately, because, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—
Lord Inglewood: I have not finished, I am sorry to say, but, since the noble Lord the Minister is not prepared to nod, I assume that he is going to say that part, if not the whole, is unacceptable. And if so, I shall ask him to look at this again before the Report stage.
Some people are very familiar with limestone pavements, because they live in an area where they are conspicuous, but those areas in this country are limited. When I had the honour to be a Member of the other place, I had nearly 50 per cent. of the limestone pavements in North-West Europe in my constituency. They are strange formations of great interest to geologists and they are remarkable for their botanical importance.
Some may say that stones surely can look after themselves—they are tough enough—but of the 1,326 hectares of limestone pavement here in England only 3 per cent. are untouched by vandals of one sort or another, and a large proportion of the rest are seriously affected. In the last 100 years, with the increase in popularity of rock gardening, which I believe started at the time of the Great Exhibition, efforts have been made to take this stone both from common land and from privately owned land and it is not just private developers who have done the damage but public authorities, too. It can even be seen on a roundabout, not far from Leicester.
I think I have said enough to show how urgent it is that the provisions to protect these limestone pavements should be strengthened. This clause has

379
nothing to do with habitat protection or with compensation and the amendments are simply attempting to clarify and strengthen the existing planning controls and to see that they are effective. There is no significant damage to agriculture in the proposals in any of these clauses.
Some might think that this is a quite unnecessary provision in this Bill, but I take the opposite view. It is 16 years since I gave up representing Westmorland in the other place, and it was already an issue when I was there. I believe naturalists have struggled with Government departments to try to achieve something like the amendments that we want to put into this Bill, and they have been met with one difficulty after another. Tonight we have the opportunity to do something really important, because these limestone pavements which we are protecting in the North-West of England are, except for one small area, the Burren in County Clare, in Eire, the only examples in North-West Europe. I support the noble Lord and those who have tabled similar amendments and I beg the Committee to approve them.
Lord Middleton: I am enthusiastic about the protection of limestone pavements which I think is precisely what Clause 28 is all about. I thought limestone pavements were small in extent, belonging to a special area—I think the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that—and they are indeed SSSIs anyway.
Lord Inglewood: Not all of them—only about half.
Lord Middleton: But in any case, they will be protected by Clause 28. Both the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, refer to land in the countryside consisting substantially of limestone, composed of lime near the surface of the ground. Well, that applies to half of England. One only has to think of the Pennines, the uplands of the Derbyshire district, the Cotswolds, the Chilterns, the Downs—North and South—the Yorkshire Wolds and the Lincolnshire Wolds, and you have most of England. It is carrying matters a little far.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Sandys: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage to say this. While I think it would be very beneficial to discuss these amendments together, I will speak to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in this instance and come on to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ridley, about which I have some good news, before long. I realise that these areas of limestone we have been discussing are not only of great scientific interest, in that they provide a refuge where a wide variety of plants can flourish in unique surroundings, but they are also areas of great beauty which are a delight to many. It might seem reasonable that the Countryside Commission should be able to act positively to ensure that the contribution which the limestone pavements make in the landscape is not in any way debased.
380
I agree with so much that has been said on all sides of the Committee, and we have been particularly fortunate to have the comments of my noble friend Lord Inglewood who has such experience in these matters. But it is the executive role which we are talking about in regard to the Countryside Commission which is inconsistent with the role which Parliament gave it. The Countryside Act 1968 established the Countryside Commission, and Parliament thought the primary role of the commission was advisory. We would not wish to see this changed now. Under Clause 28 limestone pavement orders will be made either by the Secretary of State or the local planning authority and will impose restrictions on the way in which people may act. The Secretary of State and the local planning authorities are accountable publicly to the electorate. The commission is not in the same situation, since it is not an elected body.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, sought assurances about the situation of the Secretary of State and wished to know whether he was likely to use his powers under Clause 28(1)(b). I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will as a last resort use those powers if the Nature Conservancy Council, acting in conjunction with the county planning authorities, are unable to act in a particular situation. We would welcome the Countryside Commission advising the local planning authorities that in their opinion the latter should consider making an order. That is what we hope they would do. The Countryside Act gives the commission the duty to provide advice to local authorities. That is all we think is needed. We are sure the Countryside Commission and the local planning authorities will want to work closely together to preserve these areas of limestone where there is risk of exploitation that would cause irreparable damage to the landscape. With these words of explanation, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I have listened to the noble Lord with very great care and I will come straight away to one part of his answer; namely, that he felt that essentially the Countryside Commission was an advisory body and should not be given an executive function. Let me hasten to say that my purpose here tonight is not to do anything to defend the dignity or enhance the prestige of the Countryside Commission. It is merely to do what I can to preserve and protect limestone paving. I am bound to take issue with the noble Lord for a moment when he says it is not appropriate for the Countryside Commission to have executive functions. It has the statutory duty of designating national parks and of designating areas of outstanding natural beauty; it has a statutory duty to carry out certain experiments, it has a statutory duty to provide and run, administer and finance, information services in national parks. It seems to me that these genuinely are executive functions.
But I am not here to argue about whether the commission should do it or not. My concern at the moment is that the way in which the Bill is worded it seems to me there is an undue emphasis here on the general question of flora and fauna, and I have nothing against those at all; and since the Nature Conservancy Council has the power to make recommendations on the basis

381
of the effect on flora and so on, it seems to me important that we should make absolutely certain that the landscape considerations are very much to the fore and are very substantially and heavily underlined. I think that anybody who has looked, as I have looked so often, at these areas of limestone pavement will believe, as I believe, that the visual considerations, the landscape considerations, are very important indeed.
I listened most carefully to what the noble Lord said and to, I thought, his sympathetic tone of voice, although I shall have to look at the words which he used a little more carefully before deciding whether I can regard his answer finally as being satisfactory. But, for the moment, awaiting to hear what the noble Lord has to say in response to the other amendments—with all of which I am in total agreement—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to confirm whether the term "limestone pavement" could be extended to such places as the Cotswolds?
Lord Sandys: I would not be able to give that assurance and it would be an impertinence on my part to comment on anything that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said as former chairman of the Countryside Commission, because he has already identified many of the areas in which limestone pavements exist. I would have to write to my noble friend when I have obtained that information.
Baroness David: I can tell the noble Lord that they do not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 429:
Page 26, line 20, leave out ("local") and insert ("county").
The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to this amendment and, therefore, I beg formally to move it.
Baroness David: I am just a little anxious about this amendment because I think that the district councils have been enormously involved. I understand that South Lakeland and Lancaster districts, which cover the Arnside Silverdale area of natural beauty, are far more concerned about the pavements than are their counties. I do not know whether there can be a compromise and local authority or district and county planning authorities can be included. After all, the district councils do have a lot of planning commitments in the way of development control and so on. I would like hastily to ask if both could be included.
Lord Sandys: The noble Viscount has already spoken to the amendment and I should like to say that we feel that it is eminently reasonable that the Nature Con-
382
servancy Council should inform the planning authority who is to be given the power to make limestone pavement orders on pavements in their areas. Whereas now the Nature Conservancy Council informs the district planning authority of areas of special scientific interest, the notifications that they will be making under subsection (1) will not necessarily be confined to areas which will meet their criteria for a site of special scientific interest. The notification that we are placing with the Nature Conservancy Council is separate from the SSSI notification and the Nature Conservancy Council will be notifying the planning authorities of all limestone pavements which are of special interest. We are happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Burton: From what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said perhaps this only applies to England; but if it does apply to Scotland, I point out that we do not have county councils.
Baroness David: Do I understand from what the Minister has said that the districts are going to be left out of it altogether?
Lord Sandys: The terms of the amendment do not specifically mention "district". As I have not had advance notice of this point, and as I have not received the information from the Box, I fear that I shall have to communicate with the noble Baroness.
Lord Sandford: In that case, I do not think that we should accept the amendment, because if the department has carefully considered the matter and decided that it is appropriate to leave it to the counties, well and good; but if it has not considered the matter at all, it is not by any means so satisfactory.
Lord Melchett: Surely they must have considered it, because the purposes of the amendment, as I understood it, was to make clear whether it was going to be "county" or "district" and to come down firmly on the side of counties. I should have thought that that must have been the main point that everyone considered when deciding what attitude to adopt towards the amendment.
Lord Sandys: It is the counties and not the districts to which we are referring here and which the Government have approved. Orders are not appropriate in Scotland.
Baroness David: I take it that I shall still receive a letter which will clarify this.
Viscount Ridley: The noble Baroness will probably get one from me, too.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 430:
Page 26, line 25, after ("features") insert—
("; or
(b) it appears to the county planning authority that land in the countryside which consists of limestone exposed on or lying near the surface of the ground is of special interest by reason of its contribution to the landscape character of the area; ").
The noble Lord said: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said in reply to the debate and I thought that he was, in the main, sympathetic but I am not sure that he appreciates that the drafting of the clause in the Bill does not really make it clear that landscape value shall be one of the principal considerations before making these orders. I shall not take up any more time tonight, but I shall look carefully at this Bill before the Report stage, when perhaps we shall have to return to it.
In reply to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I think I am right in saying that the Cotswolds are different. I could add that a serious survey was conducted across this country, at, I think, the request of the NCC, and that there was no question of these particular limestone formations being found in other parts of England.
The Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord wish to move the amendment?
Lord Inglewood: No, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am sorry to intervene, but I am confused about the procedure. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to move his amendment. I thought that he said it was withdrawn rather than not moved. He spoke for some time, and I imagined that it had been moved, in which case the amendment to the amendment should have been called. That is why I want to clarify the situation. We particularly wanted to talk to the amendment to the amendment. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, can confirm whether he actually did not move the amendment or withdrew it after moving it.
Lord Inglewood: I am sorry, but I was looking at a map to check whether I was correct about the Cotswolds.
The Chairman of Committees: I did ask the noble Lord and he said that he did not wish to move this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord cannot do that. He either has to move it or not move it.
Lord Inglewood: I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 431 not moved.]
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 431A:
Page 26, line 41, leave out from ("If") to ("he") in line 44 and insert ("any person without reasonable excuse removes or disturbs limestone on or in any land designated by an order under this section").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to amend subsection (3) to make any person who, without planning permission, removes or disturbs limestone from land which has been subject to an order liable to an offence. The effect will be to make any person, not just the owner and occupier or persons acting with their authority, liable to prosecution if he removes or disturbs limestone on land which has been the subject of an order made by the Secretary of State or the planning authority.
We have discussed an amendment to Clause 26 which had, in part, a similar effect: I refer to Amendment No. 387A. The reasons for this amendment are similar. The Government wish to close a loophole which, under the legislation we are considering, might allow a person other than the owner or occupier or anyone acting with his consent to remove or disturb limestone from limestone pavements, without planning permission, and escape scot free. We do not believe it is reasonable that only the owner or the occupier should be liable to prosecution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 432:
Page 27, line 6, leave out ("either").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the amendment immediately following, Amendment No. 433, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and myself, have to do with subsection (4) of Clause 28. The noble Baroness obviously has some great grammatical objection to supporting my Amendment No. 432, but I think that the substance is the same. Subsection (4) produces the exceptions when it is a reasonable excuse for a person to remove or disturb limestone
"if the removal or disturbance was authorised by a planning permission granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 … or by virtue of paragraph 3 of Class VI of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977".
The purpose of these amendments is to remove the second of those excuses. For those noble Lords who do not have the Town and Country Planning, England and Wales, Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 either in their hands or at the tip of their tongues I will tell them that Class VI, paragraph 3, deals with,
"The winning and working, on land held or occupied with land used for the purposes of agriculture, of any minerals reasonably required for the purposes of that use, including—

(i) the fertilisation of the land so used, and

(ii) the maintenance, improvement or alteration of buildings or works thereon which are occupied or used for the purposes aforesaid,

so long as no excavation is made within 25 metres of the metalled portion of a trunk or classified road".
Throughout this Bill we are dealing by common consent with a number of matters where the despoliation of the countryside, or the taking of animals or birds, pays very large rewards. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has already commented on the amount of the limestone pavings which are to be found in the rock gardens of the various places he mentioned, and I should say almost certainly Hampstead as well; possibly even my own garden. I hope not—but you never know.
The limestone removal is a very profitable business, and it would be a great temptation for people to use a loophole. Therefore, it is up to this House to look at the loophole and see whether it is justified. I bow to the superior knowledge of noble Lords in this House who know the area and noble Lords who know the farming operations in the area; but I rather suspect that the two reasons for which it is permissible to mine this limestone paving by farmers are in fact ones which are seldom used, which are not necessary, and which can give occasion to large-scale looting of the limestone pavements. For instance, of the two matters for which it is permissible, one is the crushing of limestone for lime. I doubt whether this is done on any scale or indeed at all in the areas we talk about. I am open to correction, but I have evidence and comments to that effect from people who know more about it than I do. I should have thought that that was something which could be ruled out.
The question of limestone mining for the purpose of building your own walls is, of course, another matter; but judging by the fact that all the way through this Bill what we are talking about is the tendency of farmers to pull up, to get rid of, extra walls, fences, hedges, and more and more to have larger fields, I should have thought that the amount of loose limestone stones which were available for moving from one disused wall to another, or for repairing, would be enough.
There can be very few farmers now who would in fact need to mine their own limestone in order to build walls. Even if there were a few, quarries are plentiful and limestone is not all that difficult to get, and maybe this is one of those small sacrifices one could ask for. If it is a sacrifice at all—and I do not grant it is—it is a sacrifice for which we would be right to ask, bearing in mind the immense harm that can be done in a small time and the enormous difficulty of policing such operations. It would be impossible to keep track of people who were determined to poach, if one may use that term, the limestone from these pavements. This is, I believe, a loophole which the measure has left, a loophole which should be plugged, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Middleton: I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is trying to do and I would not for a moment want to defend farmers who are wrecking limestone pavements in the way he suggested. However, I wonder whether there is a loophole, because if the local planning authority found that a farmer was abusing paragraph 3 of Class VI of the General Development Order, the simple remedy would surely to be put on an Article 4 direction.
Lord Sandys: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to intervene at this stage to explain the Government's point of view. Limestone is an indigenous material on many of our farms, and my noble friend Lord Middleton is well aware of the fact, and has explained, that it occurs in many parts of the country other than the areas where limestone pavements are specifically built. Old farm buildings and dry stone walls, both of which are so much an integral part of the landscape which the Bill seeks to protect, are constructed of it, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to this problem. He also quoted at some length paragraph 3 of Class VI of the General Development Order, which is so relevant.
I do not believe the case for withdrawing this time-honoured permission has been made out. I cannot pretend that crushed limestone is used very often nowadays by farmers for correcting the acidity of their land; farmers prefer to use bought-in lime for that purpose. On the other hand, farmers use limestone found on their land and in the neighbourhood for the repair of buildings and dry stone walls to this very day. I am sure there is a great shortage of this material for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said quarries were plentiful. They used to be plentiful but, unhappily, many of them are worked out or have been used for other purposes or turned into conservation areas, and may not be worked, so it is a problem for farmers. The main effect of making this rock for use for this purpose subject to planning control would be to encourage farmers to use other materials for these tasks which are not subject to planning control, and that might produce unpleasant side-effects. The appearance of farm buildings and walls would suffer considerably and, as a result, the main casualty would eventually be the landscape.
I would draw the Committee's attention to the 12th Report of the Countryside Commission for 1978–79 which illustrates opposite page 52, in a nice colour plate, a camping barn in Yorkshire constructed of limestone. Undoubtedly such barns, if they do not have an agricultural use, have a valuable future in the tourist industry. I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment because I feel, despite all he said about the looting of limestone, that this problem can be exaggerated.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: It would be interesting to know if, in addition to the colour plate of the barn, there was also a colour plate of the limestone pavement from where the stone had been taken. I am not at all satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation. I felt it was, through no fault of his, extremely specious and did not stand up. On the other hand, his noble friend Lord Middleton raised a point which had not occurred to me and I will study that point before possibly returning to this issue on Report.
Lord Inglewood: I should like to add a few words. There is other limestone in these areas besides limestone taken from a limestone pavement. Secondly, I do not think that this point is quite as clear as the others. Not to allow any tolerance at all seems to me to be unreasonable, but since there is at times such financial advantage in despoiling these pavements,

387
that cannot be overlooked either. Finally, what is not generally known is that farmers have been known to sell complete walls to rockery contractors. That just shows the problem in perspective.
Baroness David: As I have my name to this amendment, I would totally agree with my co-mover that the answer was completely unsatisfactory. So I should not be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment, No. 432, be withdrawn? I thought that the noble Lord had indicated that he wished to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I had not got that far. It is my fault, I should have picked up this point, since the noble Baroness did not in fact move Amendment No. 432. Since the noble Baroness, Lady David, does not wish to withdraw Amendment No. 433, I shall help her by making certain that her amendment is grammatically all right by not withdrawing Amendment No. 432.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 433 not moved.]
10.12 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 434:
Page 27, line 8, at end insert ("or the removal or disturbance was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to the county planning authority as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation").
The noble Lord said: Clause 26 provides that it is a reasonable excuse to carry out an otherwise forbidden operation, both if it is authorised by planning permission and where there is an emergency making the operation necessary. In the case of limestone pavement formation, Clause 28 merely allows a planning permission to constitute an excuse. It does not include the other event, the emergency situation. This amendment seeks to do so.
I have no doubt that when Clause 28 was drafted it was thought that an emergency situation was unlikely. However, I have been given an example of where an emergency arose in a limestone pavement area. A right of way was endangered by a collapse of limestone and there was a threat to public safety. So an emergency can arise, and it should be provided for in Clause 28. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: Your Lordships' Committee will have seen that Clause 26 as drafted contains a similar reasonable excuse provision. There may be circumstances when it will be necessary to remove or disturb limestone on land which is subject to an order when it will not be possible to obtain planning permission. None springs readily to mind, but if one can instance occasions when emergency works have to be done, which might affect a pavement subject to an order, we shall be pleased to consider putting down our own amendment. I appreciate that this is a tidying-up amendment, but is it really necessary? I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.
Viscount Ridley: I should have thought that this amendment would be a tremendous loophole through
388
which one could drive a coach and horses. I hope that it will not be brought back.
Lord Middleton: In the light of what my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 435:
Page 27, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) An order under this section is a local land charge").
The noble Lord said: This is another of the land charge amendments relating to orders under Clause 28. I moved a similar amendment in respect of land charges to Clause 26. I think that my noble friend will tell me that these orders will automatically be a land charge, and though I anticipate that, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Sandys: I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is right and proper that an order made under Clause 28, which will restrict the freedom of action of successors in title to the land to which the order relates, should be registered as local land charges. I am advised that Section 1(1)(c) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 has this effect and that it is therefore unnecessary to make an explicit provision to that effect in this Bill. In addition, I am told that it is not the practice to provide expressly for things to be local land charges where they are already local land charges. I hope my noble friends will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Middleton: I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 28, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10.21 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I have just one very brief comment to make on this. Why is it that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to produce very strong reasons for planning permission, et cetera, et cetera, on limestone pavements, and have produced rather weak reasons on SSSIs? I do not quite understand it. Can my noble friend tell me why?
Lord Melchett: It may be that the Government are going to accept Amendment No. 444ZA.
Lord Sandys: I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if we awaited the later amendment to discuss that point.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 435A:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Ancient unmetalled highways
.—(1) Where any ancient unmetalled highway and associated boundary features have been notified to the local planning authority by—

(a) the Countryside Commission as being of special interest by reason of their contribution to the landscape character or their historic significance therein; and

389

(b) it appears to the Secretary of State, the Countryside Commission or the county planning authority that the character or appearance of the ancient highway would be likely to be adversely affected by the disturbance of the ancient highway or its associated boundary features,

the Secretary of State or the Commission or that authority may make an order designating the land and prohibiting the removal or disturbance of limestone on or in it; and the provisions of Schedule 10 shall have effect as to the making, confirmation and coming into operation of orders under this section.
(2) The Commission or the county planning authority may amend or revoke an order under this section made by the Commission or authority respectively and the Secretary of State may amend or revoke any such order made by him or the Commission or that authority, but in the case of an order made by the Commission or that authority, only after consultation with the Commission or authority respectively.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the safeguarding of ancient unmetalled highways. As some of your Lordships may know this country was in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages covered with a complete network of highways of this kind, and the present day green lanes, as they are called, stem from those very remote origins in our history, although some of them are of a more recent date. The importance of the green lanes was recognised by the previous Administration when they invited the Countryside Commission to carry out a study of the green lanes. This study was presented by the Countryside Commission in June 1979, and has been the subject of continued examination by the countryside and by other interested parties since then.
There is a definition of green lanes which has been more or less universally agreed and which was mentioned in a letter of 23rd May last by my noble friend Lord Winstanley to Mr. Tom King, when he said:
"The Commission defined a green lane as an unmetalled track which may or may not have a right of way for the public either on foot, horse, bicycle or motor vehicle, including a motor bicycle, and which is usually bounded by hedges, walls or ditches".
This study, which was presented by the Countryside Commission, concluded that green lanes were of significance for the landscape and for wildlife, and were of recreational and historical significance, quite irrespective of their value as rights of way. Indeed, some of them are not rights of way, and this is the reason why I am raising this particular amendment in Part II and not Part III.
It was also concluded in this study that the green lanes are at risk by ploughing operations and by the removal of hedgerows, and that those activities are not all by any means controllable or stoppable under the existing law unless, perhaps, you could activate the protection of rights of way legislation. But even if you could do that, the surfaces of the green lanes might be destroyed, the banks might have their stones removed and the hedgerows will be cut down. This is a very serious matter, and it is why the journal Byeway and Bridleway said in an editorial recently:
It is vital that provision be made now, in the proposed Wildlife and Countryside Bill, irrespective of the legal rights recorded, to prohibit ripping out hedges and bulldozing and ploughing these lanes out of existence. They are an integral part of our landscape".
That is what I am trying to ensure by providing in this amendment that there shall be proper safeguards to prevent continued losses which have taken place,
390
as recorded in the report to the Countryside Commission.
On a survey, admittedly by no means complete but which was fairly thorough bearing in mind the resources of the organisation that conducted it, it was found that in recent years there has been a loss of something like 6.6 per cent. of the green lanes in this country and that that loss is still continuing; so it is important that we take the opportunity of this Bill to do something about it and to prevent continued erosion of that heritage. I should mention that the Ancient Monuments Board has said that green lanes cannot be protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which might have been a possible mechanism if we had thought of it at the time. There is, we find, a big loophole in the various systems of agricultural planning and historical controls which this amendment attempts to stop up.
There would have been perhaps three lines of approach. First, management. That can be dealt with separately when we come on to management agreements when talking about Clause 31. Secondly, control by means of the use that people make of green lanes; and we deal with that in Part III. Thirdly, protection of the green lane itself, which this amendment attempts to secure. The only criticism which might be levelled against this amendment is that when one looks at the drafting, one says that more or less anybody could use it. But the intention would be to exercise the powers in it sparingly and only in those cases where there is an immediate threat as there may well be—to particular green lanes of enormous historical and landscape interest. This is in the nature of a fire brigade operation to save the further losses before dealing with the matter by permanent legislation.
Lord Sandford: I have only one minor criticism of this amendment. It is in the second line where "local" will need to be amended to read "county"; because the districts do not want to have anything to do with highways, whether ancient or modern, metalled or unmetalled, green or any other colour.
Lord Sandys: Although we are sympathetic to the need for protecting green lanes, especially those of outstanding importance—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to several varieties of them—we do not think the amendment is the best method of providing protection. Perhaps I may expand the discussion on this amendment, No. 435A, with the Committee's permission, to 435B, 506ZA and 511B. Would that be the wish of the Committee?
Lord Avebury: May I respectfully suggest that we are dealing with two different issues? The amendment following is a paving amendment for an amendment in Part III dealing with the use aspect of the green lanes. I was trying to keep separate the landscape, wildlife and historical aspects, which are dealt with in this amendment, and the use factors, which we can deal with when we come to Part III. If the noble Lord will be so good, can he please deal with this amendment by itself and not with those which concern use and rights of way?
Lord Sandys: I hope that my remarks will be confined along those lines; but noble Lords will be aware that a great deal of time and thought has been given to the green lanes because the Countryside Commission appointed the Dartington Amenity Research Trust to undertake a detailed study of the project and, following the publication of a report and after obtaining the views of various interested bodies, the commission submitted its preliminary recommendations to the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services in May 1980.
The commission expressed a strong preference for protection for the majority of green lanes to be achieved by positive encouragement to local authorities, farmers and landowners and by appropriate management arrangements, including the use of formal management agreements. It also recommended on certain lanes of outstanding importance, where it proved impossible to make management agreements, that a new type of order should be introduced, termed a track maintenance order. The commission further advised that it was consulting with a number of local authorities and amenity organisations on the details of such criteria and would advise further. Prior to these recommendations being submitted, it had already been agreed that the subject of green lanes was a suitable topic for the Rights of Way Committee under the chairmanship of my honourable friend Mr. Michael Spicer M.P., which was set up last year with a view to arriving at proposals for legislation based on the widest measure of agreement with the principal organisations involved.
The commission's proposals have been discussed at that committee. I understand that other bodies have expressed their views and the discussions have not yet reached the stage of agreed recommendations, either regarding green lanes in general or the ones of outstanding importance on historic or other grounds which are the subject of these amendments and which have only been tabled this week.
The Government are sympathetic to the need for some protection for historic unmetalled highways or greenways and will need to give careful consideration to the procedure and criteria which would be appropriate. We would naturally welcome the views of various interested bodies and the Spicer Committee as a whole on these matters. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for what sounded like a sympathetic answer. I am not sure what the time-scale of these consultations may be and whether he was intending to come back with a further statement when we reached Report stage. In the hope that that might be the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 [Procedure in connection with certain orders under Part II]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 435B:
Page 68, line 26, at end insert ("or under section [Greenways] of Part III").
The noble Lord said: As I have already explained, this is a paving amendment for an amendment to be moved after Clause 42 in Part III. As it would be more appropriate to discuss it among amendments then, I prefer to withdraw this amendment now, if the Committee see fit to pass my amendment in Part III, then we can insert this consequential one at Report stage. Therefore I do not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 435B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 436 not moved.]
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendments Nos. 437, 438 and 439:
Page 69, line 30, leave out ("county")
Page 69, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In this paragraph "planning authority" means county planning authority in relation to England and Wales and regional or general planning authority in relation to Scotland.")
Page 70, line 28, after ("of") insert ("section 210 of").
The noble Lord said: These amendments hang together and are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 440 not moved.]
Clause 29 [National nature reserves]:
10.28 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 441:
Page 27, line 30, at end insert—
("Provided that byelaws under this section shall not prohibit or restrict the entry into or movement within a national nature reserve of any person acting in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege.").
The noble Lord said: Although I shall not take up a great deal of time (and I see the Chief Whip looking at me) in moving this amendment, it is an important one. Subsection (4) imports into this Bill Section 20 (2) and (3) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Section 20(2) sets out the several purposes for which by-laws may be made in nature reserves, and these include by-laws prohibiting or restricting entry into those nature reserves. The proviso to subsection (2) safeguards exercise by any person of a right vested in him as an owner, lessee or occupier. That is all right as far as it goes. I believe that there is reason to go farther than that, and in this amendment there is the proviso for insertion in Clause 29 of the Bill of:
"in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege".
This amendment would not make it possible for such people to do damage in nature reserves. I am trying to establish that those who had a traditional right of access shall not be prejudiced. This could apply to many people both on foot or on horses who from time immemorial have gone to these areas. I wish only that the Government will ensure that their traditional right should not be prejudiced. I beg to move.
Lord Margadale: I should like strongly to support my noble friend on my left.
Lord Sandys: I entirely agree with my noble friends that it is not desirable that by-laws made by the Nature

393
Conservancy Council should be able to impede any lawful right of entry into or movement within a nature reserve. I am unsure, however, whether the amendment would be more effective in achieving that aim than subsection 20(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. That subsection, which subsection 29(4) of the Bill applies to by-laws made under this Bill, states:
"Provided that by-laws under this section shall not interfere with the exercise by any person of a right vested in him as owner, lessee or occupier of land in a nature reserve, or in the case of such land in Scotland as limited owner thereof, or with the exercise of any public right of way or of any functions of statutory undertakers, of a river board or any other drainage authority"
et cetera. If that provision is unsatisfactory to my noble friends, I shall be pleased to consider their amendment. I hope that will cover the point.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.32 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I gave the noble Earl notice some time ago that I was interested in having a little information about the steps which the Nature Conservancy Council will expect the voluntary organisations, and in particular the county naturalists' trusts, to take to ensure that their reserves are recognised as national nature reserves, as the provisions of Clause 29 allows. However, it seems to me a rather detailed point and I wonder whether it would be helpful if the noble Earl were to write to me about it rather than to have a discussion about it now.
Lord Sandys: My noble friend will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the Chief Whip and to the noble Lord.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Grants and loans by Nature Conservancy Council]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 442:
Page 28, line 2, after ("conservation") insert ("the protection of wildlife or the study of natural history").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor point, relating to grants and loans made by the Nature Conservancy Council. It is really part of some amendments we shall be coming to later. But it is worth taking it separately, I think, and with it goes Amendment No. 443.
In making grants and in supporting activities to do with wildlife in future, in view of the very wide-ranging nature of this Bill and, I think, of the more open approach that there is among nature conservationists to the amateur and general interest in wildlife among ordinary people, I was hoping that we might remove our rather artificial restriction to conservation and widen the scope of the Nature Conservancy Council's activities to the protection of wildlife and the study of
394
natural history. It seems to me more in tune with the sorts of interest held by the majority of people in this country. While I do not want in any way to dilute the scientific expertise of the NCC, for which we have been extremely grateful during the course of the day, though it has not yet produced the results we all want, I should like to see them adopting this sort of approach, which I think would encourage the many ordinary people in this country who are interested in wildlife to see the NCC as an organisation catering for them rather than simply for the specialist. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: This amendment anticipates to some extent Amendment No. 463 which seeks to enlarge the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council. I do not wish to anticipate our discussion on that amendment, but merely to address my remarks to the amendment as it stands. The intention of Clause 30 is to enlarge the council's scope for providing financial assistance, by grant, and now by loan, to projects which are, in their opinion, conducive to nature conservation or, again in their opinion, would engender an understanding of nature conservation. The amendment seeks to enlarge this function still further, in that it would be possible for the Nature Conservancy Council, if the amendment were carried, to provide financial assistance for anything which was conducive to the study of natural history. That, I am sure, is a worthy cause, but it is not entirely appropriate for the purposes carried out by the Nature Conservancy Council. That is nature conservation, and nature conservation implies a certain end product, and a certain physical wellbeing or preservation. But the study of natural history may be undertaken for no other purpose than sheer interest, and why not?
The Nature Conservancy Council has always been concerned with the conservation of all wildlife, with natural history, and with their enjoyment by the public, when allied to the purposes for which the council was primarily set up. Where the study of natural history has, as its end product, a positive benefit to nature conservation, then the council would certainly consider any such project along with the other projects as a claim on their resources. Indeed, in the past they have done so. As an example, they provided a grant to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which was devoted to the building of an information room and a hide for use by the public at the Snettisham Pitts Nature Reserve in Norfolk, and, again, a grant to the Somerset County Trust to convert buildings into a lecture room with film projection facilities at Fyne Court interpretation centre. Similarly, they have funded an investigation into the history and distribution of the Bog-Rush with the object of re-establishing this species near Loch Tummel. The end product in each of these cases was nature conservation. We would not wish to extend the grant-making powers and the new loan-making power beyond the needs of nature conservation and I would request that this amendment be withdrawn, after those examples.
Lord Melchett: I only wish that the Nature Conservancy Council still had sufficient funds to support the kind of wildlife projects to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention. I think it would be sensible

395
at this stage to withdraw the amendment. But I must say that I did not find the noble Lord's reply at all convincing, and I had the feeling that he did not find it terribly convincing in parts. But the substantive amendment is No. 463, and maybe I can see what the Government's response is to that, before deciding whether to come back to this at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 443 not moved.]
10.38 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 444:
Page 28, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, the council shall ensure that any person receiving a grant or loan under this section in respect of premises to which the public are to be admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, shall, in the means of access both to and within the premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any) make provision, insofar as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the premises who are disabled.").
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I beg to move this amendment and will also speak to Amendments Nos. 455 and 467, which also deal with the disabled. Amendment No. 444 is in relation to the Nature Conservancy Council, No. 455 is in relation to county councils and No. 467 is in relation to national parks. I am sure that the general point of wanting to do the best we can for the disabled in all cases will be recognised, but I should like to emphasise a few other points.
It is not just people in wheelchairs, but people with weak hearts, defective eyesight and stroke sufferers who must also be thought of. The planners should remember to install wicket gates rather than stiles, to lay loose gravel rather than compacted hoggin and not to put steps where they could put a ramp. Rails on both sides of a path are needed for people who can use only one hand, so that it is all right for going up and down. If there are wooden bridges, they should have well-jointed planks along or across.
There have been some very good and imaginative things done. The hides of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have, in many cases, been very well planned, so that there is a good entrance for wheelchairs and the window or slot, which people look through, is at the right height. There is a good example at the Leicestershire and Rutland Naturalists' Trust, where there is one overlooking the wildfowl reserve at Rutland Water. The Nature Conservancy Council has recently constructed a special nature trail for the disabled through part of its Evergorge woodland reserve in the Mendips. There is a gently contoured path of compacted and binded quarry chippings which leads from the car park and information kiosk to a superb viewing point across the treetops of this fine limestone gorge. It has large trailside signs identifying features for those with poor sight.
On the debit side there are occasional unimaginative entrances to Forestry Commission woodlands, where wicket gates are locked against motor cyclists, thus denying access to those who cannot climb stiles.
396
This need not be. The Lea Valley Regional Park has devised a type of kissing gate which will let wheelchairs through, but not motor bikes. Visually handicapped people particularly need to be provided for. Their hearing is often very good. They can enjoy natural sounds—bird song—particularly well. The Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge has provided for listening posts with tape recorded information at points along the paths through the wildfowl collection. Braille notices have been put in some places along the nature trail, replacing the usual trail booklet. And tactile maps are important to provide in some areas.
I have mentioned a few of the things which can be done. We should do the best we can for the disabled in our parks and in the countryside. The Disabled Living Foundation has done a lot of work on this. They have a physical recreation project which provides a lot of ideas. These amendments are quite uncontroversial, and I hope that they will be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I have the greatest sympathy with these amendments which have been moved by the noble Baroness. The Country Landowners' Association has recently established a charitable trust with the principal object of encouraging and helping landowners to provide facilities for the mentally and physically handicapped to enjoy sport and recreation, especially in the countryside. These amendments are parallel with the aims of the CLA's charitable trust. If these or similar amendments are made to the Bill, assuming that the trust is a success, which it is anticipated that it will be, co-operation between the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the trust can be assured.
Lord Sandys: In this International Year of the Disabled we want to make every effort within available resources to help disabled people enjoy the benefits of countryside recreation, but it would be unwise to interfere with the judgment of the Nature Conservancy Council and the national park authorities in their consideration of projects for grant aid. Clauses 30 and 34 leave these bodies free to impose on a grant any conditions that they think fit. They are public bodies, and we should trust them to pay proper regard to the needs of the handicapped. The national park committees are in any case, as organs of local government, bound by statutory obligations placed on local authorities generally by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
As to the Schedule 11 amendment, the Countryside Commission are already and will continue to be bound by paragraph 13(2) of the schedule and therefore are statutorily obliged to report on everything they have been concerned with during the year that they consider to be of general public interest. It is perfectly plain from their statement on page 19 of the annual report that they are not neglecting the interests of the disabled. They have promised an advisory booklet suggesting simple, sensitive solutions to the design problems mentioned by the noble Baroness. I am very glad that she brought out the problem so clearly. These are concerned principally with the problems of access for disabled people. We should go on trusting these public bodies and should not interfere with

397
their judgment as to what they should or should not include in their annual reports.
I hope your Lordships will realise that these are very well-meaning amendments, but unfortunately they involve undue statutory interference in the performance by these public bodies of their duties, and I must ask the noble Baroness whether she will withdraw the amendments.
Lord Melchett: I am a little surprised to hear from the mouth of this Government the suggestion that it is wrong to limit the scope and activities of public bodies. When the noble Lord said, "public bodies", I think he meant Quangos, and I thought the Government were quite keen on making sure that they were controlled fairly strictly. Apart from that, it seems to me that the noble Lord is not really responding to the amendments in the spirit in which they were moved, and certainly not in the spirit of the International Year of the Disabled. He said that the national park authorities were covered as they were made up of local authorities—by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act, as I understood it.
Would it not be sensible, and a reasonable, moderate step, to ensure that the Countryside Commission and the NCC have the same statutory duties placed on them as has been felt necessary by Parliament to place on local authorities? I should have thought that it would be more desirable to place such a statutory duty on bodies appointed by Ministers than on democratically elected local government; but we have felt it necessary to pass the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act, to place such duties on local government, and that covers national park authorities. It seems to me to be eminently reasonable, and not intending any criticism of the Countryside Commission or the NCC at all, that in this particular year, with this Bill going through the House, we should place a similar duty on those two organisations. I see nothing wrong with that and I hope the noble Lord may be a little more forthcoming in his response.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord replies finally, it might be helpful if I were to add a word. Naturally as I am no longer the chairman of the Countryside Commission I am not in a position to commit it to any course of action; nor indeed am I in a position to say precisely what it might or might not do. But I am bound to say that from my experience of the commission it would be very glad indeed to have this responsibility placed on its shoulders and would certainly undertake it gladly.
Noble Lords in the Committee might care to know that, in a fortnight's time, the Countryside Commission is jointly sponsoring a two-day conference on opportunities for open-air recreation for the disabled in our national parks. At that conference representatives from almost all the national parks will be attending to explain what special provisions are in the national parks to provide enjoyment for the disabled. I think it is right that I should make it clear that I am quite certain, from my knowledge of the commission, that, were this duty to be placed on their shoulders, they would welcome it.
Baroness David: I hope, with those words from the noble Lord, that the Minister will change his mind
398
and decide to accept these very simple, straightforward, uncontroversial amendments.
Lord Chelwood: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I might intervene, in case it is helpful. As I have said on a number of occasions, I cannot, of course, speak for the Nature Conservancy Council. I am simply an undistinguished and rather junior member of it, but I would certainly argue the case for these amendments in council and I should be very surprised indeed if I did not carry them with me.
Lord Sandys: I think it has been of great benefit to hear both the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Chelwood, respond to the suggestions which have been made. The Government are very sensitive to the situation regarding the disabled in this particular year and I shall be happy to consider the position in a little more detail, especially after what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, and if it would benefit the position of the disabled generally to cast a statutory obligation upon a public body I think we should consider it again before Report stage.
Baroness David: With that assurance, I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Lord Denham: As I understand that the next amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, is expected to take not less than a quarter of an hour and possibly more, and as it is the general agreement that when the House is sitting at eleven o'clock on a Friday morning it is unfair to the facilities generally to go beyond 11 p.m. on the Thursday, I think this is the place where we must stop. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.