Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 12 February 1981 vol 417 cc351-98

House again in Committee on Clause 26.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 moved Amendment No. 421: Page 25, line 40, leave out ("or").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is linked 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) the riding of any bicycle, tricycle or similar machine,
2. (b) the driving, riding, exercising or breaking in of horses, and
3. (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 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 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 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

1. (a) the Nature Conservancy Council as being of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features; or
2. (b) the Countryside Commission as being of special interest by means of its contribution to the landscape character of the area; and
376
3. (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 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 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.

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 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 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- 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 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 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 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—

1. (i) the fertilisation of the land so used, and
2. (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, 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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.