Lords Sitting of 12 March 1981

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Ministerial Remuneration for Peers
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to announce the promised improvements in the remuneration of junior Ministers in this House.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Saomes): My Lords, I regret to say that the position remains unchanged from that which I told my noble friend when I last answered his Question. The Government realise that there is a very real problem here and are considering what steps might best be taken to resolve it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that it was appreciated last summer from that Box that there was a very real problem here? It is a problem which is in financial terms insignificant, but a problem which affects not only the question of justice to a few individuals but the effective functioning of this House. Can he really not hold out hope that something will be done quickly and decisively in the immediate future?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I appreciate all that my noble friend has said. Consideration of this matter has taken very much longer than we had either expected or hoped. Although I recognise that this may give my noble friend little comfort, I can only say that the issues involved are complicated, much more so than we at first thought. I can only say that I hope I will be able to give him a more definitive answer when my noble friend next asks.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House: is it the case that junior Ministers in your Lordships' House are not remunerated in the same fashion as applies to junior Ministers in another place?—because if they are not equal with those in another place I want to say that, despite unsatisfactory answers to my questions to junior Ministers in your Lordships' House, I want to see them fairly treated.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for a question which, if I may say so, is typical of his attitude towards these matters and his magnanimity towards the Government. As Ministers they are remunerated in the same way as are junior Ministers in the other place. But their cash flow is much smaller
380
because junior Ministers in another place also get their parliamentary salary, plus a number of other allowances which are not available to junior Ministers in this House. This is where the problem really lies. It is in this area that there is such a great difference. It is these areas which present such great difficulties, because the allowances are for specific purposes, some of which are related to constituencies, which of course junior Ministers in this House do not have.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in giving further thought to this matter, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House bear in mind, first, that when Members of this House become Ministers they often have to give up other forms of regular employment; secondly, they may suddenly become unemployed as a result of a general election in which they played no part; and, thirdly, some are of an age which makes it difficult for them to take up the threads of some former employment? Does not that mean that they should receive some kind of severance pay, as do Members of another place who fall by the wayside?
Lord Soames: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think I might reply, "Whom are you telling?" But I assure the noble Lord that all the arguments he has just developed are very much in our minds.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, while appreciating very much the spirit and tone of the noble Lord's replies to these questions, may I ask a factual question? How is a junior Minister defined? Are they all Ministers below Secretary of State level?
Lord Soames: My Lords, what we are considering is the remuneration of Ministers in the House of Lords inasmuch as this refers to all Ministers. But it is junior Ministers that are a particular cause for concern because of the level of their ministerial salaries. That is the principal cause of our concern. But we are looking at the question of ministerial salaries in this House. I do not want the House to feel in any way that I deal with this as a matter of levity; it is an extremely important point. These are obviously personal matters, but I absolutely take the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in his supplementary question, that this also affects the way in which this House works. It is essential that those who have responsibilities need not be looking too much over their shoulder at their own financial difficulties when they carry the kind of burdens which everyone in your Lordships' House knows Ministers do carry.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, could my noble friend bear this point in mind, that we are not only thinking about the personal problems of individuals but also wondering about the Government's power to attract intelligent young talent to the Front Bench, and that in turn, of course, bears very directly on the operational efficiency of the House?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I think when it comes to remuneration the question of supply and demand should always be taken into account.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House would appreciate that, in his endeavours to solve this problem, he will have a very great deal of support from all quarters of the House.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

Supplementary Benefits and Capital Assets
3.7 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, under revised regulations which came into force on the 24th November last, an individual who owns an unmortgaged house worth £50,000 or more but whose other assets do not exceed £2,000 may be eligible for supplementary benefit, whereas another individual who lives in rented accommodation and whose sole capital consists of a life assurance policy with a surrender value of £2,001 is ineligible for supplementary benefit.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, a person's home has never been taken into account and this position remains today. For other capital assets, from 24th November last, the capital rule for supplementary benefit changed. Previously, capital of £1,200 or less was disregarded and above that figure a sliding scale of assumed income was taken into account. Under the new regulations capital up to £2,000 is disregarded, but where a claimant's capital exceeds £2,000 there is no entitlement to benefit. In this context, the surrender value of a life assurance policy is and always has been regarded as part of a claimant's capital because it is a free resource which can be turned into cash. The change to a single capital cut-off was one of the measures of simplification introduced as part of the new Supplementary Benefit Scheme, and we shall be watching its operation with close attention.
Lord Monson: My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, would she accept that most people see the sharp cut-off point of £2,000 for property other than house property, which the new regulations stipulate and the old regulations did not, as not only extremely unfair to individuals but also as injurious to the nation as a whole in that savings of rather more than £2,000 invested largely in British industry, either directly or indirectly through the medium of an insurance policy, will have to be liquidated and the proceeds invested in such frivolities as a video recorder made in Japan, for example, which, of course, is not taken into account in assessing eligibility for supplementary benefit?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that this new rule has only been in operation since last November. I would like to confirm that the
382
Supplementary Benefits Policy Inspectorate is undertaking an inquiry into the operation of the new capital cut-off rule, and its report is expected in a few months.
On the noble Lord's second point, about spending capital resources in the way he described, I should draw his attention to two of the regulations under the first Social Security Bill; the first one relates to a person depriving himself of resources to obtain supplementary benefit, and the former commission's practice was to use their power largely in relation to a person who gave away his capital. The second regulation can be invoked against a person who converted capital into personal possessions which were in the nature of an investment or were out of keeping with his usual standard of living Those are two safeguards to discourage the frivolous spending of capital.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, are people debarred from rent allowances if their capital exceeds £2,000?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the question of rent allowances—which assumes, of course, that the person in question does not own the property—is a matter about which I think that I must write to the noble Lord. The point of this Question is that the ownership of a house does not count as capital for which the £2,000 is taken into account.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that under the old rules of estate duty, so far as I can find out—and I am without any legislative authority—the district valuer who valued a man's house at £50,000 or more did so with vacant possession? If the owner died then the occupants belonging to the same family were charged estate duty on the basis of the value of the house with vacant possession. Someone with a house of that value, on vacant possession, may now be called upon to pay up to £1,000 or £1,500 a year in rates in London, and up to £1,500 a year for heating the house and keeping it in good condition. The man who owns his own house under this Government is in a singularly unhappy situation.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that that is quite another question. However, I would not accept under any circumstances that the owner of a house is in an unhappy position. In fact, as my Answer to the first Question made perfectly clear, the value of the house is excluded from consideration as regards capital assets for someone who finds himself on supplementary benefit.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, would the noble Baroness make it perfectly clear—I think it was inherent in her previous answer—that someone can live in a house worth £50,000 unmortgaged and receive supplementary benefit; and secondly, if someone receives, let us say, redundancy pay of up to £10,000 he can be restrained from spending that as income?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Baroness's question is: "Yes, that is what I said". As regards the second part of the question, I point out that redundancy payments do count as capital for supplementary benefit purposes.

383
However, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during his Budget speech that the Government were looking at the suggestion that the existing social security rules did act as a deterrent to initiative, and consideration was being given to whether they could be altered, or other arrangements made, so as to encourage people who had been declared redundant or who had been unemployed for some time to start their own new small businesses.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the present situation gives great incitement to people to spend their redundancy pay at one go, as it were, in order that they may qualify for supplementary benefit?
Baroness Young: My Lords, that, I think, is really the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked at the beginning. We believe that how people spend their capital is largely a matter for them. However, there are, of course, two provisions of the Resources Regulation, which I described in a previous answer, and the interpretation of those two provisions would be a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is this not a rather curious example of what one might call the "building society system", whereby every encouragement is given to make capital available for expenditure, and no encouragement is provided to make it available for investment? It is, indeed, precisely the opposite to the policy which is pursued in Japan.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that what I have just said to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, indicates that we are aware of the problem. I should make it plain that the new rule was introduced only last November, and the two reasons for introducing it were that, in fact, more beneficiaries gained from the change than lost from it and the new rule had the advantage of saving 125 staff.

Benefit Claimants: Asset Checks
3.16 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what checks are made, when jobless nationals of other EEC countries come to the United Kingdom and apply for supplementary benefit, to ascertain whether they possess non-property assets in their country of origin worth more than £2,000 sterling.
Baroness Young: My Lords, claims from nationals of member states of the European Community are subject to the same rules as claims from British nationals. All claimants are asked about their resources, including their capital assets. If there is reason to doubt the claimant's statement, further documentary evidence can be requested. Failure to provide relevant informa
384
tion can lead to refusal of benefit.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that shortly before Christmas reports appeared in the press which revealed that nationals of other EEC countries, notably from Italy, were coining to this country with no prospect of a job but with the specific intention of living off supplementary benefit? In view of the very stringent nature of the new regulations, would the noble Baroness not agree that it is vital to ensure that the supplementary benefits system is not abused by nationals of other countries in this way, otherwise it will be very much resented by people in this country, particularly those applying for supplementary benefit with liquid or semiliquid assets of just over £2,000?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree with the purport of the noble Lord's supplementary question. There is action that we can and do take. It is accepted that community nationals seeking work in another country should not become dependent on public funds, and if they do they can be asked to leave. There are standard arrangements for notifying the Home Office when a national of a member state gets benefit. In the past those operated after benefit had been in payment for eight weeks. We have reviewed the arrangements and reduced the period to two weeks, and we believe that that will help to speed up action and discourage abuse.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is it possible in those circumstances for inquiries to be made in the country of origin as to what a person's possessions and means may be?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is clearly difficult to ascertain accurately what assets a person holds, whether he lives in this country or, indeed, anywhere else. But the experience, I am advised, is that the type of people who seek to abuse our benefits are on the whole a group of people who are unlikely to possess capital of more than £2,000.

Essex County Council: Structure Plan
3.18 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, in view of the concern expressed during consideration of Clause 104 (assessment of development land) of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill about possible encroachment on green belt land, and ministerial assurances that the provisions of the clause are only reserve powers, the Secretary of State for the Environment is now proposing that the Essex County Council Structure Plan be modified to move the Metropolitan green belt from the present 15 miles to 12 miles from the Greater London boundary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, De- partment of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the proposed modification to the structure plan would involve no encroachment on the original approved green belt, and is entirely consistent with my right honourable friend's view that a depth of 12 to 15 miles is generally sufficient for the specific purposes of the green belt. The modification is in no way inconsistent with Section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (formerly Clause 104 of the Bill).
Lord Underhill: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that, before the Local Government Act was introduced into this House, there were statements in the London press suggesting that the Secretary of State had in mind a possible development in the green belt area and that expressions of concern were raised by myself and other noble Lords during the discussions on the Local Government Bill? Is he further aware that there is now great concern throughout not only the area affected, but also in the Essex County Council Planning Committee? Would the Minister agree that the impression is given that the Secretary of State intended to have some development in the green belt and that that has been the policy which he has been pursuing?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords, I would not agree with that at all.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it would be highly undesirable if his right honourable friend did have such a policy?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, my right honourable friend has made the position quite clear. It is for the county authority to decide upon the structure plan. It then comes forward for consideration by the Secretary of State. He then makes such modifications as he thinks ought to apply. It is then open to people to object to those modifications if they wish to do so, and it then comes back to the Secretary of State for him to consider those objections. The current position, with regard to this particular case, is that he is now considering the objections which have been made.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate the latter reply from the Minister, but it does not alter the concern. I wonder whether the Minister will agree that the request for modification should not even have been made. We hope that the Secretary of State will consider the protests from quite a large number of organisations, not only in the area affected but also in the built-up areas near this area.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, other than by repeating what I said, I do not think that I can help the noble Lord any further, but I note what he says.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time.
386
It is proposed that the Report stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill should be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for approximately one hour, and that the Third Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill should be taken during this adjournment.

Industry Bill
Read 3a and passed.
Gas Levy Bill
Read 3a and passed.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it might be helpful if I inform your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government very much hope that it will be possible to complete Part II of the Bill today and at a not too inconveniently late hour. If that should happen and if we should be equally fortunate with Part III on Monday, it may be possible to avoid having to ask the House to sit next Friday, 20th March, in order to complete the Report stage. I believe that the House would be very grateful if this could be done. I shall inform the House at the earliest possible stage as to whether or not a sitting next Friday will be necessary.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 23 [Functions of Nature Conservancy Council]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 21, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to second ("and") in line 19 and insert ("five years after the passing of this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as Clause 23 now stands, the Nature Conservancy Council may at any time review Schedules 5 and 7 but must, 10 years after the passing of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 and every five years thereafter, review those schedules and advise the Secretary of State whether they are in need of revision. This requirement is very similar to that placed upon the Nature Conservancy Council by Section 12 of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, but would have the effect that the next mandatory review would take place in 1985.
The effect of this amendment is to fix a base date for mandatory reviews from the passing of this Bill. That seems to be an altogether tidier and logical arrangement, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for suggesting it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 157A:
Page 21, line 34, at end insert—
("(4) The Council may appoint such wildlife officers as they deem expedient to advise and assist the Police and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in the enforcement by them of the provisions of this Part and of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and of any orders or regulations made under those enactments.
(5) After section (1)(a)(iv) of the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 (which concerns the functions of the Council) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(v) The provision of advice and assistance to the Police and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in the enforcement by them of the provisions of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and of Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and of any orders or regulations made under those enactments, and".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 157A the first four lines of which read:
"('(4) The Council may appoint"—
that is, the Nature Conservancy Council—
"such wildlife officers as they deem expedient to advise and assist the Police and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in the enforcement by them of the provisions of this Part and of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 …".
It must astonish those who do not know this part of the world that the Nature Conservancy Council has at present no powers to appoint officers.
The situation today is that the RSPB and the RSPCA, which are both charities, are policing our wildlife legislation. In the last nine months they have secured six convictions leading to fines of £3,000 in all; 1,500 incidents have been reported to them and only 10 per cent. of those could they investigate. It cannot be a permanent feature in this country that voluntary bodies alone police and investigate offences against the law of the land. But we have just had the Budget and times are difficult, and I appreciate and applaud the unwillingness of anyone to put fresh burdens on the taxpayer at this time.
However, it will be a long time before we have another Bill like this one. Therefore, as was done in the Control of Pollution Act, we must legislate for the future when things that ought to be done now can at last be afforded. I recommend this amendment because it begins, "The Council may appoint …" and not "The Council shall appoint …". I just do not believe that the Government could be so shortsighted or uncaring for the future not to accept this. I am sure that they know that the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand already employ people to enforce wildlife legislation, and that nearer home the Irish Government have just appointed 45 full-time wildlife wardens. The Nature Conservancy Council should have the powers to do what ought to be done as soon as the country can afford it, and that is all we ask. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, when this subject was discussed during the Committee stage we expressed our disquiet at a concept that law enforcement duties should be placed on the Nature Conservancy Council. I am glad to see from this amendment that the noble Lords moving it have accepted this situation. I am sure that the Nature Conservancy Council would be willing to perform the functions proposed in this amendment so far as it was possible to do so within
388
the resources available to the council, as my noble friend has said, and provided that the council was in no way involved in an investigatory role. On this understanding the Government can certainly accept the principle of this amendment, and will consider putting down an appropriate amendment themselves.
Unfortunately, as regards the present amendment, I understand that the police as such do not enforce in the sense of bringing legal proceedings; that is done by individual officers acting in their own names in the case of summary offences and by the Crown in the case of indictable offences. I hope that with this early undertaking my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment so that the Government can put down their own.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I am very happy with that reply, and very happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 157B not moved.]
Clause 25 [Regulations, Orders, Notices, etc.]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 22, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Any power to make regulations or orders under this Part shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(1A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Part, or an order under a provision of this Part other than sections 2(6), 3, 5 and 11, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(1B) No order under section 5 or 11 shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to meet a number of assurances given in Committee. They require that all orders made under Part I, except those made under Clauses 2(6), 3, 9 and 11 are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; that is by Negative Resolution. This follows the position in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.
As I said in Committee to my noble friend Lord Stanley, we do not consider Affirmative Resolution procedure for those matters justified. This is a procedure normally reserved for orders of special concern, such as those on financial matters. However, for orders under Clauses 5 and 11—prohibition of methods of killing or taking birds and animals respectively—the Government have taken note of the concern expressed in Committee that the Affirmative Resolution procedure is justified, even though generally proposals to amend the list may be expected to be uncontroversial.
In regard to the orders under Clauses 2(6) and Clause 3, we do not consider that they need a parliamentary procedure. Clause 2(6) orders for the protection of Schedule 2, Part I, birds in the open season, must invariably be made very quickly in order to give protection when it is needed. Such orders last only for 14 days. Clause 3 orders for areas of special protection can be made only if all owners or occupiers in the area proposed for designation agree to the making of an order or at least do not disagree within a three-month period provided for. So again it is not felt that Parliament needs to be involved. I beg to move.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 158A as an amendment to Amendment No. 158:
Line 5, leave out ("and 11") and insert (",11 and 21").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I did not quite realise that I was going to be called now. First, I should like to thank my noble friend for agreeing to the affirmative procedure on the two cases that I asked him for. Even though he did give me the answer "no" to start with, he seems to have given me the answer "yes". However, for reasons that I do not understand, my noble friend has not allowed it in Clause 25, which applies to allowing discussion by Parliament of alterations to the various schedules of birds, animals and plants under Clause 21.
I am specially concerned about this now because of the remarks made by the Government on Amendment No. 24 and, in particular, Amendment No. 74. An addition to Schedule 5 could result in a farmer not being able to take emergency action under Clause 10 for animals and Clause 4 for birds. It is therefore essential that the Government should clarify the effect of their Amendments Nos. 24 and 74, and one of the first steps they should take is to grant an Affirmative Resolution procedure. That would help in the Third Reading battle that I see appearing on the horizon. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I must say that I am quite happy with the Government's proposed amendment. It meets what I accept were at the Committee stage some real worries that noble Lords opposite had about the way in which methods of killing animals and birds could be altered in future. I am not so happy with Lord Stanley of Alderley's amendment to the amendment, because there are inevitably going to be a fairly large number of additions and alterations to all these schedules. Plants are going to come on and go off. During the passage of the Bill at least one moth has been discovered that people did not know about and has had to be added. If that is all going to be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedures, it is going to be a nightmare. I should prefer to stick at what the Government have proposed.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, may I just correct one thing that was wrong in my earlier speaking note? I should have referred in my second sentence to orders made under Sections 2(6) 3, 5 and 11. I said "3, 9 and 11"; I should have read "5".
In answer to my noble friend, while the Government can understand the fears expressed, I would remind him that we have set up an elaborate machinery to ensure that species are not added to, or deleted from, schedule without full discussion. I cannot conceive that an order made by the Secretary of State would not have become well known to all concerned before it was made. In these circumstances, the Government do not see that there is any reason further to burden both Houses with Affirmative Resolutions for schedule changes of this kind. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend will not feel that he has to press his amendment to the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am particularly concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, thinks
390
that there are going to be a great many changes on these schedules. This reinforces the importance of them being looked at carefully, as my noble friend Lord Avon pointed out. May I ask my noble friend to consider this matter when he is considering his Amendments No. 24 and No. 74, which he promised to take away and look at, because they very much bear together? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158B not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 22, line 5, leave out ("which relates to the protection of birds").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is part of a tidying up process on consultation whose effect is to require that the consultation procedures set out in Clause 25(2)(a), (b) and (c) apply in respect of all orders made under Part I, whether for birds or not, with two minor exceptions which I shall mention when moving the next amendments. It is proper that the same procedure should apply generally throughout Part I of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 22, line 7, at beginning insert ("except in the case of an order under section 21(3)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 21(3) provides that orders made under that section to add or delete animals or plants from Schedules 5 or 7 can only be made following representation from the Nature Conservancy Council. It would therefore be duplication to require consultation with an advisory body which in any case will be the Nature Conservancy Council. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 22, line 11, leave out ("or") and insert ("affected and, except in the case of an order under section 2(6) or 3, any").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, again this amendment seeks to avoid duplication of a consultation requirement. Clause 2(6) and Clause 3 orders have their own requirements for consultation with people directly affected by the making of the order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Interpretation of Part I]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 22, line 37, after ("authority") insert ("or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to correct omission of an "or". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 162A and 163 not moved.]
3.37 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 163A:
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—
(""domestic duck" means any domestic form of duck; "domestic goose" means any domestic form of goose;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 166ZD and 166ZC at the same time. The noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Kilbracken, expressed concern in Committee that the present definition of poultry might be interpreted to include, for example, normally wild species of duck which were kept in captivity and bred there. I am advised that the term "poultry" as defined could be so interpreted, thus creating a loophole.
It is our intention that wild ducks and wild geese bred in captivity should be covered by the Act, and these amendments achieve the desired aim. We originally intended to speak of a domestic form of all birds mentioned in the definition, but are unable to, as domestic forms of other than ducks and geese do not currently exist. However, for practical purposes we believe that the problem area is covered. Also we have removed the prefix "domestic" from the term "turkey" as it serves no useful purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I have tried to cope with this question of the definition of poultry in my later Amendment No. 166A, but instead of moving it I should like to make a couple of comments on the amendment moved by the noble Earl. I wonder whether his proposal in fact removes the objections that my noble friend Lord Melchett and I had at Committee stage. He certainly seems to be of the opinion that the word "domestic" in the existing definition applies to all the species or kinds of bird listed in the definition. But we run into problems because of what we normally think of as being chickens, which are referred to as being "domestic fowls". Without the adjective "domestic" we just have "fowls", and that does not mean chickens at all. So the word "domestic" is wholly employed in turning fowls into domestic fowls, and it cannot go on to qualify geese, ducks, guinea-fowls, pigeons and quails. That is the first objection.
The second is that this amendment defines what is meant by "domestic duck" and "domestic goose", but how about the pigeon and the quail? Here are the other two sorts of bird listed in this definition which also exist as wild birds. There are wild pigeons and wild quail. We are not told what is meant by a domestic pigeon or a domestic quail. Thirdly, I do not see how taking the word "turkeys" from where it is and putting it in at the end with another "and" so that it reads "pigeons and quails and turkeys" thereby removes it from the control of the adjective "domestic". I think my Amendment No. 166A is very much better.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, this is a complicated and technical matter. It might be wisest for the noble Earl to consider the matter, and I should be interested in having a copy of the letter if he intended to write to my noble friend about it.
The Earl of Avon: Indeed I will, my Lords. To comment briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said, in our definition of "poultry" at present, as noble Lords now know, when we say
"domestic fowls, geese, turkeys, guinea fowls, pigeons and quails"
392
the word "domestic" qualifies all those. We now have another one, "and turkeys", which means they would not be required, but I agree that that is a minor point compared with what the noble Lord mentioned and I will have another look at it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 23, line 10, leave out ("grouse (or moor game), black (or heath) game") and insert ("red grouse, black grouse").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to the battle over the definition of game birds which I raised in Committee with another proposal for amending the references to grouse. The reason for this, as I pointed out in Committee, is largely that the word "grouse", if unqualified, includes both capercaillie and ptarmigan, and the use of the words "moor game" and "heath game", which are those applying under the Game Act 1831, are now practically never used, and what the definition actually refers to are the two species of the red grouse and black grouse. The definition as it stands technically includes the capercaillie, and the ptarmigan appears twice, both under the heading of "grouse" and under its own steam as "ptarmigan". I therefore feel it would be shorter, clearer, more up-to-date and less equivocal if the provision read, "partridge, red grouse, black grouse or ptarmigan". I do not think that would require any amendment of the 1831 Act because it would be saying what that Act says but in a clearer and more up-to-date form.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows the answer already. Although the amendment would modernise the definition, wording similar to that employed in the definition has been used in the Game Act 1831 and the Protection of Birds Acts for many years without giving rise to any of the problems the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, fears. To alter the definition in the Bill would therefore be likely to cause confusion. The Home Secretary is firmly opposed to Government involvement in the amendment of the game laws and the Home Office emphasises that it would be most unfortunate if anyone gained the impression that the Government were contemplating the amendment of a similar definition of "game" used in the 1831 Act or any revision of the game laws. It is for that reason and not because we are out of sympathy with the noble Lord that I hope he will not press the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I have no intention of pressing it, my Lords. I know the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is interested in the position of the capercaillie and intends to raise this matter again on Third Reading. If, as the result of any discussions he might have with the Minister, there will be any change involving the capercaillie, that would make it more necessary to change the definition of "game birds" here, and of course the capercaillie position is special in that it could not be in the 1831 Act because at the time of that Act it had not yet been established in Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 165 to 166A not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): The next amendment has been wrongly marshalled, my Lords; it comes after No. 166ZC. So the next amendment is No. 166ZB.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 166Z B and 166ZC:
Page 23, line 24, leave out ("turkeys").
Page 23, line 25, at end insert ("and turkeys").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments, my Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 166ZA:
Page 23, line 26, at end insert ("and cognate expressions shall he construed accordingly").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 33A and many others relating to the same point, we have tightened up the controls on sale. This amendment is part of the same process and improves the definition of "sale" so that some of the more devious ways of offering for sale without actually saying so are caught.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 166B:
Page 23, line 28, leave out ("with its roots").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, on which many of the provisions of this Bill in regard to plants are founded, did not treat fungi and algae as plants except in the composite form of lichen. In this Bill we are not making that distinction but are including fungi and algae. We recognise that the definition of "uproot" in Clause 26 is not entirely apt for these plants; they do not have roots and to talk about removing a plant "at its roots" from the land is obviously inappropriate. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for suggesting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No. 167ZA:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Areas of special scientific interest
.—(1) Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features, it shall be the duty of the Council to notify that fact—

(a) to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated; and

(b) to every owner and occupier of any of that land.

(2) A notification under subsection (1)(b) shall specify—

(a) the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest; and

(b) any operations appearing to the Council to be likely to damage that flora or fauna or those features.

(3) The Ministers shall from time to time, after consultation with such persons appearing to them to represent any interests concerned as they consider appropriate—

(a) prepare codes containing such recommendations with respect to the management of areas notified under subsection (1)(b) as they consider proper for the guidance of owners and occupiers of those areas; and

394

(b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code in such manner as the Ministers think fit.

(4) A code prepared in pursuance of subsection (3) and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after being prepared; and the code or revised code, as the case may be, shall not be issued until the code or the proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses.
(5) Subject to subsection (4), the Ministers shall cause every code prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (3) to be printed, and may cause copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such price as the Ministers may determine.
(6) Section 23 of the 1949 Act (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect; but this section shall have effect as if any notification given to a local planning authority tinder that section had been so given under subsection (1)(a).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment covers the same subject as No. 167A standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Craigton and it may be for the convenience of the House if we discussed both at the same time. Considerable anxiety was expressed in Committee over the preservation of SSSIs, and the amendment has been tabled to try to deal with that problem. These SSSIs are, as we all agree, valuable parts of our heritage and to preserve them we rely basically on two sets of people, first on the Nature Conservancy Council to depict where the sites lie and what scientific interest they contain, and secondly on the farmers and landowners on whose land the sites are to ensure that they help to preserve them.
Where there are quite exceptional areas, they can be dealt with under the Bill and be given the super treatment accorded by Clause 27, with all the paraphernalia of orders and discussions with the NCC and the setting up of conditions and rights of appeal, which can lead to inquiries which will require the NCC to justify its reasons for notifying a site. All that may be very time-consuming and expensive, but it is necessary and it is a necessary consequence of the importance of these scientific sites. But there are nearly 4,000 sites and, desirable though it may be in a perfect world that all sites should be given the Clause 27 treatment, it is unrealistic to expect that that will be so, at any rate at the outset, first because the task would be Herculean and secondly because of the limitation of funds, and we are therefore all concerned as to how best to treat the sites which do not receive the super treatment.
In the past, farmers and landowners have not always known that they had an SSSI on their land. The obligations which were laid on the Nature Conservancy Council were merely to notify the local authority of the existence of an SSSI and they had, and still have, no obligation to tell the owner or occupier. As a result, the owner or occupier was frequently in ignorance of the existence of a site, and in many cases he may have done something on the site in total ignorance of the fact that he was doing any harm. No one knows in the case of how many of the sites which have been reported as damaged or destroyed each year lack of this essential information was the cause.
Therefore, the first step towards preserving the sites is to ensure that the owner of the land knows that he has an SSSI on his land. In order to achieve that it is reasonable to place an obligation on the Nature Conservancy Council to notify the owner that he has

395
an SSSI on his land, what it is in each case that he has on his land which is so unique and what he ought to do, or possibly ought not to do, in order to conserve the object. I think that on that point we all agree.
We then come to the problem of how to deal with the people who own sites. First, it is right to acknowledge that the majority of the farming community are just as concerned as anyone else to see nature preserved. The fact that nature has been preserved to date is due largely to the farming community. Their business and their life is dealing with nature, and I think that in the national debate on the Bill, or on conservation in general, it is vital that we should not, either intentionally or unintentionally, polarise people into being, on the one hand, conservationists, or, on the other hand, farmers or landowners.
It is essential that these two interests are not seen to be opposing interests, are not seen to be in conflict one with the other. In practice they are not, and they should not be, though we may be in danger of encouraging that inadvertently by over-enthusiasm in one or other direction. If we do precipitate interests out in that way, we shall do a disservice to both, and indeed to conservation in general. What of coin se I recognise is that, as in any group of people who are not stereotyped, there are some who, for one reason or another, will not preserve that which they have, or who may even destroy it; and once a scientific heritage is gone, it is of course gone for good.
The problem which faces your Lordships is how best to deal with conservation in the light of the interests of both the agricultural community (with their knowledge of, and aptitude for, the land and nature) and those who wish to conserve, recognising that there may be among the agricultural community a few who will turn out to be unsympathetic.
I can understand the feelings of those who say that in the last resort we must have recourse to the courts. That view is reflected in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, Amendment No. 167A. It lays a statutory duty on the farmer to consult the Nature Conservancy Council; and it places upon him a statutory restriction, preventing him from doing what he wishes to do until the Nature Conservancy Council has had time both to consider the matter and to try to persuade him, if necessary, to do something different. Under the amendment, if in the last resort the farmer goes against the opinion of the Nature Conservancy Council he will find himself subjected to prosecution. I would not seek to deny that there is much strength in that argument and that from the point of view of conservation it may be theoretically desirable. But the purpose of Parliament must be to make sure that as far as is possible legislation which we pass achieves the effect which is desired; and very often human nature is such that we achieve the reverse effect to that which is desired.
I recall that when a schoolboy I used to learn about various laws, such as Ohm's law, Boyle's law and Faraday's law. I coined a law, which obviously I was compelled to call Ferrer's law, which stated that everything has the reverse effect to that which is intended—and I can assure your Lordships that it frequently does. I recall the occasion when the National Gallery
396
bought the Goya painting of the Duke of Wellington. It was hung for everyone to see. Then someone stole it. The fact emerged that the number of people who went to see the place where the picture had hung was greater than the number of people who had gone to see the picture when it was there.
I fear that if we are not careful the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Craigton might have the reverse effect to that which he intends. In an endeavour to close a bolthole against a few misguided people we may well antagonise the whole of the farming community, upon whom we ultimately rely for the care of their land and upon whom we rely for co-operation in carrying out the wishes of Parliament. To have such people taken to court and treated as though they had done something criminal would I think cause great hostility in the agricultural community. If your Lordships set up this criminal procedure you will have to accept the inevitable corollary that a farmer or a landowner will have to be given the right, at an earlier stage, to dispute the imposition of an SSSI on part of his land, against which at present there is no legal right, nor avenue of challenge.
Inquiries would be necessary, with expert witnesses called by both farmers themselves and the Nature Conservancy Council, and that would bring in its wake great expense and a whole bureaucratic system of legal intricacies. Your Lordships will see that Schedule 10 to the Bill sets out what those intricacies and complexities will be. I hope that your Lordships will agree that such a system may be acceptable in relation to the protection of Grade 1 and Grade 2 sites, but that it surely cannot be justified in relation to the generality of sites on the assumption that a mere handful of farmers or landowners will offend against the conservation spirit.
Though I can well see the arguments for it, I really do not think that the imposition of these legalistic restrictions on the agricultural community, such as is proposed in the amendment of my noble friend, would work. Indeed, I think that it would have the reverse effect to that intended. It would sour goodwill. It would cause resentment and antagonism—and that is not the best method by which to secure the cooperation that is needed. In the most extreme cases there might be some people who, foreseeing what the Bill may be providing when it becomes an Act, would take immediate action, and precipitate action, in order to ensure in advance that they did not have such a site on their land when the proposed régime came into operation. The maverick, the one we are after and the one who is the wrecker, may well do his wrecking before the Bill comes into operation, which at present he is legally entitled to do. Meanwhile, the remainder of the agricultural community would become grossly disenchanted.
Recognising the considerable and, indeed, justifiable concern which your Lordships expressed at the Committee stage, the Government have tried to see whether there is not another route through the difficulty between, on the one hand, the farmer or landowner being free to cock a snoop at the NCC and the SSSIs, and, on the other hand, the imposition of a rigid, legalistic system over what is, in effect, about 5 per cent. of the agricultural land. I think that there is such a route, and it is contained in the amendment in

397
the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, which we are discussing.
The effect of this amendment is that, other than on sites which are due to have the super treatment under the Bill, a farmer will be notified that he has an SSSI. He will be notified what it is that creates the SSSI, and he will he told what he ought not to do so that it is preserved. There will then be a voluntary code of conduct, which will be agreed between the interested parties—both the Nature Conservancy Council and the agriculturists and which will state the course that a farmer or landowner should take when in the position of having an SSSI on his land.
Under the amendment Ministers will be obliged to lay the code of practice before Parliament for Parliament to approve by Affirmative Resolution. So the code, though voluntary, will have all the statutory backing and authority of Parliament. The code would be likely to explain in simple, non-legal language what SSSIs are, how they are selected, why they are necessary and what needs to be done about them. It would indicate the procedures which the Nature Conservancy Council would be expected to follow in relation to the initial notification of SSSIs, and subsequently in their relations with owners and occupiers of land within SSSIs. It would indicate that owners and occupiers, for their part, would be expected to give appropriate advance notification to the Nature Conservancy Council of proposed operations which would be likely to damage the conservation value of these sites.
I feel that a voluntary code of practice along these lines, with the statutory backing of Parliament, would be warmly welcomed by farmers, by landowners and by nature conservationists. I readily acknowledge that it does not go to the ultimate resort, which some would like to see, of farmers being taken to court for destruction of a site. However, I believe that it would bring harmony, co-operation and understanding among the three interests concerned, and that antagonism would be removed. I for my part am quite sure that this is the right path to go along, and I would seek your Lordships' support for this amendment as being in the best interests of the ends which we are all trying to achieve. If there are sites which are in real danger of being extinguished, then of course there is always the possibility of employing the super-treatment under Clause 27.
What we should be seeking is to encourage a better climate for collaboration and mutual trust between farmers and owner-occupiers, on the one hand, and conservationists, on the other—though, as I said at the outset, I think it is wrong that these two interests should become polarised. I very much hope that your Lordships will find this flexible and more human method of dealing with the problem preferable to the more rigid one which will result if the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Craigton were to be accepted instead of the amendment which I now formally move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that it is sensible to take the Government amendment and the all-party amendment, Amendment No. 167A, which follows it, and to discuss them together. Perhaps I could first make the point that I do not think there is any difference among any of us about the importance of what we are discussing.
398
We are talking about the protection of wildlife habitats. As the Secretary of State for the Environment said in 1979, shortly after he had taken up his duties:
"We have to do more than protect our green belts, we also have to preserve the habitats of wildlife …".
He went on to say:
"Particularly harmful are the effects of draining wetlands; enlargement of fields by hedge removal and clearance of small woodlands; ploughing up of permanent pastures; infilling of ponds and ditches,"
and so on.
A booklet which I quoted at Committee stage, produced by a committee of those interested in game and shooting and conservation, which included Mr. Marcus Kimball, MP, representing the British Field Sports Society, and a number of other organisations, including the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU, said in its introduction:
"All experienced game managers will agree that the most important factors are in the local habitat—seasonal cover and food factors influencing carrying capacity and brood survival …".
So there certainly is agreement, I think, among everyone about the importance of habitat conservation.
What I think there is a good deal less agreement about is the two alternative proposals which your Lordships' House has to consider this afternoon. It seems to me that there is a real danger of polarisation. I speak as a farmer and as a nature conservationist, and I agree with the noble Earl that there should not be a conflict between the two. The question we have to decide is whether the Government's proposals on their own are least likely to lead to that conflict or whether the all-party amendment is likely to lead to that conflict; and my very firm view is that if the Government amendment on its own is put into the Bill, conflict is inevitable. I will try to explain why I say that by going through what the Government are in fact proposing, about which the noble Earl was fairly reticent, because he did not touch the provisions in the Bill; he simply spoke to the amendment, and it is necessary to look at the whole package.
Before I do that, perhaps I could simply make this point. I think it is extremely unlikely that the code of practice is a starter anyhow. The National Farmers' Union, in the brief with which they have supplied your Lordships for today's debate, have said simply that they are considering the Government's proposals carefully; that their initial reaction is that they would be prepared to accept the principle of such a code of conduct; and that they believe that given the goodwill and co-operation of all the organisations involved it could be made to work. That co-operation and goodwill simply does not exist, because although the noble Earl suggested that this would be supported by nature conservationists it is bitterly opposed by all nature conservationists, including the Government's own statutory advisers.
Sir Ralph Verney, commenting on the Government's proposal to introduce a code of conduct over these sites, said in a press release yesterday:
"Even if a voluntary code of conduct were compiled jointly by the Agricultural Departments and NCC, with full consultation with landowning and farming organisations, and backed by the statutory authority of Parliament, it would not be effective in restraining either that small minority of farmers who care nothing for conservation or those who feel, in present economic circumstances, that they have no option but to maximise production ".

399
Sir Ralph Verney, the chairman of the Government's statutory advisers on nature conservation, went on to say:
"A code of conduct has existed in various forms for a number of years … despite these efforts the situation continues to deteriorate".
But I go through the Government's proposals on the assumption (which, as I say, I think is an extremely shaky one) that the code of conduct is a starter at all.
What we would have, looking at Amendment No. I67ZA first of all, is notification by the NCC under subsections (1) and (2) to landowners and farmers when they have an SSSI on their land and why it is important. That is agreed by all parties as being a highly desirable first step, and the same provisions appear in the all-party amendment. The next step under the Government's proposals would be that they would prepare a code of conduct, which would be voluntary and which, as the noble Earl said, would explain what SSSIs were and encourage farmers and landowners to inform the NCC if they intended to damage them. But, to use the noble Earl's words, at the end of the day, once somebody had been sent the code of conduct, the farmer and landowner would still be free to "cock a snook" at any SSE that they wanted.
In addition, because the Government are not prepared to do anything more than go for a code of conduct, SSSIs would not be a local land charge, as I think noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' Committee felt they should be. Indeed, amendments were moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and others to this effect at Committee stage, but were not pressed. Therefore, although these notices would be sent to existing owners and occupiers of SSSIs, any change of ownership or any change in farming tenants, or whatever, would mean that both the code of conduct which had arrived through the post and the original notification from the NCC would not automatically pass to successors in title, to new farming tenants, to people that buy the land and so on. So there is no guarantee that future owners or occupiers or farmers would know anything about either the SSSI or the code of conduct.
Going on from that, and assuming that the Government then turn to the provisions in the Bill for sites of special scientific interest, we have the position as follows. About 30, 40 or 45 sites are notified by the NCC to the Secretary of State for this Clause 27 procedure to apply. This is the part that the noble Earl did not really go into, and where it involves legal sanctions and at the moment, as the Bill stands, even imprisonment—that is, the Government's proposals, not those of the all-party amendment.
What would happen here is that presumably the NCC would try to pick those sites at risk of change or damage, but there would be no guarantee of that because there would be no guarantee that those changes would be notified to the NCC. So the NCC would in effect take 30 or 40 important sites out of the hat, some of which would not be threatened with change and some of which would. Then they would go to the Government, and the Government would put a compulsory order on them under Clause 27. The compulsory order, which appears in subsection (1) of
400
Clause 27 as it stands—the conditions that have to be complied with are in subsection (2), and subsection (4), on page 25 of the Bill, says what the order can prohibit—prohibits for 12 months the carrying out of any operation that would damage the land. As to the penalties, I know the Government intend to change them but at the moment, on page 26 of the Bill, it is provided that on summary conviction an offender is liable to a fine and, on indictment, to imprisonment or a fine.
So there is nothing between us about whether we want to have legal sanctions. The Government have them in the Bill, just as the all-party amendment does, except that ours exclude the possibility of prison, just as the Government intend to if an amendment to Clause 27 is carried later. But the Government proposals apply only to 30 or 40 sites and delay damage only for a year. They do not necessarily apply to sites which are actually at risk but could apply to sites which are not at risk at all and to landowners who have no intention of destroying them. There is nothing in Clause 27 which says it applies only to a site which is at risk because the Government have no procedure for ensuring that those are the sites which come forward for consideration. Here we have 30 or 40 sites. They have had an order applied to them and damage and destruction are prevented for 12 months. What do the Government then do if the landowner wishes to destroy or damage the site? There is nothing in the Bill to tell you. But the Government say that the NCC would use their existing powers of compulsory purchase to purchase the site if funds exist. That is the Government's proposal. It seems to me to be illogical, unworkable, unpopular with nature conservationists and regarded by them as a step backwards from the existing position—a disaster.
I go back to the beginning of the Government proposal, the voluntary code of conduct: what happens if the farmer or landowner does not stick to the code or if he does not know about it? Nobody has asked me—I farm an SSSI—whether I am prepared to agree to the code of conduct. The noble Earl sent me a copy of the amendment after the NFU brief arrived; but he did not ask me, or others who own an SSSI, whether I or they agree to it. Nobody has been consulted. The NFU is thinking about it. I do not know if the NFU in Wales is doing anything about it and it is usually more robust on these matters than the NFU. There has been no consultation and there is no possibility of realistic consultation. I think it is inevitable, because there is no way to ensure that successors in title know about the deal, that the code will be broken regularly on a fairly large scale.
The worse damage to SSSIs tends to come from people buying farms, new owners from Europe, perhaps, a company buying a hit of land, or a young son taking over from his father and thinking that a new broom is needed and that old hedgerows should he cut down and so on. We have all seen that happen in the countryside. What will happen in those cases? The code of conduct is broken. Who will be criticised? Who will the nature conservationists pillory? Who will they write to the papers complaining about? Who will they try to get condemned on television? Not the Government. They will go for the individual farmer and landowner, That is the only option they

401
have been given by the Government. There will be widespread, virulent criticism of the individual farmer and landowner for breaking a code of conduct about which no one has been consulted and about which some do not even know. That is the Government proposal.
Let us look at the alternative all-party amendment, No. 167A. That proposes that, first, the NCC should tell everyone if they have a bit of land which is an SSSI and why it is important. The notice served would take effect from the day it is served. That is a slight alteration from the Government amendment. It is significant because the notice under this proposal has some effect and the Government notice served under the code of conduct has no effect and therefore there is no need to put it in the Bill—and it is not in the Bill. This takes effect and, as has been made clear in subsection (12), these notifications would amount to a local land charge; so the all-party wish for an SSSI to be a local land charge would be carried out. In subsection (4) the landowner or occupier must notify the NCC if he is going to do something to damage or destroy the site. If he fails to do that there is a criminal penalty and a fine. That is on the next page in subsection (10) and that is the same as the proposal in the Bill at the moment; but we are being consistent and covering all SSSIs. In subsection (5) the NCC must decide within two months. If they cannot make their mind up, do not know or do not mind, or if there are no resources to deal with the application within two months, the farmer goes ahead and does what he wants. There are no awkward orders going to the Secretary of State and so on. If the NCC offer an agreement, they proceed under subsection (6) and there is a further ten months (12 months in all) from the original notification, with compensation, as provided already in the Bill—again this is different from the Government procedure. In that period, everybody hopes voluntary agreements will be reached. If not, and the NCC think that they cannot reach voluntary agreement, then we go to subsection (7), where there is a significant difference between the all-party amendment and the Government proposal. The Bill leaves the NCC if all else fails with only the option of compulsory purchase.
The all-party amendment suggests two alternatives: either a compulsory purchase order under subsection (7)(a) or a compulsory order-making power under (7)(b), with compenstion. I know that the NFU and others feel that a compulsory order-making power is less attractive to the farmer than a compulsory purchase order. I cannot understand it, but that is how they feel. The all-party amendment makes clear that the landowner or farmer has a choice between two courses of action—not the NCC and not the Government. That is a significant difference from the Bill's proposal, where, if they have the funds, the NCC go ahead with compulsory purchase whether the landowner likes it or not. My own view is that many people would prefer an order prohibiting them from, say, ploughing or afforesting a small part of their land, with compensation payable, to a compulsory purchase by the NCC, but that is a personal view. It is left in this all-party amendment to the personal choice of the landowner or farmer concerned.
The rest of the amendment is straightforward. Subsection (8) gives the NCC time to complete a com-
402
pulsory purchase order. Subsection (9) brings in the compensation provision. Subsection (10) ensures no imprisonment. In subsection (10)(b) there is a misprint. It ought to read:
"on conviction on indictment, to a fine."
And not: "… to a fine or both". Subsection (11) is the same as in the Bill.
Which of these two proposals is likely to lead to polarisation? Which is likely to lead to conflict? It is clear that the all-party amendment will lead to conflict with the Government. The all-party amendment falls down and does not protect sites if there is no money available. Then the NCC cannot make their compulsory order and they have to let the farmer do what he wants. If there is no money available, the NCC cannot issue a compulsory purchase order; they have to let the farmer do what he wants. All of us, NFU, CLA, conservationists, criticise the Government for not making sufficient funds available. What happens under the Government proposal? There the thing breaks down sooner than that. Because it is only a voluntary code of conduct, which is going to be ignored by a large number of people, at that stage conflict occurs, and it is then that people get pilloried and aggravation occurs—not directed to the Government for failing to provide sufficient funds but to the poor individuals and thankless farmers and landowners who, possibly unwittingly, have broken the code of conduct. For that reason, the Government propose their amendment and for that reason I hope that everyone in the House will support the all-party amendment after we have got the Government amendment into the Bill.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a compelling speech condemning the Government proposal and recommending what he calls the all-party one. I should like to deal first with the uncontroversial part. Having deplored both at Second Reading and in Committee the lack of any statutory duty on the NCC to inform the occupier or owner about the SSSI on his land, I need hardly say that I welcome the first two subsections of Amendment No. 167A. That is especially so since the amendment lays a notification duty on the NCC, not just for any new sites but for all existing ones as well. We have repeatedly been given alarming statistics about damage to biological as distinct from geological sites, and we have been told of the destruction of four key sites. About half the damage is due to action by such bodies as internal drainage boards, and I think we are told that the other half is due to damage by farming and forestry operations. In the light of NCC past practice, this is not very surprising.
I can give yet another set of statistics. The CLA last month carried out a survey of owners who knew that they had SSSIs—and a great many of them do not. In 63 per cent. of the cases, covering 71 per cent. of the area, the NCC had not had any discussion whatever with the owners about land management. Perhaps the NCC thought that the great majority of owners are true conservationists anyway, as indeed they are. Whatever the reason, that is an example of past NCC practice; and, much as I respect the NCC, it has to be said that they bear some part of the blame if sites

403
have not been adequately looked after. So this new statutory duty upon the NCC will go a long way towards the safeguarding of sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is arguing that the Government's proposal is purely a voluntary arrangement which will not prevent a farmer from doing something harmful if he decides to ignore the code of behaviour being proposed in the amendment. At the same time, I have no doubt, he would forfeit the respect of his fellow farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is arguing that something tougher is required, such as is contained in Lord Craigton's amendment.
I understand that point of view. I acknowledge that, although the Bill provides for a restraint order under Clause 27, which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is criticising, where a site is in danger and no one knows that it is in danger then the Clause 27 procedure does not get triggered off, so there is gap. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would say that a statutory code of conduct is not enough. I thoroughly understand the reason which has led to the drafting of the all-party amendment, but I must say that I have not found it easy to choose which of the two alternatives being put in front of us to support. I see a great deal of merit in Lord Craigton's amendment, and of course his method of control—
Lord Craigton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, is he considering these two amendments as alternatives? Can they not both go in the Bill?
Lord Middleton: Surely they can, my Lords. I am looking on them as alternatives. Of course, they could both be in the Bill if the House so decided. Lord Craigton's amendment does not take two factors sufficiently into account. The first is the lively and growing awareness among farmers of public interest in the countryside. This has been, and will continue to be, fostered by their own organisations, as I have said in Committee—the National Farmers' Union and the CLA. The Countryside Commission have also done a great deal of work. This will continue to be fostered by the farming and wildlife advisory groups. The other factor is the undoubted fact that one gets much better results from willing farmers than from coerced farmers. I have had a long and happy experience of working with fellow farmers. I know very well that while they can be led a long way, one cannot push them one inch.
I believe that a system which relies as much as possible on voluntary co-operation by farmers is in the long run the best way to achieve what we all want, which is good conservation. It is perfectly true that the Government are taking a risk in that with a voluntary system which does not involve (as the amendment in the name of Lord Craigton does) compulsory notification by the farmer one might on occasion get vandalism—and my noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to a maverick—and the type of man who perpetrated the disaster in Suffolk that we all deplored so much. However, after a good deal of thought my support goes to the Government's alternative, as I am calling it. That involves trusting the farming community to behave responsibly once they are fully informed by the NCC.
I must finish with this warning. Any system of site
404
protection, particularly one which lays emphasis on management agreements, can be effective only if there is sufficient money made available to the NCC. We all know that in the country's present financial situation it would be difficult to provide extra financial assistance. Without it no system can work, whether it is the one that I hope will be adopted, which is the voluntary one, or whether, like Lord Craigton's, it contains more complicated procedures. This point has been made many times, and no one made it better than my noble friend Lord Buxton on Second Reading. I make no apology for emphasising it again. It is absolutely crucial if we are to achieve what the Bill is trying to achieve and what we are all trying to achieve, which is good conservation.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I should like to say a few words as I came in on this point at the Committee stage. What concerns me is the proposal for a code of conduct (which, as I was in my native land yesterday, I did not even see until this morning) which is to be laid before Parliament and which has to obtain the assent of Parliament. Yet, once Parliament has given that assent, there is no means whatever by which that code of conduct can be put into effect. Parliament is being asked to enact something which is not legislation in the normal sense of the word: it is simply asking people to follow a no doubt most desirable code, which surely could be done by administrative action.
I should like the Minister to explain to us why we need to go through this procedure in both Houses of Parliament with something which has no bite. It is asking people, and I am not against that—but why should we pretend? It seems to me, frankly, that this is something of a conjuring trick. It is suggesting that something is going to be done in Parliament with the assent of both Houses which will then not have the force of law, as I understand it. I should be glad on purely constitutional grounds if it could be explained to us just why the Government think that this particular parliamentary procedure is required at all for something which, so far as I can understand, has no force.
On the point of maintaining an equable climate in the countryside, no one wishes that more than myself. In my own small way I endeavour to encourage such an outlook in the Principality, where I have some influence with the conservation lobby. I have been looking at the NFU's own journal, Insight—the special number published in late January which devoted itself to this Bill. I must admit that it is not easy to feel full confidence about the great difference we are hoping there will be if this code of conduct is promulgated when one reads of some of the remarks made. Referring to the clause now under discussion, having gone into the proposals in the Bill (as it then was) it says:
"given public opinion on conservation and the NFU's policy of caring for the countryside, it might be unwise for the Union to lock horns with the conservation lobby".
But it also says that a clause
"which introduces an element of compulsion [is] a concept which is wholly contrary to the NFU's policy of encouraging a voluntary spirit of co-operation in the countryside ".
I am quite sure that the purpose behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and

405
others is that compulsion should be an absolutely last resort. Nobody wants to start with compulsion. It would be quite stupid ever to do so. On the other hand, surely it is not proper for citizens of any civilised and democratic body politic to suggest that they should have a different attitude to the law from that of any other citizen. We are all, being members of a community, subject to certain constraints and certain compulsions. There is nothing unknown about that.
I must say that I find it very difficult to go on trying to work for peaceful solutions when one has the attitude that the farmers, landowners and perhaps even the timber-growers are so special that they must not contemplate being bound in the sort of way that so many of us, after all, in so many different situations in life, accept as part of the price to be paid for being members of a civilised society. Why should they be exempt? Everyone wants the matter to be reasonable.
I looked further in this publication; and this is not a comment from the NFU as such but a comment from the National Adviser and Organiser of what is commonly known as FWAG, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, in which he is referring with what seems to be a certain despair:
"Many efforts have been made to show that farmers do care"—
that is to say, about conservation. Of course the great majority do and we are not worried about the people who go to seminars and meetings and discuss. They are not the ones who cause the trouble; it is the ones who do not. He goes on to say:
"In November 1977 the NFU and the CLA issued a joint Statement of Intent, Caring for the Countryside"—
and I am sure that many of us will remember that so clearly. It came out more or less contemporaneously with the Strutt Committee sittings and we all felt that here at last was some sort of a breakthrough and something which really meant something. These are his words and not mine:
"The sentiments were admirable. Unfortunately it was a 'two-day wonder '. Even among farmers who work with FWAG I failed to find any great enthusiasm for it, and apart from the work which FWAG did before its publication and continues to do since, little practical resulted".
I just mention these matters to try to put into some sort of perspective the apprehensions which I know the great majority of voluntary environmental organisations in this country have unless there is some longstop—and, after all, we are asking for no more than that—and one would certainly hope that with the very much improved procedure proposed in the Government amendment and included in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, things will work and the situation will be improved.
The final point is that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, is absolutely right when he says that the key to most of this is cash. It is not really ill will, except in exceptional instances: it is mostly money. I should like just to say something about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, because he has put his finger on one of the really important things which the Government have not faced. To my mind, this is really the great disappointment of the Bill. Those of us who thought this was going to be a real step forward in connection with conservation recognise, as do all the agricultural and forestry interests, that the basic problem
406
of all this is not the lists in Part I, nor even so much what we are arguing about under this clause. It is the fact that you must recognise there are two sides to the equation; that if you do not pay agricultural grants you ought to have some money to pay for conservation, and that you are not necessarily going to spend any more but you will achieve different results—results which many citizens in this country would prefer, for varying reasons. This has not been faced anywhere in the Bill and it has not been faced in any speech that I have heard so far from the Government Bench. This lies behind the attempts many of us are making so to improve this Bill that it will really be the step forward for which we have all been waiting for so many years.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness has made the most amazing statement. I understood her to say that farmers and landowners considered themselves above the law—
Baroness White: My Lords, I did not suggest for one moment that they would do anything illegal; I do not wish to be misunderstood. "Above the law" usually means that you are trying to do something illegal. What they are asking for is that the law should be different for them, which is not quite the same thing.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says in her explanation but I think she is quite wrong there. Farmers and landowners are most law-abiding people, and especially if we compare them to another section of the community—the trade unions—who do consider themselves above the law—and, of course, to a great extent they are above the law. But I will not enlarge on that. I should like to say that I personally will support the Government alternative on this. The only reason for that is that I think it would be quite wrong to bring in any coercion under the criminal law regarding this question.
I remember once a small hill farmer tenant of mine chased an agricultural executive officer down the hill with a scythe because the man was trying to coerce him, presumably, and had there not been two other men there he would really have done him some damage. But that is a great exception with farmers. Really it is far better to deal with matters without the criminal law. As my noble friend Lord Middleton said, the real crux of this matter regarding farmers and SSSIs is that if enough funds are available in the coffers of the NCC to compensate farmers, there will he no trouble at all. Even if the farmers are a bit thin, I do not think there will be any problem.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, perhaps I might speak on this, although I was not intending to since I am going to move Amendment No. 167A in the names of my noble friend Lord Craigton, myself and others. But since the two are being taken together perhaps it might help if I. were to say a few words now. I shall be very concise, but I want to say straight away that I am not going to be hurried. I am not going to have it said by my grandchildren and descendants—or by anyone else's—that I could not press the case for wildlife conservation because of the timetable.

407
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has helpfully explained most of the points contained in Amendment No. 167A and so I need not go through that again now. I am completely puzzled—because I was in the Falkland Islands during the Committee stage—as to what really this is all about. It seems to me quite incomprehensible. We seem to be locked in some kind of phantom struggle about SSSIs. I feel almost as if I were struggling and fighting in a rugger scrum and becoming increasingly aware that the ball is not there.
Everybody in this House agrees about the importance of the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Everybody in this House deplores the damage that has been done. I read with horror of some of the cases quoted in the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Onslow, and by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who mentioned a case in Suffolk, and so on. There is nobody here who does not deplore that. Nobody has said a word against SSSIs in principle, or suggested that they should be abolished, and I am certain that if we reconvened elsewhere at a conference there would be absolute unanimity and agreement. The position is therefore completely incomprehensible and I have tried to assess and analyse what it is all about.
It has never entered my head that I am not standing shoulder to shoulder with farmers, landowners and conservationists, all of whom have exactly the same interest as myself. I happen to have the additional interest of being bird mad, but that does not make one either long-haired or peculiar. It is simply an additional hobby which is shared by millions of people in this country. Therefore, there is no disagreement.
To polarise the matter and keep talking about farmers and conservationists is nonsense, because we are all interested in the same subject and so is the public. I therefore conclude that there is some kind of eminence grise in the background, who is trying to manipulate us in this House in our attitude to this Bill. There is simply nothing in this amendment that could possibly be objected to, if it applied to anything other than SSSIs.
I feel that I share the interests very closely with my noble friend Lord Middleton. I have never disagreed with him about anything and I did not disagree with anything he said today, except when he said that these amendments are alternatives. I disagree with that. I see no difficulty whatever—it may require a little bit of clerical tinkering—in both amendments being accepted. But 1 will say this to my noble friend. I do not see why any one segment of the population should be allowed to adopt a different attitude to the law.
I do not know what it is about farmers not being able to be pushed. All I can say is that they had better become businessmen, bankers or anything you like and then they will know what life is like. Why should they not be pushed in the national interest? It is perfectly reasonable to have to observe the law. There is absolutely no need or reason to fear that they would be in the slightest danger of getting into trouble or of going to gaol. In none of the amendments is it suggested that anybody should go to prison; that would be preposterous. There is no need for anybody to get into trouble at all.
408
Under our amendment, all that farmers and landowners are asked to do is to notify the Nature Conservancy Council when they want to do something. That is perfectly easy and is just a question of sending a postcard. Then there is a process which takes some time—and why not? In a few cases, the Nature Conservancy Council will say "No, you can't do that". Then the landowner or the farmer is given the option of saying, "All right, you must get the Secretary of State to make an order", or, "All right, have a compulsory purchase order".
If at that stage the Government say, "Sorry, we have not got any money", that will be the end of the matter. Nobody has gone to prison, nothing has happened, but the machinery and the safety net are there if they are ever needed. If the country is ever rolling in money again and wants to splash it around—I nearly said as they do with the arts, but I will not—then the machinery can operate and these places are safe.
I really do not believe, first, that there is any danger to any farmer. Secondly, I cannot understand what are the fears or apprehensions, because landowners and owners of historic houses do not object to these very simple safeguards and restrictions. Thirdly, I am concerned with only the tiny minority, the little fraction of unfeeling people who really do not care a fig. I am absolutely wish my noble friend Lord Middleton in thinking that 99 per cent. of farmers and landowners have no problems about this. Most of them are probably rather proud of their SSSIs. Perhaps their children and their wives are deeply interested in reedwarblers or whatever it is. There is very rarely an occasion when there is any problem.
But my noble friend Lord Onslow, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and others have shown what can happen. I myself have seen a young son, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, go crazy with bulldozers and JCVs, and those people must be caught in the net before the worst happens. There are also foreigners, if I may use that word, who are buying up places in this country and do not live here. Why should they care a fig? They will simply tell the manager to get on with it.
This amendment is not directed towards the admirable members of the CLA and the NFU. It is a sensible measure to catch the rogues, if there are any, such as we have constantly in the North Sea; and I am always having to talk about the 15 per cent. of substandard tankers and sub-standard crews. All the main oil companies and the reputable shipping companies are fine; it is just that little 15 per cent. In this case, it is perhaps 1 or 2 per cent.—I have no idea—but nothing is being done about them. I am just asking for a safety net and a bit of procedure. I just wanted to make a few remarks as the amendments are being taken together and I shall, if I may, put the amendment when the time comes.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I just want to say how glad I was to hear the noble Lord who has just spoken and, at the risk of plagiarising and repeating what I said at the Committee stage and on Second Reading, I should like to remind your Lordships that when we talk about the 99 per cent. who co-operate and the 1 per cent. who have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, as rogues, we are thinking not of any very small minority of rogues.

409
At the present time, we are legislating for the next decade or more. During that time, it is quite inevitable, in the nature of things, that there will be this very small minority of rogues who, in aggregate, over 10 or 15 years, can do an extraordinary amount of harm without that safety net.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am impressed by the argument brought forward by my noble friend in support of Amendment No. 167ZA, that we should as far as possible proceed by voluntary means. But we do not know about this code. It has only just been thought of and there has been no consultation on it. I cannot, however, understand why he has to resist Amendment No. 167A, because if his code works the procedures in No. 167A will never have to be invoked; they will not be needed. If his code—about which there has been no consultation and we do not know whether or not it will work—does not work, then we shall certainly need Amendment No. 167A. So why resist it?
Baroness David: My Lords, may I make just two brief comments? First, I should like to speak on something which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, about the CLA survey which also came into my hands. I understand that only about 90 people replied to it, and the noble Lord gave only percentages and not actual numbers of who had said what. So that the percentages could be rather misleading, suggesting that many more people answered than had, in fact, done so. Of those 90 who replied, I think that 34 were SSSE owners who were members of the RSPB, so it does not count for quite as much as the noble Lord suggested.
Two years ago the Nature Conservancy Council wrote to all SSSI owners in Wiltshire, requesting a discussion on management to promote nature conservation and the NCC received replies from only 2 per cent. of those owners or occupiers. May I comment on what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, about coercing the farmers and trying to make them out to be criminals. If he will look at subsection (8) of Clause 27 on page 26 of the Bill he will see that there the Government have inserted these words:
"A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (3) shall be liable—

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

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

I admit that imprisonment is to be deleted by a later amendment.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the real snag is that we are all agreed that no money is available. I am entirely with my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa. We want the greatest number of sites to be conserved, and if no money is available the voluntary system will go much further than the compulsory one. We are both on the same side; it is just a question of how one looks at it. I could quote thousands of cases where farmers are looking after very good sites for nothing at all. They will not even enter into a
410
management agreement. If, however, one introduces compulsion they will be very tempted to enter into management agreements and get money. In that way we should conserve fewer sites of special scientific interest. That is why I am in favour of the voluntary system.
I accept that there is a danger of antagonism between the Nature Conservancy Council and the farmer. I would blame the Nature Conservancy Council, while they would blame the farmer. It is natural in life that we should quarrel. However, they ought to try to understand that many farmers with sites of special scientific interest are farming in a small way. To come along with the clipboard approach, which they do, I am sorry to say, particularly in Wales, is unfortunate. Now that Sir Ralph, who has a farm in Anglesey, is chairman of the NCC, no doubt things will be much better.
Noble Lords have also said that a large number of sites have already been destroyed. Some have, but the number has probably been exaggerated. I never believe figures, anyhow; I see so many of them. Two very important points have been included in the Bill. The farmer is to be notified and he is also to be notified of what is there. I will give two disgraceful examples on the part of the Nature Conservancy Council to make the bet even with the noble Baroness, Lady White. The Countryside Commission has a demonstration farm in Worcestershire. In fact, they have 12 throughout the country. On the demonstration farm in Worcestershire neither the farmer nor the Countryside Commission knew that there was a site of special scientific interest. When they looked at the site, they said that it would be very nice to put trees upon it, so they planted trees there and ruined the site.
I will give noble Lords another example from Gwynedd in Wales. That site is owned by none other than the chairman of the Minister of Agriculture's agricultural panel. He is no backwoodsman. He was not even told that he had a site of special scientific interest and he destroyed it unintentionally. So we have made, I hope, some progress.
What we need is a voluntary system. I go along with the Government; we shall achieve more by that method. Of course we shall have rogues. Every system will have rogues. However, the way to deal with rogues is, as my noble friend Lord Middleton said, for their neighbours to lean on them. In the countryside, an awful lot of leaning is done by neighbours. I believe that that, rather than any statutory system, will stop more rogues. Apart from the fact that I should like my noble friend Lord Ferrers to take out subsection (5), I would go along with the voluntary system, not with Lord Craigton's.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord does not give credit to his colleagues. First, we accept the voluntary system and it will be included in the Bill, but we want to add to it something, after a year's negotiation and discussion, to deal with an abuse, which everybody who cares about the countryside deplores. The noble Lord has spoken rather gaily about the clipboard approach. I have an example here of the very opposite to the clipboard approach. It is an example from Herefordshire. It is a nationally rare example of unimproved permanent grassland,

411
of particular importance for its orchid species. The Nature Conservancy Council regarded the site as very important and approached the landowner on a number of occasions wishing to negotiate a management agreement, or to lease or purchase the site. Despite its tiny size, this the owner steadfastly refused to do, even when MAFF and ADAS advised him to come to an agreement. Last year ADAS arranged a further meeting between the Nature Conservancy Council and the landowner over the future of the site. That meeting was short because the owner had ploughed it up during the morning. That was not a clipboard approach. That was what happened after a year of negotiations. Then there was absolutely deliberate defiance. Do the members of the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners Association who agree with us about conservation want this to happen? The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, was the wrong way round. He said, rightly, that such people are more and more taking an interest in conservation and using their best efforts to effect conservation. The more they do this, the less of these cases there will be. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said the last word on this. If the voluntary system works then the compulsory system will not be necessary. And if it does not work, we must have compulsion. I hope we shall accept this amendment and then the next. Then we shall be on a proper basis.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, one always prefers the voluntary approach. I very much hope that the Government's voluntary code of practice will be enshrined in legislation, but that in any case it will be adopted. The issue is whether or not we should have a reserve power. What I find so difficult to understand in the argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is that we are jeopardising the goodwill of the farming community if we take a reserve power. This does not apply in any other sphere of national life and I cannot see why it should apply in this one. I want a reserve power so that the kind of case illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, cannot happen. It will happen increasingly seldom if there is a voluntary code of practice, but it will happen sometimes and it ought to be prevented. I hope very much that noble Lords will support Amendment No. 167A, if it is pressed, because I cannot see otherwise how we can halt the speed at which sites of special scientific interest are disappearing. I should have been much readier to support only the voluntary code of practice if we had not been told at what a very great rate the sites of special scientific interest are disappearing. We simply cannot afford not to have the reserve power, but I hope that it will hardly ever be used.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, much has been made by noble Lords on the other side of the fact that this is an all-party amendment in order, presumably, to create the impression that no politics are involved. That is not so. There are just a handful of maverick Peers on my side who, in their obsession about this subject as they are such good countrymen, have forgotten the very simple fact that the Tory Party does not believe in compulsion but believes in letting people
412
do things on a voluntary basis, unless it is absolutely necessary to legislate. I reject entirely the implication that this is an all-party amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, when he tells us that his colleagues around him do not believe in compulsion may I remind him that some years ago a Government of another party from that of the noble Earl introduced the Highway Code which was purely advisory and could not be enforced, but that later a Conservative Government found it necessary to introduce legislation to make it legally enforceable?
5 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a point here because indeed if we do adopt a code of practice it may well be that after trial and adjustment that code of practice could become law. But that is not really what I wanted to say on this particular occasion. What I wanted to do was to point out once again that the problem of SSSIs has arisen because there was no obligation to consult the people who were most vitally concerned. The whole object of the SSSI procedure was to deal with change of use—not to deal with already agreed use under planning Acts and so forth. The point of declaring an area an SSSI was to warn the planning authority that if that area ceased to be used for agriculture, then something that was of special scientific interest might be damaged. As a result of that the Nature Conservancy Council declared a number of places SSSIs without ever even notifying the owners of the property or the farmers concerned, because they were not obliged to do so.
Each of these amendments that we are discussing has in it at the beginning the very desirable provision that full information will be given to the people who are the guardians of this particular land and who have rights upon the particular piece of land; they will be informed not only of what is the question at issue, what is the species or what is the natural habitat that is to be preserved, but will be told also what are the operations which, as farmers or landowners, they might be expected to undertake and be entitled to undertake and have the right to undertake, which would damage the species or the habitat.
This is extremely helpful because, as has been said already in your Lordships' House, I am sure that the vast majority of farmers and landowners would like to co-operate but very often in the past they have not been given the chance; they have not been told what is to be preserved nor how they should set about preserving it. When one introduces an element of compulsion one then removes from the farmer a right which he already possesses. It seems to me that the farmers are not trying to do something illegal; they are not trying to break the law or to acquire something which is not theirs. They already have it; they already have the right to plough up land which is in their possession. Therefore, if you say to them, "You shall not plough up this land—no never, no more" you are taking from them a right which they already possess. They may not have exercised that right in the past for reasons which may then have been valid but the agricultural climate may change, the economic climate may change

413
and it may be desirable—indeed, from their point of view as farmers it may be necessary—to carry out an operation which would damage the habitat and if you have taken away from them the right to do so without compensation then you have taken away from them something which they previously had.
I can see where the dilemma is. The dilemma is that if you say to people "Right! We are going to take away certain rights which you possess, and if you want to be compensated for that you may go to a compulsory purchase inquiry and you may bring evidence and put your case", every sensible farmer will go to such an inquiry to start with. If he enters into an agreement to begin with he will lose his right and then he will not have received compensation.
This will be a very heavy expense upon the public purse and this, I can concede, is what the Government are principally frightened of, but I should like to think that we could do this by voluntary agreement—by a code of conduct which later could perhaps become law. It may well be that we have to do it with some sort of compulsion, but if we do it with some sort of compulsion it is only right that we give compensation to those people from whom we compulsorily take something that they possess; we must give them compensation.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, because this is an important point, he spoke as though compensation could not be paid in a management agreement. Of course, it can be paid.
Viscount Thurso: Yes, my Lords; it has to be paid to begin with, otherwise it will be no good. One might enter into a management agreement, saying that he will do this, that or the other, or he will not do this, that or the other, but he can then not turn round at a later stage and say, "Oh, I am very sorry but I now think that I ought to plough up this field ". If he has not taken compensation to begin with, he will not have it, so he is going to have to ask for compensation. What I am saying is that the money will not be there, either with management agreements or with compulsory purchase, to meet all of these obligations in every case. I think that is the dilemma which the Government are facing.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am delighted to hear sound sense coming at last and coming from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because it comes from Scotland. A lot of this fury appears to have arisen in England, although in proportion Scotland is far more acutely affected. At preceding stages I have been accused of not giving figures. Scotland of course represents only a small proportion of the land area of the United Kingdom but one-third of all the SSSIs in the United Kingdom refer to land in Scotland and one half of the total acreage covered by SSSIs lies north of the Border. For instance, the whole of the Tweed valley is classified as such.
The observations made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and myself at an earlier stage of the Bill were queried but I think these figures fully justify what we said then. Many areas covered are not of very great importance. Vast areas are covered—so much
414
so that in the Highland region there has been quite an amount of friction between the planners, the local authority and the Nature Conservancy Council. It has not been so much between the landowners and the Nature Conservancy Council, as some noble Lords might like to think, but between the planners and the Nature Conservancy Council. I think there are very few landowners on the planning committee, otherwise they might have seen more sense. It is important that large areas are not sterilised. With the passing of Part I of this Bill the sporting rights will undoubtedly suffer, so that these areas will not even have the sporting rights to fall back on if they are sterilised as SSSIs.
I should like to give a warning to the so-called conservationist lobby—and I say "so-called" because I think most of us are conservationists—and great aggravation will be provoked in the countryside. The only thing that can be lost in this is conservation. It would be a great pity if there were conflict. The supporters of this amendment have referred to it as only a "back-up power". This is not the case. It will apply to every SSS1. It is not just a safety net, as has been said; every SSSI will be affected if Lord Craigton's amendment goes through.
To show my goodwill, in the last few weeks I have asked the Nature Conservancy Council to designate four wetland areas where there are a lot of wildfowl and other small birds. I know that two of these are threatened because the planners have already been at them and also the British Waterways Board wanted to take over one of them. But the Nature Conservancy Council has refused to designate them as SSSIs. They have not even been looked at and yet the Nature Conservancy Council have taken over enormous areas in Scotland.
Having said that, I understand that there could be a problem here. However, I feel that my noble friend's amendment goes much too far and that the Government's proposals are much nearer the mark. Although we cannot do it in this House because I am afraid it is too late now, perhaps the Government could consider a compromise which I think might meet the wishes of most people on both sides of this controversy. It would not seem to be too onerous and I hope it will meet the support of noble Lords. Would it not be possible, on notification of so-called injurious actions on SSSIs, for there to be notification to the NCC as suggested in subsection (4) of this amendment? In fact, having got one-way notification by the Government's proposals, perhaps we could now have reverse notification also. I do not think one need go further than that.
If we do this, what need is there for the remainder of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton? If the NCC have been given two months' notice, surely, if the potential damage is such, then there is a breathing space for the Secretary of State designating the area under the rest of Clause 27. I would have thought we could have got together on this and agreed. I think there have been polarised positions, particularly from the conservation lobby, which have tried to go too far and will cause friction.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I know the House wants to come to a decision, so I would ask your Lordships to consider only three small points before deciding

415
whether or not to support our amendment. First, why should it not be an offence to destroy irreplaceable parts of the land of Britain? It is the same as with ancient monuments and historic buildings. Secondly, why should our amendment cause conflict or offence among the majority of farmers, who, as the Minister said, are conservationists. It may well cause resentment among those landowners the Minister described as reckless, and why should it not? Finally, why should our amendment not be a longstop in case the voluntary agreement system fails?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I want to make only one brief point and ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether he will answer it when he replies. I find this an exceedingly difficult matter. The point which is troubling me most of all is this, that the Government in order to protect the areas that they may designate in the future as SSSIs have asked Parliament for a penal power as a last resort. But in the case of the 3,800 areas which are to be protected in future under the Government's amendment there is no penal power. I do not see why we should have this differentiation. There may be a good reason for it, but I think we deserve to be told.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I must emphasise the difficulties about compulsion, however much they are last resort back-up powers, because they will be used as a handle. This is the great fear of the agriculturists, that it will lead to inadequate offers under management agreements and then to hostility from there on. That is the great fear. That is why I believe it would be very much better that we stick to the Government's amendment as it is and the voluntary principle. It will give us at once in any case an ally on the spot, as nothing else will. So far I do not think we have achieved this, because so far, with all the difficulties we have had about lack of information from one side to the other, we have not really been approaching a voluntary system sensibly. Now I believe we are going to do just that and the great thing to do is to try to do that.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not want to carry this on too long, but although we have heard from the Liberal Benches we have not yet heard from the Liberal Front Bench on this particular matter.
Noble Lords: Yes, Lord Winstanley!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I will only be very short. It is not so that it is only those landowners and farmers who have not been informed that there are SSSIs and what they are about who have behaved badly and caused some of the wreckage of the SSSIs I know my noble friend feels very strongly about the cases where this has happened, but we all know of other well-documented cases where it has happened and where the farmer or the landowner has known perfectly well and has gone ahead. It is that situation that we must deal with. If we pass both these amendments we will get the best of both worlds, because if the Government are right and, if their amendment works, the second amendment will never need to be used, but the second is there as a fallback and it is important that it is a fallback.
416
My noble friend Lord Thurso said that it was now legal for farmers and landowners to destroy an SSSI. Yes, it is legal, but it is profoundly immoral, and that is a matter which has been accepted by farmers and landowners belonging to all parties throughout the history of this country, not least by noble Lords sitting on those Benches who have, as landowners and farmers, regarded themselves as the custodians of the countryside. To noble Lords on those Benches compulsory purchase is not a new thing, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, would have us believe. There was the great Industrial Revolution, for part of which the Conservative Party was responsible, with the building of railways and canals and a great deal of improvement. A lot of those Acts were passed when there was a Conservative majority. The Conservative Party has always known that from time to time for the good of the community you must introduce compulsion, and this is one of those occasions. The arguments which are being put up against these amendments, or against the second one, do not greatly stand up, and they certainly do not stand up when we look at the irreversibility of the damage which may happen if we do not pass it.
Earl Peel: My Lords, if I may, I suspect, come in as almost the final speaker on this, I must admit that I came into your Lordships' House today very much in two minds. I think I am probably speaking for one or two others as well. This is not a clearly defined subject. The differences which seem to exist between the two sides are small, but obviously very deeply felt. Having considered all the points put forward, I suppose I can say that I am most impressed by the point made by my noble friend Lord Middleton. This to my mind sums up the whole aspect of the voluntary agreement, the fact that it never really has had the opportunity to be tried, because the Nature Conservancy Council, through no fault of their own, have not in the past informed landowners and farmers about the aspects of an SSSI. So I would hope that with this now being brought into the Bill there will be every good reason for landowners and farmers to adhere to the ideas behind the Government's voluntary system. I cannot say which way this will go, and no doubt it will go to a Division, but I do on behalf of those Members of your Lordships' House who are going for a voluntary agreement urge landowners and farmers in the future to show restraint and to recognise that we have faith in them and that they will try their best to work out a sensible policy on SSSIs.
There is one final point I would put. I say to the Government and I say to the Nature Conservancy Council—and this was the point I made in my maiden speech at Second Reading—that, whatever the outcome is, I urge both the Government and the NCC to consider the size of SSSIs in relation to what they are trying to protect, so that we do not find ourselves in the position where very large tracts of land are being put under SSSI when all that is being protected is something very small, important though it may be.
The Viscount of Arbuthnott: My Lords, I apologise for rising so late in what has veen an extremely interesting debate. I must also apologise for my absence

417
during the Committee stage. However, on Second Reading I reminded your Lordships that I have an interest in that I am a member of the Nature Conservancy Council; indeed, I am its deputy chairman. I want to be very careful about what I say, but I have come to the House with a completely open mind. I have been very interested in the debate and the points which have been made on both sides, and I should like to take up one or two of them.
Compulsion is already in the Bill; it is in the Government's clause. Therefore, if anyone is concerned about compulsion I point out that it is there already. We are talking about voluntary agreements. I think that what is being proposed is a code of practice. Codes of practice, although very often most nobly supported by the National Farmers' Union and the land-owning organisations, have not been as effective as they should have been.
Noble Lords have talked about the exaggeration of losses of SSSIs. I do not think there can be any exaggeration. I personally am quite satisfied that, under the present circumstances, there has been a serious loss. One of the procedures that will be introduced by the amendment is that of reciprocal notification. I do not think that enough has been made of that point. If, as I feel is right, the NCC should be obliged to notify SSSIs and the reasons for their being created, I think that if there is to be a change in use then, reciprocally, there should be a statutory obligation for notification to be given by the person intending to change the use.
I believe that we are also at sea over numbers. There has been a great deal of talk about the number of SSSIs, and some give a figure of nearly 4,000. However, there will always be constraints upon what any Government or organisation can do. Those constraints have been mentioned, and one of them is finance. There may be no need to inhibit the owner from what he wishes to do. I do not think one should feel that if the second amendment is accepted there will automatically be a very great increase in the number of cases that have to be covered. Finally, we must remember that we are not now talking only about the SSSIs that might come under the compulsory designation orders. We are already concerned with a much wider range of SSSIs where there is an obligation on the part of the owner and the grant-aiding organisation to have consideration for the fact that the development which would be grant-aided occurs within an SSSI.
Much of the procedure that is being considered within these amendments has already come into force in some way, and I feel that the second amendment is merely rationalising something that has already become part of the natural consultation process between the NCC and those who seek to develop their land. I feel that the second amendment is the one that the House should follow; but I would also like to see it backed, and indeed preceded, by an attempt to solve most cases by voluntary agreement and acceptance of the codes of practice.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the great virtues of this Bill is that it has been totally non-party political, and, indeed, I think there has been fair enough evidence of that this afternoon. One of the other great virtues
418
of this Bill and it has been seen all the way through—is that it is an endeavour to try to get the right answer in the end. On a number of occasions, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will recall, we have accepted amendments put down by noble Lords on all sides of the House which originally the Government might have considered were not what they had in mind. Indeed, such is the fund of knowledge on all that has gone into this Bill so far that somebody said to me that your Lordships' House itself should be considered as a site of special scientific interest!
The amendment I have put down today is another example of how the Government have tried to meet your Lordships' wishes. When the Bill was first drafted we did not have the arrangement which will be put in either by my amendment or by my noble friend's amendment, because we thought that the Bill was right as drafted. Let us just recall the situation. There are SSSIs, and under Clause 27 there will be the possibility of giving particular sites special protection (giving them what has been described as super treatment) which will then bring in all the rigmarole of consultations, management orders, rights of appeal and so on. However, that was to apply to only a limited number of sites. When your Lordships said in Committee that it did not go far enough, we then tried to find out whether there was a way in which we thought your Lordships' wishes could be met. Then, the first thing that happens is that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, blasts one out of the water for saying that there has been no consultation. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady White, said the same, and I think my noble friend Lord Sandford did, too.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it was not intended as a criticism.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it was a non-starter. That is pretty devastating.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I said that it was a nonstarter because the NFU simply said that it was considering it and thought that it would work if everyone agreed. The NCC, the Government's statutory advisers, have said that they do not think that it is any use on its own. That is what I said.
Earl Ferrers: All right, my Lords, but the noble Lord said a good many other things as well which were pretty uncomplimentary.
Baroness White: My Lords, all that I said was that I had not seen it until this morning.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise for that, but I attempted to give the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, my noble friend Lord Craigton and others who had put down the amendment advance warning of what was going to be put down. The noble Baroness, Lady White, will realise that we have been operating under a certain amount of difficulty, and I certainly apologise to her and to the remainder of your Lordships that this amendment was not put down in advance so as to give your Lordships more of an idea of what the Government were trying to do. This was a genuine attempt to meet the conflicting views. It

419
may be a compromise, but that is no bad thing. The whole of this jolly old Bill has been one solid compromise. We have been trying to find a compromise between, on the one hand, doing away with what is believed to be an antagonistic situation which might be created, and, on the other hand, the desire to see that sites are protected as far as is possible.
There is no doubt that in a perfect world all the SSSIs would probably come under what might be described as the super protection. But if we provide for that we then become involved with the arrangements for management orders, compulsory purchase and, at the end, compensation as well. The funds are just not there for 3,800 sites. That is one of the reasons why we could not assume the obligation to cover all the sites. Therefore, my noble friend is absolutely right: if the money is not there to do all this, then we have to rely on a certain amount of voluntary help and voluntary co-operation, and not antagonism. That is why we tried to see whether we could not find this particular route.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said that he was horrified by the number of sites that had been destroyed. I agree with him; I think it is a matter of great concern. But one of the reasons why that has come about, as we said earlier, is that many owners did not know that they had such sites. Let us remember that at the moment the NCC can designate a site because they believe it to be, rightly or wrongly (and very likely rightly), a site of scientific interest. They then designate that site and at present the owner does not know. So if the owner or the people in question destroy that site, it may be done without knowledge of its designation. That is one point which quite clearly must be put right.
But if a person is to have part of his land made a site of scientific interest and all the rigmarole applied to him such as appears in Clause 27—and, indeed, such as appears in the amendment set down by my noble friend Lord Craigton—then he must have the right to complain, the right to say, "You have designated this as a SSSI, but I do not agree He must have the opportunity to go along to the court and complain, or have some kind of appeals procedure; and in the end, probably the Secretary of State will have to make up his mind. But when my noble friend Lord Craigton says," That is fine, let us have both these amendments; let us have yours first, with the voluntary effect, and let us have mine as a fall-back ", if we accept his amendment we are really imposing on those sites which have been designated, without appeal or recourse to appeal, certain obligations which are very considerable. I think that that goes too far.
My noble friend's amendment goes one step further than even Clause 27, as it is at present drafted. The effect of subsection (9) of his amendment will be to empower the Nature Conservancy Council to stop an owner-occupier from carrying out a specified operation. This means that the Nature Conservancy Council would be able to refuse a management agreement, except on its own terms; it could refuse to purchase compulsorily and yet still stick to prohibition by order.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, perhaps he would read the last four lines
420
on page 5 of the Marshalled List, because he will see that what he has just said is not accurate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if what I have said is not accurate, I shall certainly look at that again. My understanding is that that is so. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, shakes his head.
Lord Melchett: My Lords perhaps the noble Earl would read it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot read and speak at the same time. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is peculiarly versatile.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, in that case perhaps the noble Earl could read it out loud.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have the capacity to read it out loud, as has the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but he has had an opportunity to make his speech and perhaps he would give me the opportunity to make mine. If your Lordships have both these amendments, in my judgment you cannot have a voluntary system and then a compulsory system, and at the end of the day still retain Clause 27 because it just does not make sense. If you have my noble friend's amendment, then you obviate entirely Clause 27. Far be it from me to generate any heat; the whole purpose of this amendment was to try to meet everyone's wishes, and all it seems to have done is to have stoked up everyone. I would simply say to your Lordships that the basic point is that there are not enough financial resources to give all these 3,800 sites super treatment—the Clause 27 treatment. Either one accepts what is in the Bill—which is to say that there will be the funds and that there are the obligations and abilities to do this on a certain number of sites, and then try to protect the remainder—or one says that the system will not work.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that, on the whole, under this Bill we are trying to give certain sites the proper treatment, the super treatment, the right of appeal and the right of compulsory purchase, and that we are trying to give the remainder a system which I believe will work. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that there has been no consultation; indeed, many people said that. In fact, there has been consultation. I even consulted with the noble Lord, but perhaps he forgot that or does not regard that as consultation. But in the limited time available there has been consultation with a number of interested bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council.
I hope that your Lordships will go along the path of voluntary agreement which will be statutorily backed by Parliament, which the noble Baroness, Lady White, said is a charade. But it is not. If it has the full backing of parliamentary approval it makes a great deal of difference. I hope that your Lordships will accept that so that all people can work together and not take the more restrictive and legalistic attitude which is represented in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton. I beg to move.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I could ask a question to clarify a point that I do not understand. Is he saying that if we give the possibility of protection to all the sites, we must have the resources to implement that protection

421
for all those areas? I have always understood that it could be measured against the resources that we actually have. I understand that we do not have to give the protection.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to make that point. At the moment where the Nature Conservancy Council wishes to operate Clause 27 it can do so, but at the end of the road it comes to a question of finance. If it says "This is what we want to do", and the Secretary of State lays an order on a person saying "This is to be an SSSI", then under this system the farmer or landowner can object. So you go along that particular route, at the end of which you come to management orders and compulsory purchase. It is at that juncture where the limitation is bound to come in, because the resources are not there. I would suggest that the amendment which I have moved is the most likely one to catch the remaining sites.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I am moving Amendment No. 167A, so—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa moved Amendment No. 167A:
Insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features, it shall be the duty of the Council to notify that fact—

(a) to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated; and

(b) to every owner or occupier of any of that land,

and the notice shall take effect as from the day on which it is served.
(2) A notification under subsection (1)(b) shall specify—

(a) the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest; and

(b) any operations appearing to the Council to be likely to damage that flora or fauna or those features and the notice shall have effect as from the day on which it is served.

(3) Section 23 of the 1949 Act (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect.
(4) The owner or occupier of any land specified in a notice under subsection (1) shall not carry out on it any operation specified in the notice as being likely to destroy or damage its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features or cause or permit the carrying out of such an operation, unless—

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

(b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (5) is fulfilled.

(5) The said conditions are—

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

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

(c) subject to subsections (6), (7) and (8), that two months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (2).

(6) If before the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (5) the Council offer to enter into an agreement with the person who gave the notice under subsection (4) either for the acquisition of his interest or under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act, that
422
paragraph shall have effect as if for the said period there were substituted—

(a) where the agreement is entered into before the expiration of twelve months from the giving of the notice, the period expiring on the day on which it is entered into;

(b) in any other case, twelve months from the giving of the notice or three months from rejection of the offer to enter into the agreement, whichever period last expires.

(7) If it appears to the Council that any agreement specified in subsection (6) is unlikely to be reached before the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (5), or that paragraph as it has effect by virtue of subsection (6), the Council may, before the expiration of that period:—

(a) make an order for the compulsory acquisition by the Council of the interest of the person who gave the notice under subsection (4); or

(b) make application to the Secretary of State for an order under subsection (9) to be made on the day upon which that period expires.

Where in the opinion of the Council it is necessary to exercise the powers under this subsection, the owner or occupier may require the Council to take action either under paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(8) If before the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (5), or that paragraph as it has effect by virtue of subsection (6), the Council make an order for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the person who gave the notice under subsection (4), the said paragraph (c) shall have effect as if for the said period there were substituted the period expiring—

(a) in the case of an order which is confirmed, on the day on which the Council enter the land;

(b) in any other case, on the day on which the order is withdrawn or the Secretary of State decides not to confirm it.

(9) An order made by the Secretary of State under this subsection may prohibit the carrying out without the Council's written consent on the land to which the order relates of any operation specified in the order as being likely to destroy or damage the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features of the land, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order; and the provisions of Schedule 10 shall have effect as to the making, confirmation and coming into operation of an order made under this subsection.
(10) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (4) or the provisions of any order under subsection (9) shall be liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or both.

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

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

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

(12) A notice under subsection (1) and an order under subsection (9) shall be a local land charge.
(13) A notice served under subsection (1) or an order made under subsection (9) of this section may be amended or revoked by a subsequent notice or order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment in the names of myself, my noble friend Lord Craigton and others. As the discussion has already taken place, I am sure that your Lordships will not want to go through it again in detail. Therefore, I want to make only one or two small points. I am glad that at long last I understand the problem and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for making it clear that one big stumbling block is money. I always suspected that, but there is no pro-

423
blem there because it has been made abundantly clear from all the discussions that 99 per cent., 90 per cent., or whatever it may be, of the problems of these SSSIs will never arise and become subject to compulsory purchase orders. If a small number do, as we have said over and over again, the end of the process included in our amendment may still be reached and then it would still be a question whether or not the Government have the money.
But the shelter or the safety net is there for future decades and for our descendants. It is monstrous if we simply leave matters to trust and hope that the voluntary system will work. Of course it will work for most members of the CLA and for most members of the NFU. We are simply concerned with a handful of people who do not care a fig, and I cannot understand why we want to protect them. Finally, I want to say a few words about a matter about which I feel very deeply. I said previously that I wondered why we were being so persistently cajoled, having our arms twisted and so forth. It is clear that we have a very unsatisfactory compromise in the Government's amendment. I do not believe that it is sound for this House to have its arms twisted or to be pressured by any particular lobby. I am not here representing the conservationists, the landowners or the farmers, although I happen to be all three. I am here to consider what is in the best interests of the public and of the nation for the future. I do not like the idea of having to meet one party half-way at the expense of all the others. Therefore, in moving this amendment, I must make it quite clear, having been in the media for over 20 years, that I am not happy about the idea that "Lords submit" to whatever lobby it is. It will not look very good. There is nothing for any member of the CLA or the NFU to fear in our amendment, unless he deliberately wants to break the law.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 167A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 109.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Diamond, L.

Ardwick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bathurst, E.

Foot, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Beswick, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

George-Brown, L.

Blease, L.

Gibson, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Gosford, E.

Brockway, L.

Gray, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Byers, L.

Gregson, L.

Caccia, L.

Hale, L.

Caradon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Chelwood, L.

Hayter, L.

Chorley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Collison, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hunt, L.

Craigton, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Cudlipp, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Janner, L.

David, B.

Jeger, L.

424

Kaldor, L.

Ridley, V.

Kennet, L.

Robbins, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rugby, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sandford, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Seebohm, L.

Shinwell, L.

Longford, E.

Spens, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stamp, L.

Lovell-Davis, L,

Stedman, B.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Melchett, L.

Stone, L.

Mersey, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Milverton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Newall, L.

Underhill, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Onslow, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Peart, L.

White, B.

Perth, E.

Wigoder, L.

Phillips, B.

Winstanley, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Portland, D.

NOT-CONTENTS

Armstrong, L.

Kemsley, V.

Auckland, L.

Killearn, L.

Avon, E.

Kilmany, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Burton, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Carrington, L.

Long, V.

Cathcart, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chesham, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

McFadzean, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Daventry, V.

Marley, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

Digby, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Monson, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Falkland, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peel, E.

Fortescue, E.

Reigate, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Freyberg, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glasgow, E.

St. Just, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gormanston, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

Selkirk, E.

Greenway, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Soames, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Swansea, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinton, E.

Inglewood, L.

Thurso, V.

425

Trenchard, V.

Vivian, L.

Trumpington, B.

Westbury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Vickers, B.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 27 [Orders designating certain areas of special scientific interest]:
5.47 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 167BA:
Page 24, line 36, at end insert ("or, in the case of land that joins land to which subsection (1) applies, any land on which any operation covered by subsection (3) might destroy or damage the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features of land to which subsection (1) applies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an attempt to re-draft an amendment which we discussed at Committee stage. I shall not go into the problems with which the amendment is designed to deal because I did it at some considerable length at that stage of the Bill. When we discussed the amendment before, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said, at column 382 on 12th February, that the Government accepted this in principle and would consider tabling amendments along the lines of this point. I do not think that there is an amendment on the Marshalled List along the lines of this point. At least, I have not been able to find it in the short time I have had to study all the amendments.
I am really moving my amendment in the hope first that it is a slightly better version of the one we had before and that it will be acceptable to the Government as they accept the general principle of this; or, secondly that the noble Earl will be able to tell me whereabouts the Government amendment is if I have missed it. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is entirely correct. If, despite his assiduous researches into the Marshalled List he has not found that the Government have tabled a particular amendment, that does not mean that we did not consider it. We did consider it, and have come to the conclusion that the powers in the Bill are already sufficient to cover the points that the noble Lord has in mind. So far as designated sites are concerned, both the Nature Conservancy and the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that, where practicable, the site is large enough to safeguard the scientific interest, and his amendment therefore will be unnecessary. Where this is a large site and it may possibly cover a number of owners, the site itself will be so designated and will be sufficiently large to cover the problems he envisages.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, that certainly is not the case at the moment in a number of areas, particularly where sites are affected by land drainage. After the debates at Committee stage I was given some more information about a neighbouring county to the one where I live, Suffolk, which gave us some information about the number of SSSIs that have been lost or damaged recently in that county.
I will give the noble Earl some examples of SSSIs which have been damaged and the reasons why. At Lakenheath Poors Fen, a Suffolk County Trust reserve,
426
its biological interest has greatly diminished by the lowering of the water-table to improve the nearby arable land. The same problem has occurred at Thelmethan Fen, where a nationally rare plant was lost to Suffolk as a result. At Lophan and Redgrave Fens, probably the finest valley fen in Britain and also a County Trust reserve, its character and vegetation have been adversely affected by the extraction of water from a nearby bore-hole; one nationally rare and several regionally rare plants have been lost in consequence. Pashford Poors Fen, another Trust reserve already suffering from a lowering of its water-table, is now threatened by the sinking of a bore-hole nearby. Cornard Mere, a County Trust reserve in Suffolk managed for its wetland flora and fauna, is now threatened by the sinking of a bore-hole nearby. Danes Hole, once a good wetland site, is now dry due to a spring failing owing to the water-table having been lowered.
The examples are numerous and those are simply the first seven on a list I have been sent by somebody involved in nature conservation in Suffolk. Those are all examples of the kind of problem the amendment would have done something to avoid. The Government have gone some way—we will come to this on later amendments—to meeting the problems I had with the actions of internal drainage boards and I hope they will have something encouraging to say about water authorities; they told me in a letter they would have. It may be that that is as far as I can expect the Government to go on this matter. There is a real problem here, but if the Government are not prepared to safeguard sites of special scientific interest themselves, I suppose it is asking rather much for them to do something to ensure that operations on neighbouring land do not lead to the destruction of SSSIs. I am afraid this is part of the war, which I think was started by the Division on the last amendment, which we are going to have to fight once the Bill has gone through rather than on the Floor of the House today, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 167BB:
Page 25, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Council receives notice of a proposal to carry out an operation and paragraph (b) of the previous subsection does not apply, the Council shall—

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

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

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment simply in the hope of getting an assurance about access to information. We had a long discussion about this in Committee, when it was said that the NCC

427
would keep a register as suggested in this amendment and that it was unnecessary to have a statutory obligation on them to do that. I am hoping that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will give the sort of assurance his noble friend Lord Avon gave on Part I when we talked about a register of licences; namely, that if responsible non-governmental organisations such as the NFU, CLA or those interested in wildfowling, game shooting or game conservancy or those interested in nature conservation, such as the RSPB or the County Trust, want information about notifications, the NCC will make it available to them and will not unreasonably withhold it. I do not expect a categorical assurance, which I did not get on Part I, but so long as there is an assurance that this information will not be unreasonably withheld, that will be sufficient. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for saying he tabled the amendment to see if he could have an assurance, as opposed actually to seeing it inserted in the Bill, for I should not be able to accept it if the latter were his wish. I was sorry that in this final words on the last amendment the noble Lord used the word, "war". The one thing we have been trying to do with the Bill all along and with all the problems is to avoid wars, battles and confrontations. We have been trying to seek a reasonable and reasoned way through the difficulties and I hope that will be the last we hear of that expression.
Lord Melchett: Certainly not.
Earl Ferrers: That is a pity, my Lords, because that sort of thing has not been the case with the Bill up till now.
Lord Melchett: It was your decision.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord says it was my decision, my Lords. It was not my decision; it was the decision of your Lordships' House. He put his view, I put mine and my noble friend Lord Craigton put his, and then your Lordships decided. It was not my decision and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw that remark.
On the substance of the amendment, I understand that the Nature Conservancy Council is prepared to maintain a register of such applications at the appropriate regional offices and to make it available for inspection in relation to those sites which have been designated by the Secretary of State.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance. Probably we had better leave our discussions on the safeguarding of habitats to another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 167BC:
Page 26, line 7, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8 and insert ("a fine").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this removes imprisonment from the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 167C:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) A court before which a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (8) may, on application by the Nature Conservancy Council, make an order requiring that person to carry out to the satisfaction of the Council such operations as may be specified in the order for the purpose of restoring the special interest of the land, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to the state in which it was before the offence was committed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a more important amendment. Although we discussed the proposition raised in the amendment in Committee, I will explain it briefly. It is intended that the court should have the power detailed in the amendment if somebody destroys one of the 30 or 40 sites which the Government version of Clause 27 will make it a criminal offence to destroy. We are now speaking of a very small number of all the important sites; as I say, between 30 and 40, if I understand the Government's intention. These will be the only sites in the entire country which will receive any protection and they will be protected for only 12 months, and those will be the ones subject to criminal penalties. If in those 12 months they are destroyed, that will obviously be an extremely serious matter. In the last amendment the Government removed the power of imprisonment, and I think we all agree that should be done, as it has been throughout the Bill.
However, in Committee there was a great deal of support from all sides for the idea that the most effective and reasonable penalty, if somebody destroys the scientific interest of the land, is that where it is practicable and reasonable to do so and where the court decides it is sensible to do so, the landowner, farmer or whoever it is should be required as far as possible to restore the site. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that would be in line with modern penal practice and thinking in that it would make the penalty fit the crime. It would clearly be more desirable than a fine, it seems to me, and it would obviously be a much more effective deterrent, it being known that this power was avaliable.
I agree that in many cases it will not be practicable, but in Committee I gave some examples of where it would be. The amendment has been drafted to make sure that the Government's scientific advisers in these matters, the NCC, would have to apply to the court for it to be done, so it would be considered by a court only where the Government's statutory advisers suggested to the court that it was a sensible possibility. In those cases it would still be entirely up to the court to decide whether this penalty, or some other, should be imposed. So I hope that we have met the very few objections that were raised at the Committee stage and that the amendment will now be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are returning once more to sweet harmony, and I am delighted to see that. I find the noble Lord's amendment attractive, but I must also say that I cannot accept it as such because the Government will have to have more time to examine its detail. As drafted, the amendment presents some difficulties. It raises certain questions which may take some time to resolve. There are questions such as whether it is appropriate to extend the powers of the

429
courts to enable them to deal with a matter of this kind, and whether it is appropriate to use the Nature Conservancy Council as a law enforcement agency in this instance. If I may, I should like to write to the noble Lord after I have been able to consider the position more fully. I hope that he will accept that assurance and not press the amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I take it from that reply that the noble Earl intends to write to me before the Third Reading? We debated both the principle and the detail of this matter very fully at the Committee stage, when it received considerable support. I have before me a note to the effect that at the Committee stage the Government said that they would consider the point. I appreciate that they have had much to do particularly in regard to this part of the Bill. However, I do not think that it would be reasonable for me to withdraw the amendment unless I have an assurance that before Third Reading the Government will come to a conclusion, so that I can come back at that stage with the amendment if the Government have not got in touch with me. If the noble Earl wishes to intervene to give me such an assurance, I should be grateful.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may once more have the leave of the House, I would say that I should be delighted if the noble Lord were to feel that I could meet his case by writing to him before the Third Reading. However, I am bound to tell him that I doubt whether the Government will come to a conclusion before the Third Reading. I wish to make it plain to him that I say that not in order to be difficult or obstructive. Deep matters of principle are raised here and they would have to be considered much further. I doubt whether that could be done by Third Reading. However the noble Lord, with his usual parliamentary knowledge, will realise that there are other facilities available if a decision has been arrived at before the end of proceedings on the Bill as a whole.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, yes, I know that the Bill is to be considered by another place, but as the noble Earl, with his deep knowledge of parliamentary procedure, will know, if the Bill leaves here without containing this amendment, and the Whips are on in another place so as to ensure that the amendment is not included there, then there will not be another chance for this House to consider the matter. Given the wide level of support that the proposition attracted, I think that it probably would be desirable for this House to have a chance to decide whether it wants it included in the Bill before it leaves here. If the noble Earl is saying to me, "Well, if that is the case, it would be better for you to press it now", I think that that would be the best course, but if he wants to think about it further and give me a considered response before Third Reading, I should be quite happy to withdraw the amendment in the spirit of reasonableness and light which now pervades the understanding between the noble Earl and myself. I should like a little more guidance from the noble Earl. I do not want to withdraw the amendment and then perhaps have to spend much more time on the matter at Third Reading to no great avail.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have great hesitation in speaking again and indeed in craving the indulgence of the House to do so because this is not a Committee stage and I do not wish to offend against the principles, when I criticise others for doing so. However since the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has specifically asked me a question, I am bound to tell him that I doubt whether the Government will be able to come to a decision before Third Reading. That is my opinion. if the noble Lord wishes to press the amendment, he may do so, but I must tell him that I could not advise the House to accept it. I say that because of the hesitations that I mentioned when I originally replied. To include this proposal in the Bill would raise fairly fundamental issues and I think that it would be wrong to do so until the issues have been resolved.
Baroness White: My Lords, may I put to the noble Earl for reflection between now and Third Reading the point that if on Third Reading my noble friend wishes to revert to the matter, we could at least get in this House a declaration of general intent. That could then be amended in the other place at the instance of the Government. Then we would at least be giving the other place some lead as to the intent.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have given way both to the noble Earl and to my noble friend in the course of my remarks, which I think I should now bring to a conclusion. It seems to me that it would be right to give the Government a little more time in the hope that they can give some firm assurance at Third Reading, or before hand, in which case we would not need to trouble them with the amendment again; but if not, I think that I shall bring it back on Third Reading so that the House can make a decision on it. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 167D:
Page 26, line 18, at end insert ("and only if no reasonable means of meeting the emergency without damaging the land to which subsection (3) applies was available.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises another point on the clause, and I apologise to your Lordships for bringing forward so many points. I hope it will be accepted that this is through no fault of my own. The Government simply have not had time to consider a number of points that they said they would consider. I can understand why that should be so; they have had considerable difficulty with this clause since the Committee stage, and I suppose that they may continue to do so. That is why I have put the amendments down again. They are, I think, all amendments with which the House had some sympathy or which the Government said they would consider.
We debated this particular matter at the Committee stage. As drafted, Clause 27 relates to the sites to which an order under the Government's proposals applies. It would be a criminal offence, subject to a large fine, to destroy such sites. Quite reasonably, there is a let out if someone has to take action in an emergency. I worry, as I did at the Committee stage,

431
that from reading the Bill it is not entirely clear what would, and what would not, amount to an emergency, and what extent of damage would be reasonable to meet the emergency if one was destroying one of the top 30 or 40 sites—the very few in the country—receiving temporary protection.
It was suggested that the amendment I proposed at the Committee stage went a little too far, and that it might constrain someone who was having to act in an emergency. In re-tabling the amendment I have tried simply to ensure that when in an emergency someone takes action which involves destroying the site, or part of it, he is acting reasonably. If he uses the emergency as an excuse to destroy in an unreasonable way one of the top 40 sites, that would be very unfair, and the Bill should not give him any excuse for so doing. I hope that my amendment no longer—as it did at the Committee stage—restricts the action that it would be necessary to take in an emergency, but at the same time it meets my worries. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of his amendment and indeed explaining how he has curtailed it compared with the one that he put down at the Committee stage. At that stage the Government expressed concern that we should not place too many obstacles in the way of people who have to deal with an emergency. We have of course proposed amendments to other provisions in the Bill concerning emergency action, but those amendments related to instances where the alternative course to immediate action was fairly clear cut. That is not so in this case.
I readily acknowledge the noble Lord's concern that a person should not use a disaster as an opportunity to ruin a site of special scientific interest. On the other hand, in instances of fires or floods, where emergency action has to be taken immediately, it would be wrong to impose upon people an obligation to cast around for all the possible alternatives that they might adopt, lest they be held up in the courts as not having done something which subsequently might appear to have been the better course but which at the time of the emergency did not so appear. So I hope that the noble Lord feels that what I have described is a reasoned approach and that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not find that reply entirely convincing. I feel there is a real possibility that even the very few sites that the Government are putting forward for protection for a 12-month period are still in jeopardy in a number of ways. I say that partly because, unless we have something along the lines of my previous amendment, the penalties will be nowhere near adequate to deter people from destroying a site illegally, and also because it would be possible to destroy an SSSI of 5,000 acres and be fined only £1,000. That is the current position, and in the circumstances the amount of the fine would be extraordinarily small. Secondly, because the Bill itself gives people some grounds for feeling that there might be ways around even that minimum penalty and that seems to me to be one of the most glaring. I should like to think about what the noble Earl has said and
432
perhaps this is something that should be pursued, if not in this House, then in another place. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): My Lords, Amendment No. 167E is printed in the wrong place on the Marshalled List. It will be called after Amendment No. 168A. In the meantime, I call Amendment No. 167F.
[Amendment No. 167F not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 168:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Maritime nature conservation
.(1) The Secretary of State shall keep under review the needs of marine nature conservation and if he is satisfied, after consultation with, or on advice from, the Nature Conservancy Council and taking into account the requirements of international obligations that it is expedient for the purpose of marine nature conservation either—

(a) that a marine nature reserve should be designated; or

(b) that a marine nature reserve should cease to be so designated, he may by order direct that an area of sea up to the limit of the territorial waters adjacent to Great Britain and any adjacent areas of land necessary for the aforesaid purpose, or such larger areas of sea as may be desirable to fulfil any international conventions, shall become, or, as the case may be, cease to be, a marine nature reserve, as from such date as may be specified in that behalf in order; and the provisions of Schedule 10 of this Act shall have effect as to the making and coming into operation of orders under this section and an order shall be made by Statutory Instrument subject to negative resolution.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order made under this section make provision for any of the following purposes, that is to say—

(a) for restricting any person entirely, or on conditions, from—

(i) entering that area or any part of it at all or any times;

(ii) intentionally killing, injuring, disturbing or taking any wild animal or intentionally picking, gathering, uprooting or destroying any wild plant, and including the reproductive stages of such plants and animals;

(iii) damaging or destroying any structure or place which any wild animal uses for shelter or protection;

(iv) disturbing the sea bed;

(v) removing any natural object or matter from the sea bed;

and such prohibitions or restrictions may apply at some times of the year or at all times;

(b) for the installation or removal of permanent markers indicating the existence and extent of a marine nature reserve;

(c) for any other purpose incidental to the purposes aforesaid.

(3) The Secretary of State may delegate all or any of his functions in respect of areas designated by an order under this section to the Nature Conservancy Council who may appoint persons to act as wardens and may provide such structures, buildings or facilities as they see fit, for the purposes of the management of marine nature reserves.
(4) An area designated by an order under this section shall be known as a "national marine nature reserve".
(5) The restrictions in subsection 2(a) above do not apply to activities specially licensed or authorised for that area, or any part of it, by or under any other Act.
(6) In this section—
"nature conservation has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 and

433
"marine nature conservation" shall be construed accordingly;
"nature reserve" has the same meaning as in Part III of the 1949 Act and "marine nature reserve" shall be construed accordingly.
(7) An order relating to at least one area shall be made under this section within 2 years after the passing of this Act.
(8) This section shall come into force on 1st January 1982.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is about marine reserves. As some of you will remember, I moved in Committee, an amendment authorising the Nature Conservancy Council to create marine reserves by the simple method of permitting them to designate an SSSI up to three miles out to sea. Therefore, marine reserves are already in this Bill on page 33, Clause 38(4)—put there by the Committee of this House by 98 votes to 54, a majority of 44. In advising the Committee not to accept the amendment, the Minister suggested that he might discuss with his right honourable friend enabling powers to establish marine reserves. The Minister did not put down an enabling amendment, so my noble friends and I have done so.
It might be asked, why put down an enabling clause when marine reserves are already in the Bill? I am advised that the amendment I am now moving provides greater flexibility for the Government in deciding what exactly to do for the best. I will stop there and listen to the Minister, before deciding what to do about my later amendments 173H, 173J, and 173Q collectively.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure the House will be happy to know that the Government accept the principle of the inclusion of enabling powers in the Bill to allow the provision of statutory protective marine nature reserves, and will consider further with a view to resolving any outstanding difficulties.
Noble Lords will appreciate that it is essential to take into account the views of all sectors of the community with legitimate interests in our coastal waters and to allay the fears of, for example, our fishermen. I know that those who argue the case for MNRs consider that these fears are unjustified and that conservationists and fishermen should be working together in the matter, to the benefit of both. Nevertheless, the fears are genuine and it will not be helping the cause of marine nature conservation at all if the very people whose goodwill will be vital to the successful operation of the reserves are quite unnecessarily antagonised. We must write into our legislation the safeguards which all those interested in the marine environment consider essential to their needs. The proposed amendment is deficient in this respect and in a number of points of detail. However, we will not oppose its inclusion at this stage of the Bill but will take the opportunity of seeking to remedy any omissions in the other place.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sure that all of us who have taken part in this discussion will welcome very warmly what the noble Earl has said. I received an interesting letter from the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees, which I think was also sent to one or two other noble Lords. They feel that they have a very important role to play in the setting up and operation of marine nature reserves, and I am sure there are a number of legitimate interests who will also have a role to play. I think this will be an improvement on
434
Lord Craigton's existing amendment if for no other reason than that it gives the Government rather more flexibility when considering the best way of implementing marine nature reserve provisions once they have completed their consultations. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, is going to accept this amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton will move an amendment to delete the provisions which were put into the Bill at the Committee stage.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is on his feet, I should like him to ask the Minister whether he wants my amendments left in or whether he wants them to be left out.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think the noble Earl, Lord Avon, wants the amendments left out and I would certainly echo that myself. I believe it would be better to put this clause in and to take the other ones out, a straight substitution, because it seems to me that this amendment has a number of practical advantages from everybody's point of view. I am delighted by what the noble Earl has said on behalf of the Government.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I should like to congratulate the noble Lords who put down this amendment on their success, and the noble Earl on the extreme sensibility and reasonableness with which he has accepted this. Like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I, too, had pointed out to me in a letter from the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees that they would like to be consulted, and I imagine from what the noble Earl was saying about other interests that he will include those particular bodies. I am glad to have his acknowledgment of that. I should just like to express my extreme happiness at this stage of the Bill.
Lord Burton: My Lords, as one who also advocated this at the Second Reading, may I also add my congratulations to my noble friend. I was a little concerned about consultations because I understood this morning that one body which has an interest was not asked to make their observations before August, which seems to me to be a little late. Provided the Minister is happy that consultation will take place before this Bill finishes its passage through the other place, then it is very satisfactory indeed and we must congratulate all concerned.
Lord Craigton: After losing "bats in the roof" by four votes and the SSSIs by eight votes, I am glad, on behalf of the conservationists, to have moved this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Compensation where order is made under S27]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 168A:
Page 26, leave out lines 36 to 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 168A and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 169A. We moved amendments similar to these at the Committee stage. We withdrew

435
them and took them away to read what the Government had said. One is not very impressed by what the Government said, because, in my view, they said, in effect, that they are trying to prevent natural justice.
If one refers to Hansard of Thursday, 12th February, 1981 (column 366), my noble friend Lord Avon said:
"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".
The amendment in my name and that of my noble friends deletes that part of the Bill which says no person is entitled to make a claim. My amendment permits a claim to be made. But the claimant has to prove his claim; there is no automatic right to compensation. He has to go through the normal processes under the Land Compensation Act in order to establish whether he has a valid claim. If there is no claim, then he does not get any money. If he is entitled to claim, then he must have the right to do so under the Bill.
I should also like to ask my noble friend Lord Avon a parallel point. What happens if one owns a piece of land adjacent to an SSSI which is subject to a Clause 27 order and one applies to drain a field? What happens if the Nature Conservancy Council hear about the application to MAFF to drain this field? In consultation with MAFF, the Council may say that, if permission is given to drain the field, it will affect their SSSI. What happens if MAFF agree that this is a valid argument and permission is not given, and therefore the drainage works do not take place? As a result of this there is probably a very good case for saying that the value of one's land has been depreciated as a result of the Clause 27 order, albeit not on one's own land. May I therefore have clarification as to whether a person is entitled to claim for loss in those circumstances?
Lord Middleton: My Lords, if there is a restriction on land imposed by a Clause 27 order which depreciates the value of that land, compensation should be paid accordingly. This is a modest proposal. In most examples of legislation, where compensation for capital depreciation is made that compensation is payable when the restriction is made. What my noble friend is suggesting is that compensation should not be payable then but later, when there is a disposal. I can think of two examples from the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act. If an Article 4 direction is made which prevents a farmer from developing, and if the value of his farm is thereby depreciated, he can claim under the provisions of Section 164 of that Act. Under Section 169 of that Act, if a farmer applies and is refused planning permission for, say, an agricultural building, he can claim for consequent loss of capital value of his home. He might have tried to get maximum potential out of, say, a hill farm by creating a dairy unit, and, his application for planning consent having been refused for the necessary cowsheds, the value of that holding is pegged as a hill grazing farm; under that section he can be compensated.
Perhaps more appropriately, I should quote an
436
example of provision of compensation following an order by a Minister, which is what we are talking about in this Bill. If a Minister makes an oil pipeline way-leave order, there is an Act which says that if by virtue of the wayleave order the value of any interest in land to which the order applies is depreciated, there shall be payable compensation equal to the amount of depreciation. When my noble friend Lady Elliot and Lord Caithness moved similar amendments in Committee, the Government reply seemed to be totally inadequate. The Government argument then was that an owner would be sufficiently compensated in two ways: first, by the provision in the Bill for payment for abortive expenditure; and, secondly, by reason of CTT relief on the area of the site itself. The first of these has nothing to do with loss of value—it is incidental—and neither does the second. The CTT relief is an incentive, a sweetener, to encourage the owner to accept designation of his land. If he dies or transfers the land, he is not taxed on the value of the area covered by the site. I doubt whether there is any enhancement of value by reason of designation. As my noble friend Lord Onslow suggested in Committee, no one will buy sites at their best use value because of CTT relief. CTT relief will be given merely on the reduced value of the site.
In Committee we had a delightful homily from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about the descendants of Nell Gwynne having no right to talk about compensation. Let us forget about Nell Gwynne and talk about a Welsh hillfarming family who, by sheer hard work, have saved and acquired a stretch of the Berwyn Mountains. I speak with no knowledge of this particular area—certainly not with such knowledge as the noble Baroness, Lady White, would have—but maybe the only value of this kind of land lies in its potential as forestry land. Along come the NCC and declare, as they intend to declare, 50,000 acres of the Berwyn Mountains as an SSS1. Along comes the Secretary of State and places a Clause 27 order on the land in question, forbidding the planting of trees so as to provide an open habitat for hawks, which is the reason why this particular, very large area of land will be designated. That family may have to sell and maybe the compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill may have to come into play. Surely there should be some compensation to this family for consequential loss in value if they have to sell what is now a doubtful asset. I support my noble friend.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I, too, should like to support my noble friend because I have in the past been adversely affected by a proposed SSSI in selling my own property where the prospective buyer was prepared to pay a substantial sum of money more than I obtained if he could have reclaimed some waste woodland. While I regret losing money, I am glad in a way that it could not be done because I had nurtured this land for many years. I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about the small farmers who may possibly need to increase their acreage in order to retain a viable unit. Possibly they may need to sell this land in order to obtain more land. It seems to me that they would be adversely affected if they did not receive some form of compensation by virtue of the fact that their land would be lessened in value.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. A small farmer can get a grant (or used to be able to do so) if he wants to increase his acreage in order to make the farm more viable. If as a result of an SSSI a farmer or occupier with a small farm cannot plough a large part of his farm, obviously it will lose value. It seems unfair that he cannot be compensated for that. Owing to the fact that he does not have as much arable land as he needs, perhaps he would buy some land beside his farm if such land was available. Under existing law he can get a grant to do that, and it is encouraged.
I cannot understand why, if you have some of your land made unviable, you cannot get compensation. Perhaps we might take a lesson from the Republic of Ireland in this respect. In the Republic of Ireland, if you are going to sell an estate and if the Irish Government do not like the party you are going to sell it to, if he is a foreigner—and I will not say that they are racist on this; but they are strict about the disposal of land to foreign buyers—and you arrange to sell your land to this foreigner in the hope the Government will allow it but they do not allow it, then the Government will give you the same price as you would have got from that foreign purchaser. It is not entirely relevant to this amendment but it shows that the farmer will get compensation in that case because he might not find a purchaser who will pay the same price. I support this amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before the Minister replies I should be interested in what the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Winstanley, might have to say about this.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am waiting with interest to hear what the Government will say when they get a chance to put a word in among the serried ranks of landowners pleading for compensation. When the Government have said something I shall be happy to give the noble Lord my views.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was giving the noble Baroness, Lady David, his views. I can understand the motive which caused my noble friends to put down these amendments. I can understand their feeling if they consider that somebody is going to lose as a result of an SSSI. They are rightly concerned that landowners should be compensated fully for any loss that they might suffer as a result of orders under Clause 27 being applied to their land. I agree with that concept and that is why the Bill provides that compensation should be paid for any loss arising from more than three months' enforced delay to an owner's planned operations. I do not think that the Nature Conservancy Council should be forced to pay twice-over, though. If we accept this amendment, one owner who had no plans to develop this land and who suffered no delay might claim capital compensation for a reduction in the value of the land, although we think that any such reduction would be more than offset by the possibility of obtaining compensation following the service of a notice.
His successor might subsequently claim for losses caused by delays to his operations. It would mean
438
that compensation therefore had been paid twice over and I do not think that this is acceptable. There are other examples where designation of land in a particular way might be held to reduce the expectation that development would be permitted and so to reduce the value of the land without provision for capital compensation. National parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and, indeed, areas of special scientific interest immediately come to mind.
The compensation which is paid would be paid on the basis of a reduction of the income which would be available as a result of an SSSI. If that is so, the capital value of the land ought to remain the same even when sold because the next person would in turn be able to get a similar management agreement.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the reason why I was waiting for the noble Earl to respond to the amendment is that the real answer involves the noble Earl pointing out to his noble friends behind him that Clause 27 is totally ineffective. In a fairly convoluted way that was more or less what he did. Maybe I can put it more simply. This is nothing to do with SSSIs. Noble Lords opposite are misleading themselves if they think that their amendment applies to SSSIs. What is applies to is the 30 or 40 sites on which orders are placed under Clause 27.
I am glad that some noble Lords opposite at least are nodding, although it is perfectly clear to me that a number of noble Lords opposite still totally misunderstand the Government's proposals in this Bill. First of all, that is all that is being dealt with, 30 or 40 sites to which an order under Clause 27 applies. They may be SSSIs. It does not say anywhere that they have actually got to be because SSSIs are not a legal definition of something. But, still, be that as it may. The orders apply to these sites for only 12 months. That is what the noble Earl should stress to his noble friends. This is not a way of protecting habitats. It is not a way of protecting SSSIs. Orders under Clause 27 only apply for 12 months and then the landowner or farmer can destroy the site. In other words, the capital value of the site is not going to be affected for very long.
Lord Burton: My Lords, surely they can go on reviewing this. It would be quite valueless if they did not go on reviewing the special—or whatever you like to call it—SSSI.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, there has never been any indication, as I understand it, from anybody that that is the Government's intention. The intention of Clause 27 is to put an order on a site which is liable to be destroyed so that 12 months are available for negotiation. If that fails, the NCC either compulsorily purchases the site or the landowner goes ahead and destroys it.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, raised an interesting possibility: that Clause 27 orders could be applied continuously to sites and we could get 30 or 40 a year. That is not what the Government intend to do. It is simply a delaying procedure in Clause 27 so that there is time for negotiation. If that fails, the landowner destroys the site. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, has confirmed my view that nobody on the opposite side

439
understands what the Government are proposing. If they had done so, and if they had listened to some of the speeches on the earlier amendment, perhaps the vote would have gone a different way. They really cannot have it both ways. They have a Bill which does nothing to stop the destruction of SSSIs, and they want massive compensation as a result.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is slightly exaggerating the case—and perhaps the word slightly "should be withdrawn. Regarding the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, through the natural laws of compensation—and if the matter is taken to the Lands Tribunal—in assessing compensation that should be paid, if any, the Lands Tribunal will take into account whether the compensation is fair and just, and what compensation has already been received by the farmer. Those are the two points that defeat his argument. In taking those into account, the Lands Tribunal might decide that the farmer is still entitled to receive compensation for loss of value.
In view of the supplementary point that I raised of land being contiguous to a site of super interest, perhaps it is wise to withdraw the amendment at this stage. But I notify the Government that I shall probably come back at Third Reading if the issue has not been satisfactorily resolved meanwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, your Lordships must now go to page 8, Amendment No. 167E, which was wrongly marshalled.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 167E:
Page 26, line 38, 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: My Lords, this amendment is moved in order to ask the Government to tell me what their views are as a result of our discussions in Committee. When we discussed an identical amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that I had raised a point of deviousness that even this Government had not been able to think of. In saying that I am paraphrasing rather than quoting. He said he would consider the point. As with a number of other amendments, I have not had any response so I have put the amendment down. I shall not waste time in repeating all the arguments until I hear what one of the noble Earls says. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I hope, my Lords, that the noble Lord will not waste your Lordships' time by repeating all the arguments after he has heard what one of the noble Earls has to say. The amendment would seek to prevent any compensation arising from a delay of longer than three months which an owner might experience and which was brought about by his need to inform the NCC of his intention to carry out operations specified in an order made on his land by virtue of Clause 27, if—and this is the crux—he had not
440
undertaken that activity on that piece of land in the previous 20 years.
The suggestion, I believe, behind the amendment is that some owners or occupiers would see some gain accruing to them, by notifying the Nature Conservancy Council of their intention to carry out an operation proscribed in the order, when they either had no intention of undertaking that particular piece of work, or it would never have occured to them to do so had an order not been made. It was to meet the situation when a person had such an intention that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, during the Committee suggested that compensation should be possible if the notifier could show that at the time the order was made he had every intention of undertaking the proscribed operation. Notwithstanding that very helpful suggestion, we find it difficult to accept the amendment. The Government believe that irrespective of the length of time the management of the land has followed a particular pattern, it is not unreasonable that a notifier should be able to consider changing his style of management. It may be that some people will see a way of cashing in on Clause 27 seeking management agreements and the payments they would bring when previously the thought of changing the way they used their land, or of entering into an agreement with the NCC, would never have entered their head.
I should like to think that there will not be many such people. If there are some, then that is a situation the Government are prepared to face, for we believe that we should accept that, unless in the national interest a man is delayed from doing something which he could otherwise expect perfectly legitimately to be able to do, he should be able to have the opportunity of obtaining compensation for the loss occasioned by that delay. In normal circumstances, the delay could not amount to more than a year or so and the amount of compensation would not be disastrous.
Lord Melchett: Yes, my Lords, that was the point that I was making on the previous amendment—that all that is going to happen is a year's delay before the site is destroyed, so we are not talking about very much loss of value. I am sorry the noble Earl did not say that more clearly on the previous amendment because it might have satisfied his noble friends.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt, but the noble Lord is really being peculiarly mischievous. He keeps on saying that the site is going to be destroyed. Of course the site will not be destroyed. The whole purpose of delay is to come to an agreement.
Lord Melchett: Yes, my Lords, I accept that is the purpose of the delay, and that is exactly what I said earlier. If there is not an agreement the site will then be destroyed or compulsorily purchased, in which case the compenation is assessed as it would be normally for a compulsory purchase, and as it can be now when the NCC have powers of compulsory purchase.
It seems to me that this point underlines another weakness in the proposals of Clause 27 as they stand: sites which are not at risk and where landowners and farmers have no intention of damaging the site or changing their practice may nevertheless get sucked up into this enormously bureaucratic and complicated

441
procedure in Clause 27. Under the proposals which the Government did not accept that would never happen, but the Government's proposals envisaged an innocent landowner who has no intention of changing an SSSI or doing anything to damage it nevertheless being subject to an order, because there is no way of ensuring that that does not happen under proposals that it seems to me in some way are designed to ensure that most of the sites are sites which people did not intend to damage, because they are meant to be the top 30 or 40. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, who made the point at Committee stage that most of those sites are not at risk anyhow.
That seems to me to increase the incentive for the kind of spurious claim for compensation which the noble Earl very fairly admitted was a possibility. We now have the position—and I hope the noble Earl will not accuse me of being mischievous because I am merely trying to reflect accurately what has been said at rather greater length by him and by his noble friends—that 30 or 40 sites, most of which will not be at risk, are put under Clause 27 procedures. People who did not intend to do anything to damage them may then say they want to do something that would damage them, and have to be paid compensation by the Government to safeguard them. I cannot believe that really is a satisfactory situation but if the noble Earl is satisfied I will not at this stage press the amendment and attempt to reduce the ridiculous and embarrassing position which I think the Government have got themselves into. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 169:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of hedges and trees alongside highway
.—(1) The local planning authority may make byelaws for the prevention of damage to the land, or any features on or in the land, within any area designated under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of special scientific interest.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, byelaws under this section relating to any area may prohibit, restrict or regulate—

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

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

(c) the use of metal detectors;

in the area, or any part thereof, except in the exercise of any lawful right.").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this new clause, which noble Lords will recollect appears in precisely the same form as at Committee stage. It is not necessary for me to repeat the arguments but perhaps I could repeat some words which your Lordships will see appearing in the rubric alongside the new clause—
"Protection of hedges and trees alongside highway".
I repeat that this new clause has nothing to do with that very necessary and laudable activity. Perhaps there is somebody in the printing office who is very anxious to protect hedges and trees alongside highways, and for that we should all be grateful; but my amendment has nothing to do with that.
This matter appears at the request of the Borough of Barrow-in-Furness, which had found particular difficulty in being unable to control what they call certain non-development activities within four sites of special scientific interest within the borough. All this amendment seeks to do is to give similar bylaw protection to SSSIs as already exists for statutory nature reserves.
Originally the Borough of Barrow-in-Furness included this as Clause 41 in the Cumbria Bill which is now before your Lordships' House, but were then advised by the Department of the Environment that perhaps the clause would be more appropriately placed in this Bill. For that reason they then put it in this Bill, and my reason for bringing it up again is that when I moved it at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, was very much in sympathy with the aims of the new clause but advised us that this borough and others—because others have the same problem—could make access orders under Section 65 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. That would give them a consequent power to make bylaws, as contained in Section 90.
I undertook to consult with various local authorities as to whether or not they regarded that as a satisfactory solution. The answers which I have had from them all are, first, that to some of the SSSIs about which they are worried there is completely unrestrained access already, and therefore it would seem somewhat illogical to apply for an access order. Secondly, others of these sites are those where the last thing they would want to do is to increase access, and merely to apply for an access order as a roundabout way of applying these bylaws seemed to be a bit illogical, if access was not what they wanted. I wonder whether the noble Lord who replied last time has had an opportunity of thinking about this further and I should like to hear what he has to say.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he explain what he means by "local planning authority"? We have had enough confusion between county and district planning authorities. I think it would be helpful if he could say whether he means a district or a county planning authority.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, since the whole process was initiated by the Borough of Barrow-in-Furness that clearly would be the district, and the local planning authority would be whatever the local planning authority happened to be. It cannot be an authority which is not a planning authority. I think in this particular case it is the planning authority in which the site of special scientific interest happens to be situated.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, since I live in the county of Cumbria which is concerned and that area is particularly important, I rise very briefly to support the noble Lord. This is a very simple provision and is not covered by access agreements, as was suggested in the Government's reply at Committee stage. The SSSIs in the neighbourhood of Barrow-in-Furness can very easily be destroyed by access just as historic houses can easily be destroyed by the feet of those thousands who come and visit them. I should like the Government to consider this again, if not before the next stage, at least when the Bill conies before another

443
place. There is also the unfortunate feature that this clause first appeared in the Cumbria Bill and the people concerned were advised by the Department of the Environment that it would be more appropriate in this Bill. I wish the Minister would address himself to that point, because it seems extremely hard to go through these different processes and at the end of the day find that the Government turn them all down. I support the noble Lord and hope that the Government will look rather more favourably on this now than they did before, even if they cannot agree straight away.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words, and I have an interest to declare, as president of Ponies of Britain. I do not want to oppose the amendment, but I should like to make a special plea to the planning authorities, whoever they may be, who are going to make these by-laws, that they will look favourably on horses and ponies, especially where young riders are concerned. I quite agree that if you have an SSSI or a designated area which is near a town, in wet weather riders can do a lot of damage to ground but I hope that the authorities will be very sympathetic regarding riders, especially children on ponies.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for the care with which he has explained his concern to protect areas of special scientific interest, both on this occasion and when he moved a similar amendment during the Committee stage, as well as for agreeing to consider the proposal which was put to him at that time that access orders might provide a suitable means of control. The Government, too, have been considering this question since the Committee stage. I now appreciate that access orders would not be an appropriate way of controlling activities of the public which might harm such areas. However, I am still not convinced that the amendment, as it stands, is necessary.
There are three categories of land which might need protection; that is, land owned by a local authority, common land and land in private ownership. For the first category, local authorities may establish local nature reserves under Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and may make by-laws in respect of those reserves. On common land, local authorities may make by-laws under Section 1 of the Commons Act 1899 and other legislation. On private land, local authorities may make agreements with owners under Section 21 of the 1949 Act, and subsequently declare the land a local nature reserve and make bylaws. Full powers already exist, therefore, to enable local authorities to control activities by the public on land of nature conservation interest. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for giving a less complete answer when he raised this matter at Committee stage, but in these circumstances I hope he will not press his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it seems a bit tough on the local authority concerned, and those involved in this subject, if, when they moved the amendment to the Private Bill, the Cumbria Bill, they were told that it ought to be in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill,
444
and when they move it to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, says that they should not press it. I really do not know quite where that leaves them, but there is a certain amount of confusion, to put it mildly. If the noble Earl wants me to give way, I shall be happy to do so.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, we are trying to find out more about this. The whole point is that we cannot find out where this advice to Cumbria came from.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, a number of us have received fairly lengthy and detailed communications from the local authority concerned, and that is what they say was said to them. This amendment strikes at some important abuses. One that particularly worries me is the question of the use of metal detectors. It seems to me that the unrestrained use of metal detectors in the countryside causes enormous problems. I know that there is a voluntary code of practice, but it seems to me, from my personal experience, to be honoured a great deal more in the breach than in the observance.
Unlike ramblers, nature conservationists and the other people who visit my own farm, the people with metal detectors seem unique in their inability to tell the difference between a growing crop and a piece of grass beside the road. I have been told that my fields of sugar beet, barley, carrots and numerous other things were, they thought, grass and therefore they were quite at liberty to dig them up, which of course they were not. So this is a problem.
It is one thing if a small part of a large field of barley or carrots is dug up, although highly undesirable. It is another thing if the only site where a rare orchid, or some other rare plant or animal, lives is dug up which may destroy it for ever. So it seems to me that the amendment has some considerable advantages. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, intends to do about it, but were he to press it to a Division we would certainly support him as much as we could.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the sympathetic nature of his reply and, indeed, for the very careful consideration which has obviously been given by the Government to this amendment since it appeared on the Marshalled List at Committee stage. I am also grateful to other noble Lords for their support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for what he said. He has made a number of very important observations regarding what are genuine problems, not only at Barrow-in-Furness but in all SSSIs which are situated very close to urban populations and to recreational areas. These are problems which will have to be dealt with in some way or another.
I agree, too, that the point to which the noble Viscount. Lord Ridley, referred, as to who or what is the planning authority, will sooner or later have to be determined. But I am sure that he would not wish me to involve myself in any disputes between counties and districts up in Cumbria, which he knows very well have been going on for a very long time, and he knows which side I am on as well. I would perhaps

445
add to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who said that he hoped they would be sympathetic in their attitude towards horses, that this is, of course, an enabling clause. It says that the authority, "may prohibit, restrict or regulate" various activities,
"except in the exercise of any lawful right".
It would be entirely appropriate for the authority concerned, if they acquired this power by any means, to act in that way.
I am now placed in the situation of having to decide what to do. I have, in fact, decided and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that, despite his encouragement to me to divide on the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, seems to me to have oozed reasonableness from almost every pore on this matter. Perhaps I may also say that this battle is not wholly lost, because despite the advice given by the Department of the Environment—and I understand inquiries are being made into that—this clause still remains in the Cumbria Bill and, therefore, the matter is not at an end if it is not pursued here.
The various people who worked indefatigably at Barrow-in-Furness will be glad that their problems have had such a close airing. Perhaps this will assist them in dealing with this matter when it comes in another measure. Therefore, I would thank noble Lords for their support, and the noble Lord opposite for his sympathy on the matter. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 169A not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since it is now three minutes to seven, I think that this would be an appropriate moment for your Lordships to break for one hour exactly. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [H.L.]
6.58 p.m.
Read 3a.
Clause 5 [Imposition of aftercare conditions on planning permission]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 10:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("during such period as may be specified for each step")
Page 4, line 47, leave out ("or")
Page 5, line 1, at end insert ("or
(c) use for amenity.
(2A) An aftercare condition may either—

(a) specify the steps to be taken; or

(b) require that the steps be taken in accordance with a scheme (in this section referred to as an "aftercare scheme") approved by the mineral planning authority.

(2B) A mineral planning authority may approve an aftercare scheme in the form in which it is submitted to them or may modify it and approve it as modified.")
Page 5, line 3, after ("condition") insert ("or an aftercare scheme")
Page 5, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 7 and insert—
446
("(4) Where a step is specified in a condition or a scheme, the period during which it is to be taken may also be specified, but no step may be required")
Page 5, line 19, leave out from ("prescribe") to end of line 23 and insert ("maximum periods differing according to the use specified")
Page 5, line 19, leave out lines 24 to 39 and insert—
("(7) In a case where—

(a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and

(b) the land was in use for agriculture at the time of the grant of the planning permission or had previously been used for that purpose and had not at the time of the grant been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and

(c) the Minister has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,

the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture.
(7A) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.
(7B) Where the use specified is a use for forestry, the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.
(7C) Where the use specified is a use for amenity, the land is brought to the required standard when it is suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs or plants.")
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("as to its terms")
Page 5, line 48, at end insert ("as to whether it is appropriate to specify that use.
(9A) Where after consultations required by subsection (9) of this section the mineral planning authority are satisfied that the use that they ought to specify is a use for agriculture or for forestry, they shall consult—

(a) where it is for agriculture, the Minister; and

(b) where it is for forestry, the Forestry Commission, with regard to whether the steps to be taken should be specified in the aftercare condition or in an aftercare scheme.

(9B) The mineral planning authority shall also consult the Minister or the Forestry Commission, as the case may be,—

(a) as to the steps to be specified in an aftercare condition which specifics a use for agriculture or for forestry; and

(b) before approving an aftercare scheme submitted in accordance with an aftercare condition which specifies such a use.")

Page 6, line 4, leave out from ("whether") to end of line 5 and insert ("the steps specified in an aftercare condition or an aftercare scheme are being taken").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move all the amendments to Clause 5—that is, Nos. 1 to 10—en bloc and to speak to them now. These amendments stem from the discussion that we had in Committee on 5th February on Amendment No. 36 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and on Amendment No. 45 moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. At that time I promised that we would study how the Bill might be improved along the lines suggested. Last week during the Report stage I assured the House that the Government would be bringing forward amendments on Third Reading, and I am glad to say that this batch of amendments fulfils that promise. These 10 amendments contain four points of substance, but I need to speak to them together since the clause has had to be recast and some amendments are therefore relevant to more than one point.
First, the Government agree that the after-care provision should be extended to cover certain amenity planting. This was originally proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and welcomed on all sides of the House. The noble Baroness will see that parliamentary counsel has achieved this by combining her original amendment as the first part of Amendment No. 3

447
with the substance of my letter to her last week as the last part of Amendment No. 7—the new subsection (7C)—which states that where the use specified is a use for amenity, the land is brought to the required standard when it is suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs or plants. I hope, too, that this meets the points raised at earlier stages by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 are consequential to this.
Secondly, in response to my noble friend Lord Mottistone I promised that the drafting of subsection (8) of the new Section 30A would be improved to take account of his criticism of its inoperability. The substance of our proposals is in Amendment No. 7, which replaces the old subsection (8) with a new subsection (7). The main changes are: first, a proviso that the subsection applies only where the Minister of Agriculture has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture; and, secondly, replacement of the previous reference to the condition of the land by a reference to its physical characteristics, which is a more accurate definition of what we had in mind from the first. The Ministry of Agriculture's land classification scheme is based on an assessment of the land's physical characteristics. In addition, we have studied the Hansard record of the discussion of "possible" and "practicable" and have concluded that the latter is the better word to use. As a consequence of this amendment, the old subsection (7) is being replaced by new subsections (7A) and (7B).
Thirdly, in discussion with the Ministry of Agriculture and certain minerals interests it has become clear that it would be of benefit to all concerned if as an alternative to specifying after-care steps in a condition the option was available of specifying them by means of the submission of an after-care scheme to the mineral planning authority at an appropriate time. Such schemes are often used in minerals permissions to cover phased working, landscaping, restoration, et cetera. The new subsection (2A) in Amendment No. 3 provides for this, and Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 10 are consequential amendments where it is necessary to refer to a scheme as an alternative to the steps being specified in the condition.
Amendment No. 1 deletes some words which have now been better incorporated into Amendment No. 4. The new subsection (2B) in Amendment No. 3 permits a mineral planning authority to modify an after-care scheme which has been submitted to them but the interests of the mineral operator are protected by the right of appeal in Section 36 of the 1971 Act, which was extended to such schemes by paragraph 4 of Schedule 15 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
Fourthly, and really as a result of the new after-care scheme provisions which I have just described, Amendment No. 9 clarifies that the mineral planning authority must consult the Ministry of Agriculture or the Forestry Commission, whichever is relevant, on: first, the appropriateness of the intended after-use; second, whether the steps should be specified in the after-care condition or in a scheme; and, third, the steps to be specified. Amendment No. 8 is merely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 9.
I hope that this brief explanation of the relatively
448
convoluted drafting has clarified the purpose of these amendments, and how this is to be achieved. I therefore beg to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 en bloc.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which the new amendments have been drafted—in fact, for the way in which practically the whole of one clause has been redrafted in such a short time to meet some of the points raised by me and by noble Lords opposite, about which we were all in agreement. I extend in particular a warm welcome to the amendments relating to amenity and after-care. Between them they meet the case which, with the support of many noble Lords, I originally put in Committee on 5th February. They are an amalgamation of two amendments which I moved, the first in Committee at col. 1343. At the time the Minister felt that this was too wide to be acceptable, but now it has been found to be acceptable. For this I am very grateful. I moved the second amendment during the Report stage on 5th March, at col. 1551. Naturally I am delighted that these amendments, which were always intended to be constructive, to convey the spirit of the Bill and to extend its scope, have now been recognised as a meeting point which has general support both inside and outside the House.
I turn to Amendment No. 7. I believe that subsection (7) is a reasonable compromise so long as the industry does not attempt to interpret the words "so far as it is practicable" in a very narrow way. That is the only doubt I have about it. However, I am hopeful that responsible operators will co-operate. If it is interpreted with a fairly broad brush, then it should work out very well.
I am not quite so sure about the effectiveness of subsection (7A). This will cover after-care conditions which are introduced following a review of conditions or following a prohibition order rather than at the time when permission is granted. The Minister mentioned this amendment when he spoke. I know that this point of detailed concern has already been raised with his department by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I hope that the Minister will look again at the problems which could arise if local authorities are to ensure that good quality agricultural land is returned to the community when a mineral site is restored to such use. I believe it to be important that this subsection should not be used to justify restoring land to a far lower standard than that in which it was before the mineral workings started.
In this connection, I should like to ask the Minister why the word reasonably is inserted before the word "fit". To me it reads as a qualification. It will possibly be argued that it is a legal term of art, but it has the effect of loosening the tightness on the land being made fit for use. I have nothing to add on the other amendments except to give my support to them and to thank the Minister for what seems to me to be a great improvement so far as agriculture and forestry are concerned.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for having done his best to meet some of the points which I raised in amendments during earlier stages of the Bill. Unfortunately,

449
we have not had time to study these amendments in detail, and at this stage I cannot guarantee that my CBI advisers will be entirely happy with them. They may find themselves having to advise somebody else to return to the charge in another place.
On the face of it, I think my noble friend has done his level best to meet the points. I am delighted to see the word "reasonably" inserted in appropriate places. It is quite absurd that one should try to force people to do something which is unreasonable. "Reasonably" at least makes it sure that unreasonable pressure is not brought to bear. With those few words and with overall thanks to my noble friend, I shall sit down.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, may I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and thank the Minister for dealing with so many of the points which were made during earlier stages of the Bill.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Gisborough. On the question of how one should interpret the word "reasonably", I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is smiling. He, perhaps more than most of us, must have spent many years of his life in the courts, trying to interpret that very word. In the end it will depend upon what the people concerned feel is reasonable when the circumstances are applied to a situation which may arise. I hope that the insertion of this word does not cause difficulty in any way. The concern of the noble Baroness is that it may leave room for argument, upon which somebody will have to decide at the end of the day. I appreciate that. At the same time, in turn I hope that she will appreciate that throughout the whole of this Bill we have been trying to steer a middle course and to get the best we could for all concerned. It is in that context that I would ask her whether we might leave it at that.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Orders revoking or modifying planning permission]:
7.10 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 4, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon the changes to Clause 5 which have just been approved. It ensures that all the relevant subsections of the new Section 30A apply when an aftercare condition is imposed on an existing permission using an order under Section 45 of the 1971 Act. There is perhaps just one specific point to which I ought to refer. The new subsection (7) of Section 30A introduced by Amendment No. 7 provides that this subsection only applies where the Minister of Agriculture has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture. Although this is unlikely to be a problem for the Ministry in respect of new permissions to which Clause 5 solely relates, in relation to existing workings there are likely to be some circumstances where the Ministry has no record of what the characteristics were when the land was last used for agriculture—for example, when this was 30
450
or 40 years ago. In such cases I should point out that the new subsection (7) will not apply, and instead the operator will be bound by the less exacting provisions of subsection (7A). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Discontinuance of use]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
Page 8, line 42, leave out ("(4) to (6) and (9)") and insert ("(2A) to (6) and (7B)").
Page 9, leave out lines 1 to 17 and insert—
("(1G) In a case where—

(a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and

(b) the land was in use for agriculture immediately before development consisting of the winning and working of minerals began to be carried out in, on or under it or had previously been used for agriculture and had not been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and

(c) the Minister has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,

the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture.
(1H) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the two amendments to Clause 8 together, since they are both consequential on the amendments already made to Clause 5. Amendment No. 12 applies all of the subsections of Section 30A to aftercare conditions imposed on the continuance of the use of land for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals using an order under Section 51 of the 1971 Act except for the new subsections (7) and (7A) of Section 30A. Amendment No. 13 deletes the existing subsections (1G) and (1H) of Section 51, and replaces them with new subsections which incorporate the relevant points arising out of the drafting of the subsections (7) and (7A). I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Orders prohibiting resumption of use and orders relating to suspension of use]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 10, line 18, leave out ("(4) to (6) and (9)") and insert ("(2A) to (6) and (7B)")
Page 10, line 18, leave out lines 23 to 42 and insert—
("(5) In a case where—

(a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and

(b) the land was in use for agriculture immediately before development consisting of the winning and working of minerals began to be carried out in, on or under it or had previously been used for agriculture and had not been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and

(c) the Minister has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,

the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture.
(6) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to the two amendments to Claues 9 together. They are in fact identical to the two amendments to Clause 8 which have ju,t been approved. Therefore, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Imposition of aftercare conditions on planning permission]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 24:
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("during such period as may be specified for each step")
Page 24, line 44, leave out ("or")
Page 25, line 1, at end insert ("or
(c) use for amenity.
(2A) An aftercare condition may either—

(a) specify the steps to be taken; or

(b) require that the steps be taken in accordance with a scheme (in this section referred to as an "aftercare scheme") approved by the planning authority.

(2B) A planning authority may approve an aftercare scheme in the form in which it is submitted to them or may modify it and approve it as modified.")
Page 25, line 3, after ("condition") insert ("or an aftercare scheme")
Page 25, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 6 and insert—
("(4) Where a step is specified in a condition or a scheme, the period during which it is to be taken may also be specified, but no step may be required ")
Page 25, line 18, leave out from ("prescribe") to end of line 22 and insert ("maximum periods differing according to the use specified")
Page 25, line 18, leave out lines 23 to 38 and insert—
("(7) In a case where—

(a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and

(b) the land was in use for agriculture at the time of the grant of the planning permission or had previously been used for that purpose and had not at the time of the grant been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and

(c) the planning authority is aware of or can readily ascertain the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,

the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture.
(7A) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.
(7B) Where the use specified is a use for forestry, the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.
(7C) Where the use specified is a use for amenity, the land is brought to the required standard when it is suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs or plants.").
Page 25, line 42, leave out ("as to its terms") and insert ("as to whether it is appropriate to specify that use.
(9A) Where after consultations required by subsection (9) of this section the planning authority are satisfied that the use that they ought to specify is a use for forestry, they shall consult the Forestry Commission with regard to whether the steps to be taken should be specified in the aftercare condition or in an aftercare scheme.
(9B) The planning authority shall also consult the Forestry Commission—

(a) as to the steps to be specified in an aftercare condition which specifies a use for forestry; and

(b) before approving an aftercare scheme submitted in accordance with an aftercare condition which specifies such a use.")

Page 26, line 1, leave out from ("whether") to end of line 2 and insert ("the steps specified in an aftercare condition or an aftercare scheme are being taken").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as with Clause 5, and with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to all the amendments to Clause 21 and to move them en bloc. There are, in fact, only nine of these, Nos. 16 to 24, rather than 10 since Amendment 23 is equivalent to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together.
These Scottish amendments are directly equivalent to those made for England and Wales, except on one point. In Scotland, the criterion for the application of subsection (7) to after-care conditions will be met when the planning authority is aware of or can readily ascertain the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture, whereas in England and Wales the responsibility rests with the Minister of Agriculture to notify the mineral planning authority. In most cases the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will provide the necessary information as part of the non-statutory consultation procedure on the terms of the after-care condition, and since in Scotland this procedure is not to be made the subject of a statutory requirement we consider that the Secretary of State's role in providing the information need not appear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 24 en bloc.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to explain something, only for my own edification because it may be that other noble Lords have seen the point of it already. Would he be good enough to explain why it is that the words, "during such period as may be specified for each step"—which is Amendment No. 16—are necessary? I did not catch his explanation of that in the very useful remarks that he made.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not know that I specifically covered that in what I said. Amendment No. 23 in fact is equivalent to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together; that is why I did not speak on it. Am I right in thinking that it is that one to which the noble Lord refers?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, obviously I bow to the Minister and I am anxious not to waste the time of the House, but I did not quite understand that that was the reason for the exclusion of these words from the definition clause.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I may just make sure that we are talking about the same thing. This also comes under Amendment No. 16 and it is referred to later on in the one that I omitted to mention. I understand the noble Lord to be asking about the words, "during such period as may be specified for each step". In fact, the words in Amendment No. 16 are deleted and replaced in Amendment No. 20, but in the drafting in this way we have made so many reshufflings—indeed the first 10 clauses were completely recast—that it is a little confusing, but I hope the noble Lord will find it there in Amendment No. 20.
Lord Mishcon: I think that is so and I am much obliged.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether this particular case is to do with the

453
matter of suggesting to councils that after-care should take place step by step and phase by phase and was this not brought in by amendments and is this not a further amendment on amendments relating to phasing of after-care step by step?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend has it right and I do not want to go into the detail of it. I think that is probably where it originates. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned as to why it was there at all.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Orders revoking or modifying planning permission]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 27, line 35, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the idcntial Scottish equivalent of Amendment No. 11 which applied to England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Discontinuance of use]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 28, line 26, leave out ("(4) to (6) and (9)") and insert ("(2A) to (6) and (7B)").
Page 28, line 26, leave out from beginning of line 30 to end of line 3 on page 29 and insert—
("(1F) In a case where—

(a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and

(b) the land was in use for agriculture immediately before development consisting of the winning and working of minerals began to be carried out in, on or under it or had previously been used for agriculture and had not been used for any authorised purpose since it use for agriculture ceased; and

(c) the planning authority is aware of or can readily ascertain the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,

the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture.
(1G) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to the two amendments to Clause 24 together. They are the identical amendments to the Scottish provisions which Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 made to Part I of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Orders prohibiting resumption of use and orders relating to suspension of use]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 30, line 9, leave out ("(4) to (6) and (9)") and insert ("(2A) to (6) and (7B)").
Page 30, line 9, leave out lines 14 to 33 and insert—
("(5) In a case where—

(a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and

(b) the land was in use for agriculture immediately before development consisting of the winning and working of minerals began to be carried out in, on or under it or had previously been used for agriculture and had not
454
been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and

(c) the planning authority is aware of or can readily ascertain the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,

the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture.
(6) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to the two amendments to Clause 25 together. They are the identical amendments to Part II of the Bill which Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 made to Part I. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I think this Bill has provided an excellent example of just what a good job this House can do in giving due attention to the detailed drafting of Bills. We have had a number of interesting and wide-ranging debates on the Bill, and I would be the first to recognise that it has been substantially improved by the amendments which have been made, many of them at the suggestion of your Lordships. I am particularly glad that we have been able to incorporate a number of new points, for example, on pipelines and on the limitation of enforcement action to mineral planning authorities.
This process has continued even today, and I hope your Lordships will agree that the amendments to the after-care provisions which we have just discussed have added further clarification and usefulness to the Bill. I think we now have a Bill which provides within the present planning system more sensitive and more flexible measures than are now available to deal with mineral working and its impact upon the environment. Considerate use of these new powers by mineral planning authorities should enable mineral workings now proceeding in an environmentally unacceptable manner to be controlled and brought up to the standards of the good operator.
At the same time, there is an emphasis on the need to make provision for the long-term planning of the minerals industry so that it can play its full part in the economic regeneration of this country. I recognise, of course, that it may still be possible to improve the Bill in a few places, and we have agreed to take away a number of points which can be considered in another place. I am thinking in particular of our promises to look again at the need for a specific mention of longterm planning, to consider whether the application of prohibition orders might be limited in the Bill to abandoned workings, and to re-examine the details of our proposals in relation to compensation. I also know that officials are still considering a number of technical points which can be incorporated later if this seems right. I think we now have a very workable Bill.
I should like, as is customary, to express my grateful thanks to all who have participated in the debates on this Bill. Although I have not by any means been able to accept all of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I hope he will feel that I have listened

455
carefully to what he has said and that a good number, at least, of his points have borne fruit. While I recognise that the mining industry has had reservations about the Bill, their assistance is ensuring that its provisions are workable has been invaluable. I am grateful to my noble friend for the courteous way he has moved his amendments and has accepted my response.
I recall, too, the eloquent case on behalf of the industry put forward by my noble friend Lord Boardman. My noble friend Lord Gisborough has, in an as always reasonable way, ensured that the interests of the private landowner and forester have not been forgotten, while my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Sandford have been, as always, powerful advocates for the interests of non-metropolitan planning authorities. My noble friend Lord Nugent impressed upon me the case that not only should future dereliction be prevented but also that more should be done to tackle existing dereliction. Officials will be sitting down shortly with the local authority associations to discuss details of the survey of past and present mineral workings which I promised at Report stage.
The contributions to the debates from all parts of the House have been pertinent and timely. I would like particularly to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who has argued with much conviction, but always in a helpful and indeed a charming and constructive manner, where she has considered that the Bill might be improved. I am grateful for the support she has given to our proposals and am delighted that the Bill has been able to proceed in such an atmosphere of goodwill, with so few elements of party political controversy. I hope it might set some precedent for future Bills where the noble Baroness and I find ourselves at the Dispatch Boxes, but I suppose that is too much to wish for. Nevertheless, in saying that I in no way detract from the other remarks I have made, which were made most sincerely.
Finally, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Mansfield for the help he has given me, and in particular for agreeing to take in Committee the formidable burden of the compensation provisions. I would like to pay tribute to the officials who have worked with me and all concerned. They have shown knowledge and have been helpful to the highest possible degree. It has been a great pleasure to work with them. As I sit down, may I say it has been an unusual and welcome experience to be able to take a Solomon-like view of the arguments, that the provisions of the Bill should be tilted a little further either to the local authority or to the industry side. At the conclusion the arguments have balanced each other out. I think in the process of debate the baby has grown into a healthy infant and can now be safely left to the care of another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin).
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should first like to thank the Minister very much for the very kind remarks he made about myself and my noble friends on this side. Then, I should like to thank him for the very courteous and informative approach he has adopted throughout the progress of the Bill through this House. Like him, I have found it extremely pleasant to be on the same
456
side for once. I hope it will happen again. It depends what sort of Bill we have. I am always ready to respond. The noble Lord himself has always been ready to respond to suggestions from all sides.
I am delighted to have been able to help with the progress of the Bill, which I think is an extremely important one, if not considered one of the major Bills, and one which had the interest and support of all sides of the House. I cannot resist saying, with the greatest rsepect, that I think it would have been a very much worse Bill had some of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, been accepted, but thankfully they were not. I hope the noble Lord will not take this personally but let the CBI bear the brunt of that rather muted criticism.
This Bill has been the subject of very much detailed discussion between departmental officials and other organisations, particularly the local authority associations, and its progress has undoubtedly been helped by the very helpful and positive approach which has been adopted by departmental officials in their dealings with all of us who have been concerned with this Bill. This happy co-operation has resulted in what I believe to be a good Minerals Bill, which was very badly needed, and will, I am afraid, have to last for a very long time in the future, which is why it is so important to get it as right as we possibly can. I do, however, regret that although the Government have promised a survey of current and past mineral workings this has not been put in the Bill. I do find this a great pity. I would have liked to see this stated in the primary legislation, because I would have liked to see the point about historical dereliction underlined.
Of course, the road to hell, or to the Opposition Benches, is paved with good intentions. This Bill must evolve into more than the good intentions embedded in it. First, the regulations on compensation do need to be thoroughly and publicly discussed, and drafted so as to ensure that effective restoration is carried out. Secondly, money must at some time be made available if it is to work properly. Money is being made available in the form of grant, but for this to be really effective expenditure on derelict land should be removed from capital expenditure controls altogether. Then the grants would be taken up very much more readily then they are at the present time. The Government's instinctive opposition to public spending means, I am afraid, that they often lose sight of the productive and wealth creating nature of a great deal of public spending. In this context land restoration creates material assets just as tangible and just as valuable, sometimes even more so, than those produced by industry.
Finally, the Bill provides an essential framework for a productive marriage between the minerals industry and the enhancement of the environment. It can be a great step forward if its provisions are used assiduously and constructively.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister for steering this very good Bill through the House and speaking, as he has tonight, to what look rather like overcrowded Benches all around him and a vast audience which has listened to every word that he has said ! I believe the Government

457
have got the Bill exactly right and have secured the right balance between the inevitably conflicting interests of mineral operators and local authorities on the two different sides. I hope and believe that the Bill will provide the right framework for the future operation of a new and satisfactory period of control over mineral working.
I hope the Government will not allow any amendments in another place to destroy what has been done here, and the very good balance which we have all achieved. Unfortunately, I was not able to be in the House for most of the debates. I was present on only one or two days and I apologise for that. However, I should like to make the point that the review of mineral workings, the survey which has been referred to, and the question of compensation will inevitably (and we must face this) generate the need for additional resources of both finance and manpower if they are to be completed properly. We must realise that, and I am sure that we do so.
Secondly, there is the question of compensation, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The Government now have powers to make regulations concerning compensation, and when they do I hope they will consult freely both with the local authority associations and with the CBI and other interested bodies. I have no doubt that they will, but. that is something that I feel I should mention again. When they do that perhaps they will realise that they now also have powers to ensure that there are circumstances in which compensation should not be payable. I hope that that will be very carefully spelled out after full discussions, because it will mean that any matters which at present can be achieved through discussion and agreement between the planning authorities and the mineral operators will continue to be dealt with by negotiation and agreement outside the scope of these regulations, which are still to come, without allowing for any compensation liability to arise. If no such exceptions are to be made in future, it might be that a planning authority will find itself in a potentially worse position than it would be in if we did not have the Bill.
I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suddenly managed to slip in a remark about the reclamation of derelict land. The Minister knows that I am in correspondence with him on this subject, but I think that it is probably outwith, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield might say, the terms of this Bill. However, I hope he will join me in a return to this subject on a separate occasion because I agree with the noble Baroness that this is an important issue, but not one for tonight. Finally, in thanking the Minister and sincerely congratulating him for his grasp of the matter, I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, the president of the AMA, to say that he fully agrees that this is an excellent Bill. I hope that it achieves all that we hope of it.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister. This has been a most interesting Bill to work with, and it has been particularly encouraging because so many amendments have had a good chance of success, which is often unusual as regards many Bills. However, there are one or
458
two matters which still need consideration. The constitution of the Mineral Planning Authority is a matter which still needs looking at, because it is doubtful that councils will have qualified staff who are well acquainted with the problems of mining. The question of who sits on the mineral planning committees will be quite important, because there will be scope for the adoption of special representatives of industry and owners. It will be interesting to see how the Minister, perhaps in another place, sees the proper contact between the county, the owners and representatives of the operators.
There is still the matter of the local land charge, which has been discussed twice, both in Committee and on Report; and it is odd that the drafting is not defined in relation to 1975. That clarification would be useful for non-lawyers. There seems little point in not accepting clarification. It was nice to know that there was flexibility on the part of the Minister, and I think that we have a much better Bill as a result. It is good, too, that this has been a non-political Bill, and I should like to thank the Minister for making the Bill so worthwhile.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend the Minister for the even-handed and even-tempered way in which he has taken this splendid Bill through your Lordships' House. It is a good thing—and I think that we would recognise this from the mineral operators' point of view just as much as from anybody else's—that the Stevens Report, at any rate in part, is now on its way to enactment. That is perhaps a tribute to my noble friend Lord Sandford, who set up the Stevens Committee. Indeed, it may be that our good temper, if that is the right way of putting it, is a reflection of the fact that he selected a diplomat to chair the Stevens Committee and that that has made its way through to us in our debates.
I am deeply grateful, of course, for such of my amendments as have found their way into the Bill at this stage, and for the courteous way in which my noble friend the Minister dealt with those which lie was unable to accept. However, I cannot say that I am altogether happy that the Bill is now in a perfect form. I am delighted that my noble friend rejected several of the amendments that were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in the same way that she was delighted that some of mine were rejected. There is no doubt about it; the Bill would have been ruined if her amendments had been included.
We have the feeling that perhaps the Bill can be improved further. We are particularly concerned about long-term planning, which, on the whole, is not reflected in the Bill as well as we would like. It seems to us that there is a tendency to feel that we can treat the planning of mineral operations in the same way as any other building operation for which planning is required, except, of course, when it comes to compensation, and then the mineral operators get clobbered. So there is room for further work on the Bill in areas of that sort. However, having said all that, I must say that I think that this Bill has been handled in your Lordships' House with the usual calm and general

459
charity of my noble friend the Minister. I hope that it has as happy a passage through another place.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.37 to 8 p.m.]

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Further considered on Report.
Clause 29 [Limestone pavement orders]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 27, line 14, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) Where land in the countryside which consists substantially of limestone exposed on or lying near the surface of the ground has been notified to the county and district authorities by

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

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

(c) it appears to the Secretary of State, 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 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 order under this section.
(2) The county planning authority may amend or revoke an order under this section and the Secretary of State may amend or revoke any such order made by him or that authority, but only after consultation with the Countryside Commission or authority respectively.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 170 on the Marshalled List, which stands in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady David, several noble Lords and myself. During the Committee stage there were a number of amendments on the list with the same general purpose, if with minor differences of emphasis. They aimed to achieve that the landscape value of these limestone pavements should be one of the reasons which should weigh with the Minister when it came to making an order. As we read the Bill as at present drafted, it seemed that the reasons were entirely scientific and we felt that that should be broadened because these limestone pavements—which are so rare in this country and in North-West Europe—are, in the opinion of many people, a very distinctive feature of the landscape.
Since the Committee stage there have been pictures of limestone pavements on a board in the Library for the benefit of those who have not seen them. I admit that one has to get down on one's knees in order to see them, but, none the less, those noble Lords who have looked at them will, I am sure, have been greatly impressed and will have come to the conclusion that on this occasion we ought to do all that we can to give them the preservation that they deserve.
Perhaps it would for the convenience of the House if we were to discuss the following amendment, No. 170ZA, and the two amendments at the top of the following page together. If so, it might save time, for I believe it is the intention of noble Lords that we
460
should try not to repeat ourselves if it can be avoided. Therefore, I hope that I shall be excused if I speak a little beyond the scope of Amendment No. 70.
In his reply during the Committee stage the Minister expressed great sympathy with our object, but he had some reservations. One of the reservations in particular was because an amendment imposed certain order-making duties or responsibilities on the Countryside Commission. Since the Committee stage those of us who had this series of amendments on the list have, in fact, discussed this whole clause and we have all agreed with the amendments which are on the list today. Noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady David, whose names stand to the amendment are drawn from all parts of the House. Furthermore, we hope and believe that we have avoided in these amendments all and every point on which we knew or believed that the Government might have some reservations. Therefore, we hope that we shall not have to take up much of your Lordships' time this evening and that the Minister who is to reply will indicate that he not only has sympathy with what we are trying to do, but that he also has authority to say that it shall, in fact, stand in the Bill.
As I have just said, we omit those matters to which we believe the Minister objected, particularly the limits on the role of the Countryside Commission which, in this amendment, is now in a position to notify and advise, rather than having actual order-making responsibilities. I shall leave the noble Baroness, Lady David, to speak to the amendment which immediately follows Amendment No. 170. When one turns over the page, the two amendments—
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would restrict his remarks to the first two amendments that he has mentioned, because I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we spoke to Amendments Nos. 170 and 170ZA together, to which he has alluded.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, full of hope, I agree with what my noble friend has advised the House, and I think that there is little more for me to say other than that I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, I shall now call Amendment No. 170ZA as an amendment to Amendment No. 170.
Baroness David Baroness David moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 170ZA:
In subsection (2), line 4, after ("with") insert ("the Nature Conservancy Council,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think that the Nature Conservancy Council was omitted from subsection (2) of the amendment which stands in the name of four of us from all parties. I think that we intended that the Nature Conservancy Council should be consulted as well as the Countryside Commission. When I noticed that the NCC was not in subsection (2), I did not have time to consult my friends whose names were down to this amendment, but I think I can assume that they are in total agreement with it, and that it was really an accident that the Nature Con-

461
servancy Council was missed out of subsection (2) of Amendment No. 170. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 170ZA.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 170ZA, which of course is the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, if we are to accept Amendment No. 170, I entirely agree that the amendment to the amendment should first he accepted. Turning to Amendment No. 170, I think that the House will be glad that my noble friend Lord Inglewood has returned to this particular subject, because I believe that there is an advantage in providing that district councils as well as county councils should at least be informed of the existence of limestone pavements in their areas. I also see no objection to the suggestion that the Countryside Commission should notify local authorities of pavements in their areas.
Finally, I agree that it is right that the Government's statutory advisers should be consulted before orders are amended, although we do not think that the county planning authorities should be able to amend or revoke orders made by the Secretary of State, which would presumably he the effect of leaving out the words "made by the authority" in line 2 of the subsection as it stands. Therefore, I should be pleased to accept in principle the main features of the amendment, though we should like carefully to consider the wording of the new subsection before accepting it in the Bill as of now.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, suppose that the county planning authority had made the order, would it then be its right to revoke it? I understand the point that if the Secretary of State had made the order, then perhaps the Secretary of State should revoke it, but if the county planning authority had made the order, presumably it would be in order for it to revoke or amend it?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I cannot definitely give the noble Baroness the assurance that she desires. I believe this to be true, but in bringing forward the final shape of this important amendment, which we undertake to do in consultation with the noble Lord, the best thing is for that point to be considered at that time. Therefore, we would look at this once more at Third Reading.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, perhaps I might raise what might be a lone voice against this series of amendments. I thought that we had it right in Committee. I remember moving an amendment myself which made it quite clear that it was a county planning matter and that the involvement of districts would just delay the whole process, and result in a great deal of paper work and bureaucracy. I am still of that opinion. However, that is relatively unimportant.
I am disturbed at the introduction of the Countryside Commission, both in its right to initiate action and in its consultation afterwards. I should have thought that the Nature Conservancy Council was the right authority for this matter. If we have yet another step, yet another Quango, involved in this we are going to have many more authorities, bureaucrats, and so on. The problem is not that sufficiently large
462
that it is necessary. I can foresee the Countryside Commission appointing a limestone pavement officer with a supporting staff of goodness knows how many typists, and a new office in Westmoreland, or wherever it is the limestone pavements exist. We had the Bill right in Committee, and I hope that the Government will think carefully before they accept any amendments on these lines.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Viscount takes such an optimistic view of the future resources of the Countryside Commission, so that they will be appointing this officer, that officer and the other officer. If we are to accept—and it appears that the Government do now accept—that the whole question of the preservation of these remarkable limestone pavements is not purely a matter of flora and fauna, and the very unusual biological developments which occur from plants which grow within these crevices in the limestone, but is also a matter of the preservation of these limestone pavements on landscape considerations, then it would be absurd if one was to ignore the Government's statutory advisers on landscape matters, who are in fact the Countryside Commission.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? Is it not equally absurd to ignore the local county planning authority, who are well aware of the importance of these landscapes?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I would not dream of ignoring the county planning authorities for a moment. I am taking issue with the noble Viscount merely on the narrow point that he is apparently objecting to the introduction of the role of the Countryside Commission in a matter in which limestone pavement is to be protected on landscape grounds rather than on purely conservation grounds. That would he quite absurd. I have no quarrel with him on his other argument. I have no wish to enter into disputes between counties and districts on these planning matters, but I must insist that if it is to be accepted by your Lordships' House that for limestone pavement—an unusual and remarkable feature of our landscape, and also an unusual and remarkable habitat for certain plants—we are to take into consideration landscape considerations, one cannot ignore the Government's statutory advisers on landscape matters; namely, the Countryside Commission. My understanding of the noble Viscount's observation was that he objected to the interpolation of the Countryside Commission in this matter. I cannot go with him on that, and I doubt whether he will find many other people who would so so.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I would not dream of intervening to delay the resolution of this particular amendment, except to emphasise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has made that the whole burden of this amendment is to make it clear that it is the landscape value of these unique and peculiar, if you like, features—not geologically peculiar, but peculiar in relation to their unusualness in the scenery in the rest of Britain—that we wish to protect through this amendment. As to who should be consulted and

463
who should initiate the proposals in regard to that, I would be quite happy to leave to the Government to resolve in the light of this debate. I should like merely to record my delight to know that the Government are looking favourably on subsection (1)(b) of this amendment, because this is the whole point of it.
Lord James of Rusholme: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as someone who often walks on limestone pavements. I do not think that any care of them can be exaggerated both on the grounds of habitat and beauty, because they add immeasurably to a landscape if you know where to find them. They are unusual. They are vulnerable. They are productive of all kinds of beauty from small ferns to elements in the landscape, and no trouble can be too great to protect them,
Lord Sandys: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I take this opportunity of replying to a question put by the noble Baroness in regard to revocation of orders. I am advised that a county planning authority may revoke such orders as she mentioned.
Baroness David: Thank you very much.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, after such valuable and distinguished support I certainly do not want to prolong the rivalry between different factions which began to appear in these, I thought, innocent debates. So far as I can see my amendment puts the emphasis on the county and not on the local planning authority, but I am prepared to leave it to the Government when it comes to drafting a final version. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, spoke freely about a certain county appointing curious officers. I do not know whether that is the way it happens in Northumberland, but I am sure it is not the habit of the county which is more intimately concerned with this clause.
Finally, I thought we had met that particular objection to an extension of Countryside Commission functions even though it is well within their statutory powers. Heartened by what the Minister said about accepting all this in principle, and full of hope that we shall see a clause, slightly different no doubt in words but the same in spirit, at the next stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, on the understanding that the Government are going to produce a further amendment by Third Reading, I shall withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 170, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 27, line 26, after ("order") insert ("(a limestone pavement order)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends on the Marshalled List. This is a drafting amendment, and is equally applicable to the Bill as it stands or to Amendment No. 170. If we look at Amendment No. 170, it would come in and take effect on the first line after subsection (1)(c). This part
464
of the Bill, Clause 29, refers to limestone pavements orders. Although we have been told that it will not affect such areas as the Cotswolds and that limestone pavements in Great Britain amount perhaps to little more than 5,000 acres, there is nothing in Clause 29 that limits it to limestone pavements. It would, therefore, seem logical to include the words in my amendment, and I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the noble Earl prefaced his speech by saying that he was going to withdraw his amendment, but I imagine he is proposing it.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I accept that it would be desirable to make sure that Clause 29 does not cover large areas of limestone which are not limestone pavements. Accordingly, I shall be pleased to consider the amendment. However, it may well be that the amendment does not itself achieve that purpose because of the width of the wording in Clause 29(1)(a). We will consider the wording of the subsection as a whole. I think it would be of assistance to the House if the noble Earl would feel able to withdraw it and we shall consider it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("either").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 171, and if noble Lords agree Amendment No. 172 could best be taken with it. I do not want to speak at any length of time because these two amendments deal with the defence against damage to limestone pavements which can be obtained by quoting from the general development order in the case of certain damage that may be done to limestone pavements, such as using limestone, or allegedly using limestone, for certain agricultural purposes. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in reply to these points which we raised at some length at Committee stage. Therefore, I shall not elaborate them further now. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, it has been a basic characteristic of successive Town and Country Planning Acts that the use of land for the purposes of agriculture should not be subject to the need to seek planning permission. The general development order gives general permission for various works for agricultural purposes. In particular, paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the General Development Order 1977 give a general permission for:
"The winning and working, on land held or occupied with land used for the purpose of agriculture, of any minerals reasonably required for the purpose of that use, including—

(i) The fertilisation of the land so used; and

(ii) The maintenance improvement or alteration of buildings or works thereon which are occupied and used for the purposes aforesaid, so long as no excavation is made within 25 metres of the metal portion of the trunk or classified road ".

465
As I said in Committee, limestone is an indigenous material on many of our hill farms, and many of the old farm buildings and drystone walls which form an integral and charming part of our landscape are made from it. While I cannot pretend that farmers nowadays extract limestone from the land, crush it and use it to fertilise their land to any great extent, they still use this natural resource for the repair of their buildings and drystone walls and, as I have said, they enhance the landscape by so doing. It is the Government's view that it would be unreasonable to restrain farmers from taking limestone to the extent which the general development order permits. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I wait to see what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, decides to do with the amendment. I do not entirely disagree with what the Minister said, and as he has given such a sympathetic and co-operative reply I am sure that in the Government's consideration of the whole matter they will wish to reconsider this aspects of it. This is not a question of Quangos. I was going to tell the noble Viscount that it takes two to Quango, but perhaps I had better not.
The damage and destruction to limestone pavements is not caused by farmers picking up bits of limestone for drystone walling, and crushing it for use as fertiliser is long since obsolete as a practice, as the Minister acknowledged. The problem is not with the farmers at all; it is with others who have been extracting limestone pavement for rockeries in gardens. Indeed, quite recently I visited a remarkable area of limestone pavement on the beach at Southerndown, on the South Glamorgan heritage coast, an area which has not been mentioned in our debates. There were people there with bulldozers extracting lumps of the limestone, which I am sure was going for sale in garden shops for rockeries. That is the difficulty, not the farmers. Those of us who have been associated with this and similar amendments have not been worried about the farmers but about threats to the limestone pavement of a very different nature. I am content with whatever course of action the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, decides to take in regard to this amendment.
Baroness David: I am not, my Lords, and if the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, does not press the amendment I shall, because what has been said to persuade him not to press it is, to be frank, a load of old rubbish. The general development order will just provide a loophole, and I hope noble Lords have looked at the visual aid on this subject in the Library. As has been pointed out, bulldozers are getting at this limestone, which is then sold for rockeries. Farmers will not crush it up for use as fertiliser; and the sort of limestone one gets from the pavement is not the type that can be used for making walls. Anyway, there are plenty of stones lying about that can be used for making walls. There is a loophole here of which I do not approve. I hope Lord Inglewood will press the amendment, and I give notice that I shall if he does not.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in so far as it may be true that under the general development order it is possible
466
to exploit the natural pavement for the purpose of selling it and making artificial crazy pavement in people's gardens, for rockeries and so on, that is totally offensive to the landscape and is morally wrong, and therefore I support this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it surprises me that this innocent amendment should have aroused such intense rivalry. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is correct. I thought the tolerance allowed by the general development order was for agricultural purposes only, and not for extraction in such quantities that it was worth transporting all over the country for rockeries. That, to the best of my belief, is not allowed under the general development order. As between the different points of view expressed on the Benches opposite, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady David, and although it may seem ungallant, I intend to take the view of the noble Lord—
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord with a question? He seems to be very easily satisfied over this. How does he know when the limestone is taken whether it will be used for agricultural purposes or be transported all over the country for rockeries? It may not be allowed, but how will he know as the limestone is being scooped off the limestone pavement, its final destination?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is a long time since I served my time and passed my exams as an agricultural surveyor, but I think I can still tell. As for the rivalry between the two points of view on the Benches opposite, on this occasion (not least because the Minister has come so far in our direction on the main point of our case) I shall take a course of action which will not deprive the noble Baroness of a series of other opportunities in another place, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have a perfect right to press the amendment, to which my name is attached, and I would have a right to press it even if I were not a signatory. I certainly hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, intends to vote for the amendment, which stands in his name.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have no intention of depriving the noble Baroness of two votes, not one, on the amendment, remembering that we are speaking at the same time to Amendment No. 172. In the circumstances, I will, if your Lordships wish, withdraw the amendment.
8.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 171) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 71:

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Avebury, L.

Brockway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chorley, L.

Beswick, L.

Collison, L.

467

Craigton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Melchett, L.

Foot, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hall, V.

Segal, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hunt, L.

Stone, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thurso, V.

James of Rusholme, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Mansfield, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Burton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Cathcart, E.

Middleton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Milverton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

de Clifford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De La Warr, E.

Peel, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochdale, V.

Eccles, V.

St. Just, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Soames, L.

Glasgow, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Gray, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Tryon, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Kemsley, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Kilmany, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wise, L.

Long, V.

Yarborough, E.

Loudoun, C.

Resolved in the negative, to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Clause 30 [National nature reserves]:
8.36 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton Lord Mowbray and Stourton moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 28, line 23, 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: My Lords, in moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friends and myself, I apologise for the fact that we have put it down, since it is the same as an amendment that was moved
468
in Committee. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, gave an answer which seemed to my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt to be satisfactory. Since then we have had slight reservations on one small point, and despite having received a very helpful letter from the office of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, we should like to draw the Government a little further, if we can, on the question of a lawful right or privilege being given to someone who is not an owner or occupier of a nature reserve. An owner can give privileges to various people to do various things in nature reserves. We are seeking an assurance from the Government that the right of an owner to grant a privilege to a person or body approved by him is not likely to be hindered or subjected to injury by the by-laws. Privileges have been enjoyed hitherto. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt raised this question at the Committee stage, he explained his concern that traditional rights of access to the countryside should not be prejudiced by nature reserve by-laws. He said that his, point could apply to many people on foot or on horseback who from time immemorial had gone to the areas in question. He went on to say that he wished to ensure that the traditional rights of such people should not be prejudiced. In moving the present amendment my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton has explained the concern about protection of traditional rights. It may be a help to the House if I say that the proviso to Section 20(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which is applied by Clause 30(4) of the Bill, prevents by-laws from interfering with the rights therein mentioned, including the exercise of any right of way.
I should also like to draw attention to the provisions of Section 20(3) of the same 1949 Act, which are likewise applied by Clause 30(4) of the Bill. Section 20(3) refers to various rights which are not exempted from interference, but in relation to which interference Rives rise to a right to compensation. Section 20(3) applies to the exercise of any right vested in a person, whether by reason of his being entitled to any interest in land, or by virtue of a licence or agreement. The expression "interest" in relation to land is defined by Section 114 of the 1949 Act as including:
"Any estate in land and any right over land whether the right is exercisable by virtue of the ownership in an interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement, and in particular includes sporting rights."
Thus Section 20(3) covers a variety of private as distinct from public rights which are not covered by the proviso to Section 20(2).
It is our view that proper by-law control over nature reserves would be impossible unless certain private rights could be interfered with, subject always to the payment of compensation. Insofar as the rights and privileges which the noble Lord wants covered fall within Section 20(2) of the 1949 Act, there is no problem. On the other hand, if they fall within Section 20(3) of the 1949 Act, then I do not think it would be right to disturb the existing position. I hope that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton feels that this is sufficiently exhaustive coverage of the particular point he has raised and that he will not press his amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for giving me such detailed chapter and verse, which I should like to read and digest. Certainly, in a moment or two I will withdraw my amendment. I take it that I am correct in thinking that the general gist is, provided the privileges envisaged in my amendment are not injurious to the particular nature reserve of that area, the likelihood is that the privileges allowed by the owners will be allowed to go on. Am I right in thinking that?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think it would be true to say that a licence to a person mentioned in this particular context is a permission; and, yes, I would agree with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173XA:
Leave out Clause 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. The purpose of putting down this amendment was to raise the point with the Government that I raised at Committee stage and about which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, was kind enough to write to me. This clause deals with the designation of County Trust or other voluntary bodies' nature reserves as national nature reserves. The point I made at the Committee stage, and to which I now wish to return very briefly, concerns the procedure which the Nature Conservancy Council will adopt when deciding whether a voluntary organisation's reserve is of sufficient stature to qualify as a national nature reserve. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, has written a most helpful letter to me and it might be useful if I put on the record what he wrote, because it is of considerable concern to voluntary organisations which have reserves which they feel might qualify for national nature reserve status. In his letter the noble Earl, Lord Avon, wrote that he understood my main concern was to avoid any suggestion on the part of the NCC of interference in the way in which County Trust nature reserves are managed. He went on:
"I can give you this assurance. The Government would want the Council to be convinced on three main points: that the reserve is of national importance—in other words, that it is featured in the Nature Conservation Review or is of such a size and standard that it is on a par with such sites; that there is adequate security of tenure—and here the Council would be looking for the Trust to show that the reserve was safe for 21 years; and that the management of the reserve would ensure that the scientific interest would be maintained during that time".
The last part of that letter is of still some concern to me. It just seems to me that it would be of benefit all round if the Nature Conservancy Council could take it that responsible voluntary organisations such as the County Trust, the RSPB, and possibly the Wild Fowl Trust if it becomes involved, has sufficient expertise to ensure that the management of the reserve would lead to scientific interest being maintained during the period of 21 years. Apart from possibly some assurance from the RSPB, the County Trust or whoever that that was the case, the NCC should not really ask to see a detailed management plan, and certainly should not ask for detailed monitoring of that plan.
I say that because it appears to me that the NCC does not have the resources to do such a thing, and even if they do have the resources they would be better applied to better things. A part of this work really would best be left to the voluntary movement, and the management of their own nature reserves is one of those things which should be left to the voluntary movement.
The third thing that occurs to me is that this is not an exact science. With regard to the management of nature reserves, there are always differences between those reserves interested in birds, those interested in plants, those interested in reptiles and so on. I believe that everyone, including the NCC, is capable of making bad mistakes at times, but I am not sure that the expertise in this field lies entirely with the NCC as opposed, for example, to the RSPB.
I feel that it would be sensible at the outset of this new provision being introduced by the Government that the NCC should be satisfied on the points which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, mentioned to me, but that they will not look for detailed management plans or at the detailed policies of management; and certainly that they will not wish to monitor them regularly. Obviously, they will want to control the scientific interest of the sites and I would accept that. I feel sure that an assurance along those lines would be of major help to voluntary organisations, who otherwise frankly see this as possibly introducing unwarranted interference by the NCC in the management of their own reserves. If that is the case, I believe much less use will be made of the provision than otherwise.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, one discovers something new every day in this particular debate. In this case, I have discovered that if one writes to a noble Lord, he may read out my letter and most of my speaking notes will go by the board! The Government holds in high regard the various voluntary organisations which contribute so much to the cause of nature conservation; organisations such as the National Trust, Country Naturalists Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which manage extensive nature reserves of a very high quality. It seems only proper that a similar status and degree of protection should be available to the best of those reserves as is available to those reserves managed by the NCC. That is the purpose of Clause 30.
The Government has no intention of authorising the NCC to interfere in the management of voluntary bodies' reserves, and the clause confers no such powers. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it is not the intention to apply a heavy hand here. I agree with him that there is not the time available to produce such a heavy hand, nor is there any intention at the moment to introduce the sort of monitoring powers of which he has been speaking.
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the scheme is permissive and no organisation need apply for such a designation unless it wishes to do so. Furthermore, the proposals make available to a nature reserve by-law-making powers of the NCC, which I believe could be a very positive benefit in many cases. We want to be able to give every appropriate reserve rightful recognition as being of national importance, and I hope that with my assurances—and

471
bearing in mind the permissive nature of the clause—that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Melchett: Yes, my Lords, I am. I think the noble Lord, Earl Avon, has gone just a little further than he did in his letter to me. I apologise for preempting his speech, but it did have the advantage of shortening the debate on this point. I am grateful to him for what he has said and I am sure his remarks will be studied by the organisations concerned. I apologise for omitting from my own remarks the National Trust, one of the important voluntary organisations involved in this. I think that the noble Earl has met my personal worry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Grants and loans by Nature Conservancy Council]:
8.50 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 173YA:
Page 29, line 4, 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: My Lords, at Committee stage on 12th February I moved three amendments to do with the disabled to make sure that when grants were given in national parks and in other areas where the disabled might go for recreation proper provision should be made. I named a number of things which might be done to make it easier for them. At the end of that debate after, at first, a not very good response, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said:
"The Government are very sensitive to the situation regarding the disabled in this particular year and I shall he 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."
That was followed by a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Avon, to my noble friend Lord Melchett, when he said that amendments would be put down as in Nos. 444 and 445, and an amendment in slightly different terms from No. 467. These amendments have not been put down by the Government, and this is why I am moving them again. There has been a slip-up in the Marshalled List. The first two amendments I put down are down; the third, to page 77, line 34, is not. This is an omission that I spotted only this morning, when it was too late to do anything about it. May I be assured that something will be done about this; or were these false promises? I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful for the way the noble Baroness moved her amendments. We take it that the third would be as effective as the other two. When I wrote to her exactly what was happening
472
it was happening, but since then parliamentary counsel have sent back the amendments saying they are not necessary so perhaps I should explain why. As I had at Committee stage I have (and everybody has) great sympathy in this Year of the Disabled with the amendments. The problem is that in Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 there is a method of enforcing what the noble Baroness has in mind. The providers of premises to which these amendments would apply are already obliged by law to make provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of visiting members of the public who are disabled. The amendments would simply make it incumbent upon the NCC, as the national park authorities, to impose grant conditions ensuring that the provider of the premises does what he is already legally required to do.
My Lords, it has been argued that this would be harmless and would serve to ensure that public grant does not reach the provider of the premises if he fails to meet his legal obligations. But we are advised that it would be extremely unusual to seek to enforce the provisions of one Act by imposing sanctions in another, unrelated Act. I have been assured that the concern of the NCC and the national park authorities to meet the needs of the disabled will lead them automatically to inquire, before providing grant-aid, whether the recipient's plans comply with his lawful obligations in this and other ways. We do not need to oblige those public grant-aiding authorities to be sensible and careful before distributing public money.
I was interested to read in a newspaper report dated 28th February last that wheelchair trails, like mountaineering routes, labelled as "Easy", "Moderate" and "Difficult" are to be sought and identified in all British national parks. Experiments partly financed by the Countryside Commission are to be conducted into the design of a cross-country wheelchair route for disabled people. I read that out only in order to emphasise that I think things are going on in this field which are highly complimentary, and of which the whole House will be very proud. Bearing in mind this difficulty we have with the law, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would like to think again on these issues.
Lord Melchett: I think parliamentary counsel has confused his role of giving legal advice to the Government with that of giving policy advice, because I think he has got the point of the amendments wrong. We were well aware, as were the disablement organisations which put forward these amendments, of the effect of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I suspect the voluntary organisations working with the disabled in this country know the Act as well as the parliamentary counsel working on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. The point is that the Countryside Commission and the NCC are providing grants. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act does not apply to the provision of grant by those bodies. I think that is clear, and that we got it clear at the Committee stage. I thought that is why the Government agreed to put down their own amendments on this.
I know the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act puts a duty on people who put up buildings to

473
include facilities for the disabled when it is practical; but here is the point. It is not practical to provide facilities for the disabled in, for example, a centre in the countryside if you cannot afford to do so. To be able to afford to do so you need to be able to get a grant from an organisation like the NCC or the Countryside Commission. What we want to be sure of is that those organisations have a statutory duty, when they are giving grants, to make sure those facilities are provided. That is the purpose of the amendments, and that is why they are needed. To give the noble Earl an example, in the countryside there will be required such special facilities as toilet facilities for wheelchair users, braille nature trail leaflets and bird-watching hides that can be used by disabled people—few of which at the moment, if any, could be. Generally the features which benefit disabled people will be of benefit to everyone.
I do not believe that without a requirement on the grant-aiding bodies to take this into account those putting up the buildings will find it reasonably practical to provide those sort of facilities. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act does not place an absolute duty on people to provide those facilities. It would be impossibly expensive, I think it was felt at the time, if it did. It simply says it is desirable and that they should do it if they can. At the moment most of the voluntary organisations have to say, "We would like to have facilities for the disabled, but we cannot afford it. "Facilities of this sort are expensive. That is why these amendments, placing this obligation on the funding bodies, is so important. It is a quite separate point from the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. There are 5 million disabled people in Britain. They need to have the confidence that when they visit the countryside facilities will be available for them. I think it would be a tragedy if this Bill went through your Lordships' House in the International Year of the Disabled—given the enormous interest the noble Earl commented on in allowing and making it possible for disabled people to visit the countryside and to enjoy themselves—if we did not have these amendments in the Bill. The Government agreed with that until recently. I hope they might accept these amendments. If Counsel can still find some drafting rather than policy problems with them, he could put them right at Third Reading.
The Earl of Swinton: I should like to support what noble Lords have said about this. It seems that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has failed very largely because of the words "practical" and "reasonable", and anybody who does not want to make the facilities available says that they are not practical and are not reasonable because they cannot afford to provide them. That seems to be the reason why they get away with it all over the country. Here, I should have thought, where it is a question of grant. it is an entirely different ball game. They are given the money to do something, and the money can be given on these conditions. Therefore, they cannot use it as an excuse that the provision of these facilities are not practical or reasonable. I hope the Government will have another look at this.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said. While I agree with him that this is an amendment which should be agreed to, I should assure him that what he hopes will happen will in any case happen. As a former chairman of the Countryside Commission, I think it is right to tell your Lordships that the Commission are utterly determined to take steps of this kind whether or not they are enshrined in the Bill.
Recently I had the pleasure of taking part in a conference held at the Calvert Trust Centre, the open air centre for the disabled on the shores of Bassenthwaite Lake, organised by Lady Rochdale and the Countryside Commission. Representatives of almost all the national parks attended and explained their plans for trying to make national parks more accessible to disabled people. There is no doubt at all that there is a determination to do it. But there are difficulties. If we make the top of Snowdon accessible to disabled people in wheelchairs, then we make it accessible to people on motor-bikes et cetera. Sometimes we preserve things—as indeed we take active steps to preserve the blue whale—not in the expectation of ever seeing them but merely because it is nice to know that they still exist. It was my opinion, talking to disabled people and representatives from many of their organisations, that they were willing to accept that certain wilderness areas must continue to be wilderness areas and they would not like to see them opened up in ways which in the long term will be damaging.
Regarding grants, the Countryside Commission have the power to spend public money on experiments. They have already decided that they will spend some money on experiments in improving the provisions for disabled people regarding access to national parks. Whatever is done with this amendment, I am utterly satisfied that the Countryside Commission and the NCC will do everything they possibly can to increase the opportunities for disabled people to enjoy SSSIs, national parks and the countryside in a whole variety of ways without making those places so accessible as to destroy them altogether. Whatever is done in regard to this amendment, this is going to happen anyway. I say that not only as a former chairman of the Countryside Commission but also as the second sponsor of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill in another place.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with leave, and briefly, it was nice to have the Countryside Commission's ex-chairman make those remarks. The NCC and the national parks authorities are concerned to meet the needs of the disabled. This will lead them automatically to inquire, before providing grant aid, whether the recipient plans comply with lawful obligations in this and other ways. If the noble Baroness wishes to press her amendment, we shall see what we can do about getting the lawyers right.
Baroness David: My Lords, this amendment has in a way had the backing of the Countryside Commission and last time had the backing of the NCC. I am not altogether satisfied with what the noble Earl said. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsmen have had too much to say in this. I shall press the amendment in

475
the hope that we can get something really satisfactory into the Bill by Third Reading.
At Committee stage, I made a number of suggestions. I should like to make one more about picnic tables and seats. The picnic tables with fixed bench seats are now appearing everywhere. They are not at all good for the disabled and nor are benches without any arms. Good seats should have two arms so that a disabled person can get up easily. I shall now press the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173ZA:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Forestry Act 1967
After section 46 of the Forestry Act 1967 there shall be inserted the following section—
Duty of Commissioners to consult the Nature Conservancy Council.
46A. In the exercise of their functions under this Act relating to any land which in the opinion of the Nature Conservancy Council is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features the Commissioners shall consult with and shall have regard to the advice of the Council in respect of anything which in the opinion of the Council is likely to destroy or damage such interest.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another point which we discussed in Committee. I moved an amendment based on the findings of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology which attempted to widen the powers of the Forestry Commission so that they took into account nature conservation and wildlife interests. Having looked at the debate that we had, in spite of the fact that my amendment was based on the recommendation of a Select Committee, I have now considerably narrowed the point that I was making then.
I now have an amendment which says that the Commissioners should consult with the NCC about SSSIs and have regard to the advice of the council if the council feel that something that the commission are going to do will destroy or damage the interest of that site. I hope that this is not something which can be seen as interfering arbitrarily or in a heavy-handed way with the Forestry Commission. I hope that I do not need to repeat at length the tribute which I paid to the Forestry Commission and the work that they do in providing nature trails, picnic sites—with or without fixed benches with arms—camp sites and many other facilities. They have done an extremely good job in that way in recent years. I intend no criticism of them in moving this amendment.
However, as the Select Committee said on scientific aspects of forestry, there has been a massive decline in deciduous woodland cover particularly in Southern England and Scotland in recent years. It is a matter of great concern and was one of the issues that the Secretary of State for the Environment mentioned in the speech that I quoted earlier before the dinner break.
In fact, over the last 30 years about 50 per cent. of ancient woodland has been lost in Britain, much of it by conversion to conifer plantations and most of it grant-aided by the Forestry Commission. I am not saying in this amendment that should stop, although T would prefer to have seen amendments carried which might have had that effect; but that is behind us now.
476
All I am saying is that there should be a requirement on the Forestry Commission to consult with the NCC when that process is taking place on a site of special scientific interest and that they should bear in mind the NCC's advice during the planning.
Perhaps I might give your Lordships an analogy which has been widely accepted and indeed is widely quoted: that is the trouble that the Forestry Commission have taken for a number of years now, over the landscaping of their plantations. Dame Sylvia Crowe's work has been very widely praised in a number of circles for the planning of new conifer plantations, and it seems to me this is the same sort of move but on the nature conservation side. We are simply saying that when the Forestry Commission are planning to do something on a site of special scientific interest they should get some scientific advice. As usual, it may well be possible to modify their proposals in a very small way without any economic loss or with only marginal economic loss, in a way which would at least go some way to safeguarding the scientific interest. I hope therefore that the amendment which, as I say, goes a great deal less far than I thought your Lordships' Select Committee would have wanted to go, will be acceptable. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to say very briefly that the Forestry Commission's plantations do vary in the various regions quite considerably in their treatment of the flora and fauna. Of course, the Forestry Commission are a law unto themselves, but I have always advocated that when they are planting some vast acreage of Sitka spruce fenced in straight lines—and of course if you are going to make a fence it is sensible to have them in a straight line and I do not necessarily quarrel with that—they should leave, say, 100 yards here or 50 yards there and 40 yards there on the edges of the Sitka spruce, or whatever it may be; the natural seed of the ash, scrub oaks or birch will blow in there and will grow, eventually softening the line and making it much more attractive. But I have never seen them do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was quite right in saying that the deciduous woodland has disappeared to a large extent in the last 30 or 40 years. Some of that is due to the Forestry Commission because when they are planting a hillside where there is virgin forest of oak, birch and other similar trees, they ring all the trees to kill them and then go and plant spruce or fir where that deciduous wood has been. Naturally, that does damage to the natural flora and fauna.
I am afraid this amendment is a non-starter, because the Forestry Commission has the Government where it wants it and so the amendment will not be accepted. Some of the regions have learned a bit because in the old days they used to be frightful in what they did. But they have now started the extremely unpleasant habit, I am afraid, of shooting deer by searchlight—that is by night—in their plantations. They are overshooting and I think it is an extremely unattractive habit. The law does not allow any private individual to do that, and I think it ought to be stopped. I support the amendment.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I should like to say

477
just a word on this. I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Massereene in all his arguments, but I will see that what he said about the Forestry Commission is brought to the notice of the Commissioners word by word. With regard to the amendment, I would say that it is rather excessive and unnecessary. What is behind it, of course, and what has been said with regard to the Forestry Commission I very much appreciate, because it is true. There is continuing liaison between the Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, although I do not say that the result is always agreeable to the Nature Conservancy Council.
As I understand the amendment, it says that they shall have regard to the advice of the Council. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the Forestry Commission does already pay a great deal of regard to the Nature Conservancy Council, particularly in those areas where it is apparent to the members or the Commission at all levels who have knowledge of botany, or ornithology and things of that sort. So without taking up the time of your Lordships' House, I would say, that I hope the Government will think carefully before amending the Forestry Act, because I think it is unnecessary.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchctt, have been grossly unfair to the Forestry Commission who, in my experience, take considerable trouble to preserve a certain amount of mixed habitat around the edges and through the middle of their plantations. Certainly, where they have planted in Caithness and on my ground which I have sold to them, they have taken into consideration wildlife of every kind. Indeed, my experience is that, far from having nasty habits in regard to red deer, they take immense trouble to try to get the deer out of the plantations—I am talking about what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, said—at an early stage.
I have myself taken part in deer drives to get out deer that had, unfortunately, got inside a fence before it was closed and that kind of thing. Their plantations, certainly in Caithness, have produced an expansion in the variety of bird life, flora and fauna of all kinds, which exist in areas that previously were barren and carried nothing but heather, mosses, sedges and things of that kind.
So what has been said about the Forestry Commission is a little unfair and, really, this question does not arise, because either they are allowed to plant on a site of special scientific interest or they are not. If they are allowed to plant on it, then, presumably, all the discussions will have taken place first. If they are not allowed to plant on it, the question does not arise. If it is not a site of special scientific interest, then I cannot see why there should be any restriction on the Forestry Commission in the normal way.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, in support of what the noble Viscount has just said, we must distinguish between the Forestry Commission of today and the Forestry Commission of 10 or 20 years ago. In my contact with them through the National Trust, I find them extremely constructive about the landscape nowadays and that should be placed on the record.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord
478
sits down, he did not mention my name, but, in case he was pointing in my direction when he said what he did say, may I point out that I said absolutely nothing that could possibly be taken as critical. I made a speech which was full of praise for the Forestry Commission.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I was pointing in the direction of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, in regard to what the noble Viscount said, in my region it is certainly not so—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I make one small observation? I am just wondering whether this amendment is correct. I think that the noble Lord wanted it to refer to areas designated as SSSIs, but what it says is "special interest". I am just wondering whether that is sufficient. I do not know how the Forestry Commission know that something is of special interest unless it is actually designated, and the amendment as worded might be faulty.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this clause seems identical to that tabled to the Forestry Bill in the other place on the fifth sitting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on 26th February. At that stage, the Government resisted the proposed clause. The Government's case against the new clause was set out by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. He said:
"In general terms, this clause would impose an additional and quite unnecessary statutory obligation on the Forestry Commission going far beyond the obligations normally imposed on other public bodies. Like other Government departments and public bodies, the Commission is required under the Countryside Acts to have regard, in exercising its functions relating to land, to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty of the countryside. The term 'natural beauty' is construed under the Acts as including references to the conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features. There is no evidence that the Forestry Commission does not fully comply with this requirement. Indeed, from my personal experiences I can assure the Committee that the Forestry Commission goes to endless trouble to try to seek proper consultation on these difficult matters.
As the Committee knows, the NCC already has statutory authority to designate land which, in its opinion, is of special scientific interest. There are such areas of Forestry Commission land and the Commission has well-established procedures for liaison with the NCC in respect of the management of such areas. The Commission does therefore consult the NCC on any operation which is likely to threaten the scientific interest in designated areas, and it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to require the Commission by statute to do something which it is already doing as manager of public land. To extend it even further to non-designated land, as the clause implies, would be an unreasonable restriant on the Commission in exercising the duties laid upon it." [Official Report, Commons.]
I think that really sums up the Government's view and I need not add anything to it, except to say that there has been extraordinary liaison in people between the Forestry Commission and the NCC, and that Sir Ralph Verney, who is now chairman of the NCC, was a past Forestry Commissioner. It is also true that Sir David Montgomery, now chairman of the Forestry Commission, was previously on the Nature Conservancy Council. We consider that this is not a

479
necessary clause and I hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to press it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I must say I am confused about the arguments against the amendment. On the one hand it is said that it is excessive and on the other that it is unnecessary. I find it hard to understand how it can be both. If it is unnecessary because it repeats something which already happens, which I take to be the argument of the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, because the Forestry Commission would consult the Nature Conservancy Council about any site of special scientific interest, why is it excessive? It is not asking them to do anything which they do not do at the moment.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, if I used the word "excessive" perhaps that was wrong. I meant that it was unnecessary, that it was overdoing it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord has put my mind at rest on that point. In quoting his honourable friend in another place the noble Earl, Lord Avon, used words which implied that it would be an enormous bureaucratic imposition on the Commission to be required to consult the Nature Conservancy Council about sites of special scientific interest, although he also said that they do this, anyhow. How can that be so? I find both arguments to be totally unconvincing because they cancel each other out.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked me if it was drafted wrongly. It may well be. I take his point. The difficulty is that "sites of special scientific interest" is a term which does not appear in any statute. It appears as a sideline, as I discovered when I tried to amend it. We shall come to that, possibly on the next day of the Report stage. That is why it is difficult to get that into the clause. But even if it has been drafted wrongly, the intention is to ensure that the Forestry Commission consult the Nature Conservancy Council before they plant on a site of special scientific interest.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said that if they have permission to plant they must have talked to the Nature Conservancy Council. I do not see how that follows. There is no requirement on them to talk to the Nature Conservancy Council because they are going to plant on a site of special scientific interest. There is nothing in the legislation about it. It may well be the policy that the Minister in another place when replying to this did not go so far as to say that the Forestry Commission always would consult the Nature Conservancy Council before they planted on a site of special scientific interest. As I understand it, he said that it would be up to the Commission to decide whether or not a site was sufficiently important for them to consult the Nature Conservancy Council. It seems to me that we ought to ensure that the Forestry Commission will consult the Nature Conservancy Council over sites of special scientific interest.
If my amendment went wider than that it was an error, in which case it might be better not to press it now. However, I should like to ask the noble Earl to look at this again. If the Forestry Commission do this as a matter of routine there is no problem. The noble Earl can write me a letter confirming it, in which case
480
I agree that my amendment is unnecessary. However, my information is that this is not the case. To give the noble Earl an example, there was a problem in, I think, Abernethy Forest where the owner prevented the Forestry Commission from consulting the Nature Conservancy Council when discussing changes to a planned forestry operation on the site. That was a Grade 1 site of special scientific interest. The owner of the site said that he did not want the Forestry Commission to consult the Nature Conservancy Council, and the Forestry Commission—I dare say very reluctantly, in view of what the noble Earl and others have said—had to abide by the owner's wishes. There was no way in which they could consult the Nature Conservancy Council over that. The Nature Conservancy Council had no way of finding out what changes were being proposed to that Grade 1 site. There was no consultation, no discussion—nothing. That does not seem to me to be satisfactory.
If, however, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, and others are correct and I am wrong, I should be happy not to bother the House with it again at Third Reading. I wonder, though, whether the noble Earl could give me an undertaking to look again at this matter. I may not have had him directly on the point because my amendment was not correctly worded. If the noble Earl would undertake to look at it, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment now.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am happy to say that I will look at it. I should also like to know how an owner could prevent the Forestry Commission from going to the NCC. It does not seem possible.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I hope that is what the noble Earl is going to look at. That is my information, that it was said to the Forestry Commission that they did not have the owner's permission to discuss the plans that were going to be grant aided by the Forestry Commission with the NCC, and so far as the Forestry Commission was concerned that was that. There was no discussion with the NCC at all on that one. I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look at this again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 173ZB:
Insert the following new clause:
("Schemes under Agriculture Act 1970
.—(1) Any scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 shall, in respect of National Parks in England and Wales and such other areas as may be specified in the scheme, seek to provide in respect of the parks and such other areas as may be specified for conserving and enhancing their natural beauty and the public enjoyment thereof; for maintaining a minimum level of population; for developing tourist and craft industries and such other measures as may be for the benefit of the rural economy.
(2) Any scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 shall provide that, in relation to an application made under that scheme, where representations are made by the relevant authority for the area to which the application relates that the work or operations for which grant is sought would be likely to affect adversely the character or amenity of the area and those representations are not withdrawn the application shall be finally determined jointly by the Ministers.
(3) Where, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, an application is refused the relevant

481
authority shall seek to enter into a management agreement with the person who made the application in respect of that land. The financial consideration in respect of the agreement shall be determined in accordance with a scheme which shall be determined by the Ministers.
(4) In this section "relevant authority" means, as respects land in a National Park, the county planning authority and, as respects any other land, the local planning authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I move the debate from nature conservation to the management of the countryside as a whole, and particularly its management in national parks for, not single purposes of agriculture, but multiple purposes by the hill farmers. Before deploying my argument, I must share with your Lordships a little gem which I discovered while doing my homework for this debate in an EEC Report on the social conditions in the regions. I read:
"A farmer may have employment outside agriculture and may include employment located on the farm, such as managing a camp site or tourism, for example. When a farmer has neither employment outside agriculture nor works a minimum of 2200 hours a week on his farm he is regarded asunder-employed".
I say that in order to register my admiration—and I think the admiration of all your Lordships—for our hill farmers, who even if they do not work as hard as that, do work very hard, and under very difficult circumstances, working not only as farmers engaged in food production but as agents of conservation and indeed as agents of all the purposes of national parks.
So the role of the hill farmer from the point of view of national parks is not just important, it is essential, and everyone with a concern for the countryside has a direct interest in keeping the hill farmer farming well and profitably. If he were not there we should have national jungles, we should have national swamps, but we should not have national parks and we should have no possibility of achieving them. So everything possible must be done to encourage our hill farmers to stay there and to farm and to do nothing which needlessly harasses or hampers them. But, in this week in particular, when the Gospel is the story of the Temptations of our Lord, we have to remember that man does not live by bread alone and there is more value in the hills of, say, Snowdonia, than in so many kilograms of sheepmeat; and our aim is to find and to hold the balance and achieve a reconciliation between the needs of the rural economy, which basically depends upon the price of lamb in the market, and the needs of those millions of people who seek spiritual refreshment by lifting their eyes up into the hills when they get into our national parks.
In addition to those two extremes, one basic and one sublime, we have to cater for a whole range of other needs which are met in our national parks and to balance them correctly. In seeking to do this through my amendment to this Bill we are not starting from scratch in the quest for balance and reconciliation and a comprehensive approach to rural affairs; we start from Section 11 of the Countryside Act of 1960, under which all Ministers and public bodies are required to have regard to the natural beauty of the countryside in everything they do.
We go on with the findings of the Countryside Review Committee in the early 'seventies which advo-
482
cated and strongly recommended a comprehensive and not a sectional approach to rural policy. There were numerous reports in the mid-'seventies by each of the associations of local authorities, urging that more comprehensive attention should be given to the rural economy as a whole where the social fabric was being weakened and depopulation was being encouraged by the over-concentration on agricultural production alone in isolation from other objectives. We have the support of the Less Favoured Areas Directive, adopted in 1975, which transposed the old United Kingdom hill cow and sheep subsidies into the EEC Common Agricultural Policy, but at the same time widened their scope to require that the farming supported by the directive should be farming of a kind which would support conservation, as well. We have the Upton management experiments which have been conducted with the aid of ADAS officers, led by ADAS officers, in the Lake District and in Snowdonia. Now we have similar experiments going on in the Eden district in the Pennines, all demonstrating the ability of good management on the ground to increase farm income and pursue conservation and access objectives all simultaneously.
Then we have the Strutt Report in 1978, which advocates a wider remit for the ADAS officers of the Ministry of Agriculture in the fields of conservation, public access and tourism. There is a farm study conducted by the Ministry itself in East Herefordshire, ending in 1979, showing how good a return on capital, ranging from 16 per cent. to no less than 295 per cent., is to be had from farm tourism of every kind in that particular area. Finally, we have pilot projects in integrated rural development, advocated by the Commission, and now to be established in the Western Isles, in Lozere and South-East Belgium, on which I did a report for your Lordships some year or two ago. Finally, and most recently, research projects also stimulated by the Commission into the technique of integrated rural development.
Having listened to that catalogue, some of your Lordships may say, if there are already all these recommendations all these reports and these successful experiments, why do we need more legislation? I am afraid the answer is that, despite all these, I would say, welcome developments, we have had serious, and I would say unnecessary, clashes in a number of places between forestry and farming interests on the one hand and conservation interests on the other. We have had these serious losses in SSSIs, all of which could have been avoided if this multiple management had been taken more seriously and sooner, and we have had the trouble on Exmoor which it is the object of Lady White's amendment in a moment to cure.
My intention in this amendment, No. 173ZB, is not so much to cure these problems but to proceed by way of a more vigorous and wholehearted attempt to prevent them occurring. My amendment seeks to achieve this aim of prevention not by introducing anything much that is very new but by providing a new framework in this piece of primary legislation in which the recommendations of all these reports and experiments I have catalogued can be more constructively and more readily put into practice.
With that, I will turn briefly to indicate some of the ways in which I believe that will happen. The require-

483
ment in the first part of my amendment, subsection (1), relating to conservation and access is just a little more positive in respect of the Ministry of Agriculture than the obligation already laid on all Ministries and public bodies by Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968. But it goes no further than is required by the Less Favoured Areas Directive and no further than the Strutt Report, which recommends precisely that ADAS should have a wider remit to decide farm applications in the national parks against conservation and access criteria.
The reference in subsection (1) of my amendment to seek and to maintain populations in the rural areas and to develop farm tourism, again goes no further than what is already in the less-favoured areas directive. The widening of the subsections to embrace other measures to benefit the rural economy is just giving expression to every single report that has been written about the problems of the countryside in the last few years. The possible extension one day, if desired, of this clause to other areas outside the national parks is to allow for the benefits to farmers in all this—and I am sure that there will be benefits—to be extended from the national parks and the less favoured areas into marginal areas where farming is also difficult and where farm incomes are also vulnerable.
Subsection (2) provides for dealing with the kind of breakdown in relationship, such as we have, alas!, recently seen in Exmoor. It does so in the hope and indeed the expectation that by applying some form of joint determination further alternative guidance and advice to farmers could be given and that in turn could prevent the problem ever reaching the point at which any form of compulsion or coercion would be needed. I have been at particular pains to draft this part of the amendment to give Ministers entire discretion as to the manner in which the joint determination is to be achieved. I would also ask the House to note that at no point is the matter taken out of the hands of the Minister for Agriculture—it is just that in consideration of the matter he brings in the Secretary of State for the Environment as well.
Subsection (3) provides a framework in this primary legislation under which Ministers can more readily decide the best way in which the public funds available for all this can be channelled and employed. The broad purpose of what we must seek to do is to move away from the situation in which policy for the management of the countryside is dictated by a whole series of sectoral, financial and administrative mechanisms and to get and keep ourselves in a position where policy is decided by the policy-makers and the administrative machines are made to serve the policy; rather than the situation that we are in at the moment where the sectoral policies that apply to the countryside distort, fragment and undermine the policies. I hope that that explanation makes the purpose of my amendment clear and gives sufficient indication of how I think that it will operate. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, in my view this amendment must be right if rural farms and populations are to exploit their rural possibilities to the full. I wish to say two or three sentences on the clashes, as my noble friend said, between forestry, farming and conservation. In this land of Britain where there is so little land,
484
inevitably there will be clashes between forestry, farming and conservation and each party to those clashes has a good case. I like the way in which subsection (2) does not specify any procedure in determining applications of the type that would arise. I am sure that that is the right answer. There is no complicated legislation. A meeting conducted locally by good men and true who know the local position and at which all the local interested parties attend is the very best way to work out a solution, limiting to the minimum having to refer to the DoE or MAFF. I am sure that that is the right answer. This is a very important matter for Britain and I wholly support the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I also speak at this stage to Amendment No. 173FA. Both these amendments deal with the question of capital grants under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970. Both deal with circumstances where such operations could adversely affect the flora, fauna and other features of the countryside, and both can take in any land, because the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, refers to "national parks and other areas". The difference is that in his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has proposed that if an application is refused then a management agreement can be sought with, of course, appropriate financial considerations. This brings in the long discussion which we had earlier this afternoon, which I am certain noble Lords would not wish to reopen, as to what happens if a management agreement is refused—full stop.
So far as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, goes, we would support it, but the amendment standing in my name and the names of my two noble friends goes a little beyond that. The second amendment proposes that where the Minister considers that there is or is likely to be damage or destruction to the features of the land, the grant that may be paid under this clause shall not be paid. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has stressed: the duty that is already placed upon Ministers and public bodies to take the interests of the countryside into consideration in all matters; therefore, it would be in connection with the payment of these grants. I would ask noble Lords to note the words: where they are damaged or destroyed "to an appreciable extent". Therefore, there must be a reasonable amount of destruction or damage.
However, even where these circumstances exist, there are two provisos in the second amendment. One proviso is that the works would be absolutely essential having regard to the needs of the individual concerned; that is, the needs of the farmers are such that it would be a hardship if this grant was not agreed, despite the possible or actual destruction or damage to any of the features of the land. The second proviso, which is complementary, is that there are no reasonably practicable alternatives to those particular operations.
Therefore, the effect of the amendment which I would move when we come to it is, first, to safeguard the features of the countryside; secondly, to avoid any hardship to any individual; and, thirdly, no additional finance is required because these will be grants which, but for this amendment which I shall move when we

485
reach it, would be paid if the scheme was approved by the Minister. So we believe that this is a further step towards ensuring that we do something more than go up to a certain point, as is proposed by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and then come to a full stop if there is a refusal. I hope that this will be taken into consideration, and when we come to the appropriate point in the Marshalled List, I shall formally move the amendment.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I warm to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I particularly like subsection (1) of his amendment, deriving from his comprehensive and masterly historical survey in an area in which he is so expert. It seems to me that that subsection is quite excellent because it might be described as fertilising common ground in this difficult matter of equating the diverse interests—and it is no good blinking the fact that they are diverse interests—between those whose livelihood is in a national park and those who come to enjoy the purposes for which national parks were set up.
If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will forgive me for pointing it out, the weakness lies in subsection (3) of the amendment, in two little words: "seek to". It is one thing to seek an agreement on an application, and particularly where it is a matter of conserving vital areas of moorland in a designated critical area of a particular national park, but it is quite another to reach an agreement which fully conserves and protects that vital critical area. In that respect I prefer the amendment which will be moved shortly in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady White, and myself and others. Particularly in subsection (1) it is undoubtedly a great contribution to the clause as it stands. I should like to commend it.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, any reference to national parks made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in view of his extremely wide experience, must be taken seriously. Whereas he has given great detail to this amendment I should like to talk in general terms. Any sensible move which would provide the opportunity for a wider consideration of facts when considering simply agricultural grants for the national parks and for the less favoured areas must be welcomed.
This amendment would widen the scope for the agricultural and the horticultural grants under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 to include these other considerations within the original context—and that is important—such as conservation, obviously an important aspect in relation to this particular Bill, tourism and local industry. Factors which are becoming increasingly important to the income of the rural communities and in the long term, to the benefit of the public at large. It would bring these other factors into line with the agricultural considerations, and in my opinion, and certainly in the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, these are obviously of equal importance.
The role of the agricultural occupant is changing, particularly in the more remote rural areas, and diversification away from simple, straightforward agriculture is happening. As noble Lords are aware, over the last 20 years or so we have seen considerable
486
changes. On the whole farms are becoming larger in order to try to counteract the ever decreasing margins that exist within the agricultural communities. This has been to a large extent, I regret, to the detriment of the environment, and populations in the agricultural communities have fallen accordingly. They have fallen to a level where the resident community—and I say resident as opposed to the casual or holiday community—has fallen drastically, with all the inevitable consequences.
This amendment does not in any way suggest the re-deployment of money; it is simply looking at the agricultural aspects in wider terms. It is right that where these grants are concerned the agricultural aspects should be given full consideration, but in conjunction with these other important factors which now, whether we like it or not, form such an integral part within this type of community. This amendment seeks to do this and puts these other considerations on an equal footing with agriculture. This surely must be a sensible move.
The availability of financial support, and the justification for the degree of support, is another matter. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Sandford, I have serious doubts, as i am sure other noble Lords have, as to whether in the long term an amendment such as this will have any real effect to steady the demise of the rural populations. But that is another argument. The important factor is that this amendment produces a vehicle, and enables the Minister of Agriculture, when considering these grants, to look at all aspects within this community. It should, therefore, provide a more comprehensive outlook, which I hope will benefit all aspects of the upland rural community. I therefore urge your Lordships to support this amendment.
Baroness White: My Lords, this goes wider than national parks, and I am glad it does because there are certain areas in Wales, for example, where they are not in national parks—they should be SSSIs but they have not necessarily been designated—and I think I gave too rosy a picture last week when I was discussing the triumverate of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Forestry Commission and farming interests. I understand, now that I have got myself more up to date, that it has not been working perhaps quite as smoothly as one might have wished.
I do not want to delay the House at this late hour, but there are two points I would emphasise. The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is right (as those of us on the European Commission Select Committee know well) in stressing that some of our partners in the EEC have looked at this matter of the integrated development of upland, or less favoured farming areas, with a good deal more imagination than, on the whole, we have.
Secondly, we shall not solve the conflict between primary farming, and to some extent forestry, and conservation unless there is a more even balance in the money scales, because so long as people can get grants under the Ministry of Agriculture grant scheme for maximising food production, no matter how expensive it is—because it is mainly highly marginal production in most of the areas we have been discussing, certainly so far as the uplands are concerned, though I

487
would not necessarily say the same of the lowlands—they will not sacrifice themselves if they can possibly help it by doing anything else. Therefore, an integrated programme of land use in what are the prime conservation areas, which we have been discussing under the Bill, is very necessary.
It is too late to pursue this argument on what is a very wide subject, and I see the Government Chief Whip looking rather impatient. This is an extremely important matter, however, and one of the great disappointments about the Government's attitude to the Bill is that they have not tackled the basic money and economic equation. Unless you can shift some of the cash from one side of the scale to the other you will not solve these problems, and that is why the amendment should have our support.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am sure the Government will do a great deal to cure the impatience of the Government Chief Whip, to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred, by accepting the amendment, which I hope they will. I was immensely encouraged when the noble Earl, Lord Peel, advised us to accept the amendment, since I felt that some farmers might be a little suspicious, bearing in mind that this is to do with grants. But knowing the noble Earl to be a suspicious Yorkshireman, and he having advised your Lordships to accept the amendment. I feel optimistic.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in this matter. He has worked indefatigably in this direction, and has been extremely perceptive. It is interesting to note that whereas we have had the Porchester Report and all sorts of other inquiries, at the end of the day it takes a clergyman to see that at the root of the problems of the national parks is money. How right he is, and I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I feel, my Lords, that I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that I, too, am suspicious.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that my noble friend Lord Sandford has worked indefatigably and has been very perceptive. Indeed, to use some words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I have warmed to the amendment because it has a great deal to commend it. However, one of its effects would be to introduce major changes in the scope, administration and implications of the system of grant-aid for farmers. That may be one of its purposes, but it would certainly be one of its results. I am glad that my noble friend made the reference he did to hill farmers, who live a hard and tough life; and the amendment is designed to enable them to have a continued or increased income with grants by methods which need not necessarily be agricultural.
Subsection (1) would extend the scope of such aid as they receive in national parks and certain other specified areas to include a range of non-farming activities. The question of whether or not that in itself would be desirable can be debated at length; but it is certain that, at the present time of economic stringency, such an extension would not be suitable, since it could be achieved only by reducing the level of
488
support for projects aimed at stimulating food production. It is inevitable that Government grants have to be administered by one Government department or another, and it is obviously desirable that the Ministry of Agriculture should not be involved in grant-aiding projects which are non-agricultural projects.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. With respect, I think he is mistaken in this regard. It is wrong to assume that because a grant had been applied for but had been rejected the money would have been available as of right, simply because the application might have been accepted. Grants for conservation objectives and for the purposes of encouraging tourism and the development of craft industries are already available from other sources, including the Countryside Commission, the National Tourist Boards and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, and it seems to me to be preferable to allow the present arrangements to continue.
Subsection (2) of my noble friend's amendment relates to a separate matter: the adjudication of disputed cases where, in the area concerned, the relevant authority had objected to an application made by a farmer for a Ministry of Agriculture grant on the grounds that the character or amenity of the area would be adversely affected. At present, unresolved cases of this type are referred to the Minister of Agriculture for a decision on grant eligibility. Under the terms of the amendment that decision would be taken jointly by, in England, the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, the Government's view is that it is proper that grants made by the Minister of Agriculture should be determined at his discretion—after, of course, all representations have been taken into account. However, I can give the House an assurance that it is now the invariable practice of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to consult the Secretary of State before taking his decision whenever there is an unresolved dispute with a relevant authority.
Subsection (3) of my noble friend's amendment provides that, in the case of applications which are refused, the relevant authority shall seek a management agreement with the applicant in accordance with financial guidelines which would be determined by Ministers. In practice, such agreements will already often be sought in national parks. But I think that it would be undesirable to make such a requirement mandatory, for two reasons. First, it would oblige the local authorities concerned to increase their expenditure, irrespective of the circumstances of the case. We are, of course, anxious at present not to impose any statutory obligation upon local authorities that would have that effect. It is far preferable to leave them, as at present, to make up their own minds as to whether a management agreement should be offered. Secondly, it might encourage farmers to put forward controversial schemes which would never be sound enough to secure a grant on the grounds of their agricultural value, in the knowledge that the relevant authority would be bound to object because of conservation implications. If the objection were not withdrawn, the offer of a management agreement would be obligatory.
My noble friend's amendment is ingenious and basically sound. He aims to provide that if a farmer wishes

489
to improve his land and therefore his income, but for conservation reasons his application for grant is refused, the Government contribution which would have been available to him should be made available to him in some other form, to enable him to increase his income in some other way which would be more acceptable from an aesthetic and a conservation point of view. In theory the rationale is hard to refute, but for the practical reasons that I have given to your Lordships I feel that it would be difficult for the Government to accept the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: In the Highland area, of course, the Highlands Development Board will I do just this. They give grants for all types of rural activity in both agriculture and industry.
10 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I believe that the measure of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, goes rather wider than the kind of activities which the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has just mentioned. It seems to me of very considerable and fundamental importance. I do not want to make the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, any more suspicious than he apparently is and perhaps I could simply make some brief remarks from an agricultural point of view, and from the point of view of a farmer, which I am.
Personally, I am worried about the future of the agricultural industry in this country. It seems to me that the agricultural industry has a fundamental weakness which at the same time is its strength; the extent to which it is dependent upon public funds in a number of ways. I make no complaint about that, as I made clear at the Second Reading. I think this is an excellent thing, but we are going through an extremely serious economic time in this country at the moment and the agricultural industry is suffering. But it is the one industry in this country where there have been no massive lay-offs, major closures or economic disasters on anything like the scale which is true in almost every other area of British industry. I think that is an excellent thing and again I make no complaint about it, but as farmers it seems to me that we have to watch ourselves in those circumstances.
Another thing that worries me is the enormous public unpopularity of the Common Agricultural Policy and the surpluses which it produces. Agricultural production is unpopular in this country now in a way that it never was under the old pricing support system. Agriculture is now something unpopular; a nasty business in the eyes of many people, because we are producing large surpluses with a good deal of public expense attached to them, which are then sold to people outside the EEC—such as the USSR, again with some public subsidy attached. Many people view that as something which should not be done. Agriculture gets tarred with a brush which I think is unfair, and I am concerned about it.
My other point is that agriculture has for its support a declining constituency. The number of workers in agricultural industry has fallen steadily and fairly rapidly over the years, and so has the number of holdings, and thus the number of people involved in agriculture both in management and as workers has declined. As farmers we need to be sure of public
490
support, particularly since we depend so largely on public money. I believe the Common Agricultural Policy and the surpluses, perhaps because of the way in which they are presented to the public, as much as the facts of what is happening, are eroding that public support.
It seems to me that all these changes are reflected in the power of the agricultural industry and possibly within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food itself; the domination by people with large farms—and speaking as an East Anglian farmer myself, the domination of lowland farmers as opposed to the upland farmers, and the domination of the large company-owned farms and estates as opposed to the small farms and tenant farmers. This seems to me to reflect the other change which has taken place in our industry and which, again, fundamentally weakens it. Far too much of the public money which goes to agriculture is going to people who do not really need it; certainly they do not need it nearly as badly as hill farmers and tenant farmers; people who very often cannot afford to make use of the large capital grants which are available. Unfortunately, the money tends to go to the richest farmers.
It seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is an excellent way of starting to redress a number of what I see as being inherently very serious weaknesses in the agricultural industry and the support it receives from the Ministry of Agriculture, and from the public through the Ministry of Agriculture. I think it would be an excellent move in the right direction for farmers who are battling against very difficult conditions, as hill farmers certainly are; they are suffering much more severely from the sort of recession which we now find ourselves. Corn and sugar beet farmers, for example, in East Anglia are not suffering so badly, despite what we all say; it is the upland livestock farmers who have suffered much more severely in recent years in a number of different ways. I do not believe that the balance of money going into farming is going in the right direction, and Lord Sandford's amendment seems to be an excellent way of starting to redress the balance. It would not demand more money. It would seem to me to demand a slight readjustment of the way the money is spent by MAFF.
The noble Earl said that he thought that the amendment was basically sound. I doubt that he will say that about the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Underhill and myself, so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will press this amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that he was not sure whether it would work. He said to me when we were talking about the voluntary agreement proposal in Clause 27, "Try it and see!" Maybe I could turn that back on him and anybody worried about this amendment. Let us try it and see. This would be a new concept. A second reason why I think it useful to get this provision in the Bill is that it is a complex matter and this is the first time we have discussed it, unfortunately late at night. If we do not put it in the Bill, I do not believe that another place will consider this subject. It is not the sort of amendment, I would have thought, which is likely to be accepted in another place, even if tabled; although I say that without knowing what is likely to be done. If we get

491
the amendment in, it will give the other place a chance to discuss it. The Government can change it if they wish without too much trouble. It has enormous merits from an agricultural point of view, apart from the advantages for upland areas which it is designed to help. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will press his amendment, If he does not, I think my noble friend and I might well do so in preference to our own amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. I had the honour of serving under Lord Sandford on his committee on rural integration and we spent a lot of time considering the matter and there was a debate on it in this House. I am in sympathy with what my noble friend is putting forward but I do not think it can be done in four paragraphs. It must take with it the full support of the farming community which is not there at the moment. It has to have more thought than we are giving it at this hour. I hope that my noble friend does not press the amendment. I am grateful for his raising the matter but perhaps we are taking it at the wrong stage.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the sweeping indictment of agriculture made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, cannot pass without comment. By and large the national parks are not covered with acres of sugar beet, by and large the areas we are talking about are where the hill farmers live and hill farmers are not losing lots of people. They are down to their last person.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I must protest. The noble Viscount did not listen to a word I said. That is exactly what I was saying—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I think the noble Lord had a good say in denigrating the farming industry.
Lord Melchett: I did not.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, we will find this in Hansard tomorrow. Let us leave it at that. What I feel we must recognise is that the farming industry is under pressure to produce food for the country and for the world and is losing not only money but acres. Every year some 30,000 acres are being taken out of farming by urban sprawl alone. Yet the farmers are being catigated in this debate for trying to take in a few acres of rough ground in the hills. I do not think we are getting the matter in proportion. Certainly from what I have heard of what Lord Melchett has said, his attack on farming was unjustified. This has nothing to do with Lord Sandford's amendment. Much of what was said did not have much to do with Lord Sandford's amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I must protest. The noble Viscount has completely misrepresented what I have said—as would have been clear from watching the faces of noble Lords opposite. I was trying to defend hill farmers and saying that they ought to get more money than they do now and more public support.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as the only Peer in this House who has actually been burned in effigy on the steps of Stormont for not giving the hill farmers of Northern Ireland enough money, I want to say as a compensation for those bad days how pleased I am to support this amendment and my noble friend who seems to have been not only misunderstood but absurdly abused by the noble Viscount. If I may say so, it was a most senseless attack. His defence was that farming as a whole is asking for some redistribution. It is perfectly obvious to everybody that the rich farmers get rather too much and the poor too little. Anybody who does not think that is halfwitted.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not wish to get involved in a Lib-Lab battle rather than a Lib-Lab pact. The Chief Whip is glowering at me but I can take that because the other day he gave me a rocket for not having spoken on one amendment. Something very much attracts me about Lord Sandford's amendment. This is something which has not been discussed at any time: it is on moorland conservation and on the over-stocking and over-grazing of heather. In our part of the North Yorkshire national parks we could swallow up many times the whole of Exmoor in the amount of white land which used to be moorland and which has been over-grazed. I do not think that this is the fault of the farmers. All you can do if you are a hill farmer and times are hard is try to produce more and more sheep and lambs.
In doing that you tend to kill off the heather. It is very easy; you do not have to plough up a moor in order to kill the heather, you can do it by over-stocking with sheep, and even more so by putting cattle on it. Cattle pull the heather up by the roots and it never grows again. If the land has been over-stocked by sheep then in due course it can regain its state if it is left alone over a number of years. Pressures have been on the hill farmers. They have put more and more sheep on and they have over-grazed the land. Then the land becomes useless, white land, not much good for farming and then it is taken over by forestry. We have seen acres and acres disappear like this.
I do not think that this has been mentioned before in the whole debate. If I have missed it in Hansard or if I have been asleep, I apologise. This is a fairly reasonable amendment which might well cover this topic by linking conservation measures in the distributing of grants. This is something which farmers do from necessity because they have not enough cash coming in. In the end, it goes against them and the land is lost forever to agriculture. It is taken over by forestry. I am not sure that I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, if he presses this amendment to a Division; I like the amendment but I should like more time to think about it. There are certain aspects which I do not like; but, on the other hand, this is a point which attracts me.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said on agriculture. It is certainly true that we are in danger of

493
getting our image badly muddied. Having said that, I should like to suggest that part of the danger of overproduction and mechanisation of agriculture is depopulation of the countryside. By helping with grants for stone walls as opposed to wire, and hedges as opposed to using wire, it keeps the population in the countryside more stable. If you do that then it is more interesting. I know that as farmers it is all our fault; but the East Anglian countryside is not as beautiful as it was 20 or 30 years ago. I do not think that one can blame the farmer for this. We in the farming industry have to take a long hard look at ourselves, and we have to be careful. This is a very good amendment and I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford presses it. I sincerely hope that we are not going to be over-awed by what could be known as the Wiggin pressure in the Ministry of Agriculture.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I understand the sense and feeling which has been expressed. However, the money which is made available for grants is for the Ministry of Agriculture to spend in order to stimulate food production. I would only say that the practicalities of this amendment, were it to be passed, would be such as to endeavour to make available that level of grant which would have been given to stimulate food production for something other than food production. The fact is that the Ministry of Agriculture would not have that capacity, because they have not the ability to make financial contributions for those purposes; and however much your Lordships may think that in principle it is right to do this, the fact is that each government department has got to organise its own grant system. It is a fallacy to say that there would be a certain amount of grant available if the project had been accepted but because it had been rejected therefore that amount of Government money is available even if it comes from a different department. It is the practicalities of it which, I respectfully suggest, would not work.
Baroness White: My Lords, would the noble Earl not think that if this amendment were put down the Government might then think of this problem?—whereas if it is not put down we shall simply go on as we are at the moment where hill farmers, for extremely expensive marginal food production, get rather more than 50 per cent. of their incomes, one way or another, from public funds. There may be better ways to do it. It does not necessarily have to come from the Ministry of Agriculture. If this amendment is put down, the Government might have time to think how in more practical ways they could meet the problem, which is a very real one, and bring forward their own amendment in another place. If we do not put it down, the other place will never think of it.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful for that support. I think the House would now like to come to a decision on this. I do not want to say very much more except to comment briefly on what my noble friend said in that last intervention. Of course it is true to say about agricultural grants generally that their main purpose is to stimulate the production of food. But in the case of the less favoured areas directive I do not think my noble friend is right to say that without
494
qualification, because it is quite clear from the directive that the farming and food production it is designed to stimulate is to be of that nature which also has the effect of helping to stem rural depopulation and also, where necessary, to contribute to conservation.
I cannot agree with my noble friend if he sought to give the House the impression that it is not possible to apply the sum of roughly £2 million per annum which goes to the thousand or so hill farmholdings in Snowdonia alone, in a way which not only stimulates food production but also contributes to conservation. It is not a question of diverting agricultural funds from agricultural purposes but of using them imaginatively, intelligently and in the way the Strutt Report recommended, in order to do more than one thing at a time. That is all I want to say by way of comment.
I find myself in a difficult position. I have long been deeply concerned, as have many of your Lordships, over the state of our rural areas, their depopulation and the weakness of their economy, and all the more so since I have been President of the Association of District Councils. In order to get this amendment right, I have consulted very widely with the county councils, the district councils, the English and Welsh Tourist Boards, the Development Commission, with the CLA, the NFU and the Countryside Commission. After a whole series of meetings with them in various groupings, I have found a form of words for my amendment which everyone I have consulted is either able to support enthusiastically or, at the very least, is able to sympathise with.
During the course of this short debate, which through no fault of mine is taking place at 10 o'clock, I have had nothing but support from within the House from every side and, if I may say so to my noble friend, the arguments against incorporating this amendment into the Bill have been limited to a few objections on matters of practical detail. If we were at the Committee stage, of course I would not hesitate to withdraw the amendment, because we would have an opportunity of further discussion and so on—though, heaven knows! there has been an opportunity enough for that on all these reports and experiments going on for many months already. Much as I should prefer not to be doing this, I have to share the feeling which has been expressed by a number of noble Lords already that if we do not get this into the Bill now there will not be any debate about it during the course of the passage of this Bill. Therefore, I am afraid that I have no option but to press the amendment.
10.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 173ZB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Arbuthnott, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ardwick, L.

de Clifford, L.

Avebury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Cathcart, E.

Foot, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gibson, L.

Chorley, L.

Glasgow, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Craigton, L.

Gray, L.

David, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

495

Grimthorpe, L.

Pender, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ridley, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hunt, L.

Sandford, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Segal, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swansea, L.

Melchett, L.

Swinton, E.

Mersey, V.

Thurso, V.

Onslow, E.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Peart, L.

White, B.

Peel, E.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lyell, L.

Avon, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mansfield, E.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Burton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caithness, E.

Middleton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Just, L.

Ferrers, E.

Salisbury, M.

Gainford, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Selkirk, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Soames, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vickers, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 29, line 12, after ("natural") insert ("or man made").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I asked the same question as this in Committee and received an answer in the most beautiful language. Unfortunately, neither I nor, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could understand what my noble friend said. I am asking him to confirm that management agreements could extend to man-made features such as green lanes, stone walls and hedges. I could understand if the answer is, Yes. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, in an effort to speed things up now that we are making such excellent progress I wonder whether I may speak to Amendment No. 173AA at the same time because, although it does not look like it, I have had a letter about my amendment which makes me think that actually the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I are on the same point, or at least are very close. My amendment was actually suggested by the Association of County Councils, so the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, may feel that I am not such an unwelcome bed-fellow after all. The amendment was designed to enable this clause to apply to man-made features in the countryside which were of historic interest. The sort of things I had in mind were parks of country houses which had been designed
496
by somebody like Capability Brown and which were essentially fashioned by man much more directly than something like a piece of moorland, or some other scenically attractive area, and were also, of course, of historic interest.
The letter that I received about my amendment does not really meet that point. It says that existing legislation covers almost every other sort of thing one can think of in the countryside, either under the existing clause or under the Archaeological Areas Act, but it seems to me that there is a point which I was trying to drive at and which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, was trying to drive at—or, at least, we are very close—which is not covered either by this clause as it is drafted or by the Archaeological Areas Act. I therefore thought I would give the noble Lord some support; and I hope the Government can reply to my amendment at the same time as that of the noble Lord, because I think we are driving, though it may be from different directions, at the same thing.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may reply to my noble friend first, I can give the assurance he seeks. The phrase "natural beauty" has been used in our countryside legislation since 1949, and it is clear that there can be no rigid distinction between natural and man-made things when a management agreement is being negotiated. There is no reason why Clause 32 management agreements should not be made to protect features such as green lanes and other ancient trackways.
To come on to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, perhaps I had better read out some of the things in the letter that he knows about but that other noble Lords may not have seen. A complementary range of powers lies in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, the Long Title of which specifies archaeological or "historical" interest. Section 17 provides for agreements between occupiers and local authorities, or the Secretary of State, for the protection of monuments, and that word includes an enormous range which I can paraphrase as "any building, structure or work, whether above or below the surface"—and I feel that must cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, which I think was a bit of a Capability Brown house.
Lord Melchett: Park.
The Earl of Avon: Park—I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Then, "any cave or excavation; any site comprising the remains of the above"—so it could be a bit of a Capability Brown park with a temple in it—"any machinery which is part of a monument".
We therefore seem to have coverage of "countryside" and of "things", and I am assured that the 1979 Act covers industrial history as well as other kinds. I hope that with that large list and comprehensive survey both both Lords will feel satisfied.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, does "natural beauty" include man-made lakes and lochs, and amenity planting of timber? I suppose it does.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, yes.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, with that final remark by my noble friend I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173AA not moved.]
10.34 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 173AB:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Highways Act 1980.
.—(1) After subsection (9) of section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 (general provisions as to trunk roads) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(10) When constructing, widening or otherwise improving any trunk road the Minister shall give due consideration to the desirability of providing such boundaries, walls, fences or similar structures as are traditional to the area.".
(2) After subsection (8) of section 16 of that Act (provisions as to special roads) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(8A) Before making or confirming a scheme under this section the Minister shall give due consideration to the desirability of providing such boundaries, walls, fences or similar structures as are traditional to the area.".
(3) After subsection (4) of section 24 of that Act (construction of new highways) there shall be inserted the following sub-section:—
"(5) In the exercise of any power under this Part of this Act the Minister, Secretary of State and local highway authority shall give due consideration to the desirability of providing such boundaries, walls, fences or similar structures as are traditional to the area.".
(4) After subsection (3) of section 72 of that Act (widening of highways) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(4) In the exercise of any power under this Part of this Act a due consideration shall be given to the desirability of providing such boundaries, walls, fences or similar structures as are traditional to the area.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not repeat the points made in Committee at column 431 on 13th February, but will just remind your Lordships that the purpose of this amendment is to encourage the highway authority to replace the fence, the wall or the bank, if they destroy it when putting a road through a farm, in as near as possible its original form so as to keep it in tune with the local area.
My Lords, I have received a letter about this from my noble friend Lord Avon, and I am sorry to say that I am even more distressed to realise that there is no obligation to replace a fence; and, indeed, the compensation to the owner for re-erecting such a fence is derisory. For instance, in Northumberland we have had a case where a mile-long stone wall was destroyed by a highway authority when putting a road through, and the amount paid to the owner was only sufficient to build under 100 yards of that wall. That is hardly a good example by highway authorities to farmers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are back on one of my hobby-horses, which is compensation. Ever since the case before the Lands Tribunal, which was in 1979 I believe, of Cuthbert v. Secretary of State, the whole basis of compensation has been altered and has made life extremely difficult when trying to act on behalf of an owner or occupier where a highway authority has widened a road and taken the boundary with it. Under common law it is the duty, when
498
somebody is affected, to put them in the same position after the event, or in as nearly as possible the same position, as they were before. When one affects boundary walls and the highway authority claims that the compensation is going to be excessive, then one is not putting the owner or occupier back in the same position as he was before, and this is going to be extremely detrimental.
Since the Cuthbert case it has increasingly become the practice of local authorities to put up the cheapest possible fence. Combine this with the onus that is put on farmers by the Animals Act 1971 in the control of their stock, and it has become an almost untenable situation. I therefore support my noble friend's amendment.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned Northumberland. May I say that for every 100 yards destroyed by the local authorities there are many hundreds of miles of stone walls that have been repaired by the local authorities—walls which were crumbling and badly needed repairing. The cost of that fell on the public purse.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I did not necessarily say local authorities. I said highway authorities, which might be the Secretary of State.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it seems to me that this amendment does not really meet the example that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, quoted. I will not put it as low as wishful thinking expressed in statutory form, but to ask a Minister to give due consideration is not really asking very much. You can never tell whether or not he has given it. No court of law can say that he has not—not even the Ombudsman can say that he has not—if the Minister says he has. So, altogether, this amendment, like many others in this group, is seeking to allay fears. I think this is the serious point behind this amendment.
Those with experience have obviously had fears and anxieties about the present administration, and they want those allayed by words in this Bill. It seems to suggest that there has been something less than satisfaction in the administration and the bringing together of the various statutory obligations of different Ministries. I think there can be no possible harm done by passing an amendment of this kind. It may do good. I do not myself regard the expression of statutory hopes as being incompatible with any conventional ideas of statute law. I think in recent years we have carried our educational programme into statute form. The Race Relations Act is a piece of education and the Sex Discrimination Act is a piece of eduation. We create an atmosphere; we seek to get a point of view across and have due regard paid to it, which is what we are asking the Minister to do. He will probably say, "I have given due regard to what I am required to do, but it would be too expensive, so I am not going to do it, but I have paid due regard to what I am required to do under the law ". That is not cold water; that is realism.
We talked only a few minutes ago about Ministers jointly deciding something. Have your Lordships ever tried to get Ministers jointly to decide something? Have noble Lords ever got the Minister for Agriculture

499
and the Secretary of State for the Environment on speaking terms? Who decides if Ministers cannot agree? When I was in the Cabinet some years ago the Cabinet dealt more with disputes between Ministers than with deciding Government policy. That is apparently what is in store for us.
Nevertheless, I am only supporting the noble Lord because I thought that his partner the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had deserted him. It started off with a triumvirate, then it became a partnership and on this amendment the noble Lord has been left alone. I thought that, in view of my affection for him, I should get up and support him. Therefore, I hope that the House will pass this amendment out of respect for the noble Lord who has worked so hard on this Bill.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have had so many happy disagreements with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, on this Bill that I am a little reluctant to tell him that I totally agree with this amendment, lest that should immediately tempt him to withdraw it without more ado! I have some personal experience of a very beautiful dry stone wall being replaced by a post and wire fence. I really think that, while the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, may be right in that this merely requires the Minister to pay due regard et cetera, it would be nice to know in the future if this happens again, that the responsibility is in part that of the Minister as well as that of the highways authority. I hope that we shall do something about this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to make a few comments about traditional road bridges over small rural roads. There are some beautiful stone bridges. The highway authority, in my experience, invariably knocks them down and I lays a steel girder with concrete, which is absolutely horrible.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should just like to say that we again—while hoping that it does not put the noble Lord off—see some merit in the amendment, despite the problems which my noble friend has seen in the likelihood of it actually leading to something being implemented. While I am on my feet, I should like to take the opportunity to apologise to your Lordships. When I last said that I had an amendment which struck at the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, I suggested that it had been supported by the Association of County Councils—in fact it was the Royal Town Planning Institute, but I hope that that makes our co-operation none the less desirable for the noble Lord.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the insertion of these provisions into the relevant provisions of the Highways Act 1980 would effectively place a duty on highway authorities to provide boundaries in the style and materials used in the area. The first point, on which the Government wish to stand, is that highway authorities have no responsibility—or legal obligation—to provide any kind of boundary for private land bordering on their highways. This is entirely a matter for the landowner. Perhaps this might be illustrated by
500
referring to Section 155 of the Highways Act 1980 under which the keeper of horses, cattle et cetera is guilty of an offence if his animals are found straying on the highway.
However, in the case of motorways the Department of Transport provides fences—not under any statutory obligation to fence the adjoining owner's land, but to mark the boundary within which the restrictions on the use of this special kind of highway apply. But it is, of course, the practice to provide a fence sufficient to prevent cattle or sheep from straying on to the motorway, and the form of fencing to stop this is arranged with the farmer.
In the case of other roads—both trunk roads and local authority roads—I must maintain that where part of an owner's land is acquired for highway construction it is for that owner to decide whether he needs to fence the land left in his ownership; and that in law he is only entitled to monetary compensation. Undoubtedly if the landowner keeps stock on the land remaining with him he will need a new fence and, as I have explained before, the highway authority will usually arrange for this to be done and this is then taken into account in negotiating the settlement of compensation. Here perhaps I could comment on the remark of my noble friend Lord Caithness; in the Cuthbert case it did not alter compensation law which is still based upon depreciation in the value of the interest in the land. However, the difficulty arises if the cost of constructing a fence would be more than the amount of compensation due. The point I am leading to is that the cost of providing something more expensive than a standard form of fencing—as a stone wall is likely to be—could well exceed the actual depreciation in the value of the owner's interest. It is that depreciation, apart from the value of the land acquired, which the owner is entitled to be compensated.
It may seem that I have strayed a long way from the purpose of the amendment, but the point is that it would place on highway authorities an obligation to provide boundary fences or walls, which they do not at present have and a consequential expectation that, whatever the cost might be, traditional materials would be used. We have had some comments about the beautiful bridges and the beautiful walls and, of course, in the context of the previous two amendments there would always be a possibility of obtaining an agreement to retain such beautiful features. This is a complicated subject involving the Highways Act, and I suggest that this will cost money and is rather out of the orbit of this particular Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, if a road is widened by the highway authority and a stone wall is taken down, can he say whether it is not the duty of the highway authority to put up an equivalent wall—in other words, a stone wall—on the new boundary? I had always thought that that was the case, and in Gloucestershire the only decent walls being built now are being built by the local authority.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think that there is any onus on them to do so, but, as the noble Lord has rightly said, it normally happens and the occasions are very rare when it does not.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I thought that perhaps my noble friend Lord Stanley was going to withdraw the amendment after he had heard what the Minister had to say. But in view of what the Minister has said, I am absolutely appalled at the situation. I rather hope that my noble friend will persist in his amendment, because if what the Minister has said is correct, it is a shocking situation.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I must put my noble friend Lord Ridley right; I do not think that he was here when I moved this amendment in Committee, so I must put him right. In the past local authorities, which are the highway authorities, have behaved quite exemplary. I can give an example in Gwynedd where they put a road through my farm and replaced the wall superbly. Unfortunately, in the construction of a by-pass in Gwynedd, however, the Secretary of State for Wales is behaving quite disgracefully. That is basically the pattern. The local authorities are all right, but the Secretary of State for Wales and the Ministry of Transport are disgraceful. So I am not complaining here. It is the inequality of it. You get the situation of a local authority building a wall so far and then coming to the Ministry of Transport road and then nothing at all, or just a barbed-wire fence.
I was delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Yes, I would love to make it a duty, but, unlike him, I am a timorous person and I have only included a requirement. That is the point which I want to pick up from what my noble friend Lord Avon said; he said that it will cost money. I wish that it would cost money. If I was as brave as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I would make it a duty; then it would cost money. But I quite agree with the noble Lord that they need not do anything about it. I am sorry, but I am a timorous creature; next time I shall bring in a duty. However, I think that it is quite disgraceful. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, brought this up. There is no duty to replace, and I, too, was horrified. I did warn my noble friend Lord Avon and my noble kinsman the Chief Whip that there would be tears over this. I beg to move.
10.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 173AB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Arbuthnott, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Burton, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chorley, L.

Melchett, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

David, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Peart, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Segal, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Glasgow, E.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Stone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hunt, L.

White, B.

James of Rusholme, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

Wise, L.

502

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Avon, E.

Mansfield, E.

Bellwin, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigton, L.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ridley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sailsbury, M.

Gainford, L.

Sandford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Soames, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Swinton, E.

Kemsley, V.

Thurso, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trenchard, V.

Long, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Lyell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 34 [Orders requiring notification of agricultural operations on moor and heath in National Parks]:
10.58 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 173B:
Page 30, line 37, at end insert ("or forestry").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I bring this matter forward again at this stage because my noble friend Lord Avon said he would be happy to consider it on Report and because I have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady White, whose name is also attached to the amendment. I shall be as brief as I can in view of the lateness of the hour. I realise that forestry is somewhat of a sacred cow in this House, and any suggestion that it should be interfered with by any legal process is bound to arouse the anger of many noble Lords. However, I believe that, in the context of the national parks, which is the subject under discussion, it is vital—if we accept that notification should be given of agricultural processes—to accept that forestry is just as important, if not more so, in this context of notification; forestry should therefore be notified, and I am not referring to the situation which will arise when we come to later amendments.
The ploughing up of heather and rough grazing may not be all that permanent; in time it will revert to its former state. But if you plant uplands with trees, they are there for all time, the situation is changed completely and the visual intrusion is total and absolute. It has been said that planting hill land is like losing virginity—it can be done only once.
It is also absurd that planning permission is needed for a garage for a forestry worker, but it is perfectly possible for the Forestry Commission, or some other people, to create what is in effect an arboricultural slum with vast quantities of alien species of timber. Indeed under this very Bill they would probably be committing several hundred thousand offences a year by putting in alien species under Clause 13, which we have now agreed they should not do.
I know that the regional advisory committees are supposed to cover this subject—as was mentioned at

503
the Committee stage—but I do not believe that that goes nearly far enough. In those committees there is a fairly cosy situation, where the national park authorities, the Forestry Commission, perhaps the local authorities, and the Government departments make certain agreements. But there are other people who are not involved in those agreements, and I believe very strongly that the notification procedure would help the regional advisory committees, would help with the process, and that forestry should be brought within the ambit of the clause that we are discussing.
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, was able to discuss this matter very briefly at the Committee stage, but for technical reasons it was not possible for him to have a vote on the amendment which he then moved. It seems to me important that tonight, late though the hour is, we should consider this matter, and in particular find out exactly how the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has been working in the interim. He said quite clearly that he would be happy to consider the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, at the Report stage, but there has been no indication that the Government themselves proposed to table an amendment on this point.
I was not able to be present at the Committee stage, but I have of course read the debate, and I wish in particular to emphasise what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said: It is not just a question of the Forestry Commission; it is the private forestry that very often is the most difficult element in national parks. We have had difficulties with the Forestry Commission in some of our own national parks, but we have also had difficulty with the private owners It seems to me that in certain situations forestry can be just as obtrusive as any agricultural operation. Therefore, even if there is consultative procedure, surely there is a necessity to make quite sure that forestry, whether public or private, is brought into full consideration in national parks, and if possible, early enough for ameliorative measures to be taken, if necessary.
That is not to say that there should be no great expansion of forestry in National Parks. Of course there are areas where more timber growing is called for. We fully recognise that. But we also recognise that in certain of our National Parks the traditional, semi-natural timber is being very rapidly replaced by commercial, coniferous timber. Even if some deciduous trees are planted at the edges of plantations, that does not give to many of us the same pleasure, nor does it afford as much opportunity for a variety of wildlife, as in the kind of semi-natural vegetation and timber growth that there is, for example, in Powys, in the Brecon Beacons.
On the basis of a survey done there in 1977–78, it is reckoned that at the present rate of loss, by the end of the century, 20 years from now, there will remain only half of the semi-natural woodlands, scrub oak, and so on, which can be so delightful to walk through. It is for reasons of this kind that I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and I myself feel very strongly that forestry should be included in this particular section of the Bill.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I just say very briefly that I agree with everything that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said and at this late hour I do not wish to repeat any of it.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I put a slightly contrary view. Successive Governments urged forestries to grow four acres of forestry, and although I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady White, refer to some areas in the national parks, I believe she would certainly accept that some forestries should take notice. I think the noble Baroness would agree with me that this should take place in those areas covered in bracken, which are very often on the side of the national parks. This is very typical of the Brecon Beacons. Nobody is suggesting that you should have afforestation on the top of such peaks as Snowdon, or any mountain of that sort.
Baroness White: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, there was a proposition only a few months ago, which fortunately was defeated, that there should be coniferous forests in Ogwen, at the foot of Snowdon.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, yes, but with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, there is not a great deal of point in planting hardwoods in view of the return one gets on them now. I do not think anybody in the forestry world sees any sense in doing a great deal of planting of that kind. That is the trouble, from the conservationist's point of view. All I am trying to say is that Governments urge those responsible for forestry to produce more; and then, time and time again, in just such an instance as this, we have another little restriction—not in itself terribly important but making it more difficult for the wishes of successive Governments to be carried out. In about 50 years, when North Sea oil goes, the time will come when both food and timber are going to be in such short supply that there will be a great problem in feeding our people and keeping them warm. People will not recognise this. I do not oppose the amendment. but I do wish to draw the forestry problem to the attention of my noble friends.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt in what he has said. In one area I know where the public very much like to walk, there was the most awful outcry when one had to cut down some timber. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that one does not want the situation altered because one must not grow trees in a particular place and then, when there are trees, there is an outcry in the other direction when you want to cut them down.
One must be flexible on this. Most of the planting done in a national park—which I believe is the only kind of area which has been referred to—will presumably be undertaken with some care, particularly if the Forestry Commission are involved, and one takes it for granted that they would be. One must leave a little to their discretion.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, put down a similar amendment in Committee which l undertook to reconsider. We have done so but, as I explained in Committee, the fact is

505
that there are already comprehensive consultation procedures with the local authorities and national park authorities about private and public forestry proposals. The Forestry Commission consults the national park authorities and for private forestry similar procedures were adopted under a formal direction issued by Forestry Ministers in 1975.
The procedures provide for reference to Ministers if need be. An example where Ministers, both Forestry and Environment, had first-hand involvement in a case referred to them under the procedures, occurred in March last year at South House Moor in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. They concluded that the afforestation proposal should not be admitted for Government grant even though the National Park Committee itself was prepared to accept the proposal. This demonstrates the complete impartiality which is brought to bear in such cases. The procedures are working well, and we see no necessity in practice for the amendment.
Part of a Government's duty is to make sure that important sectors of the economy do not suffer from unnecessary statutory control. Another part of their duty is to avoid the creation of new bureaucratic procedures. There are already comprehensive consultation procedures to ensure that land use, agricultural amenity conservation interests are fully taken into account when decisions have to be taken on forestry proposals in national parks.
To some extent I feel the pressure is not about the notification or consultation aspect at all, but about the nature of the eventual decision on the forestry proposal after consultation has taken place. Furthermore, I am sure that forestry interests could very properly object to this legislation, by an amendment in this way, without adequate consultation with them beforehand on what they would regard as an important principle. My Lords, I have listened to what has been said and I still see no real practical necessity for this amendment. I leave it to my noble friend whether he wishes to press it.
Baroness White: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to strengthen the amenity and conservation membership of the regional committees?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not know at the moment, but I will find out.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I seem to have given the impression that I am opposed to forestry or to forestry in national parks. I am not opposed to it. I say that there ought to be some process whereby the suggestion of planting should be notified formally to the planning authority. I do not think that this amendment would offend forestry interests. I do not think it would do any harm. I should like to push it—if I have support.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): My Lords, Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that it may be for the convenience of the House if I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

British Railways Bill
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: ordered to lie on the Table.
Allied Irish Banks Bill
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.