Lords Sitting of 15 October 1981

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the President of the United States of America to visit the United States from Saturday, 17th October, to Tuesday, 20th October, to represent Her Majesty's Government at ceremonies to commemorate the bicentenary of the surrender by the second Earl Cornwallis of Yorktown in 1781. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Monday the 19th October and Tuesday the 20th October.

Portsmouth: Release of Land
3.7 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: 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 when they intend to inform the Portsmouth City Council of their proposals:

(a) for the early release of the three sites in Hilsea, the "Rugby Camp" and land south of Norway Road comprising some 61 acres of land surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements; and

(b) for the further phased release of the nine remaining sites in Portsmouth with a total area of some 377 acres, also surplus to Ministry of Defence needs.

Viscount Long: My Lords, there are at present six sites in Portsmouth, comprising some 27 acres, which are with the Property Services Agency for disposal. As Portsmouth City Council were told on 14th September, 1981, these now include a three-acre site at Hilsea Lines and a site at Rugby Camp. My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has written to the local authorities concerned about the method of disposal of these properties and others in the area which may become surplus in the future. None of the remaining sites referred to by the noble Lord are at present surplus to defence requirements.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his very constructive reply, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to expedite the procedures in this case? There is sometimes a tendency for them to be
434
very slow. Is he aware that the people of Portsmouth have made tremendous efforts since the end of the war to rehabilitate their city, which was one of the blitzed cities? Will he bear in mind that there is the prospect of some 16,000 extra unemployed due to the proposed phasing out of the dockyard activities, and will he continue to press as much as he can for the expeditious treatment of all these matters in collaboration with the Portsmouth City Council?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interest and kindness towards the people of Portsmouth. I can assure him that my right honourable friend will do all that he can through the Property Services Agency to speed the sale or hand-over of these sites to the council or to who else is interested. Of course, the interesting part of the noble Lord's supplementary question related to helping unemployment in the area. This is the reason why Her Majesty's Government have gone into consultations with the council to release this land, perhaps for factories or otherwise.

Hotels and Restaurants: Foreign Staff
3.10 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 what is their estimate of the numbers of overseas persons temporarily employed this summer in United Kingdom hotels and restaurants, and why so few British young people seek training and employment in these service industries.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, no statistics are available on the number of overseas persons who were temporarily employed this summer in United Kingdom hotels and restaurants; but I am sure that the House will be glad to know that the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board Manpower Information Survey indicates that only 10 per cent. of those employed in the industry are non-British. Furthermore, 95 per cent. of trainees and 95 per cent. of young persons aged between 16 and 19 employed in the industry are British.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that certainly one's personal experience suggests that more than 10 per cent. of the people in our hotels are of foreign extraction? I picked up a young Scandinavian on the road during the Recess—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Orr-Ewing: A man, my Lords! He told me that he was working as a waiter at one of our big London hotels, learning English. He said: "I find it very difficult to make any progress in learning English because there is only one Englishman serving on the staff in my particular hotel". Does this not suggest—and my own observations endorse this—that very

435
large numbers of foreign people are learning English in our hotels? Is this not unfortunate since jobs are important? If noble Lords go to France or America they will find the majority of employees working in hotels in both those countries are nationals of that country. Is this not an area where we ought to encourage Englishmen to take up careers? The service industries are those industries which show the greatest expansion of jobs in any sector of operations in this country.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, while expressing some jealousy for my noble friend as to whom he picked up on the motorway—I think I heard him say it was a young male Scandinavian, but possibly I did not hear that first time—I am happy to inform him that there are no statutory powers which would compel employers, especially in this sector, to disclose any information on the ethnic origin of their employees.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, do not the figures that we have had and the Question raised by the noble Lord suggest that the percentage of people being trained in that industry is grossly inadequate? This may account for the fact that there are so few of our own youngsters going into it. Further, would not the noble Lord agree that that probably being the case there is a very strong case indeed for maintaining the training board in that essential industry?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be interested to know that at present over 800,000 persons are employed in the hotel and restaurant sector in the United Kingdom. There are over 220,000 young persons between 16 and 19 years of age, 95 per cent. of whom are British; and 95 per cent. of the approximate number of 107,000 young persons being trained are British. But much of what the noble Baroness has said is absolutely true. The local education authority careers officers are responsible for giving careers advice and vocational guidance to young people. They are aware of the opportunities available in this sector and I am sure they will be aware of the problem if they read what the noble Baroness has had to say.
Lord Renton: My Lords, should not the Department of Employment reconsider the present policy with regard to the grant of employment permits to foreign people?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if my noble friend would like to put down a specific Question, possibly we could look into the matter on that basis.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the events that took place in the summer not a mile from this House were very distressing and, as a consequence, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are very important? The figure that the noble Lord gave of 10 per cent., I believe, must be challenged. It may be an official figure but it is certainly not a truthful figure. What is happening in this particular industry is a grave form of exploitation. The trade unions are trying to erase it—
A noble Lord: Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I therefore ask: would he not consider giving a directive to the Wages Inspectorate on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the submission I make, about some of the existing cheating and irresponsibility—which is a shame because there are very many good employers in the catering industry who have to endure the bad name of those who exploit and behave in a mischievous way?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I did mention before, and I reiterate, that there are no powers at the moment which would compel employers in this sector to disclose the kind of information which would help the noble Lord and possibly the House. I am afraid I am a little in the dark as to the particular events to which the noble Lord referred. I hope he is not thinking of the Royal Wedding.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, while accepting the concern which has been expressed on this subject, would the noble Lord not agree that there is a very useful to-and-fro traffic in young students learning languages?—with British students working in hotels abroad and foreign students working in hotels here. Is that not a useful thing in itself?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful for the comment of my noble friend. Of course, nationals of member states of the European Community are free to travel wherever they wish within the Community, so there is complete freedom of movement there. As far as foreign nationals who do not have this right to come and work in the United Kingdom are concerned, there are fairly strict rules which are very carefully adhered to. These protect employment within this particular sector, but we do bear in mind what my noble friend has said.

Wages Councils and Minimum Wage Levels
3.17 p.m.
Lord Spens: 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 have any plans to abolish, or suspend, the powers of wages councils to determine the minimum wages of young persons under the age of 21, or any earlier age, in view of the very serious difficulties such young persons are experiencing in finding jobs.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords:
Lord Spens: My Lords, I do not think that is a very satisfactory Answer. May I ask: do not Her Majesty's Government consider that a situation where nearly 3 million people are unemployed, of whom more than 600,000 are under 20, with a high proportion of those being persons who have not yet been able to find their first job, is a situation of economic emergency? Will

437
they therefore consider bringing in temporary legislation to suspend all minimum wage rates set by wages councils, which have very largely priced young persons out of their first jobs?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord did not think it was a satisfactory Answer. I gave him the most succinct Answer I could in reply to his Question. Of course the Government are extremely concerned at the level of unemployment—highly concerned—and that is why we have introduced such schemes as the Youth Opportunities Programme and the Young Workers Scheme. I absolutely take the noble Lord's point when he gives his view that wages councils set too high a rate. I do not think that can be considered as a blanket operation because obviously different councils operate in different ways, but I shall certainly bear the noble Lord's point in mind.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that wages councils now take full account of the Government's policy of restraint in the level of wage increases?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, wages councils are independent councils, over which the Government have no say.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that it would be helpful if, in the normal process of collective bargaining, employers and trade unions were to agree that there should be a gradual reduction in the percentage of the adult rate now paid to apprentices and to young semi-skilled and unskilled workers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government hope that all negotiators, including those on wages councils, will avoid setting rates which tend to price people—and particularly young people—out of the market.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 70 years ago, with my noble friend Lord Shinwell in Glasgow and myself in London, I was associated with Mary McArthur in establishing these wages councils? Is he further aware that these were mostly for sweated workers at home? I remember three women working all the hours of the day for 13s. a week, making cardboard boxes. Can he say how far the wages councils today are dealing with home workers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not aware of the association of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, with the initiation of the wages councils. But he was quite right when he said that they started up as a result of sweated labour. All I can tell the noble Lord is that wages councils have reduced in number and they do fulfil a certain role. Whereas there were about 60 in the 1950s, there were 56 in 1959 and now there are only 27.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that teenagers who live at home with their parents do not need what is known as a living wage, and that, in order to maximise their employment prospects, teenagers should be prepared to accept whatever they
438
are individually worth to an employer in terms of productive output, whether this be £10 a week or £200 a week?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a perfectly logical point of view which may not be shared by everyone.

Poland: EEC and UK Aid
3.22 p.m.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, this afternoon, I beg leave at his request to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(a) whether they will summarise the aid in kind given or promised to Poland by the European Community since the Solidarity movement was created;

(b) what part the Community is playing to reschedule Poland's 27 billion dollar debt to Western Governments and banks with a view to access to fresh credit; and

(c) what contribution the United Kingdom is making in these fields.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the European Community has made available to Poland substantial quantities of food and agricultural products (chiefly grain, meat, butter and sugar) at special prices. The cost of the discount is borne by the Community budget, while the necessary credit is made available by individual member states.
Member states rather than the Community as such have been involved in the rescheduling of Poland's debts. An agreement was signed on 27th April between the Polish Government and the Governments of its main overseas creditors, including ourselves, dealing with debts maturing in 1981. The question of Poland's debt servicing for 1982 will be considered shortly. The United Kingdom has made a substantial contribution in both fields. Since this is a complex subject, I am circulating a more detailed account in the Official Report.
Following is the information referred to:
"Under offers made in December 1980 and April/May 1981 the European Community has already made available to Poland substantial quantities of food and agricultural products at special prices (15 per cent. discount on average from world market prices). The main products included were 452,500 tonnes of barley, 272,500 tonnes of wheat, 45,000 tonnes of butter, 100,000 tonnes of meat and 100,000 tonnes of sugar. The cost of the special discount (estimated by the European Commission to be some £48 million) is borne by the Community budget. Individual member states have made available the necessary credits to cover the cost of products they supplied under these offers.
"On 7th October the Community approved a further offer of food and agricultural products to be made available to Poland in the fourth quarter of 1981 on the same special terms as the earlier offers. The products to be offered are wheat (275,000 tonnes), barley (25,000 tonnes), rice (10,000 tonnes), beef (10,000 tonnes), butter (5,000 tonnes) and lemons (30,000 tonnes). The cost of the special discount to the Community budget is estimated by the Commission to be just under £10 million. The

439
necessary credit will again be provided by member states supplying the products. The Council has also agreed to consider in due course the proposals made by the Commission for deliveries in the first quarter of 1982.
"In addition a Council of Ministers resolution adopted in August made it possible for member states to deliver to Poland free of charge fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market in accordance with the provisions of the common agricultural policy.
"The Community as such is not involved in the rescheduling of Poland's debts. However most member states (the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Denmark) have been involved in the multilateral talks between the Polish Government and the Governments of its main overseas creditors. An agreement was signed in Paris on 27th April dealing with debts maturing in the remainder of 1981. A Joint Commission comprising the Poles and their creditors will meet shortly to consider the matter of Poland's debt servicing in 1982.
"The United Kingdom has made a substantial contribution in both these fields. Under the first two Community offers the United Kingdom provided all the barley included (452,500 tonnes), 10,000 tonnes of butter and 3,000 tonnes of beef. The necessary credit to cover these purchases has also been made available. Allocations under the third offer have not yet been made, but we expect to provide the barley included in that offer.
"Within the framework of the Paris agreement of 27th April on the rescheduling of Polish debts a bilateral agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Polish Government was signed in Warsaw on 2nd July. This provides for a restructuring of the principal and interest of 90 per cent. of debts guaranteed by ECGD and falling due for payment between 1st May and 31st December 1981. After adjustment to take account of interim assistance given earlier in the year, the sum to be restructured will be about £75 million. These debts will now be repaid over four years commencing 1st January 1986. The restructured debts will carry interest at a floating rate of 1 per cent. above the appropriate market rate. The Paris agreement provides for possible extension of these arrangements by stages through 1982 and 1983 by agreement between Poland and its creditors, depending on the progress of the Polish Government's stabilisation plan.
"In addition, ECGD have been instructed to maintain for the time being a modest level of general short term export credit facilities, and to provide guarantees for specific new credits totalling £45 million for the remainder of 1981, in addition to the credits of £20 million which were announced on 9th April 1981."
Lord Caccia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that forthcoming reply on a factual basis, and also for his undertaking to circulate further information in a convenient form. May I ask, in addition to this factual information, two questions. First, is it right to conclude from this reply that it is a confirmation of the importance which Her Majesty's Government have attached, and are continuing to attach, to the Polish issue? Secondly, taking all due account of obvious political and financial constraints, will they continue to stress the importance of this issue in their dealings with other powers, and not least while they hold the presidency of the EEC?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord describes the Government's concern in this matter very succinctly, and I certainly give him the assurance for which he asked in the second part of his supplementary.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will disregard any suggestion which would appear to be either a snub or an offence to the Soviet Union? Would he not regard this Question as perhaps one of the most important that has come before your Lordships' House?—because unless we can not only
440
increase production but increase the capacity for consumption, not only in Poland but in many other countries—China, India, parts of Africa, Latin America and elsewhere—either directly through trade or aid or in some other fashion, while, on the other hand, other countries can increase production, there is no hope of making even an approach to a solution that concerns not only the United Kingdom, but the whole world.
Lord Trefgarne: With respect, my Lords, that is a somewhat comprehensive supplementary to this Question, but I can take the point made by the noble Lord about the Soviet Union. It is certainly our wish that the Polish Government and the Polish people should be allowed to resolve their problems without intervention from outside of any kind whatsoever.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government, both within the EEC and outside the EEC, take a lead in encouraging action in view of two serious problems: first, that the Soviet Union has clearly withheld supplies on which Poland has had to rely, being part of the East European bloc; and, secondly, that Poland has already accumulated a massive burden of debt to the West? Is it not worth taking great trouble to find suitable ways of providing further essential aid, in order to enable the Polish people to continue their brave attempt to shape their own future?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are certainly doing what we can—within the limits of our resources, naturally—to assist the Poles at this difficult time. Indeed, the record to which I referred in the original Answer bears witness to that.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, while concurring with the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, which was of paramount importance, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the problem of loans, and the very question of export credit guarantees which we discussed yesterday, can be upset if nations do not have a possibility of repaying their debts? Lastly, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that the entire exports of Poland are not enough to pay the interest on the loans that they have had from overseas? It is a problem beyond party politics. It is a problem for us to face with loans all over the world.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is right when he suggests—which, I think, is the implication of his supplementary—that the long-term solution to Poland's problems is the regeneration of their economy and their ability to produce more to service their quite considerable outside debt.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, in supporting the urgings for consideration being given to Poland, may I ask the Minister whether it is to be understood, with regard to these external debts which are under discussion and negotiation, that any portion of them carries a guarantee, for what it is worth, by Russia?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. So far as I know, none of the debts owed to Western Governments or Western hanks is guaranteed by the Soviet Union.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, as the noble Lord referred both to the 1982 debts and to the low productivity point, may I ask him whether, since Poland first asked for emergency consideration to be given to the 1982 position in June and they have had no answer—and the noble Lord can give no answer now—he would agree that, at this particularly urgent moment, the "too little and too late" approach can lead only to further economic and political dependence by the Poles on the Russians? While one understands the difficulties created for the lending authorities, the banks and Governments, by the low productivity rate in Poland, is not that last question more important than anything else?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, the question of rescheduling the 1982 debt repayments and interest repayments has yet to be agreed upon finally, but it is certainly being considered. However, an important feature of that will certainly be the plans which the Poles themselves are now working on, which relate to the improvement of their own economic prospects.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The House will adjourn at approximately seven o'clock for a short period.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the Order Paper confirms, this is pure consolidation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again this is pure consolidation. The order consolidates the law relating to the practice and procedure before magistrates' courts in Northern Ireland. The Joint Committee reported on 15th July that they had considered the draft and were satisfied that it was pure consolidation and that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I beg to move that the said order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Authorisation) Regulations 1981
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield)The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we debated this matter in your Lordships' House on 28th July the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised an important and, if I may say so with respect, difficult point of law relating to the vires of the penalty provisions contained in paragraph 13 of the regulations, and particularly in sub-paragraph (4)(b). I then said that we would seek further legal advice. This advice has now been received and it confirms the opinion I expressed to your Lordships on 28th July.
Section 2 of the principal Act, the European Communities Act 1972, which provides for the making of regulations, is drafted in the widest possible terms. Subsection (4) says that the regulations may include, and I now quote:
"…any such provision (of any such extent) as might be made by Act of Parliament …".
These very wide provisions are then restricted by the provisions of Schedule 2. Section 2(4) says:
"subject to Schedule 2 to this Act…".
Schedule 2 therefore restricts the power to make regulations under Section 2. There are various restrictions relating to conviction on summary jurisdiction but so far as conviction on indictment is concerned the only restriction is, and I quote, that the regulations may not:
"create any new criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for more than two years…".
There is no other restriction on the punishment which may be provided on indictment. It follows therefore that the wide general words in Section 2(4) prevail and that on indictment a fine may be imposed instead of or in addition to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. On this basis therefore the regulations are intra vires. I trust that with this explanation your Lordships will now be prepared to approve the regulations, and I so move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th June be approved.—(Lord Cock field.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House are most grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to reconsider this matter when it was raised on 28th July. We realise that all Ministers like their regulations to go through without undue trouble and I personally am most grateful to the noble Lord. He has been most considerate. Indeed, he and I have been in conversation about this particular clause during the Recess.
The main difficulty arises over the drafting. As the noble Lord explained on 28th July, he himself had spent some considerable time in the Library seeking to resolve the double negative in Schedule 2. After taking legal advice myself, which was not always unanimous, I have come to the conclusion that the noble Lord was originally quite correct and that I myself lacked the perception which he had at the time: that the double negative in fact meant what he said it meant.

443
For the information of the House I should like to give the example of this double negative so that we can see the quality of the draftsmanship that was employed in the drafting of Schedule 2. Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 says at paragraph 1(1):
"The powers conferred by section 2(2) of this Act to make provision for the purposes mentioned in section 2(2)(a) and (b) shall not include the power—…(c) to confer any power to legislate by means of orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate instrument, other than rules of procedure for any court or tribunal".
Sub-paragraph (2) says:
"Sub-paragraph (1)(c) above"—
the one which I have just read—
"shall not be taken to preclude the modification of a power to legislate conferred otherwise than under section 2(2), or the extension of any such power to purposes of the like nature as those for which it was conferred…".
I hope that all noble Lords are now wiser as to the exact wording of Schedule 2 and as to the true clarity with which it was supposed to be expressed.
On going through the records I found that Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act when it was before your Lordships' House in Committee took up only 20 minutes of your Lordships' time. Despite the efforts of my noble friend Lord Beswick and my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, it appears that this particular schedule was disposed of with undue haste. It would probably have been far better if the whole Bill, and in particular this schedule, had been considered rather more carefully at the time. Having said that, I reiterate what I said when I commenced: that we have no desire to hold either the House or the Government up on this matter. However, we hope that we have performed a useful service in drawing attention to what was an apparent ambiguity.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Speaking as somebody who has to spend a great deal of his time finding his way through the 4,000 or more pages of the taxing statutes, I have a very great deal of sympathy with his point of view.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [112] as first printed for the Commons' amendments marked * are new]
1Clause 1, page 2, line 3 after first ' any' insert ' live or dead '.
2Clause 1, page 2, line 6. leave out from beginning to 'he' in line 10.
3Clause 1, page 2,line 10, at end insert—
(2A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) if he shows that—

(a) the bird or egg had not been killed or taken, or had been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of the relevant provisions; or

(b) the bird, egg or other thing in his possession or control had been sold (whether to him or any other person) otherwise than in contravention of those provisions;

and in this subsection "the relevant provisions" means the provisions of this Part and of orders made under it and, in the case of a bird or other thing falling within subsection (2)(a), the provisions of the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and of orders made under those Acts.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Clause 1(2) makes it an offence for any person to have in his possession or control

"(a) any wild bird or any part of, or anything derived from, such a bird; or

(b) an egg of a wild bird or any part of such an egg,"

unless it can be shown that the bird or egg was killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of Part 1 of the Bill or the existing Acts.
Clause 1(2) as presently drafted goes too wide and could mean that persons might be convicted of offences under Clause 1(2) where this was not just or intended. These amendments seek to remedy this.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 2, page 3, line 4 leave out 'in England and Wales' and insert 'in any area of England and Wales which the Secretary of State may by order prescribe for the purposes of that subsection'.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This amendment has removed the ban on Sunday wildfowling which was added to the Bill by a vote in your Lordships' House of no less than 129 to 64. It is for that reason that I thought it right that your Lordships should have another opportunity to consider the matter. I believe, as your Lordships' House clearly did when the amendment was carried here, that the situation would be much simpler, fairer and more conducive to obtaining accurate counts of wildfowl if Sunday wildfowling were prohibited.
I should like to mention quickly six points which were used in support of this amendment when it was carried in your Lordships' House. First, the position now is not that it is legal to shoot wildfowl on Sundays throughout the whole country. In another place the Minister said that there was an absolute right for people to shoot wildfowl on Sundays and that statement may have swayed Members of the other place in deciding to disagree with your Lordships, but it is simply not true. There is no absolute right. The shooting of wildfowl and waders on Sunday is not permitted at the moment in Scotland nor in a number of English and Welsh counties based on the old administrative areas—namely, Anglesea, Brecknock, Caernarvon, Carmarthen, Cardigan, Cornwall, Denby, Devon, Glamorgan, the Isle of Ely, Merioneth, Mont

445
gomery, Norfolk, Pembroke, Somerset, York, North Riding, West Riding and the old county boroughs of Doncaster, Great Yarmouth and Leeds. So there is no consistency over the country at the moment, and one of the arguments which your Lordships accepted when we passed this amendment was that it would simplify matters were Sunday shooting illegal in a uniform way over the whole country.
Secondly, Sundays are the days when wildfowl counts and estuary surveys are undertaken. These provide scientific information which is of enormous importance to the conservation organisations, such as the RSPB, the British Trust for Ornithology and the Wildfowl Trust, which undertake them. These organisations are seriously disrupted if wildfowling is taking place at the same time. The third argument to which I personally attached particular significance when we debated this before is the question of fairness to birdwatchers. There are some 1 million bird-watchers and probably some 100,000 wildfowlers. It seems to me to be fair, as happens in those areas where Sunday wildfowling is currently prohibited—such as my own county of Norfolk—that one day of the weekend should be available on which bird-watchers should be able to pursue their hobby uninterrupted by the blasting of shotguns. At the same time, I personally find it very convenient to be able to avoid walking on the one day of the weekend on marshes when I know that wildfowling will be taking place and which I can visit on the second day; in other words, for wildfowlers to have a day on which they are less likely to have their sport disturbed by birdwatchers.
It is clear, as the Government Minister himself acknowledged in the other place, that conflicts are inevitable if Sunday wildfowling is allowed to continue. In April of this year 36 RSPB wardens were circulated with a questionaire asking for their views on Sunday shooting. This survey showed that certain areas suffered far more than others from shooting on Sundays and that birdwatching can be completely ruined when this is in progress. As I have said, Sunday wildfowling counts can be seriously disrupted.
Fourthly, there is clearly an argument for saying that it is helpful to have one day of the week, particularly in the winter months when days are cold and short, when all wildfowl and waders, including protected species, are free from disturbance. Several European countries recognise this and only permit hunting on three or four days of the week. In one case—that of Sardinia—hunting is permitted on only two days of the week. It seems to me that for this country to have a uniform provision for hunting to be banned only one day of the week is a relatively modest proposal in European terms.
Fifth, I want to counter an argument which was put to me very strongly in a number of letters I received before this debate; that to ban Sunday shooting would be unfair to working people. I appreciate the concern for the working class that has come from some surprising quarters when we have been discussing this amendment. Nevertheless, of the letters I have been sent, a number of them make it perfectly clear that Saturday shooting is just as important as Sunday shooting to working people, and that really goes to support my argument that as long as shooting is
446
permitted on Saturday, and Sunday is left for birdwatchers, there is a reasonable degree of fairness to both parties. There are, of course, working-class birdwatchers who would like to watch birds on estuaries at weekends and who would like to be able to do so on one day without having their enjoyment spoiled by shooting. More seriously—and I find this totally convincing—in those areas such as Scotland and my own county, Norfolk, where there is currently a ban on wildfowling on Sundays, there are absolutely no complaints from wildfowlers. In my part of the Norfolk coast the wildfowling clubs have as many working-class people as wildfowling clubs anywhere else. Their sport is not obstructed or interfered with in any way and, so far as I know, nobody has suggested that in any of those areas there is any demand for the ban on Sunday wildfowling to be rescinded.
Finally, your Lordships' House took this decision after a number of long and lengthy debates by a very large majority. At the time I do not believe we were aware of the fact that we were actually implementing a recommendation from a departmental committee on the protection of wild birds which reported in 1919. Your Lordships' House often takes a particular interest in following up the recommendations of departmental and other committees and Royal Commissions and complains about the fact that such recommendations are not implemented by the Government of the day as quickly as they should be. Therefore, I hope that for all the reasons I have given we may at long last do justice to the committee which sat in 1919 and ensure that its recommendations are implemented, and that Sunday wildfowling remains—as your Lordships' House decided it should be—prohibited over the whole country and not just in parts of it. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(LordMelchett.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to rise for a moment to support my noble friend very strongly in his amendment and to draw attention to the fact that the number of birdwatchers is very much greater—and their purpose so very much more laudable—than that of wildfowlers. I feel that the Minister is likely to say that there is nothing to worry about because the Secretary of State will prescribe large areas where shooting will not take place. That is not enough and the provision which your Lordships voted for should be restored to the Bill. I hope that will be the case.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I rise to oppose the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. The noble Lord has given us some of the arguments, which he puts very reasonably, as always, and which he has produced in your Lordships' House before. I do not have very much more to add to that which has been said in your Lordships' House before, but I should like to make the point most strongly that the time when wildfowlers go out tends to be at dawn and at dusk. Those are the times when the ducks are fighting, and this tends to be either before the birdwatchers have arrived or sometimes after they have gone home. If one bans shooting on a Sunday, one is going to put an awful lot of pressure on Saturdays.

447
Indeed the birdwatchers may find that this is greatly to their disadvantage as time goes on. There will be an enormous number of people coming down on a Saturday and a lot more shooting will be taking place which at the moment is spread over the entire week-end. As the noble Lord said, this is very much—I do not particularly like the term "working class" myself but the noble Lord used it—something which is enjoyed by the ordinary man in the street who likes to do a bit of shooting and likes to do it legally and can do it at the present time in certain areas below the tide line on a Sunday.
Then again, if the whole country was uniform, what a very dull country we should live in. There would not be a great deal of point in this Wildlife and Countryside Bill which is concerned with the whole variety of our countryside and the variety of practices that take place at the moment. It would be very dull if we had exactly the same things going on throughout the whole length and breadth of the country.
I think sometimes your Lordships slightly get the wrong end of the stick and I hope your Lordships may have second thoughts about this Bill. After the vote last time I was speaking to one noble Lord. I was rather surprised that he voted in favour of stopping wildfowlers shooting on Sunday and he said, "Well, of course, if you allow Sunday shooting I shall have to pay my beaters double overtime on Sundays and I am not voting for that One should be absolutely sure that this is purely below the tide line on a Sunday; it is not shooting everything on Sundays; it is not letting everybody shoot everywhere on Sundays, and I hope your Lordships may have second thoughts on this and will disagree most strongly with the amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like to agree with my noble friend. Some of us would have a great deal more sympathy with the birdwatching fraternity, who appear to want an excluded day of the week, if one felt that the birds would get some peace. But I know of a heronry which has been completely deserted because the birdwatchers have arrived and photographed it and driven the birds away altogether. This summer there was a rare diver nesting on a log not very far from me. One could see into the nest from the overhanging bank by means of a telescope, but one day a "bearded wonder" arrived in a rubber boat and put the bird off the nest. These are the sort of disturbances and troubles that we have to put up with, and clearly he was not one of the shooting fraternity.
Another case arose with the ospreys. Instead of nesting in their usual tree at Aviemore they started to nest in another tree. That tree was cut down, and I suspect it was the RSPB who cut it down, with the idea of getting the bird to go back to its original tree. If it were not for these sort of incidents I think bird-watchers would receive a great deal more sympathy.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, seems to be saying is that even if the shooting of these birds on Sundays is banned the birds still will not get any peace, so why not shoot them and put them at peace instead of having them harassed by birdwatchers later on. That seems to me to be most peculiar. I observed when we were dis
448
cussing this matter originally how little one heard about the English Sabbath in your Lordships' House. After 25 years in another place, full of agnostics and atheists, I thought that coming here I should hear a little more about the English Sabbath and a great deal more about the Welsh Sabbath, but the Bishops' Bench is empty today, as it was when we discussed this matter before. Indeed the reputation of the Church last time was saved only by the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Coggan, who supported the banning of shooting on the Sabbath. I think we should regard it as our duty to confirm the bishops in their own judgment on the keeping of the English Sabbath and send this amendment back to the House of Commons and say that we insist, whether they like it or not, on banning the shooting of these birds on the Sabbath. I think that for once in a way a peremptory message back to the Commons on such a sensitive subject might do good.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure that would be a message that we could send back with one or two of the amendments, but I hope we do not get carried away too far with the amendments that we are going to discuss today.
The House will know that the Government believe that further protection for species should be given if there is a conservation case for this. There is no suggestion that there is a conservation case for a complete prohibition on Sunday shooting in the United Kingdom, and for that reason of course we do not see the need for disagreeing with the Commons amendment. However, we do consider that local custom should be respected. The Government believe that it is right and proper to allow this traditional practice to be a matter for local democracy rather than to impose a new restriction where it is not wanted by the local inhabitants. I think this was a view which prevailed in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made much of what is going on in various places now and how happy it would be. There is no reason why that should be disturbed, but we want the status quo to go on in other places, too. I thought for a moment that I was going to have to put a new animal on one of my schedules when I heard about the "bearded wonder", and I was delighted to find that it was actually a human being after all.
As it was succinctly put in another place, any conflict between birdwatchers and wildfowlers is not on the ground but in the mind. Additionally, I should like to make the point that wildfowling is subject to a close season, whereas of course birdwatching can take place at any time of the year. I would not deny that wildfowling causes some disturbance to birds but, as we have heard today, birdwatchers can do the same, and particularly in respect of the rarer birds for which disturbance is often particularly harmful.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised the question of counts of shore birds on Sundays and I am advised that these only take place on a few sheltered days and at selected sites. The counts normally take place at or near high tide, and this does not conflict with the wildfowling. Counts have been going on without interference by shooting for a long time and I am sure that wildfowlers would co-operate with those organising a count to ensure that it was as effective as possible.

449
I should like to turn now to a factor which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and my noble friend Lord Swinton both mentioned and of which I do not think we took a great deal of account in this House when we accepted the original amendment—namely, that, for those with shoots of their own and plenty of freedom to choose their own timetable, it has long been a tradition not to shoot on Sundays, but for many people that is not so. Sunday morning and Saturday morning may be the only opportunities that they have to practice their sport. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned this and said that they could do without Sunday, but of course that is 50 per cent. and I believe it would be a ban for which there is no justification.
I strongly urge the House to support Amendment No. 4, which has the virtue of restoring a well understood law, if different in different parts of the country, while allowing for the changing opinions of each area should public opinion in some places, perhaps even inspired by a right reverend Prelate, decide that Sunday shooting was no longer tolerable.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it seems to me that noble Lords opposite who have spoken against the amendment are really scraping the barrel a little if they are forced to suggest that birdwatchers, even those who behave in ways which the majority of birdwatchers would deplore, are doing as much damage as the people who are actually shooting and killing birds. That really is not the case. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested that we should leave this to local democracy and that the existing practice was well understood. With the greatest respect, that is not the case at all, because the existing practice is based on old administrative boundaries in a whole lot of places which, so far as local government is concerned, do not exist any more; and how people are expected to remember that they can shoot in one part of an old administrative area which is no longer in force but cannot do so in another, I have no idea. That local democracy is still working in places like the West Riding of Yorkshire or wherever, when all the boundaries have been changed since the ban on Sunday shooting was imposed, is a surprise to me, but, if so, the Government have invented yet another tier of local government at a stroke.
As I said earlier, your Lordships' House decided this matter by a very large majority last time. I do not believe that the House got hold of the wrong end of the stick and it is insulting to suggest that it did. I hope your Lordships will repeat the former decision.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Bishopston, L.

Ampthill, L.

Blease, L.

Aylestone, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Balogh, L.

Brockway, L.

Banks, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Beswick, L.

Chitnis, L.

Birk, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

450

Collison, L.

Melchett, L.—[Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Mersey, V.

Molloy, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Oram, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pargiter, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Plant, L.

Foot, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hampton, L.

Somers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Soper, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hunt, L.

Stone, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.— [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kennet, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Holderness, L.

Abinger, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Adeane, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Ilchester, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Inchyra, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Kemsley, V.

Avon, E.

Knutsford, V.

Beloff, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bessborough, E.

Liverpool, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Burnham, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Burton, L.

Lyell, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Clwyd, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Daventry, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Newall, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Noel-Buxton, L.

Derwent, L.

Norfolk, D.

Digby, L.

Northchurch, B.

Dormer, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Eccles, V.

Peel, E.

Effingham, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Energlyn, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Portland, D.

Faithfull, B.

Reilly, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rugby, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Glendevon, L.

Sandford, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Grafton, D.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinton, E.

Hankey, L.

Terrington, L.

Harvington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hatherton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hawke, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion to disagree disagreed to accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5Clause 3, page 4, line 39 leave out 'or'.
6Clause 3, page 4, line 40, leave out 'at and insert' no objections thereto have been made by any of those owners or occupiers before
7Clause 3, page 4, line 42, leave out from 'advertisement' to end of line 43 and insert—
'or
(c) any such objections so made have been withdrawn'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7. These are clarifying amendments. Clause 3 provides for the designation of areas of special protection. Subsection (5) is intended to provide that if there are objections to the designation of an area as one where all birds except those on Schedule 2 Part 2 can receive special protection, the order cannot be made. The provisions are designed to give statutory backing to voluntary efforts.
However, as drafted, the subsection might be held to have the effect of keeping in force an objection that has been withdrawn, which would mean that unless the whole consultation process was repeated an order could not be made. The three amendments remove this uncertainty. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 4, page 5, leave out lines 8 to 16 and insert—
(b) anything done under, or in pursuance of an order made under, section 21 or 22 of the Animal Health Act 1981; or
(c) except in the case of a wild bird included in Schedule 1 or the nest or egg of such a bird, anything done under, or in pursuance of an order made under, any other provision of the said Act of 1981.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. The Animal Health Act 1981, which is a consolidation measure, has superseded the Diseases of Animals Act and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to which reference was made in Clause 4. Amendment No. 8 simply reflects the new situation. There is an identical amendment to Clause 10. I beg to more.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 4, page 5, line 35, leave out 'urgently'.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9 and proposes Amendment No. 9A in lieu thereof:
9A Clause 4, page 5, line 35, leave out ("urgently necessary") and insert ("necessary at the material time").
This is a somewhat narrow point but nevertheless one to which conservationists attach considerable
452
importance. We are dealing with a clause which allows, quite rightly, farmers and other authorised persons to take action against protected birds—birds which are protected by law from being killed—when it is necessary for a number of purposes, such as the prevention of the spread of disease and in particular the protection of livestock or crops.
I certainly have no quarrel with the basic purpose of the clause. Something like this has been in previous, similar Acts of Parliament and I am anxious that this type of provision should be included in this one. However, what conservationists have been concerned about during the debates on the Bill is that when farmers and landowners—authorised persons—consider it necessary to kill birds which are otherwise protected by law it should be clear to them that they are enabled by the Bill to do that only when there was not time for them to apply for a licence—in other words when it is a question of urgency and something had to be done immediately. That is the problem with which this clause is designed to deal, as has been said by the Government and others in debates in this House and in another place.
It was because of that desire to qualify or make clearer the purpose of the clause that your Lordships' House, without any division at all, included the word "urgency" in the Bill. At that stage the Government made it quite clear that they had on drafting and legal grounds reservations about the use of the word "urgently", but nevertheless as a result of agreements on both sides of the House it was accepted that the word should go into the Bill. I thought that that was the end of the matter. We had reached in this House a very acceptable compromise on this clause, on a later clause—Clause 10—which deals with similar provisions as far as other protected animals are concerned and on Clause 15 which deals with the licensing provisions. Those were areas where there had been a good deal of concern among conservationists and some disagreement with farming interests, and we had been able to reach a compromise which was accepted by all sides of the House and which was the basis for us making progress on the Bill during the Committee and Report stages.
Therefore, I must say that I was extremely surprised to discover that in another place the Government had, on a vote on party lines, removed the word which was part of something agreed by both sides of this House, and particularly so when it was made clear by those speaking for the farming industry in another place that their view was that the clause should deal with action that is necessary if the damage is being done—in other words, necessary at the time; and it was in those circumstances that this clause should be used.
It was in an effort to be helpful and to meet that view which had been expressed in another place that I am suggesting an alternative to the words "urgently necessary"; namely, "necessary at the material time". I appreciate that the Government think that "necessary" means necessary at the material time and they have said that on numerous occasions. The Recess has enabled all of us to consult legal opinion and I have had a letter from a leading counsel who is editor of the relevant section of the fourth edition of Halsbury's Laws of England. That letter says in part:

453
"I cannot see why 'necessary' should not be qualified by some such wording as 'at the time'".
I am no lawyer, and I approach this matter from the point of view of an ordinary person reading the Bill and trying to work out what it means. I think that "necessary at the material time" means something different from "necessary" which could mean necessary now, this week, next week or in a month's time. Whatever may be the Government's legal advice, it is clear that there is room for more than one opinion about this as is so often the case, I would respectfully suggest, when lawyers are consulted by different people about the same point. I would hope that, as this was part of an agreement reached by both sides of the House at a time when it was absolutely clear what the draftsmen's advice was on the legalities, but nevertheless it was not something about which your Lordships saw fit to have a Division, we could take the same line now. Moreover, as it is something to which conservationists attach importance, as it is a clause which I believe it is important for ordinary people rather than draftsmen and lawyers to be able to understand when they read it because, frankly it is a clause which does not end up in court cases (it has not in the past, and I very much doubt whether it will in the future) and as I have now come up with some wording which is more or less taken exactly from a Member of another place speaking from the farming industry's point of view—a point of view with which, as I say, I entirely sympathise—I very much hope that my new amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9 but propose Amendment No. 9A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, again I should like to lend my support to what my noble friend has said and to his amendment. I do not believe that he pointed out that the word "urgently" is necessary because in a case where it is not urgently necessary—under (a) (b) or (c)—it is absolutely possible to apply for a licence to take the action rather than taking it and then subsequently claiming that it had been urgently necessary. So if, for example, a large flock of collared doves descend on one's grain without warning and starts eating it in large quantities, which they are inclined to do, one could then say that it is urgently necessary to shoot them and one would be able to do so. But if there are collared doves in the area and they are beginning to be a bit of a nuisance one can then apply for a licence which will be granted in a reasonable time, and once the licence has been granted one can go ahead and shoot them. It seems to me that this exclusion should only apply—as was the case when it left your Lordships' House—when it was urgently necessary. Therefore, I wish to support my noble friend in this amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, while I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord's Motion, I should like to raise one query apropos the word "material". What is a "material" time? I cannot imagine what a spiritual time is. Would not the word "particular" perhaps suit the situation a little better?
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will, in due course, answer that question. So far as I am concerned, the situation is that after this amendment was passed in your Lordships' House the matter was put to the Law Officers, including myself, and we took the view that the word "urgently" in this context was inappropriate from the legal point of view. Of course, once you put it into one place then differences in language are normally held to imply, particularly when they occur in the same Bill or Act, differences in sense, and you tend to weaken the use of the word where it appears in other places in that legislation without the same word in front of it. Apart from that, in the context of this particular clause the word "urgently" does not seem to be appropriate and I did not understand the noble Lord, in reading from his legal advice, to suggest that it was; but rather to suggest that the new phrase which he proposes is an improvement.
In approaching that question, the first matter that I should like to raise is this. Let us assume, as I think we assume for this purpose, that the word "urgently" is omitted. At what time would you think the person accused would have to prove that it was necessary to do this—to show that it was necessary? Obviously, the time at which he did the shooting, because that is the matter that is at issue. How does it help to add the phrase "at the material time"? At best, it simply emphasises that it was the time that you first thought of, but at worst it may raise a question—as it obviously has in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Somers—as to what is the material time; and why put it in when it is so obvious what the time would be without it? It may well be in order to suggest that the material time is not the time of the act, but the time at which it was anticipated that the damage might be done.
Therefore, I should have thought that to introduce this phrase might be to go in the direction opposite from that in which the noble Lord seeks to go. So I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that to include this phrase, which is unnecessary, cannot help in making the position clearer to the people for whom it is intended. I would respectfully suggest that the words as they are, giving effect to the amendment proposed by the other place, make it very plain for all to sec that the burden of proof, of justification, is upon the person who did the shooting, and that he has to prove that at the time he did the shooting it was necessary for one or other of the purposes set out; that means he has to show that it is only by the shooting that he could achieve prevention of the damage which is there in question—the spread of disease or whatever it is that he thought justified the shooting at the time.
Accordingly, I would submit to your Lordships that this addition now proposed—and I very much appreciate the spirit in which it is proposed and the purpose in mind for it—would, in fact, detract from the effect of this particular clause. There is also the argument that you have to look at similar provisions in the rest of the Bill where this clause would not be inserted, and you would have to ask yourself "What is the difference"? I would suggest that it would be very difficult to answer. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to approve this clause in the form in which it left the other place.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he could explain why the word "urgently" is necessary at all; in other words, why we should not simply disagree with the Commons in their amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I agree with the view that the word "urgently" is not necessary and, indeed, it is undesirable. Accordingly, I suggest that your Lordships should agree with the Commons in their amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am interested in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has said. Perhaps I could answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, put to me. The phrase "at the material time" is taken from another Act of Parliament, which those who are drafting amendments without the benefit of legal advice often find useful, in the hope that thereby the drafting will not be open to criticism. That is why the phrase "at the material time" was used rather than the phrase "at the time"—because it appears in an animals Act of some date which I cannot exactly remember. Of course, as the noble and learned Lord said, the material time is the time when the shooting actually takes place. It is at that stage when the shooting has to be necessary to prevent damage.
I was very disappointed in the noble and learned Lord's reply for two reasons. First, although he gave us the legal argument, he did not address himself at all to what might be understood by non-legal experts reading this clause. These are the people who will actually have to read it and actually have to decide whether they can or cannot shoot something. They will not be QCs or parliamentary draftsmen, and, in the middle of a wheat field, they are unlikely to have one conveniently at hand to give them that sort of advice.
I think that those responsible for drafting Bills have some responsibility not only for legal integrity, but also to take some account of what ordinary people will make of the words they use. I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that when someone says, "I need to do something" and he is asked, "Is it really necessary'?" and the answer is "Yes", that does not mean in ordinary language that he must do it at that moment. It might mean that he has to do it tomorrow, at the weekend, next month or some other time. However, in his mind it is necessary for him to do it, but it is necessary at some stage; it is not necessary at that moment. All of us agree—farmers and conservationists—that this clause should apply to something that it is necessary to do at that moment. I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that that is not what it says to ordinary people, although it may mean that to a lawyer. With great respect, it is stretching imagination beyond belief to suggest that that is what ordinary people will understand it to mean; they simply will not. It is a great pity that the noble and learned Lord did not address himself to that point, because it was on that that we really wanted to hear the Government's view.
The second matter to which the noble and learned Lord did not address himself was the point which I
456
raised about this amendment to the Bill being part of something which was agreed by both sides of the House. Noble Lords may well remember that during some stages of this Bill we were in danger of taking an inordinately long time over it. Some may feel that we took an inordinately long time over it anyhow. However, my noble friends and I tried not to prolong our debates unnecessarily. In fact, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby withdrew a number of his amendments, especially some which were regarded by noble Lords opposite as being particularly controversial. I think it would be fair to say that, while wishing the major points to be debated, we did our utmost not to prolong the proceedings on the Bill in a way that, for example, would have forced the Government to drop it.
The agreement on this amendment, among others, was an important part of the consideration which we took into account when reaching the decision to try to help the Government get the Bill through reasonably speedily. If I may say so (and the noble and learned Lord was not involved in this), I think that it is indefensible for a Government in another place—without mentioning that, without any consultation or without bothering even to tell noble Lords on both sides of the House who were involved in discussions in this House—simply to take the word out without any more thought being given to it. It makes it very difficult for noble Lords on either side of the House to reach agreements on matters of this sort if Governments simply, cavalierly, disregard them in the way that the Government did in this case. I feel very strongly about this. I do not believe that my noble friends or I would ever have behaved in that way when we were in Government, and I think that it is monstrous for the Government to have done this to your Lordships' House in this case.
On those two grounds—first, that in this legislation we ought to be concerned about what people normally understand by the words that are used, rather than about the strictly legal approach; and, secondly, on the basis that this was something which was put into this Bill without any Division at all, because the Government accepted that it would be something which would help both sides agree on a very difficult area of the Bill—I think that your Lordships should insist on their amendment, and I hope that they will.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9 but propose No. 9A in lieu thereof?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 105.

DIVISION 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Banks, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Beswick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Birk, B.

Foot, L.

Bishopston, L.—[Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Blease, L.

Hale, L.

Brockway, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Collison, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

457

Hunt, L.

Peart, L.

Jacques, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Shinwell, L.

Kaldor, L.

Somers, L.

Kennet, L.

Soper, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Underhill, L.—[Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Molloy, L.

Whaddon, L.

Oram, L.

Winstanley, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Inchyra, L.

Adeane, L.

Kemsley, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ampthill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Burnham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Clwyd, L.

Mersey, V.

Cockfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Daventry, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Davidson, V.

Northchurch, B.

de Clifford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De Freyne, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

De La Warr, E.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Digby, L.

Peel, E.

Dormer, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Eccles, V.

Portland, D.

Effingham, E.

Rochdale, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Romney, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, 'L.

Rugby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Saint Brides, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrier, L.

Sandford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Skclmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stamp, L.

Glendevon, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Grafton, D.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gridley, L.

Hankey, L.

Swansea, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hatherlon, L.

Swinton, E.

Hawke, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Ilchester, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 5, page 6, line 23 at end insert 'or'.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. In doing so may I speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 15, 16, 30 and 49, on which I also have Motions down to disagree. This is the last of the amendments in Part I of the Bill which I particularly want to ask your Lordships to have another look at. I do so for a number of reasons.
The amendments concern the placing of some minor and modest restrictions on the use of air weapons. The amendments which were put into the Bill in this House and were deleted by another place were originally proposed by the National Farmers' Union, and they had support from both sides of the House and indeed were originally down, I think it is right to say, in the names of various noble Lords opposite and not in my name and the names of my noble friends.
What these amendments do is slightly to extend the restrictions on the use of air weapons, but they do represent a slight extension of the restriction on air weapons. First of all, so far as using airguns against birds is concerned, if the amendments which your Lordships put into the Bill and which were taken out in the Commons were retained, it would for example be illegal, which it is not now, to shoot the capercaillie, or Canada goose, or the greylag goose, or a white fronted goose, or a widgeon, or a woodcock with an air weapon. I do not believe that anybody on either side of your Lordships' House would ever seriously suggest that those sorts of birds are suitable to be shot with air weapons. I really cannot see that placing a restriction on the shooting of those sorts of birds with air weapons is anything that anybody should object to, but apparently another place did.
The National Farmers' Union amendments also place some restrictions on the shooting of protected mammals with air weapons. The species covered there include the bottlenosed dolphin, all species of dormice, the common otter which of course is fully protected, shrews, the red squirrel which was protected as a result of pressure from your Lordships' House, and the badger; again the sort of list of animals which I cannot seriously believe anybody on either side of the House thinks for a minute should be shot with air weapons. They are all protected anyhow so they should not be shot with anything, but they certainly should not be shot with an air weapon.
In the light of that, and the fact that noble Lords in all parts of the House agreed—with the single exception of the Minister who responded to the debate—I ask your Lordships to consider the arguments that were used in another place, and I am afraid it is not in order here to be rude about what is said there—that the arguments adduced there were com

459
pletely dotty. It was suggested that the direct effect of your Lordships' amendments would mean that 60 million air rifle pellets would no longer be sold. That anybody could seriously believe that 60 million air rifle pellets are being shot at bottlenosed dolphins, dragon flies and dormice makes the mind boggle. They got the whole thing completely wrong. There can be no other explanation for their decision. They claimed that not only would 60 million air pellets not be sold, but—apparently because of the enormous number of pellets fired off at bottle nosed dolphins and so on—a number of men would be thrown out of work and hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of business lost. As I say, they simply misunderstood what your Lordships were on about. I cannot think of any other explanation for their decision; indeed, it would be uncharitable even to look for any other explanation.
When we went into the arguments against the use of air weapons, noble Lords in all parts of the House expressed a great deal of personal experience of the abuse of such weapons; and since we last discussed the matter, at least one child has been killed accidently by an air weapon which was kept by somebody for shooting birds in the garden. While, therefore, one can poke fun at the decision taken in another place, we should remember that this is a very serious subject, with literally fatal consequences for a number of people. That was brought home to me in a letter from the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons, which mentioned that recently a vet had a dog brought into his surgery which, while being led down the street by a young girl, had a bullet pass across its ribs and through both lungs, and the vet said it was a miracle that it was not the child leading the dog who had been hit.
I have also seen, since we discussed this subject, an advertisement for some air gun pellets. I mention this lest anybody thinks these pellets are simply used indoors for target practice. There are now pellets available—like something called the Prometheus Double Two Hunting Pellet—with steel heads. They are sold (responsibly enough, I suppose) with this warning:
"This is a hunting pellet and is not recommended for indoor use … Extreme care is needed when using these pellets'',
and there follows a Home Office extract which makes it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no control over the use of weapons of this sort. I suggest that something that fires a steel pellet with a velocity very often approaching, or even exceeding, that of a 22 rifle is something on which it would be reasonable for your Lordships to place the very modest controls which we have suggested.
This is a subject about which the RSPB gets more complaints from the public than anything else. All livestock farmers—I include myself among them—feel extremely concerned about this, so I hope that in this case we will ask the Commons to have another look at the arguments that were deployed by your Lordships because, as I say, they clearly did not understand what we were on about.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I support
460
my noble friend Lord Melchett on this. What an awful state of confusion we have got into over this airgun business! Let us remember that favourable words were said from the Government Benches about our amendments. Then there was some backtracking because the Home Office changed their mind; they were going to embark on a grand educational programme to help the youth and other sections of the community handle their airguns responsibly and not shoot at lamp posts, greenhouses, people and cats and dogs. But we have heard nothing more about that great educational programme, and little or nothing was said about it in another place.
If noble Lords want a shock, I recommend them to read the Official Report of the proceedings in Committee in another place when these amendments were discussed. "Dotty" is the right word to use; they simply did not know what they were talking about. They painted a moving picture of the bankruptcy of the airgun manufacturing industry, with millions of pellets not being used, exports falling and unemployment increasing as a result of the restriction imposed on the use of airguns by our amendments. In fact, we are not banning the airgun. I wish we were. Indeed, we are hardly restricting its use; what we propose is marginal.
All the weeping over the manufacturers made me sick. Even if we were banning the airgun altogether I would not listen to the bleats of the manufacturers. I suppose the manufacturers bleated when we decided to ban the gin trap. Probably in earlier days some manufacturers bleated when Parliament decided to ban the man trap. Somebody will always bleat. Some people probably manufacture jemmies. There are always folk willing to manufacture some implement of offence and destruction. We are not proposing to do any of the things the other place suggested would happen and I hope that noble Lords will not allow the steamroller of another place to roll over the whole ground we dealt with at such length in the earlier stages of the Bill. It is a modest proposal, one which appealed to us at the time, and no argument was put up in another place—and I doubt whether any argument will be put up here this afternoon—in favour of reversing our decision.
I must ask this question: What are the party politics of the airgun? In another place our amendments were reversed on a party vote, in Committee, by eight to seven. What a state we have got our politics into when people are prepared to go into lobbies to follow the party line on a restriction in the use of offensive weapons! That is the sort of stupid state we have got our party politics into. A little commonsense and some independent judgment surely can be exercised somewhere in Parliament. If that cannot be done here, it obviously cannot be done in another place, and for that reason alone we should reassert our will on the amendments we passed last time.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had a rather weak case on the latter three amendments, but again I support him on the amendment with which we are dealing. I cannot see any party point in this matter. I too have read the Commons debate. It is not for me to comment on it, but I can find no reason whatever for changing

461
my mind, and I believe there is no question here of breaking an agreement made there; neither do I see it as a constitutional issue in the way the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, sees it. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, wishes to divide the House, I shall feel bound—indeed, I shall wish—to support him.
Lord Milverton: I have been doing my best to support the Government, my Lords. I did not vote in the first Division and in the second one I voted for the Government. This time, however, for the sake of conscience, I must support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. One cannot have strong enough safeguards on weapons, whatever their use or purpose, and therefore I shall support Lord Melchett.
Lord de Clifford: I too support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, my Lords. At an earlier stage I expressed hostility to air weapons, having had some personal experience of what happens when they are used. Since we last debated the matter I have had further such experience. They are among the most dangerous weapons and unless they are controlled—and what is proposed is only a modest amount of control—I fear that we shall be opening the floodgates. These weapons get more powerful every day. It is unbelievable to think of steel tipped pellets going into airguns.
I have had two personal experiences since I last spoke in your Lordships' House on this matter. In one case it took me very nearly two hours to find and then kill a poor, miserable rabbit which had been shot in the half light. The person who had shot it had paid no attention whatever to what had happened to it. The second occasion was the same as an earlier experience about which I have previously told your Lordships. While out of doors I suddenly heard a sound like a silenced gun going off and two seconds later a pellet arrived at my feet, out of the blue. It came down very fast. I did not find it, though I tried very hard to do so, since I felt that this point would be raised in the House and I should have liked to show the pellet to your Lordships. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is quite right. We have imposed very modest restrictions and I feel that they should be maintained.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, my noble friends and I on these Benches are very anxious that today we should proceed as rapidly as possible so that we can arrive at other matters, which are perhaps a little more controversial, important though this question is. I think it right to indicate that my noble friends and I on these Benches will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I say that merely in the hope that it might encourage other noble Lords to do likewise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Beistead): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned two tragic accidents which had occurred as the result of the use of an airgun. One of the accidents involved a child and the other a dog. First, I wish to make it clear that the Firearms Act 1968 places restrictions on the ownership, possession and use of all air weapons, including the less powerful weapons which do not require firearm certificates. Therefore, in nearly every case the misuse of an air weapon involves the commission of
462
one offence or more under the existing law. I am most anxious not only to make that point, but to make it clear that I do not think that in this respect there is anything between those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and the Government. Misusing airguns is a menace, and depending on the circumstances, such offences could, for example, include offences against the person of varying degrees of gravity and offences under the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Therefore, there already exists a range of powers to deal with most instances of misuse of air weapons.
In addition, it is already an offence to carry a loaded air weapon in a public place, or as a trespasser on private land, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. So in the context of the debate and the amendments, we are speaking about someone who is shooting on his own land, or as a guest or with permission on someone else's land. The Government accept that problems with air weapons arise in the main, but not entirely, from their misuse by the young, but the problem is one of enforcement, rather than as a result of inadequacy in the existing controls, which are designed to curb the misuse of air weapons while providing the opportunity to use them safely. I am bound to say that rather than have legislation, the most effective way to achieve the very laudable objective of the amendment is for parents to instil into their children a knowledge of how a gun should be handled and then when it ought to be used. The Government fully appreciate the humane and environmental considerations which have led to the inclusion in the Bill of provisions relating to air weapons, but we take the view that this is not the right approach.
At Report stage I gave an undertaking, which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has chided me about. Well, the undertaking has not been carried out because the House did not accept it; your Lordships legislated instead. But the undertaking is still there; namely, that in any campaign against air weapon misuse it would be our intention to seek the views of the British Shooting Sports Council and any other interested organisations. We believe that the best way forward would be to concentrate on the general issue and to seek to heighten public awareness of, and a sense of responsibility about, the dangers of the misuse of air weapons. Of course, the misuse of air weapons against wildlife would form a most important part of such a campaign. I believe that that would be a very effective way in which to build on the legislation which already exists, rather than add yet more legislation.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I should like to add what is perhaps a lone voice in support of my noble friend on the Front Bench. The shooting organisations, the British Shooting Sports Council through its member organisations, are actively prepared to co-operate with the Government in the preparation and distribution of any material designed to educate the public in the better and safer use of firearms of all descriptions, in particular air weapons, which are the weapons most likely to fall into the hands of young people. Surely the approach that my noble friend has mentioned is far preferable to one of ruling air weapons out of order in a Bill of this kind.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Melchett: But, my Lords, there is no intention on any side of your Lordships' House to rule air weapons out of order. The effect of the amendments that were proposed by the National Farmers' Union, and which the Commons have taken out of the Bill, was simply to make clear exactly what could and what could not be shot with an air weapon. If your Lordships reinstate the amendments, it will still be legal to shoot any pest species with an air weapon. That is not at all interfered with. I agree with the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench that enforcement is a problem, and the amendments would make it perfectly clear to the police when they can and when they cannot take action, because it would be legal to use an air weapon against a living thing only if it is a pest shown on one of the pest schedules to the Bill; otherwise, it would be illegal. That is why the amendments would improve the enforcement of the existing law.
I must say frankly to the noble Lord that a farmer digging an air rifle pellet out of the eye of a cow will not be enormously impressed by an education campaign which might or might not get under way, depending on which course the House decides; nor is it very much help to say that shooting at children or dogs with an air weapon constitutes an offence. I say that because one of the cases that I mentioned involved an air weapon which was kept for shooting things in the garden. The air weapon went off by accident, and so far as I know no offence was committed there. Nevertheless, an accident occurred because an air weapon was kept for a purpose for which clearly it was unsuitable and which your Lordships' amendments would have made illegal.
The advantage of the amendments is that they will discourage people from keeping air weapons, except those people who use them for legitimate purposes; in other words, for target shooting or for controlling pests. Nobody wishes to interfere with the legitimate use of air weapons—the use which is accepted by everybody as legitimate—but we wish to try to prevent the accidents and disasters all too often caused by air weapons. I hope that your Lordships will continue to insist upon that sensible and reasonable course.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 88.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Collison, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Aylestone, L.

Banks, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Beswick, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Birk, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Bishopston, L.—[Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Blease, L.

de Clifford, L.

Brockway, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Foot, L.

Burnham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Chorley, L.

Garner, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hale, L.

464

Hampton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Newall, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.—[Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Ilchester, E.

Scanlon, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Segal, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Somers, L.

Kaldor, L.

Soper, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stamp, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Lawrence, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,B.

Strabolgi, L.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Vernon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mersey, V.

Whaddon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Milverton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Molloy, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Abinger, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Adeane, L.

Inchyra, L.

Aldenham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimberley, E.

Auckland, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Liverpool, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Burton, L.

Lyell, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cockfield, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Margadale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marley, L.

Daventry, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Digby, L.

Onslow, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Dormer, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Peel, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Plummer of St.Marylebone, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rochdale, V.

Faithfull, B.

Romney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Brides, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gainford, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glendevon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathcona and MountRoyal, L.

Grafton, D.

Gray, L.

Swansea, L

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Hankey, L.

Terrington, L.

Hatherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Hawke, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion to disagree disagreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Page 6, line 24, leave out from 'agent' to end of line 25.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amend-mend No. 11.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Page 6, line 27 after second 'bird' insert 'or other animal'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12, and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 29. Clause 5(1)(d) prohibits the use as a decoy of any live bird which is tethered or blind, maimed or injured in order to kill or take any wild bird. It has been suggested that it would be equally appropriate to prohibit the use of a live animal in similar circumstances as a decoy to kill or take a wild bird. Honourable Members in another place agreed that this was a logical step. Amendment 12 provides for this. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I ask whether it in fact means any other "live" animal? Because it does not say so. ft says "live" bird "but" other animal".
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords, it is indeed intended to do that. It should be,
"a blind, maimed, injured or any other type of animal".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should like to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 5, page 7, line 1, leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) or subsection (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)(a)'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. This amendment seeks to do two things. First, to make a drafting change by replacing paragraph (a) of subsection (1) by subsection (1)(a). Second, to remove the reference to subsection (2) which was rendered superfluous when the House accepted Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 5, page 7, line 15, at end insert 'or'.
16 Clause 5, page 7, line 18, leave out from 'breeding' to end of line 21.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 8, page 10, line 24, after 'means;' insert—
'(aa) while that bird is being shown for the purposes of any public exhibition or competition if the time during which the bird is kept or confined for those purposes does not in the aggregate exceed 72 hours;'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. This amendment reinstates the provision of Section 8(2)(b) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 allowing birds to be kept in small cages whilst at shows or exhibitions provided any period of confinement does not exceed 72 hours. Noble Lords will remember this provision was included in the Bill when it first came to this House and was removed by Government amendment on Report in order to meet the concerns expressed in this House about the use of small cages at shows and exhibitions. The Government did not and do not share this concern. If the birds, and it should be remembered we are concerned only with captive bred specimens, were not happy and content with entering and staying in these cages they would not meet the requirements of all show classes that the birds should be steady and exhibit themselves to advantage. We are also satisfied that bird fanciers as a group care very much for the welfare of their birds and, indeed, it is their concern that larger cages can give birds the feeling that they comply in response to the reflexes induced by sudden movement in their vicinity and then Will damage themselves. This is, of course, one reason why small cages are permitted for transport.
We took the view when we moved the amendment prohibiting the use of small cages at shows that this would provide for an independent review of cage sizes. In most cases it was thought unlikely there would be any need for changes to show cage sizes which have evolved over many decades with the aim of showing birds that feel secure and are therefore steady. These cages could then be licensed for continued use. In the event, the Government receive many representations following the decision of this House and concluded that though there are arguments on both sides we would do better to continue to provide a statutory exemption for birds being shown rather than to deal with the matter by licensing under Clause 16. We have never had substantive reports of harm to birds in small cages in 27 years that this provision has been law.
It applies only to Schedule 3 Part 1 birds which, by definition, must be captive-bred. It would still be an offence to keep wild-bred birds in such a cage. No doubt there are some who will try to condition wild-bred birds to small cages so that they can be passed off as captive bred as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett suggested in Committee on 2nd February. Our widely welcomed proposals in Clause 6 and its schedule to provide a

467
sound basis for aviculture should go a very long way in stamping out this particularly undesirable practice. We believe that the great majority of aviculturalists now support the safeguards which Schedule 3 Part 1 gives them by ensuring that only species plentifully available from captive-bred stocks are shown.
The debates in both Houses have brought home to the avicultural world that there is a concern about show cages. They are therefore taking steps to mount a full review of standards taking into account all that has been learnt in recent years about bird behaviour. Officials from the Department of the Environment are continuing their liaison work with the National Council for Aviculture on cage sizes and the Nature Conservancy Council will be involved. If the experts agree that any of the existing cages are harmful and cause undue stress to the birds it can be expected that the exhibitors who care so much for their birds will make the necessary changes. This review coupled with the new rules on exhibition should ensure that only truly captive-bred birds well used to small cages are eligible for showing. I therefore urge the House to accept this amendment retaining the existing rules on cage sizes.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby has put down an amendment numbered 17AA as an amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 17.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I do not intend to move that amendment.
On Question, Motion (on Commons Amendment No. 17) agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17A Clause 9, page 10, line 41, after any "insert" live or dead".
18 Clause 9, page 11, leave out lines 2 to 4.
19 Clause 9, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) if he shows that—

(a) the animal had not been killed or taken, or had been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of the relevant provisions; or

(b) the animal or other thing in his possession or control had been sold (whether to him or any other person) otherwise than in contravention of those provisions;

and in this subsection "the relevant provisions" means the provisions of this Part and of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17A, 18 and 19. The three amendments make identical provision in Clause 9 as did Commons Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to Clause 1. They provide defences for people charged with possession of an illegally killed or taken wild animal.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Page 11, line 22, at end insert—
'(5) In any proceedings for an offence under sub-
468
section (1), (2) or (4)(a), the animal in question shall be presumed to have been a wild animal unless the contrary is shown.'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31, which makes similar provision in Clause 11. Amendment No. 20 would provide that in proceedings the defendant is required to show that an animal which has been killed, taken, kept or sold in contravention of the provisions of Clause 9 had not previously lived in the wild. Amendment No. 31 would require the same in any proceedings involving the alleged use of prohibited methods.
This provision relating to birds has been one of the most important features of the 1954 Act because the general principle of bird protection is that birds should not be in anyone's possession except in limited and explicit circumstances. The same principle applies equally to protected plants and animals. These amendments give effect to that principle.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 10, page 11, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—
'or
(b) anything done under, or in pursuance of an order made under, the Animal Health Act 1981;'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. This amendment makes similar provision in Clause 10 to Amendment No. 8, which the House accepted earlier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Page 11, line 36, leave out 'and' and insert '(1A)'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. With the permission of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27. Amendments Nos. 22 and 25 are paving the way for the principal Amendment No. 26. Amendment No. 27 is technical.
The amendments deal with a matter—the protection of bats in dwellinghouses—on which we had several illuminating debates earlier. Noble Lords and honourable Members in another place made clear their wish that bats should be protected from the harmful effects of treating wood timbers with preservatives, and also that a householder should seek advice from the competent authorities before removing bats from his home in order that the least harm be done to them.
Noble Lords will know that the Government were concerned to find a way of protecting bats in dwelling-houses but without impinging too much on the rights of the householder. This amendment is, I believe, a practical and effective compromise which will, I trust, satisfy all interests in the House. The amendments would provide that protection, even in the rafters of a

469
dwellinghouse, without hindering any person who needs to remove bats from the living area of his house.
The Bill provides that it shall be an offence intentionally to kill any bat. It further provides that the Nature Conservancy Council shall be consulted before any operation is undertaken which might incidentally harm a bat, except in a dwellinghouse. The amendment redefines that exception so that only in the living area of a dwellinghouse may a person take immediate action to disturb or exclude bats or action which might incidentally harm bats. I have spoken at a little more length on this amendment because it is one which we had a discussion.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. (The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to say how very welcome this is to noble Lords on all sides of the House, I am sure. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who moved the original amendment and is not able to be with us today, would also like to congratulate the Government on the excellent steps which they have taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.20 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
23 Page 11, leave out lines 40 to 44.
24 Page 12, leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert—
'(3) Notwithstanding anything in section 9, an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of the killing or injuring of a wild animal included in Schedule 5 if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 23 and 24. The purpose of these amendments is to make three changes. First, I shall deal with two relatively minor matters. In Clause 10 we are proposing that the defence be restricted to authorised persons only—primarily the owner and occupier and any person authorised by them. The second change is to include the term "foodstuffs for livestock" so there is no doubt such items can be protected. The third change that would be effected by these amendments is the replacement of Clause 10(3) by Amendment No. 28.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for this particular amendment as I was worried over the foodstuffs side earlier on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
25 Page 12, line 21, after 'subsection' insert '(1A) or'.
26 Page 12, line 22, after in', insert the living area of'.
27 Page 12, line 23, after second ` 'the' insert 'proposed action or'.
28 Page 12, line 25 at end insert—
'(5) An authorised person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (3) as respects any action taken at any time if it had become apparent, before
470
that time, that that action would prove necessary for the purpose mentioned in that subsection and either—

(a) a licence under section 16 authorising that action had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after that fact had become apparent; or

(b) an application for such a licence had been determined.'.

29 Clause 11, page 12, line 37, after 'mammal' insert 'or bird'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 29 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
30 Page 13, line 13, leave out from ` '(b);' to end of line 14.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Lord Melchett's Motion on Amendment No. 30, not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
31 Page 13, leave out line 27 and insert—
(4) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1)(b) or (c) or (2)(b), (c), (d) or (e), the animal in question shall be presumed to have been a wild animal unless the contrary is shown.
(5) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (2)(a)'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
32 Page 13, line 31, leave out 'wild birds or'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. This is a technical amendment. The words "wild birds or" are otiose, as no bird can be lawfully killed by the methods listed in Clause 11(2)(a).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
33 After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
"Daily inspection of snares.
(1) If any person sets, or causes or procures to be set, any snare which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal coming into contact therewith, he shall inspect, or cause some competent person to inspect the snare at least once every day.
(2) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence."
33B Clause 11, page 13, line 20, at end insert—
("(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person—

(a) sets in position any snare which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal coming into contact therewith; and

(b) while the snare remains in position fails, without reasonable excuse, to inspect it, or cause it to be inspected, at least once every day,

he shall be guilty of an offence.").
33C Clause 16, page 16, line 5, after ("11") insert ("(1) and (2)").
33D Clause 19, page 19, line 10, after ("11") insert ("(1) or (2)").
33E Clause 21, page 20, line 3, after ("11") insert ("(1) or (2)").
33F Clause 21, page 20, line 6, after ("section") insert ("11(2A)").
33G Schedule 16, page 104, line 19, at beginning insert—

("2 and 3 Geo. 5 c. 14.

The Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.

In section 9 the Words "or any snare" and "or snare".").

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33 and doth propose instead Amendments Nos. 33B to 33G.
At Report stage in another place my honourable friend who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment agreed in principle that snares should be inspected at least once a day. We support the principle of Amendment No. 33, which seeks to prevent unnecessary suffering by providing that when-ever snares are used they must be inspected daily. However, when my honourable friend accepted that amendment he did so on the clear understanding, and with the agreement of the sponsor, that the amendment would need redrafting.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Bellwin require daily inspection of snares but provide for reasonable excuses such as illness, accidents or bad weather. The maximum penalty for failure to comply with this requirement is set at £500. These amendments give full effect to the intention behind the Commons' Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33 and proposes instead the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, the Question is, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33 and proposes instead the amendments listed, in lieu thereof, since when an amendment, Amendment No. 33BA, has been tabled by the Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved as an amendment to No. 33B, Amendment No. 33BA:
Line 9, at end insert—
(";and

(c) fails immediately and humanely to destroy any wild animal which could lawfully be killed or taken by those means, and to release any other animal,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is
472
intended to strenghten the original version of Amendment No. 33 which is I think still relevant to the revised version of Amendment No. 33B. This is not a very happy sequel to the anxieties that were expressed on both sides of the House at an earlier stage of this Bill on the use of the snare. A lot of people who cannot bring themselves to ban the snare nevertheless have a very guilty feeling about it. It does horrible things to animals. Unfortunately, the use of the snare is becoming more widespread, especially for snaring foxes because of the commercial value that fox pelts now have.
It is quite astonishing how in the last few years new forms of exploitation of animal life have arisen and a new commercial interest is being shown in the destruction of a part of our wildlife. Indeed, very shortly the hunting fraternity will have to join with the conservationists in order to safeguard the fox. He is being destroyed in increasing numbers for commercial purposes. But I must not reopen the whole debate on the use of the snare. We failed to get it banned and in another place they introduced the amendment which we are now considering in revised form to ensure that the snare was not left unattended, that animals were not left to linger for days on end as they have been. I have seen that. Obviously, nobody had been near the snare for two days after they had laid it.
Amendment No. 33B is the Government's version of the new clause that was inserted in another place. The strange thing about the revised version is that it departs from the precedent of the provisos of earlier legislation which closely follow this subject. I am not sure whether I am in order in debating the main amendment when I ought to be addressing myself exclusively perhaps to my own amendment.
Dealing with my own amendment, it could be said that if you provide for a snare to be inspected nobody but an idiot or a rogue would inspect a snare and do nothing about it. In other words, that they would not regard the simple physical act of inspection as fulfilling his obligations under the law. He would not simply inspect, he would do something about what he found there. My amendment may in that respect be unnecessary except for the extreme imbecility that one may encounter rarely among people who lay snares and might be indifferent to seeing an animal in it as they pass by. It is almost inconceivable that it should be so.
I am willing to be persuaded that this amendment is not really necessary. Anyway I will not take up further time of the House on this. My amendment is pretty plain and I think it is worth suggesting to the House that we have not really made as good a job as we should have done on the use of the snare.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I agree with the Government amendment, with reservations, but I should like to ask whether once a day is really sufficient. It is possible after all for an animal to be caught in a snare early in the morning, perhaps at four or five o'clock, and to have to remain there until probably six o'clock in the evening. It was once my misfortune to find a rabbit in a snare. It had been caught round the neck, and by the time I got there the snare had sunk well into its neck and the animal was absolutely in its last stages. Personally, I think the snare is every bit as inhumane as the gin trap, and I wish that we had had

473
the understanding to ban it years ago; but we have not, and I look forward to the day when we shall.
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I say that I think it is a great pity that the Bill was not left in the same plain condition as it left this House rather than having this amendment attached to it. Certainly the Government amendment to the Commons amendment is a slight improvement, but I am afraid that this really comes from the more populated areas and does not take account of the really remote areas where foxes can be a great problem and can inflict a great deal of damage and suffering upon lambs, for example. In these remote areas, if one visits a snare even once a day, let alone twice, the probability is that a fox will never come near because the smell of the human being will still be there. Of course, it is rather different in the suburbs of London, where foxes now abound, because they are used to it, but in the remote areas they are not used to seeing human beings and the snare is really therefore almost ineffective as a means of catching animals there.
However, all these amendments are really quite unenforceable. As a result, they are really very bad law if one looks to see how one could possibly bring a prosecution against anyone on this. If you wish to watch a snare for 24 hours, having seen somebody setting it and watching it, nothing is going to go near that snare because you are near it. You have got to find out who has set it and who has not attended it in 24 hours.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, he mentioned the question of the pelts. Of course, if you do not visit your snares regularly the pelt will be no use, because as soon as the animal is lying there wet and cold, and dies, the pelt becomes useless. So the argument is really counter-productive. If you are to kill foxes for the pelts then you must visit the snares regularly.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord's ability to bust open his argument absolutely astonishes me. The whole argument of those who were defending the use of snares was that no reasonable person would dream of setting a snare and not visiting it daily. The noble Lord has just said that lo and behold, that is not practicable. I imagine that the areas he is thinking of are the remoter areas of Scotland. He did not say but he is now nodding. He is obviously unaware that it is totally illegal to set a snare and not visit it daily in Scotland, where this has been a legal requirement for a great many years. The fact that the noble Lord has not been hauled into court I suppose supports his argument that the law is difficult to enforce, but I hope that now he knows what the law is he will buck up and obey it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a fascinating intervention, I must say, with a rebuke for my noble friend. But I think that when we had this discussion we agreed, and indeed I remember , if there were a suitable alternative se everyone would prefer to see the eplaced. However, there are other pipeline, though they are not likely ly to fruition.
474
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. is understandable, in so far as he wishes to see any animal that is caught in a snare either released or disposed of. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that my noble friend had bust open his own argument, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, too, busted open his own argument, because he said that nobody other than an idiot or a rogue would visit the snare once a day and then, rather like the Pharisee, pass by on the other side if he saw an animal caught. The fact is that if you make it an obligation to visit the snare every day, the inference is that the animal should either be released or dispatched. Indeed, even if the amendment of the noble Lord were accepted, I do not see how it could be enforced unless the person concerned had the local bobby walking behind him, or how a person could be brought to court for walking past a snare and not dispatching an animal caught in it. I do not see how it could be enforced.
Apart from that, however, the amendment is defective, in that it does not make provision for the humane killing of a seriously injured animal which is protected by law; so one would get the curious position of having a serious injured animal which is protected by law and which a person would not be permitted to dispatch. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would agree that the amendment as put forward goes as far as one reasonably can in law, at least for the moment, without incorporating his own amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am persuaded that probably the law of the snare is a delusion. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
34 Clause 12, leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new clause
Protection of certain mammals
"Schedule 7, which amends the law relating to the protection of certain mammals, shall have effect.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. This is a drafting amendment; and this one and later amendments to Schedule 7 and in the Long Title stem from the proposed amendments to Schedule 7 for ground game and protection of livestock. With the leave of the House, I think it would be more convenient to speak on these points when we reach Amendment No. 152; and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
35 Clause 15, page 15, line 15, leave out from 'include' to second 'or' in line 16 and insert 'power to advise or assist—

(a) any constable;

(b) any officer commissioned or other person appointed or authorised by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to exercise any function conferred on the Commissioners by the said Act of 1976; or

475

(c) any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State under section 7(3) of that Act,

in, or in connection with, the enforcement of that Act'.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35. It is linked with Amendment No. 43. These amendments seek to make clear what we see as the Nature Conservancy Council's contribution to the enforcement of wildlife legislation. The council will have the power to provide advice and assistance to any person who is enforcing the 1976 Act, or any of the provisions of the first part of this Bill. This would not, however, prevent the council where they consider it appropriate, and have the capacity, from providing scientific assistance and advice to other bodies or individuals; but they will not be compelled to do this. I should like to assure the House that the amendment would not stop or hinder the Nature Conservancy Council from advising the voluntary bodies. Advice would be limited to circumstances where they consider it appropriate and have the capacity. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amend ment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 Clause 16, page 15, line 39, leave out 'sections 1 and 3' and insert section 1 and orders under section 3'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. This is a drafting amendment. We speak everywhere else in Part I of "orders under section 3" which is, of course, the correct terminology. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
37 Page 16, line 19, after 'livestock', insert 'foodstuffs for livestock,
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. I made reference to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 24. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 Page 17, line 6, after 'b' insert 'subject to subsection (5)(d)'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. This is simply a drafting amendment, which is designed to make it clear that a licence to which subsection (6) applies may be revoked or modi
476
fied at any time by the appropriate authority. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
39 Page 17, line 25, after '(1)', insert either'.
40 Page 17, line 32, after after', insert 'such'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. As drafted, Clause 16(9)(a) does not make it entirely clear that a licence may be issued either by the Secretary of State, after consultation with an advisory body, or by the Nature Conservancy Council. These amendments are designed to make it clear that in Clause 16(9)(a) the NCC is a licence issuing authority in its own right for certain purposes, as well as a body with whom the Secretary of State may consult. My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
41 Clause 21, page 20, line 13, leave out 'under this Part' and insert 'to which subsection (1), (2) or (3) applies'.
42 Clause 21, page 20, line 15, leave out 'subsection (1), (2) or (3)', and insert 'that subsection'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 and 42. Clause 21(5) provides that where an offence is committed in respect of more than one item—be it a bird, egg or whatever—the court may impose a fine up to the prescribed maximum in respect of each item. This "multiplier" device does not extend to offences under subsection (4), where provision is made instead for trial on indictment, and an unlimited fine, should the circumstances of the case so warrant. However, it could be thought that, as drafted, the opening words of subsection (5) do provide for the multiplier device to operate in respect of offences under subsection (4). These drafting amendments make clear exactly what is intended. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
43 Clause 24, page 22, line 35, leave out from 'include' to 'the', in line 37 and insert power to advise or assist—

(a) any constable;

(b) any proper officer of a local authority; or

(c) any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State under section 6(9), 7(6) or 14(5),

in, or in connection with, the enforcement of'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. I spoke to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 35. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with

477
Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 26, page 23, leave out lines 17 to 20.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44. I should like with the leave of the House, to speak also to Amendment No. 47, which is complementary to it. These are purely drafting amendments which transpose paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) to make the references to excluded orders appear in chronological order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
45 Page 23, line 22, leave out, by such means as he may think appropriate.'
46 Page 23, line 25, after 'affected' insert, by such means as he may think appropriate,'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. These are simply drafting amendments. Noble Lords will recall that this subsection was amended in a number of different ways in this House earlier in the year, as part of the tidying up of the consultation process. These amendments, in our opinion, improve the drafting. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 Page 23, line 27, after 'order' insert—
'(bb) except in the case of an order under section 22(3), shall consult with whichever one of the advisory bodies he considers is best able to advise him as to whether the order should be made;'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. I spoke to this when moving Amendment No. 44. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 27, page 23, line 39, at end insert '"advertisement" includes a catalogue, a circular and a price list;".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment ble Lords will recall that, during the this Bill in this House, there was ions (1) and (2) of Clause 6 on birds, of Clause 9 on animals and in sub-use 13 on plants, a prohibition on ition to, and complementing, alban
478
on the sale of birds, animals and plants except for specified exceptions. It is the practice in legislation to include for clarity a definition of advertisements. This amendment so does. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
49 Page 24, leave out lines 1 to 4.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Page 24, line 16, after 'undertakers.' insert 'a district hoard for a fishing district within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. This amendment simply corrects an omission in the definition of "authorised person". District Salmon Fisheries Boards are constituted under the 1862 Act and are not local fisheries committees constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Page 24, line 36, at end insert—
'"livestock" includes any animal which is kept—

(a) for the provision of food, wool, skins or fur;

(b) for the purpose of its use in the carrying on of any agricultural activity; or

(c) for the provision or improvement of shooting or fishing

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. This amendment is designed to make clear exactly what the term "livestock" covers, and also to make it clear that there can be no doubt that fish in fish farms could be protected from predation by birds or other protected animals. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition are derived from the usual definition of "livestock" in the agriculture Acts. Paragraph (c) covers two specific areas: first, fish being reared for stocking or re-stocking, such as in rivers and lakes; and, secondly, birds being reared to supplement the wild stock. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Page 24, line 38, leave out from 'Wales' to end of line 41 and insert 'a county, district or London borough council and the Greater London Council;'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. In consequence of some of the amendments that have been made to this Bill during its parliamentary stages—in particular, the revised limestone pavements provisions, to which we shall be coming—it was necessary to redraft the various definitions of "local authority". This amendment, which is purely technical, is the first of these amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
53 Page 25, leave out lines 14 and 15.
54 Page 25, line 26, at end insert—
'(2A) Any reference in this Part to an animal of any kind includes, unless the context otherwise requires, a reference to an egg, larva, pupa, or other immature stage of an animal of that kind.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. These are technical amendments. They are designed to ensure that the controls on the introduction of non-native species under Clause 14 apply not only to the mature or adult animals, but also to the immature status of the animals, including their eggs, larvae and pupae. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
55 Page 25, line 30, leave out from beginning to second 'the' in line 31 and insert ' This Part extends to the territorial waters adjacent to Great Britain, and for the purposes of this Part any part of Great Britain which is bounded by territorial waters shall be taken to include'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 55. This is designed to extend the scope of Part I of the Bill, so that it applies not only to the land area of Great Britain but also to the territorial waters adjacent to Great Britain. Some of the species given protection—in particular, the porpoise and the dolphin—will be found in territorial waters. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
56 Clause 28, page 25, line 47, at end insert 'and (c) to the Secretary of State'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56. The amendment provides that the Nature Conservancy Council should notify the Secretary of State, as well as local authorities and owners and occupiers, of the existence of areas of special scientific interest. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
57 Page 25, line 47, at end insert—
'(1A) Before giving a notification under subsection (1), the Council shall give notice to the persons mentioned in that subsection—

(a) setting out the proposed notification; and

(b) specifying the time (not being less than three months from the date of the giving of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect thereto may be made,

and shall consider any representations or objections duly made.
(1B) If, after reasonable inquiry has been made, the Council are satisfied that it is not practicable to ascertain the name or address of an owner or occupier of any land a notification or notice required to be served on him may be served by addressing it to him by the description "owner" or "occupier" of the land (describing it) and by affixing it to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.'.
58 Page 26, leave out lines 6 to 29 and insert—
'(3) The owner or occupier of any land notified under subsection (1)(b) shall not carry out, or cause or permit to be carried out, on that land any operation specified in the notification unless—

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

(b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (4) is fulfilled.

(4) 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) that three months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (3).

(5) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(6) 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.

(7) The Council shall have power to enforce the provisions of this section; but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the Council to institute proceedings in Scotland for an offence.
(8) Proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under subsection (5) shall not, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be taken by a person other than the Council.
(9) A notification under subsection (1)(b) of land in England and Wales shall be a local land charge.
(10) A notification under subsection (1)(b) of land in Scotland shall be registered either—

(a) in a case where the land is registered in that Register, in the Land Register of Scotland; or

(a) in any other case, in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

(11) Section 23 of the 1949 Act (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect; but any notification given under that section shall have effect as given under subsection (1)(a).
(12) Subsection (1A) shall not apply in relation to a notification of any land under subsection (1)(b) where a notification of that land under the said section 23 has effect as if given under subsection (1)(a).'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. Your Lordships will recall that the Bill was amended during its passage through this House, in order to require the Nature Conservancy Council to notify the owners and occupiers of land which is of special interest of the type of operation which might harm the features of interest.
Many of your Lordships expressed considerable concern that while provision had been made for the Nature Conservancy Council to notify owners, no provision had been made for the owners to notify the NCC of their wish to carry out a potentially damaging operation. At the time the Government considered this to be too sweeping an imposition on landowners and farmers and preferred to rely on voluntary arrangements. We accordingly proposed a statutory code, particularly to guide those who owned land, but in debate in another place, as indeed in your Lordships' House, the arguments were put forward that such reciprocal notification would at least ensure that the NCC had the opportunity to influence the activities of landowners in order to minimise or indeed obviate the effect on the SSSI. While retaining the concept of the code, the Government have therefore accepted these arguments. Amendment No. 58 provides that once that notification has been made, owners and occupiers will be required to give the Nature Conservancy Council at least three months' notice of their intention to carry out any such harmful operation. The notification by the NCC of a site of special scientific interest will be registrable as a local land charge, so that future owners will know of it.
Amendment No. 57 provides that owners and occupiers will be entitled to be informed about any new proposal to notify land as being of special interest and will be allowed at least three months in which to make representations about any such proposal. As a result of these amendments, Clause 28 has grown rather large and, for the sake of tidiness, the provision for a code of practice has therefore been moved to another clause by a later amendment, Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Earl Ferrers.)
As amendments to Amendment No. 58:
58A Subsection (3), line 1, after ("land") insert ("which has been").
58B Subsection (3), line 6, after ("Council") insert ("written").
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 58A and 58B remove certain ambiguities. The first makes it clear that once land has been notified in accordance with the new procedures, all owners and occupiers, including successors in title, will be required to give the Nature Conservancy Council advance notice of harmful operations. The second amendment makes it clear that notice must be given in writing. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendments as amendments to Amendment No. 58 and with Amendment No. 58, as amended.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness White: My Lords, may I ask one question? I am sorry I was not able to hear all the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, but am I right in thinking that if a period of three months' notice is to be given during which, if an area is to be designated as a site of special scientific interest, representations may be made, there will be no safeguard that no detrimental action can be taken during that period?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies may I put to him a couple of propositions? I understand that there is no safeguard whatsoever in the legislation that a proposed site of special scientific interest will not be destroyed during those three months. At this stage it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to amend the legislation to try to make sure that that does not happen. It is a real problem. There are a number of sites known to conservationists which were destroyed once it was proposed that they should be made sites of special scientific interest. And this is under the existing provisions, where site of special scientific interest status is of no very great significance in terms of protecting the site. Under the provisions of the Bill it will he of a little more significance. There are other areas where it is known that the Nature Conservancy Council were not prepared to put forward the area as a site of special scientific interest because they knew that if they did the farmer or landowner would destroy it immediately. I do not pretend that this is likely to happen very often, but obviously this is a problem which exists and which will become worse once the site of special scientific interest designation carries with it the requirement of notification by the owner or occupier before he does something that would damage it.
I wonder whether the noble Earl can give us an assurance on two points. First, can he assure us that this particular point will be covered in the voluntary code? That will come before the House in a form which will not allow us to amend it. It would be very helpful to have an assurance from the Government that it will be made clear that if the Nature Conservancy Council propose that an area should become a site of special scientific interest it will be a breach of the spirit of the legislation and of the voluntary code for a farmer to plough it up or destroy it during the period which the Government have allowed for objections to be registered to this notification and for those to be considered by the Nature Conservancy Council. If the noble Earl has got that point on board, I hope he will be able to give us that assurance about the contents of the voluntary code.
There is a second course which the Nature Conservancy Council would be able to take in extreme circumstances where there was an important site and where they had very good reason to suspect that were they to notify it as a site of special scientific interest it would immediately be destroyed before the provisions in the Bill had any power to stop it. That is for them to go straight to the Secretary of State

483
under Clause 29 for an order to be put on the site where the appeal procedures take place while the site is protected, rather than in this case under Clause 28 where the appeal procedures take place before the site is protected. If the noble Earl could confirm I am right about that latter point, the fact that this is covered in the voluntary code and that Clause 29 will be available to the Nature Conservancy Council will go a long way towards meeting the very real worries which would otherwise exist.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, were quite right to raise this point. Quite clearly, the whole purpose of this arrangement in the Bill is that where there is a notification of a site of special scientific interest and the farmer wants to do something, then he is obliged to notify the Nature Conservancy Council, and there should be a three-month period during which the Nature Conservancy Council can object. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked whether it will be in the code of practice that the farmer should not disrupt the site of special scientific interest within that three-month period unless he has permission from the Nature Conservancy Council to do so. The answer to that question is, Yes.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but my point was a slightly different one on the earlier amendment. That is, when the Nature Conservancy Council notify a farmer that they intend to make a site of special scientific interest, and before it becomes a site of special scientific interest, there is a three-month period during which the owner or occupier can object to the Nature Conservancy Council about this proposed notification, but there is nothing in the Bill to stop the owner or occupier from destroying the site during those three months. I hope that the code of practice will make it clear that this appeal procedure has not been provided so that everybody can destroy the site while they are appealing. It is a straightforward point but it refers to an earlier stage.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer is a straightforward one and it is in the affirmative. The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked the same question.
Baroness White: My Lords, Yes.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl has not covered Clause 29 and the use of that clause.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right and I apologise for not having done so. It will be possible to use the Clause 29 provisions under those circumstances.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend and the Government for those two clarifying amendments, Nos. 58A and 58B. At the same time may I ask him a question. Before doing so, may I assure my noble friend that I am extremely anxious to accept the new proposals contained in Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 because of an overriding desire on the part of the agricultural interest to show
484
goodwill over this matter. Will my noble friend keep an open mind about the advisability of there remaining a power for the Secretary of State to call in a proposed site of special scientific interest designation under certain circumstances? It could be useful, I believe, for all parties, supposing in particular that a three-month consultation period proved to be an undesirably contentious period—or if wider issues than could be readily dealt with during that period happened to arise.
I believe that it is necessary to bear in mind that the ordinary SSSI is now a somewhat different animal from the case when the Bill left your Lordships' House and went to another place. To do this would enable one to keep the Nature Conservancy Council's advisory role and avoid any unfortunate difficulties which could arise with cries of "dictatorship" and so forth. One must bear in mind that the council is appointed and not an elected body whereas the Secretary of State is, of course, elected. I believe this to be a constructive and conciliatory suggestion and I trust that the House will take it in that spirit.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I will speak only if I have leave of the House so to do because I have already spoken once. My noble friend said that the SSSIs are a different animal now from what they were when they left this House. I do not agree that he is right. The sites of special scientific interest are the same sites that they were before and only what happens to them is different. I will certainly take into account what my noble friend has said but I will go no further than that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.2 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
59 Clause 29, page 27, line 37, leave out from 'agreement' to 'under' in line 38 and insert 'for the acquisition of the interest of the person who gave the notice under subsection (4) or an agreement'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 60, as both amendments are related. It may be convenient if I explain that both amendments are intended solely to clarify the meaning of the sentence and to improve the drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 Page 67, line 39, after second 'Act' insert 'providing for the making by them of payments to that person'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agre with the Commons in the said amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
61 Page 28, line 2, after 'rejection' insert 'or withdrawal'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amend

485
ment No. 61. It has always been the Government's intention that the restrictions on harmful operations in areas which are subject to orders under Clause 29 should continue to apply for at least three months beyond the breakdown of negotiations for voluntary agreement in order that the Nature Conservancy Council should have time if necessary to start compulsory purchase proceedings. The amendment makes it clear that the restrictions will continue to apply for this period in cases where the council withdraws an unsuccessful offer as well as in cases where an offer is explicitly refused.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
62 Page 28, line 30, at end insert—
'(10) An order made under this section in relation to land in Scotland shall be registered either—

(a) in a case where the land affected by the order is registered in that Register, in the Land Register of Scotland; or

(b) in any other case, in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62. Orders under Clause 29 will automatically be registrable as local land charges in England and Wales, so prospective purchasers will know of the existence of any order, but specific provision is necessary to provide the same effect in Scotland and this amendment makes that provision.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in thee said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
63 Page 28, line 30, at end insert—
'(11) A report made under section 17(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 for any year shall set out particulars of any areas of land as respects which orders under this section have come into operation during that year.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 63A. Amendment No. 63 provides that the Nature Conservancy Council shall publish in its annual report details of land in respect of which orders have been made and such information will assist informed debate about habitat protection. Amendment No. 63A, which seeks to amend this, is the technical amendment. The Nature Conservancy Council submits annual reports to the Secretary of State under paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973. This amendment will correct an erroneous reference in the Commons Amendment No. 63 that reports are made under Section 17(1) of the Act.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 63:
63A Line 1, leave out ("made under section 17(1)") and insert ("submitted by the Council to the Secretary of State under paragraph 17").
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Moved, that the amendment to Commons Amendment No. 63 be agreed to—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
64 Clause 30, page 28, line 31, leave out 'This section', and insert' Subsection (IA) applies where an order is made under section 29 and subsection (2)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64, and it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 to 70. These amendments provide for the payment of compensation to any landowners who suffer a reduction in the value of their interest in land as the result of an order made under Clause 29. Your Lordships will recall that the Government had previously thought that such a provision was unnecessary in view of the provision which was made for any losses arising from enforced delays. But in recognition of the concern which was expressed in both Houses, we propose these amendments. We do not expect that the proposed orders will in fact reduce land values in any way which has not already been covered by the existing compensation proposals, but the amendments provide that if that does happen, compensation will be available.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness White: My Lords, can the noble Lord enlighten us and say whether this will be a taxable or a tax-free capital gain?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should have to take advice on that question.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it appears to me that there will be a delay between the time of making an order and assessing compensation. This is contrary to present practice. My other point is that, although subsection (2B) gives guidance to owners and ocucpiers, guidance is really needed on depreciation of a tenant's interest. I do not think that there is any such guidance in the Bill. I will fully understand if my noble friend cannot give me detailed answers to those two points; in fact, it is not really my subject but that of my noble friend Lord Caithness, who would like to thank the Government very much for tabling this amendment. But perhaps my noble friend the Minister will give some thought to the two points I have raised, because I believe compensation law would be breached.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I make just one comment, which is to welcome what the noble Earl said when introducing the amendment. I was very interested to hear him say that he did not think compensation would be payable under these provisions because it was already covered. I imagine that the

487
explanation for that is that Clause 29 does not actually do anything in the long term to prevent someone destroying an SSSI; it provides 12 months' protection but no more. It has always seemed to me to be stretching the limits of one's imagination and the generosity which we all feel towards farmers and landowners to suggest that that really amounted to a massive loss in the capital value of their land. To have the Government's confirmation of the inadequacy of the protection provided by the Bill in a rather indirect way is always fairly welcome.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to answer those points, I really do think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, does have—if I might say so in the most courteous way—a warped mind.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I need to, to deal with noble Lords opposite.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all the Government have done in fact is to try and meet the feelings which were expressed in both Houses, and this they have done. When I said that we did not believe this provision would be used very much, the reason was that anyone who has suffered loss because of the SSSI of the management order has to prove that the land without an order and the land with a management agreement is of a different value. If the management agreement is worked out in such a way as it is anticipated it will be worked out, it is not very likely that there will be much difference. That is the reason why I said that this provision has been put in to safeguard any position that may arise, but we do not expect it to happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me a question about taxation: I have now been able to refresh my memory and I can tell her that any such gains would he subject to capital gains tax. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said that there was to be a delay. In fact what one would be doing in this case would be determining at a later date what the value of the land would have been at an earlier date and I think there is nothing new in that principle. He referred to the position of the tenants. I will take into account what he has said about that and will look further at it, but my immediate consideration is that this is the value of the capital land, which of course is the landlord's property and it would not affect the tenants, but I will look into that point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
65 Page 28, line 34, leave out 'section 29' and insert 'that section'.
66 Page 28, line 36, at end insert—
'(1A) The Council shall pay compensation to any person having at the time of the making of the order an interest in land comprised in an agricultural unit comprising land to which the order relates who, on a claim made to the Council within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this section shows that the value of his interest is less than what it would have been if the order had not been made; and the amount of the compensation shall be equal to the difference between the two values.'.
67 Page 28, line 44, leave out 'the making of the order', and insert 'reason of paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of section 29 having effect as modified by subsection (6) or (7) of that section'.
68 Page 29, line 2, leave out 'the making of the order', and insert 'that paragraph having effect as so modified'.
69 Page 29, line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—

(a) an interest in land shall be valued as at the time when the order is made;

(b) where a person, by reason of his having more than one interest in land, makes more than one claim under that subsection in respect of the same order, his various interests shall be valued together;

(c) section 10 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (mortgages, trusts for sale and settlements) or section 10 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (restricted interests in land) shall apply in relation to compensation under that subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part I of that Act.

(2B) For the purposes of assessing any compensation payable under subsection (1A), the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 or section 12 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 shall, so far as applicable and subject to any necessary modifications, have effect as they have effect for the purpose of assessing compensation for the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land.
(2C) No claim shall be made under subsection (1A) in respect of any order under section 29 unless the Secretary of State has given notice under paragraph 6(1) or (2) of Schedule 11 of his decision in respect of the order; and, without prejudice to subsection (2A)(a), that decision will be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the order.'.
70 Page 29, line 23, at end insert—
'(7C) In this section "agricultural unit" means land which is occupied as a unit for agricultural purposes, including any dwelling-house or other building occupied by the same person for the purpose of farming the land.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons with their Amendments Nos. 65 to 70 en bloc. These have just been spoken to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
71 Clause 31, page 29, leave out lines 33 to 35.
72 Clause 31, page 30, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 17 and insert 'If, within the period specified in an order under this section, the person against whom it was made fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with it, he'.
73 Clause 31, line 18, leave out '£500' and insert '£1,000'.
74 Clause 31, line 20, leave out '£50' and insert '£100'.
75 Clause 31, line 21, at end insert—
'(6A) If, within the period specified in an order under this section, any operations specified in the order have not been carried out, the Nature Conservancy Council may enter the land and carry out those operations and recover from the person against whom the order was made any expenses reasonably incurred by them in doing so.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendments Nos. 71 to 75 en bloc. These amendments strengthen the provision which was inserted in the Bill by your Lordships whereby a court may order a person who has been convicted of an offence under Clause 29

489
to restore the land to its original condition. Amendment No. 71 deletes the reference to a court having regard to a person's means when deciding whether an order should be made. It seems that these words were superfluous. In any event the courts will have regard to the person's means and it seems sensible to remove from the Bill any suggestion that the offence will be viewed lightly.
Amendment No. 72 is a drafting amendment. Amendments 73 and 74 increase to £1,000 plus £100 a day the penalty for failure to comply with a restoration order, and Amendment No. 75 gives the Nature Conservancy Council power to restore land and to recover costs from any person who fails to comply with an order—a measure which I am sure from the time of your Lordships' debates on this provision will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
"Duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest.
(1) Where an application for a grant under a scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (farm capital grants) is made as respects expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purpose of activities on land notified or to be incurred for the purpose of activities on land notified under section 28(1) or land to which section 29(3) applies, the appropriate Minister—

(a) shall, so far as may be consistent with the purposes of the scheme and section 29 of the said Act of 1970, so exercise his functions thereunder as to further the conservation of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest; and

(b) where the Nature Conservancy Council have objected to the making of the grant on the ground that the activities in question have destroyed or damaged or will destroy or damage that flora or fauna or those features, shall not make the grant except after considering the objection and, in the case of land in England, after consulting with the Secretary of State.

(2) Where, in consequence of an objection by the Council, an application for a grant as respects expenditure to be incurred is refused on the ground that the activities in question will have such an effect as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the Council shall, within three months of their receiving notice of the appropriate Minister's decision, offer to enter into, in the terms of a draft submitted to the applicant, an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act—

(a) imposing restrictions as respects those activities; and

(b) providing for the making by them of payments to the applicant.

(3) In this section" the appropriate Minister" has the same meaning as in section 29 of the said Act of 1970."
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76. This amendment forms part of the Government's response to Clause 39 of the Bill as it left this House—the so-called "Sandford clause" which was named, oddly enough, after my noble friend Lord Sandford. I shall have more to say on the general position on this matter when we come to Amendment No. 101, which is the Government's recasting of Clause 39. At this point I will simply explain that the
490
purpose of this new clause is to extend those areas to which the principles of subsections (3) and (4) of Amendment No. 101 apply, to include all sites of special scientific interest and to name the Nature Conservancy Council as the body with the right of objection, on the grounds stated, to farm capital grant applications which are made under the Agriculture Act 1970 and which may affect such areas.
This is a matter on which the Government have gone significantly beyond the terms of the original Sandford amendment and I am sure your Lordships will welcome this new clause. As I have said, I will defer, if I may, my comments on the substance of the Government's response to my noble friend's former amendment until we debate Amendment No. 101 itself. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, there is an amendment to this amendment, which is No. 76A.
6.16 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved the following amendment (No. 76A) as an amendment to Amendment No. 76:
76A Subsection (2), line 5, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 76A and also to speak, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 101A and 106A and 106D, which are consequential. Amendment No. 101A is to all intents and purposes the same as Amendment No. 76A.
I should like to start by saying what these amendments do not do. I am sure that some noble Lords will say that these amendments stop farmers developing their land in the interests of conservation. They do not. They stop farmers' automatic entitlement to compensation for loss of grant. Farmers can still lime, slag and reseed moorland in national parks, plough up an SSSI or install an "eyesorish" grain silo, but at their own expense.
My Lords, I think that these are the most important amendments that we are going to discuss today. It has been generally agreed that the voluntary code of conservation is much better than the compulsory code. The snags to both are clear. With the voluntary code it is impossible to stop a determined barbarian of a farmer; with the compulsory code it is impossible to stop the determined and trendy bureaucrat, with nothing to lose, dramatically affecting someone else's livelihood. The unpublished National Parks: a Study of Rural Economics, which was printed in August, takes the revolutionary step of urging that farming practices which damage the landscape should be subject to planning controls. I sincerely hope that we never have to get to that state, and perhaps the Department of the Environment is wise not to publish that report until after the passage of this Bill.
We have come now finally to Clauses 31 and 39 of this Bill. These lay duties on the Minister of Agriculture to take into account conservation issues when allowing farm improvement grants. They go

491
much further than the 1968 Act and there is no doubt that they are, except for one small word, an improvement. As they stand they inhibit the Nature Conservancy Council or the national parks authorities from making objections on conservation grounds to farm capital grant schemes.
I say that because these clauses say that if the Nature Conservancy Council or the national parks authorities object to a scheme on conservation grounds and the objection is sustained, they have to offer a management agreement with the landowner having a choice of one of three forms of financial compensation. Where the restriction is permament, a capital sum; where the restriction is for 20 years, a capital sum or else an annual payment throughout that period or a period to be agreed.
If they offer a grant this must inhibit them from objecting—a perfect example of Morton's fork. Either these agencies have enough money to object when they like, which is going to encourage people to put in for a grant which they may not really intend to use and the national parks authorities, together with the Nature Conservancy Council, will become a "rip-off" merchants' paradise. Or, if they do not have the money, the two or three people who will get the management agreements will be the lucky ones and it will cause jealousy and lack of environmental control by those who do not get the compensation.
There is, however, possibly a third option, and that is for the NCC and the NPAs to behave as if they had all the money in the world, object when they felt they had to and, in effect, blackmail the Government into paying. I have spoken to the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, Sir Ralph Verney, along these lines and I know they are taking the view that they will have as much money as they need to object.
It is said that the ADAS tea party approach has been working well for the last 15 months. It has been working but, I suggest to your Lordships, this is because there is as yet no compulsion. But even here there are signs of strain. Mr. Theo Burril, the Peak National Park officer, has written to my noble friend Lord Sandford, setting out certain worries and objections that he has. He is also saying the present system is already under strain after 15 months. In the event of compulsion to pay compensation, a farmer is going to press his ADAS officer very strongly for the reason he has been turned down for grant. If the ADAS officer says, "Oh well, it was the Nature Conservancy Council or the national parks authority not really liking it on conservation grounds", that surely is an objection. The fact that it has not been official will make the ill-feeling even worse, or the farmer will become litigious.
My Lords, let us think for a moment of pension funds. The duties of the trustees of pension funds are to maximise the value of the assets they hold. They have bought a farm, and in it there is a large site of special scientific interest, whose destruction will increase their profit. They hear that they could get a grant for doing nothing to that site, provided the Nature Conservancy Council objected and the objection was sustained by the Minister. Of course they would be legally bound to press for the grant as hard as they could, and provided that the site was
492
sufficiently important the Nature Conservancy Council would have to object and the taxpayer would have to pay.
At the national parks conference the Secretary of State said that the Countryside Commission will fund 75 per cent. of all monies paid for Norfolk Broads management agreements. He did not say that the Treasury would automatically top up the Countryside Commission's budget to pay for these agreements. If it does not, the local authorities will have to raise supplementary rates for the national parks authorities for their objections. We know what Mr. Heseltine's views are on supplementary rates. The Bill itself says the financial effects are minimal. Therefore, I ask my noble friend who will reply: Can the Minister give a categorical statement that all monies for all management agreements will be forthcoming automatically?—for if he cannot the effect of "shall" as opposed to "may" will be catastrophic.
My noble friend Lord Peel owns large estates in the Yorkshire Dales national park. Let us assume for the sake of argument that he feels that he would like to lime, slag and re-seed, for perfectly good agricultural reasons—and the Aberystwyth Research Station has shown how it can be done. My noble friend applies for grant for the turning of open moorland to green grass. The Yorkshire Dales park objects—Mr. Harvey, the officer, has told me that he certainly would not like his Lordship to do that. This would be conservationally disastrous. If the Act were to say "shall" my noble friend Lord Peel would collect anything from £5 to £20 per acre per year for not ruining his own grouse moors, something which he probably has no intention of doing in the first place.
When Lord Kilmuir moved the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Act 1954 in your Lordships' House, abolishing the Central Land Board, he said (col. 437):
"Some of these owners had no intention of developing, but were paid out of this fund ".
The principle that applied then was thought bad by a Conservative Government. What has changed? I believe that Brooks's Club put in for planning consent to pull themselves down, knowing they were a listed building; they knew that they were going to get paid compensation; they collected £90,000, and I believe invested it in wine. White's tried, but missed the boat. So having repealed one previous example of abuse, why are we enacting the potential for yet more abuse?
Is it really conceivable that a Conservstive Government is going to enact a piece of legislation which would enable my noble friend Lord Peel to collect between £75,000 and £300,000 a year, which presumably would be taxed as earned income, when there are 3 million unemployed? I believe my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire also has large estates in the Peak District National Park. Of course, here one is taking a slightly extreme view, but there is no reason to suppose that this is not perfectly possible under the Bill. I make no bones in saying that I would love to have a large site of special scientific interest on my property. I would have no hesitation in applying for a grant and hoping that the taxpayer would pay, not only to line my own pocket but also to show the fallacy and the danger there is in this Bill.
Even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds may feel obliged to put in for drainage grant in the Ouse Marshes in order to realise the economic potential of their property there. This would, of course, be anti-conservationist, but when the NCC object, as they would, the society would get a large subscription increase. The financial implications here are horrendous and worry many people; these include the Countryside Commission. The objection was hidden in a long letter to The Times by their chairman Derek Barber. I have spoken to every single senior officer of every single national park and they all think exactly as I do. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Council for National Parks, the Association of County Councils, who incidentally have not even been consulted on this, are all of the same opinion. It is as if Manchester United and Arsenal and their fan clubs were all of one voice.
My Lords, let us put ourselves in the position of someone who, at the request of the Nature Conservancy Council or of the national parks authority has already carried out his public duty, as admittedly large numbers of farmers have done, by conserving his site of special scientific interest. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has 90 acres of sites of special scientific interest. They have all done this without compensation. What are their feelings going to be if they, having not applied for a farm improvement grant, see their next door neighbour get a whacking great sum for not doing exactly the same as what they are not doing for free? Of course it is going to encourage the civilised to apply for grants, and if ADAS say there are perfectly good sound farming reasons to plough up this land, or to build a grain silo on it or to drain it or any equally valid reason, they will then go ahead and do it, or receive compensation for not getting a grant to do it.
If the objection is sustained on conservation grounds by the Minister of Agriculture because of an environmental objection by someone other than the NCC or the national parks authority—for instance, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or any of the other environment groups—then there will be even more ground for discontent. Surely the right approach is that compensation should be paid where it can be paid in cases of hardship or necessity. The standard will probably have to vary according to the cash limits imposed by the Treasury, and we all know how generous they are being at the moment!
But compensation should not be as of right for loss of taxpayers' grant. After all, there is already some element of planning of agricultural land. If there is a tree preservation order put on an old oak forest there is no compensation, no management agreement, and the order is an absolute bar to cutting that down. Here we are saying that you should not get the grant automatically. One cannot clear an old and good tithe barn on one's property. I have at home a very beautiful beamed 18th century tithe barn; that has got a preservation order on it, and I cannot pull it down and put up a modern asbestos-clad building. So there is some element of planning and there is already some element of not allowing farmers to do absolutely everything they want to do with their land in the law as it stands.
494
My Lords, Halvergate is going to cost £65,000 a year to safeguard 20 per cent. of that area for 20 years. To apply the same safeguards to the rest of the Broads would cost £1 million. The mind boggles at the global sums that would be required to safeguard, through management agreements, the whole of the countryside.
If the Minister is prepared to say that the objections will be so rare, and the times that they have to be sustained by the Minister of Agriculture so rare, then it does not matter if the clause is changed from "shall" to "may", because they will always be able to offer compensation within their budget. In that case again, the change from "shall" to "may" will do no harm. If the objections are going to be so great that they have to pick and choose the numbers which they press, then I suggest that unfairness, jealousy and skulduggery will arise and, my Lords, my noble friend Lord Peel does not need, even though he may like, £300,000 a year of the taxpayers' money. I beg to move.
Moved, That, as an amendment to Amendment No. 76, Amendment No. 76A be agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
6.31 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in rising to second Amendment No. 76A, I, too, propose to speak mainly to Amendment No. 101A. As your Lordships will have gathered these two amendments are in effect identical, differing only in that they refer respectively to SSSIs in this case and the national parks in the other.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I have received personal expressions of concern from a number of national park officers. They have expressed concern both about the principle and about the practical implications of Commons Amendments Nos. 76 and 101. I would guess that other noble Lords, too, have received strongly worded objections from such bodies as the Association of County Councils, the Royal Town Planning Institute and others. The noble Earl mentioned this, but your Lordships may well have seen a press statement following a press conference held last Monday, 12th October, in the name of the CPRE, the RSPB, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and the Council for National Parks, of which I have the great privilege to be president. The Countryside Commission in a written statement supports both of these amendments. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that feelings of concern among all who care about the environment are running pretty high on this matter.
As regards the principle, there is a strong feeling that it is wrong that mandatory compensatory payments should be made from public funds to prevent agricultural schemes being undertaken which are deemed at governmental level not to be in the wider public interest. It is wrong to depart from the present principle underpinning the present practice which is endorsed and improved—and I freely admit that—by Clauses 31 and 39 of the Bill, by which there is eligibility to be considered for compensation, but no entitlement. There is no obligation to make such payments in management agreements, but there is local discretion to do so or not to do so in circumstances which can only be assessed and agreed locally.
Local discretion is the very essence of this matter

495
and yet under the terms of the Commons amendments the Nature Conservancy Council and the national park authorities or the planning authorities will have no discretion: they will have to implement ministerial guidelines—about which, incidentally, they have not yet been consulted—and they will have to pay up.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that the system is working well. However, he referred to certain strains in the system and I hope that he will not mind if I suggest that those strains will sooner or later become intolerable if, as we now understand from research undertaken by the University of Birmingham, the annual losses of moorland to agricultural development in national parks may be running at something over 12,000 acres a year. Sooner or later reserve powers—to be used, of course, only as a last resort—will have to be added to this legislation to check losses of this order. But the system is working well—and I freely admit this from all that I have heard—in the sense to which the Government rightly attach so much importance as indeed do all sensible environmentalists, in maintaining good relations between the negotiating parties—that is, of course, between, for example, on the one hand the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association and on the other hand the national park authorities, the Nature Conservancy Council and the amenity bodies.
So much for the principle. When it comes to the practical application of mandatory compensation, no one from whom I have heard or to whom I have spoken considers it realistic that enviromental interests —that is, landscape, public amenity and nature conservancy—can be defended at the price which will be necessary; that is, the cost of compulsory compensation for all farmers making schemes which are adjudged to be damaging to the enviroinent in all the national parks and, of course, all those on whose land SSSIs are located, on a virtually indefinite timescale following the precedent of the Exmoor guidelines. I shall await with great interest the Minister's answers to the questions which have been put to him by the noble Earl.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said—and I hope that I have understood him aright—that the financial effects of the Bill are minimal according to the Government. I refer your Lordships to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at page v, where it reads:
"The provisions relating to the Countryside Commission national parks and management agreements require no additional expenditure".
I must ask the Minister whether that statement is still valid. It can only mean that the Government undertake to foot the whole bill. I need hardly ask whether the Government presume to commit successor governments to do so in respect of agreements containing annual payments over a period of 30 years: it is quite clear that they have no such authority.
The noble Earl has pointed to the evident fact that the national park authorities could not foot the bill without massive Government subvention. All 10 of the NPAs together have an aggregate budget of little more than half that of the Nature Conservancy Council. The result, put in words different from those of the noble Earl, will be fewer objections from the national park authorities to proposals for development
496
despite the environmental damage they will cause; accelerated losses to the landscape; bitterness and frustration among all those who are responsible for the protection of our countryside and all those countless others who value our landscape and its leisure amenities; and worsening relationships between all concerned.
There is the additional factor of forestry, which is now to be subject to the notification and negotiation procedures in Clause 40(2)(b). This widens the compensation potential quite enormously. I should like to quote from a letter which I have received from the national park officer of the Northumberland National Park, who gives as an example his experience of negotiations during the past 18 months. He writes as follows:
"Over the past 18 months we have objected formally, or indicated that we would do so, to sonic 3,000 acres of proposed new planning. If pushed to management agreements, and if compensation was in the order of the Exmoor figures"—
and he says that he suspects that they could be—
"we should be committed to annual payments of getting on for 10 per cent. of our revenue on these schemes alone".
Everybody knows all the other tasks that are laid upon the national park committees and the planning authorities.
The Secretary of State, who addressed the national park authorities at their annual conference in Norfolk last month—and I was glad to be there—said that he was very proud of the Bill striking, as he claimed it did, a fair balance between all interests concerned. For lack of reserve powers I believe that the balance had not been redressed before the insertion of these Commons amendments. The imbalance is now far more serious. I am the first to agree that this Bill contains some helpful and welcome features, but on the score of these two Commons amendments I would say that there are no grounds for satisfaction or self-satisfaction whatever.
It can be argued that this Bill, as now amended by the Commons, should be allowed to work, should be tried out and allowed to prove itself, and that further amendments can be made later, if need be, in the light of experience. I predict that the experience of that course of action could be irreversible damage to the countryside and to relationships alike. We cannot afford such a policy. Our Amendments Nos. 76A and 101A are essential in both these respects, and I hope that your Lordships will support them.
Lord Digby: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has I think in effect said that one noble Lord is profligate and all arbitrators are incompetent, because if indeed the noble Earl, Lord Peel, could have got £300,000 a year extra income by developing his moors he is pretty incompetent not to have done so in the past. I am, of course, talking about extra income. I believe that the noble Earl has misunderstood the basis of compensation for this. The first point is that an owner of land will have his potential income diminished by not being allowed to carry out a normal agricultural operation on his land.
Lord Melchett: No, my Lords.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I could

497
interrupt my noble friend for a moment. This is exactly what he is not going to be able to do. He is not going to be allowed a grant. The amendment does not allow someone to be stopped from farming. We must keep that absolutely in the forefront of our minds. We are not stopping anyone from doing anything.
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Digby: My Lords, the fact remains that if this goes through, surely the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will not be able to improve his moorland. The basis of compensation here must be—and, as I understand it, is—the difference between the income that that land is producing at the moment, the income that it would produce if developed, less all the costs that that development would involve. First, there are reclamation costs. I have been through this, although I admit not in this country but in Ireland. The process of reclamation there turned out to be five times as expensive as the value of the land would be when reclaimed. Therefore, there was no financial advantage. So from the extra income that he would receive reclamation costs, say, over 10 years have first to be deducted by the arbitrator.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again in the noble Lord's speech. I am sure that he does not wish to mislead the House, but I am not sure that he is talking about the same amendment on the Marshalled List. The amendment that we are discussing has nothing to do with the level of compensation; the amendment that we are discussing affects whether compensation is paid when a grant is denied, and, as I understand it, that is all.
Lord Digby: My Lords, yes, but the argument has been produced that huge amounts of compensation will be paid by the national parks. I do not believe that that is true at all. The actual compensation will be quite small. Not only are there all the initial costs, but the costs of keeping it and the costs—
Lord Melchett: My Lords, no, that is not true.
Lord Digby: My Lords, the noble Lord says that that is not true. Doubtless the noble Earl the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. After all, all the arguments used by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, were on the point of compensation, and there is also the existing use value that must be taken off this. An arbitrator will purely assess the amount that the owner is losing. If he is not allowed something in the public interest, I think that it has been accepted so far in this Bill that he should be compensated. I shall leave the matter there at the moment and doubtless I shall be corrected if I am wrong. If I am correct, I am sure that my other noble friends will take up my argument.
Earl Peel: My Lords, having heard this very exciting news about my windfall profits of between £75,000 and £300,000 a year about which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has spoken, and despite my excitement at this, I must assure your Lordships that in fact I
498
shall preserve my grouse moors, which goes to show that conservation and shooting go hand in glove.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, one of the main objectives of this Bill is to strike a sensible balance between agricultural activities and all aspects of nature conservation. I believe that until this point, this objective has largely been achieved. The voluntary codes have been maintained in relation to SSSIs and moorland conservation orders, and thus the Government have declared their faith in the agricultural industry to bear the responsibility placed on it. How we all hope that this will be justified!
But I believe that the introduction of Clauses 31 and 39 could be the equivalent of dropping a large brick on the very delicate scales of balance between the two camps, the agricultural camp and the conservation camp. The incentive for farmers to improve output through grants is obviously right and proper. I welcome compensation for the genuine loss of capital value or established revenue caused by the imposition of an order under Clause 29. But the very idea, as an objection to good conservation reasons, of compensation for a notional return on capital financed to a substantial degree by public funds is quite another matter. In my opinion, it is totally unacceptable. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said, it is a grant for doing nothing.
Of course, it can be argued that ADAS would allow what they regard as genuine cases to get through the net. But I believe that the pressures on them could be enormous and could result in undue tension developing between them, the NCC and the national park authorities at a time when their total co-operation is of such fundamental importance. Indeed, I should mention, with regard to the 1980 agricultural Act and the question of notification of agricultural buildings within special areas—that is, those which are outside normal planning regulations—that there is evidence to show that schemes are going ahead without the proper consultation procedure and, in the result, they are out of keeping with the sensitive areas in which they are being built.
In addition, grants which are forthcoming from the national park authorities to meet special environmental requirements are being taken by MAFF as part of the growth payment of grant, enabling MAFF to pay a reduced amount. I know that these two points are relatively small, but I think that they illustrate that problems exist which I am sure will be exacerbated should the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Onslow be defeated.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, the financial implications of the Government amendment are contrary to what is stated in the Financial Memorandum. He mentioned that:
"the provisions relating to the Countryside Commission, national parks and management agreements require no additional public expenditure".
If the Government amendment goes through, this would be unlikely, to say the least. Secondly, surely those words:
"…provisions relating to the Countryside Commission, national parks and management agreements require no additional expenditure"
go totally against the present Government's policy.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I should like to say how greatly I welcome the speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl, Lord Peel, because I think he has put his finger on so many of the points worrying a great number of us. I would remind your Lordships that the only matter which is strictly before us at the moment is an amendment which asks that the word "shall" should be replaced by the word "may". In other words, that there should be some element of discretion left to the Nature Conservancy Council on the one hand and the national park authorities in the appropriate circumstances on the other, so that they would not be under an absolute obligation, which is the situation in the Bill as at present drafted, to offer grants even though they feel that the case for not proceeding with a particular agricultural or forestry development is sustainable in light of conservation considerations, if they are absolutely obliged in the circumstances where agreement has not been reached in the earlier stages with the assistance of ADAS. I should like to say how delighted many of us are that in Amendment No. 101 ADAS has been at long last formally brought into the proceedings. But it has not, of course, been brought in in the comprehensive way which many of us would greatly have preferred.
The Strutt Committee, to whom some of us gave evidence some years back, had the root of the matter, in which they were arguing for a comprehensive consideration of the situation where you had diverse interests of agricultural or forestry development on the one hand and enviromental, conservation or wildlife interests on the other. They urged that both landscape and wildlife criteria be built into the relevant MAFF grant aided scheme. That to my mind would have been the ideal solution. But the Government have taken one rather timid step in this direction in Amendment No. 101, in which they have brought in ADAS to give advice to the farming community on the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, as well as also diversifying into other enterprises who might be of commercial benefit to the rural community.
That is good as far as it goes, but it still leaves this confrontation between the farming interests and the environmental interests. I am surprised that we have not had any representation so far from the Association of County Councils' members. I am sure there must he some present. We greatly miss the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who I know is not able to be here today. Those of you who have received some notes from the Association of County Councils who are, after all, major authorities in the national park areas in all but two of the national parks, will see that they point out this mandatory obligation that if you object to a grant you must then as a park authority offer compensation. As they say, the amendments which we are discussing at this moment appear to remove the spirit of agreement altogether, because they place on one party the obligation to offer an agreement—and they put the word into quotation marks—and to pay money in compensation according to a formula agreed elsewhere.
No one so far has mentioned the other amendment which I think we are discussing here, which I think is No. 106, which is concerned with the financial provisions
500
and guidance. We really are being presented with a pig in a poke, because we are informed that consultations have been proceeding about these financial guidelines, and one of the reasons which may be advanced by Ministers as to why this amendment which is under discussion should not be accepted would be, "Don't worry. Everything will be all right because the guidelines will be so wise and so practical that you really need have no concern at all." But we do not know what these guidelines are going to be.
Discussions have been going on between the departments, naturally enough, between the organisations of those who have direct financial interests—in other words, the NFU, the CLA, and the timber growers—and the two statutory bodies, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission have been consulted. As we have seen from the long apologia from the chairman of the Countryside Commission in The Times this week, he shows a certain reluctance to bite the hand that feeds him. There has been no discussion that we know of with the national parks authorities. There has certainly been none that I have heard of with the major voluntary organisations as to what these financial guidelines might be.
It is only right that we should have a little more information, and in particular as to why the national park authorities, who would be very much concerned with any compensation that they might obligatorily have to pay, have not, as I understand it, been brought into these consultations as yet. But surely, the nub of all this is that if this amendment is not accepted we are faced with a situation, which again has been touched upon in one or two letters to The Times in recent days, that those who, in other circumstances, are denied making a profit from the land that they own if they wish to develop it by putting buildings on it—in other words, if they do not obtain planning consent—do not expect compensation.
We are not in fact from this side of the House objecting to there being some reasonable measure of compensation to the farming and forestry interests, as the case may be, if they are prevented from developing in certain directions which are deleterious to the environment. But to say that this must be mandatory, that there should be no discretion in the matter, that you will be obliged to give the money even though you may be absolutely convinced, the body concerned may be absolutely convinced that the person concerned never had any real intention of going ahead with the development for which he has been compensated for not undertaking, seems to me to be unstatesmanlike.
It is putting a certain group of people into a separate class as citizens, which is going to arouse a great deal of resentment. If you are obliging this to be done, instead of allowing it to be done with a decent discretion and relying on the knowledge and good sense of either the NCC or of the national park authorities, this can only exacerbate what I think can be a growing sense of exasperation concerning the fact that farmers as of right—as of right—will be able to claim sometimes very large sums indeed, because the levels of payments that have been agreed on two cases which have so far been determined under this kind of arrangement, the Exmoor case and the Norfolk Broads, are very substantial payments indeed. I think there will be very considerable resentment if it is felt that the bodies who

501
are in the best position to judge will not be allowed to use any discretion. They will be under an absolute obligation. If the matter goes to arbitration, if the agricultural grant was refused on the representation of either of the two bodies concerned, the national parks or the NCC, they will not be allowed to withdraw. They will have to meet the sum, as I understand the Bill, named by the arbitrator.
I can only plead with noble Lords in all parts of the House, and with Her Majesty's Government, to make this amendment to the Bill, and to say that it should be not an absolute right conferred on a particular group of citizens that they should he compensated for not doing something. It is not a right enjoyed by landowners in other circumstances, who, as I say, could vastly increase the value of their land if they were allowed planning permission for certain types of development. This will be a special group of citizens who will have a right against the taxpayers and ratepayers which no other body of citizens in the country will enjoy.
I therefore plead for the amendment, which we thought about very carefully. We are not going into any of the details of levels of compensation and so on. We are simply saying, "Pause for a moment, leave it as discretionary and trust the authorities, including the local authorities and the national parks, to reach sensible judgments, but do not force them". They will be put in an impossible situation, partly because nobody believes that the Government will supply all the money in all the cases; it is absolutely unrealistic to suggest that tht could be so. Therefore, there is great apprehension that objections will not be made when they should be made because the bodies concerned will say, "It is quite hopeless. We shall not have the resources to pay this mandatory grant". If it were left to their discretion, it would be healthier all round.
If the person concerned who is refused a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, because there is an environmental objection, knows that he has an absolute right to compensation in those circumstances, surely his professional advisers will tell him to hold out and not to come to an agreement, not to listen to ADAS and not to try to reach a sensible middle course. I am sure that if I were professionally advising a person in that situation I would say, "You are all right, chum. You have mandatory compensation coming to you if you do nothing". Imagine what the situation will be like between neighbours. This worries the national parks people especially, who say that while many of the farming community are very willing to go along, for a small sum of compensation, keeping their land in the way we feel it should be kept, why should those conscientious citizens be side by side with others who will take advantage to the last penny because of this mandatory right? For those considerations, I implore your Lordships to think very carefully on this issue. As I say, we are not stopping anything. We are simply saying: do not make it absolute, do not make it mandatory; leave an element of discretion.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment and briefly to show the other side of the picture. If we pass the amendment, we shall disturb the balance achieved so far, which I believe to be a valuable degree of consensus which
502
has been reached, and I thought it had been very broadly reached, and I still think that.
Baroness White: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord so soon in his speech. Would he not agree that the consensus is very far from complete and that those of us who have received representations from the ACC and other bodies recognise that they are very apprehensive indeed? There is no consensus there.
Lord Monk Bretton: For example, my Lords, I have heard no objection from the Nature Conservancy Council, among others, and I should have thought there was at least some degree of consensus, and I trust the noble Baroness will grant me that. The amendment endangers the principle of paying compensation in return for conservation measures undertaken by owners and occupiers of agricultural land, and briefly I would mention the case of the Pevensey Levels in Sussex because I was present at a number of the meetings which took place after the designation of that particular SSSI, so I heard a good many of the difficulties.
The first thing to remember in that case, of about 19,000 acres, is that it is highly fragmented in ownership, and they are nearly all small owners in any case. There was no question of a lack of goodwill towards conservation among those owners and occupiers, but there is no doubt that the fundamental stumbling block always came over the loss of the grants, and immediately they heard that one began to get the difficulty of people saying, "This is an attempt to maintain butterflies at our expense". Until then they had talked sensibly about the migrating birds and their wish, and everybody else's wish, to help them, which is what that SSSI is about. The danger therefore regarding loss of grant as something for which no form of compensation should be due is that one will lose the goodwill of those people, and without their goodwill it will be difficult to achieve the conservation measures one wants. It is important to make that point; it may not be entirely as other forms of compensation have been, but there are needs for it.
There is also the need for proper economic assessment. Of course, some of these schemes will prove to be expensive, and it is a good thing if that comes out because it may lead to the scrutiny of alternative methods to achieve the same conservation aim more economically. That is important not only to conservationists and agriculturalists but to everyone in the country; it is a question of the application of our national resources. I am sorry to take issue with my noble friend Lord Onslow on this because I would far rather hope that we could club together in an effort to make sure that the Government see to it that the national parks and the Nature Conservancy Council have enough money to deal with the problem.
I come to the question of what might be described as unmeritorious applications and the question of large payments and whether there will be large payments. Personally, I am not so hopeful that my family's interest in the Pevensey Levels will prove as remunerative as all that on this score. I hope and very much expect that arbitration procedures will be only a long-stop and that in most instances there will be

503
settlement on the Minister's guidelines, and I do not suppose the Minister's guidelines will be a giveaway.
If some very strange, fancy or surprising applications are put in for grant, there appears to be a good chance that they may be turned down by the Ministry of Agriculture on grounds other than conservation; they may not be viable, and I wonder very much about the business of turning a grouse moor into fertile pastures carrying a great head of stock. If the Ministry of Agriculture turn a grant down on grounds other than conservation, no compensation will be available, anyway. As I understand it, this compensation will be net of grant, which is by no means as favourable as might be imagined; it will be based on the profits a farmer would have made if he had undertaken works without grant aid.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord said, as if it was a surprising fact, that the compensation would be net of grant. Is he really suggesting that it might be possible that a farmer, when he is refused grant aid, should receive compensation which included the grant aid?
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, if the noble Lord studies this carefully, I think he will see that it reduces the amount of compensation that is available.
The Government can also do something to ward off the bluffers by including in the financial provisions measures which will ensure that the system caters only for the genuine. That is what I think is likely to happen. In general I would comment that arbitration awards and compensation have never in this country on the whole been a pushover, and I am not at all sure that they are going to be so in this case. I think it vital now, if we possibly can, to maintain the status quo established in the Bill, and I hope that I have presented some of the other side of the picture.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in rising to express my support for the amendment I might venture to hope that in do soing I shall also have the support of my noble friends on these Benches, even the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I mention faint doubt merely to illustrate that it is not only at Blackpool and at Brighton that differences within the parties occasionally manifest themselves.
I think that arguments in favour of the amendment, changing the word from "shall" to "may", have been made with the utmost clarity by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and indeed by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, put his finger on the crux of the matter when he said that preservation of the word "shall", as against "may", would inevitably mean that some people would get grants for doing nothing. Let me make it clear to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that I am not against people occasionally getting grants for not doing things. Sometimes it is necessary to pay landowners grants for not doing certain things which might have been economically valuable to them.
But I would go further than the point of the noble
504
Earl, Lord Peel, because I think that the clear evidence here is that without the amendment not only would people get grants for not doing things, but furthermore they would get grants for not doing things which they never had the slightest intention of doing. They would get grants for putting in an application to do something which they did not want to do, anyway. That is the real difficulty here. Of course we are dealing here not only with SSSIs and the Nature Conservancy Council, we are dealing also with moorland within designated areas of countryside, the national park authorities and the local authorities. With all those bodies funds are extremely limited. The inevitable consequence of leaving things as they are is that these bodies—the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the national park authorities—at present operating under very serious financial constraint would be tempted not to make objections at all to certain proposals that come forward because by so doing they could virtually bankrupt themselves. I know that in his speech to the national park conference at Norwich the Secretary of State has given certain undertakings with regard to forthcoming finance, but I do not think that the national park authorities will act until they actually have the money. They certainly have not got it now, nor to the best of my knowledge has the Nature Conservancy Council.
Of course it is perfectly possible that some of these bogus applications (if I may so call them) might be weeded out by the Ministry of Agriculture—I say, might be. But what if we had remained with the old concept of the Strutt Committee and its recommendations? The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to this. A recommendation of the Strutt Committee was that landscape and wildlife criteria should be built into the relevant MAFF grant-aided schemes as conditions of eligibility, and that provision be sought for paying grants to farmers and landowners for certain conservation works. Had we stayed with Strutt, then the amendment would not have been necessary. But we have not really stayed with Strutt. We have left MAFF merely to give advice and say. "Yes, this agricultural project would qualify for grant", then leaving it to the Nature Conservancy Council or the national park authority to step in at the end of the day and say, "No, you can't go ahead with that", and to lodge an objection. Then those bodies, not of course the Ministry of Agriculture, would have to pay the compensation.
All week I have been asked why am I so anxious about this matter; the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is happy with the present situation. I have studied the Bill very carefully and I have read its Long Title. Nowhere is it stated that this is a Bill designed to achieve the happiness of the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Sandford. But I am bound to say that I believe that Lord Sandford's happiness rests on his personal belief that the battle which has been waged within the Ministry of Agriculture over the Strutt Report has been won by those who have conservation very close to their hearts. If I believed that, as I think the noble Lord believes it. then perhaps I should not be as worried as I am about the present situation. But frankly I do not really believe that, and since I do not believe it, I honestly feel that we must have the amendment to leave out "shall" and insert "may". Then we

505
could leave the Nature Conservancy Council, the national park authorities and the local authorities concerned with a discretion, thereby discouraging purely bogus applications made solely for the purpose of obtaining grant.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about grants, because the question of grants has been bandied around the floor. For better or worse every civilised country supports its agriculture, and the way, for better or for worse, that we in this country do it is through grants. I think I am right in saying that in France it is done by way of a cheap interest rate. If your Lordships are saying, which you are saying, that certain farmers should not be entitled to grants because they are in a certain area, you are discriminating against those particular farmers. I put it to your Lordships that if we had cheap interest rates, as in France, would you say that my neighbour on Snowdon should not have cheap interest rates? That would be grossly unfair because, with the best will in the world, I think that on the lowland I am better off than he is, and I would still get the grants. So let us be careful about this grant business. If you take away the grant, you must give the farmer something else instead, and this is what your Lordships are going to give him in the Bill. I pray that your Lordships do not muddle yourselves over the question of grant. I am not going further into grant, because it concerns the entire system of agricultural support, and there are many people here better qualified than I to have a 10-hour debate on that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady White, reminded us, whether to have the word "shall" or "may" is the point of the amendment. Those two words strike at the two basic ingredients of the Bill. They strike, first, at the principle of voluntary co-operation for me, the farmer, and help for my farmers. They strike at that, and if we insert the word "may", it knocks that one. Secondly, the point strikes at the principle that when a farmer is forced to conserve, (as most of us do, and do freely, because we want to do it, and it is rather fun) against his financial ability—and the people we are talking about are basically up against it; they are not well off, believe it or not—there should be some measure of compensation to help him so conserve. The word "shall" ensures that.
Both those principles have been discussed here and in another place for the past year, and although various extremist organisations have wished for compulsion, regulation and state intervention, the vast majority of your Lordships and the Members of another place have decided on the voluntary approach, with compensation where necessary. Then suddenly, overnight, at the last minute, your Lordships decide to change all this, including breaking faith, if I may say so, with compromises made in another place. In my opinion that is not in keeping with the usual degree of responsibility that I have experienced in your Lordships' House.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that I am being unreasonable, but he can have his say in a minute. However, in common I suspect with many of your Lordships, I read this morning, on this very subject, The Times, a paper that has consistently reported the proceedings on the Bill in a biased, if
506
not inaccurate, way, and today was no exception. However, it was my great privilege to read that article on the train on my way up here from Anglesey. Anyone who can do that journey, looking out at the countryside that the farmers are producing today, and who can then say that such countryside has been ruined and that they would prefer to see a compulsory bureaucratic system instead, must be truly blinkered.
I beg your Lordships to reject this disruptive amendment. Let the clause stand as it is. Do not be misled that it would heal farming/conservationist differences. It would not. My noble friend Lord Peel said that it was a brick. Yes, it is a brick, my Lords; and that brick, if it is enacted, will come back in full measure to those conservationists from the farmers who are going to suffer. Please let us stop fighting. We have done it for a year, thanks to the media. Let us go in peace for a change to look after the land, without this obstructive amendment, in the same manner as we have in the past, which has produced the scenery and, indeed, the character and the society which I believe is a stabilising influence in our way of life and which I hope some of your Lordships admire.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I believe that we must take on board the parlous state of our nation as regards industrial disputes in this year of grace 1981, in order to understand what we are discussing here tonight in your Lordships' House. Can your Lordships imagine for one moment any of the heads of the families among the 3 million unemployed not wondering what sort of idiots we are discussing an issue like this when they are wondering whether or not they can pay their rates and their rent, and buy the food and the clothes for their children, out of their unemployment benefit?
As has been said by the noble Lord opposite, we are talking about the possibility of somebody making a cash-in for an idea he never intended to make into a reality by getting compensation from, possibly, the future millions who might be unemployed. This, I believe, is what your Lordships' House has to take into consideration. There will be hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who have made applications to build, for example, a garage alongside the house they own, or a lean-to, and who have been refused by the local planning authority. They will say, "If only I were a well-off farmer, I could get compensation for putting in this application for a garage I do not really want and so have a nice cream-off". That is going to be the attitude, not of thousands, nay!, but millions of people.
Your Lordships have only to go to some of the counties of this land of ours in South Wales and in Scotland, and meet those who work in dangerous and hazardous jobs making steel or digging coal, to realise what they have to do to appear before a tribunal because they may have contracted pneumoconiosis, or have had some industrial disease. They have got to have the full backing of the legal department of their trade union; and they will make their voices heard at their branch meetings. I want the Government Front Bench to understand that this is not a matter to smile about. The only people who laugh

507
about things of this sort are those who have never been on a Sunday morning to a meeting of British miners discussing things like industrial diseases. These workers will say: "What is happening? Where is the justice? Where is the fair play that a measure of this particular sort can make it easy for some of those who are not too badly off? "
As the Government have said—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said it more than anybody else—the Government have no money at all, the Government have not got a ha'penny. What the workers will say about this measure, then, is that the Government will pay this compensation out of the contributions from the working men and women who pay their taxes via PAYE. This is going to be the discussion throughout British industry, and I do not want to see it. We are in a difficult situation. I do not want this House to have a debate and an argument which will not only cause grave bitterness within the strict confines of what we are discussing apropos this particular amendment, which we must pass, but will inevitably drift into much wider environs.
Therefore, in this particular instance, for the reasons I have time only to adumbrate but with all the sincerity that I can command, I must ask that your Lordships should support the amendment. We should not examine the detail but should go beyond the narrow boundaries and look at what ordinary people are going to say if this Bill becomes an Act of this realm. They will see it as an injustice; they will see it as an unfairness. What is more (this is a term I hate using, but it will be said) they will see it as nothing but a piece of class legislation—and I do not want that word used. I do not want it used by the trade union movement, by the CBI or by anyone else. Therefore, we in this House have a responsibility to see to it that we do not provide extremists with that opportunity. That is why I hope the amendment will be supported.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, my reasons for pressing this amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, are not really based on conservation grounds at all; they are because of this one word. I firmly believe, after more than 30 years in this field of activity, that it will turn out to be bad legislation. It will not work; everybody will be confused; and it will lead to needless and serious ill-feeling and strife. Either the Government must confirm that the money will be available—and it could be millions a year—or, if they say that the money will not be available, then, frankly, this part of the Bill is a fraud.
I cannot overstress the significance of the precedent which is being set, which is the right of farmers and landowners to have compensation. The moment that right is written into the Bill or the statute, there is no way of knowing where it will lead us or where it will end. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, mentioned the question of tree preservation orders. I had an 80-acre wood subject to a tree preservation order until a motorway went through it. That has to be accepted; that is progress. But why should one not be compensated for not knocking down all the trees, for felling and ploughing, if you can get it for other purposes in the case of SSSIs? There is no difference between the two in principle.
508
Lastly, I must deal with this question of whether or not there will be many applications. I believe it to be utterly naive to suggest that if funds are really available the number of applications for compensation will not become overwhelming. This is really not so much to do with conservation—and I want to make this point because it has not yet been mentioned properly—it is a question of business practice. Most farms are companies, with shareholders. If all farmers and landowners were like your Lordships, I concede there would be no problems. But large numbers of farms across the country are owned by pension schemes and financial institutions, with boards and shareholders who probably have never been to their farms. They have managers; and a manager's duty—and I speak as a businessman all my life—is to maximise revenue. I suggest, therefore, that a farm manager would be negligent if he failed to get compensation by going through this rigmarole of applying for grants, being refused and then getting compensation, because this Bill says he is entitled to it.
Even where the person in charge is a naturalist he will be failing in his duty as a manager if he passes up the opportunity of increasing revenue by X-thousand pounds a year for not being able to do something he had no real intention of doing. There is nothing immoral in it, either. It is just as proper as avoiding taxation—and I do not talk about evading taxation.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Has he any evidence to show that those institutions that have owned and are owning behave irresponsibly?—because my record is that they do not. Can he give me any?
Lord Buxton of Alsa: No, my Lords, I do not think it is necessary to do so. I did not say anything about that. I said that it was the duty of the managements of the agricultural farming companies to maximise revenue and that if there is money sitting there the manager should be sacked if he does not go for it. This clause, as it now stands, not only invites farmers and landowners who have no intention to plough or drain scientific sites, it obliges them according to business practice. It is not, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said, his legal responsibility to do so but it is his business responsibility to do so according to normal practice, to go through this process to finish up with compensation and, therefore, additional revenue. Even where the financial institutions are not involved and it is a family farm, it will still be a company and it seems obvious that a conservation-minded farmer owning wetland and or moorland with scientific interest will feel obliged to go for the additional revenue. Either his son or the partner will say, "You must be out of your mind if you do not realise what you can do." It is naive to say that there will be just a few isolated cases and that most will get settled out of court or, as they are today, at a tea party.
If the Commons amendment is a genuine one, that is to say, if it is "shall" and the money is available, all the SSSIs may be either ploughed or drained or the public will be paying millions in compensation for the remainder which are not ploughed or drained. Logically, there could be no SSSIs left in the country volun

509
tarily maintained as they are now. This amendment with "shall' could ultimately virtually extinguish the voluntary system.
My Lords, I shall not continue because so much has been said by noble Lords, but I feel that I should like to spend a few minutes in congratulating the Government on getting this Bill so far and in complimenting my noble friend on the Front Bench for a marvellous job. We are in sight of the end and it would be a tragedy if through an error, to my mind, in another place of one word we allowed it to go through as it stands. I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Stanley that this amendment is not saying that there will not be compensation; it is handing the discretion to the responsible bodies and authorities and it is not putting them in a straitjacket. What is the point of having illustrious bodies with distinguished people appointed by Government if they have no discretion?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, like the rest of your Lordships I should rather be having my supper but we have to deal with this amendment. As the father of what is now a family of amendments that bore my name, I think I ought to say a word of two here to help guide the House about the two key words "shall" and "may". Incidentally, when I moved the original amendment it had the word "shall" in it and it was supported by almost all noble Lords who have spoken so far. I shall seek to help them realise why there is no occasion to change their mind just because the amendment came back from the Commons in a slightly different form.
I must first say a word of thanks to the Government who at one stage were resistant to the general philosophy behind my amendment but have now accepted it. They have stuck firmly to the philosophy in it, strengthened it, refined it, extended it from the national parks to the SSSIs and from England and Wales to Scotland, with the promise to extend it to the Broads. That is, I hope, a good example of the flexibility and willingness to learn which is a characteristic of Her Majesty's Government.
Your Lordships must face facts. We need now, I suggest, to distinguish the essence of this clause from the subsidiary parts of it. The essence of my original clause and of the two clauses which stem from it is contained, as regards Amendment No. 76, in Clause 1(a) and, as regards Amendment No. 101, in Clause 1 and Clause 3(a). Those are the parts of the amendments which lay a firm duty on the Ministry of Agriculture, and, in practice, the staff of ADAS, to include conservation criteria in their consideration of grants. That is the key point. What we have been discussing up to now are factors subsidiary to that—important but subsidiary.
I should prefer not to go into this at any length, but it is necessary to do so because all the indications, from what is being said and the representations being made to us, are that people's minds are still back in 1974. That is understandable, because this whole problem of farmers being paid a grant with one hand from the Ministry of Agriculture and then paid compensation from another source to counteract it goes back to the bad old days from which the Exmoor conflict arose. It is necessary to recapitulate the story from there to realise
510
how far we have moved. At that time, the less favoured areas directive was regarded by the farming world and the Ministry of Agriculture as the English hill cow and sheep subsidies written into a European context; but there was more than that to it.
This less favoured areas directive is to provide for farming in certain areas where there was a need to maintain minimum population levels or in order to conserve the countryside—and I am quoting from Article 1. Article 3 says that the less favoured farm areas shall include mountain areas in which farming is necessary to protect the countryside and in which farming must be continued to conserve the countryside and to preserve the tourist potential of the area. That is a point which, in 1974 and 1975, was not accepted in agricultural circles. ADAS officers felt that it was their duty to give a grant if they were presented with a viable scheme for increasing agricultural production. Not only could they not take other criteria into account but they were not in a position to withhold a grant whatever objections were made.
That led to the inquiry from Sir John Cripps when he was chairman of the Countryside Commission on 20th December 1977 to the President of the European Commission, Mr Roy Jenkins. The latter replied in answer to an inquiry about this, that member states may lay down additional conditions as regards the implementation of the measures of aid provided by this directive. But, in our view, therefore although a farmer in the less favoured area or, for that matter elsewhere, is free to choose a system of farming and the improvements which are necessary to carry out development plans, in so doing he is obliged to respect all the regulations and conditions with regard to conservation of the countryside. Member states are not obliged by the directive to grant-aid projects which would be in conflict.
That took us forward quite a bit. It was not immediately accepted, but it was reinforced by the recommendations in the Strutt Report which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has quoted, in which they said:
"It is plain that MAFF must in future take a wider view of countryside affairs. Greater provision of more expert advice is perhaps the most important single need. A wider responsibility for MAFF in our view would confer a consequent obligation to include conservation criteria in grant aid schemes that it administers".
That advice was proffered in May 1978. It took time for that to be assimilated, but we eventually got the agreement of the Ministry of Agriculture to accept that advice.
It first took concrete shape when Parliament was presented last autumn with the new scheme for administering farm capital grants. We debated it on 6th August last year. The relevant part of that for today's debate is the following paragraph in the explanatory notes issued on that occasion which read:
"In the light of extensive consultations with the interested bodies, Ministers have decided to arrange for ADAS officers to visit conservation authorities concerned every week to help them consider farmers' proposals".
That was very welcome and acceptable so far as it went. We failed then to get the Minister's responsibility and his officers' responsibility for conservation on to the face of the statutory instrument, and it has not until now appeared on the face of any statute. Now it is there and that completely alters the situation.

511
It really will not do to go on talking and debating as though we were still back in 1974. There has been a radical shift. The clause I have just read establishes what has come to be known as the weekly ADAS tea party. This is the meeting week by week between ADAS officers in areas where there are sites of scientific interest and in national parks where they consider together with the regional staff of the Nature Conservancy Council and the national park officers the applications that have come to them from farmers.
The record over the past year in a selection is as follows: In the Peak Park they have processed 340 applications from farmers. Of those, 239 have been agreed as they stood. A number amounting to 101 have been modified and there are two outstanding from which objections may arise. In the Yorkshire Moors they have processed 111 applications. In fact 100 have been agreed as they stood and 11 have been modified. There have been no objections since 1978 when the matter was dealt with by MAFF refusing the grant. Therefore, of course the clause which we are debating would not be invoked.
In the SSSIs the Nature Conservancy Council tell me that they have processed 64 applications from farmers—this is the ADAS officer and the NCC regional officer jointly. They have agreed 50, they have modified 11 and there are three outstanding which might conceivably lead to objections. That is the situation which the first part of this clause will not weaken but reinforce. The House can see from what I have been saying that there do arise objections: two out of 340 in the case of Peak Park; none in the case of the Moors; and three out of 64 in the case of the SSSIs. But they have not reached the formal state of objection by' the relevant authority which triggers off this clause. That is the experience of the past year.
I put it to the House that the anxieties which are being expressed are expressed from an understanding of the situation which is still rooted in the 1974 situation and has not taken into account the changes and the shifts in the Ministry's attitude, still less the effect of the essential part of the clause which the House was glad to agree to when I introduced it back in March and which has come back to us in very similar form.
I thought then—as did those who supported me then —that the word "shall" struck the appropriate balance. I submit with this kind of record of experience to draw on so far, the word "shall" is still appropriate. My belief is not just a hunch, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was saying. It is based on some fairly firm experience which will be reinforced by this clause. Whether it has "may" or "shall" in it, it will certainly reinforce that clause. With the influence of this new statutory responsibility laid upon ADAS to have regard for conservation, it will work well. If the ADAS officer is exercising his new responsibility for conservation and decides to turn a grant down, this subsidiary part of the clause is not invoked at all and the anxieties that have been expressed will not be realised.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I shall be very brief as I sense the House would like to come to a decision on this matter and the noble Earl has still to respond on behalf of the Government. May I say to the noble
512
Lord, Lord Sandford, that we are talking about a totally different clause from the one which he introduced in this House some time ago. Under that clause the compensation was to come from the Agriculture Act and MAFF moneys. It raised quite different principles from the ones that we are discussing under this clause, where the money comes from the national park authorities and the Nature Conservancy Council.
We are talking about an amendment of only one word, the change from "shall" to "may". But it is a very important word. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned the Peak District national park and statistics from them. He did not mention that their view was that now, given this one word ("shall" rather than "may") the national park officers think that we would be better off if Clause 39 were deleted completely. The Association of National Park Officers have said that this re-wording is going to make a charade of the whole thing.
On the nature conservation side, the RSPB have said that this change, this one word, could lead to more SSSIs being destroyed rather than less. Those are very sweeping statements to apply to a single word. But the one word raises a vital issue. The Association of County Councils has said that it converts eligibility into entitlement to receive money for the first time since the 1947 Agriculture Act was passed. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, said.
What the farmers wanted was an automatic right in national parks and SSSIs for compensation if agricultural grant aid is not paid. That is what this amendment is about: the automatic right for compensation if agricultural grant aid is not paid. If I may take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, made, what the NFU appear to be asking for is special treatment for farmers in national parks and SSSIs. They will have an automatic right to grant aid. For farmers outside national parks and outside SSSIs, agricultural grant aid will continue to be discretionary.
It seems to me that the Government have constructed an edifice in this Bill which is doomed to collapse. All those involved in making it work, including many who wish to see it work, believe that it will collapse. It may be that it will be better for this wording to be retained in the Bill, the sooner to bring the whole thing crumbling down under the weight of the enormous compensation payments which will be needed, and then we can introduce some sensible legislation in its place.
I find it quite astonishing that a Government with the views that they have on public expenditure should introduce a principle which, if applied to another example—regional industrial development grant paid by the Department of Industry—would have the implication, if one drew an exact parallel, that any firm refused a grant from public money to develop a new company or a new product in one of the assisted regions would immediately go to the Department of Employment and get a grant because they had been refused a grant by the Department of Industry.
I said that the noble Earl has yet to respond to the debate. I wonder whether I can help him and try and shorten his contribution by quoting something which he said in the debate on the "Sandford amendments" as they are now known, when they were first introduced

513
on 12th March 1981. Referring to the practice, which the amendment then had, for the relevant authority to seek a management agreement with the applicant in accordance with financial guidelines which were determined by Ministers, the noble Earl said (at col. 488 of Hansard):
"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".
My Lords, that is exactly the argument in favour of the amendment that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has moved.
The noble Earl went on:
"It is far preferable to leave them"—
that is the national parks authorities and now the Nature Conservancy Council—
"as at present, to make up their minds as to whether a management agreement should be offered. Secondly"—
and this is something which a number of speakers have said in this debate—
"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".
That is the argument in favour of the amendment.
7.51 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate until we came down to the last speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who said he was in favour of this particular Bill as at present drafted in order that the whole thing will collapse and crumble. If I may say so, I thought that was particularly unhelpful and particularly unconstructive, when the whole purpose of this Bill has been to try to find a consensus of agreement, which is very difficult indeed to do.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Buxton who said that this has been a very good Bill while it has been going through Parliament and he suggested that we might just change the modest word from "shall" to "may". It was The Times, I think, on Tuesday of this week which said that after months of debate and the debating of hundreds of minutiae the crucial showdown between farmers and conservationists has narrowed down above all to this one issue: that is the issue between "shall" and "may".
I personally think it is erroneous to try to polarise people into two opposing camps, either conservationists or farmers. It is not insignificant that the two leading proposers of this amendment, and therefore presumably conservationists, are in fact landowners and farmers in their own right as well. It is a mistake to brand people as either conservationists or farmers, as if the two were mutually incompatible or exclusive. It may be that the interests of agriculture, if pursued exclusively, will be incompatible with the interests of conservation, if pursued exclusively; but I believe there is in people usually a mixture of the two in differing degrees and the whole of this Bill seeks to find a compromise not between people but between interests which may well be divergent. I think it is astonishing how, as this Bill has carved its tortuous passage through Parliament,
514
there has been a remarkable example of where the irreconcilables have in fact been reconciled.
My noble friend Lord Onslow introduced his amendment in his characteristically pungent style. He used some words which I thought were slightly intemperate and he referred to "unfairness", "skulduggeries" and "rip-offs". I personally regret his personal references to the Members of your Lordships' House, which hardly enhanced the quality of his argument and I believe somewhat devalued what is a serious and very important matter of wide national importance. My noble friend Lord Onslow and others, including my noble friend Lord Buxton, I think, said that tree preservation orders were put on people's land and they had no compensation; but I am advised that in certain circumstances compensation may in fact be payable where there are tree preservation orders and where listed buildings, and even ancient monuments are involved. The principle is not new. Trees protected by various orders cannot be felled, topped or lopped without the consent of the local planning authority; and if consent is refused compensation may be payable under Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
So far as historic buildings are concerned, I am advised again that there is a precedent for compensation here and that where a building is listed as being a building of historic interest, listed building consent, in addition to planning permission, is required before the building can be altered, extended or demolished. If such consent is refused for alteration or extension compensation may be payable under Section 171 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Yes, my Lords. My noble friend, and indeed several noble Lords, said that this was a new precedent and a new principle. What I am saying is that it is not a new principle.
My noble friend referred to the possibility of liming and slagging certain moors in Yorkshire, and said that certain people might be able to get some astonishing sums of money in compensation. I do not know where my noble friend got his figures from, but there is no set scale for compensation. Each management agreement is different and it depends on the circumstances of the case.
It was, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady White, who asked: "What are the financial guidelines going to be?" I can tell her that there is no question of adopting the Exmoor guidelines as they stand. We have entered into preliminary discussions with a range of interested organisations, building on the Exmoor model, to determine how it might be adapted to the national situation. We hope soon to have a draft available for discussion informally with the local authority associations and the Nature Conservancy Council. This draft will certainly embrace the options for either annual or lump sum payments, as promised by my right honourable friend, but, like the Exmoor guidelines, it will not stipulate any specific sums to be paid in respect of the restrictions imposed. That would be completely inappropriate as the payments offered, whether by way of annual payments or by way of capital sum, must depend on individual circumstances and be subject to negotiation.
After the informal discussions have been concluded, it is the intention to prepare draft guidelines

515
which will be put out for public consultation, and all comments received will be taken carefully into account before the guidelines are finalised and published. I think, therefore, that it is erroneous when figures such as those which have been bandied around are bandied around, because, if I may say so, they are based without fact because each individual circumstance is different.
Over the particular matter of management agreements, there are really two routes we can take. Both have their disadvantages, and I make no apology for that. The first is what the Bill says at present: namely, that at the end of the day, if the considerations of conservation are so overwhelming that because of what he has on his land a farmer ought to be deprived of a grant for that which all other farmers are entitled to, then the Nature Conservancy Council shall enter into a management agreement with him and pay him to preserve that which needs to be preserved.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl said:
"that which all other farmers are entitled to".
Do I take it that the Government's policy on capital grant schemes and grant aid to farmers has changed and it is the fact now that farmers are entitled automatically to a grant?—because that is a new policy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do wish the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not pick one up on minutiae, to use that word again. He knows perfectly well what I refer to—that there is a system of capital grants to which farmers may apply. And what I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is that in normal circumstances they may apply and indeed they can apply. The opponents of this particular course which we have set on the Bill say that the Nature Conservancy Council will not have enough money to pay for all the sites and therefore that will inhibit the council from objecting, possibly even at the start, to a scheme because they will know that if they lodge a formal objection to a proposed operation which may attract an agricultural grant, they will be bound in the end to enter into a management agreement. So goes the argument: there will not be enough funds to pay for all the compensation.
The amendment is put down by my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Buxton to say, "Let us remove the word 'shall' and replace it with the word 'may'", so as to remove the mandatory obligation on the Nature Conservancy Council to enter into a management agreement in all cases where they wish to make a formal objection to a proposed alteration to a site and, as the NCC is bound to be limited, as all organisations are, for funds, it may—so the argument goes—then choose which sites it wishes to enter into a management agreement on.
The NCC can put funds towards those sites on which it feels strongly and have management agreements on them. In the case of the preservation of those sites on which it feels less strongly, it can still register objections to proposed schemes, but without the obligation or even the consideration of having to enter into a management agreement for which it may not have funds. The registering of the objection itself will mean that the Minister of Agriculture has to consult
516
with the Environment Minister, as he does at present, as to whether he refuses grant on conservation grounds.
The down-side of the argument is that, if it were merely permissive for the Nature Conservancy Council to enter into an agreement, there would be no obligation whatever on it to do so. The NCC would be able to sustain an objection, at least in theory, on each and every site, and seek to deny to the farmer that which might be applicable to other farmers; in other words, a grant. It could do that without any assurance of financial recompense, however far down the pecking order of importance that site might be, even in the eyes of the NCC, because, by an accident of geography, a farmer might have an SSSI on his land.
If my noble friend's amendment were accepted, we should find that we were in a position where a body, eminent and highly responsible though it were, and as it is, had a right to question the propriety of a grant as a result of a designation which was made by that body—a designation which was made without the right of redress, without appeal, without fear of contradiction and without any financial recompense. I do not think that that is right, and the Government do not think that that is right.
My noble friend Lord Onslow has quoted many expressions of support which he has received, but I noticed that he did not quote a letter from the Nature Conservancy Council which I may, perhaps, be permitted to quote. The letter states:
"You asked me whether the Nature Conservancy Council will be able to support your amendment on the Sandford principle, replacing the requirement for an objecting agency to offer an agreement with the owner or occupier whose grant has been withheld for nature conservation on landscape grounds, with a facility to offer grant only if it so wishes. The Nature Conservancy Council has given the Government its support for the present wording of the clause, because it removes the uncertainty which has bedevilled negotiations between the conservation agencies and farmers and landowners in the past. It also places a firm commitment on Government to make adequate resources available to deal with those agreements resulting from the new measures over the years, and we are working on the assumption that they will do so.
If the system does not work, because the resources are not made available, the blame will fall squarely on the Government and an alternative to the voluntary co-operation will then have to be considered. May I draw your attention to the letter in today's Times by Derek Barber, the chairman of the Countryside Commission, which admirably puts the case for giving the Bill a fair trial. I am sure that my council would wholeheartedly endorse this pragmatic approach".
That is the letter which the Nature Conservancy Council sent, and I think that it is indeed an important one.
I recognise that the two examples which I have given of "may" or "shall", and what might happen in those two cases, are extremes and the worst that could happen. In fact, I have no doubt that the majority of these cases will be settled amicably and satisfactorily, without recourse to the safety net which the Bill provides.
Twelve months ago, when the new capital grant provisions came into operation, many people were apprehensive about the effect on conservation when prior approval was abolished; many apprehensions were expressed, not only in this House but in another place as well. My noble friend Lord Sandford has given the figures this evening, which I think are astonishing, in that they show exactly how much the ADAS service

517
does, and how much the conservation bodies do, in order to arrive at amicable agreements. I believe that that is a pattern which is likely to evolve.
If this amendment is accepted, then I fear that we shall be back to the position that we were in before the Bill was introduced, a position where we had failed to reconcile the growing requirements of conservation with the legitimate rights of the individual and of agriculture. Trying to reconcile that difference is what the whole of this Part of the Bill is about. As a result of that, we have put into the Bill the involvement of ADAS, the recognition of the needs of conservation, the recognition of the rights of landowners and the promotion of management agreements, but under this amendment, if taken to its extreme, there could be no management agreements.
Immense effort has been made, and successfully made, to achieve this compromise between differing interests. Positions have moved in a way which, I venture to suggest, would have seemed entirely impossible 12 months ago. We may not have got it quite right. We cannot have satisfied all the interests. By the nature of the game, that is impossible. But I hope your Lordships will agree that the Bill as it is drafted, which in this respect is the same as it was when it was last in your Lordships' House, which had the approval of your Lordships' House then and has subsequently had the approval of another place, is the way in which it ought to remain. While I recognise the force of the arguments which have been put forward this evening by my noble friends and those who feel that way, I really cannot advise your Lordships to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we have had very nearly two hours of debate. There is only one thing that I should like to say before I ask your Lordships to support me and my noble friends in the Division Lobby, and it is this: my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that tree preservation orders may be given compensation and historic buildings may be given compensation. I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who I see standing by the Bar, will be happy to pay all the money which the Treasury will have to give if we by any chance lose this amendment.
8.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (Amendment No. 76A as an amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 76) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Aldenham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Amherst, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Beswick, L.

Foot, L.

Birk, B.

Grafton, D.

Bishopston, L.

Hampton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

John-Mackie, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kaldor, L.

518

Kirkhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Knutsford, V.

Rugby, L.

Lawrence, L.

Scanlon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, B.

Spens, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stamp, L.

Melchett, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Molloy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stone, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Oram, L.

Swinfen, L.

Peart, L.

Underhill, L.

Peel, E.

Vernon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arbuthnott, V.

Liverpool, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Cockfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Digby, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Tryon, L,

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vivian, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should apologise to your Lordships for the late time of the adjournment for dinner, but I think it will have been the general wish of the House not to interrupt this very important debate in the middle. I beg to move that further consideration of Commons Amendments be now adjourned until nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.19 p.m. to 9 o'clock.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
77 Insert the following new Clause:
"Ministerial guidance as respects areas of special scientific interest.
.—(1) The Ministers shall from time to time, after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council and such persons appearing to them to represent other interests concerned as they consider appropriate—

(a) prepare codes containing such recommendation, advice and information as they consider proper for the guidance of—

519

(i) persons exercising functions under sections 28 to 31 and (Duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest); and

(ii) persons affected or likely to be affected by the exercise of any of those functions; and

(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.

(2) A code prepared in pursuance of subsection (1) 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.
(3) Subject to subsection (2), the Ministers shall cause every code prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) 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."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77. This amendment provides for a number of changes in the nature of the guidance to be produced since the Bill left this House. As there has been some interest in this aspect in an earlier amendment, perhaps it would be a good idea if I just spoke very briefly to it. In preparing codes of guidance Ministers will now be required to consult the Nature Conservancy Council in addition to the interests provided for when the Bill left this House. The scope of any such code has been extended. It does now simply apply to the arrangements provided for within Clause 28. It also covers the provisions contained in Clauses 29 to 31 as well as the clause "Duties of agricultural Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest". The subject matter is not now to be confined to the management of sites of special scientific interest. Guidance is also to be provided on procedural matters. The recipients of the guidance will not now be owners and occupiers only but also public authorities—especially, of course, the NCC. The amendment also reinstates in the Bill the provision for codes of guidance following its displacement from Clause 28 by an earlier amendment. I am sure that these will commend themselves to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl just one question and make one suggestion which I hope his officials and those responsible for drawing up the code will take on board. The question is to ask for an assurance that apart from the Nature Conservancy Council being consulted the code will also be officially published in draft form before it is presented to Parliament. One of the problems that Parliament will always have with the code is that we will not be able to amend it; that we will be given it on a "take it or leave it" basis. I hope there will be some consultation. I know there is a great deal of consultation going on at the moment and that is very welcome, but it would be very nice to have a fairly final draft available for discussion generally before it comes to Parliament.
My suggestion embraces the hope that the noble Earl and his officials will be able to prevail over any legal advisers who may get their hands on this code
520
to do their best to keep the code in simple, straightforward and intelligible language. My impression from what I have heard about the drafting, is that this code started off being in reasonably straightforward English but is rapidly moving into the realm of esoteric legal jargonese. With great respect to the noble and learned Lords sitting opposite, this code will be going through farmers' letter boxes; it is they who will be reading the code and it is not something for a court to interpret, and so it should be written in plain and straightforward language.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a further question concerning the new Clause 77(1)? This states that Ministers shall consult the Nature Conservancy Council,
"and such persons appearing to them to represent other interests concerned as they consider appropriate ".
Is the noble Earl in a position to let us know who these other interests are? Who is actually taking part in the working parties which I know are sitting at the moment to prepare these codes? Perhaps that is information which he could give before we finally pass on.
Perhaps it is not wholly irrelevant at this stage, because it relates to this question, to hark back to Amendment No. 76 which dealt with farm capital grants under Section 29 of the Agricultural Act 1970. That leaves out something like half of the Ministry of Agriculture's grants, and it does not of course cover forestry grants. Since forestry grants are not covered under Amendment No. 76, I wonder whether forestry interests are the interests which are being regarded by Ministers at the moment as "other interests concerned" in these discussions on the code of practice.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their interest, although I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not frighten away the only allies I seem to have on the Front Bench with his thoughts on legal terms. First, with regard to the state in which the draft should come, I believe we discussed this at an earlier stage. Although I cannot remember everything I said, I believe that I did virtually undertake to do what the noble Lord asked, but I will check that it is being done. As far as the use of simple language is concerned, I of course take his point on board as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked some rather specific questions to which I do not have the answers at my finger tips. If I may, I will let him have the answers. So far as the consultations are concerned, they are as wide as possible and it will be seen from the documents that we sent out that the consultation was really enormous and I know that we are doing it in this case as well; but, as to the particular questions which the noble Lord asked, I will let him know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
78 Clause 32, page 30, line 26, leave out 'Countryside'.
79 Clause 32, page 30, line 28, leave out from 'which' to 'is' in line 29 and insert 'comprises a limestone pavement'.
80 Clause 32, page 30, line 31, leave out that Council or that' and insert 'the Council or the'.
81 Clause 32, page 30, line 32, leave out from 'the' to 'the' in line 33 and insert 'local planning authority in whose area'.
82 Clause 32, page 30, line 34, leave out county planning' and insert 'relevant'.
83 Clause 32, page 30, line 39, after 'orders', insert '(in this section referred to as a "limestone pavement order")
84 Clause 32, page 30, line 42, leave out 'orders under this section' and insert ' limestone pavement orders'.
85 Clause 32, page 30, page 31, line 1, leave out 'county planning' and insert relevant'.
86 Clause 32, page 30, line 2, leave out 'an order under this section' and insert 'a limestone pavement order'.
87 Clause 32, page 30, line 9, leave out 'an order under this section' and insert 'a limestone pavement order'.
88 Clause 32, page 30, line 17, after 'granted' insert 'on an application'.
89 Clause 32, page 30, line 18, leave out from '1971' to end of line 20 and insert 'or Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972'.
9.8 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78 to 90 en bloc. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome these amendments, which improve and extend the protection to be afforded to limestone pavements by means of orders made under Clause 32. As some noble Lords, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, were particularly concerned about the continued application of the general development order which would allow farmers to use limestone for agricultural purposes, and many—and in particular my noble friend Lord Caithness—were also concerned that the term "limestone pavement orders" should be used clearly to identify the orders, the Government gave further consideration to these questions and found that, in practice the removal of the "agricultural exemption" in the general development orders would not prove to be as much of a burden to farmers as they expected. There are very few circumstances in which farmers are likely to need freshly quarried limestone from protected pavement.
Provision is made for orders to be applied to limestone pavements in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales and that is the effect of Amendment Nos. 78, 80, 81, 82, 85, 89 and 90. The exemption for agricultural use of limestone has been removed. However, farmers will, if necessary, be able to apply for planning permission to use limestone from a protected pavement. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 88 and part of No. 89.
I am also glad to say that the term "limestone pavement order" has been inserted in the Bill and a definition has been added to make it clear that orders may be applied only to limestone pavements and not to other areas of exposed limestone. Amendments Nos. 79, 83, 84, 86, 87 and part of 90 do that. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I think there is an amendment to Amendment No. 90, so perhaps I may put Amendments Nos. 78 to 89 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
90 Page 31, line 20, at end insert—
'(6) In this section—
"the Commission" means the Countryside Commission in relation to England and Wales and the Countryside Commission for Scotland in relation to Scotland;
"limestone pavement" means an area of limestone which lies wholly or partly exposed on the surface of the ground and has been fissured by natural erosion;
"the relevant authority" means the county planning authority in relation to England and Wales and the authority exercising regional planning functions in relation to Scotland.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move Amendmend No. 90.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 90:
90A* Line 10, leave out ("regional") and insert ("district").
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment would place the function of making limestone pavements orders in Scotland on authorities exercising district planning functions. This is desirable because in Scotland authorities exercising district functions are responsible for day-to-day planning controls, including minerals. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as we are coming to the end of the limestone pavement amendments, may I just say what I know my noble friend Lady David would wish to say; namely, to thank the Government very much for the significant improvements in the Bill, albeit affecting a very small area of the country. I am sure that the major loophole in the protection of limestone pavements, which was there when the Bill left this House, has now, to a large extent at least, been closed and we are grateful to the Government for that.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I echo those sentiments. The noble Earl will recollect that I involved myself substantially in these limestone pavement amendments, and I too am grateful to see what has happened as a result.
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
91 Clause 34, leave out Clause 34 and insert the following new clause:
"Marine nature reserves.
(1) Where, in the case of any land covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters or parts of the sea in or adjacent to Great Britain up to the seaward limits of territorial waters, it appears to the Secretary of State expedient, on an application made by the Nature Conservancy Council, that the land and waters covering it should be managed by the Council for the purpose of—

(a) conserving marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area; or

(b) providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to marine flora and fauna and

523
the physical conditions in which they live, or for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area,

he may by order designate the area comprising that land and those waters as a marine nature reserve; and the Council shall manage any area so designated for either or both of those purposes.
(2) An application for an order under this section shall be accompanied by—

(a) a copy of the byelaws which, if an order is made, the Council propose making under section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves) for the protection of the area specified in the application; and

(b) a copy of any byelaws made or proposed to be made for the protection of that area by a relevant authority,

and an order made on the application shall authorise the making under that section of such of the byelaws proposed to be made by the Council as may be set out in the order with or without modifications.
(3) Byelaws the making of which is so authorised—

(a) shall not require the Secretary of State's consent under subsection (1) of section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves); and

(b) notwithstanding anything in the provisions applied by subsection (4) of that section, shall take effect on their being made.

(4) The provisions of Schedule (Procedure in connection with orders under section (Marine nature reserves)) shall have effect as to the making, validity and date of coming into operation of orders under this section; and an order made under this section may be amended or revoked by a subsequent order so made.
(5) The powers exercisable by the Council for the purpose of managing an area designated as a marine nature reserve under this section shall include power to install markers indicating the existence and extent of the reserve.
(6) Nothing in this section or in byelaws made under section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves) shall interfere with the exercise of any right of passage by a vessel other than a pleasure boat, any functions of a relevant authority any functions conferred by or under an enactment (whenever passed) or any right of any person (whenever vested).
(7) in this section and section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves)—
"enactment" includes an enactment contained in a local Act;
"local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, a county council, a district council, the Greater London Council or a London borough council;

(b) in relation to Scotland, a regional council, an islands council or a district council;

"relevant authority" means a local authority, a water authority or any other statutory water undertakers, an internal drainage board, a navigation authority, a harbour authority, a pilotage authority, a lighthouse authority, a conservancy authority, a river purification board, a district board for a fishery district within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862, or a local fisheries committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966;
"vessel" includes a hovercraft and any aircraft capable of landing on water, and "pleasure boat" shall be construed accordingly."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91, and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 92 at the same time. There are also two consequential amendments, Nos. 129 and 211. I should like briefly to recall what I said when this House was debating the new clause moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton on Report. My noble friend Lord Craigton has told me how sorry he is that he cannot be here today. I criticised that clause at the time as being deficient in a number of points of detail but
524
primarily in its failure to pay sufficient regard to the views of the broad spectrum of the users of our coastal waters. I said at the time:
"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 marine nature reserves 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".
It is the view of the Government that in Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 211 we have succeeded in taking in these various interests. In the other place my right honourable friend the Minister of State said:
"The premise is that marine nature reserves can be created only by the consent of all concerned".
This is an assurance that I give to one or two interested parties now in the House. The Government amendments were framed accordingly. Thus, any agreed bylaws to be made in marine nature reserve will be made by whichever body is responsible for the activity in question. The NCC will be responsible for coordinating the by-law-making proposals, but they will make the by-laws only for those matters for which other bodies are not already the by-law-making authorities. All NCC by-laws will be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State under the new provisions; other bodies' by-laws will be subject to confirmation under their existing powers.
Under the amendments there is no arbitrary limit on the extent of a reserve. There is the practical seaward limit of territorial waters and the natural landward limit of high-water mark. Here I should mention the wording of the main clause. It reads:
"Where, in the case of any land covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters or parts of the sea".
I fear that this formula could embrace occasionally flooded areas. I wish now to make it clear—just as it was made clear in the other place—that there is absolutely no intention of having a marine nature reserve extend above high-water mark.
But to return to the general question of the extent of a reserve, although there is no arbitrary limit on the extent, any proposal for the creation of a reserve will be subject to the right of objection; and objections can be made on the grounds of the proposed size of a reserve just as they can be made for any other reason.
Your Lordships, in considering these amendments, will doubtless be concerned above all about how they will work in practice. In the first place there will be precise procedural instructions. All power to create a reserve will vest in the Secretary of State. The full case and the full text of all by-laws must be presented to the Secretary of State by the NCC. The NCC must satisfy the Secretary of State that they have consulted all authorities involved and other appropriate responsible bodies before submitting the case. Not all by-laws will come from the NCC. Others, it might be agreed, should be made by such authorities as, say, the local sea fisheries committee under their own powers.
I should like to stress two very important points. First, the package—the description of the proposed reserve and the texts of all relevant by-laws—must be presented as a coherent whole so that anyone or any

525
organisation who might be in any way affected by the creation of a reserve is able to see right from the start what restrictions are likely to be applied. Secondly, the Secretary of State must be persuaded that there is a good case for establishing the reserve. He will need also to be satisfied that the NCC have carried out full informal consultation with, for example, the local harbour, conservancy and other concerned authorities such as sea fisheries committees and with the appropriate sporting interests and I should add leisure interests; and that they have, where necessary, obtained advice from such expert bodies as the Natural Environment Research Council and the marine biological associations. Only if the Secretary of State is satisfied on all these counts, and that any important differences of opinion have been resolved, will he allow publication.
It would be unrealistic of me to sit down now without referring to the Government's consultation paper on marine nature reserves which was issued on 3rd February and which originally called for replies by 3rd August—though the closing date was later put back to the end of August following a letter to one of my ministerial colleagues. There was some feeling that the present inclusion of a marine nature reserve provision in the Bill had pre-empted the results of the consultation. However, the early replies helped to influence the wording of the clauses we now have before us; and when the full analysis of views is completed, it will be available to the Secretary of State to assist him in reaching his decision on individual proposals. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all those who responded to our paper for their constructive suggestions.
It is the Government's opinion that we have responded in a meaningful way to all of the points raised in the Commons where these could be seen to improve the effectiveness of the marine nature reserve provision. I think noble Lords in this House will be equally satisfied on the response to their debates here. A provision which sought to override all other interests in the marine environment would have been worthless. Difficulties of policing and enforcement would have been so great that no worthwhile protection would have been secured. By setting out the framework within which all interests can work together we have provided the means for the successful creation of marine nature reserves which will really achieve what they set out to do. In matters such as this one cannot hope to satisfy everyone completely, but I do not believe anyone should now find the clauses unacceptable. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. (The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 91:
Subsection (6), line 3, leave out from first ("of") to first ("any") in line 4.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 91A, 91D, 91E, 92A, 92B and 92C. I apologise for that long list. Originally I had down only one amendment, but parliamentary draftsmen thought otherwise. First, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Avon for the preface he has made to this clause and his statement that it was the Govern
526
ment's intention to listen to all the interested parties. Clause 34 as it stands affects pleasure craft, which include sailing boats. The three main effects on pleasure craft are as follows. First, it discriminates against them as opposed to fishing craft and commercial vessels. Secondly, it prevents their ancient right of passage. Thirdly, it adds a hazard to their safety at sea.
First, your Lordships will note that the Bill can forbid pleasure craft to enter a marine nature reserve but cannot do likewise to fishing craft or, indeed, commercial vessels. That is so despite earlier assurances in another place and, indeed, in letters to, among others, the Royal Yachting Association. There are no powers whatever to control fishing or commercial vessels entering a marine nature reserve. To give—and I hope that I am not out of order—the Department of the Environment the benefit of the doubt, which, as your Lordships know, is not really in my character, I think that the department misled themselves as well as me, the Royal Yachting Association and, indeed, their Minister on this particular point, because, like me, I think they found that Acts of Parliament are somewhat difficult to interpret.
Secondly, this clause prevents our ancient right of freedom of passage, but does not do likewise to fishing and commercial vessels, which can, I think, even anchor in a marine nature reserve. Let me make it clear that I am not asking for these craft also to be prevented from entering: I believe in freedom of passage for all, including sailing boats, which, after all, were here before motor-driven fishing craft or turbo-driven passenger palaces.
Thirdly—and I apologise to your Lordships if I sound like the parson at a marriage ceremony—although Clause 34(3)(a) ensures the right to enter a marine nature reserve in the interests of safety, it does not quite cover it, for the very existence of a marine nature reserve causing a diversion must delay passage, and safe passage, particularly in a sailing boat, is more often than not consistent with speed and timeliness. As an example, I hear rumours that there are plans to make a marine nature reserve off the South Stack and Llanddwyn Island in Anglesey. Any restrictions on rights of passage in those two areas would be outright dangerous, and no one wants to see unnecessary calls on our lifeboat, if only for the reason that there is no more room on our coxswain's chest for medals.
I hope that I have explained why I, in company with small boat sailors, am concerned over this clause. However, I am happy, very happy to tell your Lordships that a measure of agreement has been reached between all parties due to the help of the NCC but in particular to my noble friend Lord Avon, whose patient, careful and, indeed, painstaking listening to my at times somewhat basic use of the English language has been in keeping with what I believe your Lordships have come to expect of my noble friend throughout this Bill.
I am sorry to delay your Lordships, but I must now explain briefly the individual amendments in my name. Amendment No. 91A removes the yachtsman's objection to subsection (6), that it discriminates unfairly against the public right of navigation of pleasure craft only. As it stands, subsection (6), read in conjunction

527
with subsection (2)(a)(i) of Amendment No. 92, would enable by-laws to be made and confirmed excluding pleasure craft only—not, for example, small commercial fishing craft—from a marine nature reserve. Amendments Nos. 91D and 91E are drafting amendments and relate only to interpretation. They are merely incidental to the other amendments.
After Clause 34, Amendment No. 92A affords an acceptable compromise.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am trying very hard to follow the noble Lord through all these As, Bs, and Cs. Am I right in thinking that Amendments Nos. 91A and B are the same amendment put in different ways, and that the noble Lord will be moving one of them but not the other'?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, no. I am not moving Amendments Nos. 91B and 91C. I am talking to Amendment No. 91A, which is the one I referred to at the beginning of my remarks. To put the noble Lord's mind at rest, I am not moving Amendments Nos. 91B or 91C. I am now going on to deal with the next amendment, which is No. 92A. This amendment affords an acceptable compromise on the pleasure boat navigation issue, the right of passage. The new subsection (3)(a) continues to preserve the navigation rights of commercial vessels. Subsection (3)(b) enables by-laws to prohibit entry of pleasure boats into a marine nature reserve, but only as to particular parts of the reserve at particular times of the year. This could be a material inroad into the public right of navigation, but it preserves the ability of the Nature Conservancy Council, by by-laws, to exclude pleasure boats to the extent essential to the marine nature reserve and demonstrable to the Secretary of State, as confirming authority for the by-laws.
The last amendment, No. 92B—subsection (3), line 6—removes altogether a serious discrimination against pleasure boats, in that, under the Bill at present, by-laws could prohibit the discharge of substances from these boats alone. It is now agreed that existing legislation is best left to deal with any problems of this nature, notably the Control of Pollution Act. I must point out that there is no wish on the part of the Yachting Association to allow unnecessary discharges of waste. This cannot be done anyhow; it is quite pointless to put it into this Bill.
I am sorry to have taken rather longer than I normally take, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me on how he envisages the by-laws working. In particular, although I accept that there is a comprehensive appeal procedure, going to appeal is expensive and, indeed, time-consuming. I hope that he can confirm that there will be very few of these marine nature reserves. For if my rumour of two in Anglesey is correct and if my sums are correct, which no doubt they are not, it would mean over 200 in Great Britain. I hope that my amendments commend themselves to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 91.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for putting me right as to which of the
528
No. 91As, Bs and Cs he was going to move, and I now understand that. I assume that there should not be a full stop after the word "made" in Amendment No. 92A, because it should read straight on:
"Nothing in byelaws so made"—
which is at the end of Amendment No. 92A, and then you go up to the top of page 18 on the Marshalled List:
"shall make unlawful"
(a) (b) and (c). Perhaps the noble Lord could think about that, and perhaps the noble Earl could confirm that I am right in my understanding of it.
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Avon, a couple of questions about the amendment and perhaps also about the Government's amendments. Can he confirm—because it would be useful to have the Government's assurance—what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, that it will be possible under existing legislation, to control discharges from pleasure boats? My understanding, from looking at debates in another place and at the consultations that went on, was that discharges from pleasure boats were mentioned in the Government amendment introduced in another place only because there was no existing legislation which covered discharges from pleasure boats. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said that is wrong, they are covered. Can the noble Earl confirm that for us?
On the more general point about marine reserves, I am sure that Lord Stanley's arithmetic is right, but that the conclusions he draws from a rather simple calculation are quite wrong. The North Wales coast is one of the very important areas in this country so far as marine conservation is concerned, and it is not possible to do a simple calculation on the basis of what might happen in North Wales and suggest that that is going to happen all over the rest of the country. It just is not the case.
I wish that the Government were planning to create 200 nature reserves in the next, however long they have in office, year or so, but I doubt whether we shall be lucky enough to see that. More seriously, I should like to ask the noble Earl what progress he thinks the Government will be able to make in the next 12 months. What plans have they to set up marine reserves, and could the noble Earl give us some indication of the sort of progress that will be made? I suspect that it is more likely to be one or two over the whole country, but I hope he could give me an estimate that would be a bit more optimistic than mine while being a good deal more pessimistic than Lord Stanley's.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one specific question on what he said were the Government's intentions concerning the way they will make these clauses work. They are of course entirely discretionary. It is up the Secretary of State as to whether or not he approves a marine nature reserve. I think the noble Earl said that the Secretary of State would not take any action unless everyone was agreed and any outstanding difficulties had been resolved by the Nature Conservancy Council. Does that mean that if one of the interests involved, however minor, let us say a particular water-skiing club, objected—a water skier would not think that was a minor interest, but it might affect only a small part of a proposed reserve, or be in the middle of a much larger proposed reserve where all the

529
other interests, sea fisheries and so on, were happy with it—the one objection from the interest of that sort would prevent the NCC taking the proposal to the Secretary of State, and prevent the Secretary of State from considering it? That seemed to be the implication of the wording he used.
I should have thought it would effectively stymie the possibility of our having any statutory marine nature reserves except in the one or two areas where there are existing voluntary reserves at the moment. I would hope thst the Secretary of State would have some discretion with the Nature Conservancy Council to take forward proposals even if there were minor irreconcilable differences outstanding, and allow the Secretary of State to make a judgment on whether those were sufficiently important to prevent a reserve being set up or not.
9.33 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, may I start by answering the question about the discharge of waste. If this is deleted from the Bill it would still leave discharges from pleasure boats liable, as in the case of all other craft, to control under existing primary legislation, in particular the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 and the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. With regard to the question of the rate of progress, I think that that is a slightly fast ball when we are still trying to turn the Bill into an Act, but to a certain extent it will of course depend on the Nature Conservancy Council's resources. In so saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows there are some marine nature reserves which are virtually of international importance, which I am sure will be covered as soon as is speedily possible.
May I come back to what I actually said. If the Secretary of State is satisfied on all these counts and that important differences of opinion have been resolved, then he will allow publication. Therefore, I do not think the situation is as gloomy as the noble Lord said, but it does leave it to the Secretary of State finally to decide that he is satisfied that everybody has been consulted, not necessarily that everyone is 100 per cent. happy. My noble friend Lord Stanley asked me to give some assurances, but I think in my opening remarks on the subject I covered the points that I think he had in mind, and I hope that on reflection he will agree with me on that point. Therefore, I am happy to move my amendment, if I may.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is asking me why it is so drafted, I hope he will forgive me if I repeat my original statement, namely, that my original amendments were Nos. 91B and 91C and the parliamentary draftsmen decided they did not quite like it that way and made a rather larger affair of it. I am afraid I have to admit that I do not really understand the ins and outs of the minds of the parliamentary draftsmen, but no doubt Lord Melchett does. I have the same details of the reply concerning the Oil Pollution Act as my noble friend. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, likes the North Wales coast; we can at least agree on something in the Bill. I appreciate that this matter has taken a great deal of the time of my noble friend and of the Nature Conservancy Council, who have been extremely helpful in this matter.
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 91B and 91C to the amendment not moved.]
As an amendment to Amendment No. 91:
91D* Subsection (7), line 1, leave out from first ("section") to end of line 2.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I beg to move, my Lords.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the said amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 91.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 91:
91E* Subsection (7), leave out lines 20 to 22.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the said amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 91.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
92 After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
"Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves.
(1) The Nature Conservancy Council may, with the consent of the Secretary of State make byelaws for the protection of any area designated as a marine nature reserve under section (Marine nature reserves).
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), byelaws made under this section as respects a marine nature reserve—

(a) may provide for prohibiting or restricting, either absolutely or subject to any exceptions—

(i) the entry into, or movement within, the reserve of persons and vessels;

(ii) the killing, taking, destruction, molestation or disturbance of animals or plants of any description in the reserve, or the doing of anything therein which will interfere with the sea bed or damage or disturb any object in the reserve; or

(iii) the depositing of rubbish in the reserve;

(b) may provide for the issue, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the byelaws, of permits authorising entry into the reserve or the doing of anything which would otherwise be unlawful under the byelaws; and

(c) may be so made as to apply either generally or with respect to particular parts of the reserve or particular times of the year.

(3) Nothing in byelaws made under this section shall make unlawful—

(a) anything done for the purpose of securing the safety of any vessel, or of preventing damage to any vessel or cargo, or of saving life;

(b) the discharge of any substance from a vessel other than a pleasure boat; or

(c) anything done more than 30 metres below the sea bed.

(4) Sections 236 to 238 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 202 to 204 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (which relate to the procedure for making byelaws, authorise byelaws to impose fines not exceeding the amount there specified and provide for the proof of byelaws in legal proceedings) shall apply to byelaws under this section as if the Council were a local authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1972 or the said Act of 1973, so however that in relation to such byelaws the said sections shall apply subject to such modifications (including modifications increasing the

531
maximum fines which the byelaws may impose) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Regulations under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) In relation to byelaws under this section the confirming authority for the purposes of the said section 236 or the said section 202 shall be the Secretary of State.
(6) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council, direct them—

(a) to revoke any byelaws previously made under this section; or

(b) to make any such amendments of any byelaws so made as may be specified in the direction.

(7) The Council shall have power to enforce byelaws made under this section; but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the Council to institute proceedings in Scotland for an offence.
(8) Proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under byelaws made under this section shall not, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be taken by a person other than the Council.
(9) References in this section to animals or plants of any description include references to eggs, seeds, spores, larvae or other immature stages of animals or plants of that description."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 92:
92A Subsection (3), line 1, after ("section") insert ("shall—

(a) prohibit or restrict the exercise of any right of passage by a vessel other than a pleasure boat; or

(b) prohibit, except with respect to particular parts of the reserve at particular times of the year, the exercise of any such right by a pleasure boat.

(3A) Nothing in byelaws so made.").
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have spoken to this. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the said amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 92.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 92:
92B Subsection (3)(b), line 1, leave out ("other than a pleasure boat").
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, i have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the said amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 92.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 92.
92C Subsection (8) insert—
("() In this section "vessel" includes a hovercraft and any aircraft capable of landing on water and "pleasure boat" shall be construed accordingly.").
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the said
532
amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 92.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
93 Leave out Clause 36.
9.38 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93. This paves the way for a later amendment, No. 105, which will insert in the Bill a more substantial clause about the duty of water authorities. I suggest that it would be convenient to delay speaking to this amendment until we get to No. 105.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
94 Clause 37, page 34, line 40, after 'beauty' insert or amenity'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94. The new "Sandford" clause in the Bill, "Duties of Agriculture Ministers", provides a special mechanism. A local planning authority in an area where the Sandford clause applies may object to an application for a MAFF capital grant on the ground that the activities to be grant-aided have adversely affected, or will adversely affect, the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside. If the Minister of Agriculture then refuses the grant, the local planning authority must offer the applicant a management agreement under Clause 37 of the Bill. Clause 37 permits management agreements to conserve natural beauty or flora and fauna, but the word "amenity" which appears in the Sandford clause does not appear in it. Amendment No. 94 therefore adapts it to the Sandford situation by adding the word "amenity", and local planning authorities will thus have the power to offer management agreements which fit the nature of any objection they may make to a farm capital grant application under the Sandford clause.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
95 Page 34, line 42, after agreement ('insert in this section referred to as'.
96 Page 35, line 3, leave out 'restrictions on that person' and insert 'on the person having an interest in the land restrictions'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95, and with leave, their Amendment No. 96. These are purely drafting amendments in the clause, empowering local planning authorities to make management agreements.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
97 Page 35, line 14, leave out 'the relevant authority to that person)' and insert either party to the other)'.
98 Page 35, line 15, leave out 'that' and insert 'the relevant'.
99 Page 35, line 26, after 'section "'insert the'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 99. Clause 37 enables local planning authorities to make management agreements. Subsection (2)(c) enables the agreements to provide for payments by the planning authority to persons concerned, but it has come to light that sometimes this might interfere with the parties' needs and desires. They might sometimes want an agreement under which the landowner or occupier makes some payments to the planning authority. There is no reason to rule this out, and Amendment No. 97 widens subsection (2)(c) so that it is not ruled out. Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 are drafting consequentials.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
100 Page 35, line 26, leave out from 'means' to end of line 27 and insert—

'(a) as respects land in a National Park, the county planning authority;

(b) as respects land in Greater London, the Greater London Council or the London Borough Council; and

(c) as'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 100. Subsection (5) of Clause 37 is the subsection which defines the authorities which are empowered to make management agreements in their areas. The Government's intention has been all along that the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs should come within this power, and Amendment No. 100 is a drafting amendment to place this beyond doubt.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
101 Leave out Clause 39 and insert the following new clause:
"Duties of agriculture Ministers. 1944 c. 28
.—(1) The advice for the giving of which free of charge the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State are required by section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 to make provision through such organisation as they consider appropriate shall include—

(a) advice to persons carrying on agricultural businesses on the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside;

(b) advice to such persons on diversification into other enterprises of benefit to the rural economy; and

(c) advice to government departments and other bodies exercising statutory functions on the promotion and furtherance of such diversification as is mentioned in paragraph (d).

(2) In the exercise of his general duty under section 4(2) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 of promoting the interests of agriculture and other rural industries, and without prejudice to the generality of
534
that duty, the Secretary of State shall make provision, through such organisation as he considers appropriate, for the giving of such advice as is mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1).
(3) Where an application for a grant under a scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (farm capital grants) is made as respects expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of activities on land which is in a National Park or an area specified for the purposes of this subsection by the Ministers, the appropriate Minister—

(a) shall, so far as may be consistent with the purposes of the scheme and the said section 29, so exercise his functions thereunder as to further the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and to promote its enjoyment by the public; and

(b) where the relevant authority have objected to the making of the grant on the ground that the activities in question have had or will have an adverse effect on the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside or its enjoyment by the public, shall not make the grant except after considering the objection and, in the case of land in England, after consulting with the Secretary of State; and this subsection shall have effect, in its application to Scotland, as if references to the amenity of the countryside were omitted.

(4) Where, in consequence of an objection by the relevant authority, an application for a grant as respects expenditure to be incurred is refused on the ground that the activities in question will have such an effect as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b), the relevant authority shall, within three months of their receiving notice of the appropriate Minister's decision, offer to enter into, in the terms of a draft submitted to the applicant, a management agreement—

(a) imposing restrictions as respects those activities; and

(b) providing for the making by them of payments to the applicant.

(5) In this section—
"agricultural business" and "the appropriate Minister" have the same meanings as in the said section 29;
"management agreement"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means an agreement under section 37;

(b) in relation to Scotland, means an agreement under section 49A of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967;

"the relevant authority"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in section 37;

(b) in relation to Scotland, means the authority exercising district planning functions.

(6) Subsection (1) extends only to England and Wales and subsection (2) extends only to Scotland.".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 101. Certain of the points arising in this new clause I have already touched on in speaking to Amendment No. 76. However, the present amendment is, as your Lordships will recognise, the main clause concerned with these matters, and its origins lie in the amendment which was tabled in your Lordships' House at Report stage by my noble friend Lord Sandford, and to which your Lordships agreed. That amendment (Clause 39 of the Bill as it left this House) and the points of principle involved were the subject of extensive discussion in another place, and I would particularly refer your Lordships to the statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services in Committee on 9th June, in which he made clear the Government's views on the original "Sandford"

535
amendment, explaining that, while the Government sympathised with its objectives and were willing to incorporate its essential features in the Bill, at the same time they wished to repair certain deficiencies and make other improvements in drafting. The result is the present new clause, with which I understand—though no doubt he will make his own comments on the point—my noble friend Lord Sandford has been kind enough to express himself well satisfied—and that is quite an achievement.
Perhaps it would assist your Lordships if I were to comment on the detail of the new clause and the main changes which have been introduced. Subsection (1) defines the role of agricultural advisory services—in England and Wales, this means ADAS—in respect of conservation and farm diversification. Subsection (1)(a) in effect picks up what was Clause 45 of the Bill when it left this House and it lays on my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues in Wales and, by virtue of subsection (2), Scotland, a duty, through the appropriate advisory body, to provide advice to farmers on both conservation and amenity. That puts into law one of the central recommendations of the 1978 Strutt Report and it enables advantage to be taken of the routine contacts with farmers which are enjoyed by those advisory bodies. But subsection (1)(b) goes further and lays a specific obligation on the advisory body to give advice to farmers on diversifying their business in ways benefiting not only the farmers directly concerned but also the rural economy generally. Subsection (1)(c) extends this obligation to cover similar advice to Government departments and statutory bodies.
My Lords, the Government have been unable to accept that the Ministry of Agriculture grants should themselves be available for such diversification as was proposed by the original amendment which was tabled in this House. As Ministers made clear in another place, the primary purpose of grant aid under the Agriculture Act 1970 is and must remain the improvement of agriculture. There already exist, of course, other sources of aid for diversification projects—for example, the Development Commission, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and the corresponding agencies for Scotland and Wales, and the national tourist boards—though we shall be looking at present arrangements to ensure that they are fully effective in meeting this need.
Subsections (3) and (4) embody, as noble Lords will see, the essential features of the original amendment, designed to safeguard conservation and amenity in national parks and any other areas which Ministers may in due course specify. In particular, they provide that an objection on amenity grounds by a relevant authority to an application made by a farmer under the Agriculture Act shall be considered by agriculture Ministers before grant is made, and that in England there shall be prior consultation with the Secretary of State.
This, as in the case of the original "Sandford" amendment, is backed up by the provision that, where an objection by a relevant authority is sustained under the terms of the clause and grant is refused to the farmer concerned, then under the terms of this new clause that authority must offer to enter into a
536
management agreement which should provide appropriate financial compensation for the farmer. Subsection (4) improves on the original provision by introducing a deadline for that offer—within three months of the authority's receiving the Minister's decision.
My Lords, I have already remarked in my comments on Amendment No. 76 on one major way in which the Government have gone beyond the terms of the original Clause 39 as it left this House; that is, that the scope of the special safeguards to which I have just referred has been extended to include all sites of special scientific interest. We shall shortly discuss Amendment No. 106, which provides for financial guidelines to be drawn up by Ministers for management agreements offered under this clause but which now adds what was not present in the original proposals—a provision for arbitration. I also draw attention to a third widening of the scope of Clause 39 as a whole—the application of its provisions to Scotland.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the Government have made a full response to the terms of the original amendment as it was moved in this House, and I commend this new clause to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
9.48 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101, Amendment No. 101 A:
101A Subsection (4), line 5, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have had a long discussion on this. Therefore, I do not propose to move this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers if he will explain one matter in relation to Scotland—and, as we have the benefit of the presence of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, I would hope for a doubly wise answer. I am surprised and a little worried that at the bottom of page 20 we find the words, in relation to subsection (3) of this new clause:
"this subsection shall have effect, in its application to Scotland, as if references to the amenity of the countryside were omitted".
The Scottish people and those who, like myself, have an interest in Scotland are just as concerned about the amenity of the countryside as anybody who lives in Scotland or Wales. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary for those words to be included there. There may be a good explanation, but I think we should be given it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, was somewhat puzzled by this. Is it on the grounds that Scotland has natural beauty but no Englishman can see amenity? I do not know. I think it requires an explanation, and I, too, look forward to hearing it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, there are three points on this new clause on which I hope the noble Earl will comment. I would say that I have no intention of

537
repeating the arguments that we had on No. 76. These are separate points on which I should like more information and I hope the noble Earl will be able to give it when he comes to reply. First, on the question of money, as the noble Earl has made clear, the situation has now changed. With the original Sandford amendment, we had a situation under which the whole thing came within the ambit of MAFF. They decided whether to give a grant for agriculture or for conservation. Now, in a sense, MAFF are off the hook and merely decide whether there is a qualification for an agricultural grant, but they may in some circumstances be tempted to say, "You ought to get a grant but we are not sure whether you will. It depends on what the national parks committee do". That may intensify the antagonisms between landowners and the national parks committees which are regrettable but exist in certain parts. The ultimate fate of all this depends on the availability of money.
My first point is that the noble Earl will be aware that at the national parks conference the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Heseltine, gave an undertaking, not an unqualified one, with regard to the provision of the necessary resources to enable the national parks committees or boards, as appropriate, to fulfil their responsibilities under this new revised procedure—which is a different procedure from that envisaged under the original Sandford clause. The noble Earl when replying earlier to the new clause under No. 76 did not repeat the undertaking with regard to money which had been made by the Secretary of State. Perhaps he might take this opportunity to say a little about that.
The second point is in comparing this with the national parks and countryside of landscape quality rather than with the SSSIs as was the case with No. 76. Under the provisions of No. 76, the noble Earl will recall that we had two additional safeguards. First, there was a provision for advance notification by both sides, by the NCC under Clause 28 and by the landowner under Clause 28 as amended; so that there was advance notification of any changes. Secondly, there was another safeguard in the code of practice under Amendment No. 77. So under the provisions relating to SSSIs we had two additional safeguards; a sort of belt and braces situation. Here when dealing with national parks land and land of outstanding landscape quality we do not have the belt and we appear to have the braces without buttons. Perhaps the noble Earl can comment on the fact that this, in so far as it is protection for landscape of outstanding quality, appears less strong that the earlier one in relation to SSSIs.
The third is a factual point which I hope the noble Earl will be able to answer. Subsection (3) of the new clause refers to an application for grant under a scheme made under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 on farm capital grants. My understanding is that that does not cover all agricultural grant schemes. It does not cover forestry grants and I doubt whether it covers grants from the EEC. If I am right and it does not cover these grants, is it the intention to extend this provision administratively, while it is not here statutorily, to other forestry grants?
In general, I welcome the new clause; it could be valuable. But I should like some comment from the
538
noble Earl on the question of money, on the absence in this of the two additional safeguards that exist in regard to the SSSIs and on the question of the other MAFF grants which do not appear to come within the statutory scope of this provision. Are they to be covered administratively?
9.55 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the time it takes my noble friend to reflect on amenity in Scotland provides me with the opportunity to comment briefly on this matter and to thank the Government for embracing the ideas in my original amendment and bringing them forward in the more comprehensive and extensive form in which they are now before us. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the partial data and figures that I was able to give about the operation of the so-called ADAS tea party are a significant factor in enabling us to judge the success with which this clause is likely to operate.
May I consult with him in the course of the next few days? I should like to formulate a Parliamentary Question for Written Answer which would put on the record the precise way in which all 10 national parks are operating the ADAS tea party and the results that they have achieved in the course of the past year. This would give us a still more comprehensive background in which to consider whether we have taken the right decision, as I believe we have tonight in respect of this amendment and the earlier one, No. 76.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am in no way intending to reopen the debate that we had prior to the dinner break. One point needs clarification. It may well be that some noble Lords, after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, have the impression that there is no difference at all in the use of the word "shall" in what is known as the Sandford amendment and the new clause which is before us. For the record, I should like the Minister to say whether there is any difference between what is in the Sandford clause, "shall seek to enter" into a management agreement, and what is in the new clause, "shall offer to enter". In one case it is to try to get a management agreement and the other way is to offer. I should like the Minister to confirm that that is the position.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I have a great affiliation, I think. I asked the same question to see whether offering to enter was something rather stronger than seeking to enter. I am advised that there is no difference. If you offer to enter you in fact seek to enter. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, shakes his head. A111 am trying to tell him is that there is nothing spurious or almost like a subterfuge about that. I am advised that the two things are in fact synonymous and that the lawyers so consider it.
My noble friend Lord Sandford is making a comment from a sedentary position which I am sure would be most interesting if I could hear it. He asked whether he could consult with me over the next few days with the idea of putting down a Parliamentary Question for Written Answer on a number of points upon which he would like explanations. I should be delighted for him to consult me for such purposes, and I can recommend

539
that procedure to your Lordships who might otherwise feel that they would wish to ask difficult questions for immediate answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked about Scotland. The clause relies in respect of England and Wales on the power to make management agreements. That is Clause 37 of the Bill. That has been amended to include provision for management agreements to be made for the purposes of amenity. In Scotland the power for local authorities to make agreements already exists in other legislation. But that Act does not extend the power to make management agreements beyond conservation objectives and to promote enjoyment by the public. It would therefore have been meaningless to provide for this clause to apply to amenity in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, wondered what the financial provisions were with regard to the providing of finance for these management agreements. He is quite right. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a speech in Norwich on 18th September in which he went as far as he reasonably could. He said, and I quote his words:
"Management agreements may be expensive. I shall have to take into account the new responsibilities placed on statutory authorities by the Bill and I have many hard decisions to make about the use of scarce resources."
That is the position as it is at the moment. The noble Lord also asked whether forestry and EEC grants will be covered by the Nature Conservancy Council as if there had been a statutory duty. These will be made under the guidelines which will be produced. Regarding the third question which he asked, I can say that the national parks have not got the powers which the Nature Conservancy Council have. I hope that answers the various points that have been made.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—because I did not make a speech before he got up—may I ask him to confirm that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum in the copy of the Bill we are now working from is in fact incorrect? On page v it says that:
"The provisions relating to the Countryside Commission, national parks and management agreements require no additional public expenditure."
Presumably that is now out of date and the Government will produce some alternative version, giving an estimate of what expenditure they expect these new clauses we are now debating to lead to.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Financial Memorandum to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, refers, was talking about expenditure which the provisions within this particular Bill will require—that is, which will inevitably necessitate. It correctly said they will necessitate no extra expenditure. This does not rule out additional expenditure on management agreements under normal arrangements—that is under existing legislation—if it becomes desirable. Government and finance for management agreements would be provided under existing legislation and not under this Bill. Therefore the Financial Memorandum is in fact correct.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
102 Clause 40, page 37, line 34, after 'Ministers' insert', the Nature Conservancy Council'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102. Clause 40 is the clause which enables the Minister to make orders for the compulsory notifications of agricultural or forestry proposals on moor and heath in national parks. Subsection (6) requires the national park authority to send copies of notifications received to the Ministers and the Countryside Commission. Amendment No. 102 will require it to send copies to the Nature Conservancy Council also. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is a good idea and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
103 After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
Maps of National Parks showing certain areas of moor or heath.
"(1) Every county planning authority whose area comprises the whole or any part of a National Park shall—

(a) before the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the commencement date, prepare a map of the Park or the part thereof showing any areas of moor or heath the natural beauty of which it is, in the opinion of the authority, particularly important to conserve; and

(b) at such intervals thereafter as they think fit (but not less than once in any year), review the particulars contained in the map and make such revisions thereof (if any) as may be requisite.

(2) The authority shall cause a map prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) to be printed, and shall cause copies thereof to be put on sale to the public at such price as the authority may determine."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103. There were, of course, long debates in this House at both Committee and Report stages of the Bill about losses of moorland in our national parks. In the course of the latter I explained the Government's view that the position in Exmoor is critical but that in no other national park is the position so exceptional. Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings on the Bill in another place, doubt was expressed about the statistics available to the Government relating to the extent of current losses. Much play was made with a research project undertaken by Dr. Parry of Birmingham University, who has studied particularly the North York Moors, Dartmoor, the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia. This persuaded the Government of the possibility that significant losses of moorland were still occurring outside Exmoor, where the position has fortunately been stabilised by the voluntary agreements.
One of the significant differences between Exmoor and the other national parks is that a map of the moor and heath on Exmoor is now available, enabling the national park committee to understand the important practical issues of loss of moorland. We therefore concluded that there ought to be maps of the moorland in every national park, which would have the important

541
long-term effect of enabling a close watch to be kept on changes year by year. This new clause now requires the national park authorities within two years to produce and publish maps showing any moor or heath which they think it particularly important to conserve, and to review them annually. The point was made in another place that these maps should be prepared on the same scale, for easy reference, but the Government do not think this need be prescribed statutorily.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 103.
103A Subsection (1)(a), line 3, leave out from ("areas") to ("and") in line 6 and insert ("which consist of or include moor or heath which are of significance by reason of their character or appearance").
10.8 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself. Needless to say, we very warmly welcome the intention of Amendment No. 103 which has been moved by the noble Earl, and all that we are attempting to do in this group of amendments—and I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 103A, 103B, 103C and 103D—is, we hope, to make a little more practical the proposals in the Government's amendment. We do so with the support of the Countryside Commission and, I think, the very lively sympathy of the Association of County Councils.
We are suggesting that the definition of the areas to be mapped under the Government's amendment is really much too narrow. After all, we are discussing only mapping; we are not discussing any other activity. While we are about it, it would be far more satisfactory, in the view of the amenity organisations, if we could have a reasonably complete map of the areas of heath and moorland. This would allow for differentiation between the "core areas", as they are called in Dr. Parry's studies, and the rest; the core areas "being a term used for those areas of heath or moorland which, so far as one can judge, have not been subject to ploughing or similar disturbance, probably over many hundreds of years. They are original, so to say, whereas there are fringe areas of moorland which, in particular national parks, may nevertheless be of significance, but which have moved on the borderline, in and out of cultivation, sometimes over a period of several centuries.
In our view, with very little extra labour, this could all be indicated on maps, not least because, as the noble Earl mentioned. Dr. Parry and his team have done a good deal at least of the preliminary work. I have here, which has just been issued, their study of the Brecon Beacons National Park. These are purely factual reviews. They do not express opinions one way or another, but they provide methods and supply a certain amount of the data that would be needed by the national park authorities to carry out this mapping exercise.
I should have mentioned that in Clause 40, which is the clause to which this is a postscript, the land concerned is land,
"in a National Park and which appears…to consist of or include moor or heath."
This is one reason why we think that we should extend
542
the definition which, in the Government's version, is really very narrow. It is only areas of moor or heath, the natural beauty of which in the opinion of the authority it is particularly important to conserve. Natural beauty is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. We feel that our definition is much more satisfactory, and I understand that the Countryside Commission is of the same opinion.
On the other hand, if one is to publish a map the proposed interval for publication of a map of not less than once in each year appears to be excessive. We have here the support of the Association of County Councils who are also of that opinion; and they are the major authorities concerned with the national parks.
It seems to us that provided an annual report, as provided for in Amendment No. 103D, is published indicating in the text what changes may have taken place, including the number of hectares or acres, whichever you prefer, which have been affected during the 12-month period, this would be adequate for survey purposes, for statistical purposes, for record purposes, and that the actual map could quite sensibly be published at intervals of not more than five years. This is the period during which national park plans in any case are normally subject to review. This seems to us to be a sensible economy of time, effort and expense and would balance any extra work which might be required by extending the scope of the map.
Those are the main points, other than Amendment No. 103C, the purpose of which is to make the position of the Countryside Commission more specific and definite. I believe it is the intention of the Government that these maps for the 10 different national parks should be compatible one with the other in their nature and scale. The intention is that signs, coloration and so on should be compatible. Reference to the Countryside Commission seems to be the most appropriate way to secure this. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 103A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 103, be agreed to.—(Baroness White.)
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, simply to underline very briefly the point we wish to make about the contrast between the wording of the Commons amendment and our Amendment No. 103A regarding the appearance of the landscape. The Commons amendment clearly says that on their own moor or heath can scenically be particularly beautiful. I contend that moorland and heath on their own can be extremely dull. We believe that moorland and heath, in the context of other types of scenery in the landscape, make the beauty and therefore that Commons Amendment No. 103 should be more widely drawn, according to the wording which we have offered. So I ask your Lordships, at least in regard to this amendment, to support it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as the third signatory to this group of amendments I have no wish to prolong the proceedings, but there are a number of different points and I, too, would like to support each and every one of them.
There are one or two comments which I should like to make. The broadening of the definition to "which

543
consist of or include moor or heath" mirrors the Government's own wording in Clause 40(1) and is surely what is required, whereas the new clause as it stands merely says "showing certain areas of moor or heath", meaning that they must not contain anything else at all. The revised definition is surely much more satisfactory.
With regard to the specific reference to the Countryside Commission, surely that, too, is wise. The Countryside Commission is the Government's statutory adviser on landscape matters. Clause 40 of the Bill requires the commission to advise. Replying to this point in Committee in another place, Mr. Hector Monro said:
"It is unthinkable that the Countryside Commission would not be consulted".
If it is unthinkable, why not put it in? There can be no objections to it being included.
Finally, there is one point about the requirement to prepare the new map every year, to make copies of the map and to make them available for sale. As the noble Lord said when introducing this clause, the only one of the national parks concerning which a map would show very rapid changes would presumably be Exmoor. In many of the other maps the changes would be very small. Under an earlier amendment the national park is required to provide an annual report detailing changes, and I should have thought that the added requirement to prepare a new map and then have it printed, published and then made available for sale every year was really unnecessarily burdensome on the national park authorities, whose resources are already severely strained.
Lord Digby: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has already spoken to her Amendment No. 103B, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to my amendment, No. 103AA, at this stage. My amendment is very much in agreement with her amendment, but I am concerned that the noble Baroness has imposed a maximum of five years. So often, a maximum becomes a minimum and I believe it is better to leave the authority to decide as it thinks fit. I am concerned about the requirements to review a map yearly. If my amendment was agreed the county planning authorities would have to review the map as they think fit. I would remind your Lordships that they are responsible bodies and will review as necessary. The Association of County Councils is concerned at the expense involved in a yearly review. As the past chairman of a committee dealing with rights of way and definitive maps, I have so often found that new duties imposed by Parliament have meant that other duties, possibly of greater importance, have had to fall by the wayside. We all know that there are not enough staff to deal with all the things that we would like to have dealt with.
I appreciate that there is a difference between a revision and a review of a map. If a "review" only means, say, a report from a warden of the park to the appropriate committee for them to consider, this would be normal practice yearly and acceptable. But if it meant a more thorough yearly review, this may—and I emphasise "may"—be too often and too expensive. My other concern is the effect of subsection (2) as a
544
result of any yearly revisions under subsection (1)(b). Even if the yearly review is simple, does it mean that any revisions under the yearly review will result in the considerable expense of reprinting the maps for sale? As I read it, it seems that that would happen. This is a major expense if it has to be done yearly. It is very easy to impose these duties in this Chamber but every extra duty means that something else must go by the board. When I move my amendment in due course, I ask your Lordships to consider it sympathetically.
Baroness White: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Digby, if he supports our Amendment No. 103D?
Lord Digby: Yes, my Lords, I do. I think that this is something that can well be done. It would be normal practice for those in charge of the authority, and I would certainly support that amendment.
10.19 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I find the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to be a good group of amendments and in general a great improvement on what has been produced in another place. The question of the reporting of changes of character in an area defined on the map is clearly a sensible one. It is clearly a mistake to get involved in redrawing a map every year.
I think that probably the most important amendment is No. 103A, and I like the reasons that have been given for spreading the areas that are to be mapped beyond those which are in somebody's opinion particularly important to conserve. Also, although the thing goes wider, the language is a great deal crisper. The only thing I regret is that Amendment No. 103A does not include the phrase "in the opinion of the authority ". I am afraid that on those grounds it may be a little difficult for the Government to accept, but the group as a whole is much more to the point and I am sure achieves what we should all like to see achieved.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of Amendment No. 103A. There is another argument in its favour which has not been mentioned and that is that the wording that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my noble friend Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, prefer would allow the authority to take into account nature conservation interests. After all, there are areas of moor and heath which may not look very nice but may be extremely important from a nature conservation point of view, and it seems to me that the wording used in another place totally excludes that, whereas the wording used in Amendment No. 103A, by using the term "are of significance by reason of their character ", makes it quite clear that it would be possible to include an area which happens to be extremely important for nesting birds or a very rare protected flower, and so on.
I hope that, on that ground in addition to the others which have been mentioned, the Government may accept Amendment No. 103A. I think it is fair to say that so far this evening we have not got a great deal of joy from the Government. I do not think this session

545
on the Bill has been characterised by quite the same spirit of give and take as characterised all the other debates in the many days that we spent on the Bill, and I hope that with 103A we may now break this rather unfortunate mould that we have got into and that the Government may give a little.
On Amendment No. 103AA, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Digby, that I think he has got the wrong point. I would agree with his criticism of subsection (2) if it means that every time a small change takes place the map has to be redrawn, reprinted and put on sale again, but I do not think that simply reviewing the particulars on the map and making revisions on it, if that just means a master copy being kept up to date, is a particularly onerous duty and the fact that it has to be done once a year I should have thought was really a minimum requirement and something without which it will be impossible for the authority to keep this properly under review, which is the purpose of the amendment.
If I am right in thinking that subsection (2) does not actually mean that every small change on the map means that it has to be reprinted and another copy put on sale, I would hope that the noble Earl might agree with my noble friend in Amendment No. 103D, which is the sensible procedure for letting the public know about changes on an annual basis, to issue a report, and I should have thought that if 103D were accepted, which would be, as the noble Lord himself said, the normal procedure, a lot of the worries about keeping maps up to date and so on might be removed because everyone would know that they would get an annual report.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course I recognise in this series of amendments a genuine attempt to improve the clause, and, if I may slightly answer the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in his criticism about give and take, one of the difficulties with which one is faced, particularly on an amendment like this, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady White, will understand, is that it has been hammered out in the other place with a lot of compromise and a lot of everything else and that makes it rather more difficult for us to be flexible.
With regard to Amendment No. 103A, I agree with most of what has been said but I hope to be able to prove that it is to some degree unnecessary and might perhaps even achieve an effect which the noble Lords who have spoken about it do not wish to see achieved.
The amendment would require authorities to produce maps of areas of moor or heath which were of significance by reason of their character or appearance rather than those which the national park authority regard as particularly important. If this were agreed, the question would arise: how is the authority to know which areas are of significance by reason of their character of appearance? There has to be an element of subjective judgment and it is our view that the national park authority is best placed to make that judgment. Furthermore, the concept of particular importance conveys a more readily understandable criterion than that of significance. Perhaps when the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, comes to reply, they could say why they have actually left out the words "in the opinion of the Authority",
546
because we find them rather necessary in that particular clause.
I turn now to the proposition that the national park authority should be required to send a copy of the proposed map to the Countryside Commission.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if the noble Earl is leaving Amendment No. 103A, can he say something about the nature conservation interest? Do the Government accept that their wording would allow the national park authority to include in the maps areas which were particularly significant from a nature conservation point of view?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, while I find the answer to that perhaps I may go on and take the next point. The answer, I am told, is, yes. My rethoughts come so quickly.
I turn now to the proposition that the national park authority should be required to send a copy of the proposed map to the Countryside Commission. We have, as I think the noble Baroness knows, no objection whatsoever to the Countryside Commission being consulted in this way. They have a great deal of expertise which the national park authority may find it valuable to tap. But the Government do not recommend the House to incorporate this as a statutory requirement. The reason is that the commission have limited resources and they might well find it difficult to respond immediately to a request for observations on proposed maps from all the national parks.
The Government have set a period of two years on the preparation and publication of the map. This is a tight timetable but one which we believe to be achievable. But it would be impossible to meet the target if the Countryside Commission were unable to provide their observations on the proposed map very quickly. And if they did not, the national park authority would possibly be unable to fulfil their statutory duty because of the shortcomings of another body. This is not a position in which the authority should be placed, and we would prefer to leave it to their own judgment as to whether to consult the commission.
Next, there is the proposition that the maps should be revised once every five years. I think this may have been put forward so as to align the maps with the kindred national park plans, which provide a more general sketch of the conservation intentions of each park as a whole. Under Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972, paragraph 18(b), the parks have to review these at not more than five-yearly intervals, and, incidentally, in paragraph 19 of that schedule, there is a similar provision about taking account of Countryside Commission observations in this exercise. This wholly admirable attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Digby, and the noble Baroness and her co-sponsors, to reduce the administrative burden upon national park authorities is, I hope, based on a misconception of the requirements of the clause. If I may explain, the duty put on the authorities by Section 1(b) is to review the particulars contained in the map annually. Such a review can be as wide-ranging or as perfunctory as the authority consider appropriate in the circumstances of their park, and they are only required to revise the map and put copies of the

547
revised edition on sale if they think it necessary. I gladly put on record the Government's view that it will be completely unnecessary, and indeed it would be grossly extravagant, for every national park to prepare and publish a revised map each year. But we think that the authorities ought to be bound by statute to review the situation annually.
I come lastly to the proposition that each national park authority should be required to prepare an annual report of the changes in the character of the area defined on the map. I realise that this is associated with the intention of increasing the interval between publication of maps. I hope that, for the reasons I have explained, your Lordships will feel that it is not necessary. The effect in practice would be to increase the burden on the national park authorities, because they would be obliged to prepare an annual report of the changes rather than carry out an annual review, which might be no more than an internal exercise of a limited kind.
I hope that the House will feel that I have been helpful in trying to explain the various reasons why the Government would prefer the clause to stand as it is. I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness may consider that she does not have to press her amendments.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I should like to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that in another place the Minister said that it would be unthinkable if the Countryside Commission were not consulted by national park authorities when these maps were being prepared. The noble Earl seemed to be more or less directly contradicting that statement. I wondered whether he had any further thoughts about how the two points of view might be reconciled?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord could have heard what I said. I shall repeat it. We have no objection whatever to the Countryside Commission being consulted in this way. They have a great deal of expertise which a national park authority may find it valuable to tap. However, I went on to say that the Government could not recommend the House to incorporate this as a statutory requirement, and then went on to give my reasons.
Baroness White: My Lords, I can entirely understand, of course, why at this late stage in the Bill the Government do not like any amendments—who would? On the other hand, I must confess that I am disappointed. After all, what we are discussing is maps: we are not discussing any major physical work, or grants or anything difficult like that. We are simply discussing maps. It seems to me that it is not really all that difficult, surely, for the Government to accept a somewhat wider definition than they have which is confined, as I understand it, exclusively to natural beauty. How that can be said to take in the matters in which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is interested I do not know. I am not saying that he is not interested in natural beauty, but his main interests, I think, lie elsewhere.
I find it very difficult to see why the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 103A, which subsumes in the word "appearance" natural beauty. There is nothing to stop the park authority from indicating
548
those features which they regard as particularly important. What we are concerned about is that we should have a map which is reasonably comprehensive within which one may then indicate particular categories. I should have thought that Amendment No. 103A, was definitely to be preferred to the definition given in Amendment No. 103.
On the other points, I do not think that my noble friends would wish to be awkward or to stick because they could be done by administrative action. I would hope that the Government could support Amendment No. 103D, because I think that the reports which we have had and the discussions which there have been about the true state of affairs in the various national parks during the course of consideration of this Bill indicate that it is very desirable that one should have a text, at any rate, indicating what changes have taken place in these particular features in the course of the 12-month period of the report. If we do not have some provision of this kind, or if we cannot have an absolute assurance that this will be done by administrative means, then one has a situation where one year one park is perhaps a bit short of staff or concerned about other matters and we lose the comprehensive data base for this kind of information, and it is less adequate for some parks than for others.
I should have thought that Amendment No. 103D was a minimal requirement concerning something which ought to be done in the normal course; and if, by leave of the House, the noble Earl would wish to speak again, could he give us some further assurance on that matter? We do not want to divide the House on this type of thing if we can help it, but we feel that the Government really could have gone a bit further, even given the anxiety that I am sure the Chief Whip has that we should complete this business with despatch.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty because I greatly sympathise with what the noble Baroness says. By leave of the House, perhaps I could take up that last point again. As we see it in practice, the national park authorities, rather than actually preparing an annual report of the changes, would carry out an annual review which, as I said earlier, need be no more than an internal exercise. We always have over our heads the five-year point which would ensure that nothing was, what one might call, kept in the cupboard for too long. I do not know whether that helps the noble Baroness at all.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, would it be of assistance to him if we adjourned the debate at this stage? It is getting very late. We are not making very rapid progress and it does not seem to me that the spirit of co-operation which we might have had on a simple set of very modest and reasonable amendments is forthcoming. It might be better to leave this until Monday evening, when we are all feeling a little fresher, and we could come back and perhaps have a clearer indication about what was going to be done about Amendment No. 103D before we have to reach a decision on Amendment No. 103A.
Baroness White: My Lords, are we to get no response to this sensible and generous piece of advice?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I did actually intervene before the noble Earl sat down, quite deliberately in order to give him the opportunity to continue with his speech.
Baroness White: My Lords, in that case I think that I must ask those who are in support of Amendment No. 103A to indicate their support for it, because it is a very sensible amendment. Lacking any further indication that the Government will do something about this, I would hope that we would show our opinion of the matter in the Lobbies.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the Question is put, please could we have an answer from the Chief Whip or someone to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett? There was a great silence in your Lordships' House, and we cannot sit up for another four hours being totally silent, which is what is likely to happen. Would it not be a good idea to have a view from the Chief Whip or from someone on the Government Front Bench?
Lord Denham: My Lords, the general rule in this House is that if we are to adjourn the debate, it is done by discussion through the usual channels and not by question and answer on the Floor of the House. I think that it would be very difficult if I were asked in the middle of a debate whether we could now adjourn it. I understand that the noble Baroness does not see fit to withdraw this amendment. I also understand that my noble friend does not feel able to give the sort of assurance that would satisfy the noble Baroness. I think that probably the only answer is that the Question on this particular matter should be put and decided by the House.
10.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 103A as an amendment to Amendment No. 103 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 37.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

de Clifford, L.

Stone, L.

De La Warr, E.

Tryon, L.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Melchett, L.

White, B.

Peart, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gormanston, V.

Avon, E.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Burnham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Burton, L.

Long, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Margadale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Tetler.]

Onslow, E.

Digby, L.

Peel, E.

Ferrers, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

550

Renton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Sandford, L.

Swinton, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 103:
103AA* Subsection (1)(b), line 1, leave out ("(but not less than once in any year)").
Lord Digby: My Lords, in view of the Minister's assurance that subsection (1) (b) really is in the normal course of affairs—a normal report, rather than ensuring endless revisions of the actual map—I will not move this amendment to the amendment.
[Amendment No. 103AA not moved.]
As an amendment to Amendment No. 103:
103B Subsection (1)(b), line 2, leave out ("any year") and insert ("five years").
Baroness White: My Lords, this is not worth moving.
[Amendment No. 103B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 103C not moved.]
Lord Melchett: For clarification, my Lords, perhaps I might say that I had intended to say something on Amendment No. 103C, and I would have wished to move it on my noble friend's behalf if she had not intended to do so, but I hesitated because I thought the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was about to intervene before that amendment was called.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords, but I was having a little technical difficulty doing that, for which I apologise. If the noble Baroness, Lady White, on reflection wishes to say something on Amendment No. 103C—
Baroness White: I have said all I wanted to say, my Lords. As I received no co-operation at all, I did not see why I should say any more.
Lord Denham: My Lords, do I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, wishes to say something on Amendment No. 103D?
Lord Melchett: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Denham: In that case, my Lords, Amendment No. 103C having been dealt with, this might be a convenient stopping place for the evening.
Baroness White: Does that mean that Amendment No. 103D is left in the air, my Lords?
Lord Melchett: Yes, my Lords; it remains to be dealt with.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords; we will start with No. 103D next time.
I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments to the Bill be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.