Lords Sitting of 19 October 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Business Start-up Scheme
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress of the start-up scheme for small businesses.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, considerable interest has been shown in the scheme and the Government are confident that it will be of great benefit in encouraging investment in new trading ventures. It is not possible at this stage to give particulars of investment by individuals as claims will not be made until next year. But two funds have already been launched which are seeking to raise £16.5 million for investment in this field.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which is extremely encouraging for this very enterprising start-up scheme. Will he please say whether he considers the amount of capital that will be invested in these companies to be sufficient for their needs—risk capital?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we keep this matter under continual review. In the last two Budgets a whole series of measures have been introduced, designed to encourage the flow of new capital into small enterprises. This is an entirely new departure and one without parallel anywhere else in the industrial world. We wish it well and will watch its progress with great interest.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the considerable interest he has referred to is really unparalleled? Can he also perhaps put some flesh on the bones of a rather bare statement?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is the scheme itself which is without parallel elsewhere in the industrial world. So far as putting flesh on the bare bones is concerned, the simple truth of the matter is that the scheme has only just been embodied in legislation but the first claims by individuals investing under this scheme can be made only after April of next year. It is only then that we shall be able to gauge how successful the scheme has been; but it has made a good start.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while welcoming the general thrust of the entire scheme, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have given
556
consideration to significantly increasing the loan limits that are at present in force? May I also ask whether the noble Lord has fully taken into account the extra interest burden that seems so far to be inevitable?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if I say, with respect, that I believe that possibly the noble Lord may have in mind the loans guarantee scheme rather than the business start-up scheme. The business start-up scheme is designed to encourage raising new equity capital, and indeed there is a strong argument for saying that it is in the lack of equity capital that the weakness lies. But the loans guarantee scheme has already made a very good start, with more than 800 loans having been already agreed, amounting to approximately £30 million.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while all parties are, or should be, in agreement with the general purpose of this scheme, most of us who are actually trying to operate it are finding the drafting extremely cloudy and are in some doubt as to whether we are doing the right thing?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lord. If I may, I would make two comments on the specific points he raises. First of all, a large number of amendments were made on Committee stage in another place which were designed to meet many of the criticisms which had been made, with the result that the scheme as it finally emerged represented a noticeable improvement on the scheme as originally introduced. Secondly, as my honourable friend Mr. John MacGregor, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, announced on 22nd September, a series of 14 regional conferences and 50 smaller conferences have been set up in order to explain the terms of the scheme to people who are interested.

EEC: Exports Customs Tariff and Job Loss
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: 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 number who would become unemployed if all our exports to the EEC were subject to the common customs tariff.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it is not possible to predict exactly by how much United Kingdom exports to the Community would fall if they were subject to the commons customs tariff, nor precisely to quantify that fall in terms of job loss. However, last year the United Kingdom exported some £20,000 million of products to our Community partners, and clearly many jobs depend on these exports.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his illuminating reply, may I ask him what alternative markets are there and whether we are fully exploiting those that may exist?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no doubt there are a number of alternative markets, but if we were to withdraw from the Community it is a matter of speculation whether those markets would be taken up. What I would tell my noble friend is that since we joined the Community the percentage of our exports which go to Community states rose from 30·6 per cent. in 1972 to 43 per cent. in 1980 and now West Germany takes the largest percentage of our exports, 10·7 per cent. of the total, and has superseded the United States of America which only takes 9·6 per cent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the assumption made in this Question, that our exports would be subject to a unilaterally imposed common customs tariff, is a very fanciful one indeed? Is the noble Earl aware that any examination of the figures will show that, in effect, the boot is on the other leg; that we take from the Community over £1,000 million more in manufactured goods than we export to the Community, and that a customs tariff against fuel supplies to the Continent would be extremely unlikely? Will the noble Earl please bear in mind that it would, perhaps, be better if these very important EEC matters which involve us all, and concerning which the facts are fully known, were discussed in a completely dispassionate atmosphere, as distinct from being on the basis of an emotional spasm?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite sure who was having the spasm. I rather thought that it was the noble Lord opposite. But my noble friend is entirely entitled to ask this Question. She is entirely entitled to ask what would be the position if we were subject to a common customs tariff on all our exports. The noble Lord ought to bear in mind that the current export/import ratio in manufacturing with the European Community is far more favourable than with alternative trading partners which we have, such as North America and Japan.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, in their latest document about the consequences of withdrawal in the agricultural sector, recognise that considerable unemployment would arise in agriculture, and that our own exports of agricultural commodities, which are now a great success within the Community, would be diminished? Would my noble friend therefore consider lending a copy of this document to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to assist in a more calm discussion of this subject?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise that the party opposite are entirely at sixes and sevens over our membership of the Community. All I would tell the noble Lord is that we believe that we should remain members of the Community and that we have a great trading future with it.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, since withdrawal would disrupt not only our own economy but also the economies of our partners, can we rely on them renegotiating with us in a thoroughly dispassionate spirit?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that the position will arise.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has my noble friend seen two estimates from very responsible political leaders, which show that the consequential effects on unemployment might add between 2 million and 2¼ million to the total now existing?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, indeed, my Lords, I have. But, of course, the net amount of jobs lost would depend on the quantity of trade which might, or might not, continue despite our withdrawal, and what new trade links could be negotiated as a result of our withdrawal. My noble friend is entirely right about the effect on the number of our jobs. If I may, I should like to quote what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, which was:
"Over 2 million jobs depend on our trade with Europe. 2 million jobs which will be put at risk by Britain's withdrawal",
She then went on to say:
"And even if we kept two-thirds of our trade with the Common Market after we had flounced out—and that is pretty optimistic—there would be a million more to join the dole queue. That is only the beginning".
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, may we say how much we have enjoyed this exchange between the various members of Her Majesty's Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness was a member of Her Majesty's Government, and I am entirely delighted to carry on any such conversation if she so wishes.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is it not a fact that exports to the European Community, which stood at £11,848 million in 1977, have now reached £20,541 million in 1980, and if we left would it not be catastrophic?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right; it would be catastrophic. If he cares to take himself back to when we joined the Community, our exports to the Community when we joined in 1972 were only £2·9 billion and they are now, as he said, £20·4 billion. That is a very substantial increase and a very substantial amount of exports.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since the noble Earl has given the figures about exports to the Community, would he care to give similar figures about our imports from the Community?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should be delighted to do so if the noble Lord would care to put down a Question.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, if we are doing so well from the Community, why is it that we have 3 million unemployed? It is a very simple question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is such a thing as a world recession. I will tell the noble Baroness, if I may, that the United Kingdom has a higher percentage of its population in employment than any other member state of the Community, with the exception of Denmark.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the noble Earl's reiteration of the prophecies of unemployment, with which he has been kind enough to regale us, will he bear in mind that the Government have no credible record in the whole business of forecasting and that it would be wise for them to be extremely cautious?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is precisely what I was trying to be. In furtherance of the noble Baroness's question, I would remind the noble Lord that we are not the only country which is suffering problems of increasing unemployment, and that between August 1980 and August 1981, while the United Kingdom's unemployment increased by 46·9 per cent., West Germany's increased by 49·1 per cent. and that of the Netherlands by 55.6 per cent. So we are not alone in the difficulties.

Land's End
2.49 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 will take all necessary steps to prevent the sale of Land's End to non-British individuals or organisations; and whether they will consider providing financial aid to the National Trust to purchase Land's End on behalf of the British people.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider any proposals which he may receive from the Countryside Commission or from the local authorities concerned, but there is little reason to regard a possible change of ownership as a threat in itself to the character or appearance of Land's End which I understand has been a matter of concern for some while. The land will, of course, remain subject to normal planning controls and I believe the local authorities, the commission and the National Trust will continue to direct their attention towards means of encouraging better environmental management so as to improve unsightly features and to avoid erosion of paths.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very informative reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that the grave concern felt by people all over the country is now reaching the point of consternation? May I further ask him whether he would be prepared at some time to make a statement that rather than lose Land's End to any overseas interest the Government will be prepared to help the National Trust and the Countryside Commission financially, so that in the national interest Land's End can be saved?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord is jumping the gun because at the moment we do not know how much acreage there is for sale, or what is actually up for sale. It is an issue that we would expect in the first instance to be considered by the Countryside Commission, the National Trust and the Cornwall County Council, and I understand that discussions are now taking place between those bodies. May I add that there is no prerequisite for a prospective purchaser in this country of land or property to state his nationality and that many properties owned by people from various foreign countries all over the world are extremely well maintained.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Earl scotch a rumour which seems to have got about, somehow, that if Land's End is purchased by a foreign purchaser they intend to cut it off and tow it away?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that would indeed be very difficult. Might I add—of course I like to get a "plug" in whenever I can—that there will be a power under the Wildlife and Countryside Bill when it becomes law for local planning authorities to make a management agreement for the conservation of just this kind of landscape.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not Land's End our country's most famous headland? Would not its sale to a non-British national be regarded as yet another mark of our national decline? What would Shakespeare say about it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course, with my family name, I should like to quote Shakespeare back at the noble and learned Lord. To go back to his original question, with so many Scotsmen in the House I am not quite sure that one can say that Land's End is the most important.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, is not John o' Groat's being forgotten?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Earl for his informative reply, I find it a little disturbing that Her Majesty's Government do not know precisely what is at stake. The noble Earl has just admitted it. Would it be possible for the noble Earl to obtain a few back copies of the Guardian and perhaps The Times newspapers which spell it out in detail so that Her Majesty's Government can be well informed and realise what a serious issue is at stake? We are not joking about towing this entire island away, or part of it. Ordinary people up and down the country recognise that something which they regard as part of their heritage is at risk. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to do something about it and to prevent it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the information which we have at the moment does not show that it is at risk but that this land may be up for sale. Just to inform the noble Lord that we are in touch, I have in front of me The Times extracts about the sale and we are trying to follow it up, but nothing in this country has so far been published.
Lord Somers: My Lords, would not the sale of Land's End be the beginning of Britain's end?

Kenwood: Ownership of Paintings
2.54 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: 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 will give details of the legal ownership of the important paintings housed at Kenwood in the care of the Greater London Council.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the paintings are held in trust by custodian trustees, in this case the Greater London Council, under a trust deed confirmed by Act of Parliament, the Iveagh Bequest (Kenwood) Act 1929. Any proposal to sell the pictures held under trusteeship arrangements would involve considerable legal complications.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. May I ask the Government to confirm that the important paintings housed at Kenwood, such as the Gainsborough, the Vermeer and the Rembrandt could not be sold without an Act of Parliament?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I would not like to go quite so far as that, but the noble Lord is right that there are complications and that it is an Act of Parliament which is in question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it might help to clarify the matter if I were to read to him what I hold in my hand—
Several Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Then I will paraphrase it. It would be better if I were allowed to quote, because what I want to do—
A noble Lord: The noble Lord must ask a question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that what I should like to do, if I may, is to quote to him a statement made in County Hall—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, I think it would be very helpful to the House if the noble Lord would put his remarks in the interrogative form.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I stand corrected. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in another place—in fact, the County Hall—the chairman of the arts and recreation committee, Mr. Tony Banks, said that he was fully aware that Kenwood was not in his own legal possession and that the GLC
562
had no intention whatsoever of disposing of any property there.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I myself had got that same quotation down as an answer.

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

Education Bill
2.58 p.m.
Read 3a.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "special education needs"and" special educational provision"]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("suffers from") and insert ("has").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This is a drafting amendment which the Government are glad to make in the interests of avoiding any misunderstanding over the wording of Clause 1(2)(b) and of avoiding any possible offence to disabled persons. The amendment arises directly from an approach made to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) who is unfortunately unable to be here today. I have put down the amendment in her place. Lady Darcy has pointed out that the use of the term "suffers from" is rather antiquated and possibly offensive to disabled persons who do not regard themselves as suffering in that sense. The substitution of the word "has" meets this understandable objection and at the same time removes the slight risk that the clause as originally drafted will allow someone trying to oppose a local authority's plans for a disabled child to argue that it was necessary to establish that the child was actually suffering in some way from his disability. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Statement of child's special educational needs]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("they consider to be") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and I suggest that Amendment No. 3 be taken with it. I realise that within the terms laid down by the Procedure Committee earlier this year at Third Reading we are allowed only to move amendments. I have of course studied the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and I suggest

563
that this amendment, and others which I have tabled, are in order so as to clarify any remaining uncertainties.
Before I go any further, may I say how welcome is the presence upon the Front Bench this afternoon of my noble friend Lady Young who has revealed her continued interest in this very important Bill by her presence here, in addition to her new responsibilities, upon which we congratulate her, as our Leader.
The amendment which I have just moved is to Clause 7. The uncertainty in my mind arises as follows. At the Report stage on Friday 30th July my noble friend moved a rather long and fairly complicated amendment, the purpose of which we all welcomed as far as it went. It was to give to parents of handicapped children the right, when a local education authority had issued a statement of their child's special educational needs, to meet an officer of the authority with whom the matter could be discussed. At the Report stage my noble friend said, at the foot of column 888:
"Parents will have the right to be present at all examinations on which reports to the LEA are based. It would be unusual if parents did not know the professional recommendations made and the grounds for them".—[Official Report,31/7/81.]
May I say, in passing, that I agree with that as a general statement but I think there may well be cases where the parents did not get to know either about the people advising or about the recommendations they had made or the information on which it was based, until a slightly later stage.
My noble friend went on to say:
"Therefore the amendment will allow parents to clear up any misunderstanding about the statement face to face with those contributing to it".
She concluded by saying:
"I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment will have the effect of strengthening good practice in sharing information between parents and professionals at an early stage in assessment".
When one looks closely at that part of subsection (6) of Clause 7 to which her amendment at Report stage related, it seems to me that there is a bit of a snag and a hindrance from fulfilling the Government's intention and that of Parliament, arising from the definition of "relevant advice"—and that comes in subsection (6). Relevant advice is the only advice which parents will be allowed to discuss. Fair enough, but alas! we find that "relevant advice" means only such advice given to the authority as they consider to be relevant. That is a purely subjective test and parents would be bound by it. The authority are to have the only say on that point as to what is relevant advice and they could prevent relevant advice from being considered. I agree that this will happen in only a minority of cases—one must concede that—but in those cases, if anything went wrong because of this wording in the clause which makes the authority able to take the decision as to what is "relevant advice", the matter could not be challenged in the courts or in Parliament.
The same applies—and here I refer to my next Amendment, No. 3—to the definition in subsection (6) of "appropriate person". Again, it is for the authority only to decide who the appropriate person shall be and in the worst of cases—and they do happen and it is right that we should legislate sometimes for
564
the worst cases. In the worst cases the local authority could shield somebody who had given wrong advice. One hopes that it would be very rare, but it could happen. We have known it to happen in different circumstances. Therefore, I cannot believe that that is quite what my noble friend intended when she spoke as she did at columns 888 and 889, and when she said at column 895:
"I think it is very important for parents to understand that one of the underlying principles of this Bill is parental involvement at every stage".
We do not, through oversight on our part, want to allow anything to slip into the drafting which could prevent that parental involvement. That is why I am moving this amendment and the following one, and I trust that my noble friend will ensure that the wording of the clause is made to be consistent with her expressed intention, which she can do by accepting these two amendments. I fear that unless we do that we may be enacting a dead letter in the application of the Bill to a small minority of bad cases. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Renton has said and I hope that I can give him the assurances that he requires about both these amendments. I will speak to both of them now, which I think will be for the convenience of the House. We have sought in Clause 7 to reflect the reality of the circumstances which will arise when parents apply to their local education authority for meetings in connection with any part of the assessment as set out in their child's draft statement. In the majority of cases, I have no doubt that parents will be able to specify exactly in what respect they disagree with the assessment and the LEAs will have little difficulty in deciding what the relevant advice is which the parent should be discussing with the provider of that advice or another appropriate person. That is a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has accepted.
However, in other cases it may not necessarily always be clear to the LEA what the parent's real concerns are. Where a number of professionals have contributed advice in one aspect of the assessment in the case of a child with complex special educational needs, it may not be immediately clear which is the appropriate advice upon which to draw. In those circumstances the LEA's role will be, I believe, an interpretative one.
As I indicated during the Report stage, in the arrangement of meetings the exercise of judgment by the LEA cannot be interpreted as giving the LEA the discretion to ignore parents' wishes. I think that that is the fear of my noble friend. It applies equally that in deciding what is the relevant advice which will determine the nature of the meeting or meetings the LEA will not be able arbitrarily to dismiss a concern expressed by the parent. I should like to give that assurance. The flexibility afforded in the present wording of the clause is simply to enable LEAs to judge the parents' needs with a view to serving their best interests as quickly as possible. Let us also remember that if the judgment of the LEA is wrong the parent still has the right to request a meeting with the other professionals concerned with the assess-

565
ment, so there is no danger that the parent can be prevented from seeing the right person; and I hope that will meet the concern expressed by my noble friend.
To turn to the second amendment tabled by my noble friend, the definition of "appropriate person" in Clause 7(6) simply takes account of the reality of the situation with which local education authorities may be faced and I think it is only right that the legislation should reflect this. I hope the noble Lord will recognise the fact that LEAs will have to exercise their judgment again in deciding who is the appropriate person able to help the parents further to understand the nature of their child's special educational needs, and that the question of the "appropriate person" in these difficult cases will inevitably be a matter of judgment.
What is important is that the parent should have the opportunity to see the professionals involved and if these subsections are read in the context of the whole of Clause 7 it will be seen that the undertakings which I gave at Report stage are being fulfilled, that parents will have the right to meet all the professionals involved, and one has to remember that we shall not even have got to this stage before the parents will have been involved at all the earlier stages. At this stage we are talking about a draft statement. The parents will have been involved with the assessment, in seeing the draft statement, and then we are looking at professional advice. This is really a very long way along all the stages of the Bill. Then if, sadly, they are still dissatisfied with the result of this they still have the opportunity to go to an appeal committee, with the final resort of taking their case to the Secretary of State.
I do believe that we have gone as far as we can to meet the quite natural and justifiable concern of parents. At some stage a local authority has to make a judgment, and that is what this definition does. With the assurances I have given, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because I do know personally some parents who are highly professional themselves; they are perhaps consultants in medicine or professors at universities who themselves have children who have severe disabilities. Local authorities can be very authoritarian and therefore relationships break down. I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a very valid point and I support his amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness on the Front Bench was, as always, most reassuring in her assurances. But I did note that she did not specifically answer a point which my noble friend Lord Renton made which certainly weighs with me. My noble friend Lord Renton said that if the Bill stood in its present form it would be impossible for an aggrieved parent to challenge the decision of the local authority either in the courts or in Parliament. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she accepts that. She did not specifically challenge it, but it may be that she overlooked the point. If she does accept it, I would ask her why that is thought to be necessary.
566
There will be, I hope, as my noble friend said, very few such cases, but, given the potential number of cases of this kind—it is inevitable that there should be some—where the parents may feel passionately, may wish to face the expense and chances of litigation, or may wish to approach the Member of the House of Commons who represents them or indeed a noble Lord or noble Baroness in this House, is it really necessary, if my noble friend is right, to exclude those two avenues of approach? If the noble Baroness is prepared to argue that it is necessary I should really like to hear from her a little justification for it.
My second question really goes on from that. Can the noble Baroness explain to the House to what extent the procedures which she outlined so clearly and admirably a moment ago would be interfered with or handicapped or inhibited if the words of my noble friend's two amendments were put in instead of the existing words?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I reply with the leave of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has asked two questions. I am sorry if I did not answer the first one as fully as I perhaps should have done. I must emphasise that this is at the end of a very long process from the time when the child is first identified as a child having special educational needs, the parent being brought in at the first stages and taking part in the multi-disciplinary assessment, the parent being involved with the assessment that is made, the parent being involved with the draft statement.
If the parent is dissatisfied with the draft statement, the opportunity exists to consult with those professionals who are responsible for drawing it up, and to do so over a period of time. Then at the end of that, if the parents are still dissatisfied, there is the opportunity to go to an appeal committee and finally to the Secretary of State. If at the end of all that they still believe that the local education authority is acting in an arbitrary way they are entitled to appeal under Section 68 of the 1944 Act, as any parent is entitled to do.
I do believe that we have gone as far as we can to meet what I recognise are very real concerns. If we get to this kind of situation, then I think it will be due to a failure which would be very difficult to put right by putting it into law, because it will be a breakdown in human relationships. I think that would be a sad fact, but I believe we cannot meet it further.
Turning to the reason why I am not prepared to accept these amendments, it is not just an arbitrary decision on my part but because I think that, in the interests of the local authority, there will be cases where the local authority will have to make a decision about who should be the person the parents should see at some stage. Therefore, there has to be some mechanism to make quite sure, where there could be uncertainty or difficulty, that someone has the final right to say so. To take that out I think would make for more confusion and probably bad law than leaving it in. That is the reason why technically I cannot accept the amendments. In saying that, I do want to give the assurance that I am not in any way trying to go back on undertakings I have given. I recognise the feeling of the House in this, and the Government want to meet the natural concern of parents as far as they possibly can.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may briefly exercise my right of reply—
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should preface his remarks with, "by leave of the House".
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. May I, with the leave of the House, reply to the short debate which has taken place? I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for their support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for her fairly full explanation, although I regret to say I cannot accept it. In the first place, in her concluding remarks she said that this would be bad law. If this would be bad law, what are we to say about what the Government have so wisely done on the British Nationality Bill, from which they have deleted nearly every reference to the original proposition that the Secretary of State was satisfied, thereby removing the objective test and enabling the matter to be challenged in the courts or Parliament in a way that could not so easily have been taken had those words remained in? I really cannot accept that this would be bad law. It might be slightly embarrassing to some of the local authorities if they could not always have the last word.
In addition to that point, I see no difficulty technically about accepting these amendments, for the reason I have given just now. But surely my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was right when he emphasised, as I had tried to make clear and he made more clear, that if we do not accept these two amendments there will be that minority of bad cases in which things will go wrong. It is awfully tempting, because one has such great faith in the zeal and interest of my noble friend Lady Young in this matter, to say "Well, she is full of hope that everything will go right". But with great respect I do not think that is a sure enough foundation for our work as a revising Chamber. Therefore, with great reluctance and some regret, I do feel that I cannot withdraw my amendment. The only question is whether I let it be negatived or ask your Lordships to divide. Having thought about that, I feel that it is necessary to ask your Lordships to divide.
3.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION No 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Blyton, L.

Amherst, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brain, L.

Amulree, L.

Brockway, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Avebury, L.

Clancarty, E.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bacon, B.

Collison, L.

Banks, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Bernstein, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Bishopston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

568

DeL'Isle, V.

Peart, L.

Derwent, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Porritt, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Renton,L.—[Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Robbins, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

SaintBrides, L.

Gosford, E.

Seebohm, L.

Greenway, L.

Segal, L.

Gridley, L.

Somers, L.

Halsbury, E.

Spens, L.

Hampton, L.

Stamp, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stone, L.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.—[Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wigg, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wigoder, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Willis, L.

Melchett, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Oram, L.

Yarborough, E.

Pargiter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lothian, M.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bessborough, E.

McFadzean, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Marley, L.

Cockfield, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Daventry, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Northchurch, B.

De Freyne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Digby, L.

Onslow, E

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Effingham, E.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Energlyn, L.

St.Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

Sandys,L.—[Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Haig, E.

Swinton, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hawke, L.

Trefgarne, L

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vivian, L.

Kemsley, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Killearn, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Duty of health authority to notify parents etc.]:
3.29 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("the authority are of opinion that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, encouraged as I am by the result of that Division, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. I must confess to your Lordships that a very similar situation now arises on Clause 10. The position is that Clause 10(2) was added to the Bill at the Committee stage by a welcome amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young. It did not go as far as some of us wanted, but, as chairman of what was then the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, I was very grateful for it. I am proud and happy to tell your Lordships that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to command that we should become the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults.
However, I must come to the point of my amendment, which is to leave out the words:
"the authority are of the opinion that".
Again, I must confess to your Lordships that the same point arises, that by making the authority the sole judge of the question whether a particular voluntary organisation is likely to be able to help the parents, a subjective test has again been applied. So yet again we find that the authority could not be challenged in the courts or in Parliament if it refuses or fails to inform the parents of an obviously suitable voluntary organisation.
At the Report stage on 31st July, 1981 at column 911 my noble friend Lady Young said that we should avoid being bureaucratic. We all agree with that. She went on to say that we need to be flexible. We also agree with that. Then she said that subsection (2) of Clause 10:
"… does meet the needs, which we recognise as important ones, of parents with handicapped babies".
In view of the uncertainty as to whether to make the authority the sole judge will frustrate the purpose of the clause, I have moved this amendment and will move the next one, which is merely consequential. I shall listen with interest and, indeed, eagerly to what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as this amendment is concerned with voluntary bodies, I should like to offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults. I was delighted to hear that the society had received the gracious permission of Her Majesty to add "Royal" to its full title. I am sure that this recognition of the work of the society will be greatly acclaimed, and that all parts of the House will be pleased to endorse it.
On this Bill I find myself continually in a great difficulty. As my noble friend Lord Renton said in moving this amendment, as he did on the former ones, this clause of the Bill was, in fact, brought forward by the Government to meet the concerns which were expressed in another place and in your Lordships' House about voluntary organisations, just as earlier the parts of Clause 7 were brought forward to meet
570
concerns about parental knowledge as regards statements for children with special educational needs. No matter what it is that we do, clearly, in the eyes of many people we have never done enough, though we hoped that we had met a concern which I and my colleagues recognised. The concern was that when parents first discovered, very tragically, that they had a handicapped child—and the first person to know of this would almost certainly be the doctor, the health visitor or, indeed, the hospital—the hospital authorities would put the parents in touch with a voluntary organization—a view by which we stand. Indeed, that is the object of Clause 10 of the Bill.
My noble friend dislikes the thought that there should be any circumstance in which the health authorities might use their discretion about putting parents in touch with a voluntary organisation. Of course, when we are talking about voluntary organisations, such as the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, it is quite clear what the circumstances are and with which organisation one should put the parents in touch. But I am quite certain that if my noble friend Lord Renton considers the matter carefully, he will recognise that we must be quite realistic about the circumstances. Very tragically, when some children are born they will suffer from more than one handicap and it will be a matter for professional judgment in which direction to encourage the parents to look for additional help and support outside the health and social services; in other words, with which voluntary organisation or organisations they should be put in touch.
In other individual circumstances there may well be occasions when a particular local organisation will be inexperienced. It very much depends on the individuals locally who are able to give their services to the organisation. A good voluntary organisation can be of enormous help to parents. But let us suppose that there is some doubt about it. Is it not right to give some discretion to the health authorities to use their judgment as to whether or not it would be helpful to the parents? After all, it is always open to the voluntary organisation to get in touch with the parents or to the parents to get directly in touch with the voluntary organisation itself if they think that there is any doubt about the matter.
Although I recognise that my noble friend Lord Renton will say that it is ultimately just a matter of trust, I believe, again, that when this clause is read in the context of the whole Bill, the health authorities will see—as the clause says—that they must inform the parents, that they are under a duty to inform the parents, of a suitable voluntary organisation. However, if there is not a suitable one, it must be at their discretion whether they do not, either because the child is suffering from a multiplicity of handicaps—perhaps a handicap for which there is no appropriate voluntary organisation—or possibly because the local voluntary organisation is not as good as they would wish.
I do not think that this detracts from the principle of the case and, as in the other cases, I think there will be times when someone has to exercise a discretion in the matter. That is why the clause is drafted as it is. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not be carried away by the sunshine of our support for his previous amendment, because on this occasion I cannot advise my noble friends to support this amendment. It seems to me that we are putting the local education authorities in a very difficult position. Any group of people can band together and call themselves a voluntary organisation. They might be some of the less desirable or more desirable people connected with fringe medicines or various cults. To use the words "voluntary organisation" leaves the whole thing far too wide open. If it is the local authority that has advised the parents to contact a particular organisation and the organisation does not, in fact, help the child—it might even (and I have known such sad cases) have had a deleterious effect on the health of the child—that is no one's fault. People working in voluntary organisations very often give up their spare time and do not always become fully associated or acquainted with the complications of those whom they are trying to help.
I think that it would be most unfair for a parent to have to go back to a local authority and say: "You put us in touch with this organisation. Our child has become worse than ever since we contacted them; they have given us nothing but bad advice". I think that that would be unfair to the local authority. Although I pay tribute to all the very good work which voluntary organisations do—and certainly in this field we would be lost without them—I believe that the responsibility must be between the organisation and the parent. I appreciate for once—and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not be too surprised—that at least it is suggested that the voluntary organisation should be put in touch. But I believe that discretion must be reserved for the local authority, otherwise the amendment would mean that the local authority could never refuse to tell a parent about any organisation however small, kinky, way-out or difficult.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I say at once and ease your Lordship's minds that I am persuaded by the gracious way in which both noble Baronesses have argued against my amendment. But may I just correct the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, because Clause 10 does not refer to local authorities; it refers to area and district health authorities. Nevertheless, I am sure that what the noble Baroness said would in her mind apply with equal force to them as she argued in relation to local authorities. It was Clause 7 that applied to local authorities, local education authorities in particular.
Since I moved the last amendment I have been advised that I have the right of reply and do not need the leave of your Lordships—but if some of your Lordships consider that in view of my loquacity I need your leave, I will gladly ask for it. My noble friend Lady Young may perhaps have thought me ungrateful for not taking exactly as they stood the amendments which she moved at earlier stages of the Bill. I would like to assure her that we are deeply grateful, but our attitude could be easily impaired if for some reason her efforts were frustrated by something being inserted which prevented her intentions from being fulfilled. That is the only reason why I am
572
moving these amendments, but we are none the less grateful to the noble Baroness.
I realise that I do not have such a strong case with this amendment to Clause 10 as I did with the amendment to Clause 7. In view of the considerations which have been expressed by both noble Baronesses, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Interpretation and commencement]:
3.42 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("and is registered as a pupil at a school").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting matter and I do not wish to press it, but I believe it is worth asking for a brief explanation. On page 14, line 14, we find the words:
"and is registered as a pupil at a school;".
This is in relation to the definition of the word "child", which of course occurs a great deal throughout the Bill. It is especially important in the earlier clauses of the Bill. For the sake of clarity and emphasis it might be just as well to leave in the words,
"and is registered as a pupil at a school;"
but we need see always that unnecessary words are not introduced in statutes. If my noble friend Lady Young assures me that these words are really necessary and in fact perhaps highly desirable, then I will not press the matter further. In any event, I would not dream of dividing your Lordships over this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Young, replies may I say that I had hoped that this was much more than a drafting amendment because it seemed to me that if we widen the definition of the word "child" to include people in need up to the age of 19, whether or not they were registered at a school, we should be fulfilling one of the main objectives of the Warnock Committee. One of the committee's priorities was 16 to 19 year-olds whom that committee found to be very neglected, unemployed, lacking in facilities for special training and lacking enjoyment of life in many ways. It seemed to me that insisting that a child comes within the definition of this Bill only if registered at a school is going to exclude thousands and thousands of children who most need help.
I am here speaking of the school drop-outs—the children who drifted off at 16 and who have not been found a place in any training establishment. Unfortunately, they do exist. I had a case of such a child only recently. The only advice his mother was given was that he was only fit to go to a sheltered workshop. When she asked where a sheltered workshop was she was told the nearest was 40 miles away and that there was a two-year wait for admission. It is important that we should pay much more attention to this age group. I know we discussed this matter on a previous occasion, on 17th July, but none of the answers was satisfactory;

573
and we know that this is a sphere of great sadness in many families, especially at a time when there is so much youth unemployment. It is bad enough to be a young unemployed person, but to be a young unemployed disabled person is to be in a very sad situation indeed.
I had hoped that what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, intended by suggesting taking out the requirement for the child to be registered as a pupil at a school, was to enable these very children to come within the ambit of this Bill and to give a bit of a tonic to local authorities. It was certainly not the intention of the Warnock Committee that these children should be excluded; in fact I should like to repeat that this group of children was one of the committee's priorities. I very much wish that the noble Lord will reciprocate our earlier kindness by agreeing that his amendment means what I think it means.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I believe her whole speech may have been based on the assumption that the word "includes" means in this definition "means". In fact it merely reads:
"includes any person who has not attained the age of 19 years and is registered as a pupil at a school;".
All other children, of course, are obviously children.
Baroness Jeger: I am sorry, my Lords, but that does not bear out our earlier debate of the 17th July, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said quite clearly at column 1495:
"Those who have left school are not covered by this Bill".
I believe that is the flat answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I am in some little doubt about the wisdom of this whole phrase, which states that:
"'child' includes any person who has not attained the age of 19 years and is registered as a pupil at a school;".
That means to say that anyone who is 18 years and 364 days old is to be regarded as a child. That is ridiculous in this day and age. Generations ago it was probably proper to regard such people as children, but I remember that back in the 1914 war at the age of 18 I was a company sergeant major, and nobody ever dared to refer to me as a child. I consider that the whole of that sentence wants looking at, whether or not the noble Lord's amendment is accepted.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is not the matter somewhat complicated in the case of the ages of disabled school children because so many of them have lost time through operations and illness that they may have missed out on years of schooling? In Germany, where I visited educational facilities for disabled children, such children sometimes still go to school long after the age of 20 if need be.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate we have had on 16 to 19 year-olds. I believe that what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said is true; that my noble friend's
574
amendment is in fact more than a drafting amendment. The definition of a child for the purposes of this Bill would be extended by this amendment to include 16 to 19 year-olds who are not at school; that is to say, pupils at further education colleges, who are in work, or who are unemployed. The Bill as a whole—in particular, Clause I—has been so drafted that we are concerned only with those 16 to 19 year-olds who are at school. Were this definition of the word, "child", to be altered, we would do much more than insert a drafting amendment; we would be very much affecting the definition as given in Clause 1.
If, for example, one looks in Clause 1(2)(b) in building up the determining factors as to whether a child has special educational needs, they refer to the educational facilities of a kind generally provided in schools for children of the age of the "child" in question. The reference to educational facilities in schools does not make sense in relation to 16s to 19s generally but only in relation to those of them who are at school, and for this reason the word "child" must bear the meaning given to it which it has in Clause 20.
We had, both in Committee and on Report, long debates on the whole question of 16 to 19 year-olds who are not in schools. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and my noble friend Lord Renton that it would be much nicer and better if we could extend the definition to include all of those who are in further education, but I do not want to repeat all the arguments as we have been over this ground very fully before. The truth of the matter is that the Department of Education and Science has now a consultation document out on the whole question of further education, and included in this must be, and is, the further education of children with special educational needs. It has been made necessary because some of the legal basis of further education has been questioned—and it is therefore important to put all these matters right at the same time.
It is important that those interested particularly in children with special educational needs should of course make their view known to the department on this consultation document. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press this amendment to a Division. As she will understand, it is not one that I could accept. I am very glad to hear that my noble friend Lord Renton definitely does not intend to do so. I think at this stage it would be very damaging to the Bill. We recognise the problem and we are trying to do something about it, but this really is not the way to deal with the problem of 16 to 19 year-olds.
Lord Renton: My Lords, again I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses. I had indeed missed the point of this definition of "child" until I heard both their speeches. I accept that my amendment was potentially more than a drafting amendment. However, having heard them both, and having learned a great deal from what they said, I now am a wiser man, I trust, and I certainly do not intend to press this to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 7:

575
Page 14, line 18, after ("date") insert ("not later than 1st September 1984").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, which inserts the date "not later than 1st September 1984". I make no apology for moving this amendment. We had an earlier discussion about the possibility of fixing a date. In fact, on 17th July during the Committee stage we suggested a date for implementation of 1st September 1982. The amendment was withdrawn, but in column 1543 I assured the noble Baroness that we should be keeping a very close watch on developments and it was in that situation that I withdrew that amendment.
Every development since July has strengthened the case for a starting date to be written into the Bill. With increasing cuts in public expenditure it is clear that education is in the firing line. It will be impossible for authorities to maintain existing services, leave alone to develop new ones. We are asking authorities to act in a climate of recession and contraction which, even with the best will in the world, is bound to lead to postponements.
We are asking for a date to be put into this Bill for the sake of the children and the families we are working for. A date will compel action to be taken, and I am sure that if the Government wills the action it will have to will the means. According to the Warnock Report we are talking about 20 per cent. of the nation's children. We are letting the years of their childhood slip by with lost opportunities because of delay in implementing this Bill.
Today's amendment suggests a date of 1st September 1984—much more generous than our previous suggestion. This gives the Government nearly three years, which is a long time in the life of a child; years that can never be given back. The noble Baroness said, in column 1543 on 17th July, that she did not want to be tied to a date on the face of the Bill, and that she was exploring the possibility of bringing some provisions into force earlier than September 1982. Today's amendment does not prevent her from doing that; it asks only that the Bill should be in force not later than 1st September 1984.
The House should be encouraged to support this amendment through experience of the Education Act 1976. I refer to that Act to illustrate how fair-minded I am between one side of the House and the other. In the Education Act 1976 Section 10 laid down that priority was to be given to educating handicapped children in ordinary schools rather than in special schools. No date was laid down in that Bill, and after five years that section has still not been implemented. It is because that Bill has not been implemented that we need this Bill today. But I do not want it to meet the same fate. That would be a cruel deception for children, for parents, for the voluntary organisations who have worked so hard in helping on this Bill, and for the members of the Warnock Committee themselves.
I must ask: what is the objection to putting a date in the Bill? It is quite the usual procedure. I have been a Member of one House or another for a long time, and to find a date at the end of a Bill is more usual than unusual. If the reasons for leaving a date completely unmentioned are financial, then I have to wonder whether it is better not to have the Bill at all
576
than to raise hopes before a false dawn. If there is an objection to giving local authorities a timetable, I am sure the best authorities will welcome this. It is not unusual in many spheres of activity, especially when long-term planning and budgeting are essential. Of course, the department often asks authorities to make long-term plans. I see from a press notice from the department on 16th June of this year that education authorities were asked to rationalise their school stock and to inform the DES by the end of this year what action they propose to take up to 1986. The department is in fact asking for a five-year plan. I know that is how the education authorities look at it. Surely the implications of this Bill could be made part of that plan.
Of course, the best local authorities will endeavour to go ahead. Several of them, in spite of resource difficulties, are already working closely on Warnock principles. ILEA, for instance, has already announced its response to Warnock; that it is to appoint 29 special needs support teachers; that there is to be a special education inspector in each of the 10 divisions; and that other plans are going ahead. I shall not take the time of the House by reading out all the details, but I am glad to see that there is a special paragraph given to the in-service training of teachers. There are to be extra child care staff in the ILEA's 32 special boarding schools and hostels, and that is what Warnock meant by advisory and support services.
I am sure the Minister personally welcomes such initiative; one can only hope she will prevent some of her fiscal colleagues from bullying London authorities for rate increases which will be all the heavier because of cuts in Government expenditure on education, leaving the burden of the implementation of the Warnock proposals to be largely a matter for local authorities. We have reached the point in education now, it seems, when the Government are not just slicing off the fat but sawing through the bones. I was reminded of the situation by an article in the Sunday Times on 11th October last, which was headed:
"Council chiefs draw up chopping list for schools".
That gave several examples of drastic and damaging economies. In particular, the Chief Education Officer for Gloucestershire warned in his report, the article said, that:
"Child guidance, psychological and remedial advisory services would have to go. The county would, therefore, be unable to diagnose children's learning and behaviour difficulties. There would be no expert opinion available, for example, on whether a child should be sent to a school for the maladjusted".
I am not being uncomplimentary to Gloucestershire, who I know are doing the very best they can, but, if that is how one county spells out the difficulties, what are the prospects for the implementation of this Bill? In those circumstances, who will do the assessments, prepare the statements and deal with the appeals under the Bill? It is because of fear that the Government will use their fiscal powers to prevent the Bill fulfilling its essential purposes that we ask for a date to be inserted which would be the law of the land, so that we hope not even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Government would be able to ignore it.
I spent part of the Recess in the United States and I spent far too much of my holiday looking at the

577
work being done there among handicapped children. I have with me Public Law 94–142, cited as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975. That measure, passed in November 1975, required implementation by education authorities for all handicapped children between three and 18 not later than 1st September 1978. That gave the states three years. For handicapped children up to the age of 21, however, a more generous upper limit was chosen and the Act had to be implemented by 1st September 1980, which allowed the authorities five years. It also provided that individualised education programmes had to be revised for every handicapped child periodically but not less than annually. I was impressed by that because, in view of the much looser form of government which exists in the United States, in many spheres it is more difficult for Federal laws to be applied in local detail. However, on that occasion the Federal law insisted on those dates being taken on board locally. That is an example of what is not only possible but necessary.
I spent a great deal of time there speaking to doctors, teachers, psychologists and people on local councils, all of whom said that the legislation had been given terrific acceleration because of the knowledge that once the Bill had been passed, something had to be done about it. Nobody could say, "There will be a statutory instrument in a few years' time", or, "The country cannot afford it yet". All sorts of local endeavours were started and all concerned have found it a tonic to have a date to which to work. All the parents and teachers I spoke to welcome that arrangement very much.
The Warnock Report suggested that we should have extra qualifications for teachers working in this sphere. Indeed, Mrs. Warnock hoped that we should be able to get that teaching programme off the ground in three years' time. Thus, I do not feel I am being eccentric, impatient or unfair; it is essential, if we mean what we say, to insert the date as proposed into the Bill. Then local authorities will be able to do the necessary budgeting and planning. As I said, many of the best of them are doing it already, but I am concerned for those children who live in areas where the authorities are not among the best, or where the authorities which will be so poor, as the result of the present Government's policies, that it will be difficult for them to implement the Bill as quickly as they themselves would wish.
I hope, therefore, that we can agree that, in common with many other education provisions which we in this House pass, we shall show parents, voluntary organisations and the members of the Warnock Committee that in this matter we mean what we say—that we want the Bill to happen and that there is no good reason for delaying it. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I wish briefly to express sympathy with the amendment, for I feel it would be unsatisfactory to leave the commencement date unspecified. There is the danger, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made clear, that if we did that we should be opening the door to delay. The Government envisage, as she said, the possibility of different parts of the Bill being implemented at different times. But as she pointed out, that would still be possible if the
578
amendment were passed. The only thing necessary would be that the full implementation should be complete by 1st September 1984. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, could give a greater picture of what is envisaged in the way of stage-by-stage introduction, and would indicate whether she feels that must inevitably last longer than from now until 1st September 1984.
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, there is little I need add after the important arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Jeger. I suggest that it is dangerous for any Act of Parliament to leave the Minister absolute discretion. If the clause is left as drafted, it will mean that the measure will,
"come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
That means that local authorities will have no target date whatever. Unless they have a target date there will be a tendency to postpone the preparation for the coming into operation of the Bill.
It is no use the Minister saying there is not time for that. After all, it is not long since we debated a Bill one of whose provisions was to spend millions of pounds giving special places to more able children from state schools to go to private shools. That was put into operation almost immediately and is now being acted upon in many parts of the country. Just as the Minister would argue on behalf of able children to have that opportunity—I opposed it from the beginning—surely it is more important to give this opportunity as quickly as possible to the less fortunate children in our schools.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I am sure that all of your Lordships on both sides of the House are united in agreeing with the noble Baronesses on the Labour Benches that we do not wish to see the implementation of the Bill delayed, I must confess that I should be very disappointed if we were to make 1984 the target date. There are some local authorities that I would expect to be ready to implement the Bill on 1st September 1982—
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give way for a moment? My amendment asks that the Bill should come into force "not later than 1st September 1984".
Lord Renton: My Lords, there, if I may respectfully say so, I see the danger. If we say that the date should not be later than 1st September 1984, that will cause many local authorities to sit back and say, "We have plenty of time to deal with this. We have lots of problems as it is. We can let this one wait a bit". No, if there is to be a target date, I should much rather see an earlier date. I think that many local authorities could implement the Bill by 1st September 1982, and it would be very sad indeed if they were not all made to go ahead and get on with it, so that it was implemented by 1st September 1983 at the latest.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I do not recall, when I previously put down an amendment proposing

579
September 1982, having had the pleasure of the noble Lord's support.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, it is all very interesting, but let us read what the subsection states:
"This Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint and"—
this is so nebulous—
"different dates may be appointed"—
this is a little more nebulous—
"for different provisions or different purposes".
The drafting is so cloudy that far from local authorities knowing where they were, one local authority could have regulations and a date different from that of another. In other words, it does not mean that the Bill could be implemented for all parts of Britain at the same time, but rather that a diktat would come from above. Those of us who have worked in education and who have seen the work devoted to it in the country by education authorities of all parties—I stress all parties—should not underestimate the degree of knowledge and experience of many people on local education authorities throughout Britain.
We talk of the principal Act of 1944. To me that was Butler's great Act. It was a great move on the part of the then Conservative Government. But that Act has been shredded, absolutely shredded, and parts of it are withering away. We cannot afford to neglect the children with whom the Bill is concerned. I do not want to spread the debate much further, but I should like your Lordships to consider classes of 30 or 35 pupils. If such classes include, say, half a dozen children who are handicapped in different ways, they are far too big for those children to receive the attention they need. If handicapped children are to be moved into ordinary schools, there should be provision to limit the size of classes to 25, or at least under 30 pupils. There is nothing in the Bill to state what should be the size of classes when handicapped children are introduced
Those of us who have worked in education think, at least I think, whatever the rest of the House might think, that this is a bad Bill; and the redundancy that is now being created at all levels in the teaching profession is a disgrace to a great country. Consequently, I want to enhance the excellent arguments put forward by both noble Baronesses about the latest date for implementation, and I think that we should adopt the logical words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger: "Not later than 1st September 1984". The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a brilliant advocate and logician, but there is more than logic involved in teaching and dealing with children. We owe something to the handicapped children, and the proposals should be harnessed right away so that the nation can at last get down to giving a square deal to the handicapped children of Britain.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I, too, wish to support the observations of my noble friends, especially those of my noble friend Lady Jeger. I was particularly upset by what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about certain things happening earlier than other things. Some comments have been made this afternoon on education of children up to 19 years of age, and I feel sure that at present no local education
580
authority could in one year fulfil the requirement concerning the continuing education of those in the 16 to 19 years age group. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it is written into it that children up to 19 years of age are to be given the right to further education. It is for that reason that I support the date that my noble friend puts forward. It would make it quite clear to local education authorities that they must work towards providing further education by 1984 at the very latest, and some of them would have to pull out a lot of stops to accomplish that.
Good local education authorities are already providing many of the things that are included in the Bill, but what is most important is the provision of further facilities, and we must recognise that fixing the date would be a considerable help to the large numbers of parents of children approaching the age of 16. Throughout the country pressure is building up that something must be done for children at 16 years of age. There is no need for me to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that one of the first groups of parents to challenge the Education Act 1944 regarding the continuation of education came from Oxfordshire. Those parents had the support of the Education Department at that time, but perhaps the Education Department is not now so willing to support other pressure groups of parents up and down the country in regard to continuing education.
We must recognise—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, brought this out quite clearly—that education Acts have to apply to able children as well as to those who are handicapped. In our education set-up in this country we have at all levels great facilities for able children, and we are trying to include a date in the Bill and ensure that the facilities will also be given to less able children who suffer handicaps. My sole purpose in rising this afternoon is to ensure that the proposed date is included so that the part of the Bill dealing with the 16 to 19 year-olds is seriously considered. Before sitting down, I should like to add that exactly the same words are included in the document. The Legal Basis of Further Education. I have read it very thoroughly and I am not at all happy with the recommendations for further education that are being considered. I hope that all people who are interested in education for the 16 to 19 year-olds will make their observations on the recommendations, since the department is showing all the different kinds of loopholes that every local authority could find to get out of implementing the provisions. But what worries me in particular is what is stated at the end of the recommendations about implementation:
"It is envisaged that different provisions in new legislation might for operational reasons need to come into force at different times".
Are those times to be different from those that we have here? It is in this respect that I would support the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench and ask the noble Baroness: Can she not give some guidance to us this afternoon on when the different parts of the Bill will come into operation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that I can set at rest the fears that have been expressed this afternoon; and I should very much like to thank my noble friend

581
Lord Renton for his most helpful remarks and for his interpretation of the effects of this amendment. I have always made it clear to the House that it is my wish that this Bill will be implemented as soon as possible, and I reiterate that today. I should like to place on record that the Government share this view, and that it is our intention that the implementation of the major provisions of the Bill will be well before September 1984. I should like to make that absolutely clear.
Indeed, we hope that all the provisions of the Bill, or nearly all of them, will be in force in time for the early part of the academic year 1982–83; that is, In a year's time. That is the date to which we are working, and that is the date by which I hope we shall see the provisions of this Bill implemented. I think it is important, and it is a matter which has been debated for a very long time. The Bill is in itself creating a new legal framework which will set local authorities on a new course, and I think it is important that it should be started as soon as possible.
There will be no delay on financial grounds because the Bill is based on the best practice at present, and I believe that that is something that is very important. The public expenditure proposals make it clear that it is the Government's wish that the same amount of money will be devoted to special education throughout the period of review, and as indeed we expect that there will be about 10,000 fewer children with special educational needs in the school population because of falling rolls, there will in fact be some extra money for redistribution.
I therefore hope very much that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will not press her amendment. I should perhaps repeat the point that my noble friend made, that were the amendment to go into the Bill, then, if in fact any part of the Bill was not implemented by 1984, it would fall, and I cannot believe that that would be her intention. So I hope that she will believe that in this matter the intentions of the Government are quite clear.
I should just like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who raised a quite separate point about 16–19year-olds, that we discussed this matter on an earlier amendment today, and indeed we discussed it both in Committee and on Report. The whole area of 16–19-year-olds in further education is not covered by the Bill, of course, and is the subject of the document to which she referred, The Legal Basis of Further Education, which has been the subject of discussion; and the proposals under that document will be, and must be, subject to other legislation. But I should like to reiterate the legal position in regard to 16–19-year-olds, and it is that local authorities have the same duty towards handicapped young people as towards all others over compulsory school age and under 19.
This duty derives from the LEAs' general duty under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1944 Act to secure the availability of sufficient schools to provide secondary education. The effect of this section is that LEAs have a duty to see that suitable provision is available for those pupils between 16 and 19 who require it; and the general view of the DES and others is that this duty may be discharged if the LEA offers facilities either in a school or in further education, and that no individual young person has an unqualified right to be provided with school education rather than further education, or vice versa.
582
But the duty remains where it is, and it applies just as much to children with special educational needs as to any other children.
I hope that with these assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I think it is very important that this Bill is implemented as soon as possible, and I hope very much that we shall see it implemented in time for the next academic year, 1982.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I do not think we have made any progress in this connection this afternoon. The noble Baroness seems to be living in a totally different world from the world of the people on the education authorities and on the school staffs, and of the anxious parents of handicapped children, who are seeing day nurseries shut, nursery schools closed down and all sorts of facilities contracting, whereas the Warnock Report urged priority for the under-fives and for the over-16s; and when we talk to education officers and teachers about these things they are in despair about the reductions in services which are being forced upon them. So when the noble Baroness says that she looks forward hopefully to the implementation of some aspects of this Bill by 1982, and that certainly she hopes for fulfilment before 1984, I think that, with great respect, that would get a horse laugh from any director of education or any chairman of an education committee who I know at the present time.
The idea that because there are going to be fewer children that will somehow set free some money so that we shall not need to ask for more is quite unreal. We are not talking only about teachers: we are talking about training and we are talking about the extra support services that will be needed as these disabled children are brought into the schools. Let me bring your Lordships down to earth. What do you think happens in a classroom of 30 children or more where there is one child with spina bifida and that child wants to go to the lavatory? Is the teacher to take her? Of course not. There must be available in our schools, if we mean what we say about implementing Warnock, the sort of assistance that will give support and aid and will make the life of that child as normal as possible. It really is unfair to the House, to Mrs. Warnock and her committee, to the parents and to these children themselves to pretend that this Bill can be implemented without any money.
I know the noble Baroness wishes Godspeed to this Bill, and perhaps I may say to her that I think the whole House is indebted to her in that, with all the added duties that she has assumed, she has kept this Bill under her wing. We do appreciate the fact that she has given this time to it this afternoon. I could sometimes wish that her wing were a little cosier, but at least we are glad that she is here. In fact, we are terrified that she is not going to be in this department any longer, because we fear that without her championship we might do even less well than we have done so far.
Of course, these things depend on Government policy. They will depend a lot on announcements which I understand are likely to be made tomorrow—or, if not made tomorrow, leaked tonight or leaked tomorrow. Therefore, I think we cannot just brush

583
this aside by merely hoping in the present atmosphere that it will work out all right and the money will come from somewhere. I am sorry, but on this occasion I must ask my noble friends to vote for the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether I might make one small comment. Residential care for handicapped children is very expensive. It costs something like £4,000 or £5,000 a year. If a number of those children are going to be educated at home there will be a considerable amount of saving to local authorities. I just make that small point.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Amulree, L.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

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

Avebury, L.

Bacon, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

McCluskey, L.

Blyton, L.

Mais, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Melchett, L.

Brockway, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pargiter, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Phillips, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Segal, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B

Stone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gosford, E.

Underhill, L.

Hale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Willis, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jacques, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jeger, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Chitnis, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cockfield, L.

Ampthill, L.

Colwyn, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Cork of Orrery, E.

Avon, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Bathurst, E.

Craigavon, V.

Beloff, L.

Craigton, L.

Belstead, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boardman, L.

Daventry, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Davidson, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

de Clifford, L.

Chelwood, L.

De Freyne, L.

584

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Digby, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elton, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Northchurch, B.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Porritt, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Portland, D.

Gore-Booth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gormanston, V.

Reigate, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Renwick, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Haig, E.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Savile, L.

Hawke, L.

Seebohm, L.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Soames, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, L.

Kemsley, V.

Stamp, L.

Killearn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinton, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Loudoun, C.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trenchard, V.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 14, line 19, after ("order") insert ("made by statutory instrument").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It has always been the Government's intention that commencement orders would be made by statutory instrument as they were for the 1980 Education Act. This enables commencement orders to have the widest possible circulation and for the world at large to have a reference point as to when a particular provision becomes operative. I am sure that Parliament as a whole would welcome this and I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. At this stage it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge the care and concern that has been shown on all sides of your Lordships' House during our debates on this important measure. Our debates have taken place against a non-political background and across party lines, and I should like to thank your Lordships for the co-operative way in which

585
you have approached the problems relating to the education of handicapped children. I should like also to take this opportunity on an Education Bill to pay tribute to Lord Boyle of Handsworth, whose recent death will have saddened many Members of your Lordhips' House. The House will recall that he was, apart from holding many other ministerial appointments, first, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education from 1957 to 1959, and later, as a Cabinet member, Minister for Education from 1962 to 1964. The House will also recall, and has reason to be grateful for, his work as chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body which made recommendations for a number of years about allowances in this House.
As many of your Lordships will know, if it had been possible to arrange Government business differently I should have liked to see this Bill introduced first into your Lordships' House, particularly as your Lordships have wide knowledge and experience of problems associated with the handicapped. In the event, however, the debates in the other place served to heighten those areas of proposed legislation where improvements might be made, and your Lordships have taken full advantage of the Government's willingness to consider afresh some difficult areas.
At this stage in the afternoon, I should like to touch on only two particular points of the Bill. The first, which I know has been of great concern to your Lordships, is the integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools. The Bill makes it clear that, in reaching decisions about where a child's special educational needs can best be met, the local education authority must first look at the possibility of meeting those needs in an ordinary school. Even more important, in my opinion, when a child with a statement is educated in an ordinary school, education must take place so far as is reasonably practicable in association with other children in the school. We have thus ensured, I hope, that children with statements are not unnecessarily isolated within ordinary schools.
I have made it clear that the Government do not expect a wholesale movement of children from special school settings into ordinary schools as a result of this legislation. The pace of change will be gradual because we do not have the resources that would be required to integrate all handicapped children overnight. Nevertheless, the Bill makes it clear to LEAs that, wherever possible, integration should be the goal, providing it represents the appropriate way of meeting an individual child's special educational needs.
The second area of the Bill is parental access to professional reports, which has been the subject of much debate. I do not wish to reiterate the Government's views on this issue, but I recognise the concern of parents who, having received a copy of their child's statement feel that there is something more that might have been said about their child's special educational needs. I believe I can offer some comfort here. Your Lordships will appreciate that preparation of post-legislative action in the way of drafting regulations and circulars of guidance is often started by officials in the expectation that Bills will reach the statute book. This is particularly so in cases such as this Bill where the Government wish there to be the shortest possible time between enactment and implementation. Prep-
586
aratory work is already being undertaken in the Department of Education and Science, in consultation with the DHSS, on drafting the statement, the form and content of which are to be prescribed by regulation. I can assure your Lordships that it is the intention of the Government that the statement shall contain sufficient information about the child's needs, and about the medical, psychological, educational and other advice on which the authority's assessment is based, to enable the parents to decide whether to exercise their rights to make representations, to ask for interviews, or to go to an appeal committee.
I believe that the procedures in the Bill will inevitably encourage a system of open advice to LEAs and that the procedures will in practice allay fears about confidential reports. Moreover, the Government amendment which your Lordships accepted will allow the worried parent to go back to source and discuss professional findings with the person concerned. I am sure that this is the right approach, as it allows anxious parents to pose questions and have them answered by those responsible for the advice on a child's special educational needs which has been given to the local education authority.
This Education Bill sets out a framework for the development of special education in the years ahead. I sincerely hope that the co-operative spirit which has pervaded our discussions on this Bill will be mirrored in the discussions locally on how best to meet individual special educational needs. If this can be the case then this Bill will be a far greater contribution to the International Year of Disabled People than the Government anticipated when the legislation was introduced.
My Lords, finally, I should like to thank noble Lords who have so kindly thanked me for taking part in the Third Reading and the last stages of this Bill. I should like to place on record that I believe this to be a very important Bill, and I have been very pleased to do all that I can to further its passage in this House. I hope that we shall see it implemented in the next academic year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Young.)
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing what the noble Baroness said about the late Lord Boyle. I had the privilege of being contemporary with him for many years in the House of Commons. We were all impressed by his ability, understanding and his deeply civilised approach to the problems of our difficult society. Also, combined with that there was a personal kindliness which many of us knew at first hand and deeply appreciated. His early death is a great tragedy for many people who have benefited from his wisdom and friendship.
This is a Bill which we all wish well; but I must be slightly discordant and say once more that wishing is not enough. It seems to me that the Warnock Report was like a good seed that has fallen on rather stony ground. I should like to express our thanks to all those people who have not only worked on the Warnock Committee but to the number of voluntary organisations and concerned people—such as parents—who gave evidence, have been to see us during the

587
passage of this Bill, have given evidence to committees and who have tried to make this a Bill that would fulfil its objectives.
I must remind your Lordships that The Times Educational Supplement— and that is not a roaring rag of a publication—on 31st July said of this Bill:
"Well thought out advice has been disregarded or watered down beyond recognition".
That may be a harsh judgment, but I know it is how some people feel. Added to this there is a fear also that it will be crippled at birth by lack of resources. I very much hope that we shall be proved wrong about that.
The Bill leaves us with several omissions: we shall pursue the question of the over-16s. We have no national advisory council, which many people wanted. My friends and I especially regret this: the Bill leaves us still allowing corporal punishment in special schools. Clause 2 gives an alibi to reluctant authorities by making the provision of special education compatible with "the efficient use of resources". There is confusion and disappointment about the appeals system. I know that the Minister knows this because there has been correspondence with the Advisory Centre for Education—people who know what they are talking about—and if they feel confused, goodness knows how confused many parents must be.
I was glad to notice that the noble Baroness said at an international conference on 9th September:
"We must not forget that a child with special needs can be just as isolated from ordinary children within an ordinary school as he would be if he attended a special school".
I am sure that we can all echo that. We know that without additional resources integration could disadvantage a child.
I can find no extra provision for the under-twos who are supposed to be brought into the education system for the first time. I can find no evidence that the nursery school provision is going to be extended as the Warnock Committee recommended, and there needs to be a seeking out in many cases of these children. We have talked about anxious parents, but I hope that we shall not forget about parents who sometimes are not as anxious as they ought to be or as anxious as they know how to be.
When I was in America I found that the highest proportion of children getting special education were in the most affluent areas, for the simple reason that these were the articulate, knowledgeable parents—sometimes the demanding, rather pushing parents—whereas in some of the run-down and miserable slum areas people are so crushed by poverty, anxiety and ignorance that they would not think of lifting up their heads and demanding what was due to their child. This will be expensive. I found in a typical area 15 per cent. of the children were getting special education and they were using up 20 per cent. of the budget. This was a matter of some comment among people who were not in receipt of special education.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said about the anxiety of parents over access to records. I hope she will not mind my saying that I think we ought to put something right that the noble Minister said at column 795 on 30th July. When talking about the practice in America, she suggested that parents have a
588
right of access to educational records only and a medical report is not a required part of the assessment in the United States. I looked up that Bill while I was over there and it is a fact that health data are part of the required input into a child's file.
I shall not reopen that subject today but I found varying views. Some doctors told me that because of this provision for open access to files for parents they "laundered" their reports. That is the word which at least one doctor used and it was done partly because of fear of litigation—and of course they are a litigious lot over there. Then there was the doctor who said: "I did better reports because I knew that lay people would be reading them and I really had to stop doing this professional shorthand and really write something out carefully that I knew could be understood and discussed".
I do not think myself that the anxieties about this matter have yet reached the end of the road, but I am not sure either that the parental right of discussion with an official is the answer. It seems to me that either the official will tell the parents what is in the report, which is the obvious reason for seeking the interview in the first place—certainly it would be my reason for seeking the interview—or, if he will not, then the original dissatisfaction will persist. I will not go further into that point at this stage, but I think it ought to be on the record that there is still anxiety about it. Of course, we wish the Bill well. My only fear is that there is a great chasm yawning between the concept of this Bill and the reality of its implementation; but I shall be delighted to be proved wrong.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to associate my noble friends and myself with the tribute paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to Lord Boyle of Handsworth. We fully endorse all that was said by the two noble Baronesses. We on these Benches are glad that as a result of this Bill steps will be taken to implement many of the recommendations of the Warnock Report. We are glad that the integration of education of handicapped children with all other children is now accepted as a consequence of the acceptance of this Bill.
Although we share many of the reservations that have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, our fears that lack of resources may prove a stumbling block remain. The amendments which we proposed and supported at earlier stages, designed to prevent that from happening and designed to ensure that plans were made at local level for the implementation of the provisions of this Bill, were not accepted and we wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had been able to be more flexible in that respect. Nevertheless, we recognise fully her personal commitment to the aims of the Bill and we recognise the considerable contribution which she has made during the passage of the Bill to improving it, particularly in relation to the assessment of educational need. We hope that this Bill will be very carefully monitored in practice, to make sure that a practical application is given to its excellently good intentions.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, owing to the school holidays of our two children, I was not able to

589
become involved in the Bill as much as I would have liked. I am very sorry to have to tell your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who worked so hard on this Bill, is not in your Lordships' House today: my noble friend is in hospital. Both my noble friend and I feel that more emphasis should have been put on integration into normal schools of children who can cope. It seems that we have not yet caught up with the United States of America and Canada over the educational policies for handicapped children. I think the Bill integrates in the wrong way by muddling up all children who come under this Bill by saying "special educational needs" rather than that "they are children with special educational needs". A bright, physically handicapped child's only need may be an accessible school and someone to help them on to the lavatory. If they go to special schools they may in time have a special educational need, as they will have been starved of educational opportunities. Very many special schools for physically handicapped and disabled children have deplorably inadequate libraries, with few reference books, and only achieve CSE standard.
Last Friday I met the father of two boys who have muscular dystrophy. He told me that with the help of the then Secretary of State at the DHSS, who happened to be Sir Keith Joseph, he managed to get allocated electric wheelchairs. These important aids enabled his children to go to normal schools and both boys went through university. One of them graduated with first-class honours degrees. Both are now working. I hope now, as Secretary of State for Education, that Sir Keith Joseph will help other handicapped children successfully to achieve their full potential.
It seems to be the philosophy of Warnock to do away with categories. I have seen how the generic social worker failed to help disabled people through lack of expertise on specific handicaps. I am sure one has to know and assess what the problem is before one can treat it. For example, the deaf, the blind and the dyslectic all have to have specially trained teachers. Far more training on disabilities needs to be given to teachers in training colleges. The International Year of Disabled People has highlighted many of the needs up and down the country, and one of them is more integrated training in colleges. There are genuine fears of disabilities if people have never come into contact with them and do not understand the results.
I welcome Clause 10(2), when health authorities notify the parents of children under five that there is a special educational need and that, if they think it appropriate, they are to inform the parents of a particular voluntary organisation. I have seen so often how putting parents in touch with a specialising voluntary body can encourage and bring them much-needed information and support. Many of these organisations run counselling services, preventing the families from becoming isolated and the parents frustrated by guilt. If there is to be a happy relationship between parents and professionals, barriers ought to be broken down and not built up. There should be confidence between the two: not a "them and us" situation.
It is a pity that educational records are not more open. I should like to read a letter sent by some
590
professionals after they had attended a debate on this subject in your Lordships, House. They say:
"We are professionals in the field of deafness and since the United States' education laws concerning the confidentiality of records were referred to we would like to share our perception of the experience of our country on this matter.
"The benefits of open records have outweighed the possible hindrances and many of the concerns expressed have not proved to be problems. Our experience has been that open records have been in the best interest of the child for the following reasons:

1. Parents have become more involved in the education of their child. They have become more responsible for the total development of their child and participate more fully in this outside the classroom;

2. A relationship of trust has developed between parents and professionals; and

3. Information in files is substantiated by facts. Care is taken to express clearly the meaning and implications of technical data so that it is understandable and useful to both parents and professionals".

Today I have received a letter from the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, telling me that the circular which is to be sent to local authorities about the scope for taking account of the needs of disabled people in deciding applications for planning has been issued. This is connected with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. This includes granting planning permission when building a school and providing parking and sanitary facilities. So far, I have not heard about the progress of the circular which is to go out with the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill.
It is vital that the different departments get together. As your Lordships know, disabled people have so many needs and cross so many departments. These Acts of Parliament are interlinked. If I do not hear anything about England shortly, I shall be putting down a Question to find out what the progress is. With the drop in numbers of children at present, it seems that schools are likely to close rather than that new ones will be built. Therefore, I hope that local authorities will try their hardest to make suitable facilities by adapting some of the existing buildings. So much can be done if the attitude is helpful. Where there's a will, there's a way.
The needs of children with disabilities are so varied. I expect that before long this Bill will have to be amended. There is a problem which I do not think has been discussed, but I hope that some satisfactory solution can be found. This concerns the mobility allowance for children who attend residential special schools. I quote from a letter which I received from the headmaster of Welburn School in Yorkshire last week. He said:
"While I am delighted by the benefit that this allowance has been to so many of my pupils and ex-pupils, I am concerned to note that a few of them do not enjoy any improvement in their lot …
"A small number of my pupils, who are quite properly assessed as eligible for mobility allowance, spend their time at home in uninspiring circumstances, while their parents enjoy the extra income of the weekly mobility allowance.
"It has been suggested that the school should be able to benefit from the allowance during the term times, but I am opposed to this, even if it were feasible to arrange it. Perhaps the best solution would be to make a trust provision which would empower social services to monitor the proper use of the allowance.
"I realise that one could not legislate to compel parents to take children out and about so as to enrich their lives and enlarge upon their experience, but it makes me angry when I discover that the mobility allowance is used by people to run a car into which their handicapped child hardly ever, or never, enters".

591
Because of the difference of needs and the attitudes of parents and teachers towards the education of handicapped children, we need to keep a flexible approach. I hope that this Bill will not hinder progress, but will help to bring together all concerned to work for the overall benefit of all children with problems. I also hope that the noble Baroness will continue to take an interest in this matter, even though she is leaving the Department of Education..
5.4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Government deserve to be heartily congratulated on this Bill and on the open-minded way in which Ministers, including my noble friend Lady Young, have considered the arguments put forward in all parts of both Houses of Parliament. Of course, the Minister initially responsible was my right honourable and learned friend Mr. Mark Carlisle, who is no longer in the Cabinet. Whatever may have been the reason for his departure, he deserves credit for having in this Parliament introduced three Education Bills, and for getting two of them onto the statute book with this one to come. He deserves credit, especially, for acting on the Warnock Report. So many valuable reports of independent committees, Royal Commissions and so on especially on education are well received all round and highly regarded, but they never reach the statute book. But Mrs. Mary Warnock and her committee have, in their lifetime achieved the apotheosis that they deserve.
The parents of mentally handicapped children—and I grant that, although they are the largest group of the handicapped, they are among the smaller groups to be considered by this Bill, because a huge proportion of children who were considered to be normal are now regarded as having special educational needs—are grateful for the main provisions of this Bill dealing with special education, special schools and the assessment of special educational needs. Although it is, strictly speaking, an enabling Bill, like most Bills of this kind, it is unthinkable that it should not be implemented quite soon, as my noble friend indicated.
May I briefly mention three ancillary matters? First, on the confidential reports under Clause 7, I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for telling us that the American provisions apply to medical reports as well as to educational reports. Unfortunately, the Government had apparently been wrongly advised on that and we had a Division, in which those of us who were trying to press the point lost by only five votes. I daresay that it might have been different if I had not had to withdraw that part of my argument. Then, so far as notification under Clause 10 is concerned, I accept what my noble friend said this afternoon in reply to my amendment. We can only hope for the best and that local authorities will co-operate fully. This Bill is a worthy contribution to the many efforts which are being made in this International Year of Disabled People. Well may it serve its purpose!
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships' House very long, because I know that there is other important business to come. However,
592
I was very pleased indeed that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, paid tribute to the late Lord Boyle, and I should not like the opportunity to pass without my saying something, too. The late Lord Boyle was a great friend of mine for over 30 years and I was very pleased when he was appointed vice-chancellor of the university which had been in my former constituency. During the 11 years it was there, I was a member of the court and council, and saw at first hand how he served the purposes of education in Leeds University with great distinction. He served not only the university but the city, particularly in the sphere of music. We shall all remember his speeches. I remember many when we faced each other from opposite Front Benches in another place. But although we faced each other from opposite Front Benches, I know that there was very little difference in our outlook towards education.
The speech that I shall remember most in your Lordships' House was made in December 1979—nearly two years ago. Very few people realise the circumstances in which that speech was made. A few weeks previously Lord Boyle had had a serious operation. He took the rather unusual decision to come to convalesce in a London hotel. Having got as far as that London hotel he could not resist coming to your Lordships' House. That day we were debating overseas students' fees. In the afternoon he said to me, "I can't be here and not speak. I am going back to my hotel to rest for a few hours and then I shall come back to speak". I told him I thought it was rather unwise but he insisted upon speaking. He not only spoke but he spoke at midnight.
I am very pleased indeed that we are paying tribute in an education debate to one who felt so strongly about education. He was a great man who never lost his temper, who was compassionate and who always saw the other person's point of view. I do not want to go into detail about this particular Bill. That has already been done. I know, however, that it is a Bill after Lord Boyle's own heart. One of the things he did at Leeds University soon after he arrived was to set up a special committee to consider the needs of disabled students in Leeds University. Many changes were made to the structure of the university so that disabled people could get about the campus better.
I wish this Bill well. What is important is not what is said in the Bill but the spirit in which it is put into operation. I hope that this Bill will not be only a piece of paper but will become a reality within the next few years.
5.12 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Bill. I make no apologies about speaking on one subject which has not been considered very much in any of our debates. I think that it should be mentioned, even though I am interested, as many other Members of your Lordships' House are, in the business which is to follow.
This Bill will not be crippled at birth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said. This seemed to me to be rather an unfortunate expression about a Bill concerning handicapped children. However, I am very worried about one matter which has not been mentioned; namely, the staffing which will be necessary. To be very parochial for a minute, I made a speech at

593
Second Reading, about which my noble friend Lady Young was very kind, concerning a new special school. Because of the nature of the school—where we take in children from normal schools although they remain on the school roll of that normal school and therefore they are not on the official roll of our school—we are very worried that when the figures for the teacher-pupil ratio go to the Department of Education and Science, as I believe is the case with every single special school, the computer there will go stark, raving bananas. It will probably leap through the roof. It will give the officials an awful fright. Therefore, I hope that whoever is in the department at the time will look kindly at those figures.
Even more important than that are wider questions concerning teacher training. We have to consider the integration of less fortunate children into our normal schools. I am thinking of children we have classified before as ESN(M)—those with minor learning difficulties and those suffering from behavioural problems. There is a very real danger that teachers, who we know are very conscientious, will have so little experience of these children that they will tend to classify them as either stupid, gauche, or even as completely "Bolshie" and therefore will place them on one side and will not encourage them. They may even look upon them as insolent. This can be countered to a certain extent during initial treacher training but I do not think that this situation is very satisfactory. The teachers who are being trained at the moment will not come into the mainstream for another year or so, and we hope that this legislation will come into effect before then.
There is an even more important fact: that practical experience for teachers of what I might describe as children in a normal school is fairly important before they come across handicapped children. By realising what they are looking for in the ordinary child and spotting the mischievous types, they will be more wary and will spot the differences when they come into contact with handicapped children. The answer to this problem is in-service training. Indeed, in-service training must be the answer to both problems. But the important question is: where on earth is the money going to come from? As a result of the present cutbacks, I believe that Lincolnshire recently announced that it is closing down all its teacher centres. Other local authorities are having to follow suit and greatly cut their resources.
Although my noble friend has told us that it will not cost very much, under this Bill I can see extra costs creeping into the budgets of local education authorities because of the very detailed assessment and appeal procedures which this Act gives rise to. I believe therefore that there is a very real danger that teachers will not be prepared to cater for children coming from special schools into ordinary schools. I hope that my noble friend will be an ally on behalf of education and on behalf particularly of—under this Bill we must not call them special children any more but children with learning difficulties. When she is in Cabinet perhaps my noble friend will remember some of the things that have been said in your Lordships' House today. I wish this Bill well and I wish my noble friend well. I hope she will remember us when the hard talking takes place in another place.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to make a few comments on the Third Reading of this Bill. I shall be brief but I wish to emphasise the points made about Lord Boyle. I knew him when I first entered local politics. I was one of the councillors in the Handsworth division. Although we represented different points of view in different parties, before he became a Member of your Lordships' House Lord Boyle was thought highly of in the Handsworth division. He involved himself with the ethnic minorities there and showed his humane attitude towards the disadvantaged, even if they were not suffering from physical or mental disadvantages.
May I touch briefly on what was said about the 16 year-olds by the noble Baroness in her reply to me on a previous occasion. I must remind her that the education of the 16 year-olds and above has been regarded as something of a privilege for those with special needs. Further education is certainly not available for all those who wish to take advantage of it. According to the latest reports in the Library, which go up to 1978, the number of boys and girls who are staying on at school after the age of 16 is very small. We have to recognise clearly that the child who is going to be disadvantaged in the future will in the main be a child with a multiple handicap. All the statistics point to the fact that straightforward disabilities are disappearing. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Mrs. Warnock felt that there was a need to blur what we call the different categories. As was said by the previous speaker, the children who are suffering from multiple handicaps—who perhaps are partially sighted and suffering from severe spasticity, or who are deaf and also suffering from cystic fibrosis—are those who are now having to be catered for inside special schools.
Obviously, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, these children need a tremendous amount of resources. They need extra special teaching and these will be the children whom we shall have to think of more and more in the future. Medical science keeps these children alive and, unfortunately, some of them are very seriously disadvantaged. I have enjoyed very much listening to the great experience in special education, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who obviously speaks from a great deal of experience and knowledge. What I think we have to consider when we are thinking seriously about the Bill is that there will be many children who are at school today who will not be able to play their part in life in employment. Many more children will be unable to find employment, even if the employment position, as we all hope, improves in the near future. Therefore, we shall have to look to those older age groups from 16 years of age upwards for the development, not of special courses to fit them for future employment in a sheltered workshop—though that might be desirable—but of what are now called self-help skills. Such skills will lead the boys and girls to greater independence so that they will be able to manage alone when their parents die.
So it is in society's own interests that we emphasise the importance of the education which these people will require. It is economically more satisfactory for them to be able to stay in the community. Even if they are not earning any money at all it is cheaper

595
for them to stay in the community, as well as being more humane. The development of what we might call further education might have to be the development of these skills, and it is these skills that will be given to what we call the young adults that will enable them to integrate into society because it is at young adulthood that difficulties arise with handicapped people of all description.
We look at this Bill and hope that the deliberations which have taken place in this House will perhaps enthuse those outside. Although as I said at a previous stage of the Bill I do not think it goes far enough, one has to accept that in the circumstances the Government do not intend it to go any further, and all we can hope is that people outside will work to the maximum of their ability to give greater independence to all handicapped people.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I apologise that I was called away, but I intend to make only three points. One is to pay a tribute to the men and women who for many years have devoted their lives to teaching the underprivileged and the handicapped children in difficult schools. I should think that everybody in this Chamber who has shown an interest in education at some time or other has been to see the devoted work given by these men and women to handicapped children. My second point is one that I mentioned in a brief speech and I intend to be brief again. Anyone who has been a practical teacher—and I have had experience right through the gamut of education—knows that small classes are needed to give the care and devotion. For Heaven's sake! within reason whatever it costs the nation we shall not lose by having smaller classes if they are going to be mixed classes with handicapped pupils in them. Let us not pass this by as being merely a light point but a point that emanates from a democratic Parliament; our first priority is to have small mixed classes.
My last point is one which has not been touched on yet. I think we shall need some peripatetic nurses and dental and medical personnel attending these schools. There is a first-class dental report out at the moment on school children and their dental care. This is particularly of paramount importance in the case of underprivileged children, and therefore I hope we shall be looking at the nursing and the medical profession in relation to these new classes that will come into existence. The House is so well informed that I need not speak any more on these points because I know that they will have gone home.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have had in effect a Second Reading debate, and I should like to correct one slight misunderstanding. I am sure the House will understand that I would not in any way wish to mislead anybody at any stage of the Bill on the American experience. I think it is always rather difficult to compare different systems. I took the best advice that I could and I should like to absolve my advisers from any intention to mislead anyone. What is important is that in the important area of confidentiality I believe we have gone as far as we can to meet what we recognise to be the concerns of parents.
Another point that I should like to make is that, like
596
many others who have spoken, I wish that we could have done more in this Bill, but what is important is that the Bill makes a start on creating a new framework for children with special educational needs and we all wish to see it on the statute book as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
5.27 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now further considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now further considered.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 103 has been moved formally so we start with Amendment No. 103D.

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".
As an amendment to Amendment No. 103:
103D Subsection (1)(b), at end insert—
("; and
(d) prepare an annual report of changes in the character of the area defined on the map.").
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have no doubt that my recollection of events which occurred at a very late hour on Thursday, when we last dealt with this Bill, is perhaps as hazy as the recollections of other noble Lords. Certainly we were in a fairly confused state—a state of confusion which was perhaps partly added to by the assistance which we received at the last moment from the noble Lord the Chief Whip when we endeavoured to adjourn the House in the midst of one amendment and halfway through another, but my recollection is that this Amendment No. 103D, standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady White, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and myself was spoken to partly by my noble friend Lady White in the course of moving earlier Amendments Nos. 103A, 103B and 103C, with which it is closely related, although I do not think she got as far as formally moving it.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much

597
more about this amendment, save this: I think the answer given to us by the noble Earl to an earlier amendment regarding the requirement to prepare a map was so very satisfactory, making it utterly clear that there was not to be this onerous burden on the National Park Authorities to produce, print and make available for sale an entirely new map of the area every year. That being so, we were glad to withdraw an earlier amendment.
That being the position, the case for this amendment becomes doubly strong. This amendment requires merely that the appropriate authority should prepare an annual report of changes in the character of the area as defined on the map. It does not need to be a detailed map; it could be a written document containing statistics, and those statistics I am sure are very necessary. They would certainly be helpful to the Countryside Commission, a body which has a continuing duty to advise Government, and would certainly have to advise them on the question of the implementation of Clause 40 of this Bill. In order to give effective advice it will need this kind of information coining in from the national park authorities and it will need to collate that information.
One of the problems which I think has bedevilled our discussions in regard to Exmoor, and other areas where areas of moorland are being restored for agriculture, is that we have had bandied about a whole series of different figures at different times. There has been a great deal of disagreement as to how much of Exmoor has been lost, how much has not been lost, and how much is likely to be lost in the future. I think therefore—since it is not only Exmoor that is concerned; the Northumberland National Park is in the same situation and the North Yorkshire Moors and many other areas of outstanding landscape and scenic beauty are under some threat from agricultural development—it is surely absolutely essential that the process should be monitored on a regular basis. I am absolutely sure it will be monitored by the various national parks, and since they will be monitoring and collecting this information it is also important that they should prepare an annual report so that all these various changes can be collected together and collated and considered by the appropriate bodies, the Countryside Commission, the Government and all others concerned, when deciding what other steps to take. I do not think I need say any more about this amendment, save that it seems to me to have become even more necessary than it was since we had the reply to the earlier amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Winstanley.s)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, we debated this question when discussing earlier amendments. Like him, I am sure the national park authorities will prepare these figures annually. I would have thought it would be a dereliction of their general duty if they did not. Therefore, I see absolutely no harm in their having a duty under this Bill to prepare an annual report which will be available to the public. When we left this point last week the Government seemed to be of the view that none of these amendments were necessary. I would hope that the noble Earl if not able to be filled
598
with more kindness and sweetness and light at this earlier hour and actually to accept the amendment, can at least tell us that the Government in the general discussion on regulations or whatever will be prepared under this part of the Bill will encourage the national park authorities to make these figures available annually, so that we are not forced to extract them from the Government by way of written parliamentary Question, which seems the only alternative.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Hunt, who particularly represents the parks' interest, and from this Bench, I would just like to say that we are entirely behind this amendment. I think the case has been adequately put by the mover and I need not put it again.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said on Thursday night, there is very little difference between us on these four amendments. If I might just recap, on the first one, unfortunately, we were unable really to look at it because "in the opinion of the authority" was omitted in the amended version. With regard to the second one, as Lord Winstanley has kindly said, I was able to put everybody's mind at rest by saying that I would put on record the Government's view that it would be completely unnecessary and indeed it would be grossly extravagant for every national park authority to prepare and publish a revised map each year, but we think the authorities ought to be bound by statute to review the situation annually. I think that satisfied everybody on that one. The third one was about the Countryside Commission, and again I was able to say that that is exactly what we had in mind but did not want to make it statute.
Now I come to the proposition that each national park authority should be required to prepare a annual report of the changes in the character of the area defined on the map. The effect in practice would be to increase the administrative burden on the authorities, because they would be obliged to prepare annually a report of the changes rather than carry out an annual review which might be no more than an internal exercise of a limited kind. It is really that limited kind which seems to make it necessary to put this legally binding statute on the authorities. However, I would very happily give the Government's view, and put it in Hansard that it is the Government's view, that it would be advisable to have an annual report and to make sure that the national parks authorities realise this. I hope with that undertaking perhaps the noble Lord will not wish to press this particular amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it seems to me that that gets us a little further. We have those words of the noble Earl on record and I have no doubt that they will be read and heeded by the national parks as appropriate. All that is of concern to me and to the other noble Lords and Ladies who are concerned about this amendment is that it is absolutely important that we should have regular and continuing information on precisely what is happening to areas of land of outstanding scenic beauty. That is something we have not had on a regular basis before. The noble Earl's

599
words assure me that that information will be regularly available when required. He knows that it will be required fairly frequently. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
104 After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
"Membership of National Park Authorities, 1972 c. 70.
.—(1) In Part I of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972 (discharge of planning and countryside functions in National Parks) in paragraph 11 after the words "one-third" there shall be inserted the words "(to the nearest whole number)".
(2) After paragraph 12 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"12A.—(1) The members of a joint planning board, special planning board or National Park Committee established for an area being or comprising the whole or any part of a National Park shall include members (in this paragraph referred to as 'district council members') who are appointed by district councils whose districts comprise any part of that Park (in this paragraph referred to as 'relevant district councils').
(2) The number of district council members of such a board or Committee shall be equal to—

(a) the number of relevant district councils; or

(b) one seventh (to the nearest whole number) of the members of the board or Committee,

whichever is the less; and for the purposes of this subparagraph and casual vacancy in the membership of the board or Committee shall be disregarded.
(3) The district council members shall be appointed by such of the relevant district councils as may be agreed between those councils or as in default of agreement may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(4) The district council members shall hold office for a period of one year and shall be eligible for reappointment; and section 102(5) above shall apply in relation to a district council member appointed under this paragraph as it applies in relation to a member of a committee appointed under that section".
(3) In paragraph 14 of that Schedule for the words "subject to paragraph 11 above" there shall be substituded the words "subject to paragraphs 11 and 12A above".
(4) In the case of a joint planning board, special planning board or National Park Committee established for an area being or comprising the whole or any part of a National Park, members who are members of relevant district councils (within the meaning of the said paragraph 12A) and are neither members of a county council nor persons appointed in pursuance of the said paragraph 11 shall cease to be members of the board or Committee as from the coming into force of this section."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104. This amendment provides a statutory right of representation for district councils on national park authorities. At present such councils are represented on park authorities only on a grace and favour basis at the invitation of one of the councils concerned. I am sure this amendment commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment to this at Committee stage in this House and was glad to withdraw it on an undertaking by the Government that they would move one of their own, and I am very glad now to see it. There are indeed cogent arguments for having a clause of this type. The most direct one is that the district councils now have the staff and experience to handle development control matters in the whole of the rest of England and Wales, and it is sensible that there should be provision for them to join effectively in the discharge of those responsibilities by the county councils in the case of national parks. There is the further reason that district councils have a major responsibility for the health and wellbeing and prosperity of the local economy. That is a purpose which many people feel should be discharged by the national park authorities although it is not statutorily laid upon them. To the extent that districts will as of right be represented on the national park authorities it will be easier for that role to be discharged effectively.
The other function which it is important to have integrated into national park authorities is the function of the housing authorities and those functions are held by the district councils. There is the further reason that the district councils do contain representatives closer to the grass roots than do the county councils, and there is a greater likelihood that the representatives of the district councils on the national park authorities will be resident in the parks themselves. So for all those reasons I think the clause is welcome to the Association of District Councils. As my noble friend says, they have had a place there by grace of the county councils, and in some cases they have had more places than they will get under this clause; they would have preferred more. But this is a satisfactory compromise between the county councils and the district councils.
The House might care to know that this Friday the Association of District Councils are holding a seminar at the offices of the Countryside Commission in Cheltenham. I shall be meeting about 40 or so members of the district councils and we shall be discussing how best to discharge the responsibilities now being laid on them by this clause.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wonder if I might add a further word to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sandford about representation. I woud ask my noble friend Lord Avon to answer this when he comes to reply. When it comes to the appointments by the Minister—and I think he has to deal with quite a large number of appointments—will he bear in mind the desirability of appointing people whose livelihood and interests are in that area?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, there is no reduction at all envisaged in the present level of appointments made by the Secretary of State to such authorities and in no case will district council representation fall below its current de facto level. In fact, there will probably be a slight increase in representation on two national park authorities, the Peak Park and the Lake District.

601
I am sure that the points made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderney will be borne in mind. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for his comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
'Duties of water authorities etc., with regard to nature conservation and the countryside.
.—(1) For subsection (1) of section 22 of the Water Act 1973 (duties with respect to nature conservation and amenity) there shall be substituted the following sub-section—
"(1) In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the discharge of any of the functions of water authorities, those authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers—

(a) shall, so far as may be consistent with the purposes of this Act and of the Land Drainage Act 1976, so exercise their functions with respect to the proposals as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservavation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest;

(b) shall have regard to the desirability of protecting buildings or other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest; and

(c) shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects."

(2) In subsection (3) of that section the words "not being land managed as a nature reserve") shall be omitted.
(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(4) Where any land has been notified to a water authority under subsection (3) above, the authority shall consult with the Council before executing or carrying out any works or operations appearing to them to be likely to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest.
(5) Subsection (4) above shall not apply in relation to any emergency operation particulars of which (including deatils of the emergency) are notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.
(6) References in this section to water authorities shall include references to internal drainage boards and the reference in subsection (3) above to the water authority in whose area the land is situated shall unclude a reference to the internal drainage board in whose district the land is situated."'.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 105:
105B Subsection (2), line 1, after ("land") insert ("for the time being").
As a consequential amendment to the Bill:
105C Page 104, line 6, column 3, after ("land") insert ("for the time being").
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105, and to speak to Amendment No. 105B, and the consequential Amendment No. 105C. Amendment No. 105, and the earlier Amendment No. 93, concern the conservation duties of water authorities, internal drainage boards and the appropriate Minister or Ministers.
Noble Lords will recall that in Clause 36 this House made provision to extend Section 22 of the Water Act
602
1973, which places water authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers under certain duties towards conservation. The effect of Clause 36 was to extend those duties to internal drainage boards as well and to add a duty of consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. I shall explain that point later. Section 22 requires the NCC to notify water authorities of areas of special scientific interest, and Clause 36 added a duty for the water authorities and the internal drainage boards in turn to consult the NCC before they carry out any works or operations, except emergency operations, which they think likely to be harmful to the special interest of any areas notified to them.
Turning now to the new Amendment, No. 105, this is a new clause which incorporates Clause 36, so that Clause 36 itself is no longer necessary, and the purpose of Amendment No. 93 was to take it out. But the new clause, Amendment No. 105, is not only a replacement of Clause 36; it also amends another subsection of Section 22 of the Water Act—subsection (1). In respect of the conservation of natural beauty and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, it changes the duty of the water authorities, internal drainage boards and the appropriate Minister or Ministers from a duty to "have regard" to conservation to a more positive duty to "further" conservation. Since the rest of the new clause is the same as Clause 36, this is really the point for consideration.
It may be useful to refer to the origins of this matter. At Committee stage, on 17th February (Official Report, cols. 604–609), we debated a new clause put down by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, proposing various amendments to the Water Act 1973, one of which would have required the water authorities to "take steps to preserve" natural beauty et cetera in place of the duty to "have regard" to it in Section 22. I said then that the Government did not honestly think that we ought to ask the water authorities to do more than what Section 22 requires. But the matter was raised again in another place and the Government were persuaded to reconsider the position.
While the Government still do not think it appropriate to place the water authorities in exactly the same position as regards conservation as they are already under as regards recreation in Section 20 of the Water Act—that is, they are under a duty to "take steps" et cetera—we decided that it would be right to go so far as to give them a positive duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and wildlife in the course of their work, and the Commons so agreed and this amendment provides for that.
However, the amendment does not require the water authorities or IDBs to do anything inconsistent with the Acts to which they work; on the contrary it only applies so far as may be consistent with the purposes of the Water Act 1973 and the Land Drainage Act 1976. To exercise their functions in a way which furthers conservation will be one of their duties, albeit a secondary one, and the bodies will have to use their own judgment.
Turning back briefly to the consultation with the NCC, which as I have explained is in Clause 36 already, anxiety was expressed in the Commons about consulting over maintenance operations. We gave an undertaking that we did not mean to let this new clause

603
impose an unnecessary burden on those concerned and that we would initiate discussions and publish guidelines to clarify the best way in which the NCC can be consulted by the water authorities and IDBs without cumbersome work. Steps are already in hand to do that.
There are also the two very minor amendments to which I should briefly like to refer—namely, Nos. 105B and 105C. These are technical amendments which correct an error on the part of Amendment No. 105B which has, in fact, been copied from Clause 36. Section 22(3) of the Water Act refers to land:
"not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve"
The amendments ensure that the entire expression is deleted and not just the words which appeared in Amendment No. 105, which would have left Section 22(3) of the Water Act in a nonsensical state. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105.—(The Earl of Avon.)
5.46 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa moved Amendment No. 105A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 105:
105A Subsection (1), at end insert ("and water authorities shall have power to incur such expenditure as may be necessary to mitigate or eliminate any such effect as may be detrimental thereto; such expenditure shall be eligible for grant under section 90 or section 91 of the Land Drainage Act 1976".)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 105A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 105. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging comments and remarks, but I do not believe that they are sufficiently explicit to convince me that they meet the requirements that we are proposing under Amendment No. 105A. This is a very simple proposal. It enables the water authorities, and particularly internal drainage boards, to spend money received as grant from the Minister of Agriculture in order to mitigate the effects of their activities in the interests of public amenity and conservation.
On Amendment No. 105A, once again I want to make it clear to your Lordships that I am not making conservation arguments particularly, so much as drawing attention to the unfair situation where agricultural grants and the internal drainage boards are concerned. These produce a situation which in my view heavily favours agriculture—and I am a farmer—but which is heavily tipped against other public interests. The Minister of Agriculture seems to me to have almost unlimited funds, by comparison, to subsidise and sustain agriculture. The rest of the nation, about 50 million citizens or more, have only chickenfeed to match it by comparison through the conservation authorities.
But if agriculture has exceptional privileges and financial support—and I do not regret it myself—the independence and the resources of internal drainage boards are quite remarkable. There was never a great problem with internal drainage boards and water authorities in the past, not until the last decade or two. In the old days they did what they could in viable and
604
sensible ways with the manpower and equipment available, and grazing marshes and meadows were then a very special feature of the English landscape.
However, everything has now changed radically due to two overwhelming factors: first, new technology and the arrival of vast new machines; and secondly, access to substantial financial resources through grants from the Ministry. Today these formerly modest boards have immense power and resources at their call. As I understand it, they can virtually propose a scheme without informing anybody—that has quite often happened—get a grant from the Minister (and I understand from what I have read that it can be up to £1·5 million on the nod) and the machines can then move in and start cutting huge dykes before anyone living in the vicinity has ever heard about it. In the case of some broadland drainage, that has actually happened—it has only come to light by accident.
It is essential that this unfairness to the nation should be evened out. I cannot be against agriculture, and, of course, I am not against farmers or landowners. However, I feel that it should be evened out and that public interest should receive more consideration when Ministry money is spent by internal drainage boards or water authorities. I believe that the best way of achieving this and ensuring that the public interest is not totally ignored—as it already has been, most notably in the case of Halvergate and the Broads—is for the water authorities and the internal drainage boards to be empowered to spend their grants for conservation purposes as well as for anti-conservation purposes. That seems only fair to the public who provide the money.
It is quite clear now as a result of the debate last week on Amendment No. 76A that the primary duty for funding future proposals cannot possibly fall solely on the conservation authorities unless the Government give them funds sufficient to contend with the massive claims which will arise. As the Government show no sign—and how could they?—of giving such funds to the conservation authorities (unless my noble friend Lord Ferrers failed to inform us in his reply), it is only fair to the public who provide the funds that the water authorities and the Ministry should contribute to the mitigation of the consequences of their own actions.
There is nothing peculiar or radical about the proposal in this amendment. Over the whole spectrum of Government it is, in fact, the norm: there is ample precedent. The Ministry is totally alone in refusing to fund mitigation of their own actions in the public interest while freely spending the public's money. The principle that the polluter pays is the accepted European principle to which we have to subscribe. Therefore, the costs arising from the obligation to further conservation interests should be met by the promoters of the schemes. This happens with all other Government departments. For example, routes of new motorways are influenced by landscape and countryside needs, and the extra costs are met by the Department of Transport. The siting of new reservoirs is similarly influenced and any extra cost is met by the water authorities. Anyone who receives planning permission has to bear the cost of meeting conditions designed to maintain amenity.
Surely it is illogical and anomalous that one Government department should spend money to prevent poten-

605
tial beneficiaries from actually benefiting from a scheme funded by another Government department. It is clearly inconsistent with Government practice that when activities are initiated and subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture, through internal drainage boards and water authorities, they alone should be the one and only sector which does not, likewise, fund the necessary protective measures.
Speaking from these Benches and as a farmer and landowner, this worries me because, in my view, it appears to the world outside to be arrogant and unfair to the nation, and as a farmer I find it very bad PR and rather embarrassing. During the Second Reading debate on this Bill I pleaded that we were not here to represent ourselves, that we were not here to represent only landowners, farmers and agriculture. I said that we were here to represent everybody. I urged that the worst thing that could happen is that this House should appear as the bastion for protecting the interests of farmers and landowners against public interest, amenity, recreation and conservation. There are votes in conservation. There are about 20 times more members of conservation and naturalist bodies than there are farmers. By their acceptance of the obduracy of the Ministry on this point and the farming lobby, I genuinely fear that the Government might be seen on this particular front at the next election to be both sectarian, favouring a lobby with very close ties in this House, and also philistine, taking a view which is really not very sensitive. Inevitably, this could be a black mark in the eyes of millions of floating voters who favour the countryside, wildlife and amenity for their recreation and wellbeing. I have all the evidence about public sensitivity—as have many noble Lords—accumulated from over 20 years in television and broadcasting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Buxton of Alsa.)
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa. He has said that we do not stand here just to represent ourselves or our interests. However, I think that one could almost say that if one rises and supports this interest, one is rising, standing and supporting the farming community. To a certain extent the Ministry of Agriculture forms the lives and the economic policy of those in the farming community. Let us be quite honest and open about it. Up to now the Ministry of Agriculture has been the most superb instrument for producing food and encouraging farmers. It has been the best example of the corporatist state. It has done what the Japanese MITI does for Japanese industry. It has produced this co-operation between the farming community and the Government, and it has done it extremely effectively under both Governments. However, I suspect that it is now becoming insensitive. Unless it becomes more sensitive to public pressures and to the public's concern for conservation, I think that we farmers will be on the receiving end of the public's wrath, and I, as a farmer, do not want that to happen. I want a nice easy, cushy life if I can possibly get it. That is why I rise and I very much hope that this amendment will be supported by the House, and that my noble friend Lord Avon will be able to accept it.
606
This amendment has been inspired by the Countryside Commission. Before any Minister suggests that it is improperly drafted and does not make sense, I would point out that it has, in fact, been drafted by the Treasury Solicitor. If the Minister is about to say that it does not make sense, then he had better sack the Treasury Solicitor.
I very much want to support what my noble friend Lord Buxton said about the polluter paying and the fact that this is the principle of modern legislation—it is an EEC principle. I suspect that if I were better educated I would know of a Latin tag which would encompass that, going back very much longer than European Community legislation. Of course, I am not saying that the agricultural industry is a complete polluter, but I draw this parallel.
If I, as a farmer, allow silage effluent to leach into a stream, not only am I prosecuted very smartly, but I also have to install some very expensive and competent method of catching that silage effluent. I am not allowed to pollute the countryside or effect damage to my neighbours by silage effluent, and quite rightly so. I believe that 1,500 tonnes of grass silage produces the amount of effluent which has the same biological oxygen demand as the untreated raw sewage of a city the size of Bristol. Consequently, one can see why one is not allowed to do this.
Therefore, if the Ministry of Agriculture gives a grant for land drainage which can have devastating effects in some areas—Halvergate Marshes is obviously one of them, where the taxpayers are being encouraged to spend in grant £1 million to drain these marshes and then another £1 million not allowing one-fifth of them to be used, at the same time increasing the value of the farmer's land from about £500 an acre to about £2,000 an acre, with very little expenditure on his part—surely those who benefit (that is, the farmers, who admittedly do not pay even the majority of the internal drainage board rate, and the farming Ministry, which encourages it) should pay for the environmental damage which ensues.
Another example of the damage which can be caused by internal drainage boards is at Horsey Mere, where deep drainage has released sodium sulphide, which is then oxidised, producing sulphuric acid and ferric hydroxide. That sounds incredibly complicated and like one of those diagrams with CO2, or whatever it is, all over it. I am certainly not a chemist and I lifted those terms straight out of a book. However, the effect is absolutely catastrophic. It produces a deep, dirty, orange sludge in the water. The water in other parts of the Broads and even in the partially drained areas of these grazing marshes is absolutely gin clear. It contains pretty plants and sticklebacks. I know that it is not some great, grand thing which everybody can see or can be shown on television, but it is part of our inheritance and part of our surroundings. We simply cannot continue chucking into the water vast quantities of ferric hydroxide, which has the effect of killing all the fish and all the small water plants; the reedbeds up to two inches up are surrounded by this dirty, nasty, red sludge.
Another example is the North Kent Marshes from Gravesend to Whitstable, which are an internationally important home for wintering wildfowl. Thirty per cent. of these grazing marshes has now been converted

607
to arable land. It has been done on the piecemeal system: 100 acres there, 20 acres here, 80 acres there, so perhaps it was not noticed to start with. But when all the little bits are added together it becomes very noticeable. These are two examples of damage which can be done by internal drainage boards where grants should be more readily withheld and certainly paid for by the Ministry of Agriculture for the use of conservation.
That is why I rise to second the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa and to persuade your Lordships to agree with this amendment. Finally, if the Ministry of Agriculture is unable or unwilling to pay or contribute, I do not believe that the duties which are put upon the Ministry in this Bill can be taken very seriously.
6 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to support the two noble Lords opposite and this amendment. I must say that I think we are getting into some fairly difficult waters—if that is not the wrong way of putting it when talking about these particular authorities. The Government appear to be saying two things at once. First, they are saying that the primary duties of water authorities and IDBs are unchanged and all that is being suggested in this clause is that these authorities can do certain things as long as they do not conflict with those duties. This is what they are really saying to the NFU to keep them happy. At the same time the Government are saying to conservationists, "Well, lads, this gives you everything you want and every IDB in the country will be bursting to spend money on conservation projects as long as they are within the overall remit of the Act of Parliament under which they are working".
Those interpretations—both of which were included in the noble Earl's opening speech and one of which will, I am sure, be included in his reply—cannot both be the case in practice. Either IDBs are going to spend money to mitigate the effects of their schemes or they are not. My information is that those responsible for actually implementing this—people working for IDBs, officials working for the Ministry of Agriculture, for example—do not think that this clause, as currently drafted anyway, would put any obligation on them to pick up the tab if a landowner in the middle of a drainage scheme decided that he would prefer the land not to be drained and would like to enter into a management agreement to preserve it in its undrained state—and therefore in a state of interest in nature conservation. As I understand it, MAFF officials have said outside this House and in other places that that is not the sort of case for which this clause would make IDBs liable to pay. That would be, as we were discussing last week, yet another thing that the conservationists would have to pay for.
In fiddling around with the wording of these clauses, I really do think that the Government are trying to have it both ways in respect of the two competing lobbies who have been battling at their door over this. Rather than do that, I would have hoped that the Government might have the courage to come down a little bit more firmly on one side or the other. To come down with this amendment and put a little bit of a check on
608
internal drainage boards would not, I believe, be asking too much even in the terms of the Government's own political philosophy, which, as I understand it, is to provide some checks on public expenditure.
Last year IDBs asked the Government for grants for 50 per cent. more schemes than they did in 1978. They spent £17 million on land drainage works. Many of those operations caused serious ecological damage to some of Britain's richest wetlands. It may be argued that while this is something, apart from the grant from MAFF, for which farmers—because they are on IDBs and are the ratepayers who contribute to IDBs—are really paying. Farmers really make the decisions of IDBs because landowners appoint people to these organisations. But people might say that they are also paying the rates and so that is only fair. But of course that is not the case. As a recent article in the New Scientist pointed out, in the case of one IDB in Yorkshire, 98 per cent. of the land is agricultural but in 1976 agricultural ratepayers paid only 7 per cent. of the drainage rates. The other 93 per cent. of the drainage rates were paid for by urban ratepayers. So in the case of schemes such as these. if that IDB is typical, as to half the money the farmers are spending 93 per cent. is coming from the poor old urban ratepayers in the IDB area, and the other 50 per cent. from the rest of us, in taxpayers' money from MAFF. On top of that, apart from the people sitting on IDBs, there seems to be virtually no control over what they spend or how they spend it. I understand—and maybe the noble Earl can confirm this—that until very recently IDBs did not even think they were covered by Section 11 of the Countryside Act, which is meant to lay a duty on everyone including bodies such as theirs, to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.
If the Government really took seriously anything they say to the rest of us about controlling public expenditure they would welcome this amendment with open arms. But I do not believe they do take things seriously when it comes to farmers and landowners. I think that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, about the way things will appear outside this House is actually going to prove quite an accurate reflection of the outcome of debates on this Bill; where farmers will be getting their cake and being able to eat it and to spend the money somebody else paid to buy it at the same time. We are getting ourselves into a nonsensical situation and I hope that the Government might try to rescue themselves a little from it by accepting their noble friends' amendment.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I very much agree with the argument which was put by my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa, and I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the NFU and the CLA would do very well to heed his warnings. All the time there is this peril of having planning control brought down on farming and agricultural operations. We already have a specific directive from the EEC that such things as the draining of the Halvergate Marshes would be subject to an environment impact assessment. I myself do not believe that Amendment No. 105A is necessary if the Government are wholehearted—which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was making

609
—about what they put into Amendment No. 105. If they are wholehearted about that and if that is the philosophy which they have grasped and intend to enforce, then I think the House should know why it is not going to be applied to the problem of the Halvergate Marshes. If it were applied then everybody would know that the Government were in earnest in proposing Amendment No. 105 to your Lordships' House. If it is not going to be applied to the Halvergate Marshes then, for heavens sake, why not?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, from my serried rank on this Bench I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa. 1 was unable to be present at the earlier debates and so I shall not speak in detail but I should like to make one or two points of principle. Am I wrong in thinking, as the law would stand without this amendment, that there is nothing to stop (except the paying for it) the entire surface of the Broads being reclaimed for more efficient farming? Or is that a misconception? It does seem to me that this is always a question of degree. Clearly, without the fenlands and Lincolnshire we should be much poorer than we are. There was a time when it was absolutely right to reclaim. That time is certainly at question now in a number of different areas. The Broads are a very special area, not only from the point of view of the birds there, which are unique, but also from the point of view of the fish and marsh plants.
It seems to me that there should be a restriction on the ease of getting rid of them for money—which is what this really amounts to. It seems to me that the kind of restriction put here in this amendment is a fairly effective one. It is that the IDB has two duties. One duty is to the farmer, but the other is to be cost-effective in not spoiling too much and having to pay if they do. This seems to me to be a very wise and suitable restrictive measure and I very much hope that this amendment will be carried.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am certainly not going into the history of the reclamation of the Fens, interesting and important though that is. All I want to do is to make it clear to the noble Earl, before he replies, that there is support for this amendment in all parts of your Lordships' House. I do not want to repeat the arguments so admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, and reinforced by the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Sandford. I believe the case is utterly clear. This amendment gives body and real significance to the Government's own amendment, Amendment No. 105. Without this amendment to the Government's amendment, I am of the opinion that Amendment No. 105 becomes no more than the paper upon which it is written. I hope that we shall hear some pretty clear assurances with regard to this amendment or the intentions which lie behind it.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this amendment, which is narrow in itself. I should like first to take up some of the remarks by my noble friend Lord Buxton about agriculture, generally. I do not think I need remind him that the world population has increased by 50 per cent.
610
since the war; that production of food is vital to the nation, otherwise we would have to import, and it does save on the balance of payments, so there is importance in agriculture. It is not just for the benefit of farmers as individual people but it is for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The importance of food production is foremost in our minds, and let us get it clear that agriculture is essential to the nation.
I have been listening to both ways; lack of courage and balance. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who produced and stimulated this amendment in the first place—and I spoke to it when I introduced our amendment—now seems to be switching slightly over to the farmers' side. We think that this is a good amendment and we think it has answered all the comments made previously in the House and in the other place. Before answering the amendment in detail, may I say something about the Halvergate marshes. I do not want to say too much because it is, although not sub judice, at the moment under discussion.
There is a case of whether to hold a public inquiry, which will be a decision to be taken by the Minister of Agriculture. But a scheme of management agreements from the Broads Authority to conserve the highest quality landscape in 1,100 acres has been under negotiation locally, and the Broads Authority still have finally to decide their attitude towards the drainage scheme in this light.
If they are content they would receive 75 per cent. grant aid from the Countryside Commission, as the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in his speech to the national parks on 18th September. On the other hand if they decided that they were not content, that would be a different position, and it would seem to me, and I am sure the House would agree, quite wrong for a Minister to decide about intervening with a public inquiry before the appropriate authority, the local authority, the Broads Authority, have finished considering their position.
A specific case was brought up about an IDB which was financed mainly by urban ratepayers. This is most unusual. It does happen when there is a central electricity GB power station in an IDB with a very high rateable value. However, in most IDBs the rates are mainly paid by farmers. Certainly at Halvergate the cost of the scheme will be met almost wholly by farmers, who will pay an annual rate of £20 per acre per annum for the next 20 years.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl said that in most IDBs the rates are mainly paid by farmers. Could he quantify the "most" and "mainly", because to give us that statement the Ministry must presumably have worked out the figures in detail'?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have not got the detailed figures in front of me at the moment. The cost of the scheme will be met almost wholly, Yes. I will try to get them to you before I sit down if we have them with us.
May I come back to the amendment moved by my noble friends. I would remind you that the new clause, the clause we are talking about, 105, is
"Duties of water authorities et cetera, with regard to nature conservation and the countryside".

611
This question of the powers of water authorities and internal drainage boards to incur expenditure as a result of the new clause which is introduced by Amendment No. 105 was raised at a Committee stage in another place. At that time my honourable friend the Minister who spoke, Mr. Michael Roberts, said:
"The honourable Member wanted an assurance that IDBs have legal power to spend money in pursuance of their existing conservation obligation and that MAFF has power to grant aid them. They already have that power. The new clause [that is the clause embodied in Amendment No. 105] will give them a further obligation and the power to spend accordingly".
I can only spell out in greater detail the assurance given then by the Government; namely, that in carrying out work in pursuance of their powers under the Land Drainage Act 1976 these drainage authorities already have the power to incur expenditure on conservation and amenity, and that subject to the normal rules about reasonableness and so on any such capital expenditure will be eligible for grant aid under Sections 90 and 91 of that Act.
To the extent that this amendment is seeking to give that power it is unnecessary because that power is conveyed by the new clause itself. The amendment, No. 105A, as I see it does not therefore achieve anything My noble friend Lord Buxton seemed to argue, however, that the purpose of the amendment was to give wider powers to water authorities and internal drainage boards to incur expenditure which does not directly arise from the exercise of their function under the Land Drainage Act 1976, and even to make revenue expenditure grant aidable.
I have to say that the Government could not accept provisions of this kind because it would require the water authorities, internal drainage boards, and the Minister to take action and incur expenditure not consistent with their functions under the Land Drainage Act, and that is of course the Act to which this particular clause refers.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that there are no more exact figures available at the moment than I gave. I hope with these explanations my noble friend will see that his amendment is not necessary and will accept the assurance that the Government are wholeheartedly behind Amendment No. 105 just as they are behind all the clauses in this Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he say whether that means that the Ministry of Agriculture with its grant system could not be asked, or will not pay, for anything towards management agreements to offset the damage done by deep draining, or some such similar operation, by an internal drainage board?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords, the grants are only for the improvement of agriculture, so they would not have the power for that. Incidentally, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, gave me two examples, and I meant to say to him that they would both be covered under the Government clause.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what he said. Every time he speaks his words give a great deal of assurance. What worries me is that I still do not see us any nearer
612
to the Ministry, and through the Ministry the internal drainage boards and the water authorities, accepting any responsibility in the financial sense for the conservation damage which they cause. Of course, I accept the Minister's assurance and argument about the proper function of the Ministry and the water authorities, but I do not follow it when all other Ministries are allowed to do exactly what we are asking in the same context. I do not know what the functions are as laid down for the Ministry of Transport, but they are perfectly entitled to plant hedges, lovely banks, and broom and everything along the motorways, and this seems to me exactly what we are asking in the case of the Ministry of Agriculture and the water authorities.
On the wider front, I quite see the point, and I have pontificated and lectured about the population explosion and everything else, until everyone is bored with it. Of course the population is rising and will continue to rise, and the need for food will be overwhelming no doubt, but that is exactly what public inquiries are for and exactly why careful assessments have to be made of the economic factors to see whether schemes are viable. In the case of Halvergate and the Broads, I am perfectly prepared to leave a thorough assessment at a public inquiry having been convinced that it is the best scheme that has ever been put up. All I say is that everything I have heard indicates that it is the worst scheme that has ever been put up. Therefore, I hope that if the Minister is to be consistent, with all that implies as my noble friend Lord Sandford said they will listen to the huge weight of opinion from every quarter and follow the proper course, which is to have a public inquiry in that connection.
On the question of an inquiry, as I understood the Minister, if the local authorities, including the Broads Authority, do not reach an agreement then the Minister will probably have such an inquiry. That being the case, I am prepared to withdraw this amendment with the agreement of my noble friend, but in the confident hope—no, confident anticipation—that the Government are going to be consistent in all that they have said in the Act; that they are going to be consistent in the case of Halvergate and the Broads and all the other major schemes around the country. We shall be watching with hawk-like vision every move that is made in this respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 105:
105B Subsection (2), line 1, after ("land") insert ("for the time being").
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 105 agreed to.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I did not raise a question on this when we were discussing Amendment No. 105A

613
because I thought it would become too confusing, for me if for no one else. When the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was introducing Amendment No. 105 he made some remarks about maintenance and the need for regional water authorities or IDBs to consult with the NCC prior to carrying out maintenance works which would affect sites of special scientific interests, and he said that some concern had been expressed about the matter and that the Government were to publish guidelines on it.
It is worth stressing that maintenance works carried out by regional water authorities can be just as damaging, if not more so, as capital works; that has been the case in the past. For example, where major capital schemes have not been proceeded with by a regional water authority, the work has often been done under the auspices of a maintenance scheme, particularly if the original capital works did not meet cost benefit targets. For example, that happened at Alconbury Brook in Huntingdonshire in the Anglian Water Authority's area. Maintenance work can often cause significant and serious damage; channel maintenance on stretches of the Severn division of the ST Water Authority resulted in the removal of several otter holes. The 1976 Act, which is worded in a similar way to the Land Drainage Act and Water Act and has similar aims, ensures that consultation with the NCC takes place before maintenance work which would affect SSSIs is carried out.
This is therefore a very important issue, and I hope the noble Earl will say that the guidelines which the Government will be issuing—which might be taken, from what he said, to qualify the words in the amendment, and I hope the guidelines will not impose any such qualification on what Parliament has agreed—will be published in draft so they will be available for interested parties (water authorities, the NFU and conservation bodies) to comment on, and that the Government will ensure that the NCC (who, after all, are the people to be consulted) are entirely happy with the guidelines before the Government finalise them.
My second point relates to the clause as a whole and I raise it in response to the noble Earl's comments on the information I wanted about IDBs and the percentage of rates coming from urban or farming interests. His department must have had the figures to have given him a brief which allowed him to say that most of them did; they could not have done that without working it out. I hope he will write to me and let me have the figures on which the statement was based.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as regards maintenance and the need for regular consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, that will be fully covered in the guidelines, and they will be agreed with the NCC before issue.
Lord Melchett: Will they be published in draft, my Lords, so that interests other than Government agencies may look at them?
The Earl of Avon: While not giving a guarantee to that effect, my Lords, I note what the noble Lord said and I am sure that if at all possible it will be done. In
614
regard to his second point, I will of course write to him.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
As a consequential amendment to the Bill:
105C Schedule 16, page 104, line 6, column 3, after ("land" insert ("for the time being").
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
106 After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
"Payments under certain agreements offered by authorities.
(1) This section applies where—

(a) the Nature Conservance Council offer to enter into an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act providing for the making by them of payments to—

(i) a person who has given notice under section 28(3) or 29(4); or

(ii) a person whose application for farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the Council: or

(b) the relevant authority offer to enter into a management agreement providing for the making by them of payments to a person whose application for a farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the authority.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the said payments shall be of such amounts as may be determined by the offeror in accordance with guidance given by the Ministers.
(3) If the offeree so requires within one month of receiving the offer, the determination of those amounts shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State; and where the amounts determined by the arbitrator exceed those determined by the offeror, the offeror shall—

(a) amend the offer so as to give effect to the arbitrator's determination; or

(b) except in the case of an offer made to a person whose application for a farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the offeror, withdraw the offer.

(4) In this section—
"farm capital grant" means a grant under a scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970;
"management agreement" and "the relevant authority" have the same meanings as in section (Duties of agriculture Ministers).
As amendments to Amendment No. 106:
106B Subsection (3), line 3, after ("arbitrator") insert ("(or, in Scotland, an arbiter)").
106C Subsection (3), line 7, after ("arbitrator's") insert ("or,) in Scotland, the arbiter's)").
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. I shall, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 106B and 106C to the amendment. This is a new clause which relates in part to management agreements offered under the "Sandford" clause, but which also concerns agreements entered into by the Nature Conservancy Council following a notification to the council under Clause 28(3) or Clause 29(4) of the Bill as amended. The new clause requires the NCC or relevant authority to provide in the agreement for payments,

615
"in accordance with guidance given by Ministers",
and this reflects the original Sandford proposal.
However, as I said last Thursday, the Government have gone further and added provision for arbitration in the event of dispute. Under subsection (3), the offeree will have the right within one month of receiving the offer to require reference to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator is to be appointed by the Secretary of State in default of agreement. In the case of management agreements offered by the NCC—except where capital grant has been refused, in other words the voluntary agreements—the offer can be withdrawn by the council if the arbitrator determines a higher sum. However, in the case of management agreements offered by the NCC or relevant authority following rejection of an application for a farm capital grant, the arbitration decision will be binding. The Government share the view taken by another place that this is a fair approach where it is the council or relevant authority which has taken the initiative to object. The clause provides farmers with a guarantee of reasonable terms when management agreements are offered in the circumstances stated. Discussions are already in progress on the terms of Ministers' financial guidelines, and we expect to be consulting on a draft of such guidelines shortly after Royal Assent to the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 106B and 106C replace the word "arbitrator" with "arbiter" in deference to Scots law; I am advised that arbitrators are not a resident species north of the Border.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
[Amendment No. 106A to the amendment not moved.]
As an amendment to Amendment No. 106:
106B Subsection (3), line 3, after ("arbitrator") insert ("(or, in Scotland, an arbiter)").
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question amendment to Amendment No. 106 agreed to.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 106:
106C Subsection (3), line 7, after ("arbitrator's ") insert ("(or, in Scotland, the arbiter's)").
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 106 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 106D and 106E to the amendment not moved.]
Lord Sandford: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to confirm that the guidelines, when they have been agreed, will be laid before Parliament by statutory instrument? All our discussions indicate that they will be of the greatest importance.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, may I, for clarification, ask my noble friend a question relating to subsection (3), as I believe one month will be insufficient to consider and possibly initiate an offer, and it
616
seems that the Bill is somewhat unclear as to whether or not the authority is expected to discuss arrangements with the farmer before making the offer? I hope that my interpretation is correct that the offer of one month refers to the final offer of a financial payment and not to the offer of a management agreement, for the very obvious reason that we want time to consider the matter. Can my noble friend confirm that the offer of one month is the final offer?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think that the real evil in this clause was decided by the House last week by a very narrow majority and it would be foolish to re-open that debate. But given that the House and Parliament on the Government's advice have decided on a really disastrously expensive method of protecting important areas for wildlife, it would be reasonable to ask the noble Earl to give us some assurance in a rather more forthcoming way than he did last week to the effect that some additional money at least will be made available to pay for all of this.
In recent months it has become clear that there are a number of areas such as the North Kent Marshes, the Swale Marshes, the Berwyn Mountains, the five proposed SSSIs on the Somerset levels, the Derwent Ings, the Nene Washes, and so on which are capable of agricultural development, and for which there are either actual plans or proposals for major agricultural development schemes. If such areas are to be saved for conservation under this clause, very large sums of money, annually indexed to keep up with inflation, will have to be found to pay farmers.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said earlier that the threat of planning controls was hanging over all this huge and expensive edifice if it collapsed and did not do the job. I should not myself have said that it was the threat of planning controls, but rather the much more attractive option of planning controls. It is more attractive because it would provide a much more sensible system. It would be much cheaper to the public and I should have thought that at least on those grounds it might have commended itself to some noble Lords opposite; and lastly it should commend itself to conservationists because it would work, while this system, without huge sums of money, clearly will not work.
I hope that the noble Earl, while he has been very busy getting the replies to the questions that his noble friends asked, will also have had a slight change of heart since last week and will be able to tell us, now that the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to be having a change of heart about aspects of Government policy, that rather more money will be available than the noble Earl suggested last week.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the questions which my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked, I am bound to tell my noble friend Lord Sandford that the guidelines regarding the consultations are not expected to become statutory, but I shall certainly look up the point and take a note of it. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked whether the period of one month will refer to the final offer or the first offer and discussion. The answer is that it will refer to the final offer in which a person has the time to accept or reject the final offer.

617
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked whether I would be more forthcoming than I was last week on the question of the amount of money that would be available. The answer to that is that I will not be more forthcoming, because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, when speaking in Norwich, admitted that management agreements might be expensive, and he said:
"I shall have to take into account the new responsibilities placed on statutory authorities by the Bill".
I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows perfectly well that in any financial arrangements with which departments are involved it is necessary to discuss their commitments, both individual and total, in the light of all their expenditure and the Treasury requirements. My right honourable friend has made the position perfectly clear. He said:
"I have many very hard decisions to make about the use of scarce resources".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not expect me to go further than that, but if he does expect me to go further than that, I shall not go any further.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I may speak again on this point, because, fully expecting the answer, yes, I asked my noble friend the question whether the guidelines will be laid before Parliament by statutory instrument. I should have thought that the House would certainly expect that to be so, in view of the enormous importance that is attached to the question of whether or not the funds will be available to meet the management requirements that will be called for from time to time—myself, I think not very often—under the new clauses introduced by Amendments No. 76 and 101. I think that it is getting close to improper for the House to allow through an amendment such as this without knowing one way or the other whether that particular point will be so. But if my noble friend could increase his assurances to the point of recognising the importance of Parliament seeing these guidelines and approving them before they are introduced and using his best endeavours to ensure that they are laid by statutory instrument, I should be happy to leave it at that. But I do not think that the assurances should be any less weighty than that before we allow the amendment to be incorporated.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend says that he is entirely happy to leave it at that, because in fact he was entirely out of order to have spoken again. I can tell him only what I have previously told him and your Lordships; namely, that the drafts will not stipulate any specific sums per acre to be paid in consideration of the restrictions which are imposed. That would be completely inappropriate, as the payments offered, whether by way of annual payments or a capital sum, must depend on individual circumstances and be subject to negotiation. Therefore such draft guidelines as are envisaged will not relate to sums of money, by which my noble friend thinks it is possible to make calculations.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
107 Clause 45, leave out Clause 45.
6.37 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107. As I explained when speaking on Amendment No. 101 (the "Sandford" clause) the purpose of Clause 45 has been achieved by subsection 1(a) of that amendment and therefore it follows that Clause 45 is redundant. The present amendment provides for its deletion.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
108 Clause 46, page 40, line 19, leave out 'county planning authority' and insert 'relevant authority within the meaning of section 32'.
109 Clause 47, page 40, line 39, after 'to' insert 'Scotland or'.
110 Clause 47, page 40, line 39, at end insert—
'(1A) In the application of this Part to England and Wales—

(a) references to a local planning authority shall be construed, except as respects Greater London, as references to a county planning authority and a district planning authority and, as respects Greater London, as references to a London borough council; and

(b) references to a county planning authority shall be construed, as respects Greater London, as references to a London borough council;

and in the application of this Part to Scotland references to a local planning authority shall be construed as references to a regional planning authority, a general planning authority and a district planning authority".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 108 to 110. Amendment No. 108 is consequential on the extension to Scotland of the provisions concerning limestone pavement orders. Amendment No. 109 makes an appropriate reference in the interpretation section to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and Amendment No. 110 provides interpretation of the references to planning authorities that are made at various points in Part II of the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
111 Clause 47, page 41, line 3, after 'Part' insert '(except sections 40(1) and (Duties of agriculture Ministers))'.
112 Clause 47, page 41, line 4, leave out '(except the power to make an order under section 40)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 and 112. Amendment No. 112 is consequential on Amendment No. 111. Subsection (4) of Clause 47 provides that wherever in Part II an action is to be performed by, or in relation to, "the Ministers", which is a plural phrase, it may be performed by, or to, either of them separately. However, there is one exception. Subsection (4) excepts the case where the action consists of making a Moorland

619
Notification Order under Clause 40. In England, this can be done only by the Ministers jointly; that is, by the Secretary of State for the Environment jointly with the Minister of Agriculture.
Amendment No. 111 is designed to add another exception where in England the action must be joint. The "Sandford" clause of the Bill, the new clause which concerns duties of agriculture Ministers, applies the "Sandford" approach to national parks, but also enables the Ministers to apply it to other specified areas. When the Ministers do this Amendment No. 111 will require them to do it jointly. This is because we think that both these types of action under Part II of the Bill—deciding whether to impose compulsory notification on moorland farmers in a national park and deciding whether to apply the Sandford approach towards Ministry of Agriculture capital grants to areas outside national parks and sites of special scientific interest—ought to be taken jointly by the Ministers responsible both for the environment and for agriculture. Amendment No. 112 is consequential. 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 AMENDMENTS
113 Clause 48, page 42, line 14, leave out 'showing' and insert' which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 113. This is a useful amendment in that it ensures that surveying authorities whenever they discover or are presented with evidence which suggests that a definitive map and statement should be modified must take into consideration all other relevant evidence available to them concerning the status of the right of way involved. The requirement applies only to evidence currently at the authorities' disposal, and does not mean that they must actively solicit additional evidence either in support of or opposition to the particular proposal. 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
114 Clause 49, page 44, line 12, after 'carriage-way' insert or a carriage-way'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114, which brings the provisions of subsection (7) of Clause 49 into line with the present provisions in the Countryside Act 1968 on the upkeep of byways open to all traffic. The omission which this amendment rectifies crept in during the reprinting of the Bill. 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
115 Clause 50, page 44, line 22, at end insert—
'(1A) Where such a survey or review so begun is abandoned, the Secretary of State shall give notice of the abandonment as appears to him requisite.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to give such notice of the abandonment of a survey or review as he considers appropriate. Your Lordships will recollect that at Report stage the procedure in Schedule 14 for making definitive map orders was amended to the effect that objections to proposals that would lapse on the abandonment of a review would remain in abeyance until the surveying authority resurrects the particular proposal by way of an order under the new procedure. This arrangement does not, however, take care of properly made objections to draft revisions which are essentially claims for the addition to definitive maps of rights of way not previously shown. In such cases the person making the claim would be obliged to apply to the surveying authority for a definitive map order in accordance with the provisions of Clause 48(5) and Schedule 13. The principal purpose of this amendment is therefore to enable the Secretary of State to notify such persons individually of the abandonment of the review to which they objected and of the provisions of Clause 48(5). The Government are satisfied that this useful amendment in the way it is to be applied will help considerably to offset for many persons the consequences of abandonment. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 115A as an amendment to Amendment No. 115:
115A Line 2, after ("give") insert ("to any person whose representation or objection will as a consequence of the abandonment not be determined").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said Amendment No. 115 is an improvement on the Bill as it left your Lordships' House in that it goes some way towards ensuring that people whose objections and representations will be discarded by the Secretary of State will actually be told of his decision, and that seems only reasonable. But the amendment which another place inserted in the Bill does not ensure that the Secretary of State will tell people when their objections and representations are discarded, and Amendment No. 115A imposes a strict duty on him to see that they are informed.
I think the noble Earl really made the case for Amendment No. 115A at the same time as he made that for Amendment No. 115. It really seems a bit rough if people who have registered objections to a proposal which is then discarded by the Secretary of State are not even told that it has been discarded. The Bill was improved to remedy that omission, and all that now seems necessary is to ensure that the Secretary of State does tell everyone who is involved. I hope the Government will accept Amendment No. 115A as a modest improvement to their own amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I find this one a slight tongue-twister, but I shall try to get it right. The Government find it difficult to accept this amendment in so far as it would require the Secretary of State to notify all objectors whose objection will not be determined of the abandonment of existing reviews. It goes way beyond the undertaking given at Committee stage of a Government amendment to enable the Secretary of State to notify objectors whose objection amounts to a claim for the addition to the definitive map of a right of way not hitherto shown. The result of that undertaking is Amendment No. 115, which, because it requires the Secretary of State to give such notice as he considers appropriate of abandonment, will enable us to ensure that these persons will be duly notified.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, takes no account of the fact that in relation to specific proposals in draft provisions to alter the definitive map which would lapse on the abandonment of review the Bill was amended in this House to the effect that the objections would not be lost but would remain in abeyance until the surveying authority resurrect the particular proposal by way of an order under the new procedure. Nor does it take account of the fact that in future the reclassification of RUPPs will take place against the background of different criteria from those that apply at present. This means quite simply that many of the present reclassification proposals will disappear.
There are also, if I may say so, administrative problems associated with fulfilling the requirements of the noble Lord's amendment. It would not simply be a matter of informing persons that a particular review has been abandoned but would also involve advising them of how their objection is affected by the new arrangements and of the different options open to them. Each objection would need to be examined separately, which would be a considerable task and would mean diverting the resources available within the department, which are by no means unlimited, from the more essential task of implementing the new system. We believe that these particular objections would run into five figures, and it is the size of the task rather than the principle which makes me ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, if he could withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I take it from what the noble Earl has said that the Government intend to use the provisions now in the Bill to implement the undertaking given at Committee stage in another place that those who have put in a claim for a new right of way and whose claim is abandoned will be informed. I think the noble Earl said that, and he is nodding to confirm it, so that it is on the record. Far be it from me to wish to place any additional financial burdens on the Department of Environment than those that the Government have already placed on it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.48 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
116 Clause 50, page 44, line 34, after 'any', insert 'determination or decision of the authority under section 29(3)
622
or (4) of the 1949 Act in respect of which either there is no right of appeal or no notice of appeal has been duly served; (aa) to give effect to any'.
117 Clause 50, page 44, line 35, leave out 'the 1949' and insert that'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116, and, if I may, I should like to move No. 117 at the same time. In addition to enabling the abandonment of surveys and reviews being carried out under the present procedures, Clause 50 also provided that in the event of abandonment those proposals in draft maps and statements which did not attract objections, or, if they did, on which the Secretary of State has given a decision, shall take effect.
Under the survey procedure in the 1949 Act, responsibility for the determination of objections and representations to draft maps and statements rests with the surveying authority with a subsequent right of appeal to the Secretary of State on some but not all of the authorities' decisions. Since the Bill did not require decisions for which there is no right of appeal, or for which the right of appeal has not been exercised, to be given effect, and there is no apparent reason why they should not stand, we remedied the situation with these amendments. 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
118 Clause 51, page 46, line 28, after 'of' insert 'or of any part of'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 118. This relatively simple amendment will enable surveying authorities when faced with a request for a certified copy of a definitive map and statement for use in connection with legal proceedings to produce either the complete definitive map and statement or the relevant extract.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
119 Clause 52, page 46, line 35, at beginning insert 'An order under the foregoing provisions of this Part shall be in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and shall contain a map, on such scale as may be so prescribed, showing the modifications to which the order relates.
(1A)'.
120 Clause 52, page 46, leave out lines 39 to 41.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 119 and if the House agrees, I should like to move with it Amendment No. 120. These amendments require the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the form of definitive map orders. They specify that these orders shall contain a map to a prescribed scale showing details of the modifications encompassed by the order. 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
121 Page 47, line 35, at end insert—
'(6) Every surveying authority shall take such steps as they consider expedient for bringing to the attention of the public the provisions of this Part including, in particular, section 48(5) and subsection (4).
(7) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 121. This amendment is essentially two amendments in one. The first part, new subsection (6), requires a surveying authority to give such publicity as they consider appropriate to the new review procedures but to pay particular attention to the provisions of Clause 48(5) on applications for definitive map orders and Clause 52(4) on the availability of definitive maps and statements for public inspection. The second part is, as I have already indicated, consequential on Amendment No. 119 and transfers the provisions for the preparation of the various regulations to be drawn up under this clause from the end of subsection (1) to a new subsection (7).
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
122 Clause 54, page 48, line 19, at end insert—
'(4) In this section "recognised dairy breed" means one of the following breeds, namely, Ayrshire, British Friesian, British Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order add any breed to, or remove any breed from, subsection (4); and an order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 122. The new subsection (4) adds to the Bill the names of the seven recognised dairy breeds in England and Wales, for the purposes of the bull exemption subsection. These seven breeds would be prohibited in fields crossed by public paths. The new subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to add or remove any breed from the list.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
123 Clause 56, page 48, line 36, leave out '3', and insert '2'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123. This amendment reduces the normal restoration period for public rights of way after ploughing from 3 weeks to 2 weeks. We consider that it provides a reasonable compromise between the farming interests who, I believe, would have been happier if we had kept to our original 3-week re-
624
storation period and the path-user interests who have been pressing for restoration on the day that ploughing takes place.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 123.
123A Page 48, line 36, leave out ("3 weeks") and insert ("one week").
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123, and I propose Amendment No. 123A in lieu thereof. The noble Earl suggested that two weeks was a reasonable compromise between three weeks and one day. I am not sure if that is typical of the Government's mathematics in general but I do not think that it is a reasonable compromise. We had several long debates in this House about the restoration of footpaths after ploughing. At that stage, I was worried about two aspects of the siuation. The first was the length of time—it was then three weeks and is now two weeks—which is given to the occupier to restore bridlepaths and footpaths after they had been destroyed by ploughing; and, secondly, the exemption which allowed the occupier, in effect, if there was exceptional weather, to make the restoration as soon as practicable.
That exemption for exceptional weather conditions has remained in the Bill and, as the noble Earl has said, the only change has been to change three weeks to two weeks. The original concern about this provision from those interested in access was that in practice the existing law has turned out to be unenforceable. That, I understand, is the advice given by the local authority associations who are involved in enforcement. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could confirm whether the provision is thought by the local authority associations to be unenforceable—because that is what they said to Mr. Michael Spicer on the Spicer Committee which considered this.
More importantly, it may be that the noble Earl could say whether the Government have any information from the local authority associations which suggests that they think that the change from three weeks to two weeks will make this provision enforceable. I do not believe it will; and they are the people who are meant to enforce it. If that is the case, I should have thought the Government should welcome my amendment which reduces the period to one week. Whatever period of time is chosen could be open to question and I accept that it was felt by those who represent them that to do it on the day or within a day of ploughing was unduly onerous on the farming community. As a farmer myself, I could not see why that argument was advanced, given that there was the exceptional weather conditions let-out. I think that the insertion of "one week" will make the provision more enforceable and more understandable and would be a marginal improvement in what is otherwise likely to be a very weak provision.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123 but doth agree with Amendment No. 123A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, may I say that this is

625
a matter of debate but also of balance. This is a Bill of balances and compromises which has been followed throughout with great difficulty by the Government. There are still some who say that two weeks is not long enough. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said that two weeks is too long. I suggest that the Government stick to their amendment.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I feel driven to say a few words in opposition to this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on the view that one week appears to be an unreasonably short time. When the Bill left here to go to another place the time allowed for reinstatement of paths had been three weeks. The time for restoring paths at the moment is three weeks normally unless notification to the highway authority has been made. The Spicer Committee had also recommended three weeks as being a suitable period. That committee was set up to get agreement between interested organisations about these things. Then a political deal was made and there was a reduction to two weeks—
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate but I wonder, if the noble Lord is leaving what the Spicer Committee recommend, whether he can remind the House of what they had to say about the exceptional weather conditions let-out and what the local authority representatives on the Spicer Committee had to say about enforcement of all this.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I am not sure, but I think that all this was dealt with on a previous occasion. I wanted to say that the reduction from three weeks to two weeks is considered by farmers to be likely to increase the demand for them to do things which are likely to be difficult and which will add to the arable farmer's life a degree of inconvenience, wasted effort and cost. But farmers' organisations have accepted this particular part of the package in any case and therefore I am sure they would not want to disturb the balance achieved now. I should not like to see the truce broken. I think it is most important that this House should approve the Commons amendment without further alteration.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I support the amendment moved by my noble friend? I recognise that public paths may have to be ploughed up of necessity; but many of us walk in areas where we have not walked before and—as I have had in recent weeks—experienced situations where a path has gone across a field which has been ploughed up. Where does one go in order to pick up the path on the other side? It is becoming a problem. One can have a situation where one takes a path around a field which has been ploughed up. It may be argued that one can easily find where to pick up the other side. But that is not so where the field next door has always been ploughed. Therefore, there are real difficulties. While accepting the position of the farming community in carrying out their operations, the path should be restored as quickly as possible, and one week seems to be reasonable.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should like to stress that under existing legislation a farmer has up to five
626
weeks—we are talking about maximums and not minimums—in which to restore a path after ploughing, after giving seven days' prior notice of his intention to plough; or three weeks where no notice is given. The amendment which I moved at Report stage last March provided for restoration within three weeks, with an exceptional weather conditions proviso which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has mentioned.
The Government believe that three weeks is a reasonable period bearing in mind the other husbandry operations which have to be carried out after the initial ploughing operation. However, in a spirit of compromise we agreed to reduce this period to two weeks, this being one of the concessions agreed to in the other place. It is true that the local authority representative on the Spicer Committee said that three weeks would be difficult to enforce. So far as we are aware, they have not commented on the two-week period. We believe to reduce that period still further to only one week would mean that there would be hardly any time for the other husbandry operations, and could involve the farmer in restoring the path more than once. We do not believe that it is reasonble to expect farmers to do this, and the Government cannot therefore accept this amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not intend to press this amendment but I think it is worth making two comments. First of all, it might have been a little more responsible of the Government to check with local authority associations what their attitude was to the change that was made and the further changes which were being proposed. They are the bodies which are going to have to enforce this law. It is regrettable that the Government did not check. Secondly, I would say to the noble Lord opposite who suggested that this Bill was the result of a careful balancing act by the Government between competing interests that it is strange that all the interests on one side see the balance as having swung against them in every single case where there has been any conflict. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House this would be a good moment to adjourn for dinner. I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be now adjourned until
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.3 until 7.50 p.m.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
124 After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
"Appointment of wardens for public rights of way.
A local authority may appoint such number of persons as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic which is both in the countryside and in the area of the authority, and the purpose for which the wardens may be so appointed is to advise and assist the public in connection with the use of the path or way".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 124. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak to No. 127. The existing Clause 58, which this new clause replaces, enables wardens to act on footpaths and bridleways. 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
125 Clause 57, page 49, line 32, leave out 'public rights of way', and insert 'footpaths and bridleways'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 125. This is a technical amendment which acknowledges the fact that Clause 57 concerns the amendment of legislation which relates only to footpaths and bridleways, as opposed to public rights of way in the more general sense. 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
126 After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
"Publication of dedication of footpaths and bridleways.
At the end of section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 (creation of footpath or bridleway by agreement) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6) As soon as may be after the dedication of a footpath or bridleway in accordance with a public path creation agreement, the local authority who are party to the agreement shall give notice of the dedication by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the agreement relates is situated.".".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 126. This new clause amends the provisions of Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980, which enables local authorities to enter into agreements with landowners for the dedication of footpaths or bridleways. It does so by requiring the authority to publicise in the local press that a footpath or bridleway has been dedicated for public use in consequence of such an agreement. In the Government's view, it represents a welcome improvement in the law in this area since at present the public have no way of knowing that a footpath or bridleway has been so dedicated and is available for use. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 126A as an amendment to Amendment No. 126:
126A Line 7, after second ("dedication") insert (" to such bodies as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State or as the authority may consider appropriate and ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 126A as an amendment to Amendment No. 126. As the noble Earl said, Amendment No. 126 is a very welcome change to the Bill and, in so far as it goes, I think will he of considerable interest to those interested in using the rights of way.
628
My amendment would simply take this process a little further by requiring notice also to be given to such bodies as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations or as the authority may consider appropriate.
This is really an attempt to tidy up the Bill for the Government, which I am sure the noble Earl will be able to welcome, because this change would bring the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 126 into line with the procedures for informing interested parties which the Government have now adopted throughout Schedules 14 and 15. I think it is also reasonable and logical that those bodies representing likely users of a new path should be informed of its creation in the same way as the users will be by a notice in the local paper—because after all most walkers get their information about new and existing rights of way from organisations representing them rather than poring through official notices or looking at page 57 of the local paper. I hope that explanation will commend the amendment to the Government and to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the principles ralsed by this amendment apply equally to two later amendments which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in so far as all three are about the degree of publicity that newly-created footpaths and bridleways should receive. This first one concerns the dedication of footpaths and bridleways as a result of agreements under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. It is intended to serve the needs of the local community and I am satisfied that a notice in the local press, in accordance with the requirement of Amendment 126, is an adequate way of ensuring that people living in the locality, who after all are the ones who really matter, are informed of a new footpath or bridleway which has been made available for their use. Unlike public path orders, there is no right of objection to a creation agreement and so there is no need on that score for wider publicity than a notice in the local press. In addition to persons visiting the area from outside, the path will, under the new system, appear on the definitive map within a relatively short period of time.
In all these three amendments the noble Lord is suggesting that in addition to a notice in the local press, as envisaged by the Commons amendment, the availability of these footpaths or bridleways should be given wider publicity. The Government do not accept that this is essential. In general, footpaths and bridle-ways are derived from dedication agreements and public path orders and do only serve the local community. The case for such widespread publicity would be stronger if it were thought necessary to cater for a right of objections; but in these cases there is none. Landowners in any event will be aware of what is happening and other local authorities, because of their statutory responsibilities, should similarly be in touch with developments. In addition, as I have mentioned already, to persons visiting the locality from outside the path will appear much more quickly.

629
Having said that, the Government are prepared to go some way to meet the noble Lord by recommending to local authorities in the guidance that will follow the enactment of the Bill that they consider informing local user organisations of the availability of these footpaths and bridleways. I hope, with that undertaking, that the noble Lord will see fit not to press his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, that is very helpful. I do think there is a basic misconception which the Government may have picked up from frequent contact with other interests, and that is that the footpaths are still only used by local people. The whole argument in favour of retaining a network of public footpaths is that while it is accepted they are no longer used for people living in a village to get to church or to a neighbouring village, the argument the footpath users would advance is that they now form a major part of the recreational assets of this country as a whole; and a lot of our debates earlier in the Bill were concerned with people visiting areas where they do not live or walking along long-distance footpaths, walking in areas they have not been to before, and so on, and the problems and difficulties and rights that apply to them.
I am afraid that this argument that footpaths are no longer of any importance, except where they are used by local people is one used very occasionally—and I am sure never by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley—by some farmers. I am sure it is the wrong one and it is a shame that the Government have picked it up, even if only to use it in arguing against one of my excellent amendments.
The noble Earl also said that these paths would appear on the definitive maps much more quickly than in the past. I hope that is something that everyone will be able to hold the Government to and that the Government will be able to deliver on. It is certainly something that path-user organisations will be watching very closely. As I say, the noble Earl's assurance was a helpful one and I am grateful for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
127 Clause 58, leave out Clause 58.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 127, which is consequential on Amendment No. 124. 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
128 Clause 60, page 50, leave out lines 32 and 33.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 128. 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
129 Clause 61, page 51, line 18, after '32', insert', (Marine nature reserves)'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 129. I spoke to this amendment when we were discussing Amendment No. 91. This amendment extends the scope of Clause 61 to include the marine nature reserve provision. 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
130 Clause 65, page 52, line 20, at end insert:
'"London borough council" includes the Common Conucil of the City of London;'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130. This is a technical amendment. 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
131 Clause 66, page 52, line 34, at beginning insert:—
Section 4 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935 (power to fence roads subject to restrictions) shall have effect, in relation to any area in the countryside of which walls of a particular construction are a feature, as if references to fences included references to walls of that construction; and in exercising their powers under that section in relation to any such area, a highway authority shall have regard to the desirability of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
(1A) In section 20(2) of the Hill Farming Act 1946 (penalty for contravening regulations with respect to the burning of heather and grass) as originally enacted for the words from "five pounds" onwards there shall he substituted the words "£200".
(1B) In section 27 of that Act (penalty for contravening the provisions of that Act relating to muirburn) for the words "five pound" onwards there shall be substituted the words "pound;200".
(1C).'.
132 clause 66, page 53, line 1, after '1961', insert '(power to reduce numbers of pigeons and other birds in built-up areas)'.
133 clause 66, page 53, line 20, at end insert—
(8) In section 31(10) of the Highways Act 1980 (dedication of way as highway presumed after public use for 20 years) for the words from "subsection (4)" to "that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 51(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (which provides that a definitive map and statement" and the words "or of that subsection" onwards shall be omitted.
(9) Section 80 of that Act (power of highway authority to fence highways) shall have effect in relation to any area in the countryside of which walls of a particular construction are a feature, as if reference to fences included references to walls of that construction; and in exercising their powers under that section in relation to any such area, a highway authority shall have regard to the desirability of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
(10) In section 136(4) of that Act (time when hedges may not be required to be cut or pruned) immediately before the words "between the last day of September and the first day of April" there shall be inserted the word "except".

631
(11) In section 4(5) of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (grant or refusal of licence) the entries relating to the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 shall be omitted and there shall be added at the end the following entry—
"Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981".'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131, 132 and 133. Amendment No. 131 deals with two entirely separate subjects. The first part relates to the provision of boundaries when building or improving a road. We had considerable discussion on this at Report stage, and in another place there were many representations that highway authorities have sometimes set up fences in areas where stone walls are normal, and that there should accordingly be some formal duty or discipline operating in such areas so that highway authorities are bound to consider whether walls would be the appropriate form of boundary. It was accepted in another place that, wherever a highway authority has decided to provide boundaries for its own purposes and at its own expense, it should consider building walls where they are the local form of boundary construction. The first part of Amendment No. 131 achieves this end.
The overall effect of the amendment, is to establish that when, in certain areas, a highway authority decides that some form of highway boundary is required for highway purposes, it has a duty to consider whether a "traditional style" wall will be the appropriate boundary. This particular amendment applies only to Scotland. The second part of Amendment No. 133 makes identical provision in England and Wales.
The second part of Amendment No. 131 deals with penalties for burning heather and grass out of season or in an unsafe manner. The amendment also removes the provision in the Hill Farming Act 1946 for one month's imprisonment (30 days in Scotland) for illegal burning. This is in line with the Government's policy of reserving a provision for imprisonment only for those offences which involve considerable dishonesty or danger to the public.
Amendment No. 132 is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 133 relates to four different subjects. The first and last subsections provide for references to the Bill to be inserted in other legislation in place of references to earlier provisions which are to be superseded by the Bill. The second subsection of Amendment No. 133 is the counterpart to the first subsection of Amendment No. 131, and makes provision for traditional walls or fences in England and Wales. Finally, the third subsection corrects a defect in the Highways Act 1980. Section 136 of this Act allows highway authorities to make orders requiring that hedges be trimmed or cut back to prevent damage to highways. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to stop the rush, but I must make a few remarks on these amendments, particularly as my noble friend Lord Buxton obliquely referred to this amendment when he
632
was speaking to his Amendment No. 105A. I have to put him right, if he had it wrong—I am not certain that he did—but we have to accept that there is no obligation whatsoever on the authority to fence, except where there is a motorway. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can give me some assurance on how the Government see this amendment working in other places, on roads other than motorways.
Do the Government accept the philosophy of this amendment which was put in by another place—which I may say they did not accept here—and the philosophy that was brought out in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Monro? He said,
"As I said early, the Department of Transport has this corps of landscape architects and has made full use of the Royal Fine Art Commission. I should be singularly disappointed if I learned that they had not taken the initiative when dealing with major new motorways and trunk road systems. That is what they are there for".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D; 25/6/81, col. 1209.]
What I am asking my noble friend is: What action will the Government take to enforce and encourage themselves, as opposed to county councils who usually behave very much better than the Department of Transport or the Welsh Office, to pay some regard to fencing in the manner suggested in this amendment?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others when they moved a similar amendment in your Lordships' House, and I am delighted that another place accepted it. I see it as a very useful precedent to be applied to those who put up buildings, whether farm buildings, housing or whatever in areas such as National Parks. Hopefully, we shall soon have a legislative provision that they should also construct things in a particular stone that is a feature of the countryside. I shall not press the noble Earl to give a definitive reply on that as yet, but will allow the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to think about it for a while
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have been assured that the Department of Transport and the Welsh Office have every intention of applying the new power in the spirit and letter of this amendment. That is to say, when they decide to provide boundaries for highway purposes in areas of countryside where walls are the traditional form of boundary, they will now be more likely to build walls rather than fences. However, there may be cases where the financial burden would really be prohibitively disproportionate.
I am bound to say that the amendment of Section 80 of the Highways Act 1980 does not alter the position that the highway authorities have no statutory obligation to fence highways, or to build new boundary walls to replace any which have to be demolished for roadworks. This remains a matter for negotiation between the authority and the landowner in the context of compensation for the land taken from him, and depreciation in the value of the land he retains. Subject to this the department has been very willing to meet owners' wishes about fences or walls; and, indeed, in exceptional cases, to consider meeting the extra costs of providing walls as accommodation works where there are overriding amenity or environmental grounds to justify the additional cost to public funds. It is intended to

633
commend this approach to local highway authorities. I hope that those assurances will satisfy my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
134 Clause 67, page 53, leave out lines 24 to 39 and insert:—
(2) Nothing in the repeals made by this section shall affect the operation of sections 27 to 32 of the 1949 Act in relation to any surveys begun before the commencement date.
(3) Nothing in the repeals made by this section shall affect the operations of sections 33 and 34 of the 1949 Act and Parts II, III and IV of Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act in relation to any review begun after the commencement date.
(4) Notwithstanding the repeal by this section of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, section 9 of the Badgers Act 1973 shall continue to have effect with the amendment made by section 16 of the said Act of 1975. '
8.7 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134. This is essentially a drafting amendment. It also deletes from the Bill an unnecessary provision concerning the transitional arrangements for surveys and reviews of definitive maps following the reorganisation of local government in 1973. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 134:
134A Subsection (3), line 4, leave out ("after ") and insert ("before").
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment is necessary to correct an error in the drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
135 Clause 68, page 53, line 43, leave out '34, 39 and 43 ' and insert '31, (Duties of agriculture Ministers), 43, (Membership of National Park authorities) and (Duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest) and Schedule 12 '.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 135. If it is convenient to the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 136 and 137. These amendments concern the commencement of various provisions of the Bill. The Government have followed the helpful advice which my noble friend Lord Renton gave at an earlier stage and have provided that, where-ever possible. the provisions of the Bill will come into effect one month after enactment, without the need for any further parliamentary procedure. This will prevent any unnecessary delays and will simplify the statute books. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Corn-
634
mons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
136 Page 53, line 44, leave out '54, 56' and insert 54 to 56'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 136:
136A At end insert (" [Publication of dedication of footpaths and bridleways]").
Lord Melchett: My Lords, Amendment No. 136 would bring the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 126 into operation one month after the passing of the Act, rather than leave it to be brought in by the Secretary of State through regulations. I hope that this amendment will ensure that things are implemented rather more speedily than would be the case if the Bill were left as it is, and that, again in the interests of getting everything moving quickly, the noble Earl will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Moved,That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Melehett.)
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in contrast to the other provisions in Part III of the Bill which are to be brought into operation one month after enactment, these relate to powers, whereas Amendment No. 136 imposes a specific duty on local authorities to publicise the dedication of footpaths and bridleways flowing from agreements under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. The Government consider that one month is not long enough for local authorities to obtain copies and absorb the contents of the Bill and to implement the additional duties it imposes upon them. I emphasise the difference between powers and duties. I would prefer for this reason to leave the provisions of Amendment No. 126 to be brought into effect at a later date.
I agree with the noble Lord that there is no reason why they should not be brought in before the new definitive map review system and various changes being made to the public path order provisions and we will endeavour to bring them in at the earliest opportunity. In the circumstances, and with this assurance, I trust the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his objection.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he said "at the earliest opportunity". This is one of those code words which Government use when they do not want to tell you anything. Can the noble Earl go any further than that and give us an indication of whether it is likely to be months, or weeks, or years? Could he be a little bit more definitive?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, obviously I cannot be more definitive because this is going to depend a great deal on the speed at which everything is happening at that particular period. The point is that it cannot

635
be within one month, but we shall do it as soon thereafter as we possibly can.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that helpful assurance. I accept that those of us who have been living with this Bill may not think it would take a month to read and understand it but that others, coming to it afresh, may find it rather more complicated and that local authorities will need a little time to digest and implement the new powers which they have. In the light of the noble Earl's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Commons amendment No. 136, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
137 Page 54, line 1, leave out '66(1) and (3)' and insert '66(1C), (3) and (II)'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree wth the Commons in their Amendment No. 137.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
138 Page 54, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'do' in line 16 and insert—
'The following provisions of this Act, namely— sections 37, 38, 40 to 45, (Maps of National Parks showing certain areas of moor or heath) and (Duties of water authorities etc. with regard to nature conservation and the countryside) and Schedule 12; and
Part III '.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 138. The amendment concerns the extension of the Bill to Scotland. It extends to Scotland the provision about limestone pavements, upon which I have already spoken. 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
139 Page 54, line 17, after '15' insert '(1)'.
140 Page 54, line 17, after 'Schedule 10' insert 'and, so far as regards any enactment mentioned in Schedule 16 that so extends, section 67 and that Schedule'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if it is convenient to the House, I should like to speak to and move together Amendments Nos. 139 and 140. These are technical amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 139 and 140.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
141 Page 54, leave out lines 19 to 23.
The Earl of Avon:My Lords, 1 beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 141. The amendment deletes the words which were inserted by this House to avoid questions of privilege. 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
142 Schedule 1, page 56, leave out lines 48 to 51 and insert—
'NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 142. With this amendment I can speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 172 and 176. These are drafting and clarification amendments to the footnotes and they are intended to be helpful. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
143 Schedule 2, page 57, line 7, at end insert—

'Curlew

Numenius arqata'.

Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143. Perhaps I may have your Lordships' permission to speak to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 together as the arguments are very similar.
After a full debate during the Committee stage when we discussed these two questions I withdrew my amendments to remove both these birds from the quarry list at the Government's request so that the advice of the statutory birds advisory committees could be sought. At the Report stage the House considered the question again in the light of that advice and the amendments were carried by a large majority of 83 to 32, with all-party support. In another place a Conservative amendment to put both birds back on Schedule 2, which I call the quarry schedule, was accepted without a Division. We must now decide whether to confirm our previous view. I have no doubt that if it is necessary to press this to a Division again—I hope it will not be—we shall again divide on non-party lines. What could be less political than the curlew—a real Cross-Bencher?
None of the arguments has changed since February. If anything, the case for protecting both birds is stronger than it was. The England and Wales Advisory Committee on Birds which now comes under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy Council could not recommend the protection of either bird on pure conservation grounds, but a strong majority would accept their protection on aesthetic and common-sense grounds, or on what were described in another place as ethical grounds and grounds of sentiment. The Scottish Committee made no comment. Both comm-

637
ittees had been asked by my noble friend to consider the views expressed during the Committee and Report stages when we discussed these matters.
Both birds are quite common in this country. The wintering population of the curlew is probably around 60,000 and of the redshank around 100,000. These figures must be fairly wide estimates and both figures, I understand, are accepted by the Government. About one in six of the European population of the curlew winters here, and as much as one-third of Europe's redshank population. They winter in our estuaries, many of which are classified as sites of international importance for birds, which gives us a special responsibility in this respect.
Birds are not fair game just because they are common. Among the waders, for example, knots and dunlins, which are protected and always have been, are far, far more numerous than curlews and redshank, the dunlin so much so that it is 10 times more common than the curlew. Its numbers run into something like a half a million wintering population. Are we to shoot song thrushes and larks, like the French always have done, because they are common? Nobody has suggested that we should, nor robins or swallows. Patéde grieve is something which I do not like eating at all, and I would not like to eat Paté de chevalier, which is the French for the redshank.
Evidence is conflicting as to whether the numbers of curlew and redshank are on the decline. Nobody can be sure. Probably they are. Certainly they seem to be as breeding birds. Both are probably on the decline in other Community countries as well, though their numbers are quite clearly cyclical. Therefore any clear decision about this is difficult. There is no doubt, however, about the fact that the loss of habitats which they can most frequently be seen in is bound to affect their numbers, especially the loss of wetlands. This is no doubt one of the reasons why Mr. Stanley Cramp, an eminent and much respected ornithologist and the chairman of the England and Wales Advisory Committee, strongly favours the long-term protection of both these birds and has so advised the Commission in Brussels to which he has been the senior consultant, I think I can call it, during the consideration over the past six to eight years of the Birds Directive of which we have taken such careful account. Some 30 species of waders visit our shores. The curlew and the redshank are the only waders which will remain on the quarry list unless Parliament accepts these two amendments. That was no doubt one factor in the advisory committee's mind when they made their recommendation. No doubt they also had in mind, as we have, that both birds are all too easily confused with protected waders —some of them rare or even very rare.
For example, who could possibly put their hand on their heart and say that they could tell the difference in the half light of morning or evening between a spotted redshank and a redshank or between the whimbrel and the godwit on the one side and the curlew? I do not think that anybody can be sure of doing this. Shooting them therefore causes a lot of disturbance to large numbers of protected shore birds, many of which must get killed or wounded by mistake, especially in the half light of early morning or dusk. So protecting these two birds would result in a welcome reduction of daytime shooting on estuaries since most wild-
638
fowling, as we all know, takes place generally at dawn and at dusk. There is no excuse, either, for shooting these birds for the pot, most people being agreed that they are pretty inedible, particularly later in the season. Some say they are quite nasty. Discarded corpses of redshank and curlew have been found in a number of places in this country, most recently in Lindisfarne, presumably because those who had shot them could not be bothered to pick them up because they were not worth eating. It has never been suggested that either bird is a pest, which some shore birds can be.
I suppose sentiment enters into it to some extent and under that heading I would make this one comment: Curlews really are one of the most beautiful birds that we have in this country. Their call is a haunting, wonderfully liquid cry—perhaps even more lovely than the song of the nightingale. Any of us who have heard the call of the curlew in a marsh can hardly think of anything more beautiful.
As to the serious suggestion that has been made that these are ideal birds for youngsters learning to shoot, what are we coming to? Let them have a go at the vermin—the hooded crows, the pigeons or even, if they must, at the starlings which make a passable imitation of partridges at times. Indeed, anything on the black list but not the curlew and not the redshank. Who on earth, my Lords, really wants to shoot a curlew or a redshank and, for heavens' sake, why? I wonder how many noble Lords have actually shot them? Very few indeed, I would warrant.
I cannot help feeling that the lowest common denominator has had its way in the British field sports advice that has been given, although their director has made it clear that a good many of their shooting members favour protecting both birds. I have little doubt either that the same is true of WAGBI, now renamed as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I hope they will now recognise that tastes and times have changed and wildfowling practices with them. I hope, therefore, that they will live up to the last word of their new title—Conservation.
I am very happy indeed to see my noble friend Lord Arbuthnott in his place and I hope he will contribute to the debate, although I fear that he may not fully share my views. As for your Lordships' House, whose Members the Economist regard as "habitually clumping around in marshes", there are few things I enjoy more. I love my wildfowling. How right that enlightened weekly was to beg us to have the courage of our earlier convictions. That is just what I am asking your Lordships to do today, in the hope that it will not be necessary to divide the House again. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Chelwood.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, when we discussed these amendments previously, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, we passed them by a very large majority made up of Peers from all sides of the House and from the Cross-Benches. We on these Benches again support the deletion of the curlew and redshank from the shooting list.
I have had some correspondence which has suggested to me that this would be a terrible threat to wildfowling. If I may take up the point made by the noble Lord

639
that wildfowling attitudes and practices do change, during the summer I was reading a book which was published in 1935 called Sea Swallows, about Blakeney Point, which is now a national nature reserve near where I farm in Norfolk. One part of the story of the life of the warden on the Point contains the following reminiscence, which is told with some pride in the achievement and in the interests of the area of which he was warden. He says:
"On another occasion three hunters met on the flats opposite Stiffkey and paddled up to a large flock of knot"—
one of the birds which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, mentioned as being a lot more numerous now than curlew or redshank—
"all fired simultaneously and bagged 603 birds. The knot is grey with a few dark spots and a trifle larger than the blackbird".
I would suggest that that wildfowling practice, while being perfectly acceptable and indeed something to be proud of in 1935, is not something that many wild-fowlers would be particularly proud of if they heard of it happening today. Practices change. In my researches among actual wildfowlers in the area where I farm I have yet to find anybody who claims ever to shoot, as a matter of course, redshank or curlew, and indeed I have met a number of wildfowlers who have assumed that they were already on the protected list. It seems to me to be a little far-fetched to suggest as some have, that to protect these birds would be a terrible blow to the sport. I simply do not think that is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said that some people had suggested that they were suitable quarry on which people might practice and I am afraid that the RSPB has received reports from East Anglia of people using redshank for practice and not even bothering to retrieve the birds that are shot because, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood said, they are completely inedible. My father told me that he had once eaten curlew, and he described it as being like a Wellington boot that had been boiled in sea water for 24 hours. It is not surprising that if these birds are shot they are often not recovered.
Finally, it is clear from the debates that there have been in wildfowling quarters, as well as from the debates in Parliament, that there are many people who go wildfowling regularly who are very unhappy at the idea that these birds should remain on the shooting list. They feel that that is not a sensible thing for wildfowlers to be attempting to defend. As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said, it is very hard for even the most experienced ornithologists to claim that they can distinguish a redshank from a spotted redshank at dusk, and I do not think very many wildfowlers would seriously claim to be able to do so. They would see the demise of the spotted redshank as being one of the incidental disadvantages of this, but I dare say that if they had not gone to retrieve it they would not he aware that it had happened.
It seems to me that the arguments which convinced your Lordships' House some months ago have, if anything, been greatly strengthened by the investigations and the experience of the last few months, and I very much hope that the House will reiterate its earlier decisions on both these amendments.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, I find it unnatural to be on different sides with my noble friend Lord Chelwood, especially on a matter of this sort where we are both so keen on what is good for the natural life of the countryside, but I am bound to say that when he asked your Lordships, "What wildfowler would want to shoot a curlew?" he seemed to expect that no wildfowler in this country—and I include Scotland—would want to shoot a curlew. But the fact of the matter is that, not only if you go to the committees of wildfowlers but if you go among them and talk about it as a wildfowler, you will find that a very large proportion of wildfowlers are only too happy to shoot a curlew, and it does not do anybody any harm.
A noble Lord: Except the curlew!
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, it does not do any harm to cull a species which is not in short supply. It is a good thing to cull the domestic hens; it is not a bad thing to cull seals when they get too numerous, or even deer. The curlew, and to a much lesser extent the redshank, are well able to look after themselves.
I do not want to stamp upon the sport of not very rich people who cannot afford to shoot grouse but who can afford to shoot wildfowl on the shore, and for that reason I hope that the Government will take a firm line and will not accept this amendment although it has been moved by my very good friend Lord Chelwood.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on this amendment. I was brought up within sound of the call of the curlew and it was always regarded as absolute sacrilege if anybody shot one. When I was in Scotland this year I listened for curlews—I knew it was past the time for their wonderful call but I asked why I heard so few and I was told that there were many fewer. I only wish that the habitat of the curlew could be extended to many more places, because I do not think it does any harm and, with due respect to the noble Lord opposite, I do not think it should be considered for eating. I think it would be sacrilege to do so and therefore I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, to take up the point the noble Lord has just made, is he really suggesting that there are too many curlews when he talks about culls? He talks about seals and other animals and birds. He talks about culling curlews, but I do not think that enters into this debate at all. The suggestion is not that the curlew should be restricted in this country.
The Viscount of Arbuthnott: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, knows, I cannot support him in his amendment, really for the reasons he gave himself; that is, that there are no conservation reasons to give us any reason to take away from the legitimate sportsmen what is presently their legitimate quarry. As he said, wildfowling habits are changing. He referred to an incident at Lindisfarne where one of these quarry species was discarded, and I know that that case was taken up seriously by the wildfowling

641
organisations concerned and the culprits disciplined. But I go back simply to stating that there are, as the noble Lord admitted, no conservation reasons why—
Lord Melchett>: My Lords, I wonder whether I could intervene. The noble Viscount says that there are no conservation reasons, but both the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and I suggested that it was impossible in practice to distinguish the redshank from the spotted redshank, and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said a curlew from a whimbrel. These other birds are protected and there are good conservation gounds for protecting them. Surely that is a conservation argument for these amendments.
The Viscount of Arbuthnott: My Lords, I am sure the House does not want to prolong this discussion on these slightly esoteric matters. The fact is that the redshank we are talking about is more likely to be found on the high marsh and it is not very difficult to distinguish it there from its rarer fellow. Equally, you will not find whimbrel fighting in the same way as curlews do. I do not think that argument stands up. I come back to the argument given by the noble Lords themselves; that there are no conservation reasons that I know of for taking these species off the quarry list.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to find out what the definition of a sportsman is. The definition of a sportsman, as I see it, is either somebody who kills because something is vermin or because it is useful. Personally I have never heard of curlew pie. I wonder whether you can use their feathers for anything. I cannot think of anything else that would be useful, and I do not know whether they are vermin, so I hope somebody will repy to me on that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this debate is showing signs of coming to life, and it might just as well be on the curlew as anything else. 1 think the time has come to send a note of defiance to the other place and no better subject on which to do it than this. I think we should try and curb the predatory instincts of the other place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked a moment ago, what do you shoot a curlew for? Is it to eat? Is it for its feathers? The answer is, No—for sport. That presumably is what it is all about. And I do not think shooting anything is a genuine sport. This constant concern for the wildfowlers—what God-sent creatures are they? Have they some special claim upon the sympathies of the community—wildfowlers must be out at night; wildfowlers must be out on Sunday because they cannot wildfowl on Saturday. We have had all this out, and it seems to me the arguments are so thin that they can only really come from those who feel that the right to use the gun is something which should not be taken away unless there are very strong reasons for doing so.
We heard a moment ago that to shoot a curlew is not to do anybody any harm—nobody, that is, except the curlew. I think all shooting probably does harm in the long run in public attitudes. I shall have an opportunity a little later of saying that with all that we hear from the party opposite about law and order they will not curb the gun. I think the fewer species there
642
are to shoot lawfully the greater the curb on the use of the gun. Your Lordships may say, "Here is an extreme fellow; he is putting up these arguments on the general principle of shooting and not addressing his remarks to the particular question of the curlew". On that I would say we went over all this before and we reached a conclusion. There is no reason why this House should change its opinion.
My criticism of the Government is that very often they gave the impression of accepting the will of this House in the course of the earlier stages of this Bill, and let our progressive reforms in this Bill slip away in the reactionary atmosphere down in another place. We ought not to put up with that. It really is time for your Lordships to assert the prestige and the authority of this House, and let us tell the country the curlew shall be saved.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think one ought to put in the remark that the next time a Conservative Opposition attacks Labour Bills the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be quoted with considerable relish about attacking the reactionary principles of another place. I think one ought not to be too unkind about wildfowlers. They need support. It is a perfectly legitimate and honourable sport in my view. But all the same I think there are enough duck for them to shoot, and you can eat duck and they are good to eat. The feathers would make an excellent hat for the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. But there is no necessity to confuse the curlew with the whimbrel or the redshank with the spotted redshank. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will vote in numbers, coveys of your Lordships will go into the Lobby, on the side of the curlew and the redshank.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I will be very brief, but 1 may slightly surprise your Lordships in that if we do divide on this amendment I may find myself in the same Lobby as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Having been extremely keen on shooting all my life, I have thought long and hard about these two birds, and I have never shot them, although I would probably be the only person in the Lobby supporting Lord Chelwood who has almost certainly shot every other bird on Schedule 2, Parts I and II, quite a lot of other things I should not have done besides. These two birds, I think, are very well worth preserving and I see no call to put them on the shootable list.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I rise to support noble Lords who have spoken in defence of the Commons amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked what is a wildfowler. I was glad to get support from a very unlikely source here. Having said he was going to vote the other way, I am not surprised that he is moving out of the Chamber. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who described the wild-fowler as the common man, the ordinary chap who goes down and shoots below the tideline, where he does not have to pay the large rents which certain noble Lords on this side of the House can afford to pay for their shooting. He is not some terrible character who goes out and shoots everything that moves. I put it to your Lordships that if there are a number of wild-fowlers who do not wish to shoot the curlew there is

643
nothing in the Bill that compels them to do so. They can be quite happy to watch them go over.
Indeed, I very much like watching the curlew. I am lucky enough to be in one of those places where there are both curlew and redshank and with common nests, and I love going to watch them. Nothing would induce me to shoot one—absolutely not. I cannot think of anything that I would less rather do. However, I think that those who go and shoot them are quite entitled to do so. They eat them. It is amazing to me that nobody seems to have grasped this. I have actually eaten one. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it tasted rather like old boots. In fact it is referred to as a poor man's grouse. They do, generally, like eating them. They take them home to their wives and I suppose that they tell them to pluck them. What they do with the feathers I do not know—it is up to them. In any event, they shoot them, take them home and eat them.
There are nearly as many people who shoot curlews, on the foreshore as there are people who have the good fortune, as some of us may think, to shoot red grouse during the grouse shooting season. There are a lot of people at stake. Noble Lords have given various reasons—not many of which I agree with—as to why this species should be excluded. I think that there is a sentimental reason as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said. It is lovely to hear their bubbling cry. I love it myself.
On the other hand, there are people who enjoy sho- oting them, who go down and shoot them, and who take them home and eat them at the end of the day. To deprive them of that right, which they have had for goodness knows how many years, for the reason of conservation, when there is no good conservation reason for it, is a matter as regards which I hope that your Lordships will support the Government.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Swinton has finished on the line with which I should like to begin. It seems to be common ground that there is no conservation reason except the reason produced by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, of mistaken identity. Confusion of identity is something at which we have looked and we rejected it as a basis for listing, otherwise the mind boggles at what one might have to take into account. Anyway, it is the Government's considered view that there is no conservation reason. However, not many are shot and the numbers are stable. I am not even sure that, if anybody were to say they were decreasing, I would not say that they were increasing.
It might interest the House to know that in the Community, Denmark, France, Italy and Greece shoot these species and Ireland shoots the curlew. Of the other Community countries, only Germany has given up shooting both species recently, and those species are shot in nine other countries in Europe outside the Community. Therefore, Britain for once is not the odd man out.
The particular objection to the use of a moral argument when the argument of conservation fails, is that once accepted there is no logical stopping place. The Government believe that there is a place for field sports and fishing and the moral argument, however
644
sincerely held, ends only when all these are abolished. Conservation must be the touchstone to decide whether changes need to be made. This sound basis has led to 13 species being removed from the quarry list. Noble Lords, of course, will be aware that that figure includes the bar-tailed godwit as regards which it has been accepted that there is a conservation case for giving it protection at all times. We rest our case on conservation and hope very much that the House will agree with the Commons in their amendment.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I listened with great care, naturally, to the excellent discussion that we have had. Very little entirely new has been said but I should like to comment on one point, namely, the question of mistaken identity as regards which, with great respect, I think that my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott, have both got it wrong, which is rather surprising, particularly bearing in mind that the noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott, is I believe President of WAGBI.
The curlew and the redshank occur in mixed species flocks. That is a fact. Indeed, curlew and whimbrel often flock and roost together which makes it all the more difficult to identify one from the other, particularly, as I said in my opening speech, in the half light. The same is true of redshank and spotted redshank which are often seen in mixed flocks. Therefore, the question of mistaken identity is very serious. There really cannot be any doubt that many protected birds—some of them, as I have said, extremely rare—get shot and wounded by mistake; and that is something which certainly should be avoided.
As I have said, I have listened with care and attention to the debate. I think that the case for protecting all shore birds as they are protected in North America is a very strong one indeed. I feel bound to divide the House and I feel sure that, if the amendment is passed again, as it was during the Report stage, another place will take most careful account of the reiteration of our strongly held view. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 62; Not-Contents 43.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bishopston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kemsley, V.

Brockway, L.

Killearn, L.

Chelwood, L.—[Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Collison, L.

Knutsford, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Davies of Leek L.

Loudoun. C.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davis. L.

Faithfull, B.

McCluskey, L.

Greenway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Hacking, L.

Melchett, L.—[Teller.]

Haig, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Hampton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Hanworth, V.

645

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Stamp, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Onslow, E.

Tordoff, L.

Oram, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peart, L.

Tryon, L.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Renton, L.

Westbury, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arbuthnott, V.

Holderness, L.

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bathurst, E.

Kilmany, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reigate, L.

de Clifford, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Savile, L.

Digby, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sharpies, B.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinton, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Vivian, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Commons amendment disagreed to accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
144 Schedule 2, page 57, line 20, at end insert—

'Redshank

Tringa totanus'.

8.52 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I beg formally to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said amendment. In fact, I spoke to this when I spoke to Amendment No. 143.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Chelwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
145 Schedule 2, page 57, leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings. the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. I spoke to this when I spoke to Amendment No. 142. 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
146 Schedule 3, page 58, leave out line 20.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that
646
this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. It is now our understanding that present information on the rook does not justify its retention in Schedule 3. Sale and exhibition can be allowed by licence under Clause 16 for those people who breed these birds. Should breeding records, at some time in the future, support inclusion of this species on the schedule, it can be added by order. 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
147 Schedule 3, page 58, leave out lines 46 to 49 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
148 Schedule 4, page 60, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. I spoke to these amendments when I spoke to Amendment No. 142. 1 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
149 Schedule 5, page 60, line 32, at end insert—

'Butterfly, Swallowtail

Papilio machaon'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. We are advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that the population of this attractive butterfly is declining. Its addition to the schedule of creatures which require a degree of special protection is therefore justified. 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
150 Schedule 5, page 61, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
151 Schedule 6, page 61, leave out lines 51 to 54 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. I spoke to these amendments when I spoke to Amendment No. 142. 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
152 Schedule 7, page 62, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert:—
'The Ground Game Act 1880
.— (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of the Ground Game Act 1880, it shall not be unlawful for the occupier of any land himself, or one other person authorised by him under section 1 of that Act, to use firearms for the purpose of killing ground game thereon between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise if (except where he has the exclusive right) the occupier has written authority of the other person or one of the other persons entitled to kill and take the ground game on the land.
(2) In this paragraph "ground game" means hares and rabbits.
The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948
.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 50(1)(a) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948, it shall not be unlawful for the owner of the shooting rights on any land or any person holding those rights from him, or the occupier of any land (who may in writing nominate one other person), to use a firearm for the purpose of killing ground game thereon between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, if (except where he has the exclusive right) he has written authority of the other person or one of the other persons entitled to kill and take the ground game on the land.
(2) In this paragraph "ground game" means hares and rabbits.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953
—(1) At the end of subsection (2) of section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 (penalty where dog worries livestock on agricultural land) there shall be inserted the words "or
(c) being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep".
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Subsection (2)(c) of this section shall not apply in relation to—

(a) a dog owned by, or in the charge of, the occupier of the field or enclosure or the owner of the sheep or a person authorised by either of those persons; or

(b) a police dog, a guide dog, a trained sheep dog, a working gun dog or a pack of hounds."

The Deer Act 1963'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. With the leave of the House, I shall speak first to Parts I and II of Amendment No. 152. Part 1 of the amendment would rectify an anomaly arising from the interpretation of the Ground Game Act 1880. The anomaly being remedied in England and Wales by superseding the application of the 1880 Act to night shooting is between, on the one hand, owners of land with shooting rights (whether or not in occupation of the land) and shooting tenants not in occupation who have been held by the courts not to be subject to the ban on night shooting and, on the other hand, occupiers who are. As for the most part such non-owning occupiers are tenant farmers who wish to protect their crops, the anomaly is considered to be unjust and in need of remedy.
648
The first part of Amendment No. 152 gives occupiers in England and Wales the right to shoot ground game at night if they have the written authority of one of the persons with a similar right. They would also be able to delegate the right to shoot to a person under Section 1 of the 1880 Act; for example, an employee or a member of his household resident on his land. This brings the position at night into line with that during the day.
The second part of Amendment No. 152 deals with the position in Scotland. At present, no person in Scotland may shoot ground game at night. There is no difference in circumstance between England and Wales, and Scotland which justifies a difference of this nature. Accordingly, the second part of Amendment No. 152 was intended not only to give occupiers—provided they have written permission—the right to shoot but also to give such rights to the owner of the shooting or a person who has been granted shooting rights whether exclusively or otherwise.
With the leave of the House, I shall now turn to Part 3 of the amendment which concerns sheep worrying by dogs. Noble Lords will recollect that the Government were sypathetic to the intention of protecting sheep from dog worrying but did not feel able to support the amendments which were moved during various stages of the passage of the Bill in February and March. However, we recognised that there was a wide measure of support in this House for the inclusion of some provision to prevent sheep worrying to supplement what is already provided for in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 and the Animals Act 1971, and there was similarly widespread support for such a measure in the other place. We therefore undertook to draft a suitable clause.
The clause which was produced forms the third part of this amendment. It contains various exemptions which are considered to be necessary. We have defined "at large" in relation to dogs in fields to mean "not on a lead or otherwise under close control". As Sir Hector Monro said, in moving this clause on Report in the other place,
"We recognise that the meaning of "under close control" cannot be precisely defined, but the phrase is evidently acceptable to the major interests which support the tightening up of the sheep-worrying legislation and we believe that the implications will generally be clear".
If the House agrees to this amendment, it is the Government's intention that it should be brought into effect in time for the lambing season.
At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 152B, 152C and 152D. These amendments are necessary in order to ensure that the law on shooting ground game at night should be the same in Scotland as in England and Wales, and they are consequential to Amendment No. 152. Certain inconsistencies arose as a result of the drafting.
The amendments that I propose will make it clear that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, the occupier of agricultural land will be entitled to delegate the right to shoot at night only to one person who must be in his employment or a member of his household. The amendments will also remove a curious effect of Commons Amendment No. 152 whereby an owner of shooting rights in Scotland would have been required to obtain the consent of any other owner of shooting

649
rights to shoot ground game at night. The amendments ensure that that proviso applies only to tenants in order to protect rights over game. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 152:
152A Leave out lines 1 to 26.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, to leave out lines 1 to 26. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, intended to do full justice to the purpose of these amendments, but I must say that, had I not studied this matter very closely myself, I should have had difficulty in following the merits of the arguments that he used. The truth is that we have been here before. On 8th July last year, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, introduced as a Private Member's Bill the Ground Game Bill 1980, which was to amend the Ground Game Bill of 1880, as though to celebrate the centenary of the passing of the 1880 Act. That Bill received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 23rd July last year but thereafter it ran into difficulties. At Committee stage amendments were seriously considered and the Committee stage collapsed because, when there was a Division, there were not the necessary numbers to support a valid vote of this House. As time was going on in July of last year, the Bill made no further progress. Before that Bill came here it had been introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Mr. Hooson, Member of Parliament, in July 1979. It went through another place without a word being said in support of it. It got through its Second Reading on the nod. It went to a Committee upstairs in another place, where the sponsor of the Bill submitted a redraft of the only substantial clause in the Bill which had been supplied to him by the Home Office. The Committee proceedings were over in 11½ minutes. It was on that basis that the Bill passed through another place and was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, in this House in July of last year.
Where does Amendment No. 52 on the Marshalled List tonight come from? Where did the other amendments come from? Who put them there? First, no attempt was made in your Lordships' House at any earlier stage in this Bill to introduce clauses which have nothing to do with this Bill and which are alien to it. No such attempt was made by anybody—not by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. The Bill went to another place without any attempt being made here to resuscitate the clauses in the Ground Game Bill of 1980. It went to Committee in another place and still no attempt was made to bring these clauses into the Bill. But the Bill got to Report stage, and on 13th July these amendments were put into the Bill without, so far as I can find, any debate whatsoever.
I have never surely encountered legislative change with so little being said in support of it. Talk about a silent conspiracy, this is the neatest piece of sleight of hand that I have seen in Parliament for a very long time. If we are going to deal with the question of Scotland, let me stress the fact that Scotland was excluded from the Ground Game Bill of 1880 and, so far as I can find out, at no time has the proposal
650
been made here or debated elsewhere to include in this Bill an amendment of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 as amended by the Pests Act 1954. The Ground Game Bill of 1880 enlarged the area of the use and the right of shooting of hares and rabbits, but in 1948 and in 1954 Scotland changed the Act of 1880 in one material respect. It prohibited the shooting of ground game at night, whereas the 1880 Act made lawful the shooting of ground game at night by certain persons specified in the Act itself. Scotland has a complete ban at the present time on the shooting of ground game at night.
This amendment proposes to remove that ban. That was not proposed in the Bill which came before your Lordships' House last year. It has never been put forward in another place until spatchcocked into this Bill right now. This seems to me to be a most irregular use of the machinery of Parliament to bring about a significant change of that kind. Scotland is turned from a civilised to an uncivilised country overnight by amending the legislation which has been there so long.
There is an anomaly. The anomaly to which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, referred began with a judgment by the Court of Appeal 67 years ago, in 1913. The anomaly has persisted ever since, and 67 years after it started we are told that it is time to remove the anomaly. I should have thought that, if an anomaly is created by a judgment of the courts, one will not necessarily remove the anomaly by a further extension of the right to shoot. I suspect that one would first wish to consider what were the intentions of Parliament when the original Act of 1880 was passed. There is no doubt that the Act of 1880 did two things. It enlarged the area of the destruction of hares and rabbits, but at the same time it prohibited those who were brought in to the enlarged facility for shooting from shooting at night. I see no justification for bringing these amendments before your Lordships' House in this Bill. Is it conservation? What is it? What is the purpose behind these clauses that is relevant to the Bill?
Just recently the noble Earl on a number of occasions has said that the test within the scope of this Bill must be—is it conservation? Is it the preservation of the species? Is it the safeguarding of the environment? Is it a conservation purpose? The Government have gone to extreme lengths to prevent this Bill being used as an instrument against blood sports. I recall for the benefit of your Lordships how far the Government have gone along that path. We have protected the otter from being killed or taken. We have protected the otter from the disturbance of his habitat. But we have not outlawed hunting. You can hunt the otter in law. You may not kill it; you may not take it; you may not destroy its habitat, but you can hunt it.
That of course is a palpable absurdity, but it is maintained in order to preserve in the utmost degree the principle that this Bill must not be used as a means of curbing blood sports. And yet we get these amendments in the Bill just now without any argument relating the purpose of the amendments to the purpose of the Bill. All that the noble Earl has said is, "to rectify an anomaly". This Bill is not here for the purpose of rectifying anomalies. This Bill is here to achieve a certain specific purpose, and there is no reason at all for dragging in at the last stages of the

651
Bill amendments of this kind to rectify anomalies which have nothing to do with what the Bill is really about.
If it was desirable to remedy this anomaly, which I am sure very few people are aware of, I should like to know how many people have felt inhibited about shooting anything at night because of the Act of 1880 and the judgment of the court of 1913. However, one must not condone lawlessness even though a great deal of it would be through ignorance. But why is it pressing now, I ask your Lordships? Why now? I know where the impetus came from, because your Lordships who know the disposition of what one might call the British Field Sports Society will identify those who have been behind this kind of amendment in the past.
Well, I have got it off my chest. I hope I am not being unduly fussy, but it seems that this matter is regarded in some quarters as either so obvious, or as so trivial, that it is not worth uttering words about it. Indeed, in the Committee stage in another place the mover of the Bill said that it was so obvious that he need not make a speech about it. And he did not. Well, I wish we could get away with amendments and add new clauses to Bills as easily as that. But why are the Government conniving at this? Why are they doing anything about it? Why have not they resisted this in the interests of keeping the Bill in a state of theoretical purity so that we work within the boundaries laid down by the Government themselves? I feel strongly that we ought to pay a little more respect to Scotland than to sweep up into this Bill changes in laws applicable to Scotland which have been passed much more recently than 1880. In 1948 and in 1954 Scotland decided to outlaw night shooting of ground game, and here we are departing from that. I see no justification for that.
Would that Scotland had more responsibility for its own affairs, but I should have thought that night shooting in Scotland had dangers in regard to deer greater than night shooting elsewhere in England and Wales. That is the one thing I should have thought they would want to outlaw in Scotland: the night shooting of deer. If you have the night shooting of ground game, you can have the night shooting of anything.
I said earlier that the one thing we want to achieve in this country is that any shot during the hours of darkness is prima facie unlawful. Many people hear shots in the night and say, "I thought it was somebody shooting at something", only to find that their neighbour has been murdered. We are too free in the use of the gun, as though we had a prescriptive right, as though we had the American mentality—that we want a gun to defend ourselves—when our use of the gun in the civilian context is mostly to satisfy our instinct for sport. I wish that word could be deleted from the vocabulary of shooting.
However, many noble Lords will not feel as I do on this matter as a general principle. But law and order, violence, sawn off shotguns, shooting, pop guns at the Queen—anything you like—and the airgun is another example of where we have failed to take a firm grip on the use of the gun. That is why I propose to delete from the Bill the two amendments relating to the Ground Game Act 1880 and the Agriculture (Scotland)
652
Act 1948, which have no place in this Bill, which were not in the Bill to begin with but which were inserted in another place at the very latest stages of the Bill. That was done on 13th July last, when the consideration of the Bill was drawing to a close; and if noble Lords wish to read the Official Report of the proceedings there they will realise, as I do, that in another place they were scampering to the end of the Bill, hurrying to get it over before the Summer Recess so it would be here immediately we came back. We should not connive in the passing of legislation in that sort of mood and in those circumstances.
That is why I propose this amendment. Let us deal with that anomaly, if such it be, in a manner that can be considered entirely separately from the principles of the Bill, to which it does not belong, and let the subject come forward, as it did before, as a Private Member's Bill, when we can discuss it at our leisure, without the Whips on, and not with the Government recommending the acceptance by your Lordships of amendments they have not seen or discussed before, unless they took part in the debates last year.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the amendment to Commons Amendment No. 152.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
Lord Monk Bretton: I wish briefly to speak against the amendment, my Lords. The issue is narrow, as my noble friend Lord Avon endeavoured to point out, and because of its narrowness it is inevitable and perhaps not unreasonable that there should not have been a great degree of discussion, and perhaps one need not complain too much about that. My understanding of the position is that this affects only the tenant farmer who is also tenant of the sporting rights. In most cases, after all, a tenant farmer is not also tenant of the sporting rights, or alternatively there is an owner occupier who probably himself has the sporting rights, so only a small category of people are concerned; I doubt whether their numbers are at all large.
I think the House has already agreed the night shooting issue, and one does not want to elaborate at this late stage much further on that. There seem to be strong arguments that as a few people are affected by the curious position which results from the court interpretation of the Ground Game Act 1880, those people should be put in the same position as everyone else. This is not the time to talk broadly about night shooting, but I feel it right to mention in passing that it is a means of controlling the rabbit, a tiresome pest, particularly in the period after harvest. At that time of year there is usually too much cover to adopt any other means for some little while, and to protect the autumn-sown corn as it comes up, it is useful to be able to go night shooting during that period.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I may put the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, right on one or two minor points. The matter was actually discussed in Standing Committee D on 2nd June in the other place and it was raised by my honourable friend Mr. Farr. In view of the fact that this does not seem to have been discovered, I should like to read out his final sentence and the first paragraph of the speech of the Opposition speaker, the honourable

653
Member Mr. Hardy. Mr. Farr stated—I quote from column 384 of the Official Report of Standing Committee D of 2nd June—
"I particularly believe that the present anomalous position should be resolved and that all farmers who comply with relevant legislation should be allowed to control ground game at night for the better protection of their crops. I do not believe that tenant farmers should be liable to prosecution, as has happened in the past, for protecting their crops with this undoubtedly effective method, which is already widely used".
Mr. Hardy responded to that:
"If the hon. Gentleman is right—I believe that he is—that the amendment seeks merely to remedy an anomalous situation and is a gesture towards egalitarian arrangements in the countryside, it is unobjectionable".
The noble Lord quoted the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948. That re-enacted previous legislation without amendment. It did not remove ability to shoot ground game at night.
There exists here an anomaly which is unfavourable to the occupier, and it is this situation which we are being asked to remedy. The anomaly in question is of some significance. It is not merely a question of conditions in the law. Rabbits and hares do considerable damage to crops and pasture. Night shooting is one of the principal methods of keeping down their numbers to a reasonable level. Protection of crops is a matter which concerns occupiers especially. It would therefore seem desirable that they should have the same right to protect their crops.
I recognise the concern that the Commons amendment might lead to a dangerous increase in the amount of shooting done at night. I appreciate these fears, but I hope that we may keep them in some perspective. Research has conclusively shown that there is no link between the level of crime and the number of guns legitimately held under firearm certificates.
The shooting of ground game at night is not a new activity. The police are fully acquainted with it. As your Lordships will be aware, the Firearms Act 1968 imposes strict controls on the use of firearms. Chief constables are given the power by that Act to decide who should have firearms certificates. I believe that we can have sufficient faith in the judgment of chief constables to be confident that this amendment would not result in any increase in the number of undesirable persons using firearms at night.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made the particular point as to how we got on to Scotland, and I can imagine that that was through the vigilance of my honourable friend the Minister in the other place, who was none other than Sir Hector Monro, who if he can stand up for Scotland at any time, certainly does. I imagine that that is why Scotland was included. I hope that, having heard those points, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will feel able to agree to what is, as my noble friend behind me said, a narrow but important amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it might be said that Sir Hector Monro got his deserts at the hands of his Leader for sticking up for Scotland or anywhere else. I waited until the noble Earl had replied to my noble friend because I was hoping to hear an explanation of why the Government had decided in another place to amend the Ground Game Act when we had been told
654
so repeatedly and so firmly by the noble Earl and his colleagues in this House that this Bill was not the place to amend the game Acts or to put forward amendments which had any effect on legitimate sporting activities, as noble Lords opposite would have it. On the whole my noble friend and I abided very strictly by that informal advice from noble Lords opposite. It seems to me that that understanding was pretty shamelessly thrown aside when the Bill got to another place and when this provision was inserted, just as other understandings which were arrived at by all parties in this House appear to have been discarded by the Government when the Bill got to another place, without a "by your leave".
I do not think that my noble friend and I can do very much about it at this stage. But I hope that we might take some comfort from a thought about the totally unreasoning opposition, as I see it, to various amendments that have been put forward which would have affected some aspects of shooting such as night shooting, the length of the shooting season. Sunday shooting, and so on. The Bill and the debates that we have had, including the debate on this amendment. will have alerted responsible conservationists and the animal welfare movement to some of the grave shortcomings in the legislation affecting shooting and in the long run will have done some service, in the sense that those defects will secure much more public scrutiny than they have in the past.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted one or two brief comments. As regards Scotland, when the Ground Game Bill of 1980 was under consideration in this House, the sponsor was advised that it would be inappropriate to extend the provisions of that Bill to Scotland, particularly as Section 6 of the Ground Game Act 1880, of which the present Bill is a qualification, has already been repealed in Scotland. He was advised that the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 repealed Section 6 of the Ground Game Act 1880, which prohibits the use of firearms by occupiers to take rabbits and hares at night in respect of Scotland. But Section 50 of the Agriculture Act, as amended by Section 10 of the Pests Act 1954, prohibits any person from shooting ground game at night; and its provisions were not restricted to certain persons as in the Ground Game Act of 1880.
Therefore, the present position is that any person in Scotland is prohibited from shooting ground game at night. That, as I am advised, is the position. I am not very clear what the amendment on the Marshalled List does in Scotland: whether it repeals that entirely or whether in some way it modifies what is the existing law in Scotland. In any case the position is not as clear as the noble Earl indicated a moment or two ago. Let us be clear what the 1880 Act did. It gave owner occupiers the right to take ground game even where they had granted game rights to another person. Even though they had contracted the shooting rights away, they were entitled under the 1880 Act to shoot ground game. It also gave tenants the right to take ground game even where the owner had reserved the game rights to himself or where he had granted them to some person other than the tenant. The 1880 Act gave owner

655
occupiers and tenants, irrespective of contractual rights, the right to shoot over the land they occupied.
That is what the 1880 Act did; but at the same time, in giving those extra contractual rights—and the great debate in 1880 was whether an Act of Parliament should override the law of contract—it included a stipulation that those to whom extra rights were granted should not use them to shoot at night. That was where the anomaly, as it turned out to be, lay. The Leworthy v. Rees case in 1913, which was a judgment of the Court of Appeal, made a very narrow construction of the 1880 Act and produced the anomaly. That is my reply on the technicalities of both Scotland and the present anomalous position—anomalous only because a court of law construed the 1880 Act as they thought fit against what obviously were the intentions of Parliament at the time.
Finally, I apologise to the House for not having discovered, in the enormous volume of paper that I went through on this matter, the references to this at the Committee stage in another place. I went through the Report stage and could not discover the origin of these amendments, but if they were discussed in Committee in another place I am very glad of it; it is the only discussion of these provisions that has taken place since the matter was first introduced in 1979.
I am sorry, but I do not feel able to withdraw my amendment, though I do not feel that I ought to trouble your Lordships to exert yourselves unduly at this hour of night to register your vote in the Lobbies: but there is a difference between withdrawing an amendment and taking the collective voice of the House.
On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 152B, 152C and 152D to Amendment No. 152:
152B Line 17, after ("or") insert ("(subject to sub-paragraph (2) below)").
152C Line 17, leave out ("(who may in writing nominate one other person)").
1521D Line 21, leave out from ("sunrise") to ("this") in line 25 and insert—
"(2) The occupier of any land shall not use a firearm as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above unless (except where he has the exclusive right) he has first obtained the written authority of the other person or one of the other persons entitled to kill and take the ground game on the land.
(3) An occupier who is entitled, in terms of this paragraph, to use a firearm for the purpose of killing ground game may, subject to the provisions of section 1 of the Ground Game Act 1880, authorise one other person so to use a firearm.
(4) In").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 152B, 152C and 152D. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendments to the amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, amendments to the amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 152E to Amendment No. 152:
152E Line 37, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 152E as an amendment to Amendment No. 152. Amendment No. 152—at least, this part of it; we are now on the part dealing with the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953—was introduced in another place as the result of several debates that we had in this House about the need to tighten the law so as to prevent, or help to prevent, livestock being worried and killed by dogs. The objective is one which I fully share, and I certainly supported noble Lords opposite in some of the final drafts of the amendments covering this point which we considered. So I am in favour of the amendment in principle.
I have just one small worry about it, and that is that at the moment it seems to me that it creates an absolute offence in circumstances where this would not always be reasonable. We have had this argument when, as it were, the boot has been on the other foot, when it was suggested that it would be quite wrong for landowners or farmers to be guilty of absolute offences, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander and they will apply the same sort of criteria when discussing what happens to a dog owner who is walking through a field.
If the dog owner is in a small field, the weather is clear and the sheep are visible, there seems to me to be absolutely no doubt that if the dog is out of control in the field that is bad practice. That is something which this amendment would make illegal, and I am all for that.
Where I am worried is if somebody with a dog is walking on an open hill and they enter something which it is not apparent to them at the time is an enclosure but which actually is, and that, of course is quite possible, either because of the weather conditions—they could be in cloud at the time and not be able to see that the wall they have just passed through is actually part of the wall of a field, or the weather conditions could be such that they think they can see across the whole of the field and that there are no sheep in it when in fact there are—or, alternatively, because of the shape and the lie of the ground, which could prevent them from seeing a small number of sheep huddled in a corner out of the wind, or whatever, so that only when they get very close to them or get up on to a rise in the ground can they see the sheep.
In those fairly unusual circumstances, and bearing in mind that the field or enclosure in this clause is not defined in any way, that there is no limitation on it and that it could therefore presumably be something covering a very substantial area indeed, it seems to me that the test of reasonableness should be applied; in other words, that the person in charge of the dog should be able to say, "It was quite unreasonable for me to see that there were sheep in this field or to realise that I was in a field or enclosure; I just had no way of knowing", and that would be clear from the evidence that was presented about, as I say, whether conditions, the lie of the land or whatever.
In those circumstances, it would be foolish for them to be made guilty of an offence. This is something about which in other discussions noble Lords opposite have felt strongly and have gone into the

657
Division Lobbies to resist any absolute liability being placed on people. I hope that in those circumstances in practice this amendment will strengthen the provision which the Government are suggesting be put into the Bill. By making it a more reasonable provision it is more likely that prosecutions would be taken and people would end up in court and found guilty. If it goes in as it is now, in some circumstances it will be quite unreasonable and end up by not being very strongly enforced, which is what often happens to provisions of Acts of Parliament which are not really fair. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the amendment to Commons Amendment No. 152.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, although one necessarily tends to agree with the noble Lord that we should not create offences of absolute liability—that is to say, offences which make it unnecessary for the prosecution to prove a guilty intent. Nevertheless, the defence which he purports to set up in the words in Amendment No. 152G makes it much too easy a defence. Even when one accepts that the onus will be on the accused to prove this, all that he or she has to say in effect is: "When I took my dog there I did not think that it was in a field or enclosure in which there were sheep". That seems to me to be much too easy.
I do not think, with great respect, that this is realistic. It could nullify the effect of the main provision which is to extend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1953 and to make sure that where dogs worry sheep on agricultural land there shall be an offence committed in the circumstances mentioned in the original provision as extended in Amendment No. 152. While one appreciates the sincerity of the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, it does not seem to be a practicable proposition to accept it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly on this. Regarding the words, "reasonable belief" and "at the material time", with respect, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is always telling us that we should have amendments that the layman can understand. Frankly if he can understand that, I cannot and I do not think that anybody else can. I think my noble friend Lord Renton will agree that legally it does not make a great deal of sense. The other point is that this amendment came back agreed in the Commons by all the parties; by the farmers, the British field sports people, I think, and the ramblers. They were well aware of this right the way through. Now at this stage the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, brings it up. I suggest that we leave it as it was decided and agreed by a compromise, which is really what this Bill is and has been and should be all the way through.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lords down, could he tell us on what basis this was agreed by the Ramblers' Association when it was introduced in another place.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, Yes. The ramblers have been a part to this right from the start. At no time have they objected to this amendment. If they are objecting
658
it is only at this stage, they did not object to it in the Commons.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has explained, is designed to meet those circumstances where the shape of a field or the configuration of ground is such that sheep may be hidden from the person in charge of the dog. At first sight—particularly as explained by the noble Lord—it seems not unreasonable that if a man can see no sheep he should be allowed to assume that there are no sheep there. But there is the other side of the coin, and I submit it is equally reasonable to expect a man to make sure that there are no sheep in the field before letting his dog loose. That is to say, that if the whole of the field is not in view he should assume that it is unsafe to let his dog go until he has firmly established that the field contains no sheep. That is really the basis of the argument between us.
My preference is for the second proposition. I believe that the dog owner has a duty to ensure that it is safe to release his dog before doing so. If we were to accept the amendment it would be all too easy for the dog owner to claim that he had reason to believe that he was not in a field containing sheep. He could in fact make such a claim without even being near the dog. My noble friend Lord Renton has already put the legal argument so clearly that I think it is unnecessary for me to underline it, but I was going to say that the Government think this amendment would be very difficult to enforce. For that reason we cannot recommend it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as I said, I support very strongly the basic objective of the amendment that has been introduced and I would not want to put something in it that was going to make it difficult or even impossible to enforce, so I have no intention of pressing the amendment.
I also accept the argument the noble Earl has put forward, that it is reasonable to expect people in sheep-rearing areas where sheep farming is carried out and where they know that to be the case, walking into a field, to keep the dog under close control or on a lead until they have ascertained whether or not there are sheep there. Whether the same could be said if one unexpectedly comes across a flock of sheep in an entirely arable area, where of course this amendment would still apply, I am not so sure. There may be some hard cases but then I accept that farmers have a very hard case to deal with when a dog gets loose, savages sheep and kills large numbers of them. That, of course, is the evil this amendment is designed to prevent.
I should like to put the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, right. As far as I know—and I have had discussions with them—the Ramblers' Association were not entirely happy with the detail of the amendment as introduced in another place and the same is true of the detailed drafting of amendments that were discussed in your Lordships' House when the Bill was here. They, like me, have never been worried about the objective which the amendments have been aimed at but they have been worried about the practical consequences for quite innocent people walking their dogs in the countryside. I must say I would still have some worries on

659
that score myself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 152, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 152F and 152G not moved.]
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
153 Page 62, line 7, leave out '1963 Act' and insert 'Deer Act 1963'.
154 Page 62, line 26, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
155 Page 64, line 1, leave out 'the 1963' and insert that'.
156 Page 64, line 4, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
157 Page 64, line 15, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
158 Page 64, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
'The Conservation of Seals Act 1970'.
159 Page 64, line 21, leave out '1970 Act' and insert' Conservation of Seals Act 1970'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with Amendment No. 153 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 154 to 159, as well as to Amendments Nos. 162, 163, 166, 167, 169 and 170. These are purely drafting amendments. They are consequential on Amendments Nos. 34 and 152, the principal amendments to which the House has agreed. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 153 to 159 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 AMENDMENTS
160 Page 64, line 33, leave out '(a) which' and insert 'which—
(a)'.
161 Page 64, line 33, leave out lines 37 to 41 and insert—
'(b) has been notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest);
(c) is an area to which section 29(3) of that Act (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest) applies; or
(d) has been designated as a marine nature reserve under section (Marine nature reserves) of that Act."'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 160 and 161. These are technical amendments which 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
162 Page 65, leave out liner 1 to 3 and insert'—
'The Badgers Act 1973'.
163 Page 65, line 4, leave out 1973 Act 'and insert' Badgers Act 1973'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. 1 spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 153. 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
164 Page 65, line 6, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'sub-sections'.
165 Page 65, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert 'any part of, or anything derived from, a dead badger, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above if he shows that—

(a) the badger had not been killed, or had been killed otherwise than in contravention of the provisions of this Act; or

(b) the badger or other thing in his possession or control had been sold (whether to him or any other person) and, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser had had no reason to believe that the badger had been killed in contravention of those provisions.'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 164 and 165. Amendment No. 164 is purely drafting and Amendment No. 165 does two things. First, it provides that it is an offence not only to be in possession of an illegally killed or taken badger, but also to be in possession of any part of or anything derived from a dead badger. This would close a loophole in the Bill as presently drafted. The words used accord with similar provisions in Part I and cover all eventualities. Secondly, we realise the difficulties that a person who buys, for example, a badger shaving brush, could have in proving that the badger from which it derived was not illegally killed or taken and accordingly Amendment No. 165 provides at paragraph (3)(b) a defence. Clearly a person who buys an article from a shop has no reason to suppose that an offence has been committed. I am sure that these will meet with general approval. 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
166 Page 65, line 13, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.
167 Page 65, line 27, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.
9.46 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 166 and 167. I spoke to these when moving Amendment No. 153. 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
168 Page 65, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert:
'it had become apparent, before that time, that that action would prove necessary for the purpose mentioned in that subsection and either—

(a) a licence under section 9 of this Act 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"'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 168. This amendment makes the same provision in Schedule 7 as does Amendment No. 28 to Clause 10, which the House accepted on 15th October. It would replace the provision at sub-paragraph (1B) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 7. It is similar to Amendment No. 28. 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
169 Page 66, line 19, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.
170 Page 66, line 27, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 169 and 170. I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 153. 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
171 Schedule 8, page 66, line 38, at end insert:

'Calamint, Wood

Calamintha sylvatica'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171. The purpose of this amendment is to add the wood calamint to the schedule of protected plants. The effect would be to give this plant the full protection of Clause 13. The wood calamint is a very rare plant, which is found only in one site on the Isle of Wight. It is, however, a conservation success story. 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
172 Page 67, leave out lines 45 to 48 and insert:
'NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172. I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 142. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is with apology that I rise very briefly at this point. I should have taken the point at an earlier stage of the Bill, or even when my noble friend was moving Amendment No. 150. I make the point now only for the sake of the record, and so that those authorities who are responsible for enforcement of the Bill may watch out for the point in the years to come.
Ignorance of the law is no defence, but it is very strong mitigation and people are likely to raise in mitigation the fact that they did not know the Latin name, the name in the second column. If they had been tied to the name in the first column, which is the common name, they could not have raised that mitigation and the sentences would, therefore, have been heavier against them. This is a point of which we should not lose sight in due course.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
173 Schedule 9, page 68, leave out line 12.
174 Schedule 9, line 27, at end insert—

'Marmot, Prairie (otherwise known as Prairie Dog).

Cynomys '

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. These amendments remove the existing misleading description "dog, prairie" and replace it by the correct term. The prairie dog is not a dog, but a rodent of the marmot family. 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
175 Page 69, line 3 at end insert—

Hogweed, Giant

Heracleum mantegazzianum

Kelp, Giant

Macrocystis pyrifera

Knotweed, Japanese

Polygonum cuspidatum'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175. Part II of Schedule 9 is a list of plants which may be introduced into the wild only under licence. Amendment No. 175 would add three further species to the list. All are exotics. 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
176 Page 69, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
'NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176. I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 142. 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
177 Schedule 10, page 70, line 4 after 'Where', insert 'in the case of a live animal or plant of any kind which is condemned or deemed to be condemned as forfeited'.
178 Schedule 10, page 70, line 5. leave out from 'to' to 'those' in line 7 and insert—

'(a) its return to the wild; or

(b) its being kept at premises (whether within or outside the United Kingdom) which are suitable for the keeping of animals or plants of that kind,'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177, which is linked with their Amendment No. 178. With permission, I shall move both of them together. These amendments seek to extend a provision added to Schedule 10 by your Lordships on Report. Under this provision, when a specimen has been condemned or deemed to have been condemned as a consequence of attempted illegal importation, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise may reclaim their expenses in returning it to the country of export—in other words, returning it to the wild. This is in accord with Article VIII of the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 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
179 Page 70, line 11, leave out from 'seizure' to end of line 12.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 179. The amendment seeks to remove the "three times the value" restriction. There is a precedent for this. The provisions which enable the agriculture departments to take action when products have been imported in contravention of various plant
664
and animal health orders where notice has been given to the importer and he has failed to take action as required by the notice—for example, destruction, disinfestation or other treatment—allow for recovery of their costs to be sought without limit against the relevant importer. 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
180 Page 71, line 6, [Schedule 10] leave out from 'animal' to second 'of' in line 7.
181 Page 71, line 8, at end insert 'or an egg or other immature stage of such an animal'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180. Amendment No. 180 is linked with Amendment No. 181, and, with permission, I shall move both of them together. These are drafting amendments to make it clear that the phrase "of any of the kinds to which Schedule 4 to this Act for the time being applies" also governs the phrase "a live or dead animal". 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
182 Page 72, line 46, at end insert:

'Saguinus geoffroyi

Geoffroy's tamarin'.

183 Page 73, line 8, at end insert:

'Cercopithecus diana

Diana monkey'.

184 Page 73, line 16, at end insert:

'Papio leucophaeus (otherwise known as Mandrillus leucophaeus)

Drill

Papio sphinx (otherwise known as Mandrillus sphinx)

Mandrill'.

185 Page 74, line 3, at end insert:

'Physeter catodon (otherwise known as Physeter macrocephalus)

Sperm whale'.

186 Page 76, leave out line 20.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 186 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 189 to 200 are also of the same type. The species of List A are all those on Appendix 1 of the Washington Convention—that is, those regarded internationally as endangered—together with others, such as birds of prey, on which the United Kingdom has traditionally had strict controls. In New Delhi in February and March of this year, the third meeting of the parties to CITES, including the United Kingdom, agreed certain amendments to Appendix 1 of the convention. The amendments which the House is now considering incorporate the changes to the appendix. With the exception of Amendment No. 186, they all concern the addition of species to the list. The species to be added will in effect from 6th June 1981 be banned from international commercial trade. There is one species, the bontebok, which has been removed. 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
187 Page 76, line 31, at end insert:
'Rheas'
188 Page 76, line 32, at end insert:
'Tinamous'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 187 and 188. These are minor amendments simply to provide labels for the Lesser Rhea and the Solitary Tinamou to indicate to which family they belong and under which any other related species may be listed, should this be required in the future. 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.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sure that the House would be agreeable if the noble Earl would like to speak to all the Amendments up to No. 200 and then move them en bloc. It would take us a little faster through the amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
189 Page 76, line 33, at end insert:

'Penguins

Spheniscus humboldti

Humboldt penguin'

190 Page 77, line 37, at end insert:

'Penelope albipennis

White-winged guan'.

191 Page 78, line 31, at end insert:

'Amazona arausiaca

Red-necked parrot (otherwise known as Red-necked amazon).

Amazona barbadensis

Yellow-shouldered parrot (otherwise known as Yellow-shouldered amazon)

Amazona brasiliensis

Red-tailed parrot (otherwise known as Red-tailed amazon)'.

192 Page 79, line 13, at end insert:

'Cyclopsita diophthalma coxeni (otherwise known as Opopsitta diophthalma coxeni).

Coxen's fig parrot'.

193 Page 79, line 32, at end insert:

'Rhynchopsitta terrisi

Maroon-fronted parrot'.

194 Page 80, line 40, at end insert:

'Crocodylus acutus

American crocodile'.

195 Page 81, line 15, at end insert:

'Iguanas

Brachylophus

Fijian iguanas

Cyclura

Caribbean rock iguanas

Sauromalus varius

San Esteban Island chuckwalla'.

196 Page 82, leave out lines 26 to 34 and insert:

'Cheloniidae

Sea turtles'.

197 Page 84, line 23, at end insert:

'Apocynaceae

Pachypodiumnamaguanum'.

198 Page 84, line 25, at end insert:

'Cactaceae

'Ariocarpus agavoides

Ariocarpus scapharostrus

Aztekium ritteri

Echinocereus lindsayi

Obregonia denegrii

Pelecyphora aselliformis

Pelecyphora strobiliformis'.

199 line 49, at end insert:

'Nepenthaceae

Nepenthes rajah'.

200 Page 85, line 17, at end insert:

'Sarraceniaceae

Sarracenia alabamensis alabamensis

Sarracenia jonesii

Sarracenia oreophila'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 189 to 200 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. 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
201 Schedule 11, page 85, line 32, leave out 'county planning' and insert 'relevant'.
202 page 85, line 39, leave out 'county plann-ing' and insert 'relevant'.
203 Page 86, line 3, leave out 'county planning' and insert 'relevant'.
204 Page 86, line 7, leave out 'stating the name of the' and insert 'naming a'.
205 Page 86, line 11, leave out 'stating' and insert 'specifying'.
206 Page 86, line 30, leave out 'planning' and insert 'relevant.'
207 leave out lines 38 to 40.
208 Page 86, line 42, leave out 'county plan-ning' and insert 'relevant '.
209 Page 87, line 23, leave out 'county planning' and insert 'relevant'.
210 Page 89, line 16, at end insert '"relevant authority" has the same meaning as in section 32;'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 201. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to and move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 202 to 210. These amendments make changes to Schedule 11 which are consequential on the extension to Scotland of the power to make limestone pavement orders. 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
211 After Schedule 11, insert the following new Schedule:
PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH ORDERS UNDER SECTION (MARINE NATURE RESERVES)
Consultation
1. Before making an order, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he may consider appropriate.
Publicity for draft orders
2.—(1) Before making an order, the Secretary of State shall prepare a draft of the order and give notice—

(a) stating that he proposes to make the order and the general effect of it;

(b) naming a place in the area in which the land to which the draft order relates is situated where a copy of the draft order, and of any byelaws made or proposed to be made by a relevant authority for the protection of the area specified in the draft order, may be inspected free of charge, and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge, at all reasonable hours; and

(c) specifying the time (not being less than 28 days from the date of the first publication of the notice) within

667
which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to the draft order may be made.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the notice to be given under sub-paragraph (1) shall be given—

(a)by publication in the Gazette and also at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the draft order relates is situated;

(b) by serving a like notice on—

(i) every person in whom is vested an interest in or right over any of that land;

(ii) every relevant authority whose area includes any of that land; and

(iii) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate; and

(c) by causing a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position—

(i) at council offices in the locality of the land to which the draft order relates; and

(ii) at such other places as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State, may in any particular case, direct that it shall not be necessary to comply with subparagraph (2)(b)(i).
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) shall be complied with not less than 28 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice.
Unopposed orders
3. If no representations or objections are duly made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the Secretary of State may make the order with or without modifications.
Opposed orders
4.—(1) If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn the Secretary of State shall, before making the order, either—

(a) cause a local inquiry to be held; or

(b) afford any person by whom a representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(2) On considering any representations or objections duly made and the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or hear representations or objections, the Secretary of State may make the order with or without modifications.
Restriction on power to make orders with modifications
5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not make an order with modifications so as—

(a) to affect land not affected by the draft order; or

(b) to authorise the making of any byelaw not authorised by the draft order,

except after complying with the requirements of subparagraph (2).
(2) The said requirements are that the Secretary of State shall—

(a) give such notice as appears to him requisite of his proposal so to modify the order, specifying the time (which shall not be less than 28 days from the date of the first publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which representations or objections with respect to the proposal may be made;

(b) hold a local inquiry or afford any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and

(c) consider the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections.

Local inquiries
6.—(1) The provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 or subsections (4) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act
668
1973 (which relate to the giving of evidence at, and defraying the cost of, local inquiries) shall apply in relation to any inquiry held under paragraph 4 or 5 as they apply in relation to a local inquiry which a Minister causes to be held under subsection (1) of that section.
(2) A local inquiry caused to be held under paragraph 4 or 5 before the making of an order may be held concurrently with any local inquiry caused to be held before the confirmation of byelaws made by a relevant authority for the protection of the area specified in the order.
Notice of making of orders
7.—(1) As soon as practicable after an order is made, the Secretary of State shall give notice—

(a) describing the general effect of the order as made and stating the date on which it took effect; and

(b) naming a place in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated where a copy of the order as made may be inspected free of charge, and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge, at all reasonable hours.

(2) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) shall be given—

(a) by publication in the manner required by paragraph 2(2)(a);

(b) by serving a like notice on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 2(2)(b); and

(c) by causing like notices to be displayed in the like manner as the notices required to be displayed under paragraph 2(2)(c).

Proceedings for questioning validity of orders
8.—(1) If any person is aggrieved by an order which has taken effect and desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of section (Marine nature reserves) or that any of the requirements of this Schedule have not been complied with in relation to it, he may withing 42 days from the date of publication of the notice under paragraph 7 make an application to the Court under this paragraph.
(2) On any such application the Court may, if satisfied that the order is not within those powers or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with those requirements—

(a) in England and Wales, quash the order, or any provision of the order, either generally or in so far as it affects the interests of the applicant; or

(b) in Scotland, make such declarator as seems to the Court to be appropriate.

(3) Except as provided by this paragraph, the validity of an order shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatever.
(4) In this paragraph "the Court" means the High Court in relation to England and Wales and the Court of Session in relation to Scotland.
Supplemental
9.—(1) In this Schedule—
"area" includes district;
"council offices" means offices or buildings acquired or provided by a local authority;
"the Gazette" means—

(a) if the order relates in whole or in part to England and Wales, the London Gazette;

(b) if the order relates in whole or in part to Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette;

"order" means an order under section (Marine nature reserves);
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
and expressions to which a meaning is assigned by section (Marine nature reserves) have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that section.
(2) References in this Schedule to land include references to any waters covering it; and for the purposes of this Schedule any area in Great Britain which is bounded by tidal waters or parts of the sea shall be taken to include—

669

(a) the waters adjacent to that area up to the seaward limits of territorial waters; and

(b) the land covered by the said adjacent waters.

(3) Regulations under this Schedule shall be made by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 211. We discussed this in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. 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
212 Schedule 12, page 92, line 30, leave out and 1968 Acts' and insert Act, the 1968 Act and this Act'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 212. Schedule 12 concerns the change of status of the Countryside Commission and, among other things, their annual report. Hitherto this has been a report about their performance under the Countryside Act 1968 and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. In future they will have functions under the present Act as well. For example, appointment of their own staff. Amendment No. 212 consequently requires them to report on their performance under all three Acts. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree withthe Commons in the said amendment—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
213 Schedule 13, page 93, line 37, at end insert 'the authority may direct that'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 213. This is a minor drafting amendment. 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.
[Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
216 Schedule 14, page 95, line 6, at end insert "in the prescribed form".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 216. This amendment specifies that the notices to be used for publicising definitive map orders shall be in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations. 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
217 Page 95, line 25, leave out "and"and insert—
"( ) every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2A); and".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 217. This amendment needs to be read with Amendment No. 219. Together they give effect to the Spicer Committee recommendation, in connection with the alternative arrangements for publicising rights of way orders. 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
218 Page 95, line 26, leave out "bodies as may be prescribed" and insert "persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 218. This is another Spicer recommendation. 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
219 Page 95, line 35, at end insert—
"(2A) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such orders as are made by the authority during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 219. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 217. 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
220 Page 95, line 42, at end insert:
"(3A) Sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) and, where applicable, sub-paragraph (3) shall be complied with not less than 42 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 220. This amendment to the procedure for publicising definitive map orders has been included to avoid a situation arising in which persons entitled to receive notification of orders would have less than the minimum 42 days in which to object. 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
221 Page 95, leave out line 43 and insert:
"(4) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b) on the owner or occupier of any land, or on a local authority, shall be accompanied by a copy of so much of the order as relates to that land or, as the case may be, the area of that authority; and a notice required to be served by that sub-paragraph on such other persons as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.
(4A) A notice required to be displayed by sub-paragraph (2)(c)".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 221. As with previous amendments that implement the Spicer Committee's recommendations, corresponding amendments have been made in Schedule 15 to the public path order procedures. 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
222 Page 96, line 36, after "Where" insert "at any time".
223 Page 96, line 38, leave out from "order" to end of line 39 and insert "the authority may, by notice given to the Secretary of State, elect that, for the purposes of the following provisions of this Schedule, the order shall have effect as two separate orders".
224 Page 96, line 42, at end insert:
" (2) Any reference in sub-paragraph (1) to an order includes a reference to any part of an order which, by virtue of one or more previous elections under that sub-paragraph, has effect as a separate order".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 222 to 224. These amendments refine the procedure for treating omnibus definitive map orders as separate orders relating respectively to unopposed and opposed modifications. 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
225 Page 97, line 45, leave out "6".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 225. This is a minor drafting amendment. 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
226 Page 98, line 2, after "decision" insert "of the Secretary of State".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 226. This amendment clarifies the fact that the provisions of paragraph 10 on the transfer
672
of jurisdiction to inspectors applies only to decisions that would fall to be made by the Secretary of State. 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
227 Page 98, line 49, at end insert:
"(2A) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b) on the owner or occupier of any land, or on a local authority, shall be accompanied by a copy of so much of the order as confirmed as relates to that land or, as the case may be, the area of that authority; and, in the case of an order which has been confirmed with modifications, a notice required to be served by that sub-paragraph on such other persons as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate shall be accompanied by a copy of the order as confirmed.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 227. This amendment implements, in relation to definitive map orders, the Spicer Committee's recommendations on the distribution of orders following confirmation. 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
228 Page 99, line 12, leave out "six weeks" and insert "42 days''.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 228. This is a perfect example of a technical amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
229 Page 99, line 24, at beginning insert—
"The Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, by regulations make such provision as to the procedure on the making, submission and confirmation of orders as appears to him to be expedient. (1A)".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 229. This schedule sets out the broad framework for the making, consideration and determination of definitive map orders.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
230 Schedule 15, page 100, line 5, leave out 'such other bodies as may be prescribed' and insert 'every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2A) of this paragraph; and
(v) such other persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated.'.
231 Schedule 15, page 100, line 16, at end insert—

673
'(2A) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(2A) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such orders under section 210 or 214(1)(b) of this Act as are made by the authority during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph 'specified' means specified in the requirement.".'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230, which needs to be read with Amendment No. 231, which with the leave of the House I shall move at the same time. As with Amendment No. 217, which deals with definitive map orders, this amendment fulfils in part the Spicer Committee's recommendation that a person should be able to arrange to be notified on a standing order basis of public path orders under the Town and Country Planning Act.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
232 Page 100, line 19, at end insert 'or by the council of a parish not having a separate parish council'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232. This amendment extends the definition of council offices for the purpose of displaying notices of the making and confirmation of public path orders under the Planning Act to include offices and buildings provided by parish and community councils.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
233 Page 100, line 21, leave out from 'following' to 'notice' in line 22 and insert sub-paragraphs—
"(5) Sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) and, where applicable, sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph shall be complied with not less than 28 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice.
(6) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) or (v) of this paragraph shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.
(7) A'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 233. This amendment does two things. First, as with Amendment No. 220, it ensures that local authorities and other persons entitled to receive notice of orders have a minimum of 28 days in which to object and that the site notices are displayed no later than 28 days before the objection period expires. The second part requires, as recommended by the Spicer Committee, that copies of Planning Act orders should be sent with the notice to the various persons who will in future be notified of these orders.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
234 Page 100, line 29, after 'decision', insert 'of the Secretary of State'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 234. This is similar to Amendment No. 226.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
235 Page 101, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—
(c) for heads (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following heads—

"(a) serve a like notice on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 1(2)(b) or (4) of this Schedule; and

(b) cause like notices to be displayed in the like manner as the notices required to be displayed under paragraph 1(2)(c) of this Schedule.".

(2) That paragraph as so amended shall be renumbered as paragraph 6(l) of that Schedule and after that provision as so renumbered there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
" (2) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (1)(a) of this paragraph on—

(a) a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(2)(b)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this Schedule; or

(b) in the case of an order which has been confirmed with modifications, a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(2)(b)(v) of this Schedule,

shall be accompanied by a copy of the order as confirmed.
(3) As soon as may be after a decision not to confirm an order under the said section 210 or 214(1)(b), the authority by whom the order was made shall give notice of the decision by serving a copy of it on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 1(2)(b) or (4) of this Schedule.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235. This amendment serves two purposes. First, in accordance with Spicer Committee recommendations on publicising rights of way orders it requires copies of confirmed public path orders under the Planning Act to be sent with the notice of confirmation to those persons entitled to receive copies of the order as made. Secondly, it requires order-making authorities to inform all persons on whom notice of making of an order was served of decisions not to confirm an order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
236 Page 101, line 18, at end insert—
'3A. After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"7. As soon as may be after an order under section 210 or 214(1)(b) of this Act has come into operation otherwise than—

(a) on the date on which it was confirmed by the Secretary of State or confirmed as an unopposed order; or

675

(b) at the expiration of a specified period beginning with that date,

the authority by whom the order was made shall give notice of its coming into operation by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated.".'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 236. This amendment stems from the fact that public path diversion orders often do not become operative until some months after confirmation of the order, especially if works must first be carried out to bring the path created by the order into a suitable condition for public use. Yet there is no requirement that the authority responsible for making the order inform the public of the availability of the path for use. This amendment remedies the situation by requiring the authority to announce the fact by way of notice in the local press.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 236:
236A Line 12, after ("operation") insert ("to any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraphs 1(2)(b) or (4) of this Schedule and").
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg to move as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 236 Amendment No. 236A. I apologise for momentarily interrupting the noble Earl's headlong solo rush to the end of the Bill. This amendment, with Amendment No. 250A, would extend the requirement to give notice to include any persons on whom copies of the original order and of the confirmation have been served. Again, this is in line with other changes made by Schedule 15 and will also ensure that anyone who has been involved with a diversion order will know when the change takes place on the ground.
The noble Earl grouped this with some earlier amendments of mine, in particular Amendment 126A, I think, but I would suggest to him that Amendment No. 236A and Amendment No. 250A deal with a different matter. They deal with public path diversion orders and at the stages of publication of these and of confirmation, copies and notices will be served on listed organisations as well as published in a local paper. So it is entirely consistent for listed organisations also to receive notice of the coming into operation of these orders as my amendments would bring about. So I think that it raises a slightly different point from that raised by Amendment No. 126A because, of course, diversion orders can be confirmed and public notice can be given of that confirmation without the actual change on the ground taking place.
For example, a path might be diverted to allow development to take place and the development then may not actually take place on the ground for a year or two and only when the new path has been constructed, after the development, to the satisfaction of the local authority, does the change legally take place on the ground. That is the stage at which it seems sensible that organisations should receive notice of the coming into operation of the orders. I hope that with that explanation, and with the distinction between this
676
amendment and Amendment No. 126A, the Government might be disposed to accept the last amendment that I shall be moving to this long, interesting Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendment to Commons Amendment No. 236.—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed I did speak to this amendment to some degree and I recognise the noble Lord's slight differential between the first one and the two latter ones. The wider publicity envisaged by the noble Lord's amendment we do not think would result in improved publicity as far as the general public is concerned, and is, therefore, the Government feel unnecessary. Regarding the need for such wide publicity, as a right of objection again does not arise, and again landowners will in any event be aware of what is happening, and other local authorities because of their statutory responsibilities should simply have been kept informed of developments, the Government are satisfied that a notice in the local press is all that is necessary to ensure that persons to whom the information is essential are informed.
Amendments Nos. 236A and 250A would both impose an additional burden on local authorities' resources which, as I have indicated before, we are loath to do. However, the Government are again prepared to recommend to authorities, in the circular guidance that will follow enactment, that they consider informing local user organisations of the operations of these orders. I hope, although I cannot actually accept the noble Lord's amendment, that that assurance will, to some degree, satisfy him.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it satisfies me in so far as I think that it is the best that I am going to get. I am grateful to the noble Earl at least on that basis, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
237 Page 101, line 19, at end insert:
'3B.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 (diversion of footpaths and bridle-ways) for the words from the beginning to "or on to land" there shall be substituted the words "Where it appears to a council as respects a footpath or bridleway in their area (other than one that is a trunk road or a special road) that, in the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path or way or of the public, it is expedient that the line of the path or way, or part of that line, should be diverted (whether on to land of the same or".
(2) In subsection (5) of that section for the words "the council may require the owner, lessee or occupier on whose representations they are acting" there shall be substituted the words "on the representations of an owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path or way, the council may require him".'.
238 Page 101, line 21, leave out 'the Highways Act 1980' and insert 'that Act'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 237, and, with the leave of the House, I

677
should also like to move Amendment No. 238. This is the first of several amendments to the provisions in Schedule 15 relating to the making and confirmation of public path creation, diversion and extinguishment orders under the Highways Act 1980. 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
239 Page 101, line 39, leave out 'council '.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 239. This minor drafting amendment deletes the unnecessary duplication of the word "council". 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
240 Page 101, line 43, leave out 'such other bodies as may be prescribed' and insert 'every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (3ZA) or (3ZB) below; and
(iv) such other persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated.'.
241 Page 102, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert:
'(3ZA) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such public path creation orders, public path extinguishment orders and public path diversion orders as are made by the authority during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.
(3ZB) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, require the Secretary of State to give him notice of all such draft public path creation orders, draft public path extinguishment orders and draft public path diversion orders as are prepared by the Secretary of State during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this subparagraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 240 and 241. This amendment and the next amendment to follow give effect to the proposal that persons should be able to arrange with order-making authorities to be notified of orders on a standing order basis as recommended by the Spicer Committee.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
242 Schedule 15, page 102, line 24, leave out '(3C) The' and insert:
'(4) After sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
"(4A) Sub-paragraph (3)(b) and (c) and, where applicable, sub-paragraphs (3A) and (4) above shall be
678
complied with not less than 28 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice.
(4B) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (3)(b)(i), (ii) or (iv) above shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.
(4C)A ".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. As with Amendment No. 233, this amendment serves two purposes. It ensures that the minimum 28 days in which to object to orders is available to persons entitled to be notified of the making of orders and that the site notices are displayed at least 28 days before the objection period expires.
In addition, it implements the Spicer Committee recommendation that the various persons notified of the making of public path orders, with the exception of those persons notified of orders as a result of a standing order arrangement, should also be sent a copy of the order. 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
243 Schedule 15, page 102, line 27, leave out 'as made'.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. This drafting amendment simply omits from this sub-paragraph the words "as made". 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
244 Schedule 15, page 102, line 27, at end insert:
'(4D) In sub-paragraph (3)(c)(ii) above "council offices" means offices or buildings acquired or provided by a council, or by the council of a parish or community or the parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council.".'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. This amendment, in common with Amendment No. 232, brings the definition of "council offices" into line with that in Schedule 14. 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
245 Schedule 15, page 102, line 30, leave out 'under paragraph 2 above' and insert 'of the Secretary of State under paragraph 2 above as respects an order made by an authority other than the Secretary of State'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. As with previous amendments on the subject, this is a clarification amendment. 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
246 Schedule 15, page 103, line 13, leave out 'and a copy of the order as confirmed or made'.
247 Schedule 15, page 103, line 15, after '1(3)' insert '(b)'.
248 Schedule 15, page 103, line 17, at end insert '(c)'.
249 Schedule 15, page 103, line 18, at end insert—
'(2) That paragraph as so amended shall be renumbered as paragraph 4(1) of that Schedule and after that provision as so renumbered there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
"(2) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, on—

(a) a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(3)(b)(i) or (ii) above; or

(b) in the case of an order which has been confirmed or made with modifications, a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(3)(b)(iv) above,

shall be accompanied by a copy of the order as confirmed or made.
(3) As soon as may be after a decision not to confirm an order to which this Schedule applies, the authority by whom the order was made shall give notice of the decision by serving a copy of it on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 1(3)(b), (3A) or (4) above.".'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 246 to 249 en bloc. Amendment No. 249, which corresponds with Amendment No. 235 for Planning Act orders, does two things in relation to Highway Act orders. It implements the recommendations of the Spicer Committee on the distribution of copies of confirmed public path orders with the notice of the confirmation of the order. In addition, it requires order-making authorities to inform all persons on whom notice of the making of an order was served of decisions not to confirm an order. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 246 to 249 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
250 Schedule 15, page 103, line 18, at end insert—
'6A. After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"4A. As soon as may be after an order to which this Schedule applies has come into operation otherwise than—

(a) on the date on which it was confirmed or made by the Secretary of State or confirmed as an unopposed order; or

(b) at the expiration of a specified period beginning with that date,

the authority by whom the order was made or, in the case of an order made by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall give notice of its coming into operation by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated.".'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said
680
amendment. I really spoke to this when I spoke to Amendment No. 236. 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
251 Schedule 16, page 104, leave out lines 2 to 4.
252 Schedule 16, page 104, line 9, at end insert—

1973 c. 65.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

In Schedule 27, in Part II, para-graph 101.

253 Schedule 16, page 104, line 24, at end insert—

1963 c. 33.

The London Government Act 1963.

In section 60, sub-sections (1) to (4).

254 Schedule 16, page 104, line 35, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 1, subsection (4) and, in subsection (5), the words "and 2(1)" and the words "and in section 4(1)" onwards.'.

255 Schedule 16, page 104, line 36, column 3, after 'Schedule 3' insert—

',in Part I, the entry relating to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and'.

256 Schedule 16, page 104, line 40, at end insert—

'1971 c. 23.

The Courts Act 1971.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 31.

In Schedule 9, in Part II, the entry relating to section 31 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

1971 c.78.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

In Schedule 20, in paragraph 1(2)(a),the words "in the London Gazette and".'

257 Schedule 16, page 104, line 42, column 3, at end insert—

'In Schedule 29, paragraph 37'.

258 at end insert—

'1973 c. 37.

The Water Act 1973.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 67'.

259 Schedule 16, page 104, line 52, at end insert—

'1973 c. 65.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 '.

In Schedule 27, in Part II, paragraphs 115 and 168'.

260 Schedule 16, page 105, line 9, at end insert—

'1976 c. 16.

The Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976.

In Schedule 2, in Part II, the entry relating to the Protection of Birds Act 1967.'

261 Schedule 16, page 105, line 17, at end insert—

1979 c. 2.

The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

In Schedule 4, in paragraph 12, in theTable the entry relating to the Protection of Birds Act 1954.

681

1980 c. 66.

The Highways Act 1980.

In section 31(10) the words "or of that subsection" onwords. Section 340(2)(d)'.

1981 c. 22.

The Animal Health Act 1981.

In Schedule 5, paragraph 1.

1981 c. 37.

The Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

In section 4(5), the entries relating to the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and 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 the said amendments. These amendments complete, and in the case of Amendments Nos. 251 and 256 correct, the list in Schedule 16 of enactments which are to be repealed as a consequence of the Bill. 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
262 In the Title, line 5, after first 'animals' insert 'to amend the law relating to protection of certain mammals;'.
263 In the Title, line 6, leave out from 'amend' to end of line 7.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. These are technical amendments which are required as a result of the amendments made to Clause 12 and Schedule 7, to which the House has already agreed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, very briefly, may I simply reiterate the thanks which have already been expressed during previous stages of the Bill in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who took part in some of the earlier debates on amendments. To the qualities which have been noted in the noble Earl, Lord Avon, I think we must add a remarkable speed in dealing with amendments towards the end of the Bill, for which I am sure not only I but many other noble Lords are extremely grateful. I am very grateful to him for the courtesy and kindness with which he has dealt with the very many points that have been raised by myself and by my various noble friends at different stages of the Bill. I have the feeling that, had it been up to the noble Earl, we should have had a much better Bill than we actually have, but the fact that it is a better Bill than it was when it was introduced is certainly in no small part due to his efforts. We are very grateful to him.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for what he has said. I have been learning throughout this session on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and think I have learned quite a lot from the noble Lord opposite.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons with the amendments.