Lords Sitting of 18 February 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Rate Poundages and Interest Rates
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect the increase in interest rates will have on rate poundages charged by local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, there is no direct relationship between the level of interest rates at a particular point in time and rate poundages, since in setting their rates local authorities must have regard to estimated average interest rates over the whole of the relevant year. The effect of an increase in interest rates on local authority finances will in any event depend on the balance between authorities' debts and investments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that there are calculations which suggest that, in global terms, the increase in percentage rates which local authorities will have to pay means that, between them, the authorities will have to find between £250 million and £300 million for no additional services? Does the Minister think that fair and just bearing in mind the fact that they have already had their resources severely cut by the Government, with resultant cuts in services?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think the noble Lord presses ahead too fast. To start with, we have not at the moment reached the financial year 1985–1986, when the new system will come in and a level of rates will be anticipated—and I gather the figure is 10.95. In this current year, about which we are now talking, they will of course be adjusted.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that the AMA, which is a responsible body, has produced figures which show that in real terms it will cost the local authorities the sums of money I have suggested. I find it hard to reconcile the AMA's views of the matter with those of the Minister.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the system changes at the end of this financial year. At the moment we do not even know what the interest rate will be at the beginning of the next financial year.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, have the Government raised the expenditure levels for rate-capped authorities? If not, will not the cuts be of even greater magnitude for those authorities since they will be having to pay more interest on their loan charges and
386
will not be able to make that up except by making cuts in other areas of essential expenditure?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, my Lords, of course, the very fact that local authorities are rate-capped means that they may have more problems with their loans, but those problems are of their own making.

Television Licence Fee
2.41 p.m.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I just say one thing before the noble Lord rises to reply? I do not wish to make a correction here, but where in the Question I refer to "those of pensionable age", I really mean the infirm, the housebound and the handicapped.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy regarding concessionary rates for television licences for the infirm, the handicapped and those of pensionable age.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, my Answer to the Question, which I believe is still relevant, is as follows. There is a long-standing concession for retired people in residential homes and some sheltered housing schemes, and this has recently been extended slightly to include disabled people living in the same kinds of accommodation. There is also a modest reduction in the licence fee for registered blind persons, but the Government have no proposals for introducing concessionary rates for all those who are infirm, handicapped or of pensionable age.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that many senior citizens in the United Kingdom to whom I have referred get very little pleasure out of life, through no fault of their own, and have to eke out their savings on a small pension and supplementary benefits such as they are? Is he further aware that even a token reduction in the television licence fee would be an immense and humane gesture from the Government to the old and the under-privileged for whom so often the only contact with the outside world is through the confines of the medium of television?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government are committed to maintaining the real value of pensions and related long-term benefits for retired and disabled people, and we believe in giving benefits in cash rather than in kind.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful answer. May I use the Question and my noble friend's helpful reply to ask whether he would agree with me that in order to make my proposals credible a means test would have in itself to be fair and also be seen to be fair? I should like the guidance of my noble friend the Minister as to whether or not this rather poignant proposal—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Viscount Melville:—should or would be implemented by a means test when dealing with cases of a low income bracket, or by any national or local authority or body?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I said in my earlier reply, we are committed to maintaining the value of the help which we give. We believe that we should do so not by giving specific help for individual purposes, but by allowing people in receipt of help to decide how to use it themselves.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, while I see the Government's problem with pensions, surely in regard to the infirm and handicapped it would be possible to provide that their doctors could prescribe a TV. It is so important in the lives of people who have nothing else to do. It really is a matter of health, and I should have thought that this is an instance where doctors might be of assistance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not at all sure that that suggestion would be welcome to doctors, who would have to apply criteria which it would be extremely difficult to devise.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past many social services committees of local authorities have considered this question and in most cases have decided against such a scheme because there is no way in which one can really determine who is a pensionable person living entirely alone and so not attracting benefit for other people? It is really not practical to consider this for persons of pensionable age.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it were possible to identify single pensioners living alone, then I understand that it would cost about £95 million a year in lost revenue to give them a complete concession.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, since virtually everyone owns a television, have the Government considered whether it would not be in their interests, and in the interests of everybody else, to abolish the licence fee and pay the BBC from general taxation, thus saving the considerable cost of collection of licence fees?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is generally understood that it is important that the BBC should be independent of government interference and direction. To make the BBC dependent upon direct funding from taxes would breach that principle. In any case, that is not at present in view.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister something that is distantly related to the original Question? I do not know whether this matter is the responsibility of the Government or the BBC, but may I ask this? Has the question of unpaid licence fees been under consideration recently; and can the Government say approximately how much is lost each year through non-payment of television licence fees?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that supplementary is so much further from the Question even than I have already been tempted that I cannot answer it.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, may I put one last and final question?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, on a point of order, is my noble friend aware that it is quite out of order to read material for questions? He should present his points orally and in the form of a question.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, my last question to my noble friend the Minister is this. Is he aware that so far as blind registered people are concerned, they have to pay £45.25 and yet receive no benefit from what they themselves cannot see?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is worth pointing out to my noble friend that, presumably, the blind person does not need colour television and would therefore be content with a black and white set at a licence cost of £15. I believe there is abatement of £1.25 of that fee.

Housing Legislation: Consolidation
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they expect to introduce a Bill for the consolidation of housing legislation by April 1985, in accordance with the hope expressed by the Lord Chancellor on 26th March 1984.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the consolidation of the Housing Acts from 1957 onwards continues to make satisfactory progress. No effort is being spared to complete the work and I hope to introduce it in the present Session.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his very encouraging Answer. I do so the more cordially because he responded so well to the pressure brought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who advocated that consolidation should take place as a matter of urgency. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can go a little further. In the case of a Consolidation Bill, it has to pass the Law Commission and then the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills of both Houses. This can involve a certain amount of delay. Is my noble and learned friend able to hold out a real prospect that this Consolidation Bill will be on the statute book by the end of this Session?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope so. As your Lordships know, there is a special provision about Consolidation Bills: they virtually go on from Session to Session, although invariably they do not. I must thank my noble friend, and thank him sincerely, for what he said at the beginning of his remarks. There will be one main Housing Bill of nearly 600 clauses; two smaller Bills, one of about 100 clauses, and the

389
other—a landlord and tenant Bill—of about 30 clauses; and there will be a consequential provisions Bill. Therefore, it is a mammoth undertaking.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I express gratitude for the immense progress that has been made in the field of consolidation? Hardly a day passes without the noble and learned Lord announcing the content of pending legislation. May I ask whether he agrees that consolidation of legislation in the housing field is of great practical importance and is urgently needed? We trust that the hope he expressed nearly a year ago of achieving such consolidation within one year may be more or less realised.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Consolidation will not be by April, which was the hope that I originally expressed, but I hope it will be before the end of the Session. I realise the importance of this matter. We have a lot more consolidation coming, too, I am glad to say.

National Insurance Deductions: Low-Paid Employees
2.48 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why an unskilled individual working a 20-hour week whose pay is raised from £1.70 to £1.75 an hour must suffer tax and/or national insurance deductions at an effective rate of 315 per cent. on his additional £1 per week, given that a highly skilled individual working the same hours whose pay is raised from £14.75 to £14.80 an hour suffers tax and/or national insurance deductions of only 30 per cent. on his additional £1.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the effects to which the noble Lord refers are the inevitable consequences of the lower and upper earnings limit of national insurance contributions, as fixed in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has said in another place, this whole question is being examined in the context of the social security reviews.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Would he not agree that the combined rate of tax-cum-national insurance upon the earnings of lower paid workers is much too high, particularly when one compares Britain with other industrialised nations? Secondly, does he not agree that if the first £10 of weekly earnings were totally disregarded for the purpose of calculating both the employee's and the employer's national insurance contributions, at a total annual cost of a maximum of about £1.826 billion, then the net take home pay of low-paid employees would rise in real terms by more than 1 per cent., with higher-paid employees receiving
390
proportionally less, as seems only reasonable? Also, would not the poverty trap be considerably narrowed, and above all would not employers have considerably more incentive to take on juvenile and low-paid adult workers?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the poverty trap—or, as I prefer to consider it, the unemployment trap—is one of the most severe problems facing our political economy. I share with the noble Lord a lack of admiration, perhaps, for the 1975 legislation. It is for that reason that I am very glad my right honourable friend is engaged in looking at it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, has the noble Earl seen the suggestion, in an article by two Conservative Back-Bench MPs in The Times today, that the lower earnings limit should be raised to £60 and the upper earnings limit to £305? Does he agree with that? If it were implemented, would it not solve the anomaly which has been pointed to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have not yet read The Times today, but I shall be doing so. The point is fairly taken, but may I refer the noble Lord and the House to remarks made last November by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security, who is responsible far contributions? He said:
"I do not think that any of us would say that we think that the existing limits for lower and upper earnings are perfect and should stand unquestioned for all time. Clearly, the operation of those limits is one of the aspects that we shall be considering in relation to the social security reviews."—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/84; col. 509.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as a matter of interest, can the noble Earl say how much money would be saved if the national insurance contributions were raised by an equivalent amount on the income tax and corporation tax of companies, and if the machinery for the collection of national insurance contributions as a separate entity were to be eliminated?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I could give that information only if I or my department had time to reach for our calculators. If the noble Lord will put it down in writing, I will try to answer it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his answers have been extremely helpful and sensitive to date? However, will he consider one particular aspect of the problem which militates against one-parent families, particularly widows and women who have been deserted? The difference between the threshold taxation allowance and the national insurance threshold is £1,231 in that case. It militates very hardly against widows and women who have been deserted by their husbands, and who are trying to make ends meet. Will the noble Earl ask the Chancellor to give particular attention to that aspect of the problem?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the problems facing single-parent

391
families are acute, and I know that my right honourable friend will bear them in mind as he looks at this whole vexed question.

Cinemas Bill [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Bill
2.54 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Change in functions of Commission]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) the need to achieve levels of population and employment for which the new town has been developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State; and")
The noble Lord said: I very much hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to help us to the extent that we shall not wish to press this matter to a Division. It is not exactly a probing amendment but an amendment seeking further confirmation of what we believe is the position. The Minister was quite helpful at Second Reading both in answering questions and in making his own speech.
It is right and proper that, before I proceed to speak to the amendment, I should remind the Committee precisely what it is we are about at this particular part of the Bill. For many years under Governments of all complexions the new towns movement in this country has been added to and has spread. At the moment we have new towns at various stages: some have been wound up, some have been given winding up dates and some are anxious to have the dates which have been mooted extended to other periods. At the same time, as overwhelmingly the activity in new towns is in the realm of the development corporations, for each new
392
town we are faced with the main imperative of this Bill, which is to enhance the function of the Commission for the New Towns. In Clause 1 we are talking in terms of redefining the purposes for which the commission exists.
One of the anxieties not only of many new towns, which I believe is right, but of the people who are concerned with the management of the new towns is to feel that they will have the opportunity before winding up dates—and winding up dates are flexible—of achieving the maximum possible potential for which the new towns are capable of being developed. At the same time, there is also the other major factor that the Government have a policy of the sale of industrial and commercial assets—although other amendments which I shall deal with later cover the way in which that is taking place.
Amendment No. 1 refers to line 9 on page 2 and the matters that need to be considered when the commission carries out its function of disposing of properties. Under subsection (2) we are dealing with the considerations that the commission needs to have in mind. The first consideration is in subsection (2)(a), which states:
"the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there, and".
My amendment seeks to insert, as a further consideration:
"the need to achieve levels of population and employment for which the new town has been developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State".
I need to remind the Minister of what could be seen as conflicting views contained in the words used at Second Reading. The Minister said:
"The special involvement of the public sector through the ownership of land and buildings has been an important tool in promoting the growth of the new towns. But when that induced growth has been achieved and there is no need for further growth, the case for that special involvement ceases".—[Official Report, 28/1/85; col. 468.]
There would be no dispute and this amendment would not be needed if that is where we rested; in other words, the general view would be that there is an important tool in promoting the growth of the new towns but when that induced growth has been achieved—that is, only when that induced growth has been achieved—there will be no need for further growth.
Later, in column 486 of Hansard, the Minister said:
"Development corporations are set up with a specific task—that of inducing growth. Where that task is complete, the development corporation is no longer needed".
The premise is that only when the task is complete will the development corporation no longer be needed. There is no dispute about that. But also at column 485 (concerning Milton Keynes) and in column 469 (concerning Corby), the Minister indicated that corporations would be wound up before growth was complete and particularly where private enterprise and public sector involvement via the commission could finish off the growth.
3 p.m.
We are not arguing about the philosophy behind the Government's attitude to the new towns, but can the Minister assure not merely the Committee but the

393
many individuals whose livelihood is affected that the development corporations will be allowed—I am not talking about enabled—to continue their work provided that they are working towards population and growth targets which the Minister and Parliament have agreed? We want to know whether we can take it that in general the winding-up of the remaining new towns will take place only when growth is substantially complete and that is accepted locally. I realise that the Minister and his advisers may take a different view from local people about whether the development is substantially complete, but I should certainly like an answer to that question.
At column 469 the Minister said:
"Where it is necessary for them to undertake development and promotion they will be able to do so … To sell industrial premises at a proper price will need the local economy to be in as good a condition as possible".
Would it not be reasonable to accept the amendment so that there can be no dubiety about the fact that it is the Government's intention to allow new town development corporations to continue to do their work instead of passing it over to the commission?
This should not be a matter of great moment. The Minister can use a form of words. His record on intent and integrity is accepted and respected. I hope that he will understand the raison d'etre of the worries put to me by a number of people. There is a slight uncertainty, not because of the words that he used on the last occasion, but because very important matters are at stake. The various towns have different histories and need different treatment. The Government gave Corby special attention because of the enormity of the situation there, with the collapse of its economy which relied on the steel industry, and so on, and special steps were taken. I am not arguing for uniform treatment. But where a development corporation has within its grasp the ability to complete the programme which the Minister and Parliament have laid down, it should be allowed to do so before being wound up. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
The Earl of Avon: This amendment would add to the considerations to which the commission has to have regard—the need to achieve certain levels of population and employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, opposite explained, the thought here is that the commission should actively promote its town rather than taking a purely passive approach. I hope to persuade the Committee that the amendment is not really necessary.
Under the Bill as it stands, the commission has to hold, manage and turn to account the property that it receives from development corporations until that property is sold. The commission also has to have due regard to the convenience and welfare of people living in, working in or carrying out businesses in the town, and must also maintain and enhance the value of land held and the return obtained from it. The commission also retains a power, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to develop land itself. It is not therefore limited just to whatever was passed to it when the development corporation was wound up.
These powers under the Bill give the commission all the remit that it needs to promote the town appropriately. As an example—and I am sorry that the noble
394
Lord, Lord Graham, takes me to task slightly for using Corby—at Corby what it can achieve in terms of job creation has been proved, working in partnership with the local authority. The commission will likewise take a responsible approach to the problems of each of the towns that it is due to take over. That approach will not be a carbon copy of what has been done. Indeed, the noble Lord said there would be different approaches in different places. In the very different circumstances of the initial London ring of towns, for instance, the examples are there. Skelmersdale presents a different set of problems and opportunities from Crawley, and the commission acknowledges that. I can assure the Committee that the commission will not be taking a purely passive asset-realisation rôle.
Noble Lords will, I trust, be persuaded that the amendment is unnecessary. Incidentally, although of course I go along with the need for responsible promotion of the commission's towns, I have to part company with the detail of the amendment. The amendment talks of levels of population and employment for which the new town was developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State. In fact, the official Opposition will be particularly aware that new town target populations were amended several times, most notably by a Labour Government in 1977. The then Secretary of State announced drastic reductions to the targets of the third generation towns, especially Central Lancashire New Town.
For this reason, when in 1981 my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced his own conclusions on the future of the third generation towns, he stressed that the population figures he was quoting should not be considered as targets. That was because the rate of population growth would depend primarily on the rate of demand for private house building and on the willingness of the private sector to invest. Much the same can be said about employment. Though the commission will wish to promote its towns, it must surely depend for job opportunities created on the decisions of the private sector.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the basic thought behind the amendment, that the commission should take a responsible role in promoting its towns, is one which I share but which is met perfectly adequately by the Bill as it now stands. The amendment would, I believe, add nothing, to the extent that it talks of target populations and employments. I believe that has been superseded by events. I trust that I have to a degree persuaded the noble Lord that his worries about the commission have been set aside, and I believe that later amendments will clarify some of the other points.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has assured me as to the intent. I am bound to say that the further away the body is from the real action, the more worried I become about its ability to do the job. In my view, the local council in certain circumstances is better able to do the job than the development corporation; and the development corporation is certainly better able to do the job than the commission. That is simply because those concerned

395
are nearer to the action. They live in the town. If they are councillors, they are elected by the local people. If they are members of the development corporation, they have their being in the area and move about in it.
The Minister will recall that I used the example of the Wrekin town council. Talking about wrecking councils, I do not doubt that the Minister could give me the names of one or two which are on his lips or those of his noble friends. But the Wrekin council drew my attention to a real problem. Once the commission for the new towns has responsibility, it will certainly not be able to devote as much attention to the new town (which is of course the new town of Telford) as did the development corporation. We know of the problems of the new town of Telford. It is made up of a lot of small and run down—almost industrially clapped out—places in that part of the country, brought together into the new town.
I raise the point because clearly it is a separate issue. I see that in this month's issue of the Local Government Chronicle, a great deal of the pages are devoted to the Wrekin Council. The headline is: "A lesson on how to devise a new corporate identity", and there are some interesting observations on what the Telford New Town Development Corporation is doing to carry out its work.
However, we are in the area where we have to trust that the Government have it right. That is quite uncertain. I certainly trust the Government as to their intentions, and those are that they want to make sure that what we are seeking in the amendment actually comes about without the necessity of having to write those words on to the face of the Bill. In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall accept his assurances that, whether or not the target populations are changed, there is the intention to maximise the benefit to the local people and to the taxpayer of using the resources which are there. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("and
(c) the agreement of the local authority in whose area the property or land is situated." ")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 concerns the question of the considerations to be borne in mind but in a different way. We are talking in terms of the purpose for which the Commission for New Towns exists. The new subsections (1) says:
"The purposes for which the Commission exists are—

(a) to take over and, with a view to its eventual disposal, to hold, manage and turn to account the property of development corporations transferred to the Commission under this Act, and

(b) as soon as it considers it expedient to do so, to dispose of property so transferred and any other property held by it, due regard being had to the considerations"—

I repeat the word "considerations"—
"as specified in subsection (2) below".
I want to seek to add to the considerations which are, first of all,
"the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there",
396
and secondly,
"until disposal, the maintenance and enhancement of the value of the land held and the return obtained from it."
I then want to add, as a consideration:
"the agreement of the local authority in whose area the property or land is situated."
That is a simple point which I hope the Minister will accept. The council consisting of local people has been democratically elected, as opposed to the New Towns Commission which consists of placemen and women put there by the Secretary of State, and quite clearly with the powers in the Bill the council can be overridden by the Secretary of State if they do not do what he wants. I take the view that locally elected people have every right to be not just consulted but to be part of the decision-making process. If we put aside party politics, we are concerned with getting the best deal for the local people and, let me say, the best deal for the taxpayer. I do not put out of mind that one of the functions of this Bill is to satisfy the taxpayer that he is getting value for money in selling property at the right price at the right time.
We are talking in terms of disposing of commercial and industrial assets. I can recall that when this Bill was promoted, we said—and it continues to be said—that when new towns are given targets of the asset values that they must realise in a certain period, in effect it is a false market. If a new town is told that in the next year, or the next two years, the Exchequer expects that part of the asset value of the town shall be transformed from bricks and mortar, or factories, shops or offices, into cash which will come back to the Exchequer, then these matters do not remain secret. People who are interested in the market realise that the assets that have to be sold will very often be sold or could be sold at prices less than the market value.
3.15 p.m.
If the Minister tells us that that can never happen, that no asset will be sold at less than its market value, then we are in an interesting situation. That is because if no asset is to be sold until it commands its proper price—not its market price in a fair market: I am talking about a forced sale and a forced, false market which can be created—then the wind up of the new towns would take a very long time indeed. We know that the Government want the money. Besides having the imperative of getting out of the business of governing new towns, they want the money. The Treasury says to the DoE, "We want you to realise those assets". What we are saying is that the people who live in the new town and its area, and who are elected to the local authority which covers the new town, are every bit as entitled to be considered.
The Minister in other places has said that the consultation process will take place. This is all very well but what we are concerned about is not merely consultation: we are talking about something far more substantial than that. What we have here are the words of the Minister. The Minister for Housing in the committee in another place, (at col. 7 of the Official Report) said:
"The Bill lays on the Commission the duty to have regard to the welfare and convenience of those living, working and carrying on business in the towns where it has responsibilities. The basic step in carrying out that duty is to decide what will conduce to the welfare

397
of those who live and work there. The views of their elected representatives should play a full part in that process of consultation.".
In essence, what we want the Minister to tell us is what is wrong with writing on the face of the Bill that one of the considerations—it is only a consideration—that the Commission should take into account before proceeding to carry out its remit of disposing of the assets is that it should have the agreement of the local authority. There are other parts of the Bill which give the Secretary of State powers to override. But if the Minister is looking for sensible progress towards the completion of the new towns programme I hope that he will accept this amendment. It is reasonable, democratic, and in my view it would be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I rise for two reasons. The first is to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Stedman, who unfortunately cannot be here this Monday. The second reason is to mention that, due to some bureaucratic tangle, her request to have her name placed against a number of these amendments was lost in the system. That has been acknowledged by the system but I wanted the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to know that he was not alone, as it were. However, he is capable of handling these matters more than adequately.
The amendment has the full support of these Benches. I believe that my noble friend Lady Stedman referred to the background (in col. 474 of Hansard) at Second Reading. As she then said, we have had considerable representations from councillors in Milton Keynes on this same subject.
It seems to me that whereas Liberals have been suspicious of placemen, of commissions and corporations of one sort or another, and want to see local authorities move into the hands of local authorities as soon as possible, the work that has been done by the commissions is acknowledged as having been extremely successful. It seems to me a great pity that the transfer cannot be made as smooth and as much based on consensus as it might be. The provision to get the agreement of the local authority is an important facet in making sure that the timing aspect is in the interests of all concerned, and not merely of the Exchequer and the Government. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Government are trying to push this along faster than they should. I am sure that that is not in the Minister's mind. But it is a useful safeguard to have brought into the action the local authority, which has knowledge of the area which perhaps the Secretary of State does not possess.
The Earl of Avon: I wonder whether the noble Lord will clarify one matter. Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would like her name associated with Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Does she also want that in regard to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6?
Lord Tordoff: In her absence I cannot be absolutely sure. I can perhaps feed this through the system at a later point. Certainly, the message was passed to the Public Bill Office. It is acknowledged there that, by some mischance, her name does not appear on the amendments. I do not think it matters frightfully
398
whether her name goes on, but I wanted it to be known that we support the amendments.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Lord because, later I may not be quite so amicable as I was previously. I wanted to make sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was included. I should like to deal with Amendment No. 2. Noble Lords have explained that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the commission consults local authorities about how the commission will exercise its reponsibilities in their towns. An identical amendment was, I believe, considered in Committee in the other place, where it did not find favour. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, makes. I stress again that I do not honestly believe that there is any need for this amendment. I shall try to persuade the Committee of the reason.
The Bill ensures that the commission, in pursuing its function, has to have due regard to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on a business in each of the towns. Consulting the local authorities, who are the elected representatives of the people living in the towns, is an obvious element in discharging that responsibility. Indeed, the commission has already demonstrated its commitment to consultations where the joint industrial development committee has played an important part in attracting jobs to that town. There, again, I mention Corby.
The commission intends to establish local liaison committees in all the further towns where it will be taking over. Indeed, even though the commission has not yet assumed responsibility at Northampton, Redditch and Skelmersdale, committees have already been set up and have met. Northampton's committee met last Tuesday, 12th February, Redditch's met on 16th January, and Skelmersdale's, which met on 5th December, will be meeting again this coming Wednesday.
I have referred to the towns which the commission will be taking over. But the commission also works closely with the local authorities in the other towns where it has already taken over. We have no reason to believe that these existing arrangements are unsatisfactory or require any change in the statutory basis for the commission's work.
Ministers have repeatedly said that there will be no forced sales and no sales against best professional advice. The task of the commission to realise the assets will be, in part, to create a market in which this aim can be achieved. I must therefore recommend that your Lordships' Committee does not accept this amendment. I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that there is no need for it. Indeed, I would argue that it is wrong to try to tie down by statute the precise way the commission should discharge its statutory responsibility to have regard to the convenience and welfare of local people. The commission's approach will need to reflect the different situations in each of the towns. For example, the problems and needs of Crawley and Hemel Hempstead, the development corporations for which were wound up over 20 years ago, are very different from those of Corby and different again from those of the towns where wind up is shortly to take place, such

399
as Northampton and Redditch and, looking a little further ahead, perhaps, central Lancashire.
I am not sure that the drafting of the amendment is all that it should be. It is not clear whether it deals just with consultations or whether, instead, it gives a power of veto. However, I do not rest my argument on the wording being wrong. The main point is that the amendment is not really necessary. I believe that it is inappropriate to meet all the circumstances. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and that he will agree with me.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is a fundamental difference. I have been trying to argue that the status and stature of elected councillors and the democratically-elected council are worth more than being embraced by the words,
"the convenience and welfare of persons residing".
The Minister did not say, though I am sure he would if I were to ask, of whom the local liaison committees will be comprised. No doubt they will very much reflect local organisations and so on. I am not concerned about that. Many of these councils will be Conservative and some will be Labour. I am not talking about the politics. As a former democratically elected local councillor, I am saying that the town council or the local authority should have a status. When the Minister says that there is no need for this to be written into the Bill, I maintain that there comes a time when we have to say not that we distrust Ministers, nor, above all, this Minister, but that all Governments and departments resist writing into a Bill more obligations on the department than are necessary. In this instance, however, I believe that it is right and proper that the amendment should be written into the Bill. I shall test the view of the Committee by pressing the matter to a vote.
3.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Ennals, L.

Ardwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Aylestone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beswick, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gormley, L.

Brockway, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grimond, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hampton, L.

Caradon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Collison, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

McNair, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Maybray-King, L.

400

Mayhew, L.

Soper, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strablogi, L.

Plant, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Seear, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Alport, L.

Ampthill, L.

Melville, V.

Avon, E.

Merrivale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mersey, V.

Beloff, L.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Molson, L.

Boardman, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Orkney, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Pender, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Porritt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Quinton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Radnor, E.

Coleraine, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Davidson, V.

Rodney, L.

De Freyne, L.

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun, Ly.

Denning, L.

Sandford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Selkirk, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sharples, B.

Dudley, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Dulverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Soames, L.

Effingham, E.

Stamp, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Strathspey, L.

Elton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Glanusk, L.

Todd, L.

Gridley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

Hayter, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Henley, L.

Westbury, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Marley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 39 and 40.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 in Clause 1 seeks to strike out lines 39 and 40, and I so move. This part of the Bill lays down what the commission shall not do, by virtue of Section 36, and it then proceeds to list a number of things it shall not do:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State".
I am seeking to convince the Committee that we ought to delete the words:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State.".

401
We are considering whether we are going to trust the commission to exercise many of its functions. We have already decided, by virtue of the Division we have just had, that we are not prepared to involve fully the local, democratically-elected council in the disposal process. In fact, we are not prepared to allow the commission to do what is laid down as an obligation without the agreement of the council. Having said that the commission shall not have the agreement of the local council we are now, in this part of Clause 1, saying that there is a range of things that the commission shall not do unless it has:
"the general or special authority of the Secretary of State".
I know that the Minister is going to tell me that the words:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State",
are in legislation from time immemorial. He will be able to quote recent legislation.
What I want to ask the Committee is this. Is it not time that we curbed some of the powers of the Secretary of State and relied upon the good sense, the business acumen and sagacity of the people who the Secretary of State has appointed? Every person who will be on the New Towns Commission will be appointed by the Secretary of State. I make no political point. I simply mean that when the Secretary of State is given advice and looks at the range of men and women who are competent to serve, he decides that those people have his confidence, for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons may be political, though generally they will not. He makes his decision because he believes that the people are well able to look after his interests on the commission.
Yet we have, in this part of the Bill, a number of things that the commission cannot do unless it has his approval. Let me look at some of them. One is:
"acquire land or any interest or rights in or over land".
The commission shall not be able to do that:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State".
It shall not be able to:
"dispose of any property by way of gift or for a consideration which is less than the best reasonably obtainable",
that is:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State".
On the last amendment and the earlier one we were arguing about the rigged or the forced market—hurried sales. Here we have apparently the get-out for a commission which sells at what is recognised as less than market value, provided it gets the approval of the Secretary of State.
I believe that in recent times the Secretary of State has taken on enormous powers in respect of Section 137. I notice that the Minister who is sitting next to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, smiles; I take it as a smile rather than a grimace, though it could be a grimace in the light of the extra work that is being provided. There are enormous powers, involving millions and millions of pounds, and there are limits to the number of hands, feet and brains that can work at these matters—at least, I believe there are limits—in the Department of the Environment as well as anywhere else.
The simple premise that I am asking the Minister to accept is this. Having made sure that the Secretary of State appoints people to the commission to look after his interests, ought we not to take away the veto that the Secretary of State holds as regards what the commission do? Ought we not to take away the ultimate responsibility? I can well imagine that the new towns commission could take the view that "big brother" or "big sister" will continue to look over their shoulders, and that they need to have final approval as regards a great many matters. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: Taken literally, this amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to permit the Commission for the New Towns to do any of the things listed in Clause 1(3). This would mean that they could not acquire any new land, make any contributions to local authorities, make any loans, develop land or make any gifts of land. For that reason alone I would hesitate to recommend that your Lordships countenance this amendment. However, I do not want to rest merely on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has explained that his purpose is not in fact to block all such things, but rather to discuss how the Secretary of State should exercise his powers to agree such things and the extent to which Parliament should be involved in that. It may help the Committee if I run briefly through the provision as it stands in the Bill. I do not want to dwell too long on this because the whole question was discussed at some length in Committee in another place.
Ever since 1946, when the Government of the noble Lord's persuasion first brought in new towns legislation, successive Secretaries of State and Ministers have had powers to give directions about the discharge by new town corporations of their functions. Since 1959 that has included the commission as well as new town development corporations. So there is, in principle, nothing new here at all.
Paragraph (a) deals with the acquisition of land. Although this control is new so far as the commission is concerned, it simply parallels a similar existing control on the acquisition of land by development corporations. I am referring to the control under Section 10 of the 1981 Act. It seems to me to be highly sensible that both controls should be on the same footing.
Paragraph (b) deals with the contributions by the commission towards the cost of amenities, supplies and services. This is simply a restatement of an existing control over the commission. The only change is that we are removing the present requirement for the concurrence of the Treasury as well as the approval of the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Committee would be happy to agree that there is no need for the Treasury to be involved in such details.
Paragraph (e) relates to the control over gifts and over disposals at a consideration less than the best reasonably obtainable. In effect, this is an existing control. The Bill, however, replaces a rather complicated existing scheme with a straightforward one. I think the main point here, which was discussed at some length in another place, is that we have no intention of using this power to allow the commission to give away or sell at an undervalue land which

403
should be sold on a commercial basis. I willingly repeat that undertaking. What we have in mind, as my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction explained in the other place, is to have a power where there is a clear social case for doing so. He quoted the example of the forthcoming transfer of the Castle Eden Dene Nature Reserve at Peterlee to the Nature Conservancy Council and the longstanding practices whereby land needed by local authorities for their functions, or land needed by Churches for places of worship, are transferred to those bodies on special terms. Those are cases of a type where the Secretary of State should be able to give his consent, and the Bill provides for that. Nothing more nor less is needed.
3.45 p.m.
The noble Lord has also stressed the question of parliamentary involvement in the Secretary of State's decision. I do not believe that these are matters that need to be put before Parliament individually before my right honourable friend can make a decision. The Labour Government did not think that this was appropriate when they first set the new towns legislation framework back in 1946, and nor have any subsequent Government.
We have had an interesting debate on this subject. Lord Graham's amendment would prevent the commission doing certain things absolutely instead of, as the Bill suggests, allowing them to be done in circumstances to be agreed by responsible Ministers. I believe that our way forward is the right way forward, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can be persuaded.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can be persuaded—he is not persuaded, but he can be! The Minister has to satisfy me about the reconciliation of a matter which I just cannot, at present, accept. On the one hand, the Minister went out of his way just now to stress that no properties will be realised unless a proper price is obtained. Whether it is a reasonable price, the market price, or a satisfactory price, we are talking in terms of an asset which everyone agrees is worth, for example, £1 million. What the Minister is saying is that you cannot get rid of that asset for less than £1 million, or for much less than £1 million, without his approval.
On the other hand, we know that the Minister and his colleagues have remits from the Treasury, to produce monies. Let me give an illustration. The Treasury will from time to time say that in the year ahead the new towns will realise assets—for example, £100 million, £50 million or whatever it may be. In fact, the Minister has to answer this question now. Is it not a fact that there is laid upon the development corporations and the commission a target that they are urged (if they are not under a strict mandate) to achieve? I am referring to so many millions of pounds. For example, let us suppose that a development corporation is told that its share of the total is £20 million, and the Minister says that if it cannot get a fair price then it cannot sell anything because if it were to do so it would not be selling sensibly. Let us suppose that the new town development corporation says, "We cannot get £20 million for £20 million worth of assets.
404
All we can get is £12 million because of the market, a lack of buyers and a lot of economic imperatives". Will they in fact be able to get only £12 million for £20 million worth of assets, or do they not sell (which would be the course that a prudent businessman would take) until the market is right? And in that case, how does the Minister reconcile that with the demands of the Treasury?
I recognise that these are matters upon which we need to be clear. The Bill is making progress. There will be insufficient opportunities after today to come back to the matter again. We need to have the situation on record a little more clearly than has been the case in the past. It is no good the Minister and his colleagues saying, as they have done, that they have no intention of selling the taxpayer or the ratepayer short, and that they are not going to force sales. I have contacts with individuals on development corporations who tell me that, whether one uses the term "pressure" or "intimidation", or even "demands", there is pressure to produce the sum of money which the Treasury want at the end of the period. I believe that the Minister may be in a position now to be helpful to the Committee, and certainly helpful to people outside. If he is in such a position, then certainly the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is still able and open to be persuaded.
The Earl of Avon: To answer the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the disposal targets of each new town are settled in the light of all factors listed by the noble Lord. The demands of the Treasury are settled in the light of what is possible. We discuss with the towns what is possible and the targets take account of that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I understand that, in the light of what is possible, targets are set. My question is this. In the light of the reality of the next 12 months when the targets can be achieved only by disposing of property at less than its market value, to what extent are the demands of the Treasury paramount over the local authority needing to sell its property at a lower amount? I can understand that due account is taken of unemployment, depression, and so on. The Minister must bear in mind that this process has been going on for three or four years. The first such New Towns Bill was introduced in 1980, so we have had three or four years of experience. I want the Minister to say what happens if there is likely to be a shortfall on realisation of the Treasury's target.
The Earl of Avon: I should like to give the noble Lord an undertaking on this matter, but in all honesty I cannot. However, on my reading of the matter, in this particular aspect the Treasury certainly comes second, if I may put it that way. There is no question that the new towns do not have their own particular ability to deal as they wish without having to look over their shoulders at the Treasury.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is heartening. The Minister has been as avid a reader of what happened in the other place as I have. He will recall the arguments about the creation of company towns. This is a situation where certain companies dominate in the acquisition of assets, and instead of a new town being

405
owned by the taxpayer, certain institutions, particularly insurance institutions, invest in the town. A situation then arises in which, quite frankly, the only people who are able and willing to purchase are the existing large landowners. In those circumstances competition would be stifled. I look the Minister straight in the eye and accept what he says: that, without taking further advice, he would accept (as I would) that it would be in everyone's best interests to obtain proper value for an asset rather than that the Treasury should get what it wanted, whether it be £100 million or £200 million.
There will be an opportunity to return to this matter at another stage of the Bill, but I am satisfied that the Minister has done his best—that is, unless he wants to do even better? I see that he does not. Therefore, I shall let sleeping dogs lie and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to dissolve Commission]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("or") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: I believe that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time I speak to Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No.5: Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("means") to end of line 3 and insert ("a democratically elected local authority." ").
Again, here we are talking about the rights of a democratically-elected authority, and this particularly applies to Amendment No. 5. At the top of page 4, subsection (7) says:
"In this paragraph 'accountable public authority' means any statutory corporation a majority of the members of which are appointed by a Minister of the Crown".
In this subsection I contend that "accountable public authority" means a democratically-elected local authority. I confess that some of this ground gives rise to a division of opinion. I want the people who will be involved below the level of Secretary of State and of the Commission for the New Towns to be democratically-elected, whereas the Bill says that those people will not be democratically-elected—they are the "placed" men and women of the Secretary of State. There is a basic dichotomy here. It is spelt out in this clause:
"… any statutory corporation a majority of the members of which are appointed by a Minister of the Crown".
In other words, it will be the Secretary of State versus the people. Of course, the Secretary of State is elected and the local council is democratically-elected. I want more of the action to be given to the democratically-elected local authority.
I believe that the Minister would be well advised to reflect on what I seek to do in these amendments. Bureaucratically, Bills can become Acts and various matters are proceeded with and then disappear, but we are trying to create a relationship between central Government and the local people which will not be sour. I can assure the Minister that these amendments have not been dreamed up merely to be awkward. They have been submitted by the associations of local
406
councils who do not believe that they are being given a fair crack at the whip in helping to run their communities in the future. I very much hope that, besides trusting his Secretary of State, the Minister will also trust the people. That is what I ask him to do. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: These two amendments were also put down and considered in the other place. The first would make any orders transferring the commission's residual property, obligations, and the like when the commission itself is to be wound up, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The second amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, addressed most of his time, would mean that, instead of being able to transfer such residual property to accountable public authorities—that is, statutory corporations, the majority of whose members are appointed by Ministers—the property would have to go to local authorities.
I hope to persuade the Committee that these amendments are not really required. The Bill as it stands ensures that Parliament will be directly involved in the main order; that is, to bring about the winding-up of the Commission itself, and any order which writes off any outstanding National Loans Fund advances which are still the responsibility of the Commission at that time. Those are major decisions and it is quite right that Parliament should be fully involved through the affirmative resolution procedure.
However, what we are discussing here are the residual assets, and where they are to go is, I believe, quite a different matter. These are consequential matters only. In fact, we may well be able to wrap up all these matters in a single order. If so, Parliament will see it all in the one place. But consequential matters like residual assets are just the sort of thing where one might need to have a second bite at the cherry, if I can put it that way. If so, it seems quite unnecessary that Parliament be involved again in that degree of detail.
There have been suggestions that there will be something furtive in all this or that the Secretary of State will be able to pass these assets to public bodies under his control and then deny that he has any responsibility for them. I believe that all this is far too melodramatic. The residual assets and liabilities will need a home. When a commission itself is wound up—and an existing public body could well be the sensible place for some of them—I can also assure your Lordships that there will be prior discussions with those bodies before any such order is made. We are not trying to hide anything or burden anyone unfairly. Nor is it right to think that such bodies have no minds of their own. The Secretary of State may appoint a majority of their members but, as recent events elsewhere have demonstrated, that certainly does not, and indeed should not, prevent them from speaking their own minds.
4 p.m.
Perhaps I may turn to the second amendment. This would mean that instead of going to a public authority, the residual assets and perhaps liabilities would have to pass to a local authority. This amendment fails to take account of the fact that the assets which should

407
pass to the local authorities—that is to say, the rented housing community-related assets—will already have done so. The assets that happen to remain at the very end could be a highly miscellaneous collection: the odd pocket of land, the odd easement, a maintenance obligation for a block of properties, or the like. It is highly unlikely that the local authorities would want to get involved at all in such things. They will already have received the assets they want in the way I have described. Again, I think that the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has developed do not really correspond to the reality of the situation. I therefore hope that if he presses this amendment, the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. I am interested in the confidence of the Minister that he and his colleagues know what local authorities will, or will not, accept. I know that some community-related assets were looked upon as burdens by councils; there can be arguments there. But is the Minister in a position to tell us to what extent consultations on this point have taken place between the ministry and those who represent local authorities? That would be helpful.
The Earl of Avon: The point I was trying to make in my remarks was that the local authorities would have had the opportunity to take what they liked and do what they wished. What we are talking about now is the residual element which they have not wanted, and probably therefore do not want.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If I have misunderstood the thrust of the clause, then I accept that that is what I have done. If the Minister is saying that what we are talking about is taking over assets which in effect are liabilities—in other words, if you are taking over assets that nobody wants—they, almost per se, are liabilities. Although you might get something, the cost and the consequence of looking after it outweigh the value of what you have got.
Is the Minister saying that in effect the local authority would have the opportunity, by one means or another, to make sure that it will have those assets which are part of the development corporation and the commission's remit, and which it wants because it sees that it needs them or can make the best use of them? If that is so, I am prepared to accept the assurances of the Minister and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Grants to development corporations and Commission]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is the irritating habit of the Government to wrap up more than one big
408
issue in a single Bill. This is a new towns Bill. We understand the raison d'être for the Urban Development Corporation as opposed to the New Towns Corporation; nevertheless the Government must be aware of the enormous problems which many people have seen so far as the Urban Development Corporations are concerned. Before we allow Clause 6 to pass we have to examine the way the Government have gone about handling the situation.
There are two Urban Development Corporations—for Merseyside and the London Docklands. It is remarkable the extent to which the Government have stumbled along with the LDDC, aggravating more and more people and more and more organisations as time goes by. The Minister will have been made aware of the intensity of feeling against the operations of the LDDC, even by reading the proceedings on this Bill in another place. Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Nigel Spearing, and on other occasions Mr. Guy Barnett, all Members of Parliament representing the riparian interests which are affected by the LDDC, not only in January, during the final stages of the Bill, but also on many other occasions drew the attention of the House to the undemocratic nature of the LDDC.
The Minister can argue—and there is an argument—as to whether, in the light of the history of the 1970s, it was right for the Government in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to decide that enough was enough; that what was at stake in London dockland was literally the creation of a new town. It was a new town in a place where there was much to do. It was not a green field site; there was a lot of dereliction and they said that what was required is what we now have. It is a body which is not democratically elected, not locally responsible, as opposed to what had been sought by the authorities throughout the 1970s in trying to create a democratic framework which would allow the development to take place.
I am not competent to argue whether the previous London docklands forum and the committee would have done any better or any worse a job. We know that in Clause 6 when it comes to a question of public monies, while it might not be a case of the sky being the limit, there is little limit to the amount of monies which the Government are prepared to make available to the LDDC to carry on its work. We have the opportunity of looking at some of the aspects of the situation which has emerged.
One of the great problems experienced by people in that part of London is in obtaining better housing. I saw in his place a little while ago my noble friend Lord Underhill. He and I, together with other noble Lords, visited the areas in connection with the GLC, not for the purposes of this Bill. We found daunting the prospects of providing better housing for the people who already live in the dockland area. We saw the Ferrier Estate, with 178 large developments—not tower blocks—with 16,000 people living on one estate. The properties were certainly in need of great attention.
One of the arguments of the Government is that a purpose of the LDDC is to provide opportunities for council tenants to move into homes of their own, at prices they can afford. A person who lives on the 17th

409
floor of a tower block in Greenwich is, first of all, not likely to find a buyer for his property. If he cannot sell it, he is not likely to be able to buy property right in Docklands.
The Sunday Times of 10th February, under a headline "The return of dock green", reported on a visit to the London Docklands to find out about the housing situation. There is a variety of experiences. There is, for instance, the case of Flat 2C in one block. The flat has a 36ft. long hall, fitted cloakroom, living room, kitchen, shower room, three bedrooms, one with an en suite bathroom, and parking space: price, £157,500—well within the bracket of a council tenant living on the 17th floor of the Ferrier Estate! The cheapest flat in the block, with only 1,325 square feet, is £85,000. We can also look at other properties, which are cheaper: £35,000 for one-bedroomed flats, £37,945 for two-bedroomed flats. The article says that these are typical of the prices asked in Docklands; and that commentators say there is a rapid improvement in amenities.
The point I want to make to the Minister is that the reality is that the LDDC exists. It is not challenged from that point of view. It has a job to do, but it also has a job to provide opportunities for the investor or the entrepreneur or the person who sees that there are opportunities to be taken, if not for quick killings certainly for profitable investments in a range of ideas. I want the Minister to tell the Committee what he and his Ministers are doing, in collaboration with the LDDC, to try to improve the atmosphere among existing councils and voluntary organisations.
I know that the Minister will tell us that they have tried and that they have sought to involve local people in a great many of these matters. I want the Minister to tell us whether he appreciates the enormous job that needs to be done not merely to create decent housing—that of itself is an asset—and cheaper housing, which would be a bonus, but to create a community spirit. Can the Minister tell the Committee more about the body called Inter-Action? Inter-Action is a body which the Government and the LDDC have created, promoted and supported to do a great deal of work among voluntary organisations. I have here a letter from the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council dated 10th January. It says a great deal, but I should like the Minister to deal with the following two points:

"(i) The LDDC had not carried out any serious study of whether there were any Newham body or bodies that could provide the services or projects the Corporation was prepared to let Interaction undertake.

(ii) Few, if any, of Interaction's main projects were readily at either officer's fingertips. Persistent questioning from Harold Wild on what was so special about Interaction's potential contribution failed to bring any clear response".

Without boring the Committee, the Minister is well aware that the Government attach great importance to what Inter-Action can do.
I have here a copy of a parliamentary Answer which was given to Mr. Nigel Spearing when he asked the Secretary of State what sums had been paid by the LDDC to the body known as Inter-Action. Sir George Young said:
"Inter-Action was appointed by the London Docklands Development Corporation on 1 August 1984 for £10,000 per
410
month short-term consultancy agreement to provide advice on community matters. The Department is currently considering an application from the corporation to provide Inter-Action with £1.024 million over a three-year period to cover the transfer of its base to the royal docks and establishment there of training, job creation and recreation programmes for local people and a general consultancy role on community issues."—(Official Report, Commons, 4/2/1985; col. 426.]
Of course, if the Government persist in foisting on to a local community, Docklands as a whole, their ideas of how such a community should go about creating the infrastructure, the housing and the factories, etc.—which they did by foisting the urban development corporation concept in the first place, undemocratically elected—and if, also, at a later stage, when it comes to creating a framework for voluntary organisations, it appears (I readily confess that I am not wholly knowledgeable about this) that the views of local people are being ignored yet again, the Minister must understand that this attitude will perpetuate earlier mistakes. The LDDC has an enormous responsibility. One of its responsibilities, besides producing a record of achievement which I acknowledge and which undoubtedly must bring great satisfaction to the Minister and to many others, is to try to work with local people.
I believe that this debate on Clause 6 stand part has not only provided me with the opportunity to say what I have said but also provides the Minister with the opportunity to be frank with the Committee and to give some assurance to many thousands of people who have approached me through their representatives —Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Nigel Spearing and Mr. Guy Barnet—and expressed their dissatisfaction. Thousands of local people believe that they are not being as fully consulted, informed and brought along as local activists—not political activists—as they believe they are entitled to be.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like briefly to follow some of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, particularly in relation to what he said about improving the atmosphere in the area mentioned. I am sorry I have not given the noble Earl the Minister notice about this matter.
My question is whether Clause 6, particularly the amendment in relation to Section 58A(2) of the New Towns Act 1981—I am sorry to make this technical in arriving at my point—will provide facilities in relation to the cultural side of activities in areas such as London Docklands. Subsection (2)(d) says that
"any other facilities similar to those specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above"
will become eligible for a grant. I am concerned, not merely with the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has emphasised, as to how people are being squeezed out of such areas as London Docklands because of the cost of accommodation becoming increasingly expensive, but with whether the Minister can say, either now or later, that the amendment in Clause 6 will cover general facilities, particularly in relation to art galleries and other cultural aspects, in the area.
The Earl of Avon: I am surprised at the amount of doubt on this clause that the two noble Lords have expressed—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, at considerably more length than the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran—as I had thought that the provision was wanted and was what everybody needed.
This clause gives the Secretary of State new power to make grants towards essential but non-remunerative capital expenditure. New town development corporations have had to borrow to finance all the capital expenditure which they have needed to develop their towns. They have therefore had to borrow not only for expenditure which should produce a financial return but also for expenditure which does not. Corporations have also capitalised their revenue deficits and borrowed to cover them.
I should like to say a few words about how we intend to use the new power. It is not open-ended. We have thought it right to spell out fairly precisely the purposes for which the resources can be used. The largest item will be main roads. Good communications are a vital element in the development of the new towns but they produce no direct financial return to the development corporation and it is right, we believe, that such costs should be met by grant.
The next category is open spaces and landscaping, another vital element in creating an attractive environment in which people can live, work and play. Again, it produces no direct return and should be met by grant.
Finally, there are the amenities such as meeting halls and assembly rooms—very necessary for a balanced community. Grants will be available not only where the corporation spends the money itself but also where it makes a capital contribution towards such provision. This will enable development corporations to assist local authorities where a joint scheme is more sensible than going it alone. But it does not indicate any change in our policy as to what the development corporation should provide. As my honourable friend said at Second Reading, we expect local authorities to play a proper part in providing the facilities needed for a new town just as much as elsewhere.
If the Bill is approved, the total is likely to run at some £39 million a year. Individual schemes will be approved by the department under arrangements which we will agree with the corporations concerned. We shall steer a sensible course between the two extremes of allowing too little and too much. We intend to strike the right balance to allow corporations to finish the task of developing their towns on a sound financial basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about the UDCs. These were created because the local authorities in these areas were not achieving the results which were needed to regenerate them. This is not the place in which to go into the question of why that is so, but in 1980–81 Parliament agreed that a new initiative was needed. The Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 provided the framework. The orders in relation to the London Dockyard Development Corporation and the Merseyside Development
412
Corporation, approved by this House, set the machinery in motion.
Noble Lords spoke of the problems facing tenants who wanted to buy. The experience of new towns has shown that to produce a balanced community, all levels of society need to live in an area. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, particularly mentioned Inter-Action. There have been some recent meetings between the LDDC, the London Borough of Newham and the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council. I gather that the result of these is that Newham are to write to the corporation setting out their views for consideration by the corporation's executive board when the project application is discussed. If the project is approved, LDDC intend to seek the views of the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council on each scheme that Inter-Action put forward as part of their consultancy. I believe that the LDDC is a most exciting project and I am quite happy to rest on whatever the results will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me about the particular facilities for culture. I think that in my reply I covered that subject quite well. I believe that this clause is a good clause and I am very surprised that it should be in any way questioned.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I believe that I indicated that I rose to speak on clause stand part as an opportunity to look at dockland issues in general. In case I did not make it clear, the thrust of the clause is wholly acceptable so far as I am concerned personally and, I would say, acceptable also to those behind me. The Minister was very fair and, I think, proper in outlining to the Committee the reasons why this clause will be helpful, not just to the docklands but also to other new towns. The distress that I feel is that there is an opportunity, as I believe the Minister will recall and the Official Report will reveal. This is not the time to query whether there should be a Docklands Development Corporation or not. It is a fact of life. What we and the people who have this responsibility are about is making it work to the best advantage of the people who live in docklands.
I have looked at the record of achievement and I am bound to say that, both in annual reports and in other ways, there is an impressive record of achievement so far, though queries have been raised by a number of bodies as to whether the number of jobs that have been created are actually new jobs or real jobs.
I have already touched upon the need to satisfy the community that it is going to get adequate coverage in the voluntary sector. The housing sector, frankly, is a real mess. I start from the needs of the local people. If, in fact, a local authority had developed the land, the Minister could rest assured that the people who would have been occupying the houses that were built on the land would have been, in the main, local people occupying houses built by the local authority, and quite clearly, with so many high-rise developments, there were certainly going to be low-rise developments too.
I mentioned the cost of housing, or the prices that are being asked. The noble Earl will be well aware, having read the reports in another place, that in Southwark and in Tower Hamlets, in Greenwich and

413
in Stepney, Members of Parliament were able to bring to the attention of the House properties that cost £250,000 and £300,000 because of their particular situation. When we are talking in terms of housing, we certainly would not be envisaging prices of that kind. Clearly, they would be asking such prices only if people, in the main, were willing to pay them. I am concerned not so much about the people who have the money to pay for a property which is worth a quarter of a million pounds, as about the people who appear by the general policies of the Government to be forced to recognise that, if they are living on the seventeenth floor of a tower block in Greenwich or anywhere else, that is where they are likely to stay for a very long time. The LDDC in my view—and, it may well be, Merseyside as well—is not able to do very much about this. However well it is doing in other ways, I am worried about the people who have got a real burden to bear, but I am satisfied that the Minister has confidence that, with the consultations that are to take place, it is possible for a better atmosphere to be created. I very much hope so. That is all I have to say before the clause is agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; report received.

Mineral Workings Bill
4.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avon, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to enter former mining land etc.]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert ("and "land" includes any structure or building thereon.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3, which is in the same terms.
Amendment No. 3: Clause 8, page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and "land" includes any structure or building thereon.").
The object of this amendment is to clarify in Clauses 7 and 8 what is understood by the word "land". I am raising this matter because of the structure of this Bill. As I indicated at Second Reading, the first six clauses deal with very specific problems in relation to mining in very specific areas which are set out parish by parish in the schedule. To that area, this Bill is of the greatest importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, indicated at Second Reading.
Then come in the Bill far wider powers under Clauses 7 and 8. It is unusual, as I indicated at Second
414
Reading, for wide powers particularly relating to entry on to land to be put in a Bill which starts off with such specific and limited clauses. I quite understand the reason given by the noble Lord the Minister at Second Reading for this, but when wide powers in relation to entries on to land are inserted in any Bill, as was said in another place, naturally, very careful consideration should be given to safeguarding the interests of the owners and of persons who have interest in that land.
The local authority is empowered under the terms of Clause 7 to enter land for the purposes of carrying out certain works. I need not deal with the kind of works which it is authorised to do, but does that mean that it is only concerned with the surface of the land or is it also concerned with buildings on the land? As, again, I indicated on Second Reading, there may be a very simple answer to what is of course a probing amendment—that the word "land" includes hereditaments, which includes buildings. Therefore, my amendment that there should be added at the end of line 3 on page 5 the words,
" 'land' includes any structure or building thereon"
is unnecessary. However, it is not clear from the Bill as it stands whether the definition in the various Town and Country Planning Acts will be accepted or what should be the definition of the word "land".
The matter can be of significance as regards the word "land" because persons having interest in the land are allowed to make claims for compensation. Consequently, if the interference is merely in connection with the land or with chattels on the land, the scope of compensation will be different from the scope if there were buildings and other structures on the land which it was necessary to enter into.
In the part of Wales where I come from I am aware that a problem arises in connection with holes in the ground and where underground mines have been covered and subsidences arise. As to derelict land—and in Wales we well know what derelict land means, because so much of Wales has been disembowelled for many reasons during the last century or so—it often happens that a man will be able to get a patch of derelict land and perform certain work upon it so that its value may go up as a result. He may put structures on it; he may have a factory. For instance, I recall a large quarry which is being used now by small businesses in the village of Kilgerran with which I am associated. Therefore, this amendment does not contain any kind of semantic approach. It merely asks for clarification by the Minister as to what is the scope of the word "land" and whether it includes structures or buildings placed thereon. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for explaining his amendment so clearly. I rather thought at one stage that he was going to deal with all three of his amendments together, but I understand he is dealing with the first and the third. In essence, he asks whether buildings are included with "land" so far as the compensation and other provisions of the Bill are concerned. The answer is, Yes, because as regards this Bill we have to go back to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act

415
1949. In that Act, the definition of "land" is to be found in Section 114(1), where it says:
"… 'land' includes land covered by water … .".
The rest of the definition is not relevant for our purposes because it relates to Scotland and Clauses 7 and 8 of this Bill do not extend to Scotland.
Incidentally, I should like to apologise to the Committee and correct something I said on Second Reading. This Bill does extend to Wales, although I said on Second Reading that it did not.
The definition in the 1949 Act must, however, be read in the light of Section 22(1) of, and Part I of Schedule 2 to, the Interpretation Act 1978. Paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 2 provides a definition of "land" for the purposes of any Act passed after 1850 and before 1st January 1979, which is—and I quote—that,
" 'land' includes messuages, tenements and hereditaments, houses and buildings of any tenure".
I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord on two counts. First, I am obliged to him for his reply in dealing with my specific amendment. I am also obliged to the noble Lord for correcting a matter that I was going to raise on the Question that the clause shall stand part in relation to Clause 7, because there is quite clearly a misunderstanding somewhere. He said on Second Reading on 28th January, at col. 466 of Hansard—and I quote:
"The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also asked about Wales. I should tell him that the derelict land survey of 1982 covered only England and so Wales is not included in this Bill".
If we look at the last clause of the Bill—Clause 11—we see that the Bill does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland but it says nothing about Wales. If the Minister had been right in saying that the Bill does not include Wales, then of course I would have had to put down another amendment. However, I accept that this is a misprint in Hansard and that Clauses 7 and 8, and indeed the whole Bill after Clause 6, include Wales.
Lord Skelmersdale: Just to put the record straight, may I say that there is no misprint in Hansard. They reported faithfully what I said. The fact is that what I said was totally incorrect, and it is for this that I gave the apology earlier.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord is characteristically very fair, and I accept that it was a mistake made by him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 15, after first ("chattels") insert ("or any depreciation of the value of an interest in land occurs.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of considerable importance in relation to the scope of claims for compensation which arise under Clause 7 after the local authority has entered upon the land to do certain activities. I submit that the clause should also give as a ground for compensation any depreci
416
ation of value of an interest in the land if that occurs as a result of the entry by the local authority's representative on to that land. May I say that I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord the Minister for the long letter he has written to me explaining why, in the opinion of the Government, it is not necessary that a further ground for compensation, based on the fact that there may be a depreciation of the interest in the land, should be inserted.
Those very words are inserted in Clause 8. Clause 8 has again wide powers for entry on to the land in order to carry out certain works—perhaps different works. It is provided in one phrase that a person having an interest in the land has, as one of the grounds for claiming compensation, the fact that there is a depreciation of the value of an interest in the land. The answer of the noble Lord the Minister to that point is to tell us to look at the powers in Clause 7 and compare them with the powers in Clause 8. He says that, in so far as Clause 7 is concerned, the work to take place by the local authority on the land is different from the work that would be taking place with regard to the powers under Clause 8. The Minister goes on to say:
"It is extremely unlikely that either activity would result in any depreciation in the value of the land and it is for that reason that no provision has been made for compensation in this respect".
In view of that reply, I must ask your Lordships to look in more detail at the powers given under Clause 7 to the local authority to do some work on the land. The clause refers to,
"A person duly authorised in writing …
(a) to carry out works under section 89(2)".
As the noble Lord the Minister has agreed that the word "land" includes hereditaments—buildings and structures upon it—when the works under Section 89(2) are considered it might therefore affect the buildings; and not only might it affect the buildings, it might also affect the whole nature of the area. If a farmer, for instance, owned the land and was trying to tear some kind of a living out of the very poor and difficult soil, he might want to sell the land with the structures and so on upon it. But the value of the land might be affected by the entry on to it by the local authority's representatives. It is true that under subsection (3)(b) the authority's representatives go onto the land only to survey it; and under subsection (3)(c) the entry is in order to survey the land for different purposes. The Minister pointed out in his long letter that all the representatives are going to do, apparently, is survey and monitor, but even a survey of the land, a monitoring of what is taking place on the land, may affect the financial interests of some person in relation to that land.
Therefore it seemed to me only reasonable that there should be included in Clause 7 a power that will enable a person with interest in the land to have as a further ground for compensation the point that the value of the land might have depreciated as a result of the operations of a local authority's representatives. In other words, although it is more likely under the operation of Clause 8 that damage to the land would be sufficient to alter the value of the land and cause some depreciation in the value of it, it is also possible in my view that such work as the local authorities are permitted to undertake under Clause 7 would also affect the value of the land. I therefore beg to move

417
that another ground on which a claim for compensation under this clause could be founded is where there has been a depreciation of the value of an interest in the land.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord is arguing for compensation to be paid in respect of any depreciation in the value of the land caused by the powers given in Clause 7 of the Bill. That would bring the clause into line with the provisions of Clause 8. I sought to quell the noble Lord's anxieties on Second Reading, in columns 465 and 466 of the Official Report. However, I had the feeling that I might have failed and subsequently I wrote to him explaining this in more detail.
The drafting of the Bill reflects the differences between the two clauses. If, like the noble Lord, I may pre-empt the Committee a little, Clause 8 is concerned with operations for the purpose of reclaiming or improving land under which underground mining operations other than coal mining—which has its own legislation and which is not affected by this Bill—have been, but are no longer being, carried out, or of enabling it to be brought into use. In this case it is quite possible that a person with an interest in the land in question could suffer damage, loss, disturbance, or depreciation. That is why the compensation provisions in subsections (9) to (11) have been inserted in the Bill.
Perhaps I may now return to Clause 7, the subject of this amendment. The noble Lord is still concerned with compensation. But there is an essential difference between the purposes of the two clauses. Clause 8 is as I have described it; Clause 7, on the other hand, is concerned only with entering and surveying. It does not matter, as I understand it, for what purpose the entering and surveying is done; the clause itself only directs such things that shall happen in those two operations. Here the damage liable to be committed is negligible, but, even so, subsections (11) to (13) again contain compensation provisions commensurate with the level of damage which could reasonably be expected to occur. This level—and I am not talking about monetary value—is naturally considerably lower than under Clause 8, as it is extremely unlikely that operations under Clause 7 will result in any depreciation in the value of the land. It is for this reason that I must resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am a little surprised that the noble Lord has taken a narrow view as to the scope of the activities that might take place under the authorisation given by the local authority. I come back to this point; we have now agreed that the land includes hereditaments—structures upon it. Persons are coming in to survey the land. That piece of derelict land—I have some in mind—with its structures on it will have officials descending on it; for how long is not clear. They are coming in to make a survey. I do not know whether the survey will involve the moving of the structures—in which case of course compensation is allowable. Under the clause any damage to the structures would be a ground for compensation. If one looks at the situation broadly and with full commonsense in regard to how some of this derelict
418
land is being used, surely local authority authorised persons should not be allowed to go along to the land without there being some ground for compensation for depreciation.
The authorisation to the local authority under Clause 7 is in three parts. Two parts give the local authority powers to survey the land. But the first part in subsection 3(a) is to carry out works under Section 89(2) of a previous Act. Therefore it would appear to me at any rate that while two of the subsections deal with surveys, the other subsection deals with carrying out works. The carrying out of works, even under Section 89(2), could in my view in certain circumstances have some effect on the value of the land.
I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister wishes to make any further reply, having regard to my lengthy observations. It seems to me that even if the Government say, and the distinguished civil servants dealing with this matter so advise the Minister, that it is unlikely that damage will arise as to the value of the land, there is a chance that there might be damage. In those circumstances I move this amendment to give the persons having interest in the land a further ground for compensation with regard to the value which is depreciated.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kilgerran, presses this matter, perhaps I have not made myself clear. Of course there is compensation for damage, negligence and matters of that nature. And if the local authority were to break into a house and had to smash a lock or splinter a door with an axe, then of course compensation would be paid.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I accept that.
Lord Skelmersdale: But I cannot see in what circumstances depreciation would arise in this particular case. As I said earlier, the power under Clause 7 is to enter the premises but not to undertake the works—and a survey is most unlikely to cause long-term depreciation of the land. Indeed, the whole object of the exercise is to improve the value of the land and not depreciate it. The power to undertake reclamation work in Clause 8 includes depreciation as a compensatable factor. In those parts of the Bill where it really matters, this provision is already included.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has really failed to meet my point or to see the circumstances under which I deem that the value of the land could be diminished. I accept of course that if anybody forces an entry into a building by means of an axe then, as the noble Lord indicated, compensation would be allowable under a further subsection of this clause.
Assuming that, suppose that the building was destroyed. Would the local authority reinstate the building? I do not know that they would agree to reinstate the building. If they were to reinstate the building, possibly the value of the land might be increased. But perhaps the owner would want to sell the land before the building was reinstated, and therefore a building that had been partially destroyed would affect the value of that land.

419
I do not propose to press this matter in view of the lengthy reply which the Minister has given orally and of his helpful letter. I will consider what he has said and what he has written to me, and will reserve my position for a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Works on former mining land etc.]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Existing Ironstone Planning Permissions.
—(1) This section applies to any existing ironstone planning permission, as defined in subsection (4) below:
(2) Without prejudice to the powers of the mineral planning authority under sections 45, 51 and 51A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, an existing ironstone planning permission shall remain in force after the commencement date subject to section 44A(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, but only for the winning and working of ironstone and minerals overlying such ironstone for, or in connection with, the manufacture of iron and steel and where such ironstone and minerals overlying such ironstone are to be transported from the land to which the existing ironstone planning permission relates by railway or some other means not involving the use of a public highway.
(3) An application for planning permission shall be made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for the winning and working of minerals after the commencement date on land to which an existing ironstone planning permission applies where such minerals are to be used wholly or partly for a purpose other than that specified in subsection (2) above unless a planning permission for the winning and working of minerals on that land other than an existing ironstone planning permission is in force at the commencement date.
(4) In this section—
"existing ironstone planning permission" means a planning permission in force at the commencement date for the winning and working of ironstone (whether or not such permission includes the winning and working of overlying minerals) by surface working on land situated within the ironstone district where such permission was granted on a planning application referred to a Minister of the Crown for determination by a direction issued under the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act 1943, the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 or the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;
"Mineral Planning Authority" has the same meaning as in section 1(2B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.").
The noble Baroness said: I am aware that this amendment was moved in Committee in another place but it was withdrawn pending the Minister's visit to Northampton, which is one of the places most concerned with ironstone permissions. That visit took place on 28th January, which was the day of the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House. So information about the Minister's visit was not available here on that day and, perhaps because it was pending, this particular subject received very light treatment on 28th January. We now hope to be told the Minister's views on his visit and to receive in addition answers to some other questions.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I give something of the background to the problem, as this was not gone into at the time. These ironstone permissions were originally granted by the Minister in the national interest, and the direction that this should
420
be so has been maintained throughout subsequent legislation, to enable Government policies relating to steelmaking to be implemented. Permissions were granted for the working of ironstone and overlying minerals; usually limestone, sometimes with a stratum of clay.
In the case of Northampton, total permissions covered 22,000 acres, so the problem there is particularly acute. I propose therefore to pay a little more attention to the problems of Northampton, although other areas are similarly affected and the same principles should apply. Those areas are Humberside, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Leicestershire.
In Corby, in Northampton, steelmaking has—as everyone in the Committee will know—ceased, and a substantial part of the permitted areas remain unworked or partly worked. It is those areas which cause concern to the county council. Permissions remain in force, and on the sites which have been partly worked they are subject only to the statutory 60-year time limit—of which 57 years remain. Although all permissions were granted for the express purpose of ensuring a supply of ironstone for steelmaking in the national interest, it is being claimed that the permissions allow the extraction of minerals for other purposes, since planning permission does not usually control the destination or use of a mineral after extraction.
Ironstone was taken to the steelworks by means of a mineral railway, so when the Minister granted the permissions no issue arose about the effect of large numbers of heavy vehicles moving to and from the working areas by road. If the overlying limestone is now worked separately for commercial use, it would have to be transported by road. This would frequently involve use of substandard and unsuitable roads, and would also cause severe environmental problems in the villages near the areas; many would be affected. The little mineral railway which was used for the ironstone workings has been entirely removed.
The sites to which the permissions relate usually have an access that was used as a service access into the ironstone workings. Therefore, there would be no need to apply for planning permission for access to roads now. Many of the sites are in environmentally sensitive areas, and public expectations about the need to conserve the environment and about protection from heavy road traffic have become much greater in recent years. Also, the size of the vehicles likely to be involved aggravates the problem.
The effect of Amendment No. 4 would be to allow the existing ironstone permissions to remain valid for the purpose for which they were originally granted; that is, for the supply of ironstone by mineral railway for steel-making—but applications for further planning permission would be required if the minerals were to be worked for other purposes. This would preserve the right to work the minerals in accordance with the intention of the original grant but would enable the county council to exercise planning control over use for other purposes—and, in determining any application, to take into account relevant planning considerations such as the effect of traffic, the effect on the environment, the provisions of the county structure plan and any minerals subject plan. The

421
present position has made a nonsense of the structure plan and has delayed production of a mineral subject plan, which is still not forthcoming.
It has been suggested that I should speak also to Amendment No. 6, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I do that now:
Amendment No. 6: Clause 11, page 9, line 3, after ("6") insert (", (Existing Ironstone Planning Permissions),").
However, before I leave Amendment No. 4 I should like to ask the Minister this question: what action does he propose to take to resolve the problem of the ironstone permissions following the visit of Mr. Macfarlane on 28th January?
Turning now to Amendment No. 6, its effect would be to allow the mineral planning authority to impose restoration and after-care conditions on existing ironstone permissions without liability to compensation. The original consultation document, of which I have a copy, was sent to the authorities affected in January 1984. It included in its proposals, in paragraph 5(c):
"To impose restoration and after-care conditions without any liability for compensation to existing ironstone permissions".
Naturally, that was agreed to by the authorities concerned but it has now been dropped from the Bill without any explanation being given. Can the Minister explain why that is not included in the Bill?
5 p.m.
The existing restoration conditions may not be effective to achieve modern standards and those that pre-date the Minerals Act 1981 will not have aftercare conditions attached. The absence of an ironstone restoration fund will add to the county councils' problems; whilst the operator no longer has to make a fund contribution. Since the Government are committed to the "polluter pays" principle, it seems reasonable to expect that the purpose of this amendment is acceptable to the Minister. If the "polluter pays" principle is not to apply in these cases, can the Minister explain why? I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not quite sure whether this is, in fact, an amendment probing the Government's intentions or whether it is real, but I should like to proceed, with the Committee's permission, by assuming that it is a bit of both.
Clearly, the purpose of this new clause is to confine extant planning permissions for the winning and working of ironstone and overlying minerals in the ironstone district to minerals extracted for use in the manufacture of iron and steel. Equally, such permissions are intended to be kept alive only where the minerals are to be transported from the site by railway or by some means other than on the public highway. Furthermore, all ironstone permissions within the district which do not meet these criteria are to be revoked so that any person who wishes to extract or to continue present extraction of ironstone or overlying minerals for purposes other than iron and steel manufacture should be required to make a fresh planning application.
The Committee will be aware that a clause very similar to this was tabled during the Committee Stage of the Bill in another place. Indeed, the noble Baroness
422
said so. I know something of the background to the problem because the Northamptonshire County Council wrote to me about it on 18th January and because, as I said at Second Reading, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State went to see the problems for himself on 28th January. I promised to report on this at Second Reading and I now very gladly do so. He returned very sympathetic to the problems which some of the authorities in the ironstone district may now have to face and at his request officials of my department have arranged to meet the Northamptonshire County Council to discuss how best those problems may be overcome. The noble Baroness sought to pre-empt, in her own quiet way, the results of that discussion and, obviously, I am not prepared to follow her down that route. Equally, the noble Baroness did not know that discussions were likely to take place, so perhaps honour is satisfied.
These problems are not those which arise from the abolition of the ironstone restoration fund. Even were the fund to remain in existence its resources could not be made available for the reclamation of land which had been worked for limestone—or for any other material—unless that mineral had been worked in association with ironstone. The local authorities, I know, recognise this. The noble Baroness, will, I am sure, accept that these problems only occur in areas within the old ironstone district; and she discussed some of the modern contingencies that would be considered if such planning permissions were to be given in today's climate. She referred to the railway and, perhaps in certain places, the unsatisfactory state of the roads for moving heavy lorries, and so on. Even so, I must say that I do not think it is appropriate to seek a solution through this or any other public and general Bill.
It is a fundamental principle of planning control that each individual development should be considered on its planning merits. It would be a radical departure for the system to be used to make blanket revocations and modifications in the way that is now being suggested. It would also, I suggest, set a controversial and undesirable precedent, because, although some mineral workings would thus be permanently discontinued, the planning merits of others would justify the granting of a new permission. In such cases, all that would have been achieved would have been to place a new layer of inconvenience, delay and expense on the minerals industry, whose direct contribution to the national economy is considerable and whose ancillary activities often provide jobs in areas where employment opportunities are otherwise scarce.
So far as the restriction on the method of transporting the minerals is concerned, that is clearly a matter which needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The old railway line by which ironstone was originally transported through the ironstone district to the British Steel Corporation's Corby works is closed, as the noble Baroness said. Many sites now have no alternative to transporting the minerals by road, and it is for the authority to decide—in the light of the circumstances pertaining to a particular site and at a particular time—whether the transportation problems are such that the relevant planning permission should be modified or revoked.

423
I suggest that it is both illogical and improper to seek to impose such controls on a particular class of planning permission within the ironstone district in such a blanket fashion. The intention of the ironstone provisions of this Bill is to place those with an interest in ironstone land in the ironstone district in exactly the same position as those with an interest in other minerals in other parts of the country. It makes no sense then to impose on that section of the industry contraints which positively disadvantage them in comparison with minerals interests elsewhere.
Most of these old permissions were given at a time when the British steel industry was bouyant and it is true that they were called in by past Government Ministers who were anxious to ensure that adequate supplies of ironstone were available. The conditions attached to those permissions were consistent with the planning standards of the day, and it is only the passage of time with its altered economic and environmental circumstances which may now have rendered some, though not all, of the permissions inadequate.
Parliament has vested the main responsibility for mineral planning control in the mineral planning authorities. Those authorities have power under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—as amended by the Minerals Act 1981—to revoke or modify extant planning permissions in their area, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. If authorities in the ironstone district decide on the planning merits—which is what we are talking about—of the particular case that it is appropriate to revoke or modify a particular ironstone permission, then the proper course is for them to exercise the powers already available to them. I know that some authorities may be reluctant to resort to those powers because they would then become liable to pay compensation for any loss or damage arising from the modification or revocation order. But since such liability can only arise from a decision made by the authority—in the light of the planning consideration relevant to the individual case—I do not think that the Committee should judge that to be inappropriate.
The noble Baroness also spoke very quickly to Amendment No. 6 which, in a sense, is consequential on the new clause in Amendment No. 4. That amendment suggests that this new clause, if approved by the Committee, should be given early introduction. I suggest that it should not. The Committee will be aware that the normal convention is to delay the introduction of new provisions for at least two months after Royal Assent in order to allow those likely to be affected to take advice on the implications for them and to make necessary arrangements. We have, exceptionally, felt able to propose the early introduction of the Government's ironstone provisions in this Bill because they have been subject to wide consultation with all those likely to be affected. Thus, people have already had plenty of opportunity to make preparations. As I have explained, the new clause is a sweeping new measure with wide implications for landowners and the Midlands ironstone industry. It has not been subject to consultation and it will, therefore, be unreasonable to give it an early introduction.
Lord Beswick: I am bound to say that the Government are being somewhat casual about this. As the Minister said concerning this particular part of the country, the matter was raised in the other place in Committee and there the Minister gave an undertaking that he would visit the site to see for himself what was involved. I should have thought we should have had the benefit of that report before we considered the Bill at Second Reading.
After all, this is supposed to be a revising Chamber and we revise a piece of legislation after it comes from the other place in the light of all the available information. But the Government chose precisely the day on which the Minister was visiting the site to put the Bill before the House on Second Reading. Therefore we could not intelligently discuss what observations the Minister had to make as a result of his investigation on the spot.
Now I have my name down to this amendment, and again up to the time of moving the amendment I had absolutely no idea of what the Minister said after his visit to the site. If we are to disuss this sensibly, surely it would have been helpful to have the benefit of the observations to take them into account either when drafting or considering the amendment.
As my noble friend said, the problem with which the two amendments deal concerns especially the county of Northamptonshire. I should like to say a word or two about the problems that have been confronted there because they have had some quite special characteristics. The county has always faced them constructively. In my view, they deserve special consideration now. I can recall—I do not know how many other noble Lords were around at the time—that the decision was taken to shift an industrial complex from Scotland down to this English county. It meant uprooting a community. The people came down to Northamptonshire and started work in the new site around Corby. There were considerable social and economic problems as a result of that transfer. The Government of the day endeavoured to be helpful to the county and made special planning provision with regard to the extraction of the ironstone from those areas for the benefit of the steelworks that were erected at Corby.
Then in this decade there have again been upheavals. Quite above the heads of the county authorities—they have not been responsible in any way—the decision was taken to close down the steelworks and quite appalling new social and economic problems were created by that decision. The efforts to rebuild the economy and the community life in Corby seem to me to reflect great credit on all concerned. I feel that they should have had much more sympathy and consideration from the Government in this problem.
This particular problem arises because planning permission was given in a situation which does not now exist. That great steelworks is no longer there. The need to rip up the countryside and extract the ironstone does not now exist. But it seems to me, and the Government have admitted it, that the permission then granted in the late 1940s and 1950s was rather widely drawn. Had the Government of the day been able to look ahead and see the possibility of the contraction of one of the most important industries in

425
the country, I am quite sure that the wording would have been such that it would not now be possible to use it or to exploit it for the purpose of the limestone workings.
The Government say that the proposals in this Bill will not in any way affect the future treatment of limestone workings in the area. Of course they will not. That is what we are complaining about. There ought to be some control over the future limestone workings in this area. If the limestone is to be worked, it should be worked under a permission granted for the purpose by the county planning authorities.
5.15 p.m.
The Government in the Commons, and again here today, stated that it would be wrong if blanket revocations and modifications were made to existing permissions. But this amendment which we are now considering—and it is not really a probing amendment; it is an amendment which could be accepted and written into the Bill—does not propose any blanket revocations. It is proposing that permission granted to meet a very special situation be revoked now that that special situation no longer exists. Any future workings of limestone should be under new permissions granted to meet a new situation.
The Government, I understand, are still complaining that there have been no consultations. I am not sure what happened when the Minister went up there. I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, but I understood him to say that there had been no consultations. That is the excuse that the Government gave in the Commons, but I thought that consultations had now taken place. If there are to be further consultations, certainly I am sure that my noble friend would agree that we should wait to see what the outcome is. But in the meantime, I hope that the Minister can say that the problem will be considered much more sympathetically than would appear to be the case at the present time.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, should take that attitude. On the point of consultations, he most certainly misunderstood me. What I said was that consultations on the Bill have already taken place. They have been very wide. Therefore it is possible to have an early introduction of the Bill. However, consultations, should they be needed, on the new clause of the noble Baroness have not been held, which is the reason why I would counsel a delay in introducing the new clause beyond, I think it is, 1st April 1985, as proposed by Amendment No. 6.
I must reject the charge that the Government are being unsympathetic—
Lord Beswick: I am sorry, but I still do not understand what the noble Lord is saying about consultations. Are there impending consultations about this particular problem with which the amendments are concerned?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, there are pending consultations, which I referred to, I think, in the opening paragraph of my response to the noble
426
Baroness. The consultations on the Bill as it stands have already been held. They have been widely held, which is the justification for asking your Lordships to approve the Bill's early operation after Royal Assent. However, with the best will in the world, although consultations have already been started with the Northamptonshire County Council, consultations with other bodies—for example, landowners and the mineral operators themselves—have not yet been held because we have not got a basis of discussion with the local authorities on which to hold them. I was suggesting that that was a very good reason for delaying the operation of the new clause.
Lord Beswick: I am not talking about the Bill as a whole. I am talking about the particular problem with which these two amendments are concerned. If I understand the noble Lord to say that there are consultations taking place or to be held, can we take it that the Bill will not be progressed any further until we have had the result of the consultations?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I think that it would be unreasonable to do that in any event. But what I was saying was that consultations on the problem to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention are going on at the moment, but they will be incomplete consultations until such time as the mineral operators and the landowners have also been included within the consultation process.
Perhaps I used a little bit of shorthand when I said that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary returned very sympathetic to the problems which some of the authorities in the ironstone district may now have to face. As the Committee already knows, the exact position is that my honourable friend visited Northamptonshire on 28th January and was given a very clear exposition by the county planning officer of the problem, as he saw it, that a number of the existing ironstone planning permissions would also allow the working of other minerals. He also saw examples of quarries where limestone was being worked from such permissions.
My honourable friend noted that at a number of those quarries the operators had submitted a new planning application and the limestone was being extracted in an environmentally acceptable way under conditions imposed by the county council.
The problem appeared to be concentrated on one or two quarries where the county council did not want to see any limestone working at all. This, of course, would be under modern-day conditions. My honourable friend understood why the council might take this view. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are planning permissions which have been in existence there for many years and the rights of those with an interest in the land and the minerals under it must be safeguarded. My honourable friend considers that it would be quite wrong for Parliament to sweep away those rights at a stroke in some possibly unprecedented blanket way, and the position at each site must be considered on its merits, as, indeed, the council has been happy to do at those sites where new limestone permissions have been issued.
As I have already made clear, my honourable friend has also suggested to the council—and they have

427
welcomed this—that the Department of the Environment officials should discuss further with the county planning officer and his staff the options available to them at any particular site about which they are concerned. These options will include powers such as prohibition orders introduced by the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act, 1981, once Parliament has approved the necessary compensation regulations and I hope that it will have the opportunity to do so before the Easter Recess. As far as I know, that is the complete and up-to-date position as of this moment. As I said on Second Reading, if there is any more to report, I will inform your Lordships.
Baroness Nicol: If I may mention the last point first, I would say that the 1981 regulations are a long time a-coming, and we have no clear idea of what will be in them. If we could have a foretaste of what might be in the regulations, it would be helpful. However, far from delaying the Bill in order to take account of any consultations that are going on, it has been suggested, in the usual channels, that in fact we hurry it through and that the interval between now and Report stage should be reduced. I mention that point for the information of my noble friend Lord Beswick, who is concerned about the progress of the Bill.
To say that the authority concerned has the power under the existing legislation, provided that it pays compensation, may be appropriate when we are talking about just one or two permissions. But in the case of Northampton there are so many permissions that it just is not possible for them to examine them in the way they would wish. The district valuer reached the conclusion that if—and this is unlikely—Northampton wished to extinguish, or to put conditions on all the existing permissions which have been partly worked, it would cost in the order of £6 million. Obviously, with rate capping that is simply not within the reach of the authority at the moment; so that answer by the Minister will not do in this situation. As my noble friend Lord Beswick said, Northampton is a special case, with special difficulties, and it really should be taken out of the common run in this particular case or for this particular legislation.
The idea that the mineral owners or mineral permission holders should be protected is all very well as far as it goes. However, at the moment there is a growing acceptance by the farming community that they have to work along with environmental considerations and bear in mind community needs. They are reaching this situation of their own accord, in their happy way, with a few exceptions, and their products are just as valuable to the well-being of the country as are those of the mineral extractors. It seems to me that in this regard we have had a very glib answer, which is not acceptable. The Minister did not answer my question as to what happened to the "polluter pays" principle. If it is applicable in other cases, why is it not applicable here? If the mineral extractors are polluting, in the sense of destroying the environment, why does the county council have to pay to protect the environment from their depredations?
The Minister did not answer, either, the question as to what action the Government propose to take generally on the ironstone permissions. We have been
428
fobbed off with the idea of other discussions. But that will not do, either. The Minister must have some idea of what will be proposed.
What about the structure plan, which I asked about originally? The structure plan is a nonsense in Northampton at the moment because many of the permissions are in direct conflict with the provisions of the structure plan which were approved by the Minister in 1980. The provision of a mineral plan has been awaiting some kind of determination in regard to these areas and it, too, is at a standstill. We cannot just dismiss the whole matter in terms of existing legislation; it simply will not do. I hope the Minister has some more answers.
Lord Skelmersdale: Quite honestly I think I have answered as fully as I am able to at this particular time. I have been asked whether consultations are going on; and the answer is, yes. I have been asked about various matters. All I can add to what I have already said is to tell the Committee a little about the regulations, though of course they have not yet been published and I am under a certain amount of difficulty so far as this goes. It is intended that the regulations will provide for the abatement, in certain circumstances, of the amount of compensation which a mineral planning authority is obliged to pay in respect of loss or damage arising from an order made by the authority under Part III of the 1971 Act to amend an extant minerals planning permission. Such orders may, for example, revoke or modify a permission, require the discontinuance of mineral working, prohibit the resumption of mining operations which have ceased, or impose requirements in relation to a site where mining operations are temporarily suspended. As I have said, this is not the complete story because we do not have the regulations in front of us.
In her last speech, the noble Baroness gave the impression that there are so many permissions extant in the ironstone area that the county treasurer had suggested that in Northamptonshire alone it would cost £6 million in compensation. I think that is what she said—
Baroness Nicol: The district valuer.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry; the district valuer has suggested that it would cost £6 million in compensation if they were all to be revoked. But it is by no means clear that they are all unacceptable, even in today's terms. Therefore I would most certainly query the figure of £6 million. So far as rate capping is concerned and the question of whether the local authority would be able to find any money for such compensation—which is really what the noble Baroness is asking—compensation is calculated and is funded in a variety of ways, and sometimes, in particular circumstances, as I understand it, involves central Government. Whether this would be so in that particular case I do not know and I am sure that this is one of the matters with which the consultations will be concerned.
Lord Beswick: May I just press the noble Lord? He is being very patient, and I am sure that my noble friend Baroness Nicol and I are grateful to him. He

429
emphasised the importance of the consultations. Will he now give an undertaking that he will use his very considerable influence to see that the Bill is not rushed through the House and that there is ample time for the consultations to take place, so that when we come to the next stage of the Bill we shall have the benefit of knowing what has been discussed and possibly agreed?
Lord Skelmersdale: The answer is no, because during the consultations the Government will not be in a position to make a final agreement, for the reasons that I have already given to the noble Lord.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I have listened with great attention to the debate on this matter. I have great sympathy with the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in relation to the apparent shyness of the Government to give any further information in regard to these consultations. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has asked for an undertaking that the Bill will not be pushed through quickly before some of the results of these consultations can be disclosed. I wonder whether I can be helpful and ask for an assurance from the Minister, who, in my view, even this afternoon, has shown his great sense of fairness, frankness and courtesy in so many matters. Will he give an assurance that the observations and submissions of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will at least be brought to the notice of the Minister in the other place concerned with the matter, in case the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, should carry considerable weight with him when he sees them in writing?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, I most certainly give that assurance. I have no doubt that my honourable friend will take full cognisance of what has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, during this short debate. I cannot, however, give an assurance as to the effect that this will have on the final outcome of the discussions, or whether it will affect the subsequent proceedings on the Bill.
Baroness Nicol: Before withdrawing the amendment, which it is my intention so to do at this stage, I should like to say that I do not consider that Amendment No. 6 is entirely consequential on Amendment No. 5. It seems to me—
Lord Skelmersdale: We might have been talking at cross-purposes. Amendment No. 6 is consequential upon Amendment No. 4. It has nothing at all to do with Amendment No. 5, so far as I can see.
Baroness Nicol: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I had meant to say that Amendment No. 5 is not consequential upon Amendment No. 4.
Lord Skelmersdale: Absolutely. I was not speaking to Amendment No. 5.
Baroness Nicol: I do not wish to press the Minister beyond what I know he can say today. I have, however, asked one or two questions to which I should
430
like answers. I am concerned particularly about "the polluter pays" principle. Either we subscribe to it or we do not. I should like to know why it is not applicable in this case. I should also like to know why paragraph 5(c) was dropped from the Bill. It appeared in the original consultation document as a proposal to impose restoration and aftercare conditions without any liability for compensation to existing ironstone permissions. It is important that the Committee should know why this was left out when it was included as a proposal originally in the Department of the Environment document dated 19th December 1983.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness asks why paragraph 5(c) was dropped. I am advised that this is an extremely complicated matter and that I would be well advised to write to the noble Baroness and to put a copy of the letter in the Library. As to "polluter pays" principle, I do not see how that charge can be levelled at me, the Government or anyone else. We are considering existing planning permissions, no matter whether they were made in 1951, 1931 or whenever. So far as the permissions go, they were made, as all planning permissions and planning consents are, under the conditions pertaining at the particular time they were granted. If, in the light of circumstances—which, incidentally, is the root of my cause on this amendment—such conditions change and the local authority takes it upon itself or, in this case, the mineral planning authority takes it upon itself to revoke or alter the consents in any way, then, of course, it is up to them, having made their own decision, to do so; but in that event compensation may well be payable.
Baroness Nicol: I look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister on paragraph 5(c). In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("The imposition of restoration and after-care conditions.
.—(1) The provisions of sections 164 and 170 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as the case may be, shall not apply to an order made by the mineral planning authority under section 45 of that Act modifying an existing ironstone planning permission by imposing new or altered conditions or new or altered after-care conditions or to an order made by the mineral planning authority under sections 51 of that Act imposing new or altered restoration conditions or new or altered after-care conditions on a use of land which is taking place pursuant to an existing ironstone planning permission.
(2) In this section—
"existing ironstone planning permission" has the same meaning as in subsection (4) of section (Existing Ironstone Planning Permissions) of this Act;
"mineral planning authority" has the same meaning as in section 1(2B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;
"restoration conditions" and "after-care conditions" have the same meaning as in section 30A(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.")
The noble Baroness said: It was my intention not to move this amendment, but the Minister indicated that he had not spoken to it. If that is right, I move the amendment formally and invite the noble Lord to reply.
Lord Skelmersdale: It occurs to me, having had a few seconds' peace from the flak of the last half hour or so, that what I am about to say may help considerably your Lordships' future consideration and discussion on the last amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to protect mineral planning authorities from having to pay compensation in the event of their deciding to exercise powers under Sections 45 and 51 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to modify an old ironstone permission to impose conditions requiring restoration and after-care of the site when extraction is completed.
It is understandable that mineral planning authorities might seek to be absolved of their compensation liabilities in the event of their deciding to modify an extant ironstone permission. They will be aware that we, at one time, considered whether such a concession should be made to them. But for a number of reasons we concluded that it should not.
Before I discuss the merits of the proposal, I should first explain that it would not be necessary to amend this Bill in order to relieve mineral planning authorities of their compensation liabilities. That power already exists. The Secretary of State has powers under Section 178A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended by the 1981 Minerals Act, to make regulations for the abatement of compensation which may include provision as to the circumstances in which compensation is not to be payable. I have already referred to the forthcoming laying of these regulations.
We concluded that it would not be appropriate to exercise that power to remove the compensation liability in respect of the modifications of extant ironstone permissions within the ironstone district because the effect would be potentially to impose a penalty on those with an interest in Midlands ironstone which was not imposed on minerals interests in other part of the country. That would clearly be inequitable.
Furthermore, the compensation burden faced by those authorities is not likely to be great. All extant ironstone permissions in the ironstone district are already subject to conditions requiring the restoration of the land after ironstone extraction, either as a requirement of the express planning permission or by virtue of the Ironstone Areas Special Development Order 1950. Restoration—which is the most costly part of the reclamation process—is already, therefore, a requirement of the permissions.
I accept that few, if any, of the old permissions will also require a full aftercare scheme to be carried out on the land after restoration, though some aftercare work is often required by the terms of the operator's lease from the Royalty owner. The Committee will appreciate, however, that in such cases only a modest amount of additional treatment may be necessary to bring the aftercare to modern standards.
Where an authority decides to add an aftercare requirement to an extant permission—and to add nothing more—the amount of compensation which they have to pay will be able, under Section 10 of the 1981 Minerals Act, to be abated by the full amount to be prescribed in regulations which it is hoped to lay before both Houses next month.
432
The compensation abatement provisions of those regulations will be applied throughout England and Wales to orders modifying extant permissions for all sorts of mineral working except National Coal Board workings, to which other compensation provisions already apply. It would be extremely difficult to justify making different arrangements for ironstone permissions in the ironstone district. As I have said, this does, I think, have a bearing on our last discussion. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to consider the two together.
Lord Beswick: The noble Lord may be able to help me as I have great difficulty following this. I think I am right in saying that throughout the first part of what he stated he referred to ironstone workings. The problem in Northampton is created by the fact that the permission that was granted to extract ironstone had the effect, incidentally almost, of allowing the working of limestone. What is at issue now is not the extraction of ironstone, because there is no steelworks in the area to use the ironstone. But there are people who want (I have already used the phrase) to exploit this loophole for the purpose of extracting limestone. Do I take it that the power of the Minister to abate any compensation provisions would apply to the limestone working equally with ironstone?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes. I think the point here is that, had the ironstone not been there, these particular permissions that we are talking about would not have been granted in the first place. I accept that ancillary to the ironstone permissions there are permissions to extract for other minerals, particularly limestone. I am not sure that this gets us any further, but I should say that of course where those conditions for other minerals apply then that is what we are talking about now that the ironstone extraction no longer goes on.
Baroness Nichol: I think that I detect a glimmer of hope in that reply, and in order to have time to study it I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Recreational Gardening Bill [H.L.]
5.42 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will have a more relaxing time than he has had dealing with ironstone and other matters. We are getting back to the soil. In moving that this Bill be now read a third time I should like to say that I hope that one day in the distant future a government will consolidate and update the allotment legislation which exists. There is a need for

433
that which successive governments have so far failed to meet.
The Bill before the House is a modest measure but it effects a number of important reforms. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides the means of closer contact between the local authority and allotment tenants. I should like to quote from an article in Garden News, dated 16th February, to show the sort of thing that could arise as a result of this contact. The article is written by a character called Jack the Carrot. He says:
"I think we are very fortunate in Islwyn Borough, where I live, to have a good working relationship with the council. Our allotment site is council owned, like many others in the area. And every three months of the year, we as an allotment group meet the council sub-committee to discuss our problems and needs regarding allotment activities".
I hope that the new Clause 1 will achieve something on those lines in many other areas.
In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, devolved management of allotment gardens is brought into the legislation. Here, considerable savings of manpower and cash could be effected by the local authorities making agreements with the allotment tenants' associations. In Clause 2, allotment gardening is given recreational status in legislation. Although this is generally accepted by the Government and some local authorities, it is necessary that it be given legislative effect and be confirmed by a decision in the High Court.
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, a standard for allotment gardens is set to be achieved in order to meet modern reasonable requirements. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, protection is given to land acquired by deed of gift of legacy. In Clause 1(2) the expression, "statutory allotment gardens", is defined in legislation for the first time; hitherto there has been no legal definition.
Those are some of the important provisions of this Bill. Other necessary provisions are made. During the various stages of the Bill I have made—I think the Government will concede this—maximum efforts to meet Government criticisms. I am not ungrateful for the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, because, although he pulled my leg at times, I have given his comments very serious consideration. This Bill is supported by allotment organisations, national and regional, and there are now no objections from local authority associations as all their points have been met.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I am grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House for their interest and support. I have found many keen gardeners in your Lordships' House, and, as the Bill passes to the dangerous waters of another place, I am not alone in asking the Government for at least a fair wind and some degree of patient tolerance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
5.46 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we live in hard times, both in the weather and in the economy. As your Lordships will know, it has been my constant theme, throughout the debates on this Bill and its
434
predecessor, not to do anything that might foster among local authorities a feeling of being got at by Parliament. I accept that during the passage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has fallen over backwards to lighten this burden. However, as he well knows, there are up and down the land councils which are unlikely to have the records in a form which the Allotments Society would be able to use under the proposals contained in this Bill. Nonetheless, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his co-operative attitude throughout our debates.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, first I should like to thank my noble friend for his persistence. I think that the Minister will agree that at each stage of the Bill my noble friend has listened very carefully to the legitimate queries that the Minister has advanced. The queries have been largely on the grounds of practicality. Each time the Minister has made a point my noble friend has sought to come back with an improvement or something to take it into account. Although the Minister is right to say that there will always be some authorities which legitimately will say it is difficult, I am heartened by the remarks of my noble friend, who indicates that at this stage it appears that the local authority associations, which of course cannot speak wholly for every single one of their members, are saying that what we are seeking to achieve is achievable.
At the end of the day, as with all legislation, there is an onus upon the local council to actually decide it is going to do something about a duty which is laid upon it; and that is where I think there is going to be some difficulty. I hope very much that the Minister will seek not to impede the Bill. As my noble friend has said, all he wants is the assurance that in another place it will be treated with the seriousness and, I believe, the good will that has been seen from your Lordships on all sides of this House. My noble friend has made it crystal clear that there is a need for this legislation. I believe that the benefits are real. I congratulate my noble friend on the valuable contribution that he has made for millions of people who rely upon some improved framework for their allotment work in the future.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
5.50 p.m.
Read a third time.
Viscount Colville of CulrossClause 2 [Resolution by trustees of old charity to alter objects]:
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Renton for pointing out this minor drafting matter. I think that, in accordance with the style of legislation these days, "shall"—in the two places with which the first two amendments deal—is

435
better than "must" and is an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power for certain charity trustees to transfer whole property to another charity]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Form of resolution by charity trustees under Section 2]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("donor") and insert ("founder of the charity").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when I accepted Lord Airedale's amendments to Clauses 2 and 3, I missed the consequential amendments that were necessary in the schedules. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 put the matter right.
Amendment No. 4: Page 11, line 22, leave out ("donor") and insert ("founder of the……… Charity").
I have to admit that when working through Schedule 2 one is required to he fairly nimble footed to see whether it is the transferor or the transferee charity that is being referred to at each point. But it is something that has to be dealt with anyway, and I am only slightly adding to the burden of those who will fill in the form. I think that there will be guidance on it and I do not think that too much difficulty will be experienced. This is a necessary consequential amendment as of course is Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Form of resolution by charity trustees under Section 3]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That this Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, having been slightly at odds with my noble friend and certain other Members of the Select Committee during previous stages of the Bill, I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I regard it as an excellent and useful Bill, and that I wish it well both here and in another place. I should like to congratulate and thank the Members of the Select Committee for all the work that they have done to make this Bill possible and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Colville on the skill, tenacity and at times cunning with which he has piloted this Bill through the House.
436
There is just one point of substance which I should like very briefly to make. When the Bill becomes law, as I hope and believe it will, it seems to me that its effectiveness will depend almost entirely on the extent to which the trustees of small charities, and of course the local authorities, are made aware of its contents. Obviously, the larger local authorities will become aware of it, and no doubt the Association of Parish Councils can tell the smaller ones. However, I do not think that many trustees of small local charities will become aware of the contents of this Bill just by reading the newspapers. In my view it will be essential that the Charity Commission, with what help the Government can give it, takes steps to try and circularise as many of the small charities as they can, and to make known to the trustees of the small charities not only the obligations which the Bill places upon them, but the opportunities which it opens up to them. If this can be done, I believe that the Bill will go a considerable way towards tidying up what has long been an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is without any doubt a pleasant occasion in that it enables many of us to pay some tributes. I entirely agree with the tributes that have been paid so generously by the noble Lord, Lord Maude. However, we owe him a debt of gratitude, too; we owe it also to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The Faithfull-Maude-Renton Bills are indeed the parents of the present legislation. It is pleasant to continue because in our wisdom we referred both Bills (with some parts of which some of us were dissatisfied) to the Select Committee. We are indebted to that committee for the work that it did and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his chairmanship of that committee. Lastly, we turn to the noble Viscount whose skill has already been described in apt terms by the noble Lord, Lord Maude. I cannot improve on that description. I, too, am an admirer of his subtlety—and I use that term in the nicest possible sense. It is the noble Viscount who has piloted this Bill through.
On Second Reading I dared to mention the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maude—namely, that one was worried about the fact that we might pass legisaltion in connection with small charities that by and large were beyond the ken of man, of local councils and of everybody else. Although legislation might seem extremely useful and we would have felt that we were doing our duty by enacting it, the real practical point—as the noble Lord has pointed out—is whether or not the trustees will know about the provisions of the Bill.
I know that the Charity Commissioners have in advance prepared a document dealing with the provisions of the Bill. However I feel—and I say this with the greatest respect—that not even a pamphlet of the Charity Commissioners is likely to have the right result. I say this expressly: in my view, the Government should take upon themselves the responsibility—it may well be in county papers rather than in the national press—to see that the provisions of this Bill are advertised and well known. I should have thought that if there were a suitable little poster to that effect, it would be extremely appropriate for it to appear in the local village church on the notice board

437
and in places of that kind, including town halls. I throw that out as a mere suggestion.
When a Bill of this importance, although it is a modest Bill, comes before us, I do not think it is entirely appropriate that one should make long speeches on the Motion That the Bill do now pass because we had our opportunity earlier. Nevertheless, there is one other matter which is allied to the point that was first made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Maude. It was touched upon in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The noble and learned Lord moved an amendment which was subsequently withdrawn for good reason. The noble and learned Lord referred to the report of the Select Committee and he quoted paragraph 49 which said:
"Of the 144,000 registered charities … only about 10,000 render accounts to the Commissioners".
The noble and learned Lord then said:
"The rest are dormant or obsolescent. About the others the committee gave a particular example of the position in Humberside. An investigation carried out between 1978 and 1979 found 120 inactive charities with balances of accumulated income of £ 107,000".
I omit some sentences from the quotation. He then continued:
"What is the machinery in the Bill to persuade those people to do their duty?"—[Official Report, 28/1/85; col. 530.]
6 p.m.
The noble and learned Lord then referred to Clause I and somehat plaintively asked whether it really was to be left to members of the public to find out that such charities are not fulfilling their duties or that the trustees are dead, and to report all this to the Charity Commissioners, and to ask what will be the practical effect of that. It is a matter that arises from the very point which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, was making.
I believe that the answer which was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was partially helpful when she indicated that the Government would monitor this Bill over the next few years to see how effective it proves. I am sure that when the noble Baroness made a statement of that kind, she did so well knowing that the machinery of monitoring will be substantial and that it will not just be a gesture, because I believe that we badly need this Bill to bite. As some of the aged among us know, unless one is supplied with teeth, the bite does not happen. Therefore, I hope that, if possible, the noble Baroness will be able to say in rather more detail what this monitoring process will be.
Having said that, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches but bearing in mind that this is a Private Bill, I wish the Bill good sailing and a happy and successful voyage.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refer to the "faithfull Lord Renton". I may have misheard him, but although I have always regarded myself in that light, this is the first time that it has ever been put on record in either House, and I am most grateful.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that I referred to
438
the Faithfull-Maude-Renton Bill. Most likely the noble Lord did not hear the name Maude in the middle of Faithfull and Renton. If the noble Lord wants a compliment from me, I shall say that I have always found him faithful to principles with which I personally do not agree but for which I have the greatest respect.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful for that correction. I think that one should pay tribute not only to my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, but also to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, because without their joint efforts I do not think we should be having this Third Reading tonight. I pay tribute, as I did earlier, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and in Lincoln's Inn we are indeed proud of his achievement on this occasion. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.
As the part-author of the 1960 Act and as this is the first major attempt to amend it, I should be grateful if your Lordships would bear with me while I make one or two comments which I hope will be found constructive about the implementation of the Bill, if and when it reaches the statute book, as I sincerely hope it will.
My noble friend Lord Maude has said that small charities should be informed. That is not an easy matter. I am sure that the Charity Commission will do its best; but the Community Councils Association, which was formerly called the Parish Councils Association, will perhaps be the best instrument for achieving this. As regards public information and information about charities, we also need to go a step further because great opportunities are given by Clause 3, which will enable moribund charities, which are really incapable of fulfilling their purposes because their resources are insufficient, to go to larger charities fulfilling similar purposes.
Therefore, as I ventured to mention on Second Reading, we need to ensure that the Charity Commission will publish information about those small charities so that Clause 3 can be used to devote all the resources of moribund charities to the benefit of living charities which are doing a good job. So a further administrative step is needed to turn this Bill into a reality.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to say how pleased we are with the progress that has been made on this Bill in your Lordships' House, and of course I should like to add my words of gratitude, which have already been very well expressed by everybody, to the Select Committee which was so ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, whose work has resulted in this Bill. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Colville who has taken forward the work of the committee. We admire the "flair"—which I think is a new word—with which he has guided the Bill through this House and the clarity of his explanations on the finer points. It was particularly agreeable to listen to the typically generous remarks of my noble friend Lord Maude, and also to the interesting remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton.
Your Lordships will be interested to know that the Government are already aware of interest being shown

439
in the provisions of the Bill by trustees. The Bill is biting already. I understand from the Charity Commissioners that there has been an encouraging level of interest in its provisions and I think we can be reassured that, if it is successful, the Bill will be a most useful reform.
The Bill will open the way forward for a number of trustees of local or small charities which are having difficulties in putting their funds to a sensible and an up-to-date use. I agree with my noble friend Lord Maude that the Bill's success will depend on how far trustees become acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be looking at the most effective ways of giving publicity to the Bill and its provisions, including posters. Therefore, there is nothing left for me to say except that I am happy to support the Third Reading of this Bill and to wish it a safe passage from now on.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, to some extent your Lordships have taken most of the speech out of my mouth but it would be only proper for me to make two or three remarks. The Members of the Select Committee have stayed very much in touch with each other during the parliamentary process of the Bill through this House. Indeed, a number of them are here this evening. I believe that we all recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—that, had it not been for the original initiatives of my trio of noble friends, all of whom are here tonight, we should never have made this progress at all. They kept at it, and although there were points of disagreement we now seem to have reached a conclusion with which nearly everyone is happy. That is a very remarkable achievement and it is really due to them in the first place. I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to them for what they did.
I agree with every word that has been said about the need for publicity and I am delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Trumpington say what the Home Office will do. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is quite right that the Charity Commission has already prepared a leaflet. I am not sure that it has not actually started circulating it—I hope that that is not a premature step—but at any rate it is ready and it can be issued as and when the Bill succeeds—if it does—in another place.
However, there is one other point worth making and it concerns the remarks that were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just resurrected. Others have spoken about dormant charities or charities with very elderly trustees. The Select Committee was given some examples of charities with very ancient trustees who felt that the job was no longer something that they could undertake. In those particular instances they had sought the help of one of the larger national charities which had taken the small fund under is wing and had gone through the process under the 1960 Act with success.
With this new Bill there will be much more incentive to do something like that and it will not necessarily depend on the initiative of one of the larger charities. Let us suppose that an elderly charity trustee
440
feels that the matter is too much for him and that the objects of his charity are out of date. It will now become very much easier for him to do something about it. It will be much easier if you can find the trustees, or for charity trusts which have been dormant to be put into quick good order by the appointment of new trustees, who can then use the provisions of either Clause 2 or, particularly. Clause 3, whereby their tenure of office may be very short but the charitable funds are brought back into circulation. That is the advantage of the simplicity of the two pieces of machinery now incorporated in the Bill.
It will not be a major, herculean task for those trustees to go through the whole question of cy-près, or the appointment of new objects, or anyhing like that, under the 1960 Act. The new machinery is quite simple. The combination of the publicity and the simpler procedures ought to be wholly beneficial. That having been said, I am delighted that there is this new interest about which my noble friend spoke.
I hope it will be agreed on all sides that this House has improved the Bill. I think the Members of the Select Committee are in no doubt that it has. What encourages me most of all are the remarks of my noble friend Lord Maude, to whom I add my gratitude for his most generous speech this evening. He could well have been disappointed at what happened last week. He is not. With characteristic good humour this evening he has now wished the Bill well, as a whole, on its way to another place. I thank those who have taken part in the proceedings on this Bill, I think on behalf of all members of the Select Committee. We hope that my honourable friend the Member for mid-Suffolk, to whom I propose to entrust it, will manage to steer it through another place so that we may see it back in due course.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill [H.L.]
6.12 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill.
This Bill is Mark III. Mark I was the Bill I introduced in the last Session and Mark II was the Bill that emerged from your Lordships' House, greatly amended, and was killed stone dead by the Government when it was introduced into another place by my honourable friend the Member for Thanet.
I present this Bill to your Lordships in the belief that it represents a realistic compromise between the interests of the arable farming industry and of the general public, on the other hand, who have for a decade or more suffered from the effects to health, convenience and amenity which the burning of straw and stubble imposes on those who live in the towns and villages of Great Britain in the country areas where arable farming is practised, or who go there for recreation. It will, I hope, help to prevent the damage to the environment and to the interests of conservation

441
which the practice of straw and stubble burning entails.
In drafting this Bill I have given a great deal of thought to the arguments and criticisms advanced in the debates we had in the last Session on my original Bill. I have seen the important experimental work being undertaken by ADAS under the guidance of Dr. Davies in Cambridge. I have had the advice of Mr. Benyon, of Leicester University, who has given a great deal of time to the study of the problem. Professor Cracknell, of the Carnegie Laboratory of Physics in Dundee University, has undertaken monitoring of the burning during the recent harvest by means of ultraviolet ray photography via satellite. I have been in touch with the National Farmers' Union. I know from my contacts with the Association of District Councils that, while they still want a total ban, they strongly support this Bill the Second Reading of which I am now moving.
I have also studied the very promising developments which have taken place in the methods of straw incorporation involving, for an increasing number of arable farmers, an appreciation of its advantages. I have noted the advances which have taken place in the industrial use of straw as a fuel and as a raw material. I have now, as well, a better appreciation of the transitional problems which face farmers owing to the differences of size and capitalisation of holdings of arable land and the vagaries of soil characteristics.
All this has convinced me that straw burning as at present practised in Great Britain is both a waste of a potentially valuable raw material and an intolerable public nuisance; it has also convinced me that within four years, if research and development at present being undertaken is maintained and accelerated, alternative agricultural and industrial uses for straw will be available, and that at the end of that time it should be banned; that after the ban the Ministry of Agriculture should nevertheless have power to license burning in special circumstances. I believe that any farmer licensed to burn should make a financial contribution to further research and development, and—of this I am quite certain—that the present by-laws and the NFU code, while helping to prevent a repetition last season of the disastrous experiences of 1983, are not effective.
A comprehensive survey after the 1984 harvest carried out by the Association of District Councils showed, first, that 138 authorities out of the 200-odd which had adopted the by-laws considered that the by-laws were inadequate. So far as I know, only one, Salisbury District Council, refused to adopt those by-laws, although it covers a substantial arable area. One hundred and six district councils said that a ban was the only way of dealing with the problem; 56 were, at the time of the survey, contemplating prosecutions against farmers who had broken the by-laws. Indeed, a photograph taken by the Carnegie Laboratory on the last Saturday in August showed 15 illegal straw fires in areas of Britain which were clear of cloud, and I suppose that there were double that number or even more in the other parts of the country which could not have been photographed.
Further, 143 authorities received complaints from the public, which included allegations of weekend
442
burnings and damage to trees and hedgerows. Your Lordships may have seen reports of one particular incident in Lincolnshire where there was widespread damage. The report of that incident in The Times reads as follows:
"On Monday winds fanned stubble fires throughout the county causing more than a dozen fires to get out of hand, destroying 74 acres of standing crops and more than five miles of hedges and banksides. Families were evacuated at Reepham, near Lincoln.
"Mr. Colin Brereton, the county's deputy fire-prevention officer, said yesterday: 'Even fires which were lit in accordance with the stubble-burning code got out of hand, but a number of others have been reported to the district councils, who decide whether to take action under local by-laws.' ".
All this took place despite the fact that the weather during the last season curtailed the burning, and it is estimated that 2,500 arable farmers undertook no burning during the harvest at all. The fact that a substantial number of farmers have given up burning, and that a majority have observed the by-laws and done their best to mitigate this public nuisance, shows that the industry is alive to the extent of the problem. Indeed, as your Lordships will remember, the deputy chairman of the NFU recognised in a speech last year that an eventual ban was inevitable.
But I suggest—this is the point made in my Bill—that time must be given for further research into incorporation, as Dr. Tinker of Rothamstead said at a recent NFU conference. There must be developments into alternative uses for straw and the production of the necessary machinery. We must recognise that in certain cases, even after four years (the time given in the Bill for that to take place) straw burning may still be justified in accordance with good agricultural practice, provided that it does not represent a hazard to the public interest. All this is reflected in the provisions of the Bill which I am now moving.
Clause 1 gives the Minister of Agriculture power to prohibit straw and stubble burning, after the straw has been removed, after 1st January 1989, unless a licence has been obtained. This gives four years before the ban comes into operation. It also allows the Minister to differentiate between the burning of straw and the underlying stubble and the stubble itself which, though undesirable from many points of view as the Lincolnshire incident shows, is a lesser hazard. I must confess that it has been brought to my notice that it has some classical precedent in that it is referred to in the Bible. The right reverend Prelates will know Isaiah 47.14 and Joel 2.5.
In Clause 1(2) I have followed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that any order should be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
In Clause 2 the Agriculture Minister, after 31st January 1989, may issue a licence to permit straw or stubble burning for the harvest period in any one year. When doing so he must take into account the special characteristics of the soil on the farm, the requirements of good agricultural practice and the location of the land. By "good agricultural practice" I have in mind the particular point that the extent of the arable acreage and the resources of a farm may not make it possible from a financial point of view to undertake investment in the additional specialist machinery which incorporation would need.

443
So far as the safety of the public and the public interest are concerned, your Lordships will see that the criteria that the Minister has to take into account are the location of the land in relation to housing, hospitals, highways, areas of natural beauty, public recreation and sites of special scientific interest and, in general terms, protection of the environment, the safety of the public, the safeguarding of property and the prevention of damage to health.
In Clause 3 the Minister may require the payment of a fee for the licence. This will mean that the cost of administering the Bill will not be a charge on the Exchequer. In addition there will be a fee of £5 for every hectare, which is about £2 per acre, which will be devoted to research and development into alternative agricultural and industrial uses for straw.
It is possible that by 1989 £5 will be too small a sum to exact for this purpose. At present it means that any farmer obtaining a licence to burn 250 hectares will pay, in addition to the licence, about £600. If the burning takes place over 100,000 hectares the money available for research provided by that would be over half a million or about 30 per cent. of the Government's present financial support for such research and development. Your Lordships may feel that the payment should be £10 or more per hectare rather than the present fee. I happily acknowledge that this idea came from a suggestion made by the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells in last year's debate.
Under Clause 4 no one convicted of an offence against the by-laws after the enactment of the Bill may be issued with a licence. This will eliminate the cowboys and irresponsible farmers. I understand that this, in principle, has the support of the NFU. It will be a powerful sanction during the next four years.
Clause 5 is the same as in last year's Bill. Again your Lordships may not feel that the penalties are sufficient in terms of the inflation over the next four years.
Clause 6 is again the same as in last year's Bill, but the definition of "straw" is extended to include the waste residue of oil seed rape and pea and barley crops. This addition has been made because the Home Office is at present preparing amendments to the model bylaws to include these crop residues.
I could have presented your Lordships with a mass of detail about the relevance of different types of soil to straw burning; the effect which the practice has on the environment; the damage and discomfort it has inflicted on neighbourhoods during the last harvest which have been reported to me; the outcome of the research that has been undertaken by Rothamstead, Letcombe and ADAS during the last 12 months; the developments which have taken place in the industrial use of straw; the availability of new machinery for incorporation, and a great deal more besides. But I will spare your Lordships all that. I am convinced that legislation to ban straw burning is certain within the next five years. It is in the public interest that this should be done. It is also in the interest of the arable farming industry that it should be done in such a way as to take full account of the problems and the interests of those whose livelihood depends on arable farming.
444
I believe that this Bill meets all these considerations. It is fair to the farmers; it will protect the public; it presents no administrative expense to the Government; it supports research and development and it penalises those who, irresponsibly, bring the farming industry into disrepute. I hope that I shall have a constructive response in this House from my noble friends who represent the farming industry and from the Minister who will later give us his comments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Alport.)
6.27 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the one thing we must do is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on what he has described as his Mark III effort. I had it down as Mark II: I had forgotten about Mark I. His persistence is to be admired, and also his persuasiveness, because he has done much research into everything that has happened since the last Bill. He has included what the councils have done, and the number of fines and the damage, including that unfortunate case in Lincolnshire. I am not sure where he obtained all his particulars about the number of farmers who have given up burning, but he made an interesting point there. There is no doubt that the noble Lord has persuaded himself, and is now doing his best to persuade us and everybody else, that a complete ban will be necessary in due course.
The noble Lord approached me earlier, when he put the Bill forward at First Reading, and said that he had given me almost everything I wanted, going by what I said in the Mark II debate last year, particularly on the licensing issue. I certainly put forward the idea of licensing, but I wanted to make it automatic: that someone was licensed to burn straw, and if that person went against the regulations and the by-laws the penalty would be a ban for a short time—perhaps for only a year, but the period could go up to a ban for life. That was my idea on Second Reading. I feel that his idea of making people apply for a licence, while still charging for it and adding to it a sum of up to £10 per hectare, must be a major job. He said that it would not cost the Ministry anything extra. I would doubt that very much. To carry out a licensing system of roughly, I would say, 100,000 cereal-growing farmers in this country would be a pretty big job in itself.
The noble Lord made the point in the Bill, and in his speech, about what could be done with straw. He said that he would require £5 or £10 per hectare (or whatever he managed to get hold of) for research. I think that the Minister will probably give us the figure, but I understand the Government are spending a very large sum of money at the present moment, and there is no lack of commercial research into all the uses that could be made of straw. So I do not think that that is really necessary. I, myself, along with my youngest son, who farms with me, have looked into what we might do if the noble Lord was successful and straw burning was banned. One thing we looked into was the case of making it into fuel that could be used in normal households, and not in big straw-burning boilers. The cost is very high. We bought a few bags of it to try in our wood-burning stove. Although it is very good and

445
this particular manufacturer mentioned that he could not meet the demand, against the same weight of wood there is no comparison whatever. It really is quite expensive, although it produces heat and a nice fire.
We all know that during the war an enormous amount of straw went into paper-making, but people do not like paper with straw-coloured bits and pieces through it. They want a nice, clear sheet of paper. Use for packing cases seems to be a good suggestion; and, of course, we and a lot of people are using treated straw for stock feed. So I do not think that the noble Lord can say that there is not enough research going on into the use of straw. I would remind him that some six million tonnes (as I think is the figure) of straw is burned every year; and it is a major job to get that into anything other than incorporation. Incorporation is all very well. There are arguments both ways. You have to put on more nitrogen to break it down. On strong land, the kind on which I farm, it is a very difficult job, particularly if it is a wet year. Also, there is some evidence—I do not know how accurate it is—that you can actually do harm if it is not properly incorporated over quite a few years.
The point that I should like to make is that since the noble Lord's last Bill we have had the by-laws which were created with the help of the NFU and everybody concerned, and I think that, on the whole, these bylaws have been fairly well obeyed. Admittedly, there have been cases where accidents occurred. But these were not necessarily created by the breaking of the by-laws. They were sometimes created by outside agencies altogether, having nothing to do with the actual burning of the straw.
I should like to criticise three points in the by-laws. One is the heaping of the straw, or what is done to carry out the by-law which says that you must remove straw 25 metres from any hedge, tree, telegraph pole and so on. The method usually used is to sweep the straw into heaps 25 metres away, and burn it. My experience has been that that has given more heat and burned the hedges or the trees or what-have-you worse than if you had burned it lying flat as it was combined. That is one point. I have had that confirmed by quite a few other farmers.
The other thing is this question of not burning at weekends or holidays. At harvest time we work a seven-day week. A lot of people work a seven-day week all the year round. We happen to be dairymen. During the harvest, we work a seven-day week and for very long hours. In my opinion, it is quite ridiculous that for over a period of a month, probably, there is a regulation that we cannot burn on a Saturday (or, for that matter, a Sunday) although the straw is then dry enough to burn. You could easily have a whole week wet, and it would be a very bad thing if that happened and a farmer could not burn on a Saturday.
After all, it is not a very big thing: two or three weekends in a whole year if straw burning were allowed instead of being prohibited.
There is another small point, and that is the phoning of everybody—your neighbours, the fire brigade and the district council. I had to phone several times, and I could hear the sigh at the end of the phone as we phoned the fire brigade in Harlow, who had probably had 20 to 30 phone calls inside an hour to say that
446
some people were going to be burning straw. My neighbour said to me, "Let's have a pact. Let's stop all this phoning and such-like". I think that may be exaggerating the matter, but I wanted to make these points on the by-laws.
I, personally, and we on this side of the House, take no great exception to the noble Lord's Bill, but we are not sure that it is going to do anything more than the by-laws are doing at the moment. Frankly, as a farmer, I do not see that we can stop straw burning as an agricultural process. The noble Lord made several points. There is the question of stubble sanitation. There are continuous cereal growers in much of the country, and we must look these days at stubble sanitation, which is very important. Straw burning is one of the things that helps sanitation to a tremendous extent.
As I say, we take no great exception to the Bill, but when it comes to Committee stage there will be some amendments that we shall put down on the question of licensing, and so on. Otherwise, I should not like to think that the noble Lord is correct in saying that he is certain that in five years' time there will be a complete ban on straw burning. He mentioned the fact that that would be of great benefit to various people, including farmers. That point I am not so sure about, if I may say so.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, brings these Bills before us—this is the third one—and puts his case with great eloquence. Many of your Lordships may feel that this particular model is not nearly so traumatic as far as farming is concerned as the previous ones. But I would suggest that, even if that may be so, that is no reason why it should ever become an Act because I think that it has a lot of undesirable features to it. I admit that there has been trouble this summer, again, much to my sorrow, but I think that it was very small compared to previous years. Once more we had a dry harvest; although, looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I know that in the eastern counties it was damp, because I passed that way at the end of harvest.
But I should like to point out to your Lordships that in every community of people, whoever they may be, there are always one or two people who put themselves beyond the pale, and farmers are no exception to that. I am quite certain that whether or not one uses a satellite, one will always be able to find people doing wrong at harvest time. This is a point to which I might return later, because I feel that the definition of "harvest time" must carry with it some difficulties in a Bill of this kind.
There is no real need to track over again all the reasons why farmers burn straw. They were covered very thoroughly a year ago, or even less than that. We discussed here the fact that the plant breeders had produced much better crops for us, which, combined with the skill of the farmers, carried to the grain plants a lot of corn but left on the ground a tremendous amount of straw, compared to previous years. We discussed the matter of cereal diseases and how these had to be combated. We discussed the business of saving fossil fuels and we discussed not least the fact

447
that it might be rather cumbersome to license this particular operation which, I submitted, anyway had become a part of agricultural husbandry.
The Bill now before us is much the same, and the arguments put forward in favour of burning, done extremely carefully, are as good now as they were a year ago. But I think there are two points of difference that we should look at. The first is—I have touched on it already—the attitude of farmers and the adoption, as the noble Lord has so rightly said, of the by-laws by a large number of councils, though not Salisbury. I have to admit that I farm two miles south of Salisbury, but it was nothing to do with me, and I can assure your Lordships that without the benefit of the by-laws we objected to not being allowed to burn on Sunday; people in Wiltshire have behaved impeccably well.
I believe that the whole attitude of farmers and the way that they have gone about this question, together with their awareness and their care have shown a very considerable improvement on previous years. It seems to me that the suggested guidelines—suggested by the Government and then adopted by councils—is a better way forward than this Bill would appear to me to be at the moment.
The second point of difference is, of course, the Bill itself. It represents a postponement, so far as I can see. Unfortunately, so far as I can also see, in essence nothing else much has changed at all. It contains roughly the same kinds of procedures and much the same kinds of penalties. So far as I am concerned, the authorities are still left with the same impossible judgments relating to all manner of matters, ranging from soil types to public health and atmospheric pollution. Short though it is, it appears to me as an impracticable Bill which I believe would be very, very difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture to administer fairly. There are too many things to be decided upon and there are too many imprecise statements in it.
There is another matter I should like to mention; it is the whole question of postponement. We are talking about this Bill being enacted in 1989, and here we are—not very late, but late enough—on a Monday evening on 18th February 1985. With the greatest respect, I think that we should be debating this Bill in 1988. I honestly believe that bringing these Bills forward one by one—because I imagine we shall be looking forward to the next mark and the next mark—represents a waste of parliamentary time and of the time of your Lordships.
I should like to finish by going briefly into the details of this Bill. I think that it would be very hard for the Minister to decide who should and who should not be licensed. I believe that the matters which are raised under subsection (2) would be even harder and would make it almost impossible to be fair; I refer to soil types and that kind of thing. It would lead to all kinds of conflicts. The cost of the licence—although the noble Lord would disagree with me—sounds very severe. Farming profit, or so it seems to me anyway, is probably going to descend by a percentage—about 12 or 15 per cent. As I said on the last occasion, this seems the wrong time to penalise the farmer. Let us hope that by 1989 things will be looking up again in the countryside, but we cannot be quite sure of that.
448
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has covered the research aspect very well. It is being researched; I think it is being researched by the Government, and also privately. I have myself put some money into an affair which is examining the relationship between a yet-to-be-invented baler and the Heston—I think it is called—a high-density baler, because the density of bales is very pertinent to this whole question and also to the transport aspect.
Perhaps the vaguest of all the matters in this Bill is that relating to the harvest period. This period surprises me. If any of your Lordships were present for the Food and Environment Protection Bill, you may remember that I was rapidly corrected by my noble friend Lord Belstead, when he was able to tell me that the Definitions Act 1978 considered water to be in fact land. I have a fairly mixed farm and my harvest period goes on the whole year round. I harvest milk, I harvest pigs, I harvest all kinds of things. It is a Committee point, perhaps, but to think of "the harvest period" is as awkward as thinking of straw. What is straw? That must be defined at some stage, perhaps in Committee, and we need to know whether potato haulms come into it or not, and so on.
I think I have spoken quite long enough. Your Lordships will know that I am against this Bill, because on the whole—and I am sure I am right here—I think it is unnecessary. It is very reasonable to expect further and steady improvement, as the noble Lord himself more or less said, in the behaviour of farmers over this difficult question—and difficult question it is—of straw burning. I think the Bill is impractical and has been brought before your Lordships at the wrong time. I do not know whether or not your Lordships are going to give it a Second Reading, but I must admit that I hope it does not reach the statute book.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not know whether I am right in the impression that the proceedings so far—perhaps it is pushing my luck a bit to say so—seem to be rather less inflammatory than they were at this time last year. We have had a very moderate speech from one farmer, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and a very full account of the reasons why another farmer, the noble Earl who has just sat down, would not like this Bill to have even a Second Reading. They have expressed their views in very reasonable and moderate terms.
I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that the Private Member's Bill, or the promoter of a Private Member's Bill, has, if I may use an agricultural metaphor, a very hard row to hoe. Very often he has to come back Session after Session before he succeeds. A very notable example was the Bill to enable a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, which Gilbert and Sullivan called "that annual blister". What I should like to say to the noble Earl is that the Bill was eventually enacted, and so I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, upon his persistence. I hope that this Bill, if not enacted this year, will be so next year.
Certainly I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has done a very great deal to improve the Bill and has taken on board most if not all of what I consider to be

449
the valid criticisms that were raised at the Committee and Report stages of his Bill last year. For myself, I still consider it right to legislate for a fixed date beyond which straw and stubble burning will be controlled and only exceptionally allowed under licence. This was the relevant recommendation of the Standing Commission on the Environment, which reported just about this time last year. It was a very authoritative body and, if a body of such distinction reports to that effect, it should carry very great weight with Parliament and with the Government.
I should like to give credit where credit is due. It would be churlish not to because I am quite sure that the farming community, in particular the cereal farmers, took a most responsible attitude during the last burning season. I know there were one or two exceptions—the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned one, in Lincolnshire, I think, and no doubt there were others—but there was nowhere near the same irresponsible burning as there has been in previous years. One might really have expected there to be more incidents than there when one considers what a long hot summer it was.
This improvement was to a large measure due to a realisation on the part of farmers that they must be good neighbours. There is a much greater feel of cooperation—dare I say almost friendliness?—between those who farm and those who care for the environment. Great credit must be given to the National Farmers' Union for drawing up its code on straw and stubble burning. I hope that the farmers themselves will take some comfort from the fact that their image, which was somewhat tarnished, is buffed up by their very good record last year. It is now rather brighter than it was in the view of the general public.
I have one or two detailed points on the Bill which I shall reserve for Committee stage. I shall not follow the example of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and detail them, except to say that I am slightly unhappy about the licensing under Clause 2 being carried out by central Government. I wonder whether it should not be done more locally, possibly by local authorities. Perhaps I have not read it correctly but it seems to be such a regional matter that it should be licensed in the regions and not centrally.
My major point concerns the amendment of the Highways Act 1980, the provisions of which are totally inadequate. I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for giving me in a Written Answer of 5th July last year details of what had been put in the NFU code. The code refers to the offences which may be committed under Sections 131(1) and 161(2) of the Highways Act 1980 and advises farmers to burn well away from public roads and not within 100 metres of a motorway or dual carriageway. That is more like it but I do not think that something of such importance should be dependent upon a code drawn up by the NFU and the observance of that code by farmers.
Clearly, if it was correct in 1980 to make provision under Sections 131 and 161 of the Highways Act, there is no doubt that, now there is a greater realisation of the danger to the public from burning close to highways, the Highways Act should be amended, and amended soon. I should have thought that, if the Bill
450
of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is to flourish, this would be a very good means of incorporating amendments to the Highways Act. Alternatively, if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is not to be kindly looked upon—I very much hope that that is not the case—there could be a separate Private Member's Bill in order to amend the Highways Act 1980.
I should like to say once again on this very narrow question of burning near highways that I give credit to the NFU because not only did it issue this guidance but that advice was featured by the Agricultural Training Board for use in training courses for farmers and farm workers on the safe burning of straw and stubble. The message is getting out, but to rely on a code and on the voluntary observance of the code is not good enough when the general public are put in danger, as they certainly have been when there has been very bad straw burning—not so much stubble burning—by highways.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord John-Mackie in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on his persistence. The noble Lord has two qualities: persistence and independence. Both have been recognised by the party of which he was previously a member. In fact one might say that they have been conceded to him in your Lordships' House—not that we notice any difference from the time before, but I thought he put a very formidable case indeed before us this afternoon.
I am, quite frankly, a little surprised at the catalogue of complaints that local authorities have received during the last harvest. My own observation in Surrey led me to believe that there had been an improvement, possibly because the guidelines against stubble burning over weekends seemed to be observed more fully than before. But this is a matter of public interest and concern, and the farming industry, like all other industries, must adjust itself to the wider well-being of the public at large.
The burning of stubble, especially at weekends, when many people are hoping to get some more peaceful enjoyment of the countryside, is a public nuisance and it really ought to be banned as a public nuisance. In some parts of the country stubble burning has to be added to the other nuisances—aircraft and motorways—which are growing in number as there are additions to the range of human experience and enjoyment. This matter must be looked at from that point of view first of all.
We have to ask ourselves why it is that this has become a nuisance. When I was young, I spent most of my boyhood in a very beautiful part of agricultural countryside in Leicestershire, in the Vale of Belvoir. I do not remember any burning of stubble in those days. It seems to me that stubble burning is a development of more modern cereal growing methods—probably due to the kind of machinery that is now used in cutting and harvesting. The farming industry should adjust its methods to overcome this particular problem.
Another reason why we are more conscious of stubble burning today than in the past is the large

451
increase in the acreage now under cereal crops. When we are sniffing the smoke and cleaning all the smuts off the tables in our houses, we are entitled to ask ourselves this question: what is all this in aid of? I heard some astonishing figures the other night to the effect that only one half of our cereal harvest last year was needed for home consumption, both for the baking industry and for animal feedstuffs. The rest was being taken over at intervention prices by the EEC; so more than half is being grown for storage. It may be grown to sell cheaply to Soviet Russia—what else may happen to it I really do not know. But far too much acreage is now apparently under cereals. Other cereals may take the place of wheat, oats and barley and there is a great deal of discussion concerning that matter at the present time.
I believe that a good deal of change will come about in the pattern of agriculture over the next five years, and that it will be likely to help rather than hinder the purpose of this Bill. As to what other crops could be grown is a matter for discussion and consideration. but they may not require quite the same treatment on the ground as is apparently needed, in the view of the farming industry, in the case of conventional cereal crops.
Be that as it may, this practice is one that we should prepare to get rid of. All concerned should make up their minds on the fact that the public and Parliament will not stand for this a great deal longer. It may be that agriculture will have to lower its self-esteem in the economics of the country. In some respects, agriculture has attained a position of eminence in our economic life which the next few years may diminish to some extent. So the purpose of this Bill is one that we should support.
In introducing Mark 3 of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has shown tolerance in meeting the criticisms which were levelled against his earlier versions. This Bill is so tolerant that it would be wise of the agricultural interests to grab it while it is going. As the years go by, the approach of Parliament and the public is likely to grow more severe.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I, too, bridle a little at the licensing provisions, but these are only a measure of the tolerance which the noble Lord has introduced into his Bill. I would hate to think that this could be the beginning of a straw and stubble burning licensing authority, or anything of that kind. The centralisation of licensing always has its dangers because one knows what bureaucracy does—it multiplies. It cannot escape from the institutional life of which bureaucracy becomes a part. There can be no informal treatment of the public. They are all entitled to the same considerations of their claims as anybody else. We have to bear in mind that all bureaucracy is the administration of the law, and that requires much greater care than any other kind of administration. I should hope that by 1989 the need for any degree of licensing will be very small.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he must remember (and I know and am taking into account his age) that when he was a boy living in the Vale of Belvoir, there was simply no grain
452
grown there at all. I remember an old huntsman telling me that he used to ride all the way from Lincoln to Belvoir Castle without crossing a ploughed field. Also, is my noble friend suggesting that we should cut down food production, irrespective of what is happening at the present moment, when 800 million people in the world are living below a decent level of nutrition?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, my Lords, I take all those points into consideration—but there is no clear indication at the present moment that surplus production in foodstuffs in some countries is reaching the third world of starving millions. The organisation of the world's food supply really needs brushing up. A fresh look needs to be taken at the organisation of the world's food in order to see how the world is going to be fed. There will be economic aspects attached to this; there seems to be no escape from that. That has to be so either at Government level or at private level, but money will enter into it—either in the form of taxation or in the form of profit on production.
Not even the Soviet Union has rid itself of economics yet. There will be impediments. I fear, in the way of the redistribution of food production; but let us see how that works out, too. A good deal may happen in many directions over the next five years. It will be very sad if something does not happen, for the world cannot go on as it is at the present time; something better must be done. However, I do not believe that this Bill will make any real difference to the level production of foodstuff production that we should be capable of achieving in the years to come. It is a question of technique, of machinery, and of plant genetics. All modern development and research can be brought to bear on this problem.
I hope that we shall support this Bill again today, and eventually give it further consideration, as may be necessary, and pass it in a suitable form before we have finished. That is needful. I do not know how many times one must go on doing this before someone takes better notice. Since the Government killed this Bill stone dead in another place last year, they cannot kill it any more dead in another place this year. I hope they will not try to do that. I hope that in another place interest will be taken in this Bill and that it will be given a fair wind there. It deserves that, and I feel that there will be a good deal of support for it. Once again, I support the Bill, and if the House is in a mood to divide, then I shall vote for it.
7.10 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, notwithstanding some of the objections which have been raised against this Bill, not least by the National Farmers' Union and the CLA, I am bound to say that, in principle, I find myself in support of this Mark III Bill. I say "in principle" because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has gone some way to undermine the whole principle and essence of this particular Bill, which is a requirement for licensing, as opposed to his previous Mark II Bill.
There are some rather obnoxious aspects in the Bill which I do not think many of your Lordships could accept. For instance, we have already dealt with an outright ban, but he kept referring to a ban in 1989. The business of asking farmers to pay £2 an acre for

453
straw that is burnt will be quite unacceptable to the farming community. There are other similar objections. To say that anyone who breaks or goes against the current model by-laws will be banned from having any form of licence in the future is terribly draconian. If we could put issues of that sort, which are Committee issues, on one side and look at the principle, which I believe to be a requirement to have this activity properly licensed, we may be able to view it in a slightly different frame of mind.
My noble friend Lord Belstead rightly pointed out on the previous occasion that we should try these model by-laws to see how they work, and so on. This we did, and I am delighted to feel (as I am sure everyone else is) that they are working and that they are seen to be working. That is absolutely splendid. I do not think that by-laws administered by local authorities is the right way to deal with the administration of the control of straw and stubble burning. To start with, the local authority is not the right department (for want of a better word) to deal with this. The Ministry of Agriculture should be the department to issue licences. Secondly, I am not sure that by-laws are good enough in this instance. There is a great deal of strong feeling about having straw and stubble burning banned altogether, as we have just heard. If we could be seen to be going some way towards meeting the understandable objections from the people whom one might call "the outright banners", it could take some of the wind out of their sails and take a little of the carpet from under their feet. If we could be seen to have a licensing system and have the matter more legally under control, I cannot see that it would be doing the farming community any harm and it would achieve very much the same objective as the model by-laws are achieving at present.
The system of licensing and the granting of a licence could incorporate all the provisions and the guidance given in the model by-laws as to how one should burn straw, when one can, when one cannot, and so on. In this respect, I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to allow the burning of straw and stubble at weekends and not just limit it to what one might commonly call the working week. During harvest time the working week, as far as I am aware, is virtually 24 hours a day for seven days a week. It is quite unreasonable to suggest that no burning should take place at weekends. I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead listened to what the noble Lord said, and perhaps we could have a look at it for next year's guidance on model by-laws.
My noble friend Lord Radnor was very concerned about how the licensing system would work, and raised every conceivable difficulty that he could think of because, I think, he is basically opposed to the principle of the Bill. I do not honestly see there should be any difficulty. At the moment we have a law which states you may not burn heather in this country, or in Scotland, outside certain dates. If you need to do so you apply to the local office of the Ministry of Agriculture for a licence to burn heather. I do this frequently, and I have never been turned down. I may have been asked the reasons why and have had to explain that, for example, it has been a very wet winter and it has
454
not been possible to get it done, and so on, and have been told to make sure that I tell the fire brigade and to make sure that I do certain things. It is all perfectly fair and correct, but one must have a licence. It presents no difficulty. One has to think about it. If you leave it to the last minute, that is obviously being rather careless; but if you ask in good time—say, a month ahead— there should be no bother.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I do not think I raised all manner of difficulties. I think the word I used was "cumbersome".
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, my noble friend is most probably perfectly right, but I am afraid I did not in fact hear the word "cumbersome". Any regulations can be cumbersome, and I could not agree with my noble friend more; but, as I said earlier, it is more desirable to have this legally licensed rather than under a by-law; that is my point.
I believe the Bill to be necessary for the reasons I have given. I think that the outright banners will win the day if we are not seen to be doing something to meet their objections. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the essence of this Bill is the principle of licensing, and nothing else. We all agree that control of some sort is required. The question is: how? Do we rely on model by-laws, as they are at the moment, and the local authorities, or do we have legislation organised by the Minister? I support the latter course, and, therefore, in principle I support the Bill.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I do not intend to restate yet again the case that farmers should be allowed to dispose of straw by burning. Your Lordships have been over that course too many times, and, at the risk of being out of order, the weight of this file on the subject, as your Lordships can see, bears testimony not only to the correspondence on it but also to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Alport.
The question I ask your Lordships—and it is the same question as that asked by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, but I put it slightly differently—is whether the Bill is necessary, whether it will serve any purpose other than perhaps engendering a little heat, or whether it will disrupt and harm the progress that has been made by the industry, helped by the Ministry of Agriculture, to improve the arrangements for the safe disposal of straw. That progress has been admitted by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I believe the Bill will hinder that self-evident progress, will waste your Lordships' time in repetition and will uncessarily inconvenience the ever-willing staff of your Lordships' House.
There is ample evidence that the present system of by-laws, drafted in line with the National Farmers' Union's code of practice, is working exceptionally well. That has been admitted on the Floor of the House this evening by, I believe, every noble Lord. It has been effectively enforced. Indeed, as a farmer I would say it has been viciously enforced by local authorities—contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said last year, as reported in column 247 of the

455
Official Report for 14th February 1984, when he said to me, referring to the code of practice:
"It cannot be enforced. The NFU have no powers to enforce it. It is simply something that is put on paper and sent out to farmers. They are asked to observe it and they do or do not, as the case may be".
The noble Lord should try saying that to some of those who have disobeyed the code this year. He would learn from them some very interesting agricultural language. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who brought up this question of enforcement, will also ask some of those who have broken the law and been before the courts.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I just interrupt my noble friend for one moment? Is he referring to the code, and, if so, what sanctions are in fact behind it, or is he referring to the by-laws? I should be interested to know whether the NFU in fact fines its members if they break the code or puts them in gaol. What does it do?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord would ask me that question. I think that he is splitting hairs. The code is put forward, and from that code the by-laws have been drawn up. It is the by-laws that enforce the code. Almost without exception—we have heard from my noble friend Lord Radnor about various small exceptions in Salisbury —in the arable growing areas the by-laws are virtually in line with the code.
So far as the details of the Bill are concerned, there are inevitably many flaws. Clause 4 appears to envisage both a licensing system and an existing bylaw. Clause 2 places an intolerable burden on the unfortunate official who is to decide who is and who is not to be given a licence—a point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Radnor. That would separate farming burners from non-farming burners. There is a parallel problem, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to come to Anglesey to see what has happened in the case of less-favoured areas, when one farmer is less favoured and the next one is not. It has put farmer against farmer. His licensing scheme could well do the same.
Sadly, I fear that the noble Lord was too busy last year to visit my straw-burning farm to see the problem, so I expect that he will be too busy to come to Anglesey to see a similar problem. In fairness to the noble Lord, why should he so inconvenience himself for me? He is not a farmer. In fact he stated that his straw-burning Bill last year was an excursion into agricultural politics. I hope that his concern for agriculture will extend and blossom. As an industry we have the odd problem which we should very much like to solve.
But one rule that the noble Lord seems to have ignored—and it is common to agriculture, industry and indeed war—is to reinforce success. The code of practice, backed by by-laws, has most certainly been a success. Why, in the name of heaven, change it when it is just getting off to a good start? The noble Lord has not shown me that he knows more than the Ministry of Agriculture or indeed the industry, who have
456
worked out the code, or that his licensing system is better. That is the question on the Bill. Is his idea better than ours and the ministry's?
It may be that the noble Lord feels that I have been unduly harsh about his Bill, and so I have to give him credit for reminding the industry—and I really mean this—of the seriousness of the problem; the industry knows it. We have learnt our lesson. I have even left my flock in the middle of lambing to come to tell him on the Floor of the House that I realise the seriousness of the problem. We shall continue to realise that and to improve the code and the other advances that we have made this year.
In the interests, I believe, of better and safer straw burning, of not wasting your Lordships' time and that of those who serve us here, of keeping the peace between farmer and farmer and of not increasing bureaucracy and indeed costs. I cannot, I am afraid, support the noble Lord's Bill.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Alport that I think that this Bill is more reasonable than the previous one. I congratulate him on the way that he has gone into this and on his better appreciation now of the difficulty that the industry is in. If licensing were to be brought in, I think that it would certainly be much better done by the Ministry of Agriculture.
May I say a word about my position in this? I farm; I rarely burn straw, luckily, but I understand the position of others who need to do so. I also have a lively appreciation of the need to maintain the quality of life in the country, and I do not like to see it unduly affected any more than does anybody else who is not connected with agriculture. But it is important to accept a reasonable balance, and I hope that I can represent that. If one lives in the country, one must within reason accept the sights, sounds of and smells of agriculture. That has always been the case.
Thus far we have decided to proceed by way of a code and by-laws. I am not convinced that it is necessary or right to superimpose a licensing system on top of that because it could well prove counterproductive. The ministry input for licensing might well be better spent on research into other disposal means. I think that the input into licensing would either be highly significant or else there would be virtually a total ban on straw burning. I am not sure whether one really feels that that is the right approach.
I think that we must be making a great deal of progress as it is. That is my experience. There has been no great trouble over this in the area of Sussex where I live. The straw-burning season was certainly considerably less intrusive than before. Many of the councils in Sussex have adopted by-laws. It is possible that my noble friend the Minister will be able to enlighten us about that. But I believe that it has gone very well. The code has—must one not admit?—made straw burning a pretty inconvenient and difficult exercise now. Quite apart from the code, there have always been the difficulties imposed by wind and weather, the presence of roads and of overhead cables from neighbouring houses, the Clean Air Act, and so on and so forth. All the indications point to these

457
restrictions having an increasing effect which will continue over the next few years, during which, I am quite sure, we shall see less straw being burnt.
I am quite sure that farmers would rather not burn straw if they can avoid it. There has been a notable interest in alternative means of disposal, be it incorporation, treatment for animal feed, or whatever. Wherever one goes—to agricultural shows and elsewhere—there has been much consideration of it. I have great confidence that British agriculture will prove very adaptable over this, as it has done over so many other matters. Despite the heavy pressure the industry is under, I am sure it will respond the best it can. I understand that there is considerable Government expenditure on straw-related research. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us a little information about this.
There are several smaller matters, relating to the Bill, about which I am not happy. I cannot see that we should have the same objections to stubble burning as we do to straw burning, because there is nothing like the volume concerned and it is the volume that produces the ash which I believe is one of the greater problems.
When I read the definitions in the Bill, I see that the licensing will give authority to the "owner or owners". I think the licence should definitely be issued to the occupier, because otherwise the liability may fall on the owner of the land and I do not think that that is appropriate.
However, I must say that I do believe that the present approach is best and I do not favour the Bill. After all, the code is always open to review. I do not think that one should impose an additional control system. I should have hoped that my noble friend Lord Alport would be satisfied with again having drawn the attention of the House to this matter and that he might not have felt it necessary to take the Bill further.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, to start with, in all honesty, I must declare a slight vested interest in this debate, in that my employer might be involved in machinery that would be ancillary to the disposal of straw. But, having said that, I can say that my particular specific employment with that firm is in a field that is not directly related. Therefore I feel that I can speak without any constraint in this debate.
I want to raise two specific points directly. The first is in terms of the efficient utilisation of resources. In the week when we have heard the very sad reports of a mother and her two children dying of cold in this capital city of ours, London, I think it is relevant that we use every opportunity, every occasion that we have, to investigate and promote alternative forms of energy from whatever source. We must recognise that to burn straw and stubble in the open fields is a complete waste of a resource that could effectively be utilised in a number of different ways.
I think a number of noble Lords speaking prior to me have identified the concept of using straw as an alternative fuel. In this day of modern technology, of biological advances, it is not too abstruse to think in terms of straw being a useful chemical resource. I just put that forward in the hope that some research may
458
have been done and we may hear of some research on that basis. However, even if we consider straw and stubble simply as a fuel resource, it is a very significant fuel resource.
The other particular aspect that I should like to raise is the aspect of equity, equality. We must all be aware that there are various by-laws or self-imposed restrictions by the farming community on the burning of straw and stubble. By the very fact of the different geographical location of farms and their relationships to motorways, hospitals or urban communities, that will involve a certain penalty on those farms that are located close to those, one might say, significant intrusions into the farming scene. I suggest that if we arrive at a situation where all stubble burning is banned except where there is a financial penalty that the farmer may incur to engage in stubble burning, that will be a positive advantage to the farming community, in that it will set them all on an equitable base: they will all have to desist from stubble burning.
I hope that the inclusion of a specific time for this Act to come into being—although no doubt in Committee this specific time will be argued over one way or the other—will give an incentive to those organisations which are engaged in the research, development and production of facilities to deal with the residue that is left, if straw and stubble is not burnt—dare I say it?—to the benefit of the community at large. I think that that aspect of the Bill here before us is very useful. In finishing, I indicate my support for this Bill and hope that we can give it Second Reading.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Wynford: My Lords, may I please say that I fully support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in what he says, and perhaps I may add just one or two remarks of my own. Is not the cart being put before the horse by this Bill? A date is selected for what amounts to complete prohibition, except under licence, on the burning of straw and stubble. That date is selected completely without reference to the alternative methods of disposing of the straw, including the method of incorporation, which no doubt will take its place.
What will happen about the public nuisance? The noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred to straw and stubble burning as a public nuisance. What of the public nuisance of huge numbers of lorries moving about our roads—roads large and small—with high loads of straw around which and over which the recreating public, who are driving behind, will not be able to see? What will happen when this situation arises at the very height of the holiday season? The mind boggles at this situation. I believe that the public will then become even more frustrated. I believe I can hear them crying out, "Why don't they burn it in situ and let us get on the roads?"
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, you will not be surprised to learn that I support the intention behind Lord Alport's Bill, as I have supported his earlier efforts. It is questionable as to how much of the improvement which took place last year—and there was an improvement—was due to the weather (becaue the

459
conditions of last year were considerably better from the straw burning point of view than they were in 1983), and how much of the improvement was due to a fear of legislation, because there was so much publicity given and so many sabres were rattled during the autumn of 1983 that I think people were very much more careful in obeying the by-laws.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that had the code remained a code and not been turned into by-laws, I suspect that we would not have had, even with the better weather, such a good summer in 1984. A good summer is a relative term. There were still, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport said, a considerable number of difficulties caused up and down the country. I shall not go through all the figures again but I have the same ones. I checked with my own authority this morning to make sure that I was right. They said, "We had a good year. We only had 35 or so serious complaints". If that is a good year, think what it is like, my Lords, in a bad one!
My noble friend Lord John-Mackie said that you cannot stop burning as an agricultural process. Indeed, up to now, we have not been able to do so. I learnt only today that it existed in mediaeval times when it was known as swealing. So it has been with us for a very long time but not on the scale that we now endure. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that 1988 would be a more appropriate time to bring forward the Bill if we want action in 1989. With the greatest respect, we have to give very much more notice of intention to bring in this kind of control. The time period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is just about right.
The legislation to be created by the Minister is correct but I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and, I think it was, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the licence should come from the local authority. They know their area. They know the characteristics of the farms in their area. They even know the characteristics of the farmers. In fact, there is scarcely a local authority that could not provide a good guess list of which farmers would keep their licences and which would not.
The solution, finally, will only emerge when we find a real alternative use for straw. That is something we have not yet done. I have the excellent report from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with which I am sure all noble Lords are familiar, which was issued last July. It is an excellent document and very objective. It seemed to me, in wading through the very difficult sums, that the most significant and the most optimistic exercise from the point of view of research would be the creation of a papermaking mill in this country to make paper from straw. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie said that the quality of paper made from straw pulp was unacceptable. However, that was duing war time. There are now much better ways of doing it. I should like to quote briefly from the report which states:
"It must be stressed that the foreign experience is that straw produces a very acceptable pulp for papermaking which compares favourably with wood pulps".
I shall not continue at great length because it is rather boring for noble Lords to have it read to them. However, later in the report, one discovers that of 6·7
460
million tonnes of paper consumed in a year, we produced 3·2 million tonnes at home When one considers that we had to import over 3 million tonnes of pulp or wood, one sees that there is a real market for the paper. When one also considers that in order to achieve that pulp, forests have had to a be felled, which is against all the wishes of most conservationists I know, there seems an added incentive to pursuing the idea of paper pulp as an alternative means.
The scheme, according to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would put farmer against farmer, as other legislation has done. But the licences are only lost, or gained, if it is viewed that way round, by good practices. We want to see good practices by all farmers. Surely, that is within the reach of all farmers. I am happy to say that this very afternoon I held up the farming community, in the context of another Bill, as an example of how a money making organisation could learn to live with the requirements of good environmental practice and the needs of the community. The farming community has gone a long way along this road—to an extent that would have been unbelievable only a few years ago. I am sure that, in the matter of straw burning, they will be able to take whatever steps are necessary to reach the right point, given time.
In the meantime, we have to keep up the pressure. If we sit back and do not do anything, everyone will forget again, the by-laws will lose their force and the code of practice will come to naught. It is only by measures such as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has suggested that we can keep the issue before the public and keep it particularly before the farming community. I hope that the Bill will be taken through all its stages and that it can eventually become law.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask why she feels that there could be a paper mill to make paper out of straw when practically all the paper mills that make paper out of wood have closed in this part of the world? We are sending our timber to Norway to have it repatriated as pulp to cash in on the cheap hydro-electric power. Her proposal does not seem realistic to me.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I was quoting from the report which undoubtedly expressed our need for paper pulp. The Government are looking for ways of creating what they call real jobs. This seems an excellent way of doing so. It seems to me that investment in this kind of industry would be good for the country in many ways, in creating jobs and in service to the farming community which would help it to overcome this difficulty. I believe that it is possible.
7.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this Bill takes a different approach from the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, a year ago, but I have to say that it raises new problems. Before adding the Government's voice to what your Lordships have been saying in this short debate, may I remind the House of what the Government have tried to do since we debated the noble Lord's previous Bill a year ago? The

461
summer of 1983 was, of course, an exceptional one. The very dry weather and high winds made for difficult burning conditions. We received many justifiable complaints. That was a source of real concern. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture was determined that such a situation should not recur in 1984. We felt that stricter local authority by-laws offered the best prospect of achieving good controls in time for the 1984 harvest. Those new model by-laws were issued in March last year. The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, gave an account of the number of local authorities which had adopted the by-laws; but, basically, they were adopted in most of the areas in which cereals are grown.
To minimise inconvenience to the public, the new by-laws introduced a ban on burning straw or stubble at weekends and on bank holidays—a matter that has been discussed this evening and which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned as though a ban did not exist in the by-laws, whereas it does. The area that can be burnt at one time was also restricted both for reasons of safety and to minimise the problem of smuts being carried up into the air on thermal currents created by the heat. Ash is not allowed to be left lying on the surface of a field for more than 36 hours. The requirements for fire-breaks were considerably strengthened, as were the requirements about the supervision of burning operations. The maximum penalty was increased, as your Lordships will remember, to £2,000 under the inflation-proofing arrangements of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
All these changes were intended to provide greater protection not only for people but also for the environment in general. In addition, we put a great deal of effort into publicising the need to observe the by-laws by using press, media and television to the full, by sending advice direct to farmers, and by using agricultural shows and other events to get across a slogan which was coined—namely, Burn Straw and Nothing More. The National Farmers' Union also produced an excellent new version of its straw and stubble burning code, with advice about good burning practice and a summary of the by-laws. A copy of that went to every cereal grower in England and Wales.
The reason why I have ventured to catalogue those matters is that, as I think all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this evening have recognised, the result was a very considerable improvement in 1984 and a sharp fall in the number of complaints. I am not complacent about this. The Government recognise that weather conditions were very much better than in the year before. On the other hand, there was of course a record grain harvest, and the new by-laws must have had a very real impact in dealing with the very heavy quantities of straw which were produced.
There is still room for improvement; I should be the first to say that on behalf of the Government. We are now looking at whether additional measures are needed, particularly in regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about the heat generated by piling up straw along the edge of a fire-break, even though it is within the field and as much as 25 yards away from particularly vulnerable objects, which was one of the improvements the bylaws brought in. We are also looking at the important point which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of
462
Brompton, raised about the great dangers when smoke crosses roads. Farmers cannot relax, I know, after a comparatively better year, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Radnor that there has been a great improvement. I believe this shows both that the industry is genuinely trying to set its own house in order and that the model by-laws can provide an effective means of control.
One of the messages we tried to get across last summer is that there are alternatives to burning, and farmers should use them whenever they can. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for recognising that a lot of research and development is going on. If my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton will forgive me, I shall not embark on any great explanation of this, even though he asked for some information, except to say that the publication which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was good enough to bring with her to the House today was produced by what was called a straw utilisation group, drawing together farmers, industrialists, researchers and representatives of Government departments, which tried to find solutions and produced that particular report.
We have found that in many cases we have got answers to the technical problems. I think the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was asking why, as there obviously are answers, they cannot be followed. The difficulty is the critical economic problems, particularly the problems arising from the very high costs of handling and transporting straw, which so often make the use of straw not competitive economically with other materials. Although certainly some progress is being made regarding alternative uses—indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that certainly some progress is being made with more incorporation—we are nonetheless left with 5 to 6 million tonnes of straw to be disposed of each year. Apart from everything else, it is a fire hazard in itself, and it really is far better to burn it under controlled conditions than to wait until there is an accident or someone sets it alight involuntarily.
This Bill gives an option of prohibiting straw and stubble burning at any time after 1st January 1989. It would also allow certain farmers—for example, those working with heavy soils, where incorporation would perhaps present problems—to continue burning through a licensing scheme. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has included a good deal of latitude in the Bill. I appreciate that there is no obligation to introduce a ban by a specified date. Nevertheless, without taking Committee points, I would say that there are considerable difficulties in this approach.
Is Clause 1 intended to allow a partial ban, for example, limited to certain geographical areas? Having listened to the noble Lord, I think it is. That would make for different standards in different parts of the country and it would face the Government of the day with a whole series of almost impossible decisions about what the practice ought to be in each individual district. Is Clause 2 intended to give the Government discretion to introduce a country-wide licensing scheme to control rather than ban burning? Again, having listened to the noble Lord's speech, I think that the answer is, yes. I would say only that if this Bill were

463
to become law, it certainly would need to put something in the place of the by-laws. I say that because the straw and stubble burning by-laws are made under Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972, which specifically precludes by-laws if provision for that purpose is or may be made under any other enactment. The legal advice I have received is that the by-laws would almost certainly become null and void in January 1989 if this Bill became law, even if Ministers did not feel that 1989 was the right time to bring in a ban.
However, annual licensing would impose an enormous administrative burden. This was a point made by my noble friends Lord Radnor and Lord Stanley; and I think with reason. We are talking of the possibility of about 25,000 licences being issued, as compared to only six licences which were issued for heather and grass burning last year. I think it is reasonable for my noble friend Lord Radnor to say that it would be cumbersome to have to reach all the various value judgments that the Bill would try to lay upon the licensing authority in deciding whether or not a licence should be granted.
I suggested that the by-laws had shown themselves to be effective and to be fair. Under this Bill, as it stands, only the owner could hold a licence or be prosecuted for an offence. I agree with my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton that this is something which would certainly have to be clarified. If I may say so, another point which would need to be attended to is that there is no procedure for review if someone is banned from applying for a licence. That is contained in the Bill, which says that if you are convicted under local by-laws then you would be banned from making such an application. I cannot immediately think of any other legislation which imposes that kind of penalty for an offence of that nature.
I hope that I have said enough to suggest that there would be some very real practical problems in proceeding with the Bill as it stands. The year 1984 was markedly better than 1983, and I hope that, with normal weather, this improvement will be maintained in 1985. The by-laws and the NFU code ought to be given a chance to do their job, whereas if we were to have this Bill I think that the farming community will wonder why their genuine efforts to improve the situation last year are to be rewarded in this way. If my noble friend Lord Alport will forgive me for saying so, I do not think this is the way to proceed. I hope that my noble friend will not proceed with the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, if I may intervene before the noble Lord sits down—
7.59 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and who have set out their views? I should like to thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Belstead, for the much more sympathetic way, if I may say so, in which he has treated this particular Bill than was the case with my earlier efforts—Mark I and Mark II—on the last occasion. I should like to thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who was absolutely right in
464
saying that part of the object—not the whole object, but part of the object—is to keep up the pressure. I have not the slightest doubt—and plenty of evidence has reached me—that the fact that your Lordships went through the whole process of debating the Bill last year was noted in the country districts of England and, no doubt, Scotland as well, and they realised that every effort had to be made to prevent some of the disasters that took place in 1983. I can assure your Lordships that it has not only been the code which has achieved this: it has also been the rather long and late periods that we have devoted to discussing this subject, which received much more publicity in the provincial press than they ever received in the London press.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that there would be an automatic licensing—or at least that is what he would like. Of course, after the granting of the first licence, unless the conditions change, the licence would presumably be issued without further difficulty each year—each harvest period—to the farmer who applied for it. If the ownership of the farm changed, then a new licence would have to be obtained by the new owner. The noble Lord said that he did not think it was necessary for the farming industry to make contributions to research because so much money was available anyhow. However, the noble Lord omitted one point. The public do count in matters of this type. What the public would like to see is the agricultural industry paying and providing funds themselves for research rather than relying entirely upon the Exchequer and the general taxpayer to provide the money for research into new methods of disposing of straw or using it industrially.
My noble friend Lord Radnor comes from Salisbury. Perhaps he does not know, but I can tell him that the reason why the Salisbury District Council did not adopt the by-laws was that the majority of the members of the Salisbury District Council are farmers or members of farmers' families, and they voted against doing so. So perhaps if there were a change of complexion of the district council it might not be one of the very few district councils in agricultural areas that did not adopt the by-laws. I can assure my noble friend—because I have made special investigations into this matter—that through the Agricultural Development Advisory Service and the Grain Council there would be no difficulty in being able to inform the Ministry of Agriculture of the differing character of the soils in which the farmers are growing their crops when the application is made. It really is not a great administrative problem.
My noble friend the Minister said that at present licences are issued by the Ministry for other things. I am quite certain that there would be no great bureaucratic problems involved if licences were issued for straw and stubble burning. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose support I willingly acknowledge once again and for which I am very grateful, talked about the surplus of grain. This is one of the problems, one of the paradoxes of the present situation. There has been tremendous success, but what is the result of the last harvest? I may have the figures wrong, but I thought I saw on the television the night before last that the cost of storing the surplus grain produced in the last harvest was £300 million. If that figure is right, then certainly the cost is very great.

465
Our problem is that we are increasing the production of grain at a time when we cannot use it, and we are doing so in a way which at the same time—as I have tried to make clear in my remarks to your Lordships—is causing a substantial public nuisance.
There have been many other matters raised but I do not want to keep your Lordships too long. However, I must make a suggestion to my noble friends on this side of the House in particular who have spoken for the arable interest. Perhaps I may mention that I have also received the whip from the National Farmers' Union and it seems to me that the whips of the National Farmers' Union are responded to with greater alacrity than sometimes the Whips provided by my noble friends in this House.
However, I must say to my noble friends that they must look at themselves in the mirror of public opinion. Many years ago public antagonism was directed at the "beer barons" who used their influence to safeguard and promote the financial interests of the industry in which they were engaged. Today the talk is about "grain barons"—the arable farmers who by straw burning create a major public nuisance, who allegedly oppose efforts to prevent that nuisance, who are intent on their own financial interests and who pursue them regardless of the health, convenience and safety of the public. The National Farmers' Union realises the dangers which increasing public anger at certain aspects of modern agricultural methods has aroused among the general public. Yesterday in the Sunday Times, the agricultural correspondent, Mr. Moore, wrote as follows:
"The union has become alarmed that, in the past few years, public interest in farming has focused on the grants and subsidies farmers receive, as well as issues like stubble-burning, hedgerow scrubbing and even defiance of the law … To counter this unfavourable image, the union is to launch a publicity campaign, and may also use billboard and television advertising on specific issues".
Support for this Bill—admitted even by the National Farmers' Union to be a great improvement on my Mark I and Mark II—would be a better indication of the industry's determination to acquire public understanding and esteem than all the clever and expensive copy and design of some advertising agency. For instance, a lady wrote to me after the last harvest to say that she had nursed her dying husband through the sweltering weeks of the last harvest period when he was desperately in need of the comfort of fresh air. She wrote:
"My husband's bed was downstairs, near the French door, which mostly had to be wide open as it was so very hot. It certainly was most distressing to find my husband and all the bedclothes again and again covered in sooty 'bits', some quite large. Somebody was stubble burning again!
"How do you clean a patient, who is in the most dreadful pain and cannot move on his own, and all the bedclothes, perhaps more than once as day, without causing him further distress, pain and discomfort? Once I even tried to 'hoover' him clean.".
Your Lordships may say that that is one small incident, but that is the type of problem which this is producing for countless people—not perhaps in such dramatic and sad circumstances—in villages and homes all over the country. The farming industry must understand this. If they do not understand it, then I can assure them that, although my efforts may always be frustrated and defeated, in due course the practice of straw and stubble burning will be banned, and in that banning consideration will not be given, as I have
466
tried to do in my Bill, to the needs of the farming industry. In any event, the lady to whom I have referred will not be impressed by the most ingenious posters concocted by the National Farmers' Union. Despite the code and the by-laws, I had a sheaf of letters from all over the country after the 1984 harvest asking me to continue my efforts.
This is not a waste of your Lordships' time. In this particular case your Lordships are giving time to something which is of great importance to many people. If my noble friends defeat the Second Reading of this Bill or, for example, at the Committee stage attempt to emasculate it by amendment or by some procedural device (as happened last year) then, with your Lordships' permission, this Bill will be withdrawn and introduced into the other place. It will then be for the Government to decide to order their Whips to kill it by procedural means, thereby giving the impression that they are dancing to the tune piped by the National Farmers' Union. It will also provide an interesting commentary, as far as concerns the people who have suffered year after year from the practice of straw-burning all over the country, on the sincerity of the attempts of the arable farming industry and the National Farmers' Union to put its house in order.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.