HL Deb 26 June 1985 vol 465 cc738-9

3.5 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

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 plans they have to extend the requirements of Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 to industries and authorities which are to be privatised, and whether they will seek to ensure that such bodies have specific duties to consider the needs of conservation in the future.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the Government naturally recognise the vital importance of conserving the countryside and we will give active consideration to this in our privatisation plans.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I must say that I am a little sorry that he cannot be more forthcoming. Does he not consider that an extension of Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which allows for the responsibility for conservation to pass on to a subsequent owner, might be used in this case? Will he consider whether this section of the Act should be used, or failing that will he agree to give every support to the United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development, which could tackle the problem in its own way?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, in privatisation each industry or firm is considered on its merits. For example, we recently went through the long exercise in this House of passing a Bill for the privatisation of British Telecom. In that Bill safeguards were made, having regard to the particular circumstances of that industry. I do not believe that the scattergun approach which the noble Baroness is suggesting would be appropriate to what are very differing circumstances.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is quite futile for the Government to impose more hard work upon themselves? All they have to do to stop any damage to the countryside or to industry, and therefore to our economy, is to have a hard look at the absurdity of their privatisation plans and abandon them.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I do not think that Governments have been spectacularly good in recent years at running industries.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the particular concern that has been expressed about the possible plans to privatise the water industry? Will he agree that in that area particular safeguards will be needed to safeguard the countryside and wildlife?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, there are in force already particular duties on water authorities, which we debated at some length during the course of the Water Bill through this House in 1983. In view of what I have already said about particular circumstances pertaining in different industries and firms, it would be premature to comment further at this stage on the detailed issues arising from what is a possible, but as yet by no means probable, privatisation of the water authorities.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister on this matter, but to refer to overall legislation as a scattergun approach is not terribly appropriate. We have general legislaton for the control of pollution. It seems entirely reasonable that we should have general legislation for taking care of conservation in newly privatised industries. Will the Minister not at least say that the Government will have a concern for this and will do their best to ensure that the concerns of conservation are pursued in any privatisation?

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, my Lords, and that is why I answered the original Question which the noble Baroness put down on the Order Paper in the way that I did. I said: we will give active consideration to this"— meaning conservation— in our privatisation plans".

Forward to