Lords Sitting of 12 June 1986

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation to attend the centenary celebrations of the British School at Athens on 20th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday 19th and Friday 20th June this year.

BBC and ITV: Anti-Competitive Practices
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, further to their Written Answer on 10th February (H.L. Debates cols. 89–91) concerning BBC and ITV: Anti-Competitive Practices, and the five suggestions put forward by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the arrangements for providing information about forthcoming programmes on BBC and IBA services, they will write again to the BBC and IBA to ascertain what progress has been made concerning the suggestion that both organisations should give further consideration to the advantages and possibility of introducing a system under which publishers would be licensed to publish (on payment of a reasonable fee) programme details for a week ahead in substantially the same form in which the details are supplied.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission concluded that the practices of the BBC and Independent Publications Limited did not operate against the public interest. In the absence of an adverse finding the Government have no further formal powers which they can use in this matter. We have, however, been in touch with the BBC and ITP in the past week to establish their present position. Both organisations have informed us that they continue to keep their practices under review, but that neither sees a requirement for change at the present time.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as I imagine that the Minister's reply is as disappointing to him as it is to me, may I ask him whether what he is really saying is that the Government do not feel that there is anything further they can do on this particular matter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is nothing further the Government can do. Parliament has laid down what steps the Government may take through the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate trading practices. In the event of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reaching an adverse finding, the Government have further powers which they can take to remedy the mischief. In the absence of an adverse finding, as in the present case, Parliament has given us no powers and I think it would be oppressive and improper if the Government were to attempt to put pressure on an independent organisation in these circumstances.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while I believe the Minister would wish to help, may I ask him whether he is aware that the House never thinks a great deal of the phrase "matters are being kept under review", because that never leads to any action? As it is not advisable to accept defeat when wishing to make progress, does he feel that the occasional Question to him on this matter in future might induce some action on the part of the authorities concerned?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly do my best to answer any Questions which the noble Baroness asks. I am sure that the broadcasters are aware of public feeling on this issue and I am quite certain that they will take note, as they always do, of what the noble Baroness says.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister say, either now or later, whether this matter has been considered in the context of the EC and in particular of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that information. I shall find out and let him know.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very much obliged.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that large numbers of listeners feel that something should be done about the noble Baroness's suggestion as soon as possible?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Baroness, I think both organisations are aware of the concern that has been expressed. It is a matter for them and there is nothing that the Government can do. Nevertheless, I am sure that they will note my noble friend's views as well.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is it not somewhat naïve to consult the IBA and the BBC in this matter when they are enjoying all the advantages of the monopoly? Is not an element of public interest involved?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course there is a question of public interest. It goes quite widely, as I think the noble Baroness has indicated. Nevertheless, it was right that we should ask them how they were getting on. That is what we have done.

Heathrow-Gatwick Helicopter Link
3.4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 is their estimate of the annual loss of revenue to British civil aviation arising directly and indirectly from the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to revoke the licence granted by the Civil Aviation Authority for the operation of a helicopter service between Heathrow and Gatwick Airports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority estimated that the annual loss to British Caledonian would be about £2 million to £3 million and to British civil aviation as a whole about £8 million. Actual losses depend upon the extent to which interlining passengers avoid London. The alternatives to the helicopter should prove acceptable to most people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very interesting reply. Is he aware that the former Secretary of State justified his decision to overrule the Civil Aviation Authority on the grounds that, with the opening of the M.25, there would now be a speedy means of communication between the two airports? Is my noble friend aware, as I sure the Secretary of State for Transport is aware, that that has not turned out to be the case and the M.25 is crowded, congested and full of traffic? In the light of that and of the very large figure of loss which this decision involves to an industry of great importance to this country, will not my noble friend and the new Secretary of State reconsider this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware of the traffic on the M.25. Traffic forecasts are being undertaken and a survey is being done which my right honourable friend will consider as soon as it is published.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have been given a figure of 80,000 passengers per annum using the helicopter link? Does he not agree that those 80,000 passengers will now be disgorged onto the already crowded motorway leading to the airport? Can he say why at the very least the Government did not allow the helicopter link to continue until the necessary road widening and the road motorway link were completed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the link was terminated under the terms set by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, which were considered right at the time. When the vital section of the M.25 opened four months later it was part of the condition of the licence that the link would be terminated; and so it was.
Lord Orr- Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that if this useful service is not re-examined and
386
re-established there will be increasing pressure for more and more operators to operate in and out of Heathrow instead of sharing the bases between Gatwick, Heathrow and a future third airport? Communication between London's airports is of paramount importance if the airlines are to be spread equally among the three.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very concerned that the links between Gatwick and Heathrow remain open. There is a very good bus service and alternative means of getting from one to the other. I hope that my noble friend will not forget the fact that a great many cancellations of the helicopter service were due to adverse weather conditions. That meant that people had to go by road in any case, and for part of the day, both from Gatwick to Heathrow and vice versa, some 100 commercial flights were arriving when no helicopter service was being provided.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Earl appreciate that, in view what I have been saying on the Airports Bill, I am the last person to dispose easily of environmental considerations? Nevertheless, I appreciate the value of a speedy link between Gatwick and Heathrow. Was it not the case that new routes and higher altitudes were proposed which would have reduced the environmental impact? In addition, did not the Secretary of State say when he made the decision that it might not be possible to maintain a surface route and that he would reconsider the matter if the need arose? How then will be the matter be carefully monitored so that the link could be re-established if necessary?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is absolutely right, in that new alternative routes were proposed. It was a very finely balanced judgment. There are very good arguments on both sides, but at the end of the day, as the noble Lord will know from our discussions on the Airports Bill, we take environmental factors very seriously. It was that aspect that tipped the scales in favour of the decision that was taken.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that withdrawal of the licence does not entail closure of the helicopter lane that is being used? It only involves reducing the amount of traffic by about one-fifth. That cannot make much difference to the amount of noise disturbance, which I understand was the main reason for the decision.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there were reasons other than the noise mentioned by my noble friend that had to be taken into account. The scheduled service has terminated. If the M.25 road link does not prove satisfactory in the future—and we will watch the situation—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he will examine the matter again.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, would it not be possible for the Government to make a very refreshing change by admitting that they were wrong and reversing their decision? Everybody would be so excited.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said before, there were very good arguments on both sides. Having examined the matter very carefully, and having considered all the representations, my right honourable friend came down in favour of the M.25 road link being the one that should be used for the time being.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question of my noble friend after declaring an interest as a former helicopter manufacturer and as holding an honorary position in that now well-known company. I support the points that have been made about noise, but is it not a fact that if air traffic control allowed the helicopters to fly higher, the noise problem would not exist? Secondly, I draw my noble friend's attention to this point. Is it not rather curious that a government who invest many millions of pounds in developing two helicopters of suitable commuter size should make it impossible for helicopters to provide commuter services in this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this Government do not stop helicopters from being used for commuter services, because each application for a commuter service is considered on its merits. I believe that my noble friend is right when he says that there would be less noise if the helicopters were permitted to fly higher, but that would have to take into account the other air traffic movements in the vicinity. As I have said before, there is more than noise to this question.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when answering an earlier question my noble friend said that there would be a further review of the forecast of traffic flow on the M.25. In view of the total inaccuracy of forecasts of traffic flow on the M.25, where will that get us? Furthermore, I assume that my noble friend is saying that it is possible that traffic volume on the M.25 will decrease and that therefore there will be no need for a helicopter service. Is my noble friend aware that I live halfway between Gatwick and Heathrow, three miles south of the M.25, and that at certain times it is actually impossible to get onto the M.25? It is intolerable, and therefore we should seriously think again about a helicopter route.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend misconstrued some of my words. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last month that he was commissioning a study to determine whether the problems could best be tackled by improving traffic management arrangements at junctions, remodelling junctions, widening parts of the motorway, or a combination of those options. We expect to receive the consultants' report later this month, and it will be considered urgently.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the complete unanimity of opinion from knowledgeable quarters throughout the House, among noble Lords of all parties, does the noble Earl not consider it essential that he should discuss this matter in detail with his right honourable friend and seek to explain to him the strength of feeling that exists in this House, and then return here with a statement affirming that the facility in question will be preserved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have discussed this matter at length with my right honourable friend, particularly in view of Questions that have been asked before, and I know full well the feelings that exist. I can only say that I will again talk to my right honourable friend. The decision was taken on finely balanced arguments both ways. The department received about 16,000 representations. They have all been looked into, and there were more representations opposed to the air link than there were for the air link. My right honourable friend the present Secretary of State is fully aware, as was his predecessor, of the views of this House on the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not the case that although the decision was taken on the basis of finely balance arguments, it now appears that one of the arguments against continuing the licence—that the M.25 would have an easy traffic flow—has turned out to be unsound? Is not that ground alone, apart from the general opinion of this House, sufficient cause for reconsidering the matter further?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the present situation concerning traffic on the M.25 was fully taken into account when the matter was examined by my right honourable friend.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the noble Earl say a little more about the other reasons that led to the decision that has been taken?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one of the other reasons was the visual intrusion of the helicopter. It was rather a large helicopter holding some 25 people, which is rather bigger than the normal helicopter one sees flying around.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is it not time that the Department of Transport woke up to the fact that every new motorway creates new traffic and that the forecasts are always wrong?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we realise that new motorways cause traffic. However, the planning system in this country leads one to the conclusion that it takes so long from the time that it is decided to construct a motorway or by-pass until it is completed—it takes well over 13 years—that there might be more in the argument my noble friend has produced than just the extra traffic generated by the motorway.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not a fact, as we have said many times from these Benches, that in the long term the problems will be solved only by the introduction of proper rail links between central London and Heathrow and between Heathrow and Gatwick? The roads solution has been shown to have failed, and the helicopter solution can be only a partial and temporary one. A proper rail link is absolutely essential to the major international airports in question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if British Rail bring forward a proposition for a rail link between the

389
two airports that can be justified on the normal basis, we will consider it with very great care.

Inflation: International Trends
3.18 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 has been the movements in the last year in consumer prices in West Germany, Japan, the United States of America, France and the United Kingdom, and what is their response to these movements.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, in the year to April 1986 the rate of inflation was minus 0·2 per cent. in West Germany, 0·9 per cent. in Japan, 1·6 per cent. in the United States of America, 2·7 per cent. in France, and 3 per cent. in the United Kingdom. The Government are gratified by the fall in inflation in the United Kingdom and are also pleased that inflation has fallen in other countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, why is it that, taking those major industrial countries, inflation in this country is higher than that of any of the other industrial countries mentioned, while at the same time the rate of unemployment is also higher?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is for a whole variety of reasons—though I often suspect that the noble Lord thinks that he knows the answer even before he asks his question on these particular occasions. We are now looking at a number of very complex matters, and relating unemployment directly to the current rate of inflation is something that I have been doing month after month after month, in drawing everyone's attention to the importance of moderating wage claims.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that in this country, in the past year or so, wage increases have considerably exceeded the rate of inflation? Do not the trade unions have a constructive part to play in helping to restrain wage increases and therefore limit our costs of production?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that if we look at the tax and price index it would be necessary to receive a wage increase of 1·2 per cent. to maintain one's standard of living. Nevertheless, within manufacturing industry the increase was 7½ per cent. and that is probably the largest real increase for decades. That is not good news for employment in the future.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does not the Secretary of State agree that probably one of the most hopeful ways of dealing with the problem is a full development of the Chancellor's ideas—which were of course other people's ideas, too—on increasing the profit-sharing element in the return to labour?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, may I say to the noble Baroness that I completely agree with her. I hope very much that the whole idea of profit sharing will commend itself to both sides of industry so that we can see a more fruitful way forward to bringing back manufacturing profits to this country.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, in relation to the reduction in inflation in the manufacturing countries mentioned in the Question, how far that is due to the fall in oil prices and raw materials?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is an interesting position. In 1984, unit labour costs in manufacturing were running at 2½ per cent. increase. Material and fuels purchased by manufacturing industry were running at 8½ per cent. increase and output prices went up by 5½ per cent. This year, materials and fuels purchased by manufacturing industry are running at minus 11 per cent. However, unit labour costs are increasing by 4½ per cent. Putting the two together, output prices are going up by 4 per cent. If unit labour costs could have been contained we might have seen output prices showing little or no growth and be in a similar position to that of our competitors.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree with the comments of Mr. Lamfalussy, the chairman of the Bank for International Settlements, that the generalised fall in the inflation rate of the major industrial countries has been largely due to the very sharp fall in commodity prices, including oil? Does he further agree that this fall has had a severe impact on the national income of commodity exporting countries? Does not the noble Lord recognise that Australia falls into the latter catogory and that it is a tax on the Australian Labour Government, who have been a consistent friend of this country over the years? To say otherwise does neither the Secretary of State nor his Government any credit.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think I accept the tenor of the noble Lord's remarks. Of course, in my comments on the Australian Labour Government I did no more than repeat the words of the Finance Minister of that Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord is constantly telling us about the success of the British Government's economic policies, but why is it that compared to all our major industrial and manufacturing competitors inflation has risen faster here and is at a higher rate than that of any of our competitors while—and I have asked him this before—the unemployment rate is also higher than that of any of our competitors? How do the Government's economic policies deal with this issue of competition from our major competitor nations?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord has brought into one supplementary question inflation, unemployment and competition. Perhaps I may at least answer part of that question by saying that, compared with OECD countries as a whole, today we have a narrow gap of 0.4 per cent. which is

391
narrower than it has been for many years, and particularly during the period 1974–79 when the gap was 6·1 percentage points.
So far as unemployment is concerned, on occasion I point out in your Lordships' House that Germany has seen unemployment rise by over 80 per cent. in the past three years; France and the United Kingdom have seen it rise by 35 per cent. and 37 per cent., and other European countries are midway between the two.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does not the Secretary of State agree that, since he has now admitted that the problems in Australia are in no small part due to the fall in commodity prices, it is not accurate to say, as he has done on a number of occasions, that those problems arose from the fact that Australia was investing in the infrastructure?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I did no more than repeat the words of the Finance Minister, who said that the current economic policy has to stop if Australia is not to turn itself into a banana republic. I do not know how much more I have to say about that except that Australia went in for infrastructure spending and today it has rising unemployment, balance of payments problems, soaring inflation, and a Finance Minister who at least is dissatisfied with the present state of Australia's economy. That is the lesson I wanted to draw from infrastructure investment.

Gruinard Island: Cost of Decontamination
3.25 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 is the estimated cost of decontaminating the island of Gruinard from the residues of anthrax used in experiments during World War II.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the cost of decontaminating Gruinard Island is estimated at up to £500,000.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. If the island is to become available soon, after more than 40 years, and its future use is to be considered could it not provide the answer to a pressing current problem? Would it not be a perfect permanent site for the hippies who are now having great difficulty in finding one? There are no farmers or neighbours to be upset. Pop concerts could be continuous and the hippies are less likely than other people to be bothered by any remaining germs.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is our intention, once the island is safe, to offer the island back to the original owner from whom it was purchased in 1947. What he would say about the prospect of continuous pop concerts, I am not sure.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if the owner agrees, how would they get there—by helicopter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, either that or swim.

Business
3.26 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lyell will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill and the Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1986 will be taken.

Blyth Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Horticultural Produce Bill
Lord Stanley of Alderley: 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 commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Bill
3.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): 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.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Provision of services and goods connected with agriculture and countryside]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was moved in another place and it took two-and-a-half hours to discuss it and reach a decision. I propose to speak for only a few minutes and to hear what the Minister has to say. We want to see whether we can extract from the

393
Government their actual plans. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made great play of new technologies, new pressures of overproduction, reduced margins, unprecedented change, new demands and changing needs. He then asked a lot of questions, and I admit that there were no instant answers.
Is the Minister going to tell us today that these matters are so difficult that the Government have no plans for dealing with them immediately? Clause 1 states that the Minister "may make provision for" the various proposals. Is there anything that the Government are doubtful about? Surely there are parts of Clause 1 which the Government are ready to put into operation immediately; or are they too busy making arrangements to carry out what is proposed in the last phrase of subsection (3), of which more in due course? I look forward to hearing that the Minister will accept the amendment and will let us have a little less of the enabling legislation that we have had so much of in the past. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to my Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. They are more or less the same. My amendment, as has been partly stated by the noble Lord, is to ensure a long-term future for ADAS. There is nothing worse or more liable to cause low morale than uncertainty. At the moment, in part due to this Bill being an enabling Bill, there is great uncertainty felt about the future of ADAS by both farmers and ministry staff. Indeed, rumours abound that in future there may be no service at all. My amendment—our amendment, rather—would remove that uncertainty by giving a firm undertaking that some service would be provided.
Amendment No. 7 takes into account that in future it may be necessary to change the role of ADAS. For instance, it is already being given duties regarding advice on conservation, and so as not to limit or restrict in any way the free movement of advice, my amendment allows the Minister to accept this. It also allows the Minister the right to refuse to accept duties involving advice that are plainly unnecessary. This was a point that was made forcefully by my noble friend Lord Belstead at Second Reading and I fully accept it.
Lord Walston: I should like to support the general principle of these amendments. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was absolutely right in what he said about the importance of maintaining morale in ADAS, or rather re-establishing it, as one unfortunately has to say, and about ensuring that there is a long-term future for that invaluable organisation. There can be no question but that the people who are at present engaged in giving this service, not only to farmers but to agriculture and the rural community as a whole, are suffering very much from a feeling of uncertainty as to their future. I accept entirely that the present Government intend to maintain ADAS. I hope that we can have an assurance that they will maintain ADAS at least in its present form, which has been considerably attenuated over the past years.
Both amendments will go quite a long way toward removing the uncertainty which now exists over the
394
future of ADAS. In no way do they run counter to the intentions of this Bill; in fact they do no more than put into statutory form what I believe is the intention of Her Majesty's Government. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to accept both amendments.
The Earl of Radnor: I, too, support the amendments. I think that it is very important at this stage to inject some certainty into the future of ADAS for the reasons that have already been given. This is needed not only to help morale, which I think everyone now knows is very low, but also, and perhaps even more importantly, because in fact ADAS has a very real future. I myself am quite sure of that, and perhaps it will be brought out later in the proceedings when we are discussing other parts of this Bill. Notwithstanding private consultancy firms and other advisory bodies of that nature, I think that at this stage we ought to put certainty into the future of ADAS, and I very much hope that my noble friend will see the importance of this.
The Earl of Onslow: I can feel rather sorry for my noble friend because on the Marshalled List he can see all the old hounds which harass him on agricultural matters when Bills of this sort come before Parliament. Their names always keep appearing—the Onslows, the Melchetts, the Buxtons. We could go on for ever really; and even the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, need not look quite so smug sitting on the Opposition Benches.
I should like to support this amendment for the following reasons. First, ADAS now appears to have become more important than it was before simply because, unless we can persuade them otherwise, the Government intend to introduce charges. That is the first reason. The second reason, which it seems to me is very important—and we must congratulate the Government very sincerely on this—is the introduction of Clause 12 which makes the Ministry of Agriculture seriously responsible for running the countryside as a whole rather than just as a food producing machine. Under those circumstances it seems to me that ADAS becomes even more important than it was. If that is allied to the fact that the Government will try—against certain of our better judgments; and we shall come to this matter later—to introduce charges, we shall then push the advice factor back on to the chemical firms, etc. It seems to me that this is why it is very important that the word "shall" should be inserted in place of the word "may".
Baroness White: I hesitate to intervene because by now the Minister must realise the feelings of the Committee from all quarters. I entirely follow the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. How do the Government think that they will carry out the obligations which they are accepting under Clause 12 without the help of a really efficient, well trained, alert, highly motivated and enthusiastic advisory service?
I usually listen to the radio in the mornings and I try to listen to the farming programme. I did so only the other day and I am sorry to say that it seems to me that Mr. Jopling has got stuck in a groove of a long playing record. All he can say is that a further 334 staff of ADAS are under notice or will shortly be under notice

395
of dismissal. Yet it was made perfectly clear on Second Reading that agricultural advice is more than ever necessary when agriculture is not on the up-and-up, as it has been for a number of years, but is in a state of considerable anxiety, apprehension and confusion. The NFU, the CLA and all the other organisations, have made it absolutely plain that they believe that even on the agricultural side ADAS is very necessary and desirable. It seems to most of us who have any concern about this matter that with these additional obligations under Clause 12, ADAS is essential.
There are other matters concerned with the difficulties over charges which we discussed at Second Reading and no doubt the Minister will enlighten us further as to how the Government propose to deal with that situation. But a positive affirmation now at the beginning of the Bill seems to me to be unavoidable.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Stanley. This is money well spent. A lot of money gets spent through Acts of Parliament, by ourselves and in other ways and very often we do not get as good a return as we ought. But if ever money is well spent it is spent on preventing disease and illness and improving the conditions under which our cattle, our sheep, and so on, are looked after. It would pay hand over fist to keep this service going. It will not keep going unless the people who work for it are certain that it is to continue and they and the next generation are trained for it. The Government would be most unwise if they did not agree to the amendment which is simply making clear what is a great success and continuing the success under the Bill.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that the Minister was under attack from all the people who usually attacked him on agricultural measures. But when we come to discuss the future of ADAS there is a significant difference. Concern about its future unites all who are interested in the British countryside. It unites farmers and landowners with environmentalists and conservationists and with many other interests. For instance, the water authorities (which I want to raise specifically on a later amendment) are extremely concerned about the dangers of the present state of ADAS and the contemplated cuts.
I wish to make two points. First, whatever the Government say today, whatever they have said in another place and whatever these Ministers say over the next few months, the Bill gives absolutely no commitment to ADAS continuing in any shape or form. Once the Bill is passed, ADAS could be brought to an end by any future Minister of Agriculture and any future Government. We all admire the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to many of these issues, but nothing that he can say today can change that one jot. That is the legal effect of the changes that the Bill introduces. It inevitably presages sooner or later the end of a state advisory service for agriculture. That is why I believe the Government are making the change that the Bill introduces. It is hard to see any other reason.
There have been massive cuts in ADAS over recent years. Four hundred clerical posts are to be lost by
396
April 1987 and I think 334 scientific and specialist jobs are to go by April 1987. Over 1,000 scientific and research jobs will be lost as a result of cuts in agricultural research. They are to go by April 1987.
This is my second point. There is no doubt that that has already had an absolutely catastrophic effect on the people who work for ADAS. It is a service that depends on the quality of its staff. Any advisory service is bound to depend on the quality of its staff, and the scientific back-up that it has, for example, by research funded by the AFRC. Both have been decimated. The Institute of Professional Civil Servants, which represents the staff of ADAS, makes no bones about that. It says that the morale of those working in ADAS is such that many now wish to leave as quickly as possible. On a purely anecdotal basis, having met a number of young, well-qualified and enthusiastic people over the past 12 months who work for ADAS, I find that the universal story they tell me is that they are getting out. They are either getting out next month to go into private consultancy or in the next few months. They believe that there is no future for them in ADAS. That is the effect that the Bill has already had.
The idea that ADAS will be in a position to take on new responsibilities, functions and wider remits to do with conservation is nonsense. It is disappearing down a tube of spiralling low morale, with cuts in services. The introduction of charges will simply hasten that spiralling decline. Nobody who works in ADAS—and I suspect that this applies even to Professor Bell, who is allegedly in charge, although the Treasury clearly is actually in charge—believes anything different. The service is going down the tube rapidly. Unless we have an amendment to the Bill such as that proposed by my noble friend, I see no future for ADAS at all.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Having heard from all round the Committee expressions of view on the importance of ADAS, I wonder whether I may now intervene. From the Benches opposite we heard criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, of how it is developing at the present time. The noble Lord says that the service is not developing; but I disagree, and I hope to explain why.
First of all, let me come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It would impose a duty on ADAS to provide advice and indeed goods and services to any person who asked for it on every subject falling within the broad range covered by the clause. Clause 1 represents a much wider range of activities than the existing area in which ADAS is presently required to provide advice. The basis of the law as it exists is that in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 there is a duty only to give technical advice and instruction on agricultural matters.
It is clear from the speeches that noble Lords have looked closely at the Bill, but if Members of the Committee care to glance once again at it you will find in Clause 1(1) something very different from just a duty to give technical advice and instruction. There is,

397
first, a commitment to provide goods and services (which of course includes advice) on:
"the production and marketing of agricultural produce and other food".
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Elliot will be pleased to see the word "marketing".
Secondly, there is a commitment for ADAS to be involved in:
"the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
That is an echo of the enormously important amendment that my noble friend Lord Sandford persuaded the Ministry of Agriculture to accept, and it did it with a light heart eventually. He was instrumental in getting that provision into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There were consultations between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture during the passage of the Bill.
Thirdly, paragraph (c) is a complete catchall:
"any other agricultural activity or other enterprise of benefit to the rural economy".
The difficulty that I have in replying to what has been said is that if we are to keep Clause 1(1)(c) in the Bill—and I hope that we shall—it is asking a lot of the Minister of Agriculture for his advisory service to have a duty to provide goods and services for:
"any other agricultural activity or other enterprise of benefit to the rural economy",
all at the same time.
Let us suppose, if that were to be a duty, that in a soft-fruit growing area the growers and their wives came to the Ministry in London and said: "We have looked at Clause 1(1)(c) and there is a duty on you to provide ADAS services for any other agricultural activity or other enterprise of benefit to the rural economy. We explained to your divisional office that we were starting a jam-making enterprise in the village, but we were told that they were sorry but there were no jam-making advisers in ADAS".
Let me give another example. This is something that I saw only a little while ago. Suppose that on a group of farms the farmers agreed to get together and funnel at least some of their vegetable production in a big vegetable growing area into a freezer plant to make use of the unused buildings on a particular farm. If they go to the divisional office of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and say "We want some advice on this"—in fact we could give advice—and at that moment the Ministry said. "We are sorry, but we cannot give you advice; we do not have a specialist at the moment", that would be a statutory breach by my right honourable friend because of Clause 1(1)(c). If we are to have Clause 1(1)(c) in the Bill, which goes infinitely wider than the law has ever gone before, I beg the Committee to think carefully before it lays that as a duty in the Bill on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Lord Walston; I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I go along with all that the noble Lord has said; but in the earlier part of his speech he said that Clause 1(1) lays a firm commitment on the Minister. I find it hard to reconcile a firm commitment with the words as printed, "The Minister may make" that does not seem to me to be a firm commitment. It seems that he
398
may if he so wishes, without any firm commitment. I fully accept that the present Minister and the noble Lord are firmly committed, but can he assure us that it will be a firm commitment on successive Ministers?
Lord Belstead: That is a fair point that the noble Lord, Lord Walston has made. It is the point around which the debate is turning. Although I realise that there is a difference between a duty and a power, we are I hope showing our, bona fides by not just putting down in Clause 1(1) what has been in the law until now. We are making it a power because we are trying to spread the remit of ADAS much wider than the law has spread it so far.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State said in Committee in another place that the clause was not an opting-out clause but an opting-in one. I thought that that was a happy phrase because by putting paragraphs (a) and (b) on to page 1 of the Bill and adding paragraph (c) we are showing that we mean ADAS to have a wider remit in the future than It has had before.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, sdot;said that he believes that people will not want a career in ADAS in the future. Last week, we had a week which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food called the Farming and Countryside Week of Events. It was highly publicised. It included a television programme at lunchtime on the previous Sunday in which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, took part, and which was a trailer for the coming week. Some 33 farms throughout the length and breadth of England, with a hill farming event in Wales, were devoted to open days to show that agricultural production and conservation can, truly go hand in hand.
If any Members of the Committee had the opportunity to visit any of those open events they would have found some members of the advisory service from the land and water service, the science service, the agriculture service and the veterinary service, although they are enormously busy in other ways. They were manning those events, ready to show people around and clearly proud of what they are doing.
I have tried to set out the difficulty as I see it with the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has put down. However, we have Amendment No. 2 tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, and with it goes Amendment No. 7. The effect of the amendments is to ensure that Ministers and their officials will be in regular contact with the farming industry if there were to be a change made or proposed—I am looking at Amendment No. 7—in the provision of goods or services to be supplied under Clause 1.
My noble friend was restrained when he moved his amendment. I am sure that he will not mind if I say that I think what lies behind the amendment is a feeling, which I have heard in the speeches already, that there may be changes made to ADAS. I have tried to dispel that feeling in what I have already said. The effect of the amendment would be that if there were to be changes, there should be consultations. I believe that is my noble friend's thinking.

399
I could not help but reflect, as I listened to my noble friend's brief introduction of the amendment, on the enormous amount of consultation we undertake whenever we take an initiative of any kind. I am talking for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but that applies to all the other territorial departments responsible for agriculture throughout the United Kingdom. The list is sometimes as long as one's arm.
The difficulty I see with the amendment is that Clause 1(1) is drawn so enormously wide. It includes not just producers but, as my noble friend recognised in his amendment, other people—those involved in the environment, especially from the point of view of access and conservation, people who might be in the consultancy profession in agriculture, or even people who are in the food industry. It would mean that the consultation which we should have to make, if we were to do what my noble friend Lord Stanley wants in Amendments Nos. 2 and 7, would be enormous.
Having listened to the debate and the expressions of view which have been made in the past half an hour, I must of course take these amendments seriously and I must try and make some response to my noble friend Lord Stanley. I could not possibly do it now. I am afraid that the Government amendments did not go down in very good time, but I am sure that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that I have not had a great deal of time to look at Amendments Nos. 2 and 7. It is only 48 hours since they appeared, and we had one or two other things on yesterday. It would help me a great deal if it were possible to look with care at what my noble friend is trying to do to see—I cannot give a commitment—whether I can make some move on the face of the Bill in the direction that my noble friend Lord Stanley is taking.
May I return to my original point on Amendment No. 1? There is a genuine difficulty about laying a duty in Clause 1 if the Committee wishes to retain clause 1(1)(c).
The noble Baroness, Lady White, said that she assumed that the Committee would be hearing more about the Government's concept of charging for the services of ADAS. Not much has so far been said in detail on that in another place. I want to say something to the Committee about the detail of the Government's proposals for ADAS charging. It could wait for an amendment or two, but if the Committee would prefer to hear it on this amendment, I could intervene again.
The Earl of Onslow: I have an amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, concerning charges. Would it be convenient to the Committee if we left the matter until then rather than to do it now?
Lord John-Mackie: We must thank the Minister for his reply and for the fact that he has been very much seized of the Committee's feelings on the subject. My amendment was perhaps a little abrupt. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, made his proposal rather better by attaching Amendment No. 7 to it. On Clause 1(1)(c) I had a note, "consultation point" because I realised that we were asking for a wide commitment from the Government. Unfortunately, I could not read my
400
writing when I was speaking and I had to miss out the point.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment after hearing the Minister's speech, which we all welcome, and the fact that he will look at what has been said in Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, subject to subsection (2A),").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This amendment also deals with the part of the Bill that we have been discussing. But rather than looking at paragraphs (a) and (c), upon which the previous debate concentrated, my amendment takes up the area covered by paragraph (b); namely, advice on conservation, amenity, access and so on. I should perhaps remind the Committee that ADAS was first placed under a statutory duty to provide, free of charge, advice on these issues as a result of an amendment carried in your Lordships' House (not entirely, I believe, with Government support at the time, although subsequently it had strong Government support in another place) to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 41 of that Act amended the 1944 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to make it a requirement that ADAS should give free advice on these issues—namely, conservation, enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and diversification into other enterprises that benefit the rural economy—and advice to government departments and other bodies exercising statutory functions on the promotion and furtherance of such diversification.
This was done as a result of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in your Lordships' House. It is fair to say that the amendment was very widely supported in your Lordships' House because of a strong feeling on two issues: first, that it was important that there should be an independent source of advice for people managing land, farmers and landowners about conservation issues and about diversification; and, secondly that ADAS was the right organisation to provide such advice. The objective that all of us had in mind in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he moved the amendment in 1981 was that this was a major way in which differences between, for example, conservation and agriculture could be reconciled effectively and successfully. The idea has a long and honourable pedigree. It was first recommended in the Strutt report many years ago.
Much to my surprise and, I hope, to the surprise of all your Lordships, the Agriculture Bill actually repeals this section of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It does so not entirely overtly, which is why, along with this amendment, I wish to speak to Amendment No.

401
80. Amendment No. 80 is an amendment to the third schedule. Your Lordships will find in Schedule 3, on page 28 of the Bill, a repeal listed to Section 41(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which provision appeared in that Act as a result of the decision taken by your Lordships on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
I must say, in passing, that I rather share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I am not sure that the best way forward, in looking at this part of the Bill, is to try to insist that the Government consult a very wide range of interests before making changes. It seems to me much more desirable that we divide out those bits of Clause 1 where we believe that ADAS should continue to provide a service and make those a duty on the Minister, and those areas where we think that there should be a discretion on Ministers as to whether advice and other services are provided in future. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in saying that paragraph (c) is one where there should be discretion about whether or not advice is offered in the future. I do not believe that such arguments apply to paragraph (a) or (b). In particular, in the context of my amendment, it definitely should not apply to paragraph (b).
Parliament decided in 1981 that there should be a duty on Ministers to provide the sort of advice through ADAS and on diversification that paragraph (b) and, to some extent, paragraph (c) would cover. I believe that Parliament was right in 1981. Everything that has happened since 1981 should have made us more convinced that the decision was right. It can hardly be said five years later that there is less of a need for advice on diversification in agriculture now than in 1981. The need is incomparably greater. It can hardly be said five years later that the need for advice to farmers on conservation and amenity is less than it was in 1981. With new measures coming from the European Commission and the possibility of environmentally sensitive areas, with which we shall be dealing later in the Bill, becoming a European-wide Community-funded programme, the idea that there is less need for advice in this area now than there was in 1981 is nonsensical. There is a much greater need and much greater importance attached to the matters covered in Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act now than there was in 1981. And, goodness knows, the need was pressing enough then!
I am suggesting in these narrow areas that we leave the law as it was when your Lordships approved it in 1981 and that we leave Section 41 of the 1981 Act unamended and unrepealed. This means that the Ministry of Agriculture would be under a duty to provide, free of charge, advice of the sort listed in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, very broadly on conservation and diversification. If it was right in 1981, it is doubly right today that we should do this. I hope that the amendment will have the support of noble Lords on all sides of the Committee and that it will not be open to the objection that the noble Lord has raised in respect of my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I have listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. The Government yield to no one in their view, which coincides with the noble Lord's, about the importance of giving first-class environmental advice—something, incidentally, I accept, that the advisory services benefit from as well as the recipients. I know perfectly well, having worked in the Ministry now for three years, how much one learns from going to see people and hearing what they have to say as well as how much clients, in the case of the advisory services, are learning from ADAS. It is fair to say that an enormous amount has gone on in recent years in relation to training in ADAS. There have been regional conferences at which speakers from many conservation and environmental agencies have been welcomed to address officers in the advisory services. I assert that the expertise of ADAS today, not only on agricultural production but also on environmental advice, is on the up and up.
However, the noble Lord presents a difficulty with this amendment for two reasons. I hope that the noble Lord will not mind my saying that it is, first, technically defective. This does not of course mean that the thrust of his argument cannot be fully debated. Obviously, if the amendment is technically defective the noble Lord will be able to put down a replacement. However, for the record, my advice in respect of Amendments Nos. 3 and 80 is that because Section 41(1) of theWildlife and Countryside Act 1981 relies on powers in Section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944, and as the latter will be repealed by this Bill, the effect of the amendment would be to remove Ministers' powers to provide advice on conservation altogether. That is, I know, something that the noble Lord does not intend in the amendment. With respect, therefore, the amendment is not technically quite correct.
I resist the amendment, too, on the basis that there are genuine reasons as to why we are bringing in charges for the advisory service. We believe that this will give to us in the Ministry of Agriculture and in ADAS proper signals as to what the farming community and, indeed all others who are in touch with ADAS really want from the advisory services. Without going over the ground in the previous amendment again at any length may I simply say in one sentence that it also gives us the chance to spread the net of ADAS wider in Clause 1(1)—far wider than it has ever been spread before.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, does not agree—because that is not the effect of his amendment—with what I have just said. But I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I seized this opportunity to explain how we intend, if Parliament agrees, to make good the undertaking which was given by my right honourable friend the Minister that the Government do not have any plans to introduce charges for the kind of advice now provided to farmers free of charge on conservation, animal welfare and rural diversification.
My right honourable friend said this quite openly on 7th November last year. He said this because the Government's purpose is to help protect the countryside by encouraging farmers and landowners to seek advice on conservation matters. That is why this part of the work of ADAS, together with advice on

403
farm diversification, and animal welfare, will remain, as we intend, free of charge. Noble Lords, will say, "All right, how will you do it?" Because almost all ADAS advice these days is bound to have an environmental element it would not, I think, be practical to give a list in a statute of those types of advice which can be said to be environmental and those which can be said to be not environmental. Only the circumstances of each case can determine whether, say, advice on a pesticide application programme by a farmer is being sought primarily in order to protect his crop at a lower cost, or whether what he wants to do is to have a talk with the adviser to find out how he can better reduce the risk to birds and insects.
Therefore, whether the adviser should offer free or chargeable advice in an individual case should depend, we believe, upon the adviser's answer to the question: for what purpose is the advice primarily being sought? If the adviser judges that the client's primary objective is to improve the running of his business, we are proposing that the advice would be chargeable. On the other hand, if the adviser judges that the primary purpose would be environmental, the advice should be free. "Environment" here would mean anything primarily designed to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of an area or its flora or fauna, or geological and physiological features or to prevent environmental pollution.
The duty of the ADAS adviser to decide whether advice is being sought primarily for economic or for environmental reasons places an important responsibility upon him or her. The Government believe that ADAS advisers are well qualified to bear this responsibility by their ability, knowledge and experience of the farming conditions and of the farmers themselves among whom they work. But cases may arise where there would be disagreement or genuine doubt about the primary purpose for which advice is being sought. In all cases the adviser must leave no doubt whether he or she considers the work to be chargeable or not.
The adviser must not commit the client to fees without making that clear in advance, and if there is any disagreement the adviser must postpone giving the advice until it is resolved. It is our intention, if there is disagreement which cannot be settled in a discussion between the farmer and the advisory service, that the farmer may appeal to the local regional panel whose members are independent and whose recommendation the Minister would normally accept.
I emphasise that the Government realise that cases will arise from time to time where a farmer and his adviser may have agreed to discuss a technical or economic farming problem and that a fee would be charged. But then the farmer takes advantage of the visit to raise a quite separate environmental issue. Of course, the conversation might go the other way—starting with an environmental matter and moving on to something about husbandry. ADAS advisers would have discretion in such cases to use their honest judgment in deciding how much of their time had been devoted to advice primarily with an economic purpose, and how much on environmental matters. But once again the adviser would be required to let his client know, when the discussion switched
404
from the free to the chargeable, that a charge ought to be made.
I am sorry that I have been rather long-winded. This is the first time that the Government have tried to set out honestly and clearly what it is that we intend, if Parliament agrees, to achieve the undertaking given by by right honourable friend on 7th November last year—that there will not be charges in future for conservation, animal welfare and rural diversification. In doing this we are therefore trying to provide three things: first, clear guidelines for the ADAS officers to judge in the circumstances of each case whether the advice is environmental; secondly, flexibility to exercise judgment within those guidelines in discussion with the farmer; and, thirdly, a right of appeal where the farmer cannot accept the adviser's judgment. We believe that this will secure the objective of encouraging farmers to seek advice that will protect and enhance the countryside. But I assure noble Lords that the Government will watch closely to see how matters develop and will revise the instructions to ADAS if experience shows this to be necessary.
I have used the amendment of the noble Lord as the vehicle to make this statement. The noble Lord will forgive me if I return to my original point. I must resist this amendment for the reasons that I gave at the beginning and because , with respect, the amendment is not technically correct.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I may make one or two comments on the response of my noble friend to this amendment. On the technical difficulty that he raised, it was not I, when I moved the original amendment, who introduced the tortuous form of wording that Members find in Section 41, which makes it difficult to amend the repeal in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, indicated in his amendment. I think that is a relatively trivial point. It is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is seeking to avoid a watering down of the objective of the original Clause 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has not answered the main point which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made; namely, what has happened in recent years to reduce the need for the Minister of Agriculture to have a duty laid upon him to provide advice on conservation free of charge to farmers? That is the point to which we need to address our minds and to which I want to return at the Report stage.
What has happened is that the Ministry of Agriculture, which did not like this amendment in the first place and resisted it to the extent that it could (but was defeated), watered it down to the extent that it could in the Commons and has sat pretty lightly on it ever since. It is now using the opportunity of this Agriculture Bill to water it down even more on the pretext—and I think it is a rather flimsy one—that with the introduction of charges for advice on mainline agriculture it is necessary to divest itself of a duty to give advice on conservation and to limit it to discretionary power only. I do not think that is good enough.
Lord Melchett: May I take up that point? The noble Lord has made some interesting and I think thoroughly confusing points about how charges will or will not be implemented. However, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we may return to that on a later amendment.
I have a number of questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord on that. How he will make charging, or not charging, work is not the question in my mind at the moment, as the noble Lord suggested would be the case. The noble Lord says that all the services which the Government are under a duty to provide free of charge under Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act will continue to be provided free of charge by ADAS. The question in my mind is this. Why repeal Section 41 in those circumstances? That question has not been answered.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may once again briefly intervene. I think that both my noble friend Lord Sandford and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, are upbraiding me from each side of the Committee for not addressing myself to what they regard as the fundamental question. Just for once perhaps I may throw the ball back, because they have left me in some perplexity. If, for reasons which I deployed when I dealt with Amendment No. 1, the Ministry of Agriculture intends to introduce charges for the advisory services—and I realise that there is a difference of view on this—somehow or other there must be a way of drawing a dividing line between where you charge and where you do not charge.
There is no difference between my noble friend Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the Government on the desirability of not charging for conservation. Indeed, on 7th November last year my right honourable friend gave an undertaking that the kind of advice now provided to farmers free of charge on conservation, animal welfare and rural diversification would remain free.
The whole point of the quite long statement which I was prepared to make and which I was waiting to read out for the first time (because we have been unable to get down to the detail of what is a difficult problem until the Bill arrived in your Lordships' House) is simply to try to show how we believe we can fulfil the assurance given by my right honourable friend and, in doing that, ensure that we are genuinely not charging for conservation advice, although it is our intention to charge for general agricultural advice.
If my noble friend, or the noble Lord opposite, can show that in my statement I have not drawn the line in the right way, I would be very ready to listen. That is what a Committee stage is all about. However, I have tried to show what I believe would be a workable approach. I beg the Members of the Committee not to sweep what I have said out of the way.
Lord Sandford: My noble friend is putting up an even thicker smokescreen about charges. The criticism which is being levelled by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and which I share, is that my noble friend and his department have used this opportunity to divest themselves of a statutory duty and have put in its place a discretionary power, and my noble friend has not justified that move.
Baroness Nicol: I find this quite confusing, because it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and my noble friend Lord Melchett specifically asked about keeping a duty. Then we heard a long and very interesting speech about charges, which presumably we shall have to hear again when we come to Amendment No. 11. We still have not received an answer to the point about duty. Can the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, give us that answer, and then perhaps later we can deal with the charges point, on which we are all hoping to comment?
Lord Belstead: With respect, I think that I answered the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, when I spoke on Amendment No. 1. I made it clear in answer to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in relation to Amendment No. 1 that, because we are drawing the remit of ADAS in Clause 1(1) of this Bill infinitely wider than it has ever been drawn before, we want to make it a power. I gave two examples of ways in which, if we made Clause 1(1) into a duty, people could come to the Ministry of Agriculture and cause great difficulties for the ministry, because the remit had become wider and wider. It would mean that the duty to provide advice and advisory services had become yet wider and wider. I did not think that that was reasonable. I particularly hung it on the peg of the fact that Clause 1(1)(c) is such a wide catch-all that it would make it impossible to hang that onto a duty.
As part of that we are debating Clause 1(1)(b), and so far as conservation, rural diversification and animal welfare are concerned, my right honourable friend gave an undertaking on 7th November last year. It was given in the clearest possible terms and it was that we did not intend to make charges. That therefore leaves us with one final responsibility to discharge, and that is to decide how we draw the dividing line between what is charged for and what is not.
I have devoted a lot of time to saying how I believe that dividing line should be drawn and, with respect, not one Member of the Committee has come back to me and said that the dividing line is drawn in the wrong way.
Baroness White: We are being led from confusion into confusion in this matter. Apart from the noble Lord the Minister it appears to all of us who have spoken so far that a more determined effort to redraft Clause 1 would bring us to a much more satisfactory situation than that in which we now find ourselves. After all, what is to prevent the Government from putting paragraph (c)—which one must recognise is extremely wide—as a permissive power but leaving the other two, (a) and (b), as statutory duties? I am no draftsman, but I am quite certain that, given the will, it is by no means impossible to retain the duty which is included in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to which my two noble friends (and for the moment, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is my noble friend) have drawn attention.
I have great sympathy with the Minister. He has been extremely assiduous in his duties in this Chamber. Had he not had to spend his time on the subject of gas, for example, we might have had more sense in this particular Bill. I suggest that this problem is not insuperable. The trouble is that we have these

407
three paragraphs which, with the abandonment of the first amendment for the time being, have been left as permissive when virtually all of us present wish to make two of them at any rate absolute duties. I cannot believe that there is no way in which this can be redrafted.
Lord Melchett: May I—
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may speak at this stage because I want to pose two questions. The key element of Section 41 is that advice must be provided free, but that is to farmers, and Clause 1 of this Bill is not just wide in substance; it also has no restriction as regards farmers. First, does that not create some problem in knowing where to draw the line? Secondly, if the noble Baroness is saying—and I quite understand what she is saying—that there is no problem here, that we simply keep a duty, as it was in Section 41, but we leave paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(1) of the Bill as they are, we still have to decide how to distinguish between the free conservation advice and advice which is not free but which is concerned with husbandry. In practice we must actually draw a dividing line when an adviser visits a farm. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady White, how she would do that if it was not done in the way I have suggested.
The Earl of Onslow: I suspect that in rising I shall perhaps add more confusion to the debate rather than anything else. Throughout the whole Bill—and I go back to the core of the Bill—it seems that the ministry has had a major strategic change of policy, which is to look at the countryside as a whole rather than just as a food-producing unit. I welcome that totally, completely, utterly and wholeheartedly because I believe that it is a great and gallant step forward.
However, we are then slightly crabbing on ADAS and we are clamping the performance of ADAS. ADAS is the machine that we have. It is full of very good people. At the moment it suffers from a slight morale problem, which I hope we can overcome, because ADAS will be there to give us the advice.
It seems that the feeling of the Committee is that Clause 1(1)(a) and (b) should be compulsory, that paragraph (b) should go back to Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and that paragraph (c) should be allowable rather than compulsory. Having taken a major step forward in its thinking on the countryside, can the ministry not take the last little bit in its stride?
Lord Walston: The Minister has asked a specific question. He has told us how he proposes to draw the dividing line between the sort of advice which is paid for and the sort of advice which is not. The noble Lord has asked those of us who disagree with him if we will give him some answer as to a different form of dividing line. My answer would be, as I said on Second Reading, as the noble Lord may remember, that in principle I am entirely in favour of the farmers paying for advice which will increase their profit but not paying for advice which improves the environment. After considering this, and listening to the noble Lord very carefully, my opinion is that it is impossible to
408
draw a satisfactory dividing line between those two functions carried out by the same individual on the same farm at the same time. While it would be worth doing if the savings were really going to be very substantial to the national Exchequer, as I understand it the amount expected to be received in governmental terms, is pretty minimal.
I would say it would be far better not to attempt a dividing line, not to attempt to have this allocation by the official of the amount of time he spends on one and on the other, and an appeal procedure, and all the rest of it, that the noble Lord has explained to us, but rather to say that the job of the official of ADAS is these two completely inseparable jobs. When he goes on to a farm, whatever it may be for, whether to give technical advice on crop production or whether to give environmental advice, as a friend of the farmer, as an expert with a pretty wide remit, with wide knowledge and experience, he should be able to combine all these operations. He comes to give advice on sprays, and at the same time he gives advice on small things which can be done for the environment, and vice versa.
Therefore, it is something wherein without an enormous paraphernalia of bureaucratic timewasting, it is impossible to achieve any satisfactory dividing line between the two. That is why I would hope that the noble Lord the Minister will come to the conclusion eventually—sooner rather than later—that the game is not worth the candle, the amount of money to be saved is not worth this paraphernalia, and certainly not worth the potential loss to the environmental protection which is an increasing obligation and responsibility of ADAS.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, have successfully widened the debate on a narrow and simple amendment, no doubt as a result of the enthusiastic encouragment they received to do this from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
This is a simple, narrow amendment which looks solely at the repeal of Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. There is no difference between the Government and myself about the fact that the advice given under Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act will continue to be given free. That is agreed. We do not need to argue about that.
Perhaps I may put to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the same question as he has already been asked by myself and by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. May I ask him to accept a couple of things in order to try and avoid the Committee going off at a tangent again? Can the noble Lord accept for a moment that I agree with him that there should be a charge for advice given under Clause 1(1)(a) and Clause 1(1)(c) for the sake of this amendment. I am moving an amendment which only affects Clause 1(1)(b), and for the sake of this amendment I accept charging for Clauses 1(1)(a) and (c). Perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord to accept for a moment that I think he has got his dividing line in exactly the right place—there is no argument about that whatsoever—for the purposes of this amendment.
But there is still a question that the noble Lord has not answered. If he is going to continue to give this advice free, and if he has the line in the right place and he is charging for the other things, why does he need to

409
repeal Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Why does he need to remove the duty on him to continue to give that specific advice free? That is the question.
Lord Belstead: I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has asked that question, because it is a perfectly fair one. The answer to it is, if I may be absolutely honest, that in drawing a line which I have made a statement about we would be having to use the words I have already used, "an honest judgment". It would be possible if the farmer believed, or indeed not only the farmer under Clause 1(1) but someone involved in the food industry or in rural diversification—maybe a whole variety of people—but if the recipient believed the line was being drawn in the wrong place, I have said in the statement I made there would be a right of appeal to the regional panel of the Ministry whose advice the Minister almost always accepts. So we believe this would be the right way of going about it.
But it would be very much more serious to say that there had been a statutory breach when you are having to draw a line using your honest judgment. It cannot be an exact science. That is an honest answer.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so, at last we have got to the nub of the question which this amendment was designed to address. We have spent a long time—the clock has not been restarted, but I think it is about 66 minutes—getting to what I had hoped the noble Lord would have said after I moiled the amendment, and then we could have embarked on the debate which I hope we can now embark on, which is what this amendment was designed to address our minds to.
As I understand it, what the noble Lord is saying is that if you introduce charging for any part of the ADAS advisory service, it is impossible to have a statutory duty on ADAS to provide any advice, however narrowly drawn that advice might be because in practice there will always be a boundary, and you will always come up against a statutory obligation to give advice.
What I do not follow from what the noble Lord said is what the implications of that would be. If the noble Lord the Minister has said that it was his policy to give free advice on conservation and diversification, and that is what ADAS are under instruction to do, and the farmer then appeals, surely he would have a right to go to court to enforce the Minister's policy against ADAS, just as the farmer would have the right to go to court if the Minister is under a statutory duty to do the same thing. Or is that in effect what this is taking away—the right of farmers to go to an independent tribunal to get the Minister to carry out the Minister's policy? Are we talking about the difference between an advisory panel making a decision, or a farmer having the right to take the Minister to court? Can the noble Lord tell me that?
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has put his finger again on a point. We are talking about the difference between an appeal to an advisory panel, which is well understood, certainly by farmers in all localities. There are a large number of appeals going on about the extension of less favoured areas, for
410
instance. The farming community know very well about this. We would not be talking about an appeal to a court.
Lord Melchett: It seems to me that that raises serious issues. So far as I know, the Government have not admitted that this is the case up to now, that what they are doing by making all this advice simply a discretionary power rather than a duty is preventing anybody insisting that they carry out their policy and give advice on these matters. Frankly, I find that unacceptable, and I hope the Committee will find it unacceptable. Certainly I shall want to come back on Report stage with an amendment which does not have the technical defects which the noble Lord kindly pointed out to the Government's version of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and insist that the the Minister should have a statutory duty to give advice on matters which the Minister is saying he will do anyhow. If that means that the Ministry ends up in court for not carrying out their duty, I do not see that that is a great advantage to anyone, except possibly the Minister. It will be a great advantage to the farmers and the countryside as a whole. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Assembly
4.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I now repeat the Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows;
"Under the Northern Ireland Act 1982 the present Assembly has two functions: first, to consider and report on how a devolved Northern Ireland administration should be formed. Secondly, the Act requires the Assembly to monitor and report on the policies and activities of the Northern Ireland departments.
"The task of making proposals on devolution was undoubtedly made much more difficult by the regrettable decision of the SDLP not to take their seats. The Assembly has not been able to come forward with agreed proposals and there is no present prospect of that occurring. As for the monitoring of the Northern Ireland departments, the Assembly suspended this work on 5th December. In spite of clear warnings about the threat that this action would pose to the continuation of the Assembly, the Unionist parties have not been prepared to resume this function. As a result, the Alliance Party withdrew from the Assembly since they believed there was no longer any useful role to be played.

411
"On 13th March the Assembly formally resolved not to carry out its monitoring functions, to wind up the Devolution Report Committee and merely to meet one afternoon a week for a debate on aspects of the Anglo-Irish agreement.
"The position therefore is that the present Assembly charged under the Northern Ireland Act 1982 with two important functions is now discharging neither. As long ago as last December in this House, I warned that if the Assembly continued the suspension of its scrutiny role for long, questions about its future would inevitably arise; and on 1st May and 19th May I repeated this warning. On 27th May I invited the leaders of the main parties in the Assembly to discuss with me the position of the present Assembly. The leaders of the two main Unionist parties refused even to talk about it. I regret that I have therefore had to reach my decision without hearing their views.
"The decision I have now taken is to lay an order today for the Assembly's dissolution under the powers in Section 5(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1982. This order will come before the House for debate under the affirmative procedure. In taking this step I would make the following points. The present Assembly would in any case reach the end of its normal life on 20th October. There would then automatically within six weeks be fresh elections for a new Assembly. The effect of this order is not to abolish the legal basis for an Assembly but simply to dissolve the present Assembly and to leave open the date for a new election for a fresh Assembly.
"I wish to emphasise to the House that dissolution of the present Assembly in no way conflicts with our desire for devolved government nor our commitment to the Anglo-Irish agreement. Devolution remains the Government's preferred option and I hope that we may see a future Assembly playing a responsible and valuable role in the Province. The sooner that happens, the better.
"Meanwhile, the Government remain ready to discuss with all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland the best way forward. In particular I would urge the Unionist parties to return to this House to argue their case and to take up the offer of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to discuss with her the four matters proposed: namely, devolution and the possibility of a round table conference; the future of the Assembly; arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business at Westminster; and new means of consultation between the Government and Unionist leaders.
"Only if we are prepared to talk together and discuss these matters can we hope fully to play our separate but complementary roles in building a better future for the people of Northern Ireland".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place. Many of us who believe that devolution can help to satisfy the aspirations in Northern Ireland will have received the
412
Statement with a great deal of sadness. But we are gratified that the door opened by the 1982 Act still remains open.
We agree that the present evidence indicates that a newly-elected Assembly would not, at this stage, produce the will among the constitutional parties to work together. This is not the time to apportion blame for this state of affairs. But to elect an Assembly which would not work together in support of the prescribed functions of the Assembly would appear to be a pretty pointless exercise.
The Government propose to dissolve the Assembly by an Order in Council and not to abolish its legal basis. We regard this as encouraging, because this means that an Assembly could be revived by an Order in Council if the Government were satisfied that the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland were committed to making it work. This is important because we believe that the 1982 Act still provides probably the best platform upon which Northern Ireland can build for itself a better future.
Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that the Assembly played a valuable role for three years in the scrutiny of Northern Ireland measures, and it compensated for some of the deficiencies of legislating for Northern Ireland largely by means of Orders in Council. Those of us who speak regularly on Northern Ireland measures benefited greatly from the knowledge and experience of the Assembly Members. We trust that when the House debates the order dissolving the Assembly the Government will have something to say about how Parliament, in the absence of an Assembly for any length of time, can improve its scrutiny of the contents of direct rule measures. We consider this also to be important.
Finally, we endorse the Government's invitation to the constitutional parties to return to discussions and to a possible round table conference. We hope that that invitation will be accepted, and that before too long we shall have the pleasure of debating an order authorising fresh elections to an Assembly.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to associate our Benches with what my noble friend has just said. We may feel sad, as he does, but we can hardly be surprised that the Government find it necessary to take some action. The Assembly was formed, as the Statement tells us, originally as an all-party group to examine how to set up a devolved Northern Ireland administration, and to monitor and report on the Northern Ireland departments. It now consists of one party only, the SDLP having led to its downfall by refusing to co-operate. It is therefore unable to consider how to make an advance towards an all-party Assembly, and recently it has refused to continue with its duties of monitoring. It had only two functions, and it is not performing either of them now, though up to date it has been fairly decently paid for its attendance.
We cannot hesitate for one moment in approving the Government's action. We are also grateful that it is not final, and that it leaves the machinery behind the Assembly available so that at some later stage something new and more constructive may be done. I end by saying that as we on these Benches are convinced—and I think that a lot of other noble Lords

413
share this view—that there can be no move forward in Northern Ireland without some shape or form of shared government, we must hope that the Members of the Assembly, who have a bit more time to do other things than go to the Assembly, will spend at least some of it in trying to help the Government to persuade all parties to get together again so that a new Assembly may be formed which will be properly functional as soon as possible.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, may I briefly reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and thank both noble Lords, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his welcome of the Statement that I read out. We believe that the Statement that I have read out today, and what has happened, need not be the end of the road. We hope that it is not, for an elected Assembly acting constructively, as many of us believe they did until fairly recently, is a valuable institution. We want to have a new election when attitudes change, and that is particularly important.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, stressed the aspect of devolution. I am sure he will agree and all students of Northern Ireland matters and those of your Lordships who speak on them will agree that integration would not solve Northern Ireland's problems, because of its divided community, its politics, and, above all, its different attitudes on many issues. All of these warrant special treatment. The Government's objective remains the establishment of a new devolved government because it could give—I stress the words "could give"—politicians from all parts of the community in Northern Ireland a real say in developing and protecting the interests of their constituents.
We have no illusions that any progress will be easy. We shall do our utmost to promote it. Your Lordships will agree that any new arrangements must be acceptable throughout the community if they are, first, to survive and, secondly, to work effectively.
We thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for his welcome and his wise words today. He is sad, as indeed all of us are. We agree on that. We agree that the two functions of the Assembly have not been carried out—and certainly not constructively. All the politicians who have hitherto taken part in the Assembly should pay attention to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, because he has considerable experience of working both here and in Northern Ireland. We believe that the politicians would benefit from paying heed to his words.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is this not another confession of failure regarding the problems of Northern Ireland? I am merely a distressed observer of the condition of Northern Ireland; I have been that for the last 50 years. This latest move almost confirms the belief that we have an insoluble problem on our hands. Your Lordships should be a little sensitive to suggestions that parts of the institution of parliamentary democracy should be abolished when it is believed that they have ceased to be useful. We are ourselves very sensitive to the word "abolition". We ought to be on guard against believing that institutions have failed when miraculously they have shown a new
414
lease of life and have come to be regarded with great respect and as being useful, sober and worthwhile. Your Lordships' House has emerged from this kind of condition of uselessness in its time.
We should be a little careful about meting on any other assembly within the body politic the sort of fate that some people would have visited upon us. It is a great pity if one abolishes anything that has been set up to achieve a particular purpose unless there is something else to put in its place. I do not believe it helps to say that the Government's aim remains as something which at the present time is not within sight. It strikes me that people are looking upon the Northern Ireland situation as Britain's permanent confession of failure to solve the problem of unity within the United Kingdom; but we go round the world telling everybody else how to get rid of their internal difficulties. I think our reputation for hypocrisy and incompetence must surely shine throughout the world.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I immediately refute the two words to which the noble Lord referred—hypocrisy and incompetence. I do not think any fair and unbiased observer would label the efforts of this Government and, indeed, successive governments in the past with those two words: The noble Lord mentioned at least three times the word "abolition". May I stress to him especially, and to your Lordships, that we are not abolishing the Assembly; we are dissolving it. There is a major difference.
As I pointed out in the opening Statement, we are dissolving the Assembly under the powers we have in Section 5 of the 1982 Act. We are dissolving it for all the reasons I explained both in the answers I gave to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Donaldson, and in the opening Statement. The Statement of my right honourable friend spelt out the reasons for taking this action. We regret it, we are sad; but I refute the two labels of hypocrisy and incompetence which the noble Lord seeks to place on our efforts. The Government will spare no effort to try to resolve the appallingly difficult problems of Northern Ireland which have been spelled out in your Lordships' House. I give that undertaking. We are not pleased that we have to take this action, but we believe that it is about the only option open to us.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister assure the House on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that in future the people of Northern Ireland will be accorded the same democratic rights as are enjoyed by the people of the rest of the United Kingdom? In particular, will he assure the House that future legislation affecting the Province will be subject to full parliamentary deliberation and scrutiny, including the power to amend such legislation as and when Parliament considers it right to do so?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the opening service (if I may put it that way) of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was getting quite away from today's Statement. However, he referred to scrutiny in dealing with Northern Ireland parliamentary and political arrangements. The opening Statement stressed that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would be very willing to

415
discuss with the leaders of the Unionist Party four matters, one of which was the arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business at Westminster. I hope that that places squarely on the record what my right honourable friend would wish to discuss with the leaders of the Unionist Party. We hope that they will take up this invitation.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, is it not a sad commentary that 14 years after the abolition of Stormont in 1972 by order of the House of Commons we now have the seventh Secretary of State—five of them have been Conservative and two Labour—coming to the House this afternoon to admit that yet another initiative has failed? Will the noble Lord the Minister accept from me as one who has lived through those years in Northern Ireland that the failure lay not with any single one of those Secretaries of State to try to find a solution to the problem? The failure lay with the problem of the Northern Ireland people. The nearest that we ever came to success was the initiative of 1973 known as Sunningdale, which was the most hopeful political development that we had had throughout the years, but unfortunately it was brought crashing to the ground.
Will the noble Lord accept that the failure of the Assembly is to be laid at the feet not of any one of the political parties, but of a combination of every single one of them, perhaps excluding the Alliance? Will he also accept that the Unionist Members at Westminster in 1982, when the legislation was going through the House, expressed their opposition to the Assembly, but attempted subsequently to make it work, whereas the SDLP and Sinn Fein representatives totally boycotted it and made its failure certain?
Will the noble Lord accept that sentiments now being expressed by the leaders of the various political parties in Northern Ireland that they want to talk without preconditions are just so much hot air because they all have their own conditions? Does he accept the fact that the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council has made it more difficult for talks on devolution to take place? There are many members of the Unionist majority who regard the existence of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference as being a precondition in itself. Will the noble Lord agree that following the failure of this latest initiative the only hope of any help towards solving the ongoing problem in Northern Ireland is to be found within the confines of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland and that no solution can emanate from this House?
5 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with the noble Lord's last point. He is getting a little wide of the somewhat narrow track that I beat this afternoon in regard to the Statement. Perhaps the noble Lord will go over this again when we debate the order, which we shall be doing at a future date. Perhaps I may then be able to approach the noble Lord's question and do a little more justice to it. I think that your Lordships would not wish me to go too far down that path this afternoon.
The noble Lord referred to the regrettable fact that the SDLP refused to attend this Assembly, and I
416
pointed that out in my opening comments in relation to my right honourable friend's Statement earlier this afternoon. I believe that the House would wish the Government to take a constructive line, and that we should not rake over the reasons for failure. We can learn lessons, and I hope that we shall, but I hope that the tenor of everything I have said this afternoon, both in the Statement and in reply to your Lordships, has been one of seeking for a constructive solution. I think that that, too, was the tenor of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, today. I would thank him for his kind comments about successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, and I am sure that his good wishes cover all of your Lordships and everybody who has tried to serve in Northern Ireland. I stress that we adopt a constructive outlook, and I hope that we might be able to have more to say on that on a future occasion.
Lord Moran: My Lords, as today's announcement seems to mark the failure of this particular experiment in devolution, might it not be sensible, despite the special problems of Northern Ireland to which the noble Lord referred, to consider in future treating Northern Ireland more like other parts of the United Kingdom?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is a very interesting thought and we are very grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. May I ask him whether we might cover that a little more fully when we debate the whole of this order, which we shall be doing, I hope, in the near future? It is one part of the political argument that is under way at the moment in Northern Ireland. As I suggested to your Lordships, we believe that devolution is the best avenue; but perhaps we may leave discussion of that particular aspect to a later date.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement. I cannot say that I welcome it, but I certainly understand and accept the inevitability of the situation that has brought about the reasons for the Statement. I note that we are to be presented with an Order in Council next week, when we shall have an opportunity to debate the position and the Government's policy. Today, I should like, with others, to express the regret that elected members of the Assembly failed to fulfil the democratic functions of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its devolved powers, although important powers, in promoting a basis for justice, peace and prosperity in the Province.
I think that this would be an opportune time for me to pay tribute and commend highly the thoughtful efforts and work of the Speaker, Mr. Jim Kilfedder; the Clerk, Mr. Kennedy; and the officers and staff of the Assembly, all of whom worked under extreme difficulties earnestly and genuinely to uphold the principles and practices of parliamentary democracy. I should like to conclude my brief remarks on this Statement at this stage by quoting two sentences from a statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 26th November last. The Prime Minister said:
"We, the United Kingdom Government, accountable to Parliament, remain responsible for the government of Northern

417
Ireland … we will make determined efforts to resolve differences." [Official Report, Commons, 26/11/85; col. 752]
Matters have been raised here today about the rights and about the dissolution, and, in my view, the dissolution leaves a vacuum. I consider that rights in Northern Ireland are on a parity with those of the rest of the United Kingdom. What is required, as others have stated here, is that those rights be exercised. I think that a dangerous void exists in the vital democratic processes in Northern Ireland. It cannot be filled by ministerial statements, nor by the verbiage of politicians; nor, indeed, by the media announcements of clergy and others. I believe that it requires concerted action on agreed principles. Therefore, I hope that the Minister, when he comes to us—if it is to be next week—to debate the order will assure us of the determined measures by which the Government now propose to bring about the brighter picture of the future, to which the Minister referred, to bring peace and prosperity with justice in Northern Ireland.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that I have guarded my words suitably about the time at which we shall come to debate this order; but it will be in the near future. That is all I will indicate to the noble Lord. We are very grateful for his forthright support for the efforts that are made by everybody, particularly by the Government and all of those who seek to assist in the political life of Northern Ireland. But the noble Lord rightly stresses that all of us are seeking after peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
Quite rightly the noble Lord also stresses that dissolution leaves a vacuum. I hope that in my replies this afternoon and in the Statement we have gone some way to try to set out our ideas on the decision that we have taken, why we have taken it, and, I hope, some avenues for hope in the future. I note the noble Lord's comments and indeed his tributes to the Speaker of the Assembly and to others who have served so well, so long and so loyally to try to make it work. I think that tributes are due from all of us. We share the noble Lord's sadness that the Members of the Assembly felt unable to carry out their main task of scrutinising the work of the Northern Ireland departments.

Agriculture Bill
5.8 p.m.
House again in Committee, on Clause 1.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 11, after ("countryside;") insert—
("( ) the promotion of public enjoyment of the countryside;")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. I think it would be convenient to take with this amendment, Amendment No. 77, which has the same effect as regards Scotland as would Amendment No. 4 for England and Wales. I hope that we can take this and the next two lots of amendments in my name rather more speedily than was the case with Amendment No. 3. As noble Lords will know, Clause 12 gives the Minister of Agriculture a new and, I must say for my part, very welcome duty to have regard to the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by
418
the public and to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between that and a number of other considerations—the promotion of a healthy agricultural industry, conservation and so on.
As I say, that is very welcome and I have no complaints about the range of new duties which Clause 12 will introduce. But I am concerned that the same recognition of the importance of promoting public enjoyment of the countryside has not been carried into Clause 1 of the Bill. It seems to me that, however we draw the line and whether there is a duty or a power, and so on, the Ministry's advisory service will be one of the principal means through which it implements the new duties that are placed on the Minister by Clause 12. It therefore seems to me important that in Clause 1, when we look at the remit of the advisory service, it should be at least as wide as the new duties placed on the Minister by Clause 12. That is what this amendment and Amendment No. 77 would do. They would include in Clause 1 (though it is not included at the moment) the promotion of the public enjoyment of the countryside. It seems to me that unless I have misunderstood Clause 1, at the moment the way it is drafted would mean that, for example, if ADAS was visiting a farm to advise on conservation and the amenity of the farm, it would be outside its statutory remit to provide some literature about increasing access on that farm and providing facilities for people wishing to enjoy the countryside, such as picnic sites and so on.
I am sure that is not the intention and that ADAS will want to be involved in that field as it is becoming involved in the giving of conservation advice. This amendment would ensure that that was a possibility. Whether it actually did it of course would be up to the Minister, because it would be a discretionary power. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wish to support this amendment. I believe that the enjoyment of the countryside will become of greater importance as the years go by. I think this whole question of land use and the rights of the public to have access to the countryside will become a major social and political issue. Surely before very long the present madness of growing to excess cereal crops that apparently are going to benefit nobody but the Russians will have to come to an end. The question of land use will arise when cereal growing has ceased to be the prevailing economic lunacy. Then the time will come when either we have alternative crops or we find alternative uses for our land.
When you come to think of it, it is rather disgraceful, however angry we may feel about the hippy convoy, that we have to push people from place to place because there is no land upon which they can go temporarily, even to follow the mode of life they feel they want to follow. We are horrible to the gypsies; we are beastly to the hippy convoy. We think that everyone should live in houses, but we do not make it our business to see that they are there to live in. We are really a quite ridiculous people when it comes to matters of this kind.
So far as the use of land is concerned there ought to be a wider recreational use of the land by people. Every beauty spot is overcrowded; motorcars go into open

419
gates; litter is left all over the countryside. There is nowhere to go. Notices say that trespassers will be prosecuted and you must not go on to the land. Footpaths are obscured and wheat crops are grown so that you do not know where the paths are. Urban dwellers have a respect for the land and they do not like wandering through growing crops even to reestablish their right to a footpath.
We must now recognise that the enjoyment of the countryside by the people—a growing population—including those who want more recreational opportunities and more relaxation from the pressures of life is going to be of much greater value than large parts of the National Health Service, which is not a health service but a sickness service. I believe the health of the country is going to lie in wider, fresh opportunities to regard the land as our own, and if it is not used for vital food production, it should be turned over to those of us who can enjoy it much better than we now have the opportunity to do.
Lord Craigton: I rise to support this amendment because I think that without expert advice the enjoyment of the countryside can do more harm than good. The farmer has to have some expert advice on how people should enjoy it and where they should go. Left to himself, he might do more damage conservationwise than with the advice of ADAS. For that reason I support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support the amendment for two reasons. First, Clause 12 refers to the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by the public, and surely ADAS should be used to support that. Secondly, it is infinitely better that people should have access, and it is, after all, everybody's countryside. Even though I own some land, I am quite happy for people to enjoy my little bit. But I should like other people who live in the crowded south-east of England where I live to enjoy it responsibly and to keep to public footpaths. I want to get advice because there is room for all people to enjoy the land. As amended—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will appreciate this—I think the provision means that as fox hunting folk we can ask for advice on covers and how to make hunt ditches. I am sure beyond peradventure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would love that.
Lord Walston: All I wish to do from these Benches is to give our support and my personal support to this amendment. The principle, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has pointed out, is established in Clause 12(1)(d), and when we come to that it will be worthy of complete support. This amendment does no more than make it easier for farmers to fulfil one of the objectives of the occupation or ownershiup of agricultural land.
5.15 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: We certainly support my noble friend's amendment, but I hope he does not wish ADAS to be chivvying people into the countryside and forcing them to enjoy it. It rather gives me that impression; nevertheless we support it.
420
When I first came to this Chamber I was not very sure of the procedure and I followed the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on something. I criticised what he had said and that brought him to his feet again and he spoke for another 10 to 15 minutes when we were rather wanting to get away home. So I got up and was going to apologise for doing that, but I was shouted down because I was not supposed to speak a second time. I am rather tempted to say something about what the noble Lord said in regard to wheat growers when he turned to the economic side of farming. However, I think I had better refrain at the moment. There will be an opportunity at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Belstead: This is an interesting amendment, and once again it has received much support. It is unusual in such circumstances for a Minister to turn down an invitation to extend the Government's powers, but I am going to make a case for doing so. I would remind your Lordships that Clause 1 of the Bill already provides powers for advice to be given to any person on a very wide range of issues, including those relating to the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and any other agricultural activity or enterprise of benefit to the rural economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, quite rightly said, the requirements of Clause 12 to have regard to and endeavour to balance all the considerations set out in that clause, including the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by the public, apply as much to ADAS as they do to other statutory activities and, I contend, would adequately meet the concerns which have been expressed.
I am saying this because I think a difficulty would arise if this amendment were to be accepted, to the extent that the powers it would give would impinge on the responsibilities of existing statutory and other bodies with interests in this area. I am glad to say that ADAS enjoys good working relations with such bodies as the Countryside Commission, the Development Commission and so on. And of course there are voluntary bodies doing an excellent job. I am simply saying that I do not think it would be a good idea if it were to appear that the statutory remit of ADAS was being constantly and specifically extended when other agencies already have a statutory responsibility.
The Committee may ask: what am I getting at? I am getting at the fact that the Countryside Commission is after all under a statutory remit under the Countryside Act 1968 to encourage the provision and improvement, for persons resorting to the countryside, of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside and of open air recreation in the countryside. Excellent though working relations are with the Countryside Commission and ADAS, I am not entirely sure that the commission would welcome with open arms the news that quite suddenly an exactly parallel statutory responsibility had been laid on the Ministry of Agriculture. The Countryside Commission could quite reasonably pick up the telephone and say to my right honourable friend, "It is all very well. We thought we worked well with you. Are you now trying to take a statutory responsibility from us?"
Not very long ago—about six months or more ago—the Countryside Commission produced an absolutely excellent pamphlet on access to the

421
countryside. It was launched by the chairman, Sir Derek Barber, at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' headquarters. On that occasion I was privileged to be there representing the Ministry of Agriculture and my right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave was there representing the Department of the Environment.
I thought when I attended that launch that this surely was exactly the way that we ought to go about things in this country, with that now highly respected statutory agency—the Countryside Commission—taking the lead in this particular matter (access to the countryside) and the two government departments there and represented in order to show that we were all working together. I seriously say that if the amendment were to be put into statute the Countryside Commission would ask some direct questions as to what it was the Ministry of Agriculture wanted to do in statute. In practice, we are determined to work as closely as we possibly can with the Countryside Commission and with the Nature Conservancy Council, but we are not trying to take over their statutory functions.
Baroness White: For once I want to help the Minister. One could perhaps add the national park authorities because they have certain duties in this direction. I know that they work with ADAS at present, but whether ADAS should be given a specific remit is at least open to discussion.
Earl Peel: I should like to support what was said by my noble friend on the Front Bench. The position at the moment is such that the Countryside Commission has this responsibility, and to try to bring it on to the Ministry of Agriculture at this stage would be misleading.
I should like to pick up something said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He described as ridiculous—and think I am quoting correctly—people who are nasty to hippies. I can only assume therefore that if this amendment were to be accepted by the Committee he would expect the Ministry of Agriculture to take the side of the hippies against the farmer in incidents such as the unfortunate one that took place the other day.
Lord Melchett: So that we do not repeat earlier experiences, it may be helpful if we stick to the amendment. That is what I should like to do. I am delighted, incidentally, that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, enjoyed so much as he did the Countryside Commission's launch of its access charter with Mr. Waldegrave and Sir Derek Barber. I am not sure whether he was aware that the access charter was produced by the Countryside Commission as a result of an amendment made to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act through the Wildlife and Countryside Act in your Lordships' Chamber, an amendment which I moved against the Government's wishes and had placed in the Bill. I am delighted that the outcome has been to give the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, a good party at the Countryside Commission's expense.
Unless I misunderstood it, I am not at all happy with what the noble Lord said in reply to the amendment.
422
First, he said that if the amendment went into the Bill ADAS would have powers which overlap with those of the Countryside Commission. Clause 1 already gives it powers which mean that the remit of ADAS overlaps with those of a number of other statutory bodies. It overlaps with the Development Commission and CoSIRA under subsection (1)(c); it overlaps with the Nature Conservancy Council, another statutory body, under subsection (1)(b), because ADAS has a remit for conservation. It overlaps with the Countryside Commission already in subsection 1(b) because one of its primary statutory functions is to safeguard the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. If I may say so to the noble Lord, that is no answer at all.
Clause 1 already has ADAS overlapping with all sorts of other statutory bodies. Indeed, as I understand it, that is what all of us want to see. We want to see ADAS being able to give advice to farmers about a wide range of matters simply because the number of times a member of staff from the Countryside Commission, of whom there are very few indeed, turns up at a farm and starts talking to a farmer and where in the course of conversation some issue comes up and advice can be given is perhaps once in a thousand years on the average farm and may be less frequently than that, whereas ADAS is there more regularly.
That is why ADAS—as we have all been arguing (and the Government now accept it)—should have a remit for giving advice on conservation, on natural beauty and on amenity. If it is right for ADAS to have a remit to give advice on all those matters because its people are in regular contact with farmers, why is it suddenly wrong for ADAS to have a remit to give advice on access? With respect to the noble Lord, it cannot be on the grounds that he mainly advanced, that this would mean an overlap with the Countryside Commission.
This amendment has been on a little longer than some, but the noble Lord may not have had a chance to consult the Countryside Commission formally. My understanding was that the commission would not have any serious reservations about the amendment. The noble Lord has much faster and more efficient communication with the commission than I have. I wonder whether he has managed to ask the commission its view, and if he has not whether he will consider, if I withdraw the amendment, doing so between now and Report stage.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that the new duty on the Ministry of Agriculture in Clause 12, which includes the words in my amendment, would be sufficient statutory cover to allow ADAS to do what my amendment says it should do. I am not sure whether or not that is right. But if I have understood the noble Lord correctly, what he nearly said (and what I frankly expected him to say) is that my amendment is unncecessary. Clause 12 will give the statutory power for ADAS to give advice along the lines I am suggesting in my amendment. I want to ask the noble Lord whether I have understood that correctly.
For example, if a farmer has an area of high wildlife interest—a farmer, let us say, farming in an ESA and receiving money from the Government to maintain the environment, the wildlife interest, of his land—and

423
he wants to talk to ADAS about allowing more visitors on to that land—about whether it would be sensible; about how he would do it; about what times of year to encourage visitors and what times of year to discourage them because of the wild flowers on the site—would ADAS be able to give advice on those issues under the Bill as it stands? That is the kind of question in my mind.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord asked me whether I have consulted with the Countryside Commission. No, I have not—though I should be very pleased to do so. It is true that there is overlap between Ministry functions in Clause 1(1) and other statutory functions, but this would be an absolutely direct duplication of another statutory function. It would be very questionable whether that would be desirable—whether it is desirable from a statutory point of view and whether it is desirable as a matter of practice in our public life to lay duplicating duties on two bodies or more than two bodies.
The noble Lord asked me a final question about Clause 12. We must wait until we get to Clause 12, a clause which has been widely welcomed. Indeed, the noble Lord himself has welcomed it on other occasions. I simply said in my original remarks that the requirements of Clause 12 to have regard to an endeavour to balance all the considerations set out in that clause including,
"the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by the public"
apply as much to the advisory service as they do to other Ministry activities.
As we have tried to make clear, we have been putting into statutory form in Clause 12 what we believe the Ministry has been trying to do now for quite a few years. I do not think that at this stage, before we get to Clause 12, I would want to go further than that. I certainly do not want to get into the particular example that the noble Lord put to me.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry. When my noble friend first spoke I was totally satisfied with his answer. But now he says that ADAS should not have a statutory duty because it overlaps with the Countryside Commission and that would be a bad idea. He then says, "But actually it does have one anyway in Clause 12 but I do not want to discuss it yet". I am sorry. I am in a terrible muddle as to what he actually means.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I was going to make precisely the same point. The Government themselves have laid this power on the Minister. They have taken to the Minister of Agriculture the Countryside Commission's remit. To say that it is all right to take it to the Minister of Agriculture, who has to balance these matters, but that it is not all right to take it to ADAS—and one should remember that it is a powers and not a duty on ADAS, that can be exercised if they want to exercise it—is something that I find impossible to follow. It is made even more difficult by the point that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has raised, when he said that one cannot do that for ADAS because that will overlap with the Countryside Commission, but one should not
424
worry because Clause 12 does it anyway. Those two statements are not logically consistent.
I appreciate the noble Lord's anxiety to move on to Clause 12, but we are dealing in Clause 1 with the remit of ADAS. When we are dealing with the remit of ADAS, the Minister should either answer now, or say that he will let me know, whether its remit includes giving advice in the kind of circumstances I have mentioned and in the circumstances spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, when he spoke in support of the amendment.
If a matter concerning public access arises and an ADAS adviser is giving advice on conservation or diversification, for example, then will ADAS be statutorily empowered to do that because of Clause 12, or will it need of more specific remit in Clause 1? That is the question.
Lord Belstead: Clause 12, as its sidenote says, deals with a duty to balance interests in the exercise of the Ministry's agricultural functions. I believe that the four ways in which that ought to be done, which include the promotion and enjoyment of the countryside by the public, are right. However, Clause 1, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says is different. It concerns a direct power inviting the Ministry to give advice which, in this particular amendment, would relate to the promotion of public enjoyment of the countryside. That would mean such things as drafting and giving out pamphlets and literature on public access. I am clear in my own mind that if we do that, then it would be a direct duplication of the duty that is laid on the Countryside Commission by the Countryside Act 1968. I do not believe that would be right.
I believe that it is right that the Ministry of Agriculture should at all times work in very close collaboration with the statutory agencies—that is to say, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council—which are charged by statute to give particular advice to the Government, and also with the voluntary agencies. I do not believe, however, that the proposed amendment would be right, for the reasons that I have tried to deploy.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, exactly what he means. I am all for promoting enjoyment of the countryside, but I would have thought that the advice I would get would be where to site car parks when people come to look at the daffodils that I have planted by the roadside through my farm. But they would not, I imagine, give me advice as to how I should advertise that the daffodils were there. That would be someody else's duty. The advice that ADAS would give would be how to site the car parks or how to point visitors to the high chairs to see the deer that we have about us.
Lord Melchett: I agree with the noble Lord; that is the kind of advice I should like to see ADAS being able to give. The Government's point of view, as I understand it, is that ADAS should not do so because it might upset the Countryside Commission. My information is that the Countryside Commission would welcome the amendment I have tabled, which is in sharp contrast to what has been said by the

425
Minister. I do not have the Commission's view in writing—it is simply an informal view. So that we do not prolong the debate, I suggest that the noble Lord should agree to consult the Countryside Commission between now and the next stage of the Bill, and have a discussion about it. Naturally, I shall try to get something definite from the commission itself. If it would welcome such a power, and if the Minister and myself could both obtain its view, then we could return at Report stage with more informed advice from the statutory body whose remit, as the Minister has said, this is. If the noble Lord is prepared to agree to doing that. I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Belstead: I do not want to appear unhelpful or taciturn, but I am not going to have other people making statue law for the Government. I do not believe that the amendment is right, and I have given my reasons. I am delighted to talk to anybody but I do not think that further discussion would make the Government change their mind on this point.
Lord Melchett: In that case, it would have short-circuited matters a little if the Minister had said so in the first place, rather than base his whole argument on what he suggested would be the view of the Countryside Commission, which is what he spent several minutes telling the Committee. Nevertheless, even if the Minister will not speak to the commission between now and Report stage, I shall do so. That will at least remove what the Minister said was his main argument against the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) the giving of information or advice, or the performance of any service required to prevent the pollution of any body of fresh water or ground water.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. The amendment would ensure that in giving information or advice to farmers on the steps that they should take to avoid polluting fresh water or ground water, ADAS will give advice free of charge. This is simply a probing amendment and I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will at least be able to reassure me that it is not needed.
I put down this amendment because the Water Authorities Association suggested that water authorities are particularly concerned about the changes that are being made in the remit of ADAS, and are worried, in their position as the statutory bodies responsible for pollution control, that any advice ADAS may give about measures to avoid pollution of water should remain outside the charging scheme and should be given free of charge. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The giving of information and advice is already covered by paragraph (a), and it is clear from subsection (1) that such advice may cover any matters relating to conservation. With respect to the noble Lord, I do not see therefore that the proposed new paragraph would add anything
426
significant, and I do not believe that it would be helpful or necessary to single out one particular aspect of conservation in that way. It might create the impression that water pollution ought to receive some special degree of priority over all other environmental matters.
I recognise that water pollution is enormously important, and we have put a lot of effort into trying to prevent pollution, so far as the Ministry of Agriculture is concerned—and the noble Lord is good enough to be nodding his head. An advisory leaflet was issued last year which I believe has been very widely read. However, other environmental issues also are important. The list of matters in subsection (2) is only intended to illustrate the kind of broad areas in which ADAS is likely to be operating. We could create all kinds of distinctions and impressions if we started adding in detailed subjects and leaving others out.
The amendment seeks to establish whether pollution advice is covered by general undertakings that the Government have given on charges for conservation advice. Although the noble Lord did not get into that area, maybe it is part and parcel of the amendment. I hope that the general guidelines that I tried to explain when speaking to the very first amendment that the noble Lord moved about conservation show that the Government's intentions to keep environmental advice free of charge would apply to pollution advice, including advice concerning water pollution. Although it is a subject on which the noble Lord and I are not in agreement at the present time, I hope that shows that the Government, for their part, intend that my right honourable friend's undertaking of 7th November last about free advice for conservation matters will extend to pollution advice.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure the Water Authorities Association, which apparently has not previously received such a clear assurance on the matter, will be encouraged. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) the undertaking of research and development of organic agriculture;
( ) the supply to any person of any services or goods relating to the production and marketing of organic agricultural produce and other organic food.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is also a probing amendment which I do not intend to press. It is tabled merely to give me an opportunity to ask the noble Lord what are the Government's intentions in giving advice and undertaking research on organic agriculture.
My reason for singling out this aspect of farming in particular and asking the noble Lord whether the Government are going to take the subject seriously, do some research and give advice, is because I think it is fair to say that there is widespread concern at the moment that organic agriculture has been given the cold shoulder by the noble Lord's department. For example, in an editorial in March this year the Farmers Weekly noted that farmers were being

427
encouraged by everyone, including the noble Lord and his ministerial colleagues, to diversify and take notice of the market place. However, the editorial noted that the Ministry apparently did not apply this creed to their own research and advisory services and that the Ministry had suppressed a report on organic agriculture.
In fact, my understanding is that two senior members of staff in the Ministry of Agriculture went to West Germany and Holland and in a report made a number of recommendations on organic farming to the Ministry. According to the Farmers Weekly that report has been ignored—indeed, suppressed. The report apparently states that in both Holland and West Germany investment in organic research was seen by the governments concerned as money well spent. Organic methods in both countries were attracting an increasing number of farmers and growers. Indeed, I understand that there are about 3,000 farms in West Germany which are fully organic compared with probably a thousand or so organic farmers and growers, many on a small scale, in the United Kingdom. The ADAS report, which I understand the Ministry has not published or responded to publicly, states that crops grown organically can command a high premium.
I mentioned on Second Reading that, as a farmer, I find it very disturbing that other countries in Europe within the CAP are taking organic agriculture very seriously. For example, in West Germany three state farms have already been converted to organic agriculture. The West Germans employ specialist advisers who are experts on organic agriculture. Universities and research stations are spending considerable sums of money on it. Even with 3,000 farms producing organic output in West Germany the supply is far exceeded by demand.
In those circumstances, it seem to me particularly unfortunate that the Ministry has none of the experimental husbandry farms doing any work on organic agriculture. I believe that the Government have claimed to be involved in one farm where research on organic farming is carried out but I understand they intend to pull out of that project within the next six months so so. It is disappointing that where there is one sector of demand for agricultural produce which is expanding rapidly, where at least one supermarket chain is buying organic output and another is seriously investigating it, and where at some times of the year up to 90 per cent. of the demand for organically-grown vegetables has to be met by imports from the rest of Europe, the Ministry is not taking this matter more seriously and diverting resources into research, thus allowing its advisers to gain some scientific background and expertise so that they can give advice on the subject.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure me and the many others concerned that the Ministry is taking this issue more seriously than appears from what has been said in many quarters. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness White: I support my noble friend. There is considerable interest in parts of Wales in the
428
development of what is commonly called organic agriculture; that is to say, relatively low input and relatively low output. After all, the problems in agriculture today are costly input and over-large output. I am not sure whether it was to our particular pioneer that my noble friend Lord Melchett was referring when he spoke of marketing the products. It so happens that there is an extremely entrepreneurial and imaginative marketing scheme for these products with some of the large supermarkets. It is therefore no longer to be regarded as a rather cranky form of food production. It is undoubtedly of some importance for the future and I hope very much that we can have some reassurance on the Ministry's attitude towards this matter.
The Earl of Radnor: I think that this amendment should be resisted, though I am not in any way against organic farming or the pursuit of research into that subject. I believe that it should not be put into statute in the same way that water should not be in statute. It is possible for advice to be given within the Bill as it stands. It would be a pity to include research specifically because I do not believe, as perhaps do some noble Lords opposite, that organic farming is a subject on its own.
The definition causes some of us a great deal of trouble. All farming is a little blurred at the edges and it would be a pity to put organic farming on to one side. I know that organic farmers must have their land free of chemical fertilisers for two years, and so on, but there are degrees of organic farming. It can be combined with other forms of farming—I will not say traditional farming because organic farming is probably more traditional than what we do now—and for those reasons I believe that the amendment should not be taken on board.
Lord Melchett: I entirely agree with everything that the noble Earl said, and I said so in introducing the amendment. It is possible in Committee to introduce probing amendments so that subjects can be raised for debate. I explicitly said that that was my intention. I agree that it would be wrong to put this amendment in the Bill, but I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to give us some information on what the Government are doing in this respect.
The Earl of Onslow: I could not tell an organically-grown swede from a non-organically grown swede if they were dished up on my plate, but that is another matter. Some people, however, like the idea of an organically-grown swede, or whatever. Organic farming is, as my noble friend Lord Radnor said, extremely difficult to define, and there is a problem. If ADAS gives advice on organic farming, is that conservation farming or is it increased-profit farming? It produces yet another muddle as regards the ADAS charge.
If it is said to be conservation farming, and if this lovely organically grown swede is then flogged by a supermarket at double the price of the swede which is fattened on nitrogen which comes from an oil company as opposed to a pile of horse manure, there would seem to be something odd in the idea of charging at all; but we may get to that later.
Lord John-Mackie: My noble friend has raised an interesting point. As he said, he raised it for discussion and he does not feel that the amendment should be put into the Bill.
Along with one of my sons, I investigated organic farming. There is a private organisation that advises on it. We found the conditions so severe that in considering the situation we felt that if it was carried out on any great scale the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would not have to complain about surpluses in any shape or form—that is for certain.
I want to make the point that the Association of Agriculture also carries out research into organic farming. Does the Minister know whether that association receives any assistance? I have a feeling that it does, and, if so, that may satisfy my noble friend; so the Minister may not be quite so bad as my noble friend suggests.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I try to practise a mixture of farming. Certainly I would not burn the straw and regard people who do as evil, and I also keep fattened cattle and that sort of thing. I think there is rightly a tremendous interest in organic food. A lot of the food that we eat is rather dull and certain ways of producing it make it taste better. However, because there is a big demand for it, I should have thought that it would be right and proper for the Government to do some research, if only to expose what is phoney and to praise what is genuine. There is a big demand and people do think in this way. The more accidents that occur and the more people become frightened of nuclear power, the more they want to go back to nature. I think that the Government ought to undertake at least to see that the claims can be backed up and are correct in this case.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may first of all say that ADAS is taking an increasing interest in organic methods of farming. We already provide advice and we have plans to designate a number of advisers with specialised interests in organic issues to help us respond to the industry on this matter. I am not sure that we have said this publicly before, but I am saying it now. This is one reason for having a probing amendment.
In that context I think we should like to think about what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said. If I may say so on behalf of the Government, I think that it is very important that the best practices of organic growing and the best prospects for marketing should be pursued and indeed supported so far as possible, because obviously at its best, for those who want organic produce, organic growing is a very interesting sector of the agricultural industry.
I should like to go on from there and say that we are funding research into organic farming. We are monitoring a farm in Wiltshire, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, and we have awarded a research contract to the University of Wales to undertake a three-year study of the nitrogen balance and nitrogen cycle in organic farming systems. I am not quite sure when that research contract comes to an end but it is a three-year study and, so I am advised, not a study which will suddenly end.
430
ADAS is always prepared to consider undertaking research projects that are commissioned and paid for by the industry or by particular sections of the industry, and I can confirm that the service is willing to assist organic farmers and those wishing to convert to this system in the same way as it assists farmers with other systems of farming. Organic farm businesses come within the scope of the agricultural improvements scheme which, as the Committee will know, is the new form of capital grant which came into effect at the end of last year. Grants are available to organic farmers on a wide range of investments, including organic irrigation and the storage of farm waste.
I shall just add that Food from Britain is conscious of the development of markets for organically grown food. Food from Britain has recently received a report that it had commissioned on the future of organically grown produce. I realise that it will need to study the report before deciding what action to take but that locus is there for our main marketing arm in this country.
Having said that, I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Radnor about this particular amendment. What worries my noble friend—and it worries me too—is the implication that research into organic farming methods in some way is different and special. Though I think it is an extremely interesting area, I do not think it is different. Indeed, many organic farmers would say that they are doing in the most natural way what they believe farmers have been doing over the centuries.
If we were to accept the amendment, I think that we would create the impression that this is an entirely specific sector with specific methods and we should then end up with a very much larger clause or we should find that we have picked out just one or two items from the whole of the agricultural industry for no really very logical reason. So I hope that the noble Lord will feel that, even though I am resisting the amendment for reasons which are shared by my noble friend Lord Radnor, what I have been able to say in reply to this brief exchange has made the tabling of this amendment worth while.
Lord Melchett: I was very interested in what the noble Lord had to say. I think that organic farming is different and special in two respects. First, it represents one of the only areas in UK agriculture where there is a rapidly growing market and where there is no sign of that market being met from domestic production even though it could be met from domestic production. That makes it rather different and rather special; but I do not think that it makes it sufficiently different or special to warrant a particular mention in the Bill.
The other respect in which it has been different and special, up to now at least, is because the Ministry has shown very little enthusiasm for giving advice or doing research on the subject, and in that sense it has been different and special compared with other forms of agriculture. The statement of the noble Lord that some ADAS officers were being designated to develop particular expertise is very welcome indeed. I am sure that all those involved in the organic farming movement will welcome it, as will many farmers who

431
are thinking of converting some or all of their enterprise to organic farming.
I wonder whether I may just ask the noble Lord one further question. He mentioned a farm in Wiltshire. That was the farm where I understood that the Ministry intended to pull out of the research project in a few months' time—indeed, my understanding was that it would be in about three months from now. I do not know whether or not that is correct but I think that while it is very useful to have some advisers with expertise, it would also be useful either for some work to be done on an experimental husbandry farm (of which there are many very good ones around the country) or for the Ministry to continue to monitor organic farming on an existing organic farm such as the one in Wiltshire. Can the noble Lord give me some information on how long that project will continue?
Lord Belstead: I should like to give a straight answer to the first question. I think that it was two years ago that I had the opportunity to pay a visit to that particular farm in Wiltshire. There were two members of the agricultural science service who were monitoring the pests and diseases in the organically grown crops on that particular farm. Incidentally, as a matter of interest, my visit took place about three weeks before harvest started in July, and it really was something I shall never forget. On that particular farm the crops were entirely clean. They were wholly free from disease of any kind. It is certainly an abiding memory for me. I am sure that the farmer concerned would have been the first to have pointed out that whereas the corn crops in the first year after the land had been laid down to grass—it was being done on that cycle—were producing really quite heavy crops, when one reached the second year of corn, of course the crops were less thick, and no doubt this has some bearing on their freedom from disease. Nonetheless, there were some very good crops of winter and spring wheat the first year after being laid down to grass and all the fields—the whole lot—were absolutely clean. I think that is something on which our minds need to dwell.
The Ministry's mind has dwelt on it—the noble Lord is right—for a period of three years. Indeed, after I had had the pleasure of visiting the farm, we brought in a research student from the University of Bristol to do a project there, and so we increased the Ministry's input into the farm. I am now speaking off the cuff but I think that if the noble Lord is right and that project is due to be coming to an end because we have finished a three year study, we really ought to be thinking at least of moving our focus of attention. As I tried to show, it is a farm which is enormously interesting, but I am sure that the farmer himself would probably say that it is right that in the cause of research and development one should also look elsewhere.
I seize this opportunity just to say that perhaps we have somewhat hidden our light under a bushel, in the sense that the three-year project of the University of Wales at Aberystwyth that I mentioned is having its work planned and monitored with the assistance of a steering group which includes senior representatives of the organic farming sector. I like to feel therefore that the Ministry and the organic farmers have been in fruitful co-operation.
6 p.m.
Lord Moran: May I ask the Minister whether it is intended to publish this study by the University of Wales, when it is completed?
Lord Belstead: I must write to the noble Lord on that matter. I am sure the answer will be yes; but as I am not briefed on this question I shall write to him.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: If the noble Lord cares to look at the records for the North of Scotland College he will find that Aberdeenshire was farmed in precisely that way for 100 years before the war.
Lord Melchett: I think that the noble Lord is wrong. It is a common misapprehension that modern organic farming simply involves turning the clock back 100 years. Perhaps he should take the opportunity to see some of the detailed research work that is being done in West Germany, for example, on flame weeding, using quite sophisticated, modern equipment. I doubt whether that was available even in Aberdeenshire 100 years ago. This is one of the areas—modern equipment for modern organic farming—where I am afraid that our rivals in the rest of Europe (although we are all in the EC) will be stealing a march. British agricultural machinery manufacturers will be suffering from even more imports as organic farming grows throughout Europe, as it will. The EC is considering setting a European-wide standard for organic farming produce.
That is another reason why it is important that we should take it seriously, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, obviously is. I am encouraged by what he said. I agree that it would be wise to look at another area and another farming system after the research in Wiltshire. If the ministry is to do that, that would be widely welcomed.
I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was that concerned whether his swedes were organically grown, but a lot of people are. It seems to me to be a source of considerable shame to British agriculture that even in the swedes market most are being imported by the entrepreneurs in Wales that my noble friend Lady White mentioned. We cannot even produce enough organic swedes in this country to satisfy our market. There is a lot of work still to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been extremely encouraging. I am grateful to him for what he said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boothby: Does the noble Lord realise that, whatever he may say, farming in Aberdeenshire remains the best in Europe?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) the Minister shall from time to time consult with such persons appearing to him to represent the interests of producers in the agricultural industry and to represent other interests concerned as he considers appropriate, regarding the provision of any goods or services which are supplied to any person, or for which provision is contemplated, by virtue of this section.").
The noble Lord said: I explained this amendment when I spoke to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. My noble

433
friend made sympathetic noises. I take his point that the amendment might suggest that the Minister must consult all and sundry and that might cause inefficiency. Like him, I hope that it may be possible before Report to ensure that the Minister has a less onerous and difficult job. I hoped that my amendment said that he should consult only those whom he wished to consult. I thank my noble friend for his offer of help, and I hope that he will be in contact with me before the Report stage.
Lord Belstead: I give my noble friend an undertaking on those last words of his. I shall be in contact with him on the amendment before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I therefore shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("or goods").
The noble Lord said: First, I want to apologise for the stupid way that I put down the amendment. Instead of asking for the subsection to be withdrawn and rewriting it, I tried to amend it by Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. They are really only one amendment. The provision would read:
"Any services provided by this section will be provided free of charge and all"—
and I think that the "all" should have been "any", but let us leave it there for now—
"goods provided by virtue of these services will be charged for at a reasonable cost".
I put in the last part of the provision because I would be prepared to say that farmers should pay for goods, although I am not quite sure, and I should like the Minister's enlightenment when he replies as to what goods he was considering other than veterinary medicines and so on. I can think of no goods that ADAS provides other than those.
As usual, I must declare an interest. I am a farmer and use ADAS liberally. I first used the advisory service in Scotland 56 years ago. I remember the occasion well. I had heard from somebody that sulphuric acid could be used on cereal crops to kill weeds. (Do I hear a murmur against spraying already?) I asked the college adviser whether he could find out about that. He discovered that it had been used in France quite a lot, and he went to no amount of trouble to get me the advice. I used sulphuric acid and it had to be carefully done. It was valuable information. That has been my experience in Scotland and in England ever since, and I have farmed in both countries.
I should like to emphasise that the advice has always been unbiased, free and in 99 cases out of 100 (or on ever larger odds) correct. That free and unbiased advice has been a major factor in the unprecedented increase in the efficiency and productivity of British farms and has resulted in an increased supply of food to the British people, which not only feeds them better but effects enormous savings on imports. Because of that I do not believe that the British taxpayer would
434
grudge that free service to his farmers. I believe that the saving target is about £6 million, or 10p per person, but I may not be correct here.
As I said earlier, in his Second Reading speech the Minister catalogued all the changes and difficulties, including reduced incomes, but he ends up by implying that the best way to help farmers is to charge them for advice which they have had free for so long. Not only that, but the number of advisers has been cut. Although the extent of the cuts has been reduced recently, there will still have been a reduction of about 750 posts in the service in the past five years. That is equivalent to about 20 per cent. With all the difficulties and changes in our industry this is surely the time for more free advice and not less and more expensive advice.
I return to the Minister's words on Second Reading (at col. 621 of Hansard):
"This will enable farmers to have the clearest possible say in the kinds of services they receive. That is crucial, at a time when the agricultural industry is facing a period of unprecedented change. There is no point in providing services that farmers do not value or which are no longer relevant to their needs".
I should like the Committee to look at that carefully. Quite frankly, when I consider what the Minister said it seems to me to be a strong slur on ADAS to suggest that because the advice was free over past years ADAS did not keep up to date and provided services which farmers did not value and which were no longer relevant to their needs. I beg to differ strongly. I think that on reflection he may wish to drop that argument.
What will the reaction of farmers be? Times are hard and they look like getting harder still. My bet is that the small farmer especially will not pay ADAS for advice. The likelihood is that commercial advisers will go to them. However unbiased a commercial adviser tries to be, his advice is tied up with selling something. I have a lot of friends in the commercial advisory service and get on well with them, but I have had various experiences.
I had a young farm manager who had many attributes, but dealing with salesmen was not one of them. He was persuaded to spray quite a large field of wheat to kill black grass. I looked at the field and could find no black grass. I had a big row with the company about that. That is the sort of thing that happens.
My son had another experience. I wish to illustrate the difference in the experience of using ADAS. As we know, we are now looking for ways to reduce expenditure. He was being advised about a fertiliser that he should put on his wheat for next year, looking well forward. He took the advice that he had received from a commercial company to ADAS. ADAS pointed out to him that if he had his soil analysed and he found that his phosphate and his potash were above a certain figure, he need not use any fertiliser. I looked through all the commercial literature to see whether I could find that advice, but it was not there. That is the type of thing that one must remember when considering charging farmers for advice.
The great advantage at the moment is that one can go to ADAS and obtain advice and have matters that I have described confirmed. That will no longer be the case if the Government have their way. ADAS does a great deal more than just go to farms and give advice on the spot. It provides demonstrations, meetings and

435
pamphlets. I have an excellent pamphlet which arrived just the other day. It gives clear advice about what to do when diseases hit crops. I wonder whether we shall have to pay for all that advice which is so helpful when we do our jobs.
The noble Lord told us that there is to be no charge for advice on conservation. The argument on that point that we had earlier, on my noble friend's amendment, has almost taken the wind out of my sails. Apparently advice on conservation, rural diversification and animal welfare is to be free. We received an explanation of that from the noble Lord the Minister earlier, but I do not think that it satisfied the Committee. Why make such advice free and confuse farmers and advisers? That point was brought out in our earlier discussion. What does "animal welfare" cover? It is a wide subject. If a sick cow requires welfare, will that be free? What does "rural diversification" mean? Farmers are not fools. If they realise that environmental advice is free they will make the case that everything that they are doing is environmental. There could be diversification through new crops. Will that be free?
I make those points to show that there will probably be a muddle if ADAS is put on a semi-commercial basis. I cannot emphasise too much the muddle that there will be. That point was also brought out in our earlier discussion.
The staff at ADAS do not like the proposal. I have discussed it often. The noble Lord said he was at a demonstration and that some ADAS staff were there. They feel that the good relationship with farmers that they have built up over the years will be put under a considerable strain. That will be to the great detriment of both. I appeal to the noble Lord the Minister and the Government to accept the amendment.
There is another similar amendment, and I shall be interested to know what the noble Lord will say about it. The industry is worried about the Government's treatment of ADAS. There is a great deal of stick going about just now, and I do not want to see headlines such as, "ADAS bleeds to death" in the agricultural press again. That is the sort of headline that the Government are creating. I hold no brief for the press, but that headline is in a widely-read agricultural paper. I plead with the noble Lord to ensure that such a thing does not happen again. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: I had intended to move Amendment No. 13, which relates to charges by ADAS, but if I speak now I shall not have to introduce that amendment. I had intended to say a great deal about ADAS and the subject of charges, but almost all of it has been said. I should like to underline the fact that I feel deeply and am as worried as anybody about the prospects for ADAS and the dangers, implications and consequences that may arise from the proposed charges for advice.
I am puzzled because I have not heard in this Chamber, in the other place or even in a public statement any reason given for making charges. Will my noble friend the Minister make it clear why these charges are suddenly thought to be necessary and to be
436
a good idea? They seem to be completely illogical. If it is argued that there is an economic or financial basis for them, before the Bill's next stage I urge him to tell us the figures, what the Ministry's revenue estimates are and how it thinks the charges will help.
I feel that the proposal is an ill-thought-out and unfortunate insertion into the Bill which cannot be justified on any basis. I believe that the exemption for conservation advice is an afterthought. Although my noble friend has eloquently described how that provision will work, it will never be like that in practice. I can only describe the whole idea as a nonsense.
I hate to criticise my noble friend the Minister because of the marvellous part he has played over the past year or two in agriculture and conservation, and I pay tribute to him. Nevertheless, the brilliant and eloquent way in which my noble friend described how things would work between an ADAS adviser and a farmer sounded like a first-class lecture to a new squad of students at ADAS. After half a century as a landowner, farmer and conservationist, I know that that does not happen. It is manifestly impossible to stand with a man in the middle of a farm and decide whether one is talking about agriculture or conservation because the two matters are one and are indivisible.
The whole basis of the Government's policy, which we all applaud and welcome, is to proclaim that agriculture and conservation are one and are indivisible. That is the direction in which we are supposed to be moving. I cannot therefore understand how at this stage one can take one pace forward and three paces backwards and start dividing the two again. The ways around the provision are absolutely legion. There will be abuse, certainly by me. Every time I receive advice about agriculture I shall draw the adviser's attention to a blue tit sitting on a hedge. We shall discuss that for a few minutes and then continue with the agricultural discussion. I shall then say, "Why do you not stay on and catch a trout?" It is impossible to deal with matters in that way. It will lead to a great deal of unnecessary bureaucracy, form filling, arguments, correspondence and complaints from farmers saying that that was not what they agreed.
My amendment seeks to have no charges, not to argue about what should be charged and what should not. Anything else would lead to serious consequences for ADAS. I can see that after two or three years the Treasury will say, "How much revenue did we get last year from ADAS? How much did it charge?" Of course there will not be much, and the Treasury will probably then say, "ADAS is not earning enough. It is not earning its keep. It is about time we started to wind it up". The consequences of the proposal are serious and the idea of charging should be dropped and forgotten.
I implore my noble friend to realise that the charging proposal is completely inconsistent with the splendid way that he has carried forward the whole idea of integrating agriculture, conservation and the countryside. To go into reverse and to start trying to separate them will lead to nothing but chaos and trouble.
Baroness Nicol: If it was possible to separate the functions in the way that the noble Lord describes, there would be an even greater danger that ADAS would not be on the farm in the first place. If the farmer has to decide about advice and is offered free advice by commercial companies wanting to sell their products, the ADAS man will not be there. Much of the conservation advice given in the past has been incidental advice to the more technical advice that ADAS was called in to give.
It might be useful to give the Committee my list of a number of associations that have expressed anxiety over the question of ADAS charges. There is the World Wildlife fund, and then the RSPB, which has said:
"The RSPB believes that opportunities to influence farmers and encourage conservation will be reduced because farmers will increasingly reject the ministry's services in favour of free advice offered by manufacturers of pesticides, chemicals and farm machinery".
I believe that that is so. It is a point raised by a number of other organisations. The Water Authorities Association, to which my noble friend Lord Melchett has already referred, thinks that the same will happen in regard to pollution of water supplies. It points out that ADAS already gives advice on pollution of water supplies. This has proved very useful. The association fears, too, that farmers will be disinclined to seek help from ADAS if there will be a cost to them in the long run.
The noble Lord. Lord Buxton, asked how much the ministry hopes to raise from these charges. I should like to ask the Minister whether a cost benefit analysis was done at the beginning of the exercise, or whether it amounts really to the pursuit of a dogmatic approach in respect of charging. It is awfully difficult to see how any true profit can be made at the end of the exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, pointed out at Second Reading that when charges for soil analysis were introduced in Scotland some time ago there was a substantial reduction in the number of soil analyses requested. There is a great danger that this may happen in the case of all services offered by ADAS. I hope that the Minister will think again on the question of charges and that he will decide that the game is not worth the candle.
The Earl of Onslow: I must support my noble friend Lord Buxton and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to the greatest of my power. I cannot conceive of an exercise that is going to cause more muddle than trying to separate conservation charges, animal welfare charges and profit charges. I asked my noble friend on an earlier amendment whether organic farming was conservation or profit making, and answer came there none. If an ADAS officer was to advise that the use of spray X meant that while one's yield of weeds might be slightly higher, there would be more partridges and there would still more or less be the same yield of wheat, is that conservation or agricultural advice? It is impossible to separate.
If the ministry was to say that it would form a Royal agricultural advisory service to be made into a company that would function as a paying concern, there might be some logic in the proposal. I suspect, however, that the six million quid—the figure that one
438
has heard mentioned—that will be raised will simply disappear into the great bowels of the Treasury without touching the sides on its way down. No one will hear of it at all. It will have no effect whatever on the public sector borrowing requirement. It will simply vanish, and we shall have done a terrible damage to the agricultural industry and to an excellent service that is under pressure and where morale is low. That would be a very retrograde step, especially when the Government, as my noble friend Lord Buxton said, are now coming round to the right and sensible policy for the countryside which pleases those who care passionately about it.
The Government's thoughts are as plain as a pikestaff. Their reasoning is that farmers are a bit unpopular, that "green" people are nice, and that they will therefore charge farmers who are in any case producing too much food. However, they have not actually thought the whole operation through. They have come up with an illogical proposal for trying to raise six million quid extra in tax. In the same process they will wreck the ADAS service. That is not a good step for them to take.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I should like to add my tuppenceworth. I have nothing new to say. My noble kinsman, for once, was talking complete common sense. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, was eloquent and exposed how ludicrous is the double charge or no-charge charge and the glorious opportunity that this will afford hirers of bluetits for the afternoon. The whole idea is quite ludicrous. It would be funny if it were not so serious. The fact is that the colleges in Scotland are suffering a severe drain of very good people. Some are going out of farming altogether and others are going to commercial firms. The commercial firms will be employed by those who do not need them, the good farmers on the good farms. Those who really need them but who cannot afford to pay will not have an advisory service.
The noble Lord the Minister has been offered a way out. The money could be raised with great ease through levies on various bodies. There could then be a free service. This would be logical and would permit advice to be given on both conservation and farming. After all, farming is still very important. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, talked about these ridiculous people who cover the countryside with unwanted cereals. We also feed the people of this country to the extent of almost 100 per cent of their needs in terms of temperate products and save an enormous amount of money. It is still quite important that these people are kept going. I admit that is is important to get rid of the surpluses, but it is also important to consider the other side. The Minister has been offered a logical way out from all sides of the Committee. I see no disagreement around. Maybe some loyal chap will get up and defend the Minister; I hope not.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I am going to defend my noble friend, who seems to be under great stress. It is most complimentary that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, should remember what I said on Second Reading. It is perfectly true that I started by saying—I say it again—that I believe that advice for which you are asked to pay is probably treated as more valuable

439
than that which you get for nothing; I firmly believe that. The crux of the matter is what the charge will be. This is, I am bound to say, an unfortunate time to introduce a charge. The farming industry is under considerable stress. Yet, throughout what one might call the good years, during which I watched carefully, as did nearly every farmer north of the Border, what the Mackies were doing on their respective farms, we discovered that provided we followed what they were doing, we made a little money as well. I suggest that they could have afforded, out of the fairly substantial profits that I believe they made, to pay for the advice that they received.
Most of the farm buildings that one sees, put up to the great benefit of the industry and provided under the farm capital grant scheme, were designed by architects of the advisory services totally free of charge. I have often wondered why an industry that claimed to be the greatest in the country should expect to get totally free services of that kind.
I come back to what the charges will be. I think that it is an immensely difficult question. I know that my noble friend was sitting on the Front Bench last night when the noble Lord had a certain success with an amendment of his. One of the most learned of the Law Lords made the observation that it was most unwise to introduce into any statute the word "reasonable" because it was almost hopeless for anyone to interpret what the word "reasonable" means.
I hope that my noble friend will tell us what some of these charges will be. I shall also ask him whether he will let me into a secret. Are the words in his brief those that were in my brief when the word "reasonable" came up in a Ministry of Agriculture matter 12 years ago? The brief said, "If asked what 'reasonable' means, to be reasonable is to take an action that a reasonable Minister would find it reasonable to take."
Lord John-Mackie: I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that the farm building service provides an architectural service as well as a design service. It can give only a design service, not an architectural service.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I fully accept that.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I was waiting for the noble Lord to do what he said he was going to do—spring to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I was waiting with interest to hear him defend the indefensible. However, he never got round to it.
The objection to charging which has mainly been raised in this debate is the impossibility of drawing distinctions between those matters which the Government will charge for and those that they will not. A number of people have illustrated how one aspect might be seen as conservation or diversification or might be seen as normal agricultural advice. It seem to me that there is another twist to this. The same project can quite happily jump from one category to the other depending on how the conversation goes. For example, if I were to ask ADAS to give me advice on providing a farm pond for the benefit of wildlife—as many farmers are now doing—it would come along and give me free conservation advice. But at some
440
point in the discussion, as always happens in these instances, the ADAS officer would be duty bound to remind me that if I called this farm pond a reservoir it would be eligible for grant-aid from the Ministry.
At the point that the ADAS officer says that, our discussion becomes one about agricultural development and not conservation, because otherwise I am not eligible for the grant. I suppose that we would slip in and out of this—sometimes with free advice, sometimes not—depending on whether we were talking about the species of trees we were going to plant around the pond or the quantity of water that it was going to hold for emergency fire-fighting purposes, which would make it eligible for grant-aid.
Perhaps we may take another less common example, but one certainly on my mind as I watched my sugarbeet crop blow out of the ground in northwest Norfolk at least three times this spring. If I were to ask ADAS to come along and give me advice on erosion and on reducing the damage caused to sugar beet by strong spring winds and dry weather, I suppose that would be agricultural and I would expect to pay a charge. We would look at the soil structure and matters of that kind. Those would all be matters of agricultural advice. That is money ticking away. However, the ADAS officer might then reasonably come up with a solution that a shelter belt or a hedge might be desirable to reduce this problem. We then go straight into conservation advice. That would be free advice. Would all the previous work that he had done on looking at the soil profile become free of charge as a result or would it not?
I think that that is the nub of the problem. It is a totally illogical and impossible split. As the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, said, it moves directly against what for the past seven years the Government in every department have been urging all of us—conservationists, environmentalists and farmers—to do: namely, to draw these interests together, integrate them and reconcile them in the countryside. This is a deliberate attempt to stop that process and reverse it. It will have damaging effects on conservation. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, it will make sure that those who most need advice, and therefore can least afford it, do not get advice. But those (and I would include myself) farming larger farms who do not need the advice so badly can afford to pay for it and get it mostly, I have no doubt, from private consultants.
It would be a total disaster. To my mind, the end result would quite clearly be that ADAS will cease altogether to give advice on conservation. While farmers will want to get advice on conservation and will dress matters up to pretend that they are conservation so that the advice is free, the relentless pressure on ADAS is to raise the money. That pressure is against the background of an industry facing rising costs and falling prices year by year. There is pressure to raise the money, against stiff competition from private consultants, against a background where they are losing staff, expertise and, sadly, competence because the best people are going. They face a quite impossible job. They will be forced to try to do everything on a commercial basis to meet their target. They will fail. The Treasury will impose further cuts. This is undoubtedly, to my mind, the beginning of the end of ADAS.
Lord Forbes: I simply do not believe that this will save, or bring in, £6 million if ADAS make any charge. It might bring in a thousand or two at best. What will happen is that the ADAS man—who obviously wants to keep his job—will come to one's farm and investigate, say, a piggery. The first thing he will say is, "Let us look at what effect this alteration will have on duck flighting onto a nearby pond because if I do that then I do not have to charge for it". That is what will happen. The ADAS man will bend over backwards so that there is no charge. By doing that he will have a job. In the end it will be complete nonsense. It is simply not worth making any charge at all because one will get nothing out of it if one does make a charge.
Earl Peel: In speaking to this amendment I must say that I feel rather a turncoat because—I make no bones about it—I had every intention of speaking along the lines of my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Buxton. However, I have to say, having listened to the arguments on both sides, that I am not convinced by theirs.
Everybody has explained that the complications of trying to define what is conservation and what is not will be extremely difficult to solve. That is no doubt right. I would say to my noble friend Lord Onslow that if he wants advice on partridges he should go to the game conservancy and not to ADAS. He will be charged but he will get first-class advice.
I am extremely concerned that conservation matters and matters relating to the diversification of farm industries should be free. In this respect I am concerned in particular for those farmers in the less favoured areas. However, my noble friend has given us his assurance that these services will be free. I am certainly not against the basic principles of charging for certain advice and services. Indeed, I very much welcome the widening that the clause gives to ADAS. I believe that it would be far too complicated to try to incorporate in a Bill of this nature what should be charged for and what should not. Either one scraps ADAS charges altogether—as has been recommended by most people in this Chamber—or one has an order which dictates quite clearly what should be charged for and what should not.
However, I believe that in view of the widening of the ADAS remit and its further responsibilities on giving advice (some of which, as I have already said, should be charged for), on balance I come down in favour of the arguments that my noble friend on the Front Bench has given. I would go further in saying that by not charging for certain ADAS services it is possible that we may be eliminating the advance of ADAS.
It is absolutely imperative that the Ministry remains highly flexible in these matters in view of the uncertainty of farming in the future. That is a point that has been made by many noble Lords. I believe that it could be very restraining on the Ministry if it was tied by specifics in the Bill. Certain noble Lords have mentioned the free advice that would be given by chemical companies. They include the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Surely farmers realise that the advice they will receive from chemical companies will be one-sided, and that the advice which they will
442
receive from ADAS will be impartial advice. Of course they will have the sense to differentiate between the two.
This is a very thorny subject, and I quite freely admit that I have changed my view about it. That perhaps is due to the advantage of being able to come here and listen to the debate. However, after considerable thought I have changed my mind and I support my noble friend.
Lord Belstead: This has been an interesting debate and I have also listened carefully to it and learned something from it. The first reason I say that it is interesting is that the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, would be that advisory services were provided entirely free. However, interestingly enough, the noble Lord is more draconian than the Government in that the amendment says that there should be a charge of a reasonable amount for any goods provided as part of an advisory service. There, of course, the Government want to keep more flexibility. For instance, we think that advisory publications or emergency vaccines, which the noble Lord mentioned, could in some cases be free as well as being charged for. So there are quite interesting cross-currents in relation to this amendment.
Nonetheless, the main thrust of this debate has been that Members of the Committee think that the advisory services should continue to be entirely free of charge. My noble friend Lord Buxton asked me why the Government think that they should start charging for the advisory services. My noble friend was indeed generous in the remarks that he made but, uncharacteristically, perhaps not quite fair when he said that he felt that it was a sudden, last-minute decision.
The reasons were clearly set out in Professor Bell's report, which was published in November 1984, and, as I made clear earlier this afternoon, in November last year my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture gave his assurance about intending to see that advice on diversification, animal welfare and conservation should be free. Therefore, I think it is fair for me to claim that for some time we have been thinking about these matters and gradually trying to develop our thoughts.
Nonetheless, my noble friend asked why we wanted to charge. It was my noble friend Lord Stodart who really gave the answer. We genuinely believe that, at a time when we are looking very carefully at every penny in the agricultural budget, it really will give the opportunity for both the agricultural industry and the Ministry to decide between themselves what is of most value in the services which ADAS provides and how, over the years, these services can best be developed for the future.
However, we also believe—and I shall not disguise this from Members of the Committee—that it is not unreasonable to say that, where an industry benefits from a public service, it ought to contribute to the cost. Do not let us forget that on the present proposals the Government will still be paying over 80 per cent. of the cost of ADAS, which is in the region of £100 million.
I was interested that my noble friend Lord Peel, who yields to no one in wanting to ensure that the right

443
advice gets through not only in husbandry matters but also in conservation matters, came out straight and said that, although he was absolutely determined that environmental advice should be free, he believed that the Government were on the right track in introducing charges. I was interested in that remark of my noble friend and, indeed, in my noble friend Lord Stodart taking a friendly attitude on the general thrust of the Government's policy, because if we look at Europe we will see that we do not stand alone.
We find that the agricultural industry contributes about 40 per cent. of the cost of advice in Germany. Indeed, two years ago I had the opportunity to visit Schleswig-Holstein and I was told that there it was being carried out on a Läander basis; that farmers were contributing 50 per cent. and the state the other 50 per cent. Farmers in France are contributing not far short of half of the cost of the advisory services; and I am told that nearly 80 per cent. is contributed by farmers in Denmark to their advisory services. I understand that an average charge per farmer off £1,000 is made in Denmark where the average sized farm, at about 30 hectares, is less than half the United Kingdom average. In the Netherlands discussions are continuing in the expectation of a greater contribution from the farmer, but there is a move to 50/50 funding for research and for some animal health functions, including tuberculosis and brucellosis work. Therefore, with respect we do not stand alone in Europe. Indeed, other countries have moved ahead of us in this particular matter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the noble Lord tell us how the services are paid for in Denmark and Holland? Is it by contribution or by individual charges for advice?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I am very sorry, but I do not have that information. I shall have to come back on that to the noble Lord. When I visited Germany my understanding was that it was on a subscription basis at the beginning of the year, but I shall come back to the noble Lord on that. However, the noble Lord's question leads me to try to answer a question which was put to me by my noble friend Lord Stodart, who said that, while we are on this subject, we ought now to know exactly what it is that the Government are putting before the Committee as regards charging.
If the Members of the Committee will bear with me for a moment—again, this is a prepared statement and, again, we have not said this elsewhere—I think that in this Committee stage in your Lordships' House I ought to say this. We currently envisage, if Parliament agrees to charging coming into effect for ADAS, providing four broad categories of service. Firstly, we would envisage that there would be two annual subscription schemes under which farmers would receive free advisory literature and regular information about ADAS services and, for the higher priced scheme, some advisory visits.
We are still working out the precise details of these two annual subscription schemes, but the aim would be to provide a straightforward service at a reasonable charge aimed at those farmers who have relatively
444
modest information demands but who nevertheless value the contact with ADAS, and those who may take up more complex specialist advice but who wish to establish a longer-term contact with ADAS than that provided by purchasing advice only when it is needed. Detailed costings, cannot yet be made, but we would envisage two standard charges for two different levels of service: something in the region of £50 a year for the simpler service and about £150 for a service offering advisory visits. These prices, which exclude VAT, are still very provisional, but they give an indication of the levels that we would be considering.
Secondly, we intend to offer advice on a time-related basis at a standard charge per hour. This is likely to be of the order of £25 or £30, excluding VAT, for the majority of ADAS advisers. We are also considering whether a higher charge would be appropriate for national or other specialists. Thirdly, we would intend offering a number of special advisory packages, ranging from a financial review of the farm business to compehensive recording and advisory schemes to help farmers manage specialist enterprises.
I shall not weary the Committee by trying to describe those in detail, but we shall be publishing a series of leaflets describing these packages in outline within the next few weeks, and I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House in due course. It would also be possible for farmers to purchase individually tailored packages.
Finally, we would intend to offer special contracts for farmers or groups of farmers whose needs are not covered by the schemes in the other groups that I have described. These contracts would provide whatever advisory services are needed, including research and development, which ADAS can provide at a price which will have to be negotiated for each contract. In parenthesis, perhaps I may say that that does not of course mean that ADAS R and D will not be made publicly available. I am simply saying that there may be occasions when these may be particular contract R and D work which certain farmers or groups of farmers would want to commission with ADAS.
May I just end by making a general point or two. We envisage these categories of services as being independent. For example, a farmer would not have to join a subscription scheme before being able to buy advice by the hour. Farmers certainly would not have to pay to find out what ADAS can offer by way of changeable services and should not be afraid to discuss matters with their ADAS advisers. Farmers will always be told beforehand whether they are incurring charges. I should not like it to be thought that these proposals are in any way our last thoughts and I should not like it to be thought that this Committee would allow them to be.
If it becomes clear following introduction that a demand for particular services is lower than anticipated—and I listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Forbes has just said—we will examine critically whether the services are too elaborate and expensive, and will try to make necessary changes. Opportunities will also be taken to introduce further services.
The prices for ADAS' services will have a major influence on demand; of course we realise that. The

445
prices of ADAS' services will be set at levels which cover the direct cost of the service and make an appropriate contribution to the overhead costs properly attributable to the service, having regard to what the market will bear. We will continue to keep under review the scope for improving efficiency within ADAS and hence reduce the cost of ADAS services, and will give careful consideration to the overhead costs appropriate to the chargeable services that ADAS is providing. It is important that I say that because we are talking about the interests of others who are in the market as well.
Perhaps I may add a final word. I am not worried about how ADAS will be competing in the market. Working in the Ministry of Agriculture I can say that I believe ADAS will succeed well in the market place because it has a lot of expertise, a lot of skills to offer and great integrity. That is known and accepted. I should like to pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the officers of the service.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for having been rather long-winded, but I felt that it was important that this statement about ADAS charging should be laid before the Committee at this stage.
Earl Peel: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether, in view of the particular hardships that occur in the less favoured areas, he would consider a reduced charge for farmers in those places?
Lord Belstead: I should like to look at that and perhaps have a word with my noble friend between now and the next stage of the Bill. There are problems as to where one would draw the dividing lines in this particular matter. It was because I was bearing in mind the sort of point my noble friend has just put to me that I started my statement by pointing out that we will have two levels of subscriptions, and the first will be at a very reasonable level indeed.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him whether he will say anything more about the other important problem raised by noble Lords on all sides in this debate about distinguishing between conservation and other free advice and advice which will be charged for? Can he say something more about what happens if a project turns from one thing into another in the course of discussion? The noble Lord the Minister told us how he saw the dividing line working on an earlier amendment, but it clearly did not satisfy noble Lords on either side. Is the noble Lord able to respond to any of those criticisms which have arisen despite the long statement he has made on another matter just now?
The Earl of Onslow: I especially underline that point because the noble Lord the Minister has just said to my noble friend Lord Peel that dividing lines are difficult to arrive at.
Lord Belstead: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, we had a long debate on his Amendment No. 3, and this was exactly what we discussed and I had hoped that we had moved on from that. May be we differ on this, but we can agree to differ. I do not see that there is much point in going over all the ground again, if I may say so.
446
However, I would say just one thing to my noble friend Lord Onslow. My noble friend said that he had not had a reply about whether organic farming would fall within the definition of conservation. When making the statement about not charging for conservation I endeavoured to say that we would feel that environmental matters would mean anything primarily designed to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of an area or its flora or fauna, or its biological, geological or geographical features, or to prevent environmental pollution. If I may say so, I do not think that organic farming would fall within that category. My noble friend Lord Radnor said he did not feel, and I said I did not feel, either, that organic farming should be treated as something separate and apart. It is admirable when done well, but something which is not separate and apart. Therefore, I do not think there will be a case for saying that organic farming will be a sort of conservation.
Lord John-Mackie: I do not want to delay the Committee, but nothing that the noble Lord the Minister has said has changed my mind in any shape or form. May I point out that the mix-up between conservation and commercial advice is not one of my main points, although it is an important one.
My main point is that farmers, in particular the farmers the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has mentioned, in the less favoured areas, will not go to ADAS if the charges are what the noble Lord says. I think the figure is £25 to £35 per hour and more, and if it is a specialist it will be £150. I am not quite sure what that covered, but I think it covered obtaining literature, etc. I feel that will bear very hardly on small farmers. The average small farm is only about 160 acres; I am sorry, but I cannot convert that into hectares. Bearing in mind the debate and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, did not have a lot of support (at least, it was limited support as was that for the noble Earl, Lord Peel) I think we should test the feeling of the Committee.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 81.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Attlee, E.

Hanworth, V.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Heycock, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jacques, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Jeger, B.

Craigavon, V.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McNair, L.

Foot, L.

Melchett, L.

Forbes, L.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mountevans, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

447

Onslow, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Willis, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wise, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

NOT- CONTENTS

Amptill, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Auckland, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon- Avon, L.

Bauer, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Middleton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Northbourne, L.

Caithness, E.

Peel, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Radnor, E.

Carnock, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Clinton, L.

Reay, L.

Coleraine, L.

Reigate, L.

Craigmyle, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Davidson, V.

Salisbury, M.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Denning, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Elton, L.

Swansea, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Teviot, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tranmire, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vickers, B.

Inglewood, L.

Vivian, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Layton, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ypres, E.

Long, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Swinton: This might be a convenient time to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill. In doing so, may I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage on the Agriculture Bill before five minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
7.4 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Definition of principal terms used]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 23, after ("time") insert ("referred to in subsection (6) below as").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, leave out lines 7 to 26 and insert—
("(b) pay any sum which would be included among the preferential debts (within the meaning given by section 386 of the Insolvency Act 1986) in the defendant's bankruptcy commencing on the date of the confiscation order or winding up under an order of the court made on that date.
(8) In the case of a confiscation order made before the coming into force of the Insolvency Act 1986, subsection (7) above shall have effect as if for paragraph (b) there were substituted—
"(b) pay any sum which, if the defendant had been adjudged bankrupt or was being wound up, would be among the preferential debts.";
and in that paragraph "the preferential debts"—

(a) in relation to bankruptcy, means the debts to be paid in priority under section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1914 (assuming the date of the confiscation order to be the date of the receiving order) and

(b) in relation to winding-up, means the preferential debts listed in Schedule 19 to the Companies Act 1985 assuming the date of the confiscation order to be the relevant date for the purposes of that Schedule.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. May I at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 35. This lengthy list of amendments is required to take account of the Bill consolidating the law on insolvency which was yesterday considered by the Joint Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Cases in which restraint orders and charging orders may be made]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 16, leave out ("court") and insert ("High Court").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this small amendment is to clarify that where action requires to be taken under this Bill before criminal proceedings have been commenced, it will be for the High Court to determine who is to be regarded as the prosecutor. Under the Bill as at present drafted the Scottish Court of Session might have to take a separate decision in this matter in cross-Border cases, and this would add an unnecessary complication. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Variation of confiscation orders]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 16, line 10, after ("above") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and, if I may, speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 13, 20 and the new clause intended to follow Clause 16. I have a lengthy note, but perhaps it may suffice if I say that your Lordships will recall that during the Report stage of the Bill we agreed amendments to deal with the situation which might arise if assets belonging to a trafficker were tied up in bankruptcy proceedings at the time when a restraint or confiscation order was made. I indicated then that the Government might bring forward similar amendments on Third Reading relating to the

449
liquidation of companies. These are those amendments. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would like me to go further I can do so; but if he is happy, I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I postpone my happiness with the amendment for only a moment. I have no comment on it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 16, line 14, at end insert ("and
(b) the court may disregard any inadequacy in the realisable property which appears to the court to be attributable wholly or partly to anything done by the defendant for the purpose of preserving any property held by a person to whom the defendant had directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Act from any risk of realisation under this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Bankruptcy of defendant etc.]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("Part III of the Insolvency Act 1985") and insert ("Part IX of the Insolvency Act 1986").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 17, line 2, after ("21") insert ("of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 17, line 7, leave out ("154 or 155") and insert ("307 or 308").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 2.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, I must take Amendment No. 8 separately.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 12:
Page 17, line 12, leave out ("127(2)(c)") and insert ("280(2)(c)").
Page 17, line 22, leave out ("133") and insert ("286").
Page 17, line 27, leave out ("134(6)") and insert ("287(4)").
Page 17, line 28, leave out ("133(3)") and insert ("286(3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 17, line 33, after ("shall") insert (", subject to a lien for any expenses (including his remuneration) properly incurred in respect of the property,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 17, line 38, leave out ("174 or 212") and insert ("339 or 423").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 2.
On Question, Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 18:
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("Part III of that Act") and insert ("the Insolvency Act 1986").
Page 18, line 10, leave out ("III of the Insolvency Act 1985") and insert ("IX of that Act").
Page 18, line 13, leave out ("127(2)(c), 133, 174 and 212") and insert ("280(2)(c), 286, 339 and 423").
Page 18, line 13, leave out ("1985") and insert ("1986").
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall put a single Question as to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Sequestration in Scotland of defendant etc.]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 18, line 36, after ("21") insert ("of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 19, line 26, after ("shall") insert (", subject to a lien for any expenses (including his remuneration) properly incurred in respect of the property.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 19, line 41, at end insert—
("(7) In any case in which, notwithstanding the coming into force of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913 applies to a sequestration, subsection (2) above shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof there were substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) property comprised in the whole property of the debtor which vests in the trustee under section 97 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913,

(b) any income of the bankrupt which has been ordered, under subsection (2) of section 98 of that Act, to be paid to the trustee or any estate which, under subsection (1) of that section, vests in the trustee";

and subsection (3) above shall have effect as if for the reference there into the Act of 1985 there were substituted a reference to the Act of 1913.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Clause 16 is to regulate the relationship between the provisions of this Bill and sequestration under Scots law. This amendment makes transitional provision in the case where the sequestration was awarded before 1st April 1985 (the commencement date for the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985) and thus is governed by the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913. The amendment therefore substitutes in Clause 16 (2) and (3), in their application to such cases, suitable references to the 1913 Act in place of references to the 1985 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord the Minister on his expertise in Scots law, which appears to equal his expertise in his own native law of England?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I merely correct the noble Lord about the words my "native law", because he will find that my native law is Scots also.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must correct myself and apologise and ask the noble Lord whether he will not mislead the House and will really obtain a Scots accent when he addresses us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 16 insert the following new clause:
"Winding up of company holding realisable property.
.—(1) Where realisable property is held by a company and an order for the winding up of the company has been made or a resolution has been passed by the company for voluntary winding up, the functions of the liquidator (or any provisional liquidator) shall not be exercisable in relation to—

(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order made before the relevant time, and

(b) any proceeds of property realised by virtue of section 8(6) or 11(5) or (6) of this Act for the time being in the hands of a receiver appointed under section 8 or 11 of this Act;

but there shall be payable out of such property any expenses (including the remuneration of the liquidator or provisional liquidator) properly incurred in the winding up in respect of the property.
(2) Where, in the case of a company, such an order has been made or such a resolution has been passed, the powers conferred on the High Court by sections 8 to 12 of this Act or on a receiver so appointed or on the Court of Sessions by sections 19 to 21 of this Act shall not be exercised in relation to any realisable property held by the company in relation to which the functions of the liquidator are exercisable—

(a) so as to inhibit him from exercising those functions for the purpose of distributing any property held by the company to the company's creditors, or

(b) so as to prevent the payment out of any property of expenses (including the remuneration of the liquidator or any provisional liquidator) property incurred in the winding up in respect of the property.

(3) Nothing in the Insolvency Act 1986 shall be taken as restricting, or enabling the restriction of, the exercise of those powers.
(4) Subsection (2) above does not affect the enforcement of a charging order made before the relevant time or on property which was subject to a restraint order at the relevant time.
(5) In this section—
"Company" means any company which may be wound up under the Insolvency Act 1986; and
"the relevant time" means—

(a) where no order for the winding up of the company has been made, the time of the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up,

(b) where such an order has been made and, before the presentation of the petition for the winding up of the company by the court, such a resolution had been passed by the company, the time of the passing of the resolution, and

(c) in any other case where such an order has been made, the time of the making of the order.

(6) In any case in which a winding up of a company has commenced, or is treated as having commenced, before the date on which the Insolvency Act 1986 comes into force, this section has effect with the substitution for references to that Act of references of the Companies Act 1985.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Enforcement of other external orders]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 27, line 14, leave out ("14") and insert ("17").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Sections 26 and 27: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 31, line 24, leave out ("professional").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this again is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Disclosure of information held by government departments]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 32, line 20, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that on Report stage we deleted a large number of references to "property available in respect of the defendant" and replaced them with references to the new concept of "realisable property". I am afraid that one escaped us, and this amendment is intended to bring the terminology of Clause 29 into line with the rest of the Bill as revised. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Offence of prejudicing investigation]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 34, line 5, leave out ("or having reasonable grounds to suspect").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was suggested by the Criminal Bar Association, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will remember. It will alter the required mental element in the offence of prejudicing a drug trafficking investigation by removing the objective test of having reasonable grounds to suspect that an investigation was taking place. If the amendment is adopted the prosecution would have to show that the accused knew or suspected that such an investigation was under way at the time he disclosed information prejudicial to it, not simply that there were grounds for him to suspect it.
Your Lordships will recall that at Report stage we adopted a similar amendment to the mental element in the new laundering offence when I explained that the Government had concluded that it would be right to avoid any risk of punishing mere inadvertence. I believe that the same considerations apply here and I am grateful to the Criminal Bar Association for its suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this. I do not agree with the Criminal Bar Association. I think we shall have a great problem, if this amendment is accepted, both in regard to this and

453
to the laundering. Let me explain a little. We are dealing here with a new offence; namely, warning, say by a friend of the drug trafficker, that proceedings are being taken. We are dealing with two methods of investigating drug trafficking offences. One concerns seizing the material that has been involved in drug trafficking. That is one section. The other section is getting a search warrant or the equivalent of a search warrant for premises where you may find material engaged in drug trafficking. Those can be obtained on application to the court.
What this clause is intended to do is to catch the man who gives the tip-off—a friend of the drug trafficker—who may say to him, "They are going to the court to get an order. You be quick. Get rid of those proceeds at once before they get the court order". It is that person whom this clause is intended to hit. It is intended to make him guilty of a criminal offence if he warns someone. He may be a clerk in a solicitor's office or anyone else who can say, "Look here, they are going to the court to get an order. You get rid of those proceeds at once". It is that person who is held by this clause to be committing a criminal offence.
Let us see what the Criminal Bar Association says about it. It suggests the words "knows or suspects". It says that the prosecution has to prove his state of mind, that he knew or suspected. As Clause 30(1) stands, it states that a person who knows or suspects or has reasonable cause to suspect that an investigation has taken place is guilty—in other words, if he turns a blind eye to it.
Then come the words:
"In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, it is a defence to prove that he did not know or suspect that the disclosure was likely to prejudice an investigation".
If this amendment goes through, there would be a complete inconsistency in the clause. You would have the first clause which says that he is guilty if he knows or suspects, and then you have the next clause saying that it is a defence for him to prove that he did not know or suspect. In other words, you have two inconsistent clauses; one saying that it is for the prosecution to prove that he knew or suspected; and the other clause saying it is a defence for him to prove he did not know or suspect. That is my criticism of this clause as it stands.
I am sorry that I could not be here at the Report stage; but I am very glad indeed to see laundering made a complete offence. When anyone in a bank, institution or building society, knows or suspects, or has reasonable ground to suspect, that it is drug-trafficking money, then it is his duty to disclose it. Otherwise, if he lets the arrangement go forward, if he helps in the laundering, then he himself is guilty of an offence. The clause makes it perfectly clear that the man in the bank or building society or whatever it may be, ought to tell the constable or Customs and Excise or whoever: "I think that it is probably drug-trafficking money". He ought to tell that to the police and then go by what the police tell him to do.
The same question arises here concerning laundering. I am afraid that words were taken out in Committee. As originally drafted, I think Clause 23 was quite good. It was not only that the man knew or suspected, but also had reasonable grounds to suspect.
454
Those words were taken out. So you have the same inconsistency. You have on the one side the prosecution having to prove that he knew or suspected; and then, in that case, you have the same thing in Clause 23(4) that it is a defence to prove that he did not know or suspect. There you have again the prosecution having to prove that he knew or suspected but you have a clause in the statute which says that it is a defence for him to prove that he did not know or suspect. Those are the two inconsistencies. I do not know how the courts will go about it. I certainly would not want any time to be taken up or delay caused by any amendments here. This Bill ought to he got through as quickly as may be.
I am not sure that the best policy is not to let the amendment go through as it is and leave the courts to solve the problem when it comes before them. I do not know whether or not that is right. I have an idea that they will say, "If it is a defence for him to prove that he did not know or suspect, the inference from that is that it is presumed against him that he did know or suspect unless he makes good his defence". Whether the courts will do that or not, I do not know. They do not read Hansard—they are not allowed to read Hansard—to see what any of us say about it. The courts will have to go through it and decide it without the help of anything that is said in here in this House at all.
I would point out that this amendment to Clause 30 and the present state of Clause 23 leaves the courts with an almost insoluble problem: the prosecution having to prove that he knew or suspected—and that is what the Criminal Bar Association says—but the statute saying that it is a defence for him to prove that he did not know or suspect. There it is. It has to be solved somehow. I should like to know what anyone else has to say about it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, one always listens with the greatest possible respect—and this is a phrase always used when one follows the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning; and I use it once more—to anything that the noble and learned Lord says to the House. If I really believed that there was a grave inconsistency here and that the courts would have a terribly difficult task to perform—which is what the noble and learned Lord thought—I should certainly want to consider negating this amendment. I did not quite follow the noble and learned Lord when he said that possibly the best course, in spite of the inconsistency that he saw and the impossible task laid before the courts, was to leave it to the courts to sort it out.
If he will forgive me for saying so, to me that was a graver inconsistency than the one that he pointed out; since if they have an impossible task it is not for Parliament to put them in such a position that they have such an impossible task. I view this amendment in the following way, and I say this most respectfully. We are dealing with a criminal charge where, in a Bill, we have imported very unusual sanctions and very unusual provisions in our criminal law. But here we are not dealing with the people directly involved when we are dealing with laundering. Nor are we dealing in this section with those who are directly involved. We are dealing with those who disclose that an investigation is pending; and there may be more than one reason for such a disclosure.

455
There, we have to be extremely careful that we do not allow the rigours of our criminal law to fall upon the heads of people without giving them adequate room for adequate defences. Where I do not see the inconsistency is in this. The prosecution, as I see it, will have to make a prima facie case out before the court that this prisoner knew or suspected. Having made out that prima facie case, the defendant is then put in the position either of seeing that the evidence is so weighty that he cannot possibly rebut it—in which case presumably the court finds him guilty—or the defendant says, "Yes, all that circumstantial and suspicious evidence which has been put forward by the prosecution is all very well. They have indeed to the satisfaction of the court made out a prima facie case. Now the onus is upon me to show that I did not know and that I did not suspect". If that onus of proof is satisfied by his evidence, or the evidence that he calls, then he is entitled to an acquittal.
However, if you import into the Bill another way of allowing the prosecution to make out a prima facie case and you say, "I can't prove that he knew and I certainly can't prove that he suspected. But I put evidence before the court that he ought to have suspected even if he didn't know". He had "reasonable grounds"—those are the words, if I may respectfully say so to the noble and learned Lord, and not "reasonable cause". There may be a slight difference in the two words. The words in the Bill originally were, "reasonable grounds".
If you import that and you say that if the court is satisfied about that and then you put upon the defendant the onus of proving to the court that he had no reasonable grounds for suspecting at all, that really is an objective test which I would have thought our criminal law would want to retreat from because it is a negation, I would have said, of proper justice in this context where somebody is not directly connected with the offence.
So I say that it is right; and I say to the Criminal Law Association that their submission to the Minister was a useful one and I congratulate the Minister, if I may say so, for having listened to such a worthy association. I am sure that, equally, he has listened with great deference to the noble and learned Lord; but I hope that he finds that what I have said—and, indeed, I hope that the noble and learned Lord finds that what I have said—is not without sense.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, speaking as one who I believe is still a vice-president of the Criminal Bar Association, may I very strongly support this amendment and hope that the Government will persist in it? I give my support on three grounds. First, the offence in Clause 30 will then be the offence of knowing or suspecting certain matters. That is a formula which is accepted and recognised in the criminal law of this country.
Secondly, it is clearly desirable that there should be consistency throughout this Bill, and the fact that those are the words used in Clause 23 and that no attempt has been made today to amend them makes it necessary that we should now amend Clause 30 to bring it into line. Thirdly, on general principles, I
456
would think it wrong for us to attempt to import into Clause 30 the objective element about which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has spoken, which is included in the words,
"having reasonable grounds to suspect".
I go along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when he says that this offence may not always be an easy one to prove. In our submission, that is no justification for tinkering with established legal principles in order to make it easier to obtain convictions. I hope the Government will persist with this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and indeed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for their comments. So far as consistency is concerned—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised—of course it is consistent with Clause 23. I will study what the noble and learned Lord has said, but I believe the point about our amendment was really best summarised perhaps by what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. If the person making the disclosure knew or suspected that the investigation was taking place—and that is a matter for the jury on the basis of the evidence put forward—he would be found guilty. What we want to avoid is putting at risk, for example, a bank clerk who might not realise the investigation was taking place and who might disclose something prejudicial to it. We do not want to punish mere oversight, and although the prosecution must prove that the person actually knew or suspected, the defendant can be asked questions (if he gives evidence) about the reasonableness of his conduct to establish that beyond all reasonable doubt he knew that he was tipping off the defendant.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the defence in Clause 32. It is indeed a defence if he did not know or suspect that the disclosure would prejudice the investigation. But in Clause 31 a person will commit an offence if he knows or suspects that the investigation is taking place and makes a disclosure. I believe we have it right. Of course I note the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, but I hope he will allow this amendment to go forward.
Lord Denning: My Lords, certainly I will. I should like to say only this. I preferred the original draft of the Government's advisers, both in regard to Clause 23 and in regard to this one. But, on the other hand, I quite agree that there ought to be consistency. Clauses 23 and 30 ought to be on the same lines; otherwise, we shall have the courts arguing about that. On the whole, I think that in the circumstances it is much better to let the amendment go forward, and if there are troubles —I think there might be, but I hope there will not be—I am sure the courts will be able to decide them satisfactorily. If I may say so, they all lean in favour of the defence a great deal, perhaps, but, on the other hand, in those cases I hope they will realise that we want to stop this drug trafficking and all those who assist in it just as much as we can.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Power to inspect Land Register etc.]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 27:
Transpose clause 33 to after clause 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rearrangement of two clauses, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [General interpretation]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 34:
Page 40, line 17, leave out ("where") and insert ("when").
Page 40, line 17, after ("summons") insert ("or warrant").
Page 40, line 18, leave out from ("1980") to end of line 22 and insert ("in respect of the offence").
Page 40, line 23, leave out ("where") and insert ("when").
Page 40, line 24, leave out from ("warrant") to end of line 25.
Page 40, line 26, leave out ("where") and insert ("when").
Page 40, line 29, leave out from ("section") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 28 to 34 en bloc. They are all drafting amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38 [Minor amendments]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 41, line 31, leave out ("128(4) of the Insolvency Act 1985") and insert ("281(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 41, line 35, leave out "(1)") and insert ("(2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 42, line 4, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsections (4) and (5)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, again, is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 42, line 7, after ("sections") insert ("7(4),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendment No. 38 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41. These amendments to this extant clause of the Bill provide for four further provisions of the Bill to apply to Scotland. The first three amendments are of a drafting and consequential nature. The amendment concerning Clause 23 is more substantial.
The House may recall that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate announced at Report stage his intention to introduce this amendment to extend to Scotland the statutory protection from actions for breach of confidence afforded by the Bill to any person who discloses information about funds or investments which they suspect may be derived from drug trafficking. This amendment to this extant clause achieves that purpose, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 41:
Page 42, line 10, at end insert ("section 7(3)").
Page 42, line 13, leave out ("and 16") and insert (", 16 and [Winding up of company holding realisable property]").
Page 42, line 14, at end insert—
("section 23(3)(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Tonight we have completed our consideration of a measure which, although entirely straightforward in intention, has proved perhaps unusually complex. I believe there has been no doubt anywhere in your Lordships' House about the importance of depriving those who traffick in drugs of the proceeds they have made. All your Lordships who have spoken during the consideration of this Bill, and indeed on other occasions, have expressed abhorrence of those who engage in this dreadful trade, and have also expressed their deep concern for those—very often young people—whose lives are effectively destroyed as a result. Your Lordships have rightly stressed the need for wide-ranging action against drug misuse, both to bring about a reduction in demand and also to take effective action to counter the illegal supply of controlled drugs.
In the context of our attack on illegal supply, this Bill has a dual purpose. On the one hand, it will send a clear signal to the trafficker that if he is convicted he will not be able to retain any of the wealth he has made as a result of his evil activities. If he is found guilty of just one trafficking offence, he stands to lose everything he has gained. That will surely give cause for thought to those who are currently prepared to take the risk of receiving a long prison sentence provided they can look forward to a life of ease and plenty on their release.
Secondly, the legislation will allow the proceeds to be taken out of the drugs trade altogether so that they cannot be used to finance further drugs deals. Large-scale trafficking not only generates big money but also depends and even thrives on it. The more money we can get away from the drugs area by means of confiscation, the greater will be our impact on the trade, and the Bill provides for the police and Customs to investigate a drug trafficker's financial dealings. The greater the trafficker's likelihood of being caught in the first place, the greater deterrent will be the prospect of confiscation.
The deep concern we all share about the misuse of drugs has been demonstrated in the spirit of constructive

459
co-operation which has marked the approach to this Bill at all its stages in your Lordships' House and in another place. I should like to express my deep gratitude for the suggestions which have come forward and for the assistance which the Bill has received. I should particularly like to express my thanks for the patience and good humour with which your Lordships have considered an unusually large number of Government amendments during the later stages of the Bill's passage. I know that this has put something of a burden on all those who have participated in the proceedings and has caused not a little alarm on the part of my noble friend the Chief Whip. But the confiscation scheme established by the Bill is a novel one and its details are very complex. We thought it right to take our opportunities to refine the Bill's provisions as it went through your Lordships' House.
The Bill before us must of course be considered on its own merits. As I have explained, I am certain it will play a significant role in the overall battle against the traffickers and i repeat the Government's gratitude for the patient and constructive way in which it has been considered by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—[Lord Glenarthur.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister was right to stress at the end of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House what was said in the introductory speeches on the Bill; namely, that the House was dealing with one of the greatest evils with which our society has to deal. Possibly there has been an example of that only over the past 24 hours or so; whether or not that be so, I know that all your Lordships would wish to extend your sympathy to a bereaved family which is of significant value in public duty and in public work for this country.
It was because of this situation that the Government achieved co-operation from all sections in your Lordships' House as they did in another place. I hope on behalf of my noble friends that I have shown our deep concern at this dreadful traffic and our desire to do anything we possibly can by legislation to bring the drug trafficking business to an end, and where it still exists, to see that appropriate punishments of a very high order are administered and that profits do not accrue if we can stop that. That is the reason for the confiscation provisions and other unusual provisions in the Bill.
I make no apology to your Lordships for repeating something I have said so often in the course of our discussions. It is that this should be realised as being a unique case where we have introduced unique provisions and unique penalties. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is much more entitled to speak on behalf of the Criminal Law Association than ever I would be as he is a distinguished officer of the association, as indeed he was a distinguished member before his retirement of the criminal Bar. The association emphasised the uniqueness of the situation in a letter which it sent to Mr. Mellor who dealt with this matter in the Commons on behalf of the Government. I have seen a copy of Mr. Mellor's reply. I hope it is made perfectly clear that the Government realise the unique
460
measures that have been introduced, and that if there is any question of ever introducing them into any other criminal legislation, such provisions will have to be taken on their merit by Parliament, and that this is not deemed to be a precedent in any way.
My last words are of congratulation to the noble Lord the Minister on the way in which he has steered this measure through the House with his usual courtesy and clarity of thought.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on introducing the Bill in the House and carrying it through. It is perhaps revolutionary in our law, but it deals with a most intransigent subject. The new provisions are as follows. There is confiscation. After the man is convicted there will be confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking. We have not had it before. There is the restraint order. Before the man is convicted, or long before that—almost as soon as he is charged—you can go to the High Court and get an order preventing any of the people who hold or may hold the proceeds of the trafficking of drugs dealing with them or getting them away.
Perhaps I may mention the laundering provisions suggested at first by the Select Committee of the House of Commons and then taken up by your Lordships. How important they are, because the first thing a drug trafficker does is to try to get the moneys away—out to a numbered bank account in Switzerland, out to buy a house in the name of his wife, or put in the name of a nominee. There are all kinds of ways in which a trafficker launders the dirty money and tries to make it appear clean so that when it comes back to this country it cannot be traced.
With regard to the laundering provisions, how important it is that the banks have all agreed to deal with it. The banks will notify the constable or the Customs when any laundering arrangement comes to their notice. When any money comes into their hands which they suspect is drug trafficking money they will notify the constable or the authorities as it may be. That will help a great deal. If they do not notify when they ought, they will be guilty of an offence. There it is; for their own protection they will readily co-operate.
I shall say only one word of controversy. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised it. He said that this provision must be applied only to drug trafficking money; it must not apply to the money which robbers steal from banks and then put in another bank. He said that we must have nothing to do with that. My Lords, hesitate a little. When a bank cashier receives£100,000 in bank notes he may suspect that it is drug trafficking money; he may suspect that it is from a burglary or some other crime. He cannot tell which, but he very much suspects that it is ill-gotten money. What is he to do? If he wants to be safe, he should tell the authorities.
I should like to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said at Report stage:
"There will be cases in which a bank suspects that money is the proceeds of crime but cannot say whether it is the proceeds of drug trafficking. In order to avoid the possibility of the laundering offence

461
being committed the bank would be wise to proceed on the basis that it is drugs money, and the new protection would extend to it if it did".—[Official Report, 13/5/86; col. 1117.]
It seems to me that that is very good advice to the banks or anyone handling money which they suspect may be from drugs or from something else. At all events they should report it. Let the police and all those concerned get on with it, and try to get hold of the drug traffickers, bring them to justice and confiscate their money. This will be by far the most important provision on the statute book with regard to trying to get the drug traffickers. I thank the Government for bringing it forward and for doing it so quickly and so well.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I do not want at this late stage of the Bill to intervene in the controversial matter that has arisen as a result of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Nor indeed do I want to make any comments at this stage on the contents of the Bill, because most of what one wanted to say has been said on several occasions during the course of the Bill's passage.
All I want to do, particularly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, who is not able to be here at this moment, is to say how much we have appreciated the assistance that we have always received from the Minister throughout the passage of the Bill, and the sympathetic and careful way in which he has considered such suggestions as have been made.
That has been exemplified by the submission of the Criminal Bar Association, which was a lengthy submission and a complicated one. Unfortunately, it arrived too late to be of any real assistance so far as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or I could be of assistance in tabling amendments. One was forced to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, had received that submission and to invite him to consider it with care, to see whether there was anything in it that he thought was worth while. The fact that the Government have today brought forward at least one amendment based on that submission is a clear indication of the Government's determination to get the Bill right. We are all very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kind comments. Having listened to the introduction of a slightly contentious point between the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I will merely say that the extent to which the provisions in the Bill should apply to other kinds of profitable offences has been raised before, as the noble and learned Lord said. I have noted the views of all those who have taken an interest in this matter—the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, and others. The Government will of course examine those matters very fully before developing their wider proposals.
Reconciling some of the views that are held will be far from easy. I am thinking particularly of the dilemma of resolving the opposing views expressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the subject of bank disclosure, but I can promise that the implications of
462
both points of view will be studied with the utmost care. This particular measure is a proper and significant addition to the statute book; we are all agreed on that. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1986
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th May be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, 1987–88 will be the third year in which education support grants are available. These draft regulations, which further amend the Education Support Grant Regulations 1984, extend the purposes in support of which the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales will pay grant in that year.
In 1986–87, the number and volume of bids from local education authorities considerably exceeded the total of expenditure that could be supported, as it did in 1985–86. Of a total of £40 million of expenditure planned for in 1986–87, expenditure of £39 million has already been approved for grant; we remain ready to support expenditure of up to £1 million on teacher management. All 96 local education authorities in England are receiving grant support in this financial year.
My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science had full consultations with the appropriate local authority associations about the programme for 1987–88 and on 12th May announced in another place the Government's intention to support expenditure amounting to some £53 million cash in that year. Of that total, he indicated that £32 million would be devoted to the continuing expenditure arising from projects first approved in earlier years and roughly £21 million would be available to support expenditure on new activities and the extension of existing ones. Grant will be paid on this expenditure at a rate of 70 per cent. Thus, the Government plan to pay some £37 million of education support grant in the 1987–88 financial year in England in respect of expenditure by local authorities of £53 million.
The Government also specified the new purposes for which we propose to pay education support grants in 1987–88, a provisional assessment of the amount of expenditure to be supported for each purpose, a provisional assessment of the number of local education authorities to be supported, and the likely length of support. A circular describing in greater detail the activities to be supported will be sent to LEAs if Parliament approves these regulations.
I should now like to comment on the amendment regulations themselves and in particular to say a few words about each of the new activities that they add to the schedule of purposes on which it is proposed grant should be paid. Your Lordships will be aware of the Government's commitment to the successful launch of the GCSE. We have held discussions with the local

463
authority associations and teachers' associations, and we accept that there is considerable concern about the resourcing of the GCSE. We are, of course, aware that the GCSE will, over time, require additional textbooks and equipment; in particular, it will require additional scientific and technical equipment. The Government's rate support grant settlement for 1986–87 allows local authorities to make appropriate provision in those respects for the beginning of the new GCSE courses this September.
Moreover, your Lordships may know that on Tuesday my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced during the Second Reading debate on the Education Bill in another place that he had decided to make £20 million available for books and equipment on the GCSE in the current year. Of this, £15 million would be through education support grants, in addition to our intention to support £10 million on this activity in each of the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89. Those amounts are direct resources to encourage local education authorities to supplement their capitation allowances by an average of more than £9,000 per secondary school over the first three years of GCSE.
The project relating to the development of the spoken word is intended to promote a new emphasis in language work on the skills of speaking and listening alongside the traditional concerns with reading and writing. Accordingly, that proposal is for a small-scale experiment in a few authorities; its findings would of course be disseminated to all authorities.
The third proposal for a new activity is the pilot projects to promote social responsibility. We are keen to use the education support grant programme to help local education authorities to improve standards of conduct among young people. The activity that we included in the 1986–87 programme aimed at countering drug abuse has been well taken up by authorities. We should like to encourage them to initiate projects using a variety of means to promote law-abiding behaviour. We have in mind that the projects would cover a wide range of imaginative experimentation, which might include more and better extra curricular activities, schemes aimed at reducing vandalism in schools, links with parents, and liaison with the police and other services. We do not intend to use rigid criteria, but we propose to give some preference to bids that relate to the 13 to 16 year-old age range, bearing in mind that the peak ages for offending are 14 for girls and 15 for boys, and to areas of high juvenile delinquency.
In addition to supporting those three new activities in 1987–88, the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales have also decided that a further tranche of new expenditure should be supported in respect of seven of the activities in the 1986–87 programme that were oversubscribed, or where considerable scope for further development exists.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the operation of education support grants in Wales. On 12th May he announced his intention to pay some £2.3 million of grant in
464
support of expenditure of some £3.3 million in 1987–88. Next year's programme of activities in Wales will be similar to that in England, but there are some differences reflecting my right honourable friend's judgment of the particular circumstances in Wales. Of the existing activities, management and appraisal of schoolteachers and provision for children under five years of age with special educational needs were not included in this year's Welsh programme and will not be included in next year's programme. Of the proposed new activities, my right honourable friend has decided against including development of the use of the spoken word, bearing in mind the small scale of the proposed experiment in England and the intention that the findings there would be available for dissemination to authorities in Wales as well as in England.
We believe that, taken as a whole, this is a constructive and well-balanced programme, carefully prepared and reflecting our consultations with the local authority associations. It will facilitate further modest redeployment of expenditure into areas acknowledged as of particular importance and assist LEAs to reflect on, and to make, improvements to provision which changing circumstances demand. The education support grant programme enables the education partners to collaborate on a programme of experiment and innovation whose fruits will ultimately be shared with and benefit the education service as a whole. I commend these amendment regulations and the list of purposes to be supported in 1987–88 to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th May be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Hooper.)
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing these regulations and for the explanations she has given. The larger issues concerned with the use of education support grants and specific support for education by central government in addition to the block grant were, of course, considered by your Lordships at some length during the passage of the Education Bill. The point of view was put by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Stewart, that perhaps it would be as well to recognise the reality and have a great deal more control by central government of the curriculum and of expenditure.
However, that has not been the way in this country. We have taken the view that the decisions about the use of educational finance shall be taken by local authorities rather than by central government. I am the first to say that the regulations now proposed do not depart significantly from that principle. They do not extend that proportion of education expenditure which is in the direct control of the Secretary of State. Therefore, it is not necessary to raise the more fundamental issues in considering these regulations.
However, in looking at the regulations themselves it is plain that the use of this marginal power of the

465
Secretary of State becomes simply an opportunity for the Secretary of State, and perhaps for the department, to air their own prejudices and their own ephemeral interests. I have no enormous objection to the individual items, although I am bound to say that the phrase "social responsibility in children" reminds me of the unfortunate amendment that was approved—I am sorry to say it was an amendment put by the noble Baroness—which provided that sex education should have regard to moral considerations and the value of family life.
I learnt a lesson on that amendment. I learnt that it is not safe to employ irony in this House. In commenting on the amendment I said that there was one thing I should like to achieve and if that could be secured by statute we should be achieving something. What I meant to say was that there was no possibility of achieving these high-minded and pious aspirations by statute and that statute ought not to be involved in phrases of this kind. I am sorry to see that this kind of pious nonsense is creeping into the education support grant regulations as well as on to the statute book in the Education Bill. It is simply an opportunity for the Secretary of State to air his prejudices and to pay lip service to something which may well be admirable—indeed, is admirable in itself—but which is not a suitable subject for statute.
On a more serious issue, the noble Baroness explained the financial aspects of the provision for additional expenditure on books and equipment for use on courses leading to an examination for the General Certificate of Secondary Education. I am not confident that I followed her argument fully, and I should like her to clarify it. I apologise for what might be simply a confusion in my mind.
The noble Baroness said that a figure of £20 million was mentioned by the Secretary of State in his speech on Tuesday in another place as additional expenditure on books and equipment for the GCSE. Of that, £15 million is to be in education support grant. Does that mean that the impression given by the Secretary of State that there is to be an additional £20 million for the GCSE is not, in fact, the case? Does it mean that £15 million of that is constrained by the limitations on the education support grants and that only £5 million is genuinely new money? If that is the case, I think that those in another place who welcomed the additional expenditure may not be so enthusiastic as they were originally.
The noble Baroness also mentioned that it was in addition to the £10 million already provided, and that is common ground between us. However, it would be deeply disappointing to discover that only £5 million of the £20 million offered by the Secretary of State is genuinely new money. I shall be grateful for any clarification which the noble Baroness is able to give us.
In pursuance of convention, we shall not oppose these regulations but we look forward to hearing any further explanations that the noble Baroness is able to give.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for her clear exposition of the new
466
regulations for 1986. This is not the moment to carp at the whole working of the scheme of education support grants. It seems to me a little like father saying to his child, "Here is £1 but in fact you can only have 75p of it. I am keeping back 25p which you can have only if you agree to spend it on a new exercise book for school or a new ruler. However, they cost 35p, so you will have to find 10p from somewhere else, probably your mother". The child is left somewhat aggrieved because he is not getting his £1. For "father" one might read "Secretary of State"; for "child" read "the local education authority"; and for "mother" read "the ratepayers". There is, therefore, a tendency to feel a little aggrieved.
Be that as it may, I feel that there is a case for rejoicing in accordance with the Secretary of State's announcement in another place that the provision of books and equipment for the GCSE is to be funded with what I understand is to be £20 million of new money. No doubt the Minister will explain this more clearly. The question is whether that is going to be enough. According to the Statement in another place on Tuesday, if that is added to the amounts already dedicated to the new exam by the local education authorities it should amount to £60 million or £70 million. One hopes that is enough, except that word has been current that the minimum required is £100 million. However, one must hope, as this is not the time or place to query it.
I express hearty approval of the first two pilot projects named for this new year. I could deliver a lecture on the subject, but I assure your Lordships that I will spare the House at this time of hunger and thirst. I should like to say just two things about the teaching of the spoken word. I am certain that this has nothing whatever to do with the activities of Professor Higgins and Eliza Doolittle. We should not, in schools, be trying to turn flower girls into duchesses. The object is to achieve clear, articulate and confident speech in whatever variation of standard English comes naturally to the child. Long may dialects survive, as long as they are intelligible.
The second point I should like to make about speech is that the way a child speaks is the tip of a psychological iceberg. By that I mean that a confident child will always speak clearly and articulately. When a child begins to lose confidence its speech begins to deteriorate, and we often see this phenomenon in adolescence. What interests me about this is that if you attend to a child's speech and give it help with its speech, it is amazing how the child's confidence begins to return. It may be done in the context of drama, for example. I have seen a child's whole personality transformed because someone has begun to help him achieve clear speech.
Speech is a skill which is as worthy of cultivation as physical fitness. Clear speech is terribly important, and a very worthy objective. The noble Baroness told us that in Wales they did not intend to pursue this matter. I take it that the reason for this is partly because the Welsh already speak so well that they do not need to pursue it. It is a noticeable fact.
The promotion of social responsibility in children is a big subject. I would have said that there is certainly

467
room for it. I cannot entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about it, Plato said that a man's education should make him passionately desire to be a perfect citizen. This rings very strangely in our modern ears, but perhaps if we thought a little more about it, we might attach more importance to it than it seems we do. It is possible that this measure is the beginning of a move in that direction.,
To sum up, on these Benches we regret that the funding of such worthy objects as these two pilot projects cannot come as new money, but we applaud the objects themselves. We welcome the additional funding for the other object, and while we hope that it will be enough, we ask leave to reserve judgment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have had a useful debate, in spite of the hour. I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for the general if perhaps somewhat reserved welcome that they have given to these new regulations. Perhaps I may first refer to the objective of education support grants which is to facilitate the redeployment of a modest amount of expenditure into areas which by common consent are of national importance. I think perhaps that this takes in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The amount of expenditure that can be supported by grant is limited by statute to 1 per cent. of local authority expenditure on education. A more pertinent question is whether this investment is being made in the right areas. On that I detect far greater unanimity both in the Government's recent consultations with the local authority associations and here today to some extent. There is a general consensus that the activities to be covered by the education support grant programme in 1987–88 merit being accorded priority. Education support grants provide a mechanism whereby the Government and their partners in the education service can jointly explore, in an experimental way, how progress can be made more generally in meeting the needs which underlie each activity, and furthermore, as I said, can disseminate the findings to the benefit of other authorities. I think and hope that we are doing rather more than voicing the pious hopes to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred.
Specifically in answer to the point raised by both noble Lords about the question of new money in relation to the GCSE expenditure, I can assure them that this is new money for the education service over and above the present plans. The £15 million will be in addition to relevant expenditure for local authorities in England and Wales and will be supported by education support grants at the rate of 70 per cent. Grant related expenditure will be raised to take account of the 30 per cent. contribution made by local education authorities. However, my noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment is supplying the missing £5 million which will become available through the Manpower Services Commission for the provision of scientific and technological equipment. I hope that that clarifies the position. The noble Lord,
468
Lord Ritchie, asked whether this was enough. Perhaps if he will refer to my opening remarks and explanations, he will see that we believe it to be adequate at this stage.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for his welcome and his enthusiasm for developing the use of the spoken word. Work on the development and assessment of children's oral skills is indeed still at an early stage and in our view the best use of the education support grant moneys in this area is in support of pilot projects in a small number of authorities, the results of which can be drawn upon by authorities generally. I think I can confirm the Government's agreement with the remarks the noble Lord made in relation to the needs of Wales in this respect.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate the Government's conviction that the education support grant programme for 1987–88 embraces activities whose importance is widely recognised, and I am confident that local education authorities will respond constructively. I commend these amendment regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Bill
8.15 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that Amendment No. 13 has been marshalled in the wrong order and I am therefore bound to call it now after Amendment No. 10.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13.
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("or for such reasonable charge as the Ministers may determine").
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move this amendment. In view of the response of my noble friend the Minister, who I am sure will give careful thought to everything that has been said in the previous exchanges, I have decided not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from first ("charge") to end of line 7 and insert ("and a proportion of the cost may be recouped by a levy determined by the Minister and applied by the Milk Marketing Board, the Home-Grown Cereals Organisation, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Potato Marketing Board and any other authority that may have the right to levy marketed agricultural produce.").
The noble Lord said: If the Minister is determined to raise money from farmers for advice, I suggest that this

469
should be done collectively. This amendment will have two effects. It will rid ADAS of all the work entailed in a commercial enterprise and leave the advisers free to advise. I think that is a very important point. We had a long discussion on this topic during one of the earlier amendments and many Members of the Committee were aware of the mix up and the hassle that could result in separating the advice that is free and the advice that has to be paid for. It is very important that it will also leave farmers free to ask advice on anything and at any time without worrying about payment.
I know that the NFU does not like the idea of these levies, which they suggest means one farmer is paying for the cost of another's advice. I have argued with the NFU that this is a rather narrow view to take. After all, we all pay the same motor tax, whether we travel 2,000 miles or 20,000 miles a year. That is just one instance of a collective payment.
Let us suppose that the figure that the Minister wants to raise to pay for the advice of ADAS is £6 million. I gather that it is around that figure, or at least the Minister has not denied it and the figure has been bandied about quite a lot tonight. Let us spread that figure over the gross income from the main products—cereals, all meats and milk. I worked this sum out myself; I do not think that it is necessarily very accurate, and perhaps it is on the low side. The amount is between £8,500 million and £9,000 million, and the £6 million is 0.063 per cent. Surely no farmer would begrudge that.
Collection would be simple. The means are there through the various bodies mentioned in the amendment. It is a better method and simpler, but I know that officials in ministries do not like simplicity for some reason or other. They do not think that they are doing a good job of work unless they produce large and complicated provisions such as the two amendments that we have on the Marshalled List today, one of 10 pages and another of seven. If only they could think of simplification. This levy of only 0.063 per cent. is simple and no farmer would begrudge it. That would save the hassle of setting up a charging system within ADAS. I did not manage to take them all down, but I think that the charges suggested by the Minister earlier this evening will just exacerbate the situation. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
Lord Belstead: I am interested that the noble Lord, who has been consistent in advising that he does not like the idea of charging for ADAS, is nonetheless saying that if there are to be charges, they could be collected comparatively painlessly and reasonably by way of levies. I should be foolish if I disregarded the advice that he gives. There are advantages in doing it that way.
The difficulty is that there are major practical problems. The levy power of the various bodies to
470
which the amendment refers are diverse and complex. In most cases I do not think that it would be possible for the Government simply to say "Your producers must pay this or that towards the cost of advice" to a levy-raising body. There would have to be amendments to the existing levy arrangements, certainly in some cases, and there would be a need for further legislation.
It is one thing for such bodies to decide on their own initiative that they want to raise money voluntarily (for example, to commission research) and quite another to introduce what would be a compulsory levy for advisory services. There would have to be some form of penalty for producers who refused to pay and provision for the necessary enforcement. There would be difficulty in establishing an equitable levy for each sector. Arrangements would have to be made to cover sectors without marketing bodies; and all that would be enormously expensive and complex to administer.
It gives me no joy at all to be picking holes in the suggestion. As I say, I realise that there are good reasons why the noble Lord puts the amendment forward. He may ask whether I am nit-picking. But there are one or two more general reasons why what he suggests is difficult, and they may appeal to him.
If we went down the road of levies it would mean that, although the industry was still paying for ADAS or at least for a part of its cost, farmers would not have the direct influence over services that they will get through direct payment for advice. Nor is there any guarantee that smaller or less well-off farmers would benefit. Some do not use ADAS now and may not want to in the future, yet they would still be faced with paying the levy if that was what we instituted. If we have a charging system, it is possible for the farmer to ask himself whether he wants the service and whether he is prepared to pay; he can then reach a decision.
We looked at the question of raising money for the services of ADAS in the ministry, and the noble Lord worked in the ministry for many years. He is distinguished in agricultural service and knows the ministry well, and so it will not surprise him that we looked at the suggestion very carefully indeed. But those are the reasons that we sheered away from it and felt that it was not the road that we wanted to go down.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thought that we had discussed this part of the amendment before; but there are reasons why the Minister might look at it again. At the present moment the cereal growers are being polled, and they cannot quite understand why they should pay for a Food from Britain campaign which does not directly affect them. Nevertheless, I think that the majority of those polled will accede to the request. They realise that the value of marketing food applies to everyone. The cereals that they grow will ultimately be eaten, whether they have gone through a pig or some other animal, and the campaign will ultimately benefit them.
The Minister might look at the amendment again. The suggestion need not be spread over everyone. The Government could simply use the people that they have, and it could be spread further at a later date.

471
The argument that if people pay that will make the service better is not a good one. Farmers will use ADAS for only certain services, and instead of the service being universal it will become a service for big cereal growers and the specialists in the other fields will be lost. The great value of ADAS and the colleges is that they have a wide range of knowledge which is enormously useful to farmers. If ADAS goes the way that the Government are pointing it, it will need to do the things necessary to bring in the money. The only service that I can see that it will get money for is a specialised cereal service, and that will narrow the field enormously. We shall lose a lot of people, turn it into another commercial service and destroy the basis that has given the service in the colleges and in ADAS the reputation that it has.
Lord Gallacher: The Minister's answer has been discouraging, although he said that the concept advanced by my noble friend had been examined in the ministry and rejected. We feel that it may be worthy of further examination. Of the alternatives so far canvassed, this seems to us to be the most practicable, as my noble friend pointed out, and in the long term the best way to deal with the matter.
It is not a novel concept by any manner of means. The co-operative movement, with which I used to have a connection, has practised the principle of mutual aid at the national level for years. The idea simply is that one pays according to one's size and thereafter claims benefit on the basis of need. In the main, that tends to help the small society, and I think that such a scheme would in the main tend to help the small farmer.
The Minister mentioned the fact that the levy powers which will be required to give effect to the scheme are diverse and might require additional legislation. I direct his attention to the fact that in Clause 7 we are about to do just that so far as meat is concerned, for a different purpose admittedly, but the opportunity is with us in this Bill if the ministry is minded to take it. If there should be amendments of that kind tabled at Report stage, he will get the maximum encouragement from this side of the Chamber.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of penalties for non-payment. We envisage the levy being raised on the basis of the invoice, or else a deduction from the milk cheque, or any of the other devices which are already much in use by these boards at the present time for various purposes, some of them in my view not as worthy as funding ADAS in that way. I shall not particularise by mentioning which ones.
The question of non-payment is not a major obstacle because of the way in which, as I say, the levy can be deducted from payments due or added to invoices. In that fashion not merely does one raise the money but one does so cheaply and economically, without the problem of bad debts, and without the arguments which undoubtedly my noble friend is right in saying are likely to arise from a part-funded scheme such as the Minister is advancing, leaving out the
472
question already decided of what is environmental and therefore free and what is non-environmental and therefore subject to charge.
In reply to an earlier amendment, the Minister mentioned that the Dutch and the Danes were funding their advice to the tune of 50 per cent., but when asked to say how the 50 per cent. was raised from small farmers in Holland and Denmark he had no information. I do not claim to have any great knowledge of the agricultural mechanisms in either country but I should be surprised if a scheme such as this is not the basis of doing it, because I am aware that in many ways the co-operative movement in Denmark undertakes fund raising in a number of ways.
One of the great advantages of the scheme which my noble friend Lord John-Mackie is asking the Committee to consider is that it would give a much more solid basis to the part funding of ADAS than the scheme outlined by the noble Lord the Minister whereby one subscribes for pamphlets, either fully or partly. There is also the proposal that its services should cost £25 an hour or rather more if a national specialist has to be brought in.
Those are alternatives which have an element of uncertainty about them. They are unlikely to appeal to the farmer because he has to bring in the man to decide how much the job is likely to cost. When told how much it is he then has to make a decision as to whether it is worth it to him in the circumstances in which he finds himself. There is no guarantee and indeed no one can even know, if £6 million is the sum to be raised, whether at the level at which the charges will be pitched sufficient use will be made of the service to raise the money that the noble Lord has in mind. If there is a shortfall in demand the Ministry is in the unfortunate position of not raising its £6 million because farmers are unwilling to find the money and, on the basis of the estimate that they have been given, decide to do without the service.
Another point in favour of our scheme in preference to the Ministry's is that, by reason of its nature and character, it will give great assurance to the staff of ADAS that their future is certain, because the basis of funding, although now to be borne by farmers, is much more definite and assured and not subject to the vagaries to which inevitably the Ministry's scheme will give rise.
On the whole, we have offered the noble Lord a good scheme. I hope that, despite his refusal of it tonight, as he is taking back other proposals to think over this one may enter his thinking as well. We have no desire to press this matter this evening, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 6, after ("or") insert ("at a charge which takes into account the full economic cost of providing the service or").
The noble Earl said: At least twice this evening I thought that there was a possibility that I might not be able to put forward the amendment. It is a probing

473
amendment which is capable of alteration. I think that it brings up an important point that has not so far come forward in the debates today. As the Bill stands at the moment, some matters to do with the environment and so on will not be paid for but there will be matters more directly to do with farming which are to be paid for. There has been a long discussion of the difficulties that may or may not arise in sorting out those two matters. My noble friend Lord Buxton explained how he would go about it.
Nobody except my noble friend Lord Belstead has talked much about how the charges will be charged out. There will be confusion. A new situation has suddenly arisen. ADAS will make charges directly to farmers. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out that there were other people involved in consultancy, but she only mentioned the firms which perhaps plug their own lines. There are other people who give good advice and who have so far worked extremely well with ADAS. It has been said (and I think it is a fair description) that there has been a degree of symbiosis. ADAS has dealt with the broader issues and has often used private consultants who charge to deal with those matters which are particular to the farmer.
There is a strong feeling that through being asked to enter the market, ADAS will go into the consultancy firms' sphere of influence competitively. My noble friend said that he had no fears for ADAS in the market. Indeed, it will be in the market place. I more than agree with him, because I think that the people who have fears belong to those private consultancy firms which tend to be small and give a particular service. They often have to pay for their back-up. It is fair that they should have a degree of suspicion that a government agency such as ADAS will have an advantage over them. That is why I included the words "full economic" in the amendment. I prefaced them by "takes into account". If the clause is read carefully, it will be seen that it deals with advice that is half free and half charged for. I wanted,
"takes into account the full economic cost"
included as a protection for those who are already gaining their livelihoods by giving advice.
If that provision is not included in some form or other and made clear, the clause would set a precedent. I am not clear about the rules and regulations that govern various government agencies, but I know that they exist. I know, for instance, that the Forestry Commission has a careful set of rules regarding the sale of little trees from its nurseries and the sale of timber. I believe that the same applies to water authorities. They cannot enter unfairly into the market of selling fish against impoverished farmers. For that reason alone, it would be interesting to hear on what basis the charges will be made, because there is a problem.
I made a slight mistake; however, it does not alter the amendment. I should have liked to end at "service". I think that that is adequate. It would have got rid of the word "reasonable" which I, like my noble friend Lord Stodart, would like to see out of all statutes. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us something about how ADAS will enter the
474
commercial world without trading unfairly against those who are already in it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support my noble friend. I have little to add to his remarks except to reinforce the point that there is need for thought as to what job ADAS will do successfully in the future. It will be necessary for ADAS to become more specialised. It must not shrink from providing specialised services, not just to the farmer but to the farmers' specialised private advisers.
ADAS is in an advantageous position with regard to back-up services in the form of veterinary investigation, which I mentioned on Second Reading, plant disease and diagnosis and overall management. It has access to costings and experimental advice. This is certainly how I, who use the services of a private agronomist, use ADAS. I believe, as I think ADAS believes, that it has a great future in this area. Both I, as a farmer, and private consultants, would be happy to pay for this ADAS advice. I believe therefore that it would be to the detriment of all parties, as my noble friend Lord Radnor has said, and particularly to ADAS, if ADAS used its subsidised position (if I may use the word) to undercut the private sector. There is certainly enough work and demand for both.
I feel somewhat embarrassed. I have listened with great interest to the discussion on charging and the difficulty of deciding where and when and on what to charge. I am supporting this amendment therefore in order to try to find out how it is going to work.
I can see that it is easy enough to charge for specialised advice and services such as I have mentioned. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Belstead mentioned this in an earlier speech. My question relates to more general advice. I should like to see whether it is possible, before discussion on this Bill is completed, to have a more detailed list of individual charges by ADAS—for what and for how much—in the whole advisory field.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: There is one curious aspect to this amendment. At present the private consultants are competing against a completely free service and doing it apparently very well. It appears to be unnecessary to take care of them in the charges if they can compete against the free service.
The Earl of Radnor: I tried to cover that question, but obviously did so very badly. There is a feeling that when ADAS charges it will be moving into a different sphere of advice. It is also, I believe, thinking of a specific target to be earned in 1987. Whereas previously it would be happy to pass on a client at a certain stage to a private consultant for detailed work, ADAS now feels that it will be doing the detailed work as well.
Lord John-Mackie: I have already talked about the simplicity that would be required in making the charges. This amendment would complicate the

475
matter more. I can imagine a week where an ADAS adviser does only conservation work and is paid nothing, while in another week his work will be half and half. The accountant in the office will have a devil of a job working out the economic cost of paid visits. If the noble Lord was successful in getting this amendment through, it would add to the complications that all agree are there now.
Lord Melchett: I rather agree with that. It seems that both noble Lords opposite have pointed to a real difficulty and indeed a real evil so far as ADAS and other people operating in this field are concerned. I do not believe that the amendment does much to help matters. If anything, like my noble friend on the Front Bench, I feel that it will probably make matters worse. Like other noble Lords, I, as a farmer, make use of the services of private consultants. At the moment, because ADAS advice and particularly research advice from things like experimental husbandry farms is made available generally to the industry, including private consultants, it is then very effectively disseminated to many farmers through the services of those private consultants. It is interpreted at an individual farm level and converted into pounds and pence by private consultants for a particular farm business in a way that an experimental husbandry farm or ADAS itself would not be able to do. All that is going to stop. Nothing that the two noble Lords opposite can do in this amendment or any other that we are likely to debate will help matters. Experimental husbandry farms have already stopped sending reports free of charge. The flow of information from the advisory services and their research facilities has dried up. The only people who will get it in future are those prepared to pay.
This seems to me to be one of the real disadvantages of what the Government are doing. They are turning off a flow of information that will become very selective and that will go to a few people who can afford to pay and who have access to those who are getting information from ADAS or who happen to see ADAS at the right time in the right place about the right subject when it is not called conservation and they are allowed to be told what an experimental husbandry farm has found out about something. This will put British agriculture, whatever direction we take in future, at a great disadvantage by comparision with the past.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend Lord Radnor has made clear, in moving the amendment, that he is anxious to see that where ADAS charges are made they should reflect the full economic cost of providing the service. I quite understand why my noble friend moves the amendment, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, observed, the private sector has competed very successfully with free ADAS services in the past. And, really, there should not be any reason to suppose that the introduction of charges will change that. None the less, there is a very
476
understandable point behind the amendment that my noble friend moves. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, put his finger on an important matter when he said that ADAS would be in some difficulty in the sense that during the week a particular adviser would be giving non-chargeable advice and then chargeable advice. If we had literally to conform to the small print of the amendment, ADAS would find itself in considerable difficulty in assessing that part of its costs attributable to chargeable activities and that part attributable to the wide range of non-chargeable activities and functions that ADAS performs.
These problems will ease as experience is gained with charging. I should like to give an assurance to the Committee that our intention is that charges should reflect the appropriate resource costs and market conditions that the private sector takes into account in setting its own prices. I said very much that before the dinner break towards the end of the statement on how we would envisage charges for ADAS being arranged. I would add that a statutory requirement to charge full economic costs would be difficult to observe without constant adjustment of prices and could, I believe, prevent ADAS providing the same degree of price flexibility enjoyed by the commercial sector. We do not believe that this would be in the interests of the farmer or the taxpayer.
I am confident that the current proposals, with the safeguard provided by the market, will result in fair prices. I repeat, however, that we shall be doing our very best to see that prices for ADAS services will be set at levels that cover the direct costs of the service and make an appropriate contribution to the overhead costs. In other words, we shall do our very best to see that there is fair competition.
In this context it was I think my noble friend Lord Radnor who said that he would be interested to know what the rules and regulations were so far as this was concerned, if there were any. This amendment really suggests that a reasonable charge must always be something different from full economic cost. Indeed, my noble friend said that he regretted having the word "reasonable" in and that what he wanted was this amendment. With respect, I do not think that this is the case. Prices will be set according to the usual Treasury guidelines. This means that prices must be realistic but not excessive. It follows that we realise that if prices are too high, the industry will not pay them and if they are too low, ADAS will not earn the revenue that it needs which, for advisory services, is £5 million. That is what we have budgeted for. Like any commercial company, ADAS must aim to provide attractive services at sensible prices.
I should like finally to deal with research and development. My noble friend Lord Stanley emphasised the hope that specialised services to farmers and to other interests would continue. This is exactly what Clause 1 of the Bill provides for. Clause 1(1) allows goods and services to be provided to any person. Apart from farmers, other potential clients might include agro-businesses, professional consultancies, academic institutions, local authorities, members of the public and overseas governments and organisations. The effective limitation would be only

477
that the goods or services must be connected with agriculture or the other related subjects listed in the subsection. If I remember rightly, my noble friend went on to say that he very much hoped that the results of publicly funded R&D would be channeled through to a wide range of clients.
I was sorry in this context to hear the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, saying that he felt that R&D from ADAS was starting to dry up. I must say, with great respect, that is not my impression. I am not aware that any of the 19 experimental husbandry farms or experimental horticultural stations have been closed. That is where so much of the developmental work of the advisory services is done. We are of course going to pour into the running of ADAS a very large sum of money as I quoted before we broke for dinner.
Lord Melchett: May I—
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may simply say this. There will continue to be written up in the scientific press in the normal way the results of publicly funded R&D. As such this will be freely available to interested parties such as outside consultants for them to draw their own conclusions and to formulate their advice accordingly. Discussions are in hand between ADAS and representatives of the private advisory sector concerning future possibilities for collaboration including arrangements for access by outside consultants to other data and services that ADAS can provide.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not suggest that any of the experimental husbandry farms had been closed. Perhaps I should add the words "closed yet". I suggested that the information which used to be freely available from them—for example, in the shape of annual reports—has dried up. It may be that my annual report from Gleadthorpe has not come through in the post, but I understood that all the experimental husbandry farms have been told that they should not issue information like that generally and freely to farmers as they have in the past.
Lord Belstead: On annual reports, we are not sure that they have been putting before the general public information which is of interest. It has always been nice to see an annual report. It has been extremely interesting and encouraging to see the reflection in the annual report of the activity going on in the experimental husbandry farms. However, if one wants to get the results of the work done in experimental husbandry farms we believe that there are other ways of doing so. The noble Lord has put his finger on an important point. I can assure him that there will continue to be written up in the scientific press in the ordinary way the results of work at the experimental husbandry farms and horticultural stations—not to mention the fact that there will continue to be the open days which are always such an enormous success in these establishments.
Lord Melchett: That seems to miss the audience at which an experimental husbandry farm should be aiming. I was not aware that the annual reports were aimed at the general public. My understanding was that they were aimed at farmers farming on soil similar to the experimental husbandry farm with systems similar to it. The scientific press is very useful for scientists, but not many farmers—I would certainly include myself in this—have the opportunity to read the scientific press. Open days are very useful for having a look at what is happening but they do not give one the facts and figures which annual reports do. Annual reports from experimental husbandry farms, as the noble Lord knows, contain the results of work done on the farm in that year. It is not just a glossy report; it provides one with facts and figures which are often very valuable indeed.
My understanding was that it was exactly that kind of information which farmers in the past would have been able to get for free which in future we shall have to pay for.
Lord Belstead: I do not think that there is anything unreasonable in the last few words which the noble Lord has spoken. To pay for literature is not unreasonable. There will be subscription schemes in order to do that.
I repeat that whereas experimental husbandry farms' annual reports have been encouraging and interesting to read, I think that there are other ways—individual pamphlets or booklets rather than in the annual report—of disseminating the information from work which has been done at the experimental husbandry farms. There will be no secrecy—nothing kept away from people. It is simply that we believe that instead of putting them in annual reports they can be put in individual publications.
Lord Melchett: Can I pursue one further point with the noble Lord? He knows that this is a matter which is giving rise to a great deal of concern not only among farmers but private consultants, at which the amendment was particularly directed. As I understand it, what will happen—the noble Lord has now confirmed it—is that farmers will have to pay for this information from experimental husbandry farms by buying publications. Am I right in assuming that that will also be the position of private consultants? They will have to buy the information by buying the publications? But ADAS will presumably have free access to the information from experimental husbandry farms. Is not one of the matters about which the private consultants are worried that ADAS will have this huge publicly funded research programme through such things as experimental husbandry farms available to them for nothing while all the rest of us will have to pay for it twice through our taxes?
Lord Belstead: I thought that I gave a rather valuable assurance to my noble friend Lord Radnor about the dissemination of publicly funded R & D particularly with regard to consultants. I think that what I said will be welcomed by consultants in that respect.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the noble Lord confirm that it is not that they will have to pay for information but for the literature? I think that is what the noble Lord said. In other words, they will pay the cost of the printing?
Lord Belstead: That is indeed the case.
Lord Burton: The various amendments put forward this afternoon have thrown up some very interesting points which I think will put difficulty in the way of the Government's proposals.
On this amendment I am rather worried that the expense will be so high that a number of the smaller farmers—although a number of my noble friends may be prepared to pay for it—will not go for consultation until such time as they have an epidemic on their hands which will probably be affecting their neighbours.
Charging for some services and not for others will cause trouble. The amendment put forward suggesting a levy seems to be on the right lines, I should have thought. If my noble friend could look at this again before the next stage it seems sensible that some form of levy would be very much preferable to the provision in the Bill at the present time.
The Earl of Radnor: I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving the various assurances that he has given, and indeed the last one to which my noble friend Lord Melchett referred.
I am a little disappointed—and I shall certainly read with great interest what my noble friend has said—that something cannot be put in the statute which will make this situation a little happier for the private consultants, and make me a little happier about the principle of the whole matter. I know that my noble friend mentioned the direct costs and how they would be dealt with. He then referred to a fair proportion of the overheads. This is the most important matter which is causing most worry. What happens to the overheads, and how are they to be allocated in a fair manner?
I shall not carry the matter any further. I shall read the remarks of my noble friend very carefully indeed. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("provided that no charge shall be made for the enforcement of Milk and Dairies Regulations made under the Food Act 1984 or for swill feed licensing under the Animal Health Act 1981").
The noble Lord said: The Government have already said that statutory duties for tests for tuberculosis and brucellosis should not be charged for. This amendment would also include the Milk and Dairy Regulations and swill feed licensing in that same exemption.
I need hardly remind the Committee of the present concern over a recent outbreak of swine fever, or the concern throughout the Western world over milk safety after Chernobyl, to emphasise the vital necessity for care with these foodstuffs, particularly milk, not only for the farmer but, of far more importance, for the consumer. I cannot see any reason why the farming industry should pay by levy or specific charges for services which I hope Members of the Committee would agree are essential for the public benefit. I believe that it would be similar to charging every individual driver who is checked for an MoT and found to be innocent, or charging every individual for every visit by the local police constable or every time he or she asks the friendly bobby for help or advice. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Melchett: Perhaps I may ask a very brief question simply for information. Has the Ministry taken any decision as to who should pay for badger control operations in the South-West of England, where badgers are being killed by the noble Lord's department in efforts to eradicate bovine tuberculosis in cattle? Is there any intention of charging the farmers concerned for that operation? I ask this question with no particular desire to hear one answer or the other. On balance, I would probably prefer to hear that farmers would be charged for the service and then the killing of badgers would come to an end. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me what view has been reached on that.
Lord Belstead: This is an amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley about milk and dairies regulations and also licences for swill feeding. In deciding to introduce charges for inspections under the milk and dairies regulations we were conscious of the fact that producers derive benefit from this work. The high quality and reputation of our domestic milk production helps to maintain liquid consumption, and this in turn benefits producers returns, which would certainly suffer if consumers had less confidence in the product. It is for that reason that we felt that there was a strong case here for charges to be made.
We are discussing practical arrangements with the industry and have already agreed that charges should be directly linked to actual visits rather than applied on a per litre basis, because we understand that this is what the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board prefer. We are also ready to discuss the actual method of collection but I must make clear that we regard collection via the milk cheque as by far the simplest and cheapest option, which is a statement that will not entirely surprise noble Lords opposite.
So far as the licensing of swill feeders is concerned, similar considerations apply. Licensees are being permitted, subject to safeguards, to undertake a business which would otherwise have to be prohibited because of the risk of spreading disease through swill feeding of pigs. The arrangements are designed to ensure that such swill is heat-treated to kill harmful

481
viruses, such as swine vesicular disease and swine fever. Consultations have been taking place with the National Farmers' Union and others representing swill feeding interests on the Government's proposals to introduce charges for this licensing work. We would envisage that the charges would be on an annual basis but collected quarterly in advance.
Perhaps I may make one comment about both these charges. These have been picked out by my noble friend Lord Stanley for reasons which my noble friend explained in moving the amendment, but they form part of a list of other charges which my right honourable friend has said he intends to make as statutory charges which, in addition to the saving of £5 million for advice, would constitute a saving of about £6 million for these charges for statutory regulations. We are really talking about quite considerable sums of money which otherwise will have to be footed by the taxpayer.
Although I yield to no one in this Committee in wanting to see that the farmers of our country have a fair deal, it really needs quite a quantum leap as regards logic to be able to claim that all these things should be absolutely free, paid for by the taxpayer. I say that bearing in mind that, even when the savings on expenditure on ADAS have been achieved, the Government will still have to contribute 80 per cent. of the total expenditure of ADAS, which, as I said earlier this afternoon, is about £100 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked me a question about badger control charging. The answer to the noble Lord's question is, No.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is a little illogical to say that these charges are to be made because they benefit the farmer. Surely all the public health regulations are made for the public and not for the farmer at all. They are for the protection of the public and therefore it appears more logical that the public should pay.
Lord Belstead: If it was not possible to have checks for health in dairies I think we should very soon find that liquid milk consumption would be harmed, and if we were unable to have the assurance of licences for swill feeding I think swill feeders would simply go out of business.
Lord Burton: Surely we are being put at an increasing disadvantage compared to our European competitors. We are suggesting that British farmers should be saddled with an extra £6 million expenditure for public health, which seems to be unreasonable.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps my noble friend was not in the Committee earlier this afternoon when I gave figures for other European countries, which show that charges for their advisory services started earlier and are higher than ours.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I really cannot accept the argument of my noble friend Lord Belstead. If the Government have agreed to pay the charges for tuberculosis and brucellosis, why cannot they pay the charges for the inspection of milk? Other diseases carried by milk are probably worse than those two diseases. I just cannot see how they separate the two. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, this is a public health worry and should therefore be carried by the public, as I said when I proposed the amendment.
My noble friend says that it is to my benefit as a milk producer that I am selling more milk because it is cleaner. I suggest that it is a very marginal amount. I doubt whether the housewife is really conscious of the fact that the milk has been inspected and kept clean. She expects it to be, and I cannot see that this is anything else other than a public expense.
As far as swill feeding is concerned, perhaps I will leave it with the remark—and my noble friend will no doubt think about it—that I think his department is slightly out of touch with reality. I will leave this amendment now, but I really feel I may have to come back to it again because I do not think my noble friend was very convincing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) No charge will be made for advisory services provided by Ministers where the request for such services arises because of, and directly from, socio-structural measures agreed by Member States of the European Community.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to give some assistance to farmers who may decide to take advantage of proposals which are presently before the Council of Ministers in the European Community affecting socio-structural measures in the Community. It is true that the proposals themselves are optional —that is to say, if finally approved by the Council of Ministers farmers will not be obliged to take advantage of them. The proposals are in the form of a draft regulation and to that extent I think will become of significance as far as Community members are concerned.
I will not weary the Committee with an attempt to describe all that is contained in the socio-structural proposals because for one thing I cannot recollect in detail all that is in them. Suffice it to say that it is envisaged that farmers will have the option of either retiring at the age of 55 with a pension which will be part-funded by the Community, and handing over to someone else upon condition that the someone else farms less intensively and changes the whole nature of the farm itself; or, if he stays on the farm he can attract certain benefits under the scheme if he, the original farmer, changes the nature of the farming policy and farms less intensively. Indeed, there are payments to be made for allowing fields to lie fallow, and other measures of that kind. In addition, he is expected not merely to farm less intensively but also to farm products which are not in surplus in the Community and which may not be as remunerative for him as the farming products he hitherto has been producing on that farm.
This is an ambitious scheme, and represents an attempt by the Commission to do something about surpluses and ultimately to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy. From the point of view of the farmer who may be involved, he is going to need advice because although there are certain financial payments to be made to him from the Community funds, undoubtedly those payments are not going to be sufficient in themselves to enable him either to maintain his previous living or even to earn an acceptable living.
Although there is provision in the scheme for member states to assist, particularly in the matter of topping-up pensions where pensions are taken, undoubtedly this new scheme, if taken up to any marked degree by farmers in the Community, may give rise to the necessity for specialist advice as to how best to farm within the meaning of the scheme and, as I say, at the same time to maintain a reasonable standard of living, and, no less important because it is in the scheme, to have regard to the environment as part of the changeover which he is making as to his farming style.
Therefore, it seems to us that this justifies treatment of the kind suggested in the amendment so that (and this is on the assumption that the scheme is ratified by the Council of Ministers) where a farmer under the scheme asks for advice from ADAS it should be given to him free of charge, bearing in mind the fact that he is probably accepting a lower standard of living and that in point of fact unless he has that specialist advice the environment may suffer as a result of extensive rather than intensive farming. Even some of the other measures in the scheme could result in the deterioration of the countryside, which I am sure all of us would wish to see avoided.
It is for these reasons that I think there is a case here for a special category qualifying for free advice. There should be no difficulties in deciding whether or not they are within the scheme because the scheme, being a Brussels scheme, will be well regulated. I think the noble Lord the Minister might care to say that this is something which, even if he cannot agree to it tonight, will be looked at by the Government, particularly as the scheme itself, if it sees the light of day, is likely to see the light of day during the British presidency of the council. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who I think has a very great deal of knowledge of this subject as it falls within the scope of the committee of your Lordships' House of which he is chairman, I shall not try to embark upon the details of the socio-economic proposals of the Community because they have only just been published and are not all that easy to follow.
What is certain is that this is an amendment which, although I understand it, could nonetheless lead to some rather strange anomalies. For instance, those
484
who wanted to leave farming, or to start farming, might find themselves qualifying for free advice because there are the arrangements for special help under the socio-economic measures proposed from Brussels for those who want to leave the farming industry at the age of 55 and those who are coming in. Those who wanted to leave, or start, might suddenly find themselves getting free advice, whereas those who are perhaps doing their best to make a successful business of their existing enterprise in mid-career would find that they were not being offered free advice.
We have given a firm commitment about advice on diversification as well as, of course, conservation and animal welfare, and where additional special help is needed we ought to give it directly and be clear that that is what we are doing. I have often heard people say that one of the difficulties with the common agricultural policy is that so much of it is really a social policy. With respect, this amendment comes close to that particular danger. That is the difficulty I see with it, and it is on those grounds that I would say to the noble Lord that I cannot accept the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: That is a somewhat disappointing reply from the Minister. I agreed with him when he said that we are dealing not so much with a farming policy as with a social policy. If there were any way of taking this problem out of the realm of the CAP and into the realm of some other aspect of Community financing, I think everyone would be happy. But in point of fact the Commission seem determined to keep these schemes within the ambit of the common agricultural policy, and therefore we must deal with them as we find them rather than as we should like them to be.
I still believe that the Minister is wrong to assume that this in some way is an attractive scheme. In many ways it is a sad scheme, and unless properly handled could result in some fairly severe difficulties in the countryside, though not so much for farmers because participation is voluntary. But if there is participation, there could be an environmental spin-off which might undo some of the good work which, by common consent, has been achieved in more successful days so far as agricultural production is concerned.
However, in the light of the Minister's view I think I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment. In case by the time Report stage comes round the proposals themselves are clearer and there is a better understanding of them, and more particularly if it becomes apparent that other member states are likely to give the kind of assistance which the Minister this evening is declining to give, I reserve the right then to re-table an amendment of this kind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert
("(3A) The Ministers shall—

(a) prepare a code containing such recommendations, advice and information, relating to achieving a reasonable balance between the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and conservation of flora, fauna and of ecological or physiological features of special interest and the production of food and other agricultural produce, as they consider proper for the guidance of any person supplying services or goods referred to in subsections (1) and (2) whether or not such persons are exercising functions under this section; and

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

(3B) A code prepared in pursuance of subsection (3A) and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after being prepared; and the code or revised code, as the case may be, shall not he issued until the code or the proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses.
(3C) Subject to subsection (3B), the Ministers shall cause every code prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (3A) to be printed, and may cause copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such prices as the Ministers may determine.")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple subject and I can explain it simply. The amendment is rather long by my standards, but it is simply a new subsection to follow subsection (3) as (3A). It seeks to rectify or fill a vacuum in the system that we have been discussing almost all day. There have been many references to independent consultants and to representatives of manufacturers, all of whom are doing a perfectly proper and legitimate job around the countryside. But unlike most other authorities, bodies, and even individuals they have no proper criteria, guidance, or code of practice relating to the general agriculture-conservation subject with which we are so concerned today.
There is no pressure, no guidance, nor obligation placed upon them to conform with government policy and with public interest in this area, and at the same time marketing consultants and their activities are rapidly expanding. If the great ADAS charges saga develops and goes through, they will undoubtedly multiply yet again. A company—whether they are manufacturers of pesticides, chemicals, or farm machinery—have a perfectly proper right to pursue their own commercial ends, and I feel that it is up to the Government to give them guidance. I have no doubt whatever that it would be welcomed. There is no mechanism at present by which conservation criteria should apply to all that growing new activity.
This amendment in my view is totally noncontroversial. It places no imposition on the Government, the Ministry of Agriculture, the agricultural industry or anybody else. Once the code of practice has been worked out and published, that is the end of the matter unless from time to time it needs updating. I cannot believe or conceive that anybody would feel that this is a bad idea, or that it would not be welcomed by all the parties.
The only parties affected would be private consultants, the industry and so forth—the representatives to which I have already referred. It is my belief that they would find it an enormously valuable and helpful weapon in their hands and would continue to
486
conform to public and Government attitudes on these matters. They would find it useful and would do a favourable job throughout the country. It must be remembered that industry and most other sectors in the country are bound and if not restricted—though certainly industry is restricted—are encouraged to conform to codes of practice affecting conservation, planning permissions, pollution, including water pollution, emissions into the atmosphere and so forth. There is therefore no conceivable reason why these people, simply because they are connected with agriculture, should live in a sort of gilded cage not subject to any codes of practice, guidance or advice. I hope I have made the point. I do not need to labour it. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: May I briefly support this amendment tabled by noble Lords opposite. We spent some time until a few minutes ago discussing the terms of competition between ADAS and private consultants. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in an earlier debate this afternoon that the new duties laid on the Minister of Agriculture in Clause 12 will apply to ADAS and other functions carried out on the Minister's behalf. So ADAS will continue, quite rightly—and I think it is supported by everyone—to need to have regard to balancing the various interests in the countryside, giving advice on conservation (free of charge, of course) and other matters.
But those constraints do not apply to private consultants. They are playing an increasing role in giving advice to farmers, particularly those farming larger areas and so on. I hope that this amendment will be welcomed by all those involved. It would enhance the reputation of the private consultants and ensure that they were operating on a fair basis vis-à-vis ADAS. It would go some way at least to reassuring those of us concerned about the future of advice, conservation and related matters that private consultants would take this into account as well. I hope the amendment will be acceptable to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Onslow: I put my name to this amendment, and it seems to me that what we are asking the Minister to do, not by statute but by a code or guideline, is to put some flesh onto the bones of Clause 12. Clause 12, as I said before, is very much to be welcomed. I shall not repeat my earlier criticisms of the charges for ADAS, but those views do not in any way detract from my generally keen suport for much in the Bill. This amendment would be a help to everybody—private people and also possibly ADAS—who is involved in the care of the countryside. I hope that my noble friend will agree to this amendment or something very similar which would produce the same effect.
Baroness White: I am sure that many of us in the voluntary organisations are much concerned about the proposal here being an essential ingredient if the Government are serious about carrying out the obligations under Clause 12. After all, although the obligation lies on the Minister, the way in which it is implemented depends entirely on farmers or

487
landowners. If they are seeking professional advice from private consultants, which is a perfectly proper thing to do, and the balance is to be maintained—because this is a change of policy on the part of the Government—they will surely have to ask how is the balance to be incorporated in such advice as is proffered by the private organisations.
ADAS, because it is a public service, will be under the obligation accepted by the Minister to whom it is answerable; but the commercial consultants of course have no such obligation. It is difficult to see how they can have a statutory obligation, but on the other hand the least that one ought to be able to do is to indicate that the Minister regards this as a serious ingredient in the advice that they should be proffering.
I am advised that the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants (which as I understand it is one of the principal professional organisations for these activities) has a code of practice. But I am told that this contains no guidance at all as to how consultants should seek to integrate conservation priorities into the commercial advice that they give. They may quite reasonably say, "It is really no business of ours". But if one is trying to attain the objectives of Clause 12, then it becomes incumbent on the Government to do anything that is within their power at any rate to assist in bringing these considerations into the minds of those who are offering technical, scientific or commercial advice to their clients.
Therefore this initiative (as it was described by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton) is, I think, an important one. It may not be statutorily enforceable but at least it will give, or should give, a very strong lead from government indicating that these considerations are regarded as of considerable importance even if the advice is coming from the private sector. I hope very much that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Minister.
Lord John-Mackie: I do not envy the Minister's job in making up this code. It is going to be one that has got to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and me —and that is going to be very difficult. He made it perfectly plain earlier in the debate that he did not think that wheat was very important at all. In fact, he wanted to condemn all wheat to perdition and, so far as I could see, cover the countryside with hedges.
I have said in earlier debates on this subject that agriculture, the countryside, is the producer of food for this nation. It must take first place. But that does not mean to say that environmental affairs must be cut out or will not fit in, just to try to get a code that will satisfy the environmentalists. In saying that, I think that it is a very good idea and I am in favour of the idea. But I hope that whoever makes out the code appreciates the difficulty they will have in doing so. I emphasise that the environment has got to fit into the agricultural scene and not the other way round.
Lord Melchett: May I just point out to my noble friend that those who moved this amendment are not
488
suggesting that private consultants should be treated any differently from ADAS, the public service which is giving advice to farmers and landowners? As a result of this Bill, it is now under a statutory duty to balance various interests in the countryside. The suggestion of this amendment is that private consultants should be given guidance so that they are able to do the same thing. I hope that my noble friend does not want to see the public service, ADAS, operating at a major disadvantage by comparison with private consultants just because he and my noble friend Lord Houghton find it difficult to agree on some subjects.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I shall not keep the Committee for more than a moment. I must say that I feel that there is everything wrong with this amendment except the good intention behind it. This really is setting government an impossible task. Surely it is about time that we got rid of these weasel words, "striking the balance between". It is the most difficult thing in the world to strike balances between good and evil and good and less good or good and not so good. It seems to me that to set a Minister this task, he probably being neither a good writer of English nor a poet, raises the question of how he can produce the kind of guidelines and codes that are being sought in this amendment.
I thought that there was an abundance of erudite, understanding and thoughtful essays on what it is we want to achieve. We all want to get to the kingdom of heaven—that is what we want—and these codes of conduct and guidelines will not always get us there. Fancy the Minister being asked to produce something he considers proper in the field of advice and guidance of this kind. That is setting him a very difficult task indeed. The area to be covered by this survey is so wide and so full of philosophical, altruistic, artistic and moral issues that it is the work of a great philosopher with some understanding of the relations between man and nature.
In some ways, I think the term "the balance between conservation and agricultural production" is a sort of screen behind which bad decisions are taken. Sometimes there is no balance to be struck. Something is dreadful and should not be done, and there cannot be agricultural interests which should take precedence over what is proposed. One is irrevocable—the destruction of something—and the other is remedial; that is, the lack of agricultural production. Surely we all have to work towards these aims as best we can in our different capacities and by the administration of the statute law.
I am afraid that we sometimes set ourselves and Ministers an impossible task. With great respect to the noble Lord who moved the amendment, to the noble Lord who supported it and to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who also supported it, the noble Earl has many times scornfully referred to "the gibberish of Whitehall English". I am sure that he will get quite a big dose of it in these codes of conduct and what not. He, of all people, should steer clear of ministerial and bureaucratic essays of the kind suggested in the amendment.
Lord Melchett: May I ask my noble friend why he has changed his view about this so sharply since we were discussing the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill, when on numerous occasions he staunchly defended the Home Office's decision to include in guidance notes a whole range of matters which posed much more difficult philosophical questions, if I may say so, than matters of balancing conservation and agricultural production? That, if I may also remind him, is not something that was invented by the amendment but by the Government, in the text of the Bill in Clause 12. Nevertheless, in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill my noble friend, against some opposition from other parties, insisted that it was sensible to put something of a sort which involved guidance to the experimenters in exactly the sort of code of practice that this amendment is proposing.
Lord Belstead: This amendment has brought about a somewhat improbable alliance on agricultural matters between the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I must say it is an alliance which I join, but not because this amendment does not seem like a good idea: indeed, it does seem like a good idea and it was run in another place. We have thought very seriously, as I do not mind revealing, about whether it is possible to bring together the available advice. Perhaps I might just say in passing that some of the discussion we have had seemed to indicate to some extent that there was not very much advice going out to all the various people who ought to have it. I must say that there really is a library every year of published material which goes out from the four different services which make up ADAS. If anybody is interested they have only to put the publications together, or even to keep one or two of them, to be able to be on the right lines in a whole variety of ways.
Nonetheless, this amendment says, "Bring it together and put it into a code." The difficulty has been revealed, from their rather different standpoints, by the two noble Lords opposite, in that it would be advice which would have to be given not only by ADAS, by the private agricultural consultants, land agents, veterinarians and the like, but also by a wide range of statutory and voluntary bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, doubted whether this could be done and, as I said, I agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that it would really be very difficult, because it would cover also all types of goods relating to agriculture, food production, conservation and the rural economy. Just consider the range of activities which would be involved in this code. Anyone who supplied any goods to farmers would need to have regard to the code—not only the farm machinery, agro-chemical and fuel suppliers but local retailers, builders' merchants, co-operatives, and so on. All of these would be expected to know of the code and the code would have to be drafted in such a way that it was useful to them.
Finally, the real difficulty, the one which worries me, is that I think it would be impossible to cope in detail with all these recipients and with all the different types of goods and services which were being supplied
490
without producing something of almost encyclopaedic proportions. I fear that we would find ourselves confining the code to something so general that noble Lords who are moving the amendment would not approve of it.
I repeat two things. First, let us not run away with the idea that there is not published material. There is literally piles of it which comes out every year from ADAS and indeed from the experimental husbandry farms and horticultural stations, not to mention the Agricultural Food Research Council and all the other agencies connected with the agricultural, food and fishing industries.
May I assure the Committee that I not only say that I take this seriously but that this is something of which we have thought very seriously indeed. We wondered whether we could have some sort of code with pull-out pieces, something of that kind, but all the time one comes back to the inevitable conclusion that the publication would be so vast or else so general that we feel it would be better to rely on what is published at the present time and as the years go by.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: I have listened with great interest. I regard the attitude of several noble Lords as being negative and lacking in enterprise. I hope my noble friend the Minister will forgive me once again for not being my usual very amiable, friendly self.
First and foremost, I believe that something of a very general nature is what is required. Secondly, I totally reject what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said about it being quite impossible. If you look at a thing like that in a totally negative way it is very easy for any of us to pull it to pieces and say it is a load of rubbish. But if you look at it in a constructive way it is asking only for the most general guidance to the marketing consultants and these people who are subject to absolutely no obligations or guidance whatever.
I leave the Committee and my noble friend the Minister with this thought. If this is rejected there will be thousands—and later on thousands more—of individuals—consultants and advisers—going out to people all over the British Isles giving either totally different advice on the subjects we have been discussing today—perhaps 10,000 different ideas—or no advice at all. Is that the best we can do? Could it not be rectified by a general guidance or code as I have suggested? But in view—
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord moves to withdraw the amendment, which I sense he may, perhaps I can intervene to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, one question. He said that with his colleagues he had considered this proposal very carefully. I wondered whether in the course of that he had an opportunity to talk to the two professional associations which represent the overwhelming majority of private consultants in agriculture, and whether there was any possibility of them accepting voluntarily the need for themselves to prepare a code of practice.
After all, we are talking not about detailed instructions about what advice to give but about a code of practice, which I thought on occasions in this debate some noble Lords seemed to be assuming,

491
which would encourage consultants working in the private sector to take into account conservation and other interests in the countryside when they give advice to farmers. I wondered whether the professional associations representing consultants had been approached about this and indeed whether they had expressed any views. I imagine that they might well have suggested if they had that they would consider doing something voluntarily. I wonder whether that is a way of possibly moving forward.
Lord Belstead: I do not want to appear unfriendly but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has put his finger on the one section of the rural community who really are well informed. If one is a consultant, the one thing that one makes sure of is that one has the available literature. Indeed, one of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Radnor moved Amendment No. 14 earlier this evening was that he was anxious that consultants should know exactly where they would stand with ADAS in the future. Probably in my noble friend's mind, although he did not dwell on it, was the wish to know that there would be a continuing flow of information from ADAS. I like to think that I gave some reassurance on that particular point.
Consultants have naturally looked at their national ministry in whichever territorial parts of the United Kingdom that they happen to be, to make sure that they have the necessary flow of information. With great respect, consultants represent the one sector that is well "genned up" concerning advice.
Where I think that this is a very serious amendment is this. I understand that my noble friend Lord Buxton is saying that there are a lot of other people who also need to be well informed, because they might cause damage and danger to the rural environment just as much as those who normally work in the rural environment. My answer to that point is that we would be moving with the very greatest of reluctance into a document that would either be so general or would be of such encyclopaedic proportions that it would be difficult to go down that particular road.
I give an undertaking to my noble friends Lord Buxton and Lord Onslow that I shall look at that matter again before the next stage of the Bill, but I hope that they will not remind me, having just repeated my two major objections.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend finally withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may offer what I hope is a constructive idea—that the model should be a kind of advisory circular issued by the Department of Education, or by the Department of the Environment on planning matters. What we should like the Ministry to do is to produce an advisory circular, which does not need to be extremely detailed, which beefs up Clause 12 a little bit. If that were done, then all the advisers, or whoever it may be, will know in what intellectual and physical climate they are being asked to work. That is really what we want. Whether or not the wording is correct, I am certainly not qualified to judge, but that is the kind of circular that my noble friend and I should like to see.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure whether I am on exactly the same point as the noble Earl and the noble
492
Lord opposite, but I think I am. It seems to me that so far as concerns the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and myself, we are talking at cross-purposes. Certainly private consultants are in business, if they are successful, because they are well informed about agricultural policy, agricultural economics, and so on. However, they would not on the whole claim to be necessarily well informed about, for example, wildlife conservation.
The noble Lord himself spoke earlier about the training courses that have been organised by bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission that advisers have attended. At least, those bodies have been involved in such training programmes. I am not aware that any training of that kind has been provided for private consultants. They may know plenty about agricultural policy, but given that the Ministry and its advisers will have to balance that with wildlife, amenities, and so on, private consultants should be encouraged to do the same. That will mean them approaching new sources of information. It may be that one of the things that is required is to inform them where they can obtain such information and what priorities they need to consider.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: One last word. I agree with my noble friend the Minister that consultants probably are fairly well informed; but I have in mind also the increasing number of representatives, especially manufacturers' sales representatives, and so on. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his offer to think about the amendment. In view of that generous response, which was certainly well worth waiting the entire day for, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Constitution and functions of Home-Grown Cereals Authority]:
9.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) After subection (1) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) It shall be the duty of the Authority, in carrying out its function to promote the production of cereals, to inform growers of home-grown cereals of the need to keep public rights of way free from obstruction by such crops".").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment I suggest that one of the duties of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority should be, as well as its agricultural functions—the promotion and the production of cereals, and so on—the need to take some account of access to the countryside and, in particular, keeping rights of way free from obstruction.
I have said previously at the beginning of my introduction to an amendment (and I hope I may say again, without having to repeat it later) that I do not intend to press the amendment. It is not an amendment that should be included in the Bill. I move it simply as a probing amendment in order to seek a clearer picture in my mind, and in the minds of those outside the Committee who are interested, about the

493
way the Government see the new duties that are placed on the Ministry of Agriculture in Clause 12 operating in practice.
I have taken as a specific example the problem of access to the countryside. It is a problem which is increasing rapidly year by year. I have taken a Ministry of Agriculture appointed authority to see whether the new duty is going to help in this specific instance. The problem is that rights of way in the countryside increasingly cross arable fields. This is for two reasons. It is partly because of the removal of field boundaries so that public rights of way that once followed a field boundary now cross the middle of a larger field, and partly because increasingly permanent pasture is being ploughed up and converted to arable cropping so that paths that used to cross permanent pasture or go round the edge of it now go across or through arable fields.
Most of those arable fields are producing cereals or oil-seed rape which, as I understand the Bill, is now included in the definition of cereals. Oil-seed rape is also one of those crops which causes severe obstructions on footpaths. Indeed, it is so severe that the Ramblers' Association has successfully prosecuted at least one farmer in recent months because of the obstruction caused to footpaths by that crop. When that crop falls across a footpath or is planted along the line of a footpath it is more or less impenetrable when it has grown.
I hope that the new duties placed on the Minister by Clause 12 will mean that the Ministry will be looking at all aspects—for example, at the appointments it makes to bodies; and I have an amendment about that later on the Marshalled List—and at the way it expects bodies concerned with agricultural policy and agricultural functions to operate. In all those cases those bodies must bear in mind the new duties which are placed on the Minister and help to implement them in their particular sphere of influence. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The Home-Grown Cereals Authority's functions are concerned with improving the production and marketing of home-grown cereals and not promoting the production of cereals. I do not think that it should be part of the authority's role to remind cereal growers of their on-farm responsibilities. For that reason, I resist the amendment.
However, I am sympathetic to the concept behind the amendment and I should like to say in response that the Ministry and the Countryside Commission are preparing a guidance booklet and code for farmers on ploughing and rights of way. I understand that this material has been seen in draft by a wide range of relevant interested parties, including the Ramblers' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, and that it will be available shortly. I hope that demonstrates to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that I have taken his amendment seriously and that we do indeed work closely with the Countryside Commission.
Lord Melchett: On some matters, at least. I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding so positively to the amendment. We shall come later to the issue of the ploughing of footpaths and the problems associated with that. I acknowledge that the noble
494
Lord's Ministry is working with other interests in order to try to reduce these problems.
I hope, nevertheless, that in accepting the new duties under Clause 12, when it becomes law, the Ministry will not simply see it (as the noble Lord has sometimes suggested in his speeches and indeed in other debates in this Chamber in recent weeks, as have Ministers in another place in the same way) as a matter of acknowledging publicly what is going on in the Ministry anyway. I really think that the public outside Parliament and outside the agricultural industry will have rather higher expectations of the noble Lord and his department than that, and will expect to see the new duties of this sort carried through into a whole range of areas in which the Ministry operates, simply so that the reconcilement of different interests can be seen to be taking place, not just in the Minister's person but in all those bodies and organisations which are available to implement the Minister's wishes or to give him advice. I hope that that message will gradually start to permeate the noble Lord's department and the many other organisations with which he has some contact and for which he has some responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for at least two independent members of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority who would fill the offices of chairman and deputy chairman. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("of that subsection").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Constitution and levy schemes of Meat and Livestock Commission]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 7, line 23, leave out (" "fifteen" ") and insert (" "eleven" ").
The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment because I have had some discussion with the Meat and Livestock Commission on the subject of increasing the size of its membership. This clause introduces a 50 per cent. increase. Quite frankly, the Minister, and in fact all of us, have been talking a lot about saving money and costs, and putting five extra members on the Meat and Livestock Commission is bound to increase the cost of running it.
I understand that some of the bodies, particularly in the meat trade, do not think that they are well enough represented on it. Frankly, though all members on boards and commissions of this kind are supposed to be independent, they may come from various interests in the trade, and it seems to me that to put the number

495
up by 50 per cent. is overdoing it. It is almost like Parkinson's law: if these five people go on the commission then at some future date there is likely to be some other excuse brought forward, such as that another body of some description is not represented, yet another two or three people will be added, and before you know where you are you will have an unwieldy committee or commission.
I had an old friend—and many Members here will have known him also: the late Wilfrid Cave—who said that the ideal size of a committee was one, provided you could sack him. I think that is right. I feel that to bump up this committee by 50 per cent. is a mistake. The original request was for 11, and that is the figure that I have put in. I should like to hear the Minister's views. I feel that there must have been pressure from various interests on officials to increase the number. I think that it is a mistake. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I welcome the opportunity to explain the reasons for seeking to increase the maximum membership of the MLC to 15. As the noble Lord knows, membership is limited to a maximum of 10 at the moment. Of these, Ministers appoint three as independents and seven on the basis of industry nominations. Broadly speaking, three commissioners represent the livestock production sector; two the slaughtering, wholesaling and manufacturing sector; and two the retail sector. Last year, a group of key industry organisations from all three sectors proposed that membership should be increased to 11 so that the direct levy payers—producers and slaughterers—could each be represented by three commissioners. Clause 7 was drafted accordingly.
At the same time, discussions were taking place on a proposal whereby organisations would be grouped into three sectoral panels to submit joint lists of nominations for appointment to the commission and to provide a forum for communication between commissioners and the industry. In the course of these discussions, it was suggested that the task of appointing a balanced membership would be facilitated if the MLC were enlarged further.
The NFU and the key meat trade organisations, together representing the direct levy payers, agreed that producers and slaughterers/wholesalers should each be represented by four commissioners. If the number of retail and independent members remained unchanged, this would imply a total membership of 13. However, this formula would not provide flexibility to appoint additional members in the light of nominations actually received or of future changes in the MLC's role and funding. We therefore consulted organisations on the possibility of increasing maximum membership to 15, on the understanding that within this number the agreed balance between producers and slaughterers/wholesalers would be preserved.
Consultations revealed no major objection to the proposed increase to 15 and the necessary amendment was accordingly made in the other place. That is the story about how it happened. The additional two places, which brings the number to 15, will, I hope, mean that we shall have no further pressure for an increase in size. As I understand it, 15 is acceptable to the interests concerned.
Lord John-Mackie: The Minister confirms what I said. No sooner does one give way to one then one has to give way to two more and then yet another two to make the number 15. The Minister sees no reason why the figure should be further increased. I have my doubts. However, he has given an explanation, and although I am not satisfied, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Constitution and levy schemes of Meat and Livestock Commission]:
10 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, and with the Committee's agreement I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23. Under existing legislation, the MLC fixes the actual rate of levy payable in respect of each species of livestock, up to maximum rates laid down in a levy scheme. Levy schemes are subject to affirmative resolutions of both Houses. The levy is then paid on a broadly 50/50 basis by livestock producers and slaughterers.
Clause 7 gives the MLC scope to specify different elements within the levy for different purposes. This is required because producers have expressed a wish to increase funding for theme and species meat promotion, while slaughterers do not wish to make the parallel contributions which present arrangements would require. Clause 7 goes on to provide scope for a levy scheme to require different sectors to pay different proportions of the combined levy and the different elements within it. Thus it is likely that producers will, at least initially, pay 100 per cent. of the new funds for theme and species meat promotion, while continuing to pay 50 per cent. of the bulk of the levy. There may in due course be separate arrangements for other items of funding, such as research and development.
Decisions on all this will be taken by the MLC after full consultation with the industry. The arrangements will then be kept under the review, and it is quite possible that the MLC will in due course wish to vary the proportions of particular elements of the levy payable by different sectors. For example, slaughterers may offer to contribute some part of the funds for theme and species promotion. As things stand, that would require a new or amending levy scheme involving a round of statutory consultations by the MLC, detailed consideration by Ministers and affirmative resolutions of both Houses.
Just as the MLC has discretion to fix actual levy rates within maxima laid down in a levy scheme, it seems to us that it should have some freedom to change the proportions payable by different sectors within limits set out in the levy scheme, and that is what the amendment is designed to achieve.
I stress that the amendment is worded to ensure that maximum and minimum proportions which the MLC can specify are set out explicitly in the levy scheme. In that way they will be subjected to the closest scrutiny by the industry, Ministers and Parliament before being given effect to. That is important as a safeguard for the MLC's levy payments. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: We do not oppose the proposal, but the noble Lord the Minister will recall that earlier this evening I said that levies would be one way of financing the supplementary cash requirement which the Government now need for ADAS. I am glad that safeguards are being built in. I hope that the scheme will work as smoothly as it sounded when the noble Lord outlined it.
I hope also that those who seek not to contribute much by way of levies will not be rewarded for their exemption by being given a place on the commission, because that would seem odd. I hope that with a commission of 15 and a modified -system of levy arrangements the peace will be maintained at the MLC, because from my limited knowledge of the industry I should say it is not the easiest industry in which to maintain peace. On that basis, we shall not oppose the proposition.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 44, at end insert—
("(d) in subsection (6) (provision in levy schemes for persons on whom levy imposed to recover all or a specified part of sums paid by them from others) the words "all or a specified part of" shall be omitted; and
(e) after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(6A) Where a levy scheme makes such provision as is mentioned in subsection (6) above it shall—

(a) authorise the Commission from time to time to determine the proportion of the sums paid under the levy scheme which shall be recoverable;

(b) specify whether the Commission may determine that the whole of those sums shall be recoverable and, if not, the maximum proportion of them which they may determine shall be recoverable; and

(c) specify whether the Commission may determine that none of those sums shall be recoverable and, if not, the minimum proportion of them which they may determine shall be recoverable.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Consolidation of agricultural marketing schemes. 1958 c. 47.
. After paragraph 5 of Schedule I to the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (amendment and revocation of agricultural marketing schemes) there shall be inserted—
"5A.—(1) Where the Minister considers it appropriate to do so he may—

(a) prepare a consolidation of any scheme as it has effect with amendments ("the amended scheme"); and

(b) by order revoke the amended scheme and approve the consolidated scheme.

(2) An order made by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) shall state that it is made only for the purposes of consolidation; and

(b) may contain such transitional and consequential provision as the Minister considers necessary or expedient.".").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may mention also Amendment No. 76, which is consequential upon this amendment. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which I have the honour to serve, ever mindful that every person is presumed to know the
498
law, does its best to ensure that the law is presented in such a way that it is accessible and intelligible to the reader. That gives the committee great concern over the milk marketing scheme of 1933, which after half a century is still in force having been amended goodness knows how many times. It has been amended out of all recognition. The paragraphs have been renumbered and the cross-references are extremely difficult to follow. Consolidation is urgently required.
I believe that the ministry entirely agrees with all that, but it points out that a marketing scheme is not like an order or a regulation which is entirely under the Minister's control and includes power to consolidate; a marketing scheme emanates from the board which administers it and the producers, and it is laid before the Minister for his approval.
I believe that the ministry is hesitant about proceeding to consolidate a marketing scheme in the absence of a specific clause in legislation enabling it to undertake the work. The proposed new clause gives that enabling power which I believe the ministry seeks. I hope that it commends itself to the Committee and to the noble Lord the Minister and that it will be accepted. That will enable the ministry to proceed with consolidation of marketing schemes wherever that is desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: On behalf of the Government, I most certainly support the noble Lord's amendment. The noble Lord acquainted me with it on Peterborough Station last week. It sounds even better in your Lordships' Committee than it sounded then. I have great pleasure in supporting it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Entry to food premises of trainees.
. In subsection (3) of section 87 of the Food Act 1984 (which permits an authorised officer of a council entering premises to take with him other persons) after the words "such other persons as may be necessary" there shall be inserted the words:—
"or a person who is receiving instruction in the performance of any of the functions of the Council under this Act".").
The noble Lord said: The problem that this amendment is designed to give us an opportunity to discuss concerns the inspection of poultry food, before and after birds are slaughtered. My noble friend on the Front Bench is, I believe, aware of the problem. If the Committee wishes to be made fully aware of the problem, I have about three pages of foolscap here on which I could dilate. I judge that the Committee prefers me to address my remarks chiefly to my noble friend and not to enter into all the details of the background.
Briefly, the situation is that an EC directive of some years ago requires poultry food, before it is exported to other member countries of the Community, to be thoroughly inspected. That, in turn, requires more poultry meat inspectors. The district councils, whose president I am, have the job of conducting those inspections. In order to increase the number of inspectors to the figure required to do a conscientious and thorough job, more have to be trained. They can only complete their training if they are able to enter places where poultry is being processed, slaughtered

499
and prepared for the market. This cannot be done without the support and co-operation of the poultry processors, who are members of the British Poultry Federation. Those members do not like the directive. They do not like the scale of inspection. Most of all, they do not like being charged with the cost of it all. At the moment, co-operation is not forthcoming.
There are two solutions, neither of them very good. One is a statutory provision of the kind incorporated in my amendment. The Minister will say that the matter is not appropriate to this legislation, or he will say that it must await revision of the Food Act. But long before revision of the Food Act is forthcoming we shall reach a situation where there are not enough inspectors to do the job. The producers who wish to export poultry will find themselves being deprived of the health mark that is necessary because inspections are not being carried out adequately or thoroughly enough. Neither of those is a satisfactory solution. It would be useful to hear from my noble friend what better solution he has to the impasse that exists. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I agree with my noble friend that there is something of an impasse. My understanding is that poultry slaughterhouses are able to refuse access to plants to trainee poultry meat inspectors for practical instruction which Community legislation requires before qualification. This has led to a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
For our part we would wish to continue discussions with local authority associations and the industry in order to seek appropriate solutions. It is in this context that the Government have considered the amendment of my noble friend and in our view what are needed are discussions between representatives of local authorities, the industry, and Government with the aim of achieving a speedy consensus of those issues of concern. For their part the Government are eager to make progress. We very much hope that local authorities in the industry will share our readiness.
I have replied in this way because I would be concerned—and I am sure that my noble friend would be concerned—about putting through an amendment dealing with powers of entry about which there are always implications and on which it is always normal to consult the interests affected.
In addition to that, it is possible, as my noble friend suggested, that the Food Act, which is being reviewed at the present time, could provide a way of proceeding. Nonetheless, that is not the offer that I have given to my noble friend. My suggestion is that we should get down to discussions. I hope that my noble friend will agree.
Lord Sandford: Yes, I certainly would. I should like to suggest that it would be appropriate for the Committee at this stage to agree to that. However, I think that Parliament ought not to let the Report stage go by without having rather more assurances than my noble friend has given so far that these discussions will be fruitful. I should have thought that it is certainly not in the interests of the British Poultry Federation to withhold its co-operation for this training to the point where its members begin to lose the health mark,
500
because that is what will happen if nothing is done. Having received an undertaking on this point at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think that your Lordships have had a number of late nights this week. We have made some very good progress on this Bill. Perhaps I may move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.