Lords Sitting of 13 May 1987

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

Overseas Aid Projects: Women's Interests
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 how they intend to pursue their policy of integrating women more fully into their overseas aid projects.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we recognise the importance of taking the role of women fully into account in all aid projects. Some of our projects include special components for women. We are prepared to contribute to projects specifically devoted to helping women.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the position of women as workers, as traders and as thinkers is crucial to the whole development exercise? Does she further agree that women in the third world are a disadvantaged group? Is she aware that the reputable organisation War on Want has publicly stated that the British aid programme is damaging the interests of some women in the third world and it is anxious that the Ministry should say specifically what it is doing to assist women in the use of development aid from this country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will be glad to know that I agree very much about the importance of women as traders and thinkers. He will be glad to know that we are well aware that almost 90 per cent. of food for domestic consumption in Africa is produced by women. The ODA's method of keeping statistics makes it difficult to provide precise figures on the amount of aid going to women in the developing world. However, all aid benefits women and some projects have special components for women. We are considering ways to prepare statistics on the proportion of aid going to help women. We want to do more. We have produced a booklet, of which I am sure the noble Lord is aware, which sets out 18 projects designed specifically to help women.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be surprised to learn that I also agree with my noble friend Lord Hatch on this point? Will she tell us whether steps are in hand not only to obtain statistics on our aid to these countries but also to monitor the effect of the special projects for women? Does she agree that if we are to give the most effective aid to these countries, it is important to monitor, and in the light of the monitoring perhaps to adjust, our assistance?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. The noble Baroness makes a good point. It is important that we should use our aid effectively and I can assure her that we take steps to monitor how it is used in the developing world.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take pains to ensure that in the course of our interference with the affairs of the third world we do not interfere with the established rights of husband and wife in third world families?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord's question begs a great many other questions. It is not a matter on which I would want to pronounce this afternoon.
Lord Walston: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the role of the VSO in these matters is of great importance. Is she aware that the number of volunteers who are women is considerable and that the part they play is enormously important?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm the importance of NGOs in their work both at home and in developing countries. It is something that we appreciate and have supported.
Lord Oram: My Lords, as the welfare of women is involved in practically every aspect of life in developing countries, should not every project undertaken by the Overseas Development Administration be monitored to see that it takes account of the needs of women? I believe that to be the procedure in the ODA in respect of family planning projects. Every one is vetted from that point of view. Would it not be suitable to use the same procedure in relation to women's questions?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct in what he says. All aid affects women in one way or another. The booklet to which I have referred, a copy of which is in the Library, gives examples of 18 projects. A recent example is our major support for the Open University in Pakistan, which helps to educate people excluded from formal education, especially rural women. This has been helpful. I accept his point about recognising within our administrative arrangements the importance of monitoring the work that is being done.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, as the Government are abolishing many of the good things in life, can the noble Baroness give us a serious assurance that the Government have no plans to abolish women?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord is that I have always believed in the natural superiority of women over men and would not think of abolishing women.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her sympathy with the spirit behind this Question. Is she aware that in real terms overseas aid today is 20 per cent. less than it was in 1979, that only 20 per cent. of present overseas aid is spent in the interests of the poorest of the developing countries,

627
and that therefore the amount that goes to women must be very tiny indeed? Would she consider, in support of what she appeared to be sympathetic towards in the question of my noble friend Lord Oram, the setting up in the ODA of a women's unit to ensure that every development project funded by this country is vetted before it is put into practice to see what its effect on women in the third world country will be, as has been promised by the Labour Party?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would not accept the remarks which prefaced the noble Lord's supplementary question. We do not believe that a women's unit would be helpful within the ODA. We believe that it would marginalise the issue and that women could be forgotten in many projects. It is much more important to integrate women's interests in all development issues and to ensure that they stay in the mainstream. That is our view about this matter, and this is something to which I personally attach great importance. I believe it is an effective way of helping women in the developing world.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend think that it is a good thing that Question Time should develop to a point where the questioner on the Order Paper seems to have the right to give a winding-up speech as though he is answering a debate?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to use her offices to encourage the policy of integrating women more fully into their inheritance rights in your Lordships' House?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that that is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster: DHSS Help
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the DHSS took all necessary measures to help the survivors and the relatives of the victims of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to report that the Department of Health and Social Security acted promptly to set up an advice centre at Zeebrugge to handle claims and inquiries. Additional DHSS staff were present at Gatwick Airport and Dover to help those returning from Zeebrugge, while all claims were dealt with speedily at one nominated office in Dover.
The Secretary of State for Social Services decided that all medical costs incurred in Belgium by victims of the disaster would be met from public funds.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his reassuring reply and for his
628
account of the efficient service that has been provided by the DHSS in the face of that stark disaster, may I further ask whether the Government have expressed suitable appreciation and gratitude to the Belgian authorities for their invaluable assistance at that time?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on 22nd May my noble friend the Minister hopes to visit the six Belgian hospitals which looked after the United Kingdom victims to present each of them with a specially commissioned plaque in recognition of the care and support that they gave to those involved.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure that we would all wish to associate ourselves with the thanks of the House to the members of staff who had such difficult work to do in this terrible disaster. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there are any claims still outstanding, and also whether any money payments were in the shape of grants and not loans so that people will not be expected to repay any financial help that was given to them.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in congratulating our staff on their efforts. I remind her of my first Answer, which showed the great lengths to which the department went in order to be able to help victims as soon as possible both in Belgium and at the port of entry in the United Kingdom. The victims of the disaster are spread throughout the United Kingdom and the department has not collated any special statistics relating to them after they passed into the United Kingdom. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that claims were given the prompt attention of the department, and as in any emergency we have endeavoured to expedite them as speedily as possible.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister also consider paying tribute to the many voluntary organisations which helped at that particular time?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to do so.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, has it been taken on board that the most important thing on this sort of occasion, and which ought to be made compulsory, is that there should be a complete and accurate list of the names of all those on board; and that this is most important not only for the relatives of those who die but also to make sure that the ship is not overloaded, which on this occasion seems to have been a bit marginal?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I feel that that is a question which has nothing to do with the department.

South Africa: Suggested Visit by PM
2.48 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

629
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister will visit South Africa in order to express, as she did in the USSR, the British people's dedication to human rights by meeting at the British Embassy in South Africa representatives of dissident movements and visiting typical African locations in the company of black leaders.
Baroness Young: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has no plans to visit South Africa.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is not a fact that on the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow she carried out the activities which are described in my Question on South Africa? Historically is not South Africa far more important to us than the Soviet Union? Therefore should we not be active in South Africa, on behalf of those who are denied human rights, to the same degree at least that we are in the Soviet Union?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would not in any way underestimate the great importance of relations between East and West at the present time. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear her total condemnation of apartheid. She has not visited South Africa during her term of office but she has met a number of black South African leaders, including Chief Buthelezi, Archbishop Tutu and Chief Mabuza. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State visited South Africa in July 1986 and visited Soweto. During his visit black opposition leaders refused to see him. Since that time we have noted that a number of ANC leaders have met FCO Ministers.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that this is a clear case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, in the light of the swing to the right in the white South African elections, and the deteriorating situation throughout southern Africa, it is of the greatest importance that Her Majesty's Government show sympathy for those who appear to speak for the oppressed people in southern Africa, of whom the African National Congress and SWAPO for Namibia are among the chief?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have indicated, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary met Mr. Tambo in September 1986. He met Archbishop Tutu in March of this year. Perhaps I may remind the right reverend Prelate that since 1979 we have maintained a wide-ranging aid programme to South Africa and the neighbouring states. We have given £1 million for training 100 black South Africans in the United Kingdom and £250,000 for British Council activities in South Africa. We have recently announced an additional £15·75 million over five years for assistance in southern Africa.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following the recent election in South Africa, is the Minister aware that Archbishop Tutu, to whom she specifically referred, said that South Africa had reached its darkest stage? To what extent has the situation there, following the election, been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and what steps do they propose to take to ameliorate the position and the appalling possibilities of a great crisis with much bloodshed in South Africa?
Does the noble Baroness not agree that Her Majesty's Government have an important responsibility to take positive steps to seek to achieve a settlement in South Africa? Is there any significance in the appointment of Mr. Robin Renwick as Ambassador to South Africa? We read his book with great interest. Finally, what attitude do Her Majesty's Government now have towards the imposition of economic sanctions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as regards the election in South Africa, the outcome is a matter for the white electorate. It is disappointing that they have clearly voted against any major change of policy. We have made absolutely plain our position on apartheid. In answering the right reverend Prelate, I indicated what we have done to help black South Africans, the front line states and countries in South Africa. Our view on sanctions is well known. It is interesting that during his visit to London last week President Chissano from Mozambique said that he knew that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister shared the aim of eradicating apartheid in South Africa.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, did my noble friend see the article by Natan Sharansky in yesterday's Times? It pointed out the astonishing double standard which the West is taking in that 5 million Soviet citizens are in camps or prisons and that, as a percentage of the population, the position is 10 times more serious than the very serious position in South Africa. Is it not possible to make representations on account of those minorities as well as the minorities in South Africa?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. The answer to my noble friend is that Her Majesty's Government deplore the violation of human rights wherever they may occur.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that two appalling and frightening aspects of inhuman behaviour do not make for good behaviour? In so far as she has clearly said that the Government have rightly expressed their detestation of apartheid, can we not on this occasion make it plain that we also support the United States of America? That country has not only expressed, with us, its detestation of apartheid, but is now beginning to inflict a form of industrial control leading to what it believes will make the South Africans think again. Can we not support our ally, the United States of America, in its endeavours?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the view of Her Majesty's Government as regards economic sanctions.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in spite of the results of the election, there is at the moment a strong feeling for reform in South Africa and that it may be necessary to use a little more carrot to encourage them to set about achieving that? Is the Minister also aware that there are 14 different interests there? If we expect them to settle the problem with 14 different interests, should we not show them how to achieve that in Ireland, where we have only two?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that we totally condemn apartheid. In 1987 we shall continue our efforts to work with our partners in the European Community and other like-minded countries to promote dialogue towards peaceful fundamental change, and we reject violence on all sides. There is no easy solution. Punitive sanctions are a false panacea and some of its advocates are already having second thoughts. The South African election results show that the United States congressional sanctions were counterproductive with the white electorate.
Lord Kennet: My Lords—
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think that one noble Lord must sit down while the other speaks.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, since the days of Lord Palmerston, it has been a fundamental principle of British foreign policy not to interfere in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states? Will the Minister assure the House that that principle still applies?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I set out the policy of the British Government in respect of this matter in answer to my noble friend Lord Gisborough.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps the first intervention from these Benches will be in order after four from the Labour Opposition. While the House accepts that the Government have always made clear their detestation of apartheid, could they not now begin to make clear their admiration and respect for democracy, and point out to South Africa and the world that it will get nowhere by having elections among the small white minority while leaving the large black majority disenfranchised?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we support democracy. We have promoted the principle of peaceful dialogue within South Africa by talking to all the parties. We have implemented a programme of positive and restrictive measures which have been agreed with our 12 Community partners and the Commonwealth, and we have fulfilled all our undertakings. We have helped black South Africans: 80 young black South African students have recently arrived here on scholarships.
632
We have taken a firm line on abuses of human rights. Our ambassador made a major démarche on 19th December on behalf of the Twelve and we have assisted the front-line states in reducing their economic and transport dependence on South Africa. But at the end of the day I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to those who think like him that it is the South Africans themselves who will achieve change. External influence is limited and the prime responsibility lies with the South African Government.
A noble Lord: There will be a civil war.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for her reply to me and ask her whether it would not highlight the coming general election if a statement were made during the campaign that Britain was not only opposed to apartheid in word but was prepared to take action, as suggested in my Question, to end it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I appreciate the sincerity of the point that the noble Lord makes. I hope he will feel that in answer to his supplementary question I have made plain the steps we have taken in meeting leaders from all parts of South Africa and in our condemnation of violations of human rights wherever they occur.
Lord Monson: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, does the noble Baroness agree that there is no point in the Prime Minister, or indeed any overseas visitor for that matter, visiting South African black townships, as they are now called, without during the same visit seeing similar townships in other parts of Africa so as to be able to make a fair comparison?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have no doubt there is much in what the noble Lord says, but I have nothing more to add as regards the policy of the Government.

Naval Rules of Engagement
3.2 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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, in the event of war, NATO navies, including the Royal Navy, would fight under the New Maritime Strategy announced by the US Chief of Naval Operations in January last year, and whether in peacetime they will exercise under the present US rules of engagement.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, in the event of war, the Royal Navy and the navies of other NATO countries which had been assigned to NATO command would operate in accordance with the concepts developed by the NATO military authorities and agreed by alliance nations. In peacetime, the Royal Navy and the navies of other NATO countries operate and exercise under their own national rules of engagement or, if they have

633
been assigned to NATO command for a particular exercise, under NATO rules of engagement.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the point is, do the NATO rules of engagement coincide with the New Maritime Strategy? Since this says that during a conventional war Soviet ballistic missile-firing submarines might be sunk in order to change the nuclear balance and to persuade the Russians to sue for peace, is it not a clear example of a pre-emptive strategic first strike? Has it been discussed at political level in NATO?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Alliance naturally reviews and updates its rules of engagement from time to time but it is not our practice to give details or to discuss operational matters of this sort.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question quite misunderstands the arrangements of the Royal Navy and other navies declared to NATO? The United States Chief of Naval Operations, I am sure the noble Lord would agree, has nothing whatever to do with NATO arrangements. Is he aware that the two supreme commanders concerned in NATO are SACLANT and CINCHAN? They obtain their instructions from the NATO Military Committee. There is no conceivable possibility of strategy being developed by any authority other than the NATO Military Committee, and endorsed by the NATO Council. Finally, does he agree that even if the Question were well advised, it would be quite wrong to give the information requested?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is quite right. The United States maritime strategy is a matter for the United States.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the short time this Question has been on the Order Paper I have consulted several experts, including the editor of one of our defence journals, and no one has ever heard of the New Maritime Strategy? Will he tell us the essential difference between the New Maritime Strategy and the old maritime strategy, or will he need a longer period of notice?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that question is one which should be addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is quite mistaken in saying that the Government never discuss the rules of engagement? On 5th March this year his noble friend Lord Trefgarne sent to me a very helpful statement of the Government's policy on rules of engagement in the Gulf. Is he also aware that the previous supplementary question was based on ignorance and that I am prepared to send full details of the New Maritime Strategy to any noble Lord who is interested?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can go no further than my original Answer. It is not our practice to give details or make known discussions on operational matters of the sort to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at any rate some of us think this Question is absolutely barmy? I cannot believe that any of your Lordships would be expected to know what the strategy of our nation would be in the event of war. Who is going to tell what to whom—certainly not to the enemy. The question could not be more daft.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will have heard those remarks.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the short debate standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. This means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length that would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.
Private Business Motion
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I regret to say that a minor defect has come to light in the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not therefore intend to move it this afternoon but to table an amended Motion for your Lordships' consideration tomorrow.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): 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 Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May):
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I should like to refer briefly to four matters which were raised by noble Lords in our debate last week. The first of these issues is the question of the composition of the Crown Court for the trial of scheduled offences. The noble Lords, Lord Hampton, Lord Donaldson and Lord Hylton, expressed support for the idea that the court should consist of three judges. The case for such a change rests on two assumptions: first, that a three-judge court would result in an objectively better system of justice; and,

635
secondly, that a three-judge court would inspire greater public confidence in the administration of justice. The Government are not at present persuaded that either of these assumptions is justified.
I should like to say a few more words about the question of a code of practice for the exercise of emergency powers, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Legislation for Northern Ireland is being prepared which will be equivalent to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including provisions requiring the introduction of codes of practice for the exercise of police powers. The Government recognise the desirability of providing a clear statement of the powers available to the security forces and indicating clearly the ways in which those powers should be exercised, but codes directly equivalent to those issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would not bite on the exercise of powers under the emergency legislation. My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place accordingly announced on 8th April the Government's intention of publishing and bringing into force a non-statutory code of practice for the exercise of emergency powers by the RUC and the armed forces.
Thirdly, I mentioned last week that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was considering the appointment of an independent person of standing to review the operation of the emergency provisions legislation each year. I am glad to be able to tell the House that my right honourable friend has decided that such a review should be carried out and that the Government have asked my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to undertake this task. My noble friend produced a thorough and helpful review of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act throughout the United Kingdom earlier this year and has just undertaken to carry out a rather more substantial review of that Act. All that will put my noble friend in a strong position when separately reviewing the operation of the emergency provisions legislation to assess the whole package of emergency powers that applies in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I should like to cover the point raised by several noble Lords about the availability of remission to convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland. In most cases it is 50 per cent. remission of the original sentence. I stresss that the remission applies only to what we call determinate sentences; that is sentences that are not life sentences. Remission can be lost if the prisoner commits disciplinary offences and unlike what happens in England and Wales remission is conditional. The balance of the sentence may be reimposed by the courts if the person concerned is reconvicted. The 50 per cent. remission arrangements reflect the difficulty of establishing a parole system in Northern Ireland but I can assure noble Lords that the whole system is kept under review.
I and the Government were delighted with the welcome given to the Bill last week when we discussed it on Second Reading. I acknowledge that many noble Lords may be disappointed that we have not been able to have a fuller discussion of that particular legislation because, certainly, it is sensitive. We believe that further discussion would have merits but we are very encouraged by the support of this Chamber for the
636
Bill. We hope that its provisions will find their way onto the statute book at the earliest opportunity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the assurances that he has brought to the House this afternoon. Of course we are saddened that it is still necessary to have emergency provisions legislation in Northern Ireland. But the Bill, which amends the current legislation in a number of respects, will be an improvement on that legislation. It gives greater protection to the individual citizen without causing damage to the requirements of security.
In the Second Reading debate last Friday, the Bill was welcomed generally by the House. From these Benches we indicated about half a dozen areas that we should have wished to explore in Committee, believing that the Bill would have benefited from such discussion. However, we have been overtaken by events, as we had anticipated. We are pleased to support the Bill and to facilitate its passage before the dissolution of Parliament.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments on some points that I raised at Second Reading and welcome the review planned by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. In the Official Report I was quoted as saying that we should be happy if the emergency provisions were in future removed annually. The passage should of course have read, "renewed annually". Quite a lot of hard work went into this Bill in the other place and we are grateful that it is in pretty good shape. I do not think that I can with advantage add further to the debate. We support the Third Reading but with some regret that more time has not been available to scrutinise such important legislation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may utter a few words of deep gratitude to the two noble Lords who have spoken for all the work that has been done on the Bill in this Chamber as well as that done by colleagues in another place. I am sure that all that has been said this afternoon and during our discussions at an earlier stage will be read with encouragement by my colleagues in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill
3.15 p. m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before your Lordships implements the main findings of the committee chaired by Mr. Edward Nugee, QC, which examined the problems of management in privately

637
owned blocks of flats. The prime purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the rights of people living in privately owned flats, and it applies whether the flat is in a mansion block, in a more recent purpose-built development or in a conversion of a house or other premises. In some respects we have gone further than the committee recommended, but the core of the Bill is based firmly on the findings of the Nugee Report.
The Government set up the committee in 1984 because of our growing concern about the management problems which were emerging in private blocks of flats. The report, which was produced in November 1985, showed that there are indeed severe problems affecting the management of many blocks, although there are also many landlords and agents who undoubtedly achieve high standards of management and consumer satisfaction.
The proposals of the Nugee Committee reflected a wide spectrum of opinion. The committee consisted of members drawn from various professional bodies and representing the viewpoints of landlords and tenants. It is a remarkable achievement to have reached unanimous recommendations on so much, and I should like to pay tribute to the committee.
Turning briefly to the content of the Bill, Part I gives qualifying tenants a right of first refusal where the landlord wishes to dispose of his interest in a block of flats. The Nugee Report suggested a procedure based on offer and counter-offer which would give tenants the first refusal at a price to be negotiated between the parties within a set timetable. We have implemented those recommendations.
Part II enables any tenant of a flat, whether a long leaseholder or rack-renting tenant, to apply to the court for the appointment of a manager to take over the management of the premises where the landlord has failed to discharge his obligations under the terms of the lease.
Part III enables a majority of leaseholders of flats in a block let wholly or mainly on long leases to apply to the court for an order to acquire compulsorily the landlord's interest where the landlord has failed to discharge his obligations and the appointment of a manager would not be an adequate remedy or where a manager has been appointed for three years.
Part IV deals with the circumstances on which a court may vary the terms of a long lease of a flat. It also safeguards long leaseholders of houses against unsatisfactory provisions on insurance in their lease.
Part V deals with management of leasehold property. It strengthens the provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 dealing with variable service charges and extends them to houses and other dwellings. It provides that contributions to service charges, including sinking funds, shall be held on trust for the benefit of the tenants; it adds important rights for tenants on the insurance of their property; and it gives a recognised residents' association the right to be consulted about the appointment of managing agents. Part VI extends a residential tenant's right to information about his landlord's name and address.
The Bill as a whole provides a framework for the orderly management of flats in private ownership. All residents, whether they are long leaseholders or renting
638
tenants, have a right to expect that their homes will be properly managed. The Bill strikes a balance between improving the position of tenants and safeguarding the proper interests of landlords. As my honourable friend the Minister for Housing has repeatedly made clear, good landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill. Its provisions should bring the general level of management of flats closer to the standards already achieved by the better landlords and managing agents.
The Bill has been widely welcomed and was given all party support in another place. I believe that there is a general wish that it should be implemented as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hoope.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her brisk but clear gallop through the terms of this Bill. I am very pleased to welcome this Bill to its Second Reading. It follows, as my noble friend said, the report of the Department of the Environment's committee of inquiry established in February 1984 under the chairmanship of Mr. Nugee, to look into the problems arising from the management of privately owned blocks of flats.
These had for many years been a concern of many of us, particularly also of my honourable friend Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, whose frequent attempts to legislate in another place should not pass without respectful comment; of Mr. John Wheeler, who also served as a member of the Nugee Committee; and of Mr. John Fraser in another place, who strongly and effectively supported the Bill on behalf of an Opposition party during its speedy passage through all its stages in another place. It was my honourable friend Mr. Gow who commissioned the report and it fell to my honourable friend Mr. Patten to implement it, and he has steered it through another place with dash and some brio.
The decision to legislate most of Nugee's recommendations was made known to us 13 months ago in answer to a Question for Written Answer addressed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and it is clear that the Bill before us has been prepared with care by parliamentary counsel. What we have to consider is a substantial and considered measure of overdue law reform in the field of domestic landlord and tenant law, a corner of our law which your Lordships may not find immediately glamorous, though I know that many of your Lordships are long lessees of flats and well aware of the deficencies in the existing law.
Here I shall myself declare an interest, in that I am the tenant of a long-lease flat; and it may be called a lease at the sharp end because it has only 13 or 14 years remaining unexpired. It is also, I have to say, what would be called a defective lease. I may also say that in my practice as a solicitor I frequently have to advise clients on defective leases which they may own or which they may be contemplating buying. Advice in such circumstances is not given or received easily, because people who have seen a flat that they like do not like to be told by their solicitors that they should

639
not buy it because of some technicality which their solicitor sees.
I shall come back to the question of defective leases, but perhaps I may tell your Lordships now that the drafting of and advising on residential leases is boring and repetitive, and has perhaps never received the care and attention that all the possible pitfalls call for. On the basis that you only get what you pay for, and with the pressure for conveyancing costs to be reduced and reduced, we must surely expect many more defective leases being drafted today to return to vex us tomorrow. The use of word processors also does not help.
I was delighted to read the Nugee Report, delighted to learn that legislation would follow and delighted when this Bill passed through all its stages in another place. The provisions of the Nugee Report were generally welcomed, as my noble friend has pointed out, and it is worth noting, as she did, that the committee comprised, among other well-informed persons, members reflecting the interests of both landlords and tenants as well as members of the relevant professional bodies.
Having said all that, I have to say that a Bill of this nature needs the closest scrutiny, clause by clause, in this House. I am surprised that we are being asked today, with all-party agreement, to take the Bill through all its stages on the nod this afternoon. I expected, as I know a number of your Lordships did, that this Bill would fall with the Parliament. It has been pressed for and worked for for so long that it would he a shame if it were lost, but that does not make its provisions urgent—quite the reverse.
It passed quickly through another place—only three sittings in Standing Committee—but that is not an indication that we should deal with it so quickly; merely a reflection of the agreed general nature of the measure, and a clear invitation to us to scrutinise the Bill carefully if we can. Not to give the Bill the close consideration that it needs may well be seen as an abjuration of our role as a revising Chamber, which we may well come to regret at a later date if this Bill does itself prove to be defective.
My surprise that we were dealing with this Bill in one day is shared by others outside your Lordships' House. I had a telephone call this morning from a well-known firm of City solicitors, Linklaters and Paines. They saw what they thought were problems in the Bill and they have written to me at length about them. I shall not go into details about the problems that they saw, except that they run through the Bill and they deal with the question of the landlord's and tenant's right to pre-emption; they deal with the tenant's right to compulsory purchase of the landlord's interest in certain circumstances, and they deal with the provisions of the Bill relating to managing agents.
When I took up the Bill yesterday afternoon on learning what we were going to do today, I turned to the provisions of Part IV—that is, Clauses 35 to 40—dealing with the variation by the courts of defective leases. This had always seemed to me to be the area of the report which needed the closest probing. After a little while, I had eight amendments drafted in pectore, but looking at them now I see that
640
they are for the most part Committee amendments and I do not propose to worry your Lordships or my noble friend with them this afternoon. Nevertheless, I should like to address the question whether Part IV should, in an ideal world, pass into law now or whether its contents should be left to another occasion for proper consideration.
I have no difficulty in agreeing that the problem of defective leases is a serious one. Defective leases fall into three principal categories. This is at least the best analysis that I can produce at short notice. The simplest category to consider is the sort of case where the landlord or his solicitors have imposed on a tenant a covenant to pay a proportionate part of the expense of repairing the structure of the block, without themselves convenanting to carry out any repairs. Your Lordships will be aware that it is a well-known fact that landlords call the tune and effectively impose their leases on tenants, and if a tenant does not like what the landlord's solicitor suggests all the tenant can do is find another flat.
The second type of case is where, as a result of incompetent drafting by the landlord's solicitors, there are errors and inconsistencies and ambiguities in the lease. With the growing use of word processors, and for the other reasons that I have mentioned, I see this category of defective lease as likely to be on the increase in the future.
The final category I have in mind is a more harmless one, though very difficult to resolve. That is where what are largely social conditions have changed over the years and left old leases stranded like dinosaurs on a beach. Such leases were relevant to the days of the daily delivery of groceries by errand boys on bicycles into the hands of porters on duty in shifts for perhaps 18 hours a day; of coal stored in flat owners' cellars; of porters, again, who let in the guests through the front door of the block. Now we may want to install entry phones but the lease does not provide for that.
Then under this category there is the pressing problem of central heating, which I put in the same category. What about the old boiler in the cellar? It supplies the whole building through furred-up pipes, with boiling water to the radiators in some flats and cold water to others, eating up oil at prices which could never have been envisaged by the draftsman who drew up the lease.
If you have a communal system you may turn off your radiators to save fuel on a March morning, but you will probably find that you get very little financial saving yourself from doing that. Indeed, you may notice that your walls are warm because your neighbour has gone off to the West Indies and left his radiators running at his fellow tenants' expense. Nowadays, all the arguments are in favour of individual central heating. However, under the old leases, if tenants install an independent system in their flats they will also have to pay their share of the running and maintenance costs of the old guzzler in the basement.
All those are problems and we need new machinery to resolve them. The question is: is the right machinery to be found in Part IV of the Bill? I confess to the gravest reservations on that point. I also have grave reservations about the propriety of legislating on the

641
nod for the massive variation of contractual rights by the courts.
The Nugee Report states in paragraph 7.6.8:
"The evidence we have received of the unsatisfactory nature of some leases leads us to conclude that it should be possible in certain circumstances (which need to be carefully defined) to modify the existing terms of the lease in the interests of the well being of the block and its owners and occupants even in cases where no majority agreement can be reached. The procedure would entail application to the Court for the lease to be varied. Such intervention is by no means unprecedented in statute; for example under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Moreover, the recent history of legislation relating to variable service charges from the Housing Finance Act 1972 onwards (and in particular Schedule 19 to the Housing Act 1980) provides examples of obligations to supply information and consult and of rights to challenge charges all of which may go beyond the terms of the actual leases."
Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 allows the Lands Tribunal, not the courts, to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land in clearly defined circumstances. Broadly, those are: where the restriction is deemed obsolete or impedes reasonable use of the land and does not benefit anybody, or is contrary to the public interest. That is a very limited interference with contracts.
The other reference in the Nugee Report—the reference to service charges—is to my way of thinking quite off the point. The provisions in recent legislation do not alter individual contractual rights. They alter the general law.
For all their expertise in their respective fields, I wonder whether the committee really paid proper attention to the legal problems involved in the interference with vested rights. We are dealing with the Nugee Report on major defects here, and I should point out that the James Working Party Report, which preceded it and which is set out as Annex 1 to the Nugee Report had considerable reservations as to the desirability of permitting leases to be varied as a general rule.
One type of case I have considered is where the landlord's and/or the tenant's interests in the property may have changed hands many times since a defect in the lease became apparent. It will have done so at prices which will have been augmented or reduced on account of the defect.
Clearly in those circumstances there is a case for compensation to be paid on a variation of the lease and the Bill contains provisions enabling compensation to be awarded by the courts. Nevertheless, I do not find them clear and unambiguous, as they should be where a Bill of this nature potentially affects literally thousands of laymen. I should have thought that such provisions should be scrutinised further.
I want to raise another point and here I shall refer to the Bill. Clause 35 provides grounds where an application may be made for a variation of a lease. That is where the lease fails to make adequate provision for one or more of various matters. I quote as one such matter Clause 35(2)(e) where it is stated that the lease makes inadequate provision for:
"the recovery by one party to the lease from another party to it of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by him, or on his behalf, for the benefit of that other party or of a number of persons who include that other party".
642
Why should a landlord who has covenanted to provide services for his tenant, and has not asked his tenant to pay for them, he presented with that invitation to apply for the lease to be varied? Of course, a right to apply does not mean that the court will grant the landlord the variation sought. However, the Nugee Report in effect says that in such circumstances the landlord should get his variation. I refer to paragraph 7.6.9(iii) of the report which states that,
the lease should be varied in various circumstances such as:
"where the service charges payable in respect of the fiats in the block are determined as a percentage of the landlord's expenditure and the aggregate of the percentages is either more or less than 100 per cent. of such expenditure".
I wish to look for a moment at the significance of the words "more or less". Where we are talking about "more" we are clearly talking about tenants in the building who are obliged under their leases to pay, shall we say, 110 per cent. in aggregate of the landlord's costs of repairing the building and providing the services. When those tenants entered into their leases, they were asked to pay some small percentage in respect of each flat. They will not have received any information as to what the total percentage recovered by the landlord would amount. The Nugee Report states, and correctly in my view, that in those circumstances it is wrong for a landlord to recover the final 5 or 10 per cent. of the aggregate amount of the service charges. However, if we look at a case where less than 100 per cent. is recovered, we see that the landlord—for reasons of his own which are unknown to the tenants—has told the tenants individually that their percentage will be such and such a figure and those percentages do not add up to 100 per cent.
For the life of me I fail to understand why in those circumstances it should be thought right for the landlord then to be able to go to court and ask for the percentages to be raised—which is what the subsection to which I have referred provides.
I shall now turn to a brief consideration of the court as a forum for applications for variations of lease. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be well satisfied that the courts—I take it that we are primarily talking about the county courts—can deal with those various applications.
I must confess that I am not convinced either that the Bill gives satisfactory guidance on variations of leases to the judges who will be asked to operate it, or that, with present adversarial procedures, the county court judges should be given the jurisdiction or can exercise it satisfactorily.
This matter will be green fields for some years, and I fear that for some considerable time to come there will be a flood of expensive litigation, with appeals. It will for the most part be brought by landlords, because they are generally better able to afford the cost and they will, by the nature of their relationship with their numerous tenants, have more at stake.
Landlords will also seek to recover the costs of the litigation from their tenants and that litigation will, for the most part—except where leases have simply fallen out of date as a result of changed social circumstances—have resulted from defective leases for

643
which the landlord or a landlord was originally responsible.
While I welcome the Bill and wish it a safe Second Reading, I do not feel able to make any further comments on what happens to it after that.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not originally intended to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I read the various summaries of the Nugee Report upon which the Bill is partially—I stress the word "partially"—based and, although I have had the pleasure of meeting the distinguished Mr. Nugee, I have no particular expertise on mansion blocks, apart from knowing a number of people who have at one time or another lived in such blocks.
However, when I heard only yesterday afternoon (because of the inefficiencies of the postal system) that this highly technical, complex and detailed Bill—which is 67 pages long and contains 62 clauses and five schedules and on which we would normally spend at least five and more likely six or even seven days—was, without good cause, being rushed through in its entirety in a single afternoon, I knew that I must come and vote against it on principle, not at Second Reading (for that is not our custom) but at a later stage. I say that despite the fact that I know a number of people personally who will benefit directly from the Bill when it is enacted and I know no one personally who will be disadvantaged by it directly. However, if the prediction made in a considered letter from the chairman of the Sussex Private Landlords' Association, published in the Daily Telegraph of 5th May, is correct and the Bill leads to a drying up of the supply of private rented accommodation, then a large number of people will suffer indirectly.
I say that also despite the fact that the intentions which underlie the greater part of the Bill are entirely admirable. Part VI of the Bill seems to be wholly uncontentious, while Part V of the Bill is almost wholly contentious. I should guess that the same goes for Parts II and III, in so far as I have studied them in the extremely short time available. However, Part IV, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has drawn our attention, and particularly Part I, which goes way beyond the Nugee recommendations, are a very different matter.
The noble Baroness, in introducing the Bill, spoke for a mere four or five minutes. Perhaps she can take time in her summing up to explain exactly why small detached or semi-detached houses with only two tenants in them are to be included in Clause 1. Mansion blocks owned by large impersonal institutions are one thing, but small houses owned by individuals or families are a different matter. Does she not think that the precedent thereby set will give the green light to a future Left-wing government to expropriate all private rented accommodation or to nationalise it for a relatively derisory sum?
Moreover, on previous form even the least contentious clauses are bound to be capable of further improvement in your Lordships' House. The Bill may be 90 per cent. right; it may possibly be 95 per cent. right. But it is highly unlikely to be 100 per cent. right.
644
It is not as if we face a really serious and unexpected crisis, such as the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands Islands, which would justify rushing through emergency legislation.
It is true that there is a much less grave Middle Eastern invasion of London which is said to be responsible for some of the abuses which Part VI of the Bill is designed to rectify. But the abuses could easily be dealt with by confining ourselves today to passing the uncontentious Part VI in the certain knowledge that the all-party support for the principles of the Bill will ensure that the balance of the Bill will receive top priority in a new Parliament, whichever party happens to be in power. People who have waited many years and indeed decades could hardly object to waiting another two to three months in order that the legislation could be got absolutely right.
After all, the Government cannot have thought that this Bill was particularly urgent. They did not give it a very high priority in their legislative programme this Session and a June general election has been an odds-on probability for several months now. Why then the new-found sense of extreme urgency? I suspect that the answer lies in the fact that the beneficiaries of the Bill are, to a large extent, articulate middle-class or upper middle-class people who live in marginal constituencies and who are sophisticated enough to know how to vote tactically. If those with similarly valid grievances had been inarticulate working-class people living in constituencies with rock-solid Labour majorities, I doubt very much whether a complicated, 62-clause Bill would have been rushed through in a single afternoon.
On 30th March Mr. John Patten, the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, said, at col. 774 of the Official Report:
"such will be the excellence of the scrutiny that the Bill will receive in Committee, I am sure that it will pass rapidly through to law".
Doubtless the Minister was being flippant. The main constituential function of your Lordships' House is that of a revising Chamber. But we are being effectively denied the right to revise or even scrutinise. In other words, we are not being permitted to do our constitutional duty. For that reason alone, and not because I oppose the general principle of the Bill, I regret that I shall have to oppose its passage.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I feel that I must add a few words in support of what has been said, even though what I wanted to say has been said much better from the Benches behind me. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work which has been done in this area by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who, as well as being my relative, is also my Member of Parliament. I have also had many years of admiration for the work of Mr. Nugee, who is in the chambers that I was in at Lincoln's Inn. I have followed the work of his committee with great care and enthusiasm.
No doubt the work of the committee is very good and is largely acceptable. Nevertheless, we are presented here with a major piece of legislation—almost a code of legislation—in an area so far untouched by the law. Your Lordships should not be deceived by the great clarity and simplicity with

645
which the Bill was explained by the noble Baroness. It is a very complicated measure, as has been said, of over 60 clauses with long subsections and schedules. Each of the parts requires careful study.
Your Lordships will be in no doubt, having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that there are areas of considerable potentiality for discussion, particularly in the areas of compensation, of compulsory acquisition and of variation of contractural terms. One can only repeat that this is essentially the sort of measure which ought to receive careful consideration by this House.
One feels that the noble Baroness, who occupies a somewhat isolated position on the Front Bench at the moment, is in a very difficult situation as regards agreeing to vary what is no doubt the agreement of a powerful coalition behind the scenes to the Bill coming forward. However, I feel that many Members of your Lordships' House on all sides, and even on the Benches behind the noble Baroness, in the light of what was said yesterday by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Mishcon, would feel very much relieved if this measure could be deferred and considered at greater leisure.
It is not a matter which requires urgent legislation. We want to look at it; we can make constructive amendments to it. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, made that perfectly clear. If there were some means by which the noble Baroness could agree to the postponement of Part IV, at any rate, I feel that many constitutionalists in the House, as well as those who care for getting the relation between landlord and tenant right (which is a very sensitive area and one which, once got wrong, is very difficult to correct), will be much relieved. I associate myself entirely with what has been said behind me and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, it seems to me very wrong to rush this complicated and legal piece of legislation through without its having progressed through the proper stages in this House. I have read the Bill. It is exceedingly complicated, exceedingly legal and exceedingly obscure. It is the sort of Bill on which this House repeatedly does a first-rate job in revising legislation. It is altogether wrong that it should be rushed through in one day when there is no urgency about it. It ought to be properly considered by the House in its proper stages before it is passed into law.
3.49 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I rise to intervene and to apologise for my lack of courtesy in not putting my name down to speak. Although we have heard some stringent comments about the lack of time in which to examine the Bill, I should like to add that this is a good Bill. It is a Bill which will help many tenants. It is perhaps long overdue and it has, as I understand it, received all-party consent through the usual channels to go forward. It has not been a government steamrolling measure.
I intervene because I wish to make what are really Committee points. I should like to thank the noble
646
Baroness for giving me time with her officials before this Second Reading to examine the points which have been raised outside the House. I should also like to thank those officials. Perhaps I may put four points to her briefly so that she can answer them for the benefit of those who are interested in the legislation.
My first point was raised under the many provisions of notices that come under the Bill in Clause 5, where the landlord proposes to dispose of his interest in premises and serves notice on the qualifying tenants. Although it may seem only a small point, it is a very serious matter and I believe there should be a statutory form of notice giving details of the regulations on the counter-notices. The Bill provides a new right for tenants which will not be easily understood. I believe there is a very strong case for publishing the statutory form of notice which is not provided for in the Bill at the moment. I hope that my noble friend will he able to make some helpful comment on that matter and will consider whether such a form of notice should be published.
My second point, again involving notices, concerns Clause 22. The clause provides that one tenant may serve a preliminary notice on the landlord for the appointment of a manager of the block of flats. Obviously such a matter affects every tenant and not merely the one who serves the preliminary notice. Under the present format of the Bill none of the other tenants needs to be served notice. I believe that they have a right to be served. They have just as much an interest in the management of the block of flats as the tenant who served the notice. Again, I hope that my noble friend will say something encouraging on that point. The Nugee Report emphasises that there should be full disclosure among the tenants, as well as to the landlord.
My third point concerns Clause 47, which refers to the information available for the tenants as a matter of right; namely, the landlord's name and address. I accept that that is a very important right. It is also important for tenants to be notified of other tenants names and addresses. Nowadays, particularly in London, there are many company lettings and foreign tenants. It would be very helpful for tenants to know who are the other tenants in the block. I hope my noble friend will consider this point and make the information available.
My final point concerns the valuation formula. Under Clause 31 the valuation formula, where the tenant is buying the landlord's interest, is based on the open market price, not taking into account the tenant's interest. This is a formula similar to that which, according to my recollection, came under the original Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and which was found to be basically unfair and to give rise to difficult and unhappy results, and it was subsequently amended. There, that principle of valuation stands.
I find it very strange that we do not have the same established principle under the present Bill. Although I know that we cannot do anything today to alter the principles of the Bill, I hope that my noble friend will take on board the fact that there are many people outside who feel that the principle contained in the Bill is basically unfair.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I speak on the basis that my party supports the Bill and agrees with the provisions contained in it. Moreover, my party's policy goes somewhat further than the Government's proposals. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for noble Lords who spoke earlier and complained about the shortness of time. I remind your Lordships, without trying to score political points, that the shortness of time is not the fault of the Opposition. I do not know how we are supposed to organise your Lordships' House or whether the Government consider what they do to us.
This time last year we were swamped with legislation, when complex, detailed, long and intricate Bills were given insufficient time. Major amendments were down for complex Bills such as the Financial Services Bill and the Banking Bill. Noble Lords were complaining about the hurry that was forced upon them, which resulted in the fact that adequate time was not available to deal with important matters.
In order to deal with that legislation we were brought back earlier than ever before. Although I stand to be corrected, I believe it was the heaviest batch of legislation that your Lordships' House has carried in a Session. My noble friend on the Front Bench who has just come in was involved in having to drop and restrict debates on very important matters that your Lordships should have dealt with in detail.
For some reason known only to the Government, when we reassembled in November we had the lightest legislative programme that has been seen for a long time. It is now obvious why. Again, that was not the fault of the Opposition. I believe that as the Government have gone further than the recommendations contained in the Nugee Report, the Bill could have been before your Lordships earlier and therefore had a fuller debate. However, that is not to be.
I say, I think without contradiction, that had the election been called when most people thought it was to be called, namely, October, there would have been no complaints today as there would have been ample time to amend and scrutinise the Bill. As I do not have a legal background I am not too familiar with parts of the Bill, which is very complex. However, I like to hear the implications of such legislation when it is explained and examined in detail by noble and learned Lords. As has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Bill has a great deal of good in it, tipping the balance slightly in favour of the tenant. However, my party would have gone further.
I was glad to hear noble Lords pay tribute to Sir Brandon Rhys Williams in another place, as I know how he has battled over the years. However, your Lordships will understand if I mention John Fraser, Member for Norwood, who, in conjunction with Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, represented a London borough with all its problems. He has done an outstanding job not only on behalf of my party but on behalf of tenants in general. He has made his expertise available both in a political and non-political sense, which has been of tremendous value. I do not know Mr. Nugee. However, I concur with the expressions of appreciation to him and his committee.
648
Having made those points, I should like to say that the Opposition in general were faced with a situation not of their making and would have been letting down a number of tenants if they had said, "Take the Bill away and bring it back later". There is so much good in the Bill—for example, the advances towards tenants' rights—that my party agreed to support it in its present form.
I took note of the fact that the Minister spoke only for four minutes and I shall try not to exceed that, because the Bill, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has had three sittings in Committee. However, there were extensive debates on some parts of the Bill during those sittings. I have read them. I believe in the later stages there was an attempt by Mr. Fraser to introduce a long, rather convoluted and legally binding clause which would have pushed the provisions further along the road towards the tenant.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer on Second Reading because it has been made quite clear that what is before us now will go through in its present form. Further comment at this point is not the best way of dealing with the matter. On that basis, on behalf of my party I end by saying that we support the contents of the Bill and wish it well.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I ask her to make perfectly clear to those of us who are not part of the usual channels why there should be any objection to postponing the Bill until later, as other noble Lords have suggested. In the recent past I have had to complain about lawyers in the House. But, this afternoon, they have been first class. As most of us, it is fair to say, are not part of the usual channels, we need an explanation of why this serious warning from lawyers who have to deal with the matter and who are experts in it should be ignored. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give that explanation.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Coleraine was the first of a number of your Lordships who feel that the timing of the passage of the Bill leaves something to be desired. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, suggested that the Bill should have been brought forward earlier. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, have said, it is a long and complex Bill. We recognise that.
It has been a major task for the Department of the Environment and parliamentary counsel to draft the Bill. There was a long gestation period. As I explained in opening, the committee sat for a lengthy period and made wide consultations. Because the Bill was to embody the recommendations of the committee, it was felt that time should be given to its drafting. Had we been able to introduce the measure earlier, we should indeed have done so. I am afraid that that was not possible because of the care taken in drafting and because of the parliamentary programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, added his comment on the suggestion that the Bill was being rushed

649
through. I must repeat that the committee, in carrying out wide consultations, found extensive evidence of problems in the management of blocks of flats. The Bill puts into effect the committee's recommendations.
The noble Lord was incorrect in suggesting that Part I departs from Nugee's recommendations. It does not. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and other Ministers receive large numbers of letters from residents of blocks of flats who have serious problems. Indeed, we are well aware that Members of another place have made a point of drawing attention there to the size of their mail bags. As a result, I cannot accept that there is no urgency in the matter. Many tenants need the help that the Bill can provide. That is why it has received all-party support in another place. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for his expression of support in this respect.
I should like to reiterate remarks that I made earlier. The Bill as a whole provides a framework for the orderly management of flats in private ownership. This is greatly to be desired and has been given a general welcome not only in another place but in the wider world outside. Therefore, we feel that it is important to pursue the Bill through its remaining stages now.
I turn to the references to Part IV made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. Part IV deals with the provisions for variation of leases. A key element of the Bill, it implements one of the central recommendations of the Nugee Report.
The committee found dissatisfaction with leases a recurrent theme in many responses to its questionnaires both among residents and among landlords and managing agents. The report distinguished between complaints that stemmed from the realisation that the lease contained disadvantageous provisions which residents simply did not like and those that reflected a serious deficiency in the arrangemens for the satisfactory management or maintenance of the block.
Where a lease is badly drafted—this was referred to specifically by my noble friend Lord Coleraine—so that it does not make clear who is responsible for what or how any services or works should be paid for, we agree with the Nugee Committee's conclusion that there must be machinery to enable such matters to be put right. Again, where the lease fails to make satisfactory provision for the insurance of the property or where the proportions of the service charges add up to more than the total of the sums required, a mechanism is needed to deal with this. I do not think that there is any serious disagreement on the need for provisions on all of this, and Part IV was welcomed on both sides of the House in another place.
Clause 35 was specifically referred to. Clause 35(2) spells out circumstances in which an application can be made for a variation of a defective lease. The clause is a as precise as we could make it, although it is not of course possible in legislation such as this to deal with every conceivable variation or set of circumstances. However, I note the point made by my noble friend with reference to Clause 35(2)(e) in particular.
Clause 37 allows a majority of the parties to the leases of flats in a block to apply to the court for a variation of all the leases in the block. The court may
650
grant an order so long as the variation is not opposed by more than a prescribed minority. The purpose of the provision, again based on the Nugee Committee's recommendation, is to allow desirable changes such as the setting up of a sinking fund to be made.
We have thought it right, where the effect of a variation would be that one of the parties suffers financial loss, that the court should be able to order that compensation should be paid by the party getting the benefit of the variation. Where, however, the effect of a variation is to disadvantage a party to the lease and the award of financial compensation would not be an adequate way of recompensing him, then the Bill provides that a variation order should not be made. I hope that your Lordships will agree therefore that in this respect, as in others, the Bill is even-handed as between landlords and leaseholders.
Although the Bill is primarily concerned with the management of blocks of flats, we have thought it right to deal also in Part IV with the question of insurance provision in leases of other types of dwelling, because of the concern which has been expressed in some parts of the country, especially in South Wales and in the North-West of England about this issue. As I have said, the Bill is in response to problems raised directly with the department.
My noble friend was concerned about the impact of these provisions on the workload of the county court. I agree that if the new rights in this Bill are used by landlords and leaseholders, as we hope they will be, there will be some increase in the courts' workload, but we do not expect this to be large in relation to the total work of the county court—certainly not a flood of litigation, as my noble friend suggested. After all, we are talking about not more than 500,000 dwellings to which the Bill will apply. We believe that the existence of a statutory right to apply for the variation of a lease will, in many cases, encourage the parties to reach a satisfactory settlement out of court.
As I made clear, I hope, we regard Part IV as an important and, indeed, essential factor of the Bill. It will not, of course, be possible to bring it into operation for several months after Royal Assent because of the need to draft rules of court to deal with the handling of applications. Perhaps that will meet some of the concerns expressed by several noble Lords this afternoon.
I have already said to my noble friend, I think, that if he wishes to discuss in greater detail any of the points which concern him in this respect, certainly both I and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale are very willing to do so. I refer briefly to the point that he made about service charges not adding up to 100 per cent. Where total service charges add up to more than 100 per cent. of the landlord's costs, he accepted the tenant's right to be able to apply to the court to vary the lease. In fact, Part IV of the Bill will facilitate that. We believe that the landlord should also be able to apply to the court to vary the lease where the service charges do not add up to 100 per cent. because we want to encourage well-maintained blocks of flats. That is in the interests of landlords and tenants, but if the landlord is to maintain the block, clearly, he must have the resources to do so.

651
Having dealt generally with one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I refer specifically to his comment about small and semi-detached houses. The sort of problems this Bill is aimed at—bad management, neglect and lack of repair—can arise as often in houses which have been converted to new flats held on long leases as in purpose-built blocks of flats. We see no reason why the tenants of such converted buildings should not have the remedies provided by the Bill. We certainly do not agree that the Bill will harm the interests of good landlords or discourage investment in this sector.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull was very helpful in raising various points. I was most interested in them. As he explained, we have already had some discussion about several aspects of the Bill. I hope that I was able to show that the Bill, as amended substantially in another place, already provides adequately for many of the points which were troubling him. In several cases I undertook to consider whether we could meet his concerns. In drafting the subordinate legislation and rules of court which will be needed, we will, of course, take into account the points raised by my noble friends and by all noble Lords who have spoken today.
I realise that I am speaking in somewhat unusual circumstances at this point in the parliamentary programme. I welcome the contributions and suggestions that have been made on all sides of the House and the general support both for the aims of the Bill and recommendations of the Nugee Committee. I hope your Lordships will agree that we should press ahead and give the important advantages which the Bill will provide to the people concerned.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I said at an earlier stage, I fear that for reasons of party political advantage, your Lordships' House has been deprived of its main constitutional function and, indeed, has been deprived of its right to fulfil its constitutional obligations. Effectively, the House has been asked to rubber stamp what has been decided behind the scenes, just like some puppet assembly behind the Iron Curtain. For that sole reason, I regret that I shall have to vote against the passing of the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed.

Black Country Development Corporation(Area and Constitution) Order 1987
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 8th April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to the second and third Motions in my name on the Order Paper.
I am pleased that we are able to consider these three orders together. All three are made under the provisions of Part XVI of the Local Government Act 1980. As noble Lords will be aware, there are two well-established UDCs for London Docklands and Merseyside. Two other UDCs have been established recently for Trafford Park and Cardiff Bay. The orders designate land respectively in Tyne and Wear, in the Black Country and on Teesside as urban development areas and set up urban development corporations.
These orders were judged to be hybrid, but I am glad to say that no petitions were received on any of the orders. They were debated yesterday in another place. Provided your Lordships are content to approve these orders, the three corporations will come into formal existence tomorrow. As your Lordships know, UDCs assemble, reclaim and service land, provide infrastructure and facilitate development. They are able to offer practical assistance and, in some cases, financial assistance to would-be developers. They bring a co-ordinated, single-minded, sustained and public sector-backed approach to the regeneration of their areas.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has power to confer certain functions on a corporation by statutory instrument. He intends to follow the pattern established for the other corporations for which he is responsible and give these corporations development control functions. He will bring forward orders to do this in due course and may vest certain public sector land in the corporations. He does not see the need at this stage to give these corporations housing, building control or public health functions.
Each of these areas has been studied by a team of consultants. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State drew on the advice of the consultants when he put forward boundary proposals for each area. He circulated those boundary proposals for comment and subsequently made the orders we have before us today. Each of the teams of consultants has produced reports on their areas. These have been placed in the Library. It will be for the corporations to decide on the strategies that they should adopt, but the studies indicate exactly what each corporation might achieve.
I shall now say something about each of the areas in turn. The proposed urban development area in Tyne and Wear covers something under 6,000 acres. In common with the other orders, detailed maps have been laid before the House and a sketch is provided at the back of the order. In the past, the area has provided sites for much traditional industry, particularly shipbuilding, heavy engineering and port-related activity. The task of the corporation will be to reclaim and service the derelict and empty sites along the rivers and to find new uses for them. These uses should diversify the economic base of the area and make use of the natural advantages of the rivers.
Mr. Paul Nicholson, chairman and managing director of the Sunderland firm Vaux Breweries, will be appointed as chairman, and the proposed board,

653
composed of other people with local roots, has already been announced.
The Black Country urban development area is also just under 6,000 acres. It encompasses much of the worst dereliction at the heart of the Black Country. The task of the corporation will be to reclaim and improve access to sites within the area, and to upgrade the environment generally. Mr. Bill Francis and Mrs. Jean Denton will be appointed chairman and deputy chairman respectively. Both are well known in the area.
The area proposed for Teesside is a good deal bigger than the other two—over 11,000 acres. The main body of land lies on both banks of the Tees, from Stockton to Langbaurgh, incorporating parts of Middlesbrough and Hartlepool. There is a separate area covering the south docks in Hartlepool.
The area around the Tees has supported chemicals, steelworks and heavy engineering. These have contracted rapidly in recent years, leaving a legacy of dereliction and unemployment. The consultants have suggested an investment strategy underpinned by major environmental work. Perhaps the most interesting example of this is the proposal to create an international nature reserve on the marshland between the mouth of the Tees and Hartlepool. Mr. Ron Norman, a Hartlepool man with considerable experience of worthwhile investment in inner city areas, will be appointed chairman of this corporation.
Your Lordships' House was involved in the first steps that led to these orders. My noble friend Lord Davidson made the first public announcement here of the Government's intention to set up four new corporations in England on 8th October last year. A few days later my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale introduced an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill which made it possible to set up such corporations outside metropolitan areas, thus clearing the way for the Teesside order.
Your Lordships now also have the chance to take the final parliamentary steps in setting up these corporations. Once the orders have been approved here, the corporations will be able to get down to the task of regenerating their areas. That task should start without delay. I therefore commend each of these orders to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 8th April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Hooper.)
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the orders. I have one or two questions to ask her. I was slightly surprised to hear that the corporation members had already been settled, because one of the questions I was going to ask was whether the local authorities were to be well represented.
Schedule 26, paragraph 2(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, states:
"In appointing members of the corporation the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of securing the services of people having special knowledge of the locality in which the urban development area is or will be situated."
The next sub-paragraph states:
"In relation to the possible appointment of people falling within sub-paragraph (2) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such
654
local authorities as appear to him to be concerned with the regeneration of the urban development area."
I should like to ask whether the local authorities have been consulted and whether local authority representatives have been appointed. It is an important point, because we know that there was a certain amount of trouble in Docklands. There were difficulties between members of the local authorities and of the corporation because the local authority members felt that they had been left out; whereas I know, having been a local authority representative on Peterborough Development Corporation, that having local people on it made a tremendous difference to the good will. I hope that there will be reassurance on that point.
The areas on the maps which are provided at the back of the orders are rather odd because they cover a great many local authority areas. One understands the reason for that. The areas of dereliction are where the old shipbuilding firms, and industries allied thereto, were. There are two areas. One is on the Tyne and one is on the Wear. They cover the boroughs of North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Gateshead and the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. That makes five authorities. The Teesside area includes the boroughs of Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees and Hartlepool. The Black Country area has only two local authorities. Many local authority people will be involved. I should like some reassurance on that point, because I think that it is important.
One wished the corporations well. The Minister mentioned a marine reserve on the Tees. I was glad to hear about that. I am sure that it will be welcomed by those interested in such matters. It is an important point, because there were problems in Teesdale. The co-operation of all those interested in conservation is important. With those comments, we support the orders.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word in support of what my noble friend said about the care that must be taken over the composition of the boards. I can endorse what she said about the aggravation that took place in Docklands. However, that does not mean to say that we do not know and appreciate all that the Docklands Development Corporation has done since.
When the Minister introduced these matters I was interested to hear her say that people had been appointed who were well known in the area. I should like to know what they are well known for and what their connections are. I should like the Minister to satisfy the House that care will be taken before the boards are finally composed. When the Minister's ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, introduced the Trafford Park order, he named some people but said that there were vacancies and that any names proposed would be considered.
I know Tyneside and Teesside well. I hope that we can tap the local authorities, but there are other interests in the area. I acknowledge that, in part, political affiliation is a factor to be taken into account. We are talking about industrial regeneration. There are many ways in which we can satisfy the people that an area's history and traditions are being taken on board.

655
There is an interesting aspect to Tyneside, which has many former pit slagheaps. They are made up of minestone. I have raised with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and others the subject of making better use of minestone in roadmaking. I live in the Lee Valley. A great deal of development is held up while gravel is extracted from the land before it is built upon. Much of the gravel is used as aggregate in road building. One of the aggravations is that we have minestone which is a national resource—it comes out of the earth and is left when the coal is extracted—but if not hideous, it needs to be beautified.
One of the best uses to which minestone can be put is for road filling. I am not asking the Minister to respond to this point except to say that she notes it. The heardquarters of the minestone executive is in Philadelphia, at Houghton-le-Spring, in Tyne and Wear. It may be within the broad catchment area here. Good advice would therefore be available through British Coal and the minestone executive which would guide these authorities in the future. As my noble friend said, we are anxious to see that the aspirations of the development corporations come to fruition as quickly and as satisfactorily as possible.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for their remarks and their welcome for these orders. On the question of membership, I recognise that this is an area of great interest and one that is most important if the urban development corporations are to carry out their work satisfactorily.
The Government try to learn from experience. The experiences that we have had with the two earlier development corporations have helped us to make decisions on these three. As I said in my opening remarks, only the Tyne and Wear corporation membership has been announced so far. The full membership, apart from the chairman, has not been finalised for the other two corporations. The Tyne and Wear Development Corporation has eight members other than the chairman and deputy-chairman; three of those are local authority members. The full membership can be greater—up to 11 members—and there is therefore space for additional members. The three local authorities that are represented are Newcastle City Council, South Tyneside Borough Council and Sunderland Borough Council. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that one of the members is Mr. Joe Mills, who is secretary of the local Transport and General Workers' Union.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: And a very good man too.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that may go some way to reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. Consultation with the local authorities has taken place and the Government aim to strike a proper balance between local authority and other membership. However, they have insisted that all members are people with local interests or roots. I am sure that everyone will argee that that is the most desirable aim.
With regard to nature reserves, the consultants have recommended a nature reserve and the appropriate
656
land has been included in the UDC area. However, it is for the UDC eventually to decide exactly what will happen. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I am sure his previous words were not wasted on my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I have nevertheless taken note of his remarks about the use of minestone for roadmaking. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 7th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Teeside Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987
Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th April be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Definition of Capital Expenses (Scotland) Order 1987
4.34 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 1st April be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The purpose of this order is to amend the definition of "capital expenses" contained in Section 94(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to bring this more in line with the definition of "capital" used in the national accounts.
Section 94 was introduced to replace the previous system of issuing borrowing consent for projects. Its intention was to permit the Secretary of State to exercise overall control of the level of public expenditure in Scotland, while at the same time allowing individual local authorities more freedom and flexibility to determine their capital expenditure priorities within the broad limits set centrally. From both the government and the local authority viewpoint the system has by and large been successful, though there has been the need for minor improvement leading to amendments in 1975, 1981 and 1982. The order before us today is another such small improvement.
Neither the definition of capital expenses at present used in the 1973 Act nor the amendment the Government propose will reduce local authorities' accounting flexibility to decide whether an individual item of expenditure should properly be charged to a capital or a current account. This is a matter for an

657
authority's own decision, subject to the concurrence of its auditor. The Government have no wish to become involved in the complexities of trying to decide centrally on the appropriateness of capital or current treatment for everthing a local authority might buy. Nevertheless, a fundamental difficulty for the Government is that the present statutory definition of what we actually control through Section 94 does not quite match our view of what we ought to be controlling. Because of this we have had to make ad hoc arrangements which are not entirely satisfactory and we think the time has come to tidy up the statutory position.
This difficulty relates to so-called "capital from current revenue" spending—CFCR for short. This is expenditure on things which, in terms of the national accounts (and often also in terms of any reasonable layman's view), are capital assets but which the local authority is perfectly free to finance entirely out of current income in the year in question and to charge to a current account. For the purposes of the public expenditure survey and of the local authority capital cash limit reported to Parliament, this CFCR expenditure is regarded as truly capital and therefore the Secretary of State has no choice but to treat it as such. But because of the wording of the present Section 94 he has no statutory means of controlling it. In practice what happens is that we have to make a guess at authorities' likely use of CFCR for the year ahead and then hold back this amount from the public expenditure provision available to be shared out as consent allocations.
This rather cumbersome procedure does not present serious control problems provided authorities' use of CFCR does not vary greatly from year to year. Recently, however, authorities' use of CFCR has become much more unpredictable with the result that authorities' Section 94 allocations were set at a lower level than they might otherwise have been. Provisional figures for 1986–87 indicate a similar picture for that year. With the prospect that the pattern of CFCR expenditure may be equally unpredictable in future years, the Secretary of State proposes to simplify the present position—hence this order.
Under the revised arrangements, capital from current revenue will no longer count against current expenditure guidelines as it does at present but instead will score against authorities' capital allocations. Consequently, from 1988–89 local authorities' Section 94 consent allocations will cover all capital expenditure no matter how it is financed. This will be more flexible than the existing arrangements under which authorities which express an intention to finance some capital expenditure from current revenue are given a lower Section 94 allocation. If they subsequently decide to finance that capital expenditure by borrowing, it is not possible for them to have their Section 94 allocation increased accordingly and they are stuck with the original decision which may have been made over a year previously. This inflexibility has certainly caused problems for some authorities in the past.
In conclusion, including capital expenditure financed from current revenue within Section 94 is essentially a tidying up exercise to put on a simplified
658
statutory basis the control we already exercise by administrative means. It will be less wasteful of scarce resources and have real benefits for central government in terms of a simplified control mechanism. For local government it will mean greater. flexibility in taking decisions on financing capital projects and will allow a more equitable distribution of the available resources between authorities. I commend the order to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 1st April be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I had the impression that in the last hurried days of this Parliament everything we were doing in asking for the indulgence of Members was related to urgency. I do not know whether noble Lords have had a look at the Definition of Capital Expenses (Scotland) Order 1987:
"Made 25th March 1987; laid before Parliament 1st April 1987; coming into force 1st April 1988".
What is the urgency about this? Noble Lords have been holding back. They should have liked more time to discuss the last Bill, which went through in a flash. There is a Bill on Scotland on which I do not think a word has yet been said in another place, and it is unlikely that anything will be said here. There is no justification for this.
The local authorities were never mentioned. The Minister did not say whether the local authorities agreed with this, welcomed it or criticised it. That is rather bad. They have been discussing the matter since about November last year. The Government suggested that they were going to do this at some time or other and the local authorities discussed it. They sent a letter to the Scottish Office on 2nd February suggesting that it required more consideration and asking for another meeting if it could not be withdrawn. They received no reply.
One of the deputy directors of CoSLA who was down here on other business—and we can all guess what the business was—discovered by chance that it had been laid before Parliament on 1st April. This is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Government to say that this is a small matter adding to a tidying up operation; that we did it in 1975; that there was another one at another time and that this is just adding to it.
The fact that the Government have been asked by CoSLA to reconsider this and to have another meeting to discuss it is symptomatic of the distrust that has grown up over the years between the local authorities and the Scottish Office. It has happened elsewhere as well. The distrust has deepened with every local government finance measure or clause within a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We have guidelines, penalties, clawbacks, interference, determination of local government powers, and here we have a fairly simple thing.
I am not saying that the present situation is ideal. It will never be ideal until we have a proper definition of capital expenditure. Many things which are dealt with

659
out of current expenditure in one area would be considered capital expenditure in another. We heard about the problems with computers in the Highlands—software and the rest of it. That might be considerable capital expenditure there, but in Strathclyde it could be construed as normal expenditure that is met out of current expenditure. Some people could construe buying an electric typewriter as capital expenditure. What is wanted is for local authorities to come together with advisers of the Government, work it out and come to an agreed solution.
There is plenty of time. What the Scottish Office is doing here is taking more control of all that is construed by the Government to be capital expenditure, whereas at the moment under the definition if a certain project can be completed within a year—and within the guidelines, because we are still controlled by guidelines in respect of current expenditure—it is allowed. If the authority decides to do it the general allocation for Scotland is changed and the allocation for that local authority is changed. So there is still full control but there is a certain measure of flexibility for the local authorities.
The Government are cutting out the possibility of a local authority doing that and saying that everything, whether it is financed out of borrowing, out of the capital fund or out of current revenue, has to be lumped together and has to be approved by the Secretary of State. This is guaranteed to create mistrust of the intentions of the Government.
Everything the Government want to do is being done. They may consider that it is being done in a roundabout way. The local authority can decide to spend something within the financial year out of revenue and then a calculation is made in regard to its capital allocation and it is reduced from that. What the Government are trying to do here is unnecessary and has led to suspicions among local authorities that they are being clamped down again by the Scottish Office. We have come to a terrible pass in respect of this and we have seen it getting worse and worse. If the Government are not prepared to drop this they should withdraw it today and have another meeting with the local authorities. They have plenty of time. They have a full year. It does not come into force until 1st April 1988. I suggest that they do that.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is concerned about the commencement date. He ended his remarks by saying that we had plenty of time to deal with it. I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that authorities need to plan ahead. They need to know on what basis they have to complete their financial plans which have to be submitted in the autumn. That is the reason for dealing with the order now.
I heard what the noble Lord said about consultation. He explained that an official he had met had thought there had been no reply to the letter. My information is that the objection by letter of 2nd February was dealt with by the authorities being told on 20th
660
February that after due consideration of its comments the Secretary of State had decided to proceed. This was confirmed at a meeting in April. Perhaps the message had not reached the person concerned.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, April was not that long away and we were busy with other things. What date in April was this?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have the date with me, but I can certainly find out the precise date and let the noble Lord know.
The noble Lord said that the amendment is unnecessary and will lead to further complications. I recognise his concern but I cannot agree that that is the case. The Treasury requires that all capital expenditure, no matter how it is financed, must count against the cash limit, but the statutory definition is out of step with that, requiring us to make assumptions about authorities' likely use of CFCR and hold that amount back before issuing capital allocations. This is a cumbersome procedure and not very accurate when authorities' use of CFCR is as unpredictable as it has become in recent years.
So far as concerns the classification of capital expenditure, the convention raised this point when it was consulted in September, and at its request the Scottish Office consulted the Controller of Audit. He confirmed our view that, although there may be difficulty at the margin in drawing a distinction between capital and current expenditure, this would not be exacerbated by the proposed change in the wording of Section 94(2). We are not attempting to define capital expenditure as such. That, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, is a job for the Local Authority Accounts (Scotland) Advisory Committee.
The Government are not seeking to define that, for example, a computer is always a capital item but that a floppy disk, which goes into the computer, is always a current item. That is the sort of example that would fit into the remarks that I have just made, and that surely would be more a matter for the local authorities to settle with their own auditors as a matter of common practice.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister realises it, but the advisory committee will meet fairly soon to discuss the whole question of the definition of capital expenditure. Would it not be far better also to remit this to them for consideration? Why should there be haggling between the Government and the local authorities about this kind of thing? It creates distrust and eventually leads to confrontation. The Government have plenty of time. Why do they not withdraw this order? They can always bring it back; they have time to do so.
As regards the business of giving extensions in respect of capital limits, this is done all the time. Even after this order is agreed to, it will happen. Very often one discovers that the capital available is not being used up by one local authority and one gives an additional sum to another during the financial year. That will continue. The noble Lord's remarks in that respect bear no relevance at all to what is being done here.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the meeting that the advisory committee is about to have. As I understand it, that meeting will not discuss the definition. The noble Lord seems to think otherwise but I am advised that that is not the case. Nor will the order have any effect on the amount of public expenditure provision for capital expenditure by local authorities.
I hear what the noble Lord says, but I think that this is an improvement. I accept that CoSLA has made representations. As I have explained to the noble Lord, this has now been taken forward and we do not believe that the concerns it has expressed are as justified as it believes them to be. It is a reasonable change to make and it is broadly parallel to other changes which have taken place to try to improve the section over the years. I do not think that I have anything else to add to what I have said. I hear what the noble Lord says, and beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not appreciate that he is simply doing as he is told by the Treasury? They are just carrying forward the kind of cavilling procedure of tying up the local authorities as much as possible. My information in relation to the working party is entirely different from his. My information is that they are going to discuss the difference between capital and revenue expenditure. I do not know where the noble Lord gets his information, but I get mine directly from someone concerned in this.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I am not too sure whether or not the Minister has actually resumed his seat, but on the supposition that he is just on his way down and has not quite got there, perhaps I may draw his attention to one facet of difficulty on the Scottish local government scene at the moment which I hope that this order might at least more clearly define?
I refer to the real difficulty which exists between the citizens of Aberdeen—and I think that I can put it as broadly as that rather than say the district council of Aberdeen—and the use to which they wish to put their common good fund. The Minister will know of the difficulty over the common good fund of Aberdeen. The district council and indeed the wider body of the citizenry properly think of the fund as being under their purview to develop capital investment as they determine.
In the meantime the Secretary of State takes the view that this cannot be the case and that they are not to be allowed their most reasonable expenditure. I hope that the Minister will give me some confirmation that the discussions which are about to take place will at least lead to some clearer definition in this regard.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point and I shall come back to him in a minute on the Aberdeen common good fund. I may have inadvertently misled the noble Lord on the question of the meeting between the local authority advisory accounts committee and the Scottish Office. That committee is meeting to discuss the definition of capital expenses but the order does not seek to distinguish between capital and current. I think that that is where our misunderstanding may have arisen.
662
As for the common good fund, there is no connection whatever between this order and capital expenditure financed from common good funds. Section 94 already applies to expenditure financed from such funds whereas, as I said, the purpose of the order is to simplify the control system by bringing capital expenses financed from current revenue—that is, nearly all rating income—within the scope of Section 94. I think that that is the answer to the noble Lord's point. If the noble Lord is content, then I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crossbows Bill
4.57 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: 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 Brougham and Vaux.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, in contrast to a stand I took on another piece of legislation ealier this afternoon, may I express pleasure at the passage of this modest Bill, which has received quite adequate scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, and the original sponsor of this Bill in another place. It is always good to see a Private Member's Bill succeed.
I said "modest Bill" because, bearing in mind that a crossbow is a much more lethal weapon than an airgun, some of us thought that the minimum age should have been raised to 18 or even higher. Your Lordships may have noticed that the Chelsea football hooligans, who earlier this week were sentenced to beteen 4½ and 10 years' imprisonment and who employed a crossbow as one of their many lethal weapons, were aged between 24 and 31. However, this modest but excellent Bill can no doubt be enlarged upon if necessary in the light of experience.
On Question, Bill passed.

AIDS (Control) Bill
Lord Stallard: 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.

663
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 Stallard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May):
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Stallard.)
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I want briefly to ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions of which I have already given her notice. The first relates to my noble friend Lord Young's concern, which he expressed at Second Reading, that mandatory rather than voluntary reporting might undermine the principle of confidentiality, and therefore fewer people might come forward than at present. Will the Government undertake to keep a sharp eye on any evidence that the Bill is having such a counter-productive effect? If it were, we might need to reconsider in the next Parliament the whole question of mandatory reporting.
My second point is that which I made at Second Reading. It is extremely important that no additional costs should fall on health authorities as a result of the Bill. That would be particularly unfortunate at a time when, as reported in the press today, some London hospitals are having to restrict the purchase of the AIDS drug AZT for their AIDS patients because of shortage of funds. That is a matter we must discuss on another occasion. However, there is no doubt that the Secretary of State has made many requests to health authorities in respect of AIDS, but has given no clear indicaton of how he will help them financially.
I should like to be assured that there can be no question of the Bill contributing in any way to the funding difficulties. If any additional expenses are triggered by the duties under the schedule—it seems to me that certain expenses might arise under paragraph 4—I should like to be assured that the Government will make provision for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has provided me with the welcome opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the honourable Member for Edinburgh East who, together, have made a little bit of history. The noble Lord's Bill is the first primary legislation solely concerned with AIDS.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the existing voluntary confidential reporting system to CDSC will be maintained. Nothing in the Bill should undermine this and it will not therefore affect those arrangements. We shall continue with all the checks that are at present undertaken. It has reassured us of the virtually total completeness of the reporting of AIDS cases to date. As regards confidentiality, I gave the strongest
664
assurances when the Bill was last before us and I gladly repeat them.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Lord, the provisions of the Bill should not produce any significant costs for health authorities. We expect the very small cost in producing their reports to be found from within authorities' existing budgets. The Government fully support the intentions of the Bill and believe that it will provide a useful weapon in the fight against the spread of AIDS.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who unfortunately is unable to be present. My noble friend has asked me to pay tribute to the Minister for the strong assurances given at Second Reading and on other occasions regarding the maintenance of confidentiality. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies was most anxious to make that public declaration of thanks to the Minister.
I join others in expressing gratitude to the Member of another place, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Stallard for all the hard work and research devoted to putting on to the statute book an excellent piece of public health legislation.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like to congratulate the original sponsor of the Bill in the other place, Dr. Gavin Strang, Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, East. I wish to congratulate also the Minister for Health in the other place, Mr. Newton, who provided great assistance as regards necessary amendments to make the original Bill more acceptable and sensible. I thank, too, all noble Lords who have helped and supported my efforts, the voluntary organisations who have written to express support, and the BMA. In addition, I thank the noble Baroness for her sterling support from the start of the Bill's progress and the members of her staff who have ably assisted in trying to get through this piece of legislation.
It is important legislation. We have said most of what must be said. But we face a menacing threat to the health of the nation. It cannot be stressed enough that we need accurate information and education if we are to begin to fight that threat. Therefore, the compilation and publication at local level of the information that will come to light as a result of the Bill is necessary and valuable in the fight against a new disease of such horrific potentialities. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Stallard.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Environmental Protection
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman rose to call attention, in the European Year of the Environment, to the case for measures to protect the countryside and environment and to the case for all-party support for environmental protection; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spent most of the Easter recess in the Lake District. Sitting high up

665
on the fells watching a buzzard soaring overhead, I wondered if it realised that this was European Year of the Environment, and if, during all its travels over the years, it had noted the continuing decline in our environment. Had it registered how the hedgerows have been pulled out; how the broadleaved woodlands have been reduced; and how the vital wild life reserves and habitat used by birds and other species have been destroyed or become smaller?
We have seen our ground water polluted by nitrates and pesticides. Our rivers have become polluted. Any success in reducing pollution has been slowed down or reversed by public spending cuts and the fact that the powers of water authorities in relation to pollution control are still too vague. One sometimes has the feeling that environmental considerations come a long way down the queue in relation to their operational requirements. That includes the discharge of sewage effluent into watercourses.
We believe that the Secretary of State should have more power to control water pollution and marine pollution caused by the discharge of aldrin, dieldrin and endrin. These chemicals have a totally disastrous effect on wildlife, and the Secretary of State ought to be able to set emission standards and national quality objectives that the water authorities would be required to enforce. Change is never easy to contemplate or to manage. But the difficulties will be much greater if we always cling to the past and to what we know and understand, and try to defend that past because we are afraid of what the future might hold.
We, on these Benches, believe that we have that vision of the future. We recognise that environmental strategies are an essential part of our economic strategy. For far too long, the way in which environmental decisions are tackled within government has been unsatisfactory. The department mainly responsible is the Department of the Environment which is purely a department of local government and housing. Even if the Secretary of State wanted to give more prominence to environmental issues, then, of necessity, local government and housing must be his major concern.
The environmental responsibilities also spill over into other departments like MAFF, Trade and Industry, Education and Science, and Transport. There has been an imbalance between environmental and other considerations in reaching policy decisions because individual departments of government are not required to consider the environmental consequences of their own policies and also because, in some ways, the DoE has lacked clout in promoting environmental issues throughout government. Therefore, agricultural policy has tended to be decided rather more in the interests of the farmer than of the conservationist. The benefits of energy conservation are given less prominence than the interests of the energy producers. Nor do we take account of environmental considerations when we formulate government policy on foreign aid.
That is why we are proposing a new Department of Environmental Protection which would be responsible for planning, conservation, pollution control, leisure and recreation, and animal welfare. It would also be responsible for promoting and co-ordinating environ
666
ment policies in government in general. The secretary of state of this new department would be a full member of Cabinet, giving environmental protection an effective voice at the conference table for the first time.
We would want to foster co-operative attitudes and institutions which bring people together to share in the decisions which affect them. to identify our common objectives, pool our resources and work together to make a really integrated rural society. And what better time to begin than in the European Year of the Environment?
We believe in a flourishing rural economy based on a less intensive form of agriculture than we have known until now; but the recent circulars and the £25 million package have not been well-received by farmers, rural dwellers or environmentalists. They do little or nothing to stem the fall in farm incomes or to relieve the fears of totally unplanned growth in industry, housing and forestry in the countryside.
Even so, we believe that we have been given a great opportunity to take advantage of the need to restrain over-production. It would be a tragedy to throw away that opportunity on ribbon development, blanket forests of conifers and unrestricted housing development. Yet the Government's proposals for alternative land use and the rural economy to me look little more than a policy to buy off farmers for the losses that they have sustained through the shift in CAP. We need the conifers and the broadleaved woodlands, but in the right locations.
Why cannot the local authorities be more involved in preparing a strategic plan for forestry, as proposed in the latest report from the Countryside Commission, New Opportunities 'Or the Countryside? Why indeed can there not be some kind of landscape conservation order as a reserve power when voluntary agreements cannot secure the protection of valuable countryside features, such as the Association of County Councils has suggested? We believe that we have to balance our economy and our ecology. We want to encourage economic growth that is environmentally beneficial or, in today's jargon, "green growth".
We see energy conservation, housing rehabilitation and improvements in public transport as being environmentally beneficial. All public policies have some impact on the quality of life and all nations ultimately share the same environment, as was so graphically illustrated by the results of Chernobyl.
A good environment pays dividends in improved health, welfare and personal fulfilment, if not immediately then certainly in the long-term. Our countryside is of crucial interest to all of us because of its wildlife, its beauty and its ability to meet the growing recreational needs, and because it is still primarily a source of our food and other raw materials. A healthy agriculture is necessary for the management and preservation of the countryside. Much of the natural beauty, some of the wildlife and most of the footpaths and open spaces would disappear if the farmers were not there to manage our land. We want to work towards a developing consensus between the conservationists and the farming community. I believe that most farmers would share our view that the maintenance of healthy agriculture, the conservation

667
of the environment and the sustaining of balanced rural communities must be the objective of any integrated countryside policy.
That will mean looking at grants, subsidies and price incentives both here and in Europe. It will mean guaranteed protection for our most important landscapes and wildlife habitats. However, beauty needs the protection of the SSSIs, of the nature reserves, the national parks, the areas of outstanding natural beauty, the environmentally sensitive areas, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. It also means that our farmers must be adequately rewarded for their share in the management of such areas. I see the farmer as the front-line guardian of the countryside, its landscape and much of our rural environment; so let him have a just reward from the taxpayer for playing that role. Incidentally, how many projects have been put forward for European Year of the Environment grants and how many have been agreed so far?
We believe that we need to look at the Wildlife and Countryside Act to make it better able to protect our most valuable features and the wildlife habitats. We need much more research into soil erosion and into the link between fertilisers and nitrates in our water supplies. We need much more research into organic fertilisers and their uses. We want to be able to enhance the rich diversity of our landscape and its wildlife.
We welcome attempts to provide alternative sources of energy and we believe there should be serious and well-funded research into tidal power. However, at the same time we need parallel research into how to retain marshland and mud flats for the wildlife and plant life which depend upon them. For example, we have to find out if tidal energy is feasible and, if so, if it is also feasible to build up the levels of mud flats to ensure that bird life can be maintained. We ought to know the consequences of our actions before we embark on using tidal waves and estuaries for an alternative source of power.
We also need to look at our towns and cities, many of them with areas of dilapidation and dereliction. Townspeople need the freedom to move around in pleasant surroundings in the fringe areas; and it ought to be possible to protect the environment—natural and man made—in the course of development.
We have to learn to manage our waste properly, to use recycling wherever possible and to control much more carefully where noxious waste will be disposed and by what methods. We have to do more about cleaning up our sewers and sewage outfalls so that our lakes and rivers will be unpolluted and our seas fit to swim in, and so that our bathing beaches will be cleansed and purged of the despoliation of today.
I believe that the time has come to act on the principle that the polluter should pay. We should be planning much more research into the physical and biological sciences, into ozone levels and estuarial problems, into new forms of energy, marine conservation and so on—sciences which explain the natural processes of the environments. Yet organisations associated with the Natural Environment Research Council are being starved of funds and
668
the Freshwater Biological Association is facing a cutback of 30 in its staff of 100. Surely we do not want research scientists just to run a high-quality consultancy. We ought to be encouraging much more multi-disciplinary research.
A green environment and growth do not necessarily have to be in conflict. It is possible to have economic and housing growth while still conserving and enhancing our environment. What we must do is to recognise the interdependence of economic and ecological priorities and the need to bring environmental issues much closer to the heart of economic policy to achieve a real balance.
There has to be greater interplay between environmental policies and other key policy areas such as agriculture, energy, transport, housing renewal, and so on. We believe that a properly conceived public investment programme could achieve more jobs in Britain and that projects for energy conservation, the repair and renewal of water and sewage systems, improved public transport and rehabilitation of our housing stock would all bring significant environmental gains. We could also add to job creation if we were to do more in connection with tree planting, derelict land reclamation and the restoration of wildlife habitats, on the scale that was being achieved by the Greater Manchester Council before it was abolished.
Before concluding, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. William Waldegrave, for the efforts which he has made to bring environmental policies to the fore. Many more people in this country are environmentally aware of, and take an interest in, issues such as pollution, acid rain, erosion of the ozone level, conservation and changes in land use. More and more people are learning a greater understanding of our flora and fauna. Surely now is the time in the European Year of the Environment to set aside any party differences, to get round the table all the political parties, and the voluntary and statutory organisations who are concerned about conservation and environmental decisions.
As the recent Bruntland Report asserts, only if governments reform their decision-making can sustainable development be achieved. Economic objectives have been built into the national systems of administration. We want to see a new understanding that "economic" also means "environmentally sound".
I ask: why can we not try to hammer out an agreed programme for the protection of our environment and, having agreed a basic programme that is acceptable to all political parties as well as to environmental and other groups, have that conservation and environmental protection policy honoured and funded by successive governments with periodic recall to the conference table to update the priorities? I believe that my suggestion is a practical way forward and one that would be acceptable to most of the voluntary and statutory organisations and certainly to the public at large. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us an opportunity

669
to debate this important subject. I have happy memories of the time when she was a Front Bench spokesman for the Department of the Environment. In my speech I hope to give a background to her emphasis on the importance of the environment.
In 1983, the United Nations formed the World Commission on Environment and Development to report on the problems of protecting and enhancing the environment. That is the Bruntland Report to which the noble Baroness has referred. It was published last month and consists of 383 pages convering virtually the whole globe and all its conservation problems. It was produced in the European Year of the Environment. It is the latest of many such reports. There is a surfeit of such reports and we must ask ourselves how serious is the situation.
There are two increasingly dangerous problems, both of which are of mankind's own making and of recent origin. First, there is the growing shortage of living space. Already the world population of 2½ billion people in 1950 has nearly doubled, and will double again in the early years of the next century. Many life forms as we know them now will not survive.
Secondly, for little over 100 years man has been feeding back into the atmosphere the fossil fuels that have accumulated over the past 500 million years, and in the past 50 years we have added the waste products of the chemical era. The records show that carbon dioxide levels in today's atmosphere have increased by 27 per cent. since the mid-19th century. Carbon dioxide holds heat close to the earth and has the potential for melting the polar icecaps and raising the levels of the oceans. Now that methane and chloro-fluoro carbons have been added, it means that we are not just polluting the atmosphere but that we are tampering with our basic weather-making components. We do not know the outcome. The risks are a warmer, flooded earth or a world seared by the sun.
In the meantime, those extractions and additions are causing the pollution and destruction of many life forms with which we have evolved. In Britain since the turn of the century there has been some public awareness of the damage that is being done and the dangers that lie ahead. The RSPB was started in 1889; the National Trust in 1895; Flora and Fauna Preservation in 1903; the CPRE in 1926; the BTCV (British Trust for Conservation Volunteers) and Youth Education in Conservation in 1959; and the World Wildlife Fund in 1961. Those are all voluntary bodies.
The first world gathering of governments was the Stockholm Conference in 1972. At last fears were being turned into world action. That was the year that the All-Party Conservation Group of both Houses of Parliament was formed. In those early years—only 16 years ago—the group was worried about badgers, seals, whales, mining in national parks, how little use was being made of SSSIs and the iniquity of transferring nature conservancy to the Department of the Environment. Today the impetus has changed from protecting endangered species to protecting their habitats, which includes our own.
As the noble Baroness has said, the problems and dangers are so great that governments are forced to take responsibility for their solution or diminution. In
670
this they must have the support of the few—some of whom are in this Chamber today—but whose numbers are increasing, who know and care about those problems and dangers. As that growing minority of people who are actively aware of the dangers come from all walks of life and hold varying shades of opinion and belief, I can see no merit, as the noble Baroness has said, in turning any particular danger into a party political problem. If one does that, it alienates a large number of potential supporters and encourages those who have points of view other than conservation to jump on the bandwaggon, as it were.
One basic fact is that critics, both constructive and destructive, must have a much better chance of success with their governments if they are fully and correctly informed. It is at this point that an all-party group such as ours comes into its own. The group seeks to give Members of both Houses an opportunity to hear and question the men and women who are personally answerable for an activity or policy. Thus are so many misunderstandings clarified and answered. Common sense imposes limitations on the choice of subjects for discussion. If the Member or the Government are to do something about the problem there must be some degree of ministerial responsibility. In that case, should the Minister or his responsible official take part and if there is some difference of opinion should someone of weight attend to give the opposite view?
All that must happen before the Government have made up their mind to act. Once a Bill or order is tabled the discussions, which one hopes are better informed, fall within party debate. The all-party group is there to provide the correct information and not to influence Members, who will make their own decisions on how to act. The group meetings are attended by Members who have a special interest in the subject under discussion. The debates are circulated among some 160 Members of both Houses and that ensures that those who are interested but were not able to attend the meeting are nevertheless kept fully informed. The subjects have changed over the years but the need to keep Members of Parliament fully and correctly informed remains the same.
I should like to think that our group has helped to keep conservation out of party politics, but the credit is due to the Ministers and the ministry, especially the Department of the Environment whose publications and many meetings that have been so willingly arranged have disclosed the facts, thoughts and conclusions behind the evidence on which decisions will be based.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome the Motion that has been put down by the noble Baroness and I thank her for giving us an opportunity to speak on 'a subject on which I have both spoken and written for well over 20 years. However, I wish to make one reservation in that welcome.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asks why it cannot be the case that all-party support is given to the environmental decisions that must be made for the survival of mankind, I can give her the answer, which is very straightforward. Since election fever has hit the country, we have already seen the Government make

671
one abject withdrawal on the question of burying nuclear: waste. That was clearly designed solely for electoral purposes.
But the important issue is what reason the Government gave for changing their mind—changing their mind against what their scientific advisers had advised them to do—about burying nuclear waste in shallow trenches. The reason given was that they had now discovered that the cost of burying in deep trenches was no more than that for burying in shallow trenches. In other words, it was the cost factor which dominated the decision according to the Government. This Government measure everything by the cost factor. That is the reason why it is fantasy, and indeed dangerous fantasy, which may well dilute the conservationists' case simply to try to smooth over the differences of philosophy between the parties.
I want to concentrate on one issue, which the noble Lord who preceded me raised briefly during his speech, and that is the question of the ozone layer, because this again is an illustration of the central point that I want to make. Presumably everybody knows now that the layer of ozone which covers this planet absorbs the sun's ultra-violet radiation and if it is removed or weakened then, on the best prescription we get an increase in skin cancers, while on the worst, if it is really removed, the human race is extinguished through burning.
As the noble Lord mentioned, the emission of chloro-fluoro carbons (CFCs as they are commonly known) has in the opinion of many scientists already begun to damage that ozone layer through the use of aerosols, the use of fridges, fast food production, plastic foam and other commodities of that kind; and the CFCs, we are told by the scientists, once emitted can last for 75 to 100 years. So we are talking about the future of humanity as well as the present.
Already there have been seen through satellites seasonal holes in that ozone layer over the Antarctic—interestingly enough, missed by the computers. But what are the Government doing, what is this country doing, in the face of this grave menace to the human race? Though I could not contact the Minister who is to reply, I have contacted her staff so I hope that she will be able to give me some specific reply to this issue and the Government's stand upon it.
In 1985, we had the Vienna Convention with 30 countries approving a vague set of measures. What measures were they? The United States, Canada and Scandinavia have already banned aerosols. What have our Government done? As recently as December 1986, the United States proposed a freeze on the production of CFCs and a 50 per cent. reduction within 10 to 15 years. They were supported by the Canadians, the Scandinavians and the Soviet Union—not by the British Government.
Only two weeks ago in Geneva it was hoped that a treaty would be ready by September, but next week, on 21st May, the EC Environmental Committee meets. Our Government have a veto, every government has a veto, on that decision. What will the Government do at that meeting in Brussels next week? The record of this Government has been to oppose the cuts that have been suggested by other countries in the production of
672
CFCs. Why? It is because of the cost that would be involved, because ICI is British and believes that American Dupont is in advance of British companies in the research for replacements for CFCs.
I pay tribute, as has already been paid, to William Waldegrave for the partial U-turn that he led in March in suggesting a 20 per cent. cut in six years. I wonder how long William Waldegrave will last in this Government. But that was the suggestion in March. We do not have time to wait for this bickering, for this guesswork. Between 1978 and 1986, that ozone cover was decreased by 4 per cent. and today, if four out of five of the industrial countries were to freeze their production of CFCs, the ozone layer would be reduced by 16 per cent. by the year 2060. Can we afford this kind of risk?
I know that we are talking, and I am talking, of scientific uncertainties, but the human race cannot afford to wait for proven certainties. If this issue is to be judged, as it apparently has been in the past by this Government, on the test of profit and loss, then the probability is that the verdict on the human species will be that it made 100 per cent. profit but that in doing so it incinerated itself into extinction.
5.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on her choice of subject and also on the splendid speech with which she introduced this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, indicated, questions of the environment are of very great gravity indeed and they call for an all-party approach.
There are encouraging signs. I am reminded of this every morning, especially on a lovely day like this when I look out from the house where I live in Salford down below to the environmental improvement scheme of the Croall-Irwell valley. This was a threefold partnership scheme between the Department of the Environment, the lamented GMC, which played a predominant role, and also the four local authorities through which the River Irwell and the River Croall pass.
Clean air and new technology are giving marvellous possibilities for cleaning up the environment and protecting the countryside in new ways. However, I believe that we should appreciate that pressures on the environment come both from the rich and from the poor. The pressures are very great indeed—pressures to create wealth, pressures of those already possessing wealth to enjoy it in the way in which they would wish and particularly pressures from the poor. I expect we are thinking particularly in this debate of the countryside in our own country, and yet already I am glad to see that an international note has crept in, because all of us realise that we are concerned with the management of a very small planet and that these environmental issues run into each other all the time.
Pressures on the environment by the poor come in many parts of the world and they are contributed to in various ways by those in wealthier countries. You think, for example, of landless people of Brazil being ordered by their government to clear forests in order to secure more areas for cultivation for schemes which are sometimes supported by money from western

673
countries, or for cash crops which are damaging the environment. Or you can think of the search for wood as the only source of energy for cooking in many parts of Africa, which is causing devastating results.
To succeed, environmental policies surely have to have at home and abroad a great weight of public opinion behind them and that is the point to which I should like to address myself in these few moments. It is very difficult to get public opinion fully behind environmental causes, whether here in Britain or overseas. In this connection, the traditions that we have had from the past and the outlook that we have on theworld in which we live and on our environment around us are of great importance. Religious traditions have a value here. I am bound to confess that the Judeo-Christian tradition has been under very severe criticism in the past from environmentalists.
I shall read a few words from The Environmental Revolution by Max Nicholson in which he goes for the churches with no holes barred. He writes:
"The adherents of the church have, with few exceptions, persisted in behaving as rampant Old Testament tribes, now terrifyingly endowed with modern technological knowledge and equipment, and making mischief for the world on a corresponding scale … In South America, giant crucifixes stand proudly on summits overlooking deforested hillsides and dried up stream beds. In Spain, Italy and in many other lands, the extent of erosion and of wanton destruction of wild life is closely co-related with the proportion of regular churchgoers".
I read those words in penitence. However, things are changing in the churches, as elsewhere. For example, the World Council of Churches has promoted a major study under the heading Faith, Science and the Future, which culminated in a conference in Boston in 1979. Some of the conclusions of that conference were very important for the subject with which we are concerned. The churches were called on to:
"foster the exploration of less consumptive and wasteful styles of life, and promote programmes which restrain governments and private enterprises from depleting non-renewable resources".
The conference delegates backed the idea of "world commons", namely things held in common such as the oceans, the Antarctic, the atmosphere and space, and called on the scientific and technological communities to:
"abide by and implement the principles of justice, sustainability and participation in dealing with each other".
They called on the churches to do what they could to:
"promote education and awareness of the nature and injustices of environmental damage".
Therefore, I believe that things are changing. We are all very familiar with the concept of loving our neighbour, but the concept which is now being promoted is that our neighbour includes future generations. That is very hard to get across when people are faced with the short-term commercial pressures which are experienced in every country. They are much more excusable in countries where people are very poor and desperate to live.
If policies to protect the countryside and the environment are to succeed nationally and internationally, we must act as though the earth's resources are for all and share them much more equally than we have ever done in the past.
I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, refer to the dangers of overpopulation. He
674
was absolutely right to do so as it is one of the gravest pressures of all on the environment on a world scale. However, people often forget that efforts to deal with overpopulation must go along with development. A simple illustration of that may make my point. I remember that when I was in Kenya two posters were produced. One showed a man and his wife, who was very badly dressed, sitting on packing cases outside a dilapidated hut with a crowd of children. The other showed a nice neat hut with a man his beautifully dressed wife and two children sitting outside. The latter poster was to promote the idea of family limitation and birth control.
They had to withdraw the poster because too many people were going around saying: "Look at that poor man. He has only got two children". It is clear that unless one gets away from the idea that security lies in the number of children that people have, it is very difficult to promote the concept of reducing population and reducing pressures on the environment.
Let us not be naive and suppose that in our country we can meet pressures on the environment without very difficult political questions being raised. I am thinking particularly of the planning applications for huge super shopping "cities" which are being submitted at the moment in a number of areas. They could gravely damage our environment, although I have no time to develop that theme.
I conclude that care of the environment must have a very high priority, but changing attitudes is absolutely crucial. Attitudes can only be changed by promoting concepts of the fairer sharing of resources both at home and abroad.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I do not know whether it lies with me formally to thank the noble Baroness for giving us an opportunity to discuss this subject. She already knows how grateful I am personally.
In the few minutes at my disposal I thought it best to narrow the focus from the broad range of topics that have been raised so far and speak for a few moments about our national parks. I declare an interest, having had the delectable experience for the past six years of being president of the Council for National Parks.
Last year marked the launch by the Countryside Commission of a three-year campaign to increase public awareness of our 10 national parks. Here I follow the right reverend Prelate in stressing the importance of that. Public interest is there already. Last year, nearly 100 million people visited our 10 national parks, but relatively few people know much about them. A Countryside Commission survey conducted recently found that under half of those questioned could name more than two of our national parks, which must perhaps partly account for the overcrowding which occurs in Snowdonia, in the Lake District and in the Peak Park during the year.
The year 1986 also marked 50 years since a Standing Committee on national parks launched a movement to establish parks in England and Wales which culminated, a quarter of a century later, in the designation of the first of our national parks. Our national parks embrace under 10 per cent. of the land

675
surface of England and Wales, but they represent a great deal more than that in terms of values which bear on the quality of life, especially for city dwellers. The parks, as I see it, are standard setters for the countryside in general. They help to create public concern for the rural scene as a whole.
We do well to remember that, unlike national parks in many other countries, our national parks are areas where a quarter of a million people live and very many work—principally of course on the land. Our parks contain few of what might be properly called wilderness areas. Indeed, most of their traditional landscapes are manmade. They continue to depend on human skills and human labour to preserve and develop in ways that are sensitive to landscape and wildlife. One essential condition for the future of the parks is the continuing commitment and co-operation of local communities in maintaining a national asset for the public at large.
Over the past 20 years or so, one of the problems has been the conflict in the needs of agriculture—encouraged by MAFF grants and aided by modern technology and chemistry—in contrast to those of the national parks, where now attitudes are changing under the painful necessity to cut back on food production. There is now a new prospect of working together in a common interest of land management in the parks.
There is a great deal more I should like to say if time permitted. However, I shall limit myself to a few of the things which need to be done to defend the purposes of the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. I am presenting them as statements or matters of opinion, but I should be grateful if the Minister could find time to comment on one or two at least of them when she replies.
First, there is a strong case for elevating the status of the committees, which are entirely accountable to county councils, to that of the boards which operate in the Lake District and in the Peak Park. All national park authorities should also have statutory authority for their own development plans in the context of the Government's new proposals for development planning.
Secondly, the national park authorities need greater financial resources, and that notwithstanding a most welcome increase which has been made for the national park supplementary grant in the current year. There is a strong case for grant-aiding all national parks at the same 90 per cent. level as Exmoor receives for making management agreements, instead of the 75 per cent. which all other parks receive at present.
Thirdly, I wish to stress that the Government are to be commended on their insistence on the voluntary principle in regard to their policies in the parks. However, in one respect, powers of last resort are needed to prevent damaging developments which a very small minority of farmers can and have carried out, despite the withholding of MAFF grants. Landscape conservation orders, which my noble friend has mentioned, have now been proposed by the Government. However, they will be needed over the whole designated areas of the parks and not simply in key areas within them.
676
Fourthly, broadleaved farm woodland schemes, which the Government propose to encourage in their consultative document, ALURE, are welcomed; the planting of more conifer forests as alternatives for the cutback in food production are not. All forestry should be brought within the ambit of planning control in the national parks. We cannot afford more disfigurement of the uplands by blanket conifer plantations as has happened over the years in the Lake district, in the Brecon Beacons, in Northumberland and in Snowdonia.
Last but perhaps most important of all, we need an example from government. Changing attitudes on the ground should surely be matched by a policy at the centre which upgrades the value and importance of the countryside to that of food and industrial production. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will be able to confirm that it can be said on impeccable authority that man shall not live by bread alone.
We need a strategy by government which integrates all relevant interests in the uses of rural land. That is the policy of the parties represented on these Benches and it would hopefully be the strategy which we would pursue. The national parks have fully proved their worth since they were dreamt of some 50 years ago. They exert their influence upon and they are influenced by policies which bear on the countryside in general. With greater leisure, affluence and mobility the need for and the role of the parks in the next 50 years cannot fail to assume greater importance to the quality of life in Britain. For the sake of posterity, we must make that asset secure for future generations.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a word in the debate and of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for the opportunity of debating this attractive subject. I join her in her generous tribute to William Waldegrave for his work, especially in the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
A related subject to that of national parks, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt spoke with such authority after his splendid service, is the preservation of green belts in this country. That is a good test of government soundness on conservation of the environment because it affects most town dwellers. All governments want more houses built and some past governments have fallen for the temptation of taking a slice of green belt land for quick and attractive development of new houses.
This Government's record is good. Not only have they significantly extended the green belts in various parts of the country but they have also resisted the tempting proposal of a powerful consortium of builders to take 750 acres of farmland in Kent and build on it a new community of 5,000 houses at Tillingham Hall. The Government rejected that scheme on the ground, first, that it breached the green belt and, secondly, that there was enough land with planning consent within the boroughs of Greater London.
Consent would have created a precedent, opening a flood of similar applications which would soon have obliterated the green belt not only around London but

677
around other cities and would have deprived Londoners and other city dwellers of what are literally the lungs of their cities. The financial incentive to crack the boundaries of green belts is so huge—a factor of at least 10 times—that the developers' continuous attack, using every ingenuity, is ever pursued. Only the vigilance of government and of local authorities safeguards them.
Conversely, the Government have given a splendid lead in developing alternative unused urban land with the massive redevelopment of the eight square miles of London's derelict docklands. That area was evidently beyond the capacity of the London boroughs to revive it; it has now been transformed by the Government's urban development corporation into a hive of new building and activity with some 10,000 houses already built or being built and 8,000 new jobs, with the prospect of four times that number in the next four years. It has been financed mainly by private money, in that for every £1 of Government money there are £6 of private money. That has been a spectacular success and shows what can be done in the area of urban renewal. It was interesting to hear, before this debate started, the Minister moving that further urban development corporations should be set up so that some six corporations will cover the country. The Government get full marks from me for conserving the green belts, and that of London in particular, while they have, at the same time, renewed housing stocks.
I turn briefly to my old friends in the water industry. The Government have achieved some good things in that area. Despite the ambivalent attitude of the Government to their legitimate child—the 1973 Act—they tend to treat the water industry rather like a father in ancient Rome who had the power of life and death over his children—with death too often uppermost in his mind! Fortunately, a period of reprieve now obtains.
In the meantime, great credit should be given to the regional water authorities for the clean-up of estuaries and coastal waters. They inherited a shocking condition from local authorities 13 years ago; all sewage outfalls from towns and cities round our coasts were no more than pipes discharging raw sewage on the tidal edge of the beaches. In the past five years, all regional water authorities have given top priority to curing the pollution by constructing long sea outfalls or new treatment works. They have devoted some hundreds of millions of pounds to that important expenditure. Now we have a report that two-thirds of all our beaches conform with the EC standard and that the remainder will soon follow. Even the murky old Mersey will eventually be cleaned to the standard of the Thames and the Tyne.
A similar story of progress in cleaning up our rivers is also going forward. However, I say with all seriousness to my noble friend that the Government must restrain their zeal for financial stringency which limits the strength of monitoring. They will never keep rivers clean without sufficient monitoring. That is essential for maintaining river quality standards. To the Government goes the credit for unified water management, which they or their predecessors brought about in 1973 and which has made progress possible. I hope that my noble friend will take on
678
board the message that whatever is done in the future, that will never be changed.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the speeches made in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Some have referred to the environment on a global scale. However, I should like to return in the few minutes that are permitted to me in a short debate to the way in which agricultural and planning policies affect our countryside. I am very glad that this debate is taking place before the end of this Parliament. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing the debate.
There was anxiety earlier this year when the Government indicated some relaxation of planning control. I think that that was largely unjustified anxiety. All we were being told was that, except in land of the highest quality, agricultural production should cease to be the paramount factor in deciding planning applications. Protected areas were to be protected as before. I hardly think that that is equivalent to treating special areas as land museums, as has been claimed, while letting all other land take its chance. To my mind, it is simply a recognition that economic pressures are already changing the countryside and that if we are to combine protection with furtherance of national economic and social interests, some changes in planning assumptions are necessary.
So far as agriculture is concerned, as has often been said, it is the victim of its own success. There is now an abundance of food and unless European taxpayers are prepared to underwrite the export of food at uneconomic cost to the hungry parts of the world, which in any case is not a long-term solution, agriculture must adapt to the new situation and the countryside will change accordingly—but not I think necessarily for the worse. The ideas now being canvassed—such as a return in some places to low input/low output farming, the Minister's scheme for fallowing, suggestions for, in effect, paying farmers to manage the countryside in places where farming without subsidy would be uneconomic, the farm woodlands scheme, and the various diversifications of the rural economy that have been suggested—all these ideas, whether practical or not, (and I expect some of them are not) are not ideas which would harm the countryside. They may even do more for the beauty of the countryside than an ever-more productive agriculture would be likely to do.
On the other hand, there are economic pressures which do threaten it. Here the problem is how to ensure that planning controls effectively minimise the damage, and how to reconcile our love of the countryside with the need for some changes in land use. I yield to no one in my love of our countryside. I think I care about it almost more than anything else. I have spent much of my lifetime trying to protect and preserve it, having been the chairman of the National Trust for nine years and closely involved with it for nearly 25 years.
Moreover, I am now chairing the Royal Society of Arts Environment Committee, so I think that I can lay some claim to being an environmentalist at heart. I am

679
totally behind the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in urging the importance of environmental protection and a reconsideration of the present administrative set-up within government to achieve it.
The fact is that if we cannot generate the resources to afford to maintain the countryside it will, in any case, disappear as we know it. We must therefore have regard to economics; and moreover people's livelihoods are at stake, and with them the stability of society
To illustrate what I mean I should like to talk for a moment about the South-East of England, where I live. Although I should hate to see the view changed—whether from my garden or anyone else's—we have to consider what is our paramount national interest. One element in the matter is to do everything we can to reduce unemployment. So far as concerns planning land use, this means recognising that the south-east quarter of England is where most of the unfilled vacancies are. If we build the Channel Tunnel, this will increasingly be the case.
From the national point of view, therefore, it does not make sense to maintain present restrictive policies in an area of England which can help relieve unemployment. Everyone knows that people seeking work often find it in the South-East and then find that they cannot afford to buy or rent a house there. My belief is that a future government ought to insist that the South-East does rather more to help the country as a whole by accommodating more low-cost housing than it is doing now.
What planning procedures will best ensure that encouraging economic growth, and jobs where they are most likely to be available, does the minimum damage to the countryside? Can we find a way to prevent development from ruining it? I believe that we can. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, pointed out in your Lordships' House last February, we do not want housing estates tagged on to our existing villages.
What we shall need are new villages, not in green belts—I hasten to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on that matter—but there are places where new villages can be sited without doing any harm. As architects are now more responsive to traditional values and popular taste, why should these villages not be attractive? Why should we not add to their attraction by planting trees, as has been done in Milton Keynes—not little trees, but big trees which will grow in a way that will give scale and dignity to their surroundings.
However, these are points of detail, and although details are critical to the appearance of the countryside, before we can get those details right what we surely need is a strategic plan, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for land use over the whole country, drawn up in the light of the changing situation.
I am not clear what strategic planning the Government contemplate. I know that they propose to replace the county structure plans and local plans with a single system of district plans, but districts will need to operate within an overall plan. Perhaps the Minister will expand that point, for the nature of the broad
680
framework within which districts would work is crucial.
If the next government set up the machinery for deciding at national level the broad lines on which public resources are to be allocated between different forms of land use—for example, industry, farming, housing, conservation, forestry and all new kinds of activity within the rural economy—then district authorities can be left to make planning decisions within that framework.
What we shall still need—and this is my last point—is a sufficient number of planning officers with the training to do the job really well. The planners have saved us from many visual atrocities, but we can all give examples of planning absurdities which have sometimes been due quite simply to a lack of proper education in visual matters. I believe we could do infinitely more by careful training to produce a larger body of planning officers with a sensitivity which is now sometimes missing.
When local government was reorganised in 1974 the number of planning authorities was greatly increased without a corresponding increase in well-trained planners and there was a constant dilution during the ’seventies in the quality of planning officials. If the inevitable changes in our countryside are to be managed without detriment to its beauty we need a strategic plan for land use and more well-trained people to implement it on the ground.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for instigating this debate. I am delighted that it is not one of the victims of one of the Government's cuts and that we still have it. I should like to follow up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and welcome the Government's initiative on the alternative uses of farm buildings and farmland. I was delighted particularly about the alternative uses for farm buildings. Last week I went to see a snail farm in our local area which has taken over a derelict farm building, and is actually exporting snails for consumption in France, which I thought was rather good news.
I echo the noble Lord when he said that there was unjustified criticism concerning the restriction on planning controls. However, I go further and say that there was a lot of nonsense talked about it, particularly in the local press where there were headlines to the effect that farmland was to be covered with rashes of new housing, and that farmers would go mad and sell every acre for building. I also echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, but I feel very strongly, as the noble Baroness said, that farmers and landlords in this country are the front line guardians in the battle for conservation. Many of them have lived for generations on the land and the one thing they want to enjoy is an attractive countryside. Of course there are exceptions but I do not believe they are the rule.
I have mixed feelings about planners. We live in a lovely part of the world. I am lucky enough to live on the edge of the Yorkshire Dales. We have many visitors now, especially since Mr. Herriot made his money from writing his "vets" books. The most attractive and popular place on my estate is known as

681
Druids Circle, which is wonderful. It is on the edge of the moor. It is perfect in every way. There is even a stow with a channel down which the Virgin's blood was supposed to run. It may strike you that there is nothing very strange about this. However, visitors come and say it is better than Stonehenge—so it ought to be; it was built only 150 years ago! It was built by the then owner of the estate at a time of high unemployment. He could indulge his fantasy in Victorian folly and also produce some wages for the locals at a time of high unemployment.
I was thinking about this matter the other day and I thought that if I had wanted to do that sort of thing I would never have got planning permission. To put forward a folly in this day and age would be a folly.
I am not suggesting for a moment that planners should be abolished, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that some of them could reconsider their ideas. In case I am being too complacent and too kind to the Government, I should like to put out a marker for the next government—I am quite sure that a member of that government will be the noble Baroness who is sitting on the Front Bench and will be answering this debate—on the question of the common land forum and any future legislation on the lines suggested. I know that this was a unanimous decision by those in the common land forum. Unfortunately, there was a North-South divide. Those who gave evidence and the members of the forum could not spot the difference between common land, especially in the South of England, and the large heather commons of the North, which are a very different proposition.
I hope that any government will consider seriously the evidence recently put forward by the moorland association, which has gone into some detail about the heather commons of the North of England and produced a cogent and well informed report. I hope that whatever government look at it will take advice about the matter. In case your Lordships suspect that I should declare an interest, perhaps I should say that none of my moorland is common land, so I do not gain anything from what I say.
A short debate like this is not the right time for me to go into the arguments. There are good arguments. The report has been submitted to the department; it makes interesting reading and I hope that it will be well considered—I rather enjoyed it.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness not only for a vigorous survey of the problems of the European Year of the Environment—I sit on the United Kingdom committee—but for the wording of the Motion, because it enables me to deal with a specific case for special measures. That is the subject of afforestation in the far North; that is, the wild wilderness in Sutherland and Caithness known as the flow country. Before anyone thinks that I am against forestry or afforestation, let me say that I regard this particular case as a specific political, social and environmental problem. I am entirely in favour of forestry and indulge in it myself.
682
The blanketing of this area with coniferous plantations is doing irreversible damage to a unique and delicately evolved wild habitat. It will eliminate many fascinating natural species, especially birds and plants. Once it has gone, it will probably never recover, even in centuries.
I believe that it is immoral to eliminate and perhaps even exterminate highly specialised species of birds and plants, unless it is absolutely essential for mankind's economic survival. Even then it may still be immoral, but in that case it would proably be inevitable; in this case—the flow country—it is not even necessary.
The Government have initiated new forestry policies, and prospects for the forestry industry are bright. Henceforth large areas of the country will be available for forestry. There is no excuse therefore for eliminating a unique wilderness. It is like saying that agriculture is threatened because we do not plough up medieval mounds, forts and barrows or stands of ancient oaks. People have gone to prison or been fined for that, yet in the case of the flows there is not only no discouragement but the Government are compounding the crime and encouraging it by subsidies and even more by substantial tax benefits for only a very few shareholders.
The public interest has simply been ignored. It has been ignored because a sort of gold rush has been discovered, a way of making a quick killing, which is not even consistent with sound forestry practice. I say this having been a business man all my life. In this instance there is a clear case for making a quick killing.
The reasons why this valuable ecological heritage is being destroyed are simple. First, the land is cheap for the forestry industry to buy. Secondly, it is available, because if an owner needs the cash he may find there is only one potential purchaser, a forestry company. Thirdly, the shareholders of the forestry companies gain substantial tax concessions. Forestry schemes are put to clients in the City simply as tax effective investments with no concern for the local issues. In many cases the shareholders do not even know where their land or plantation is.
I do not blame the people involved. As my noble friend Lord Onslow so frequently says, if the Government provide a nice trough, we are all tempted to put our snouts in it. Therefore, I do not blame the people involved. The Government have to intervene in the public interest and for future generations.
If an owner has to sell, nobody will benefit from forestry in this area other than the vendor of the land and the few shareholders of the forestry company—the local inhabitants least of all. How can it possibly be to the advantage of the next generation of locals and their successors to have the area sterilised by blanket forestry? If a few hands during draining, ploughing and planting are employed today, there will be nothing for their children and their grandchildren to do. The area will be no more than a dark green desert.
The cycle here should be recognised. Some hands are employed now but then there will be a 30-year blank period, after which some people will be brought back, probably from outside; that will be followed by another 30 years of blight. That cannot be in the interests of the local communities.

683
The traditional pursuits of tourism, open air life and sport provide stable and consistent employment. Leisure is the in-thing in the City. Tourism is high on the Government's agenda. The future prosperity of the flow country and its people is bright if the prospects and the natural resources are not extinguished now. In leisure and amenity terms, with the associated employment opportunities, one can even argue that the long-term consequences of blanket forestry in this wilderness will have longer term negative results than Chernobyl.
There are, I believe, some 5,000 people employed in forestry in the UK, but there are hundreds of thousands—perhaps in due course millions—with a mounting interest in birds, botany and this type of wild wilderness. That means in Sutherland and Caithness that if the resources are preserved the visitors and tourists would have to be housed; they would need bed-and-breakfast and hotels. They would need gillies, wardens, stalkers, guides, petrol services, garages, shopping centres and so on. None of these rewarding and attractive occupations will exist once the coniferous forest has blanketed the moorland. Nobody will drive hundreds of miles to see row upon row of furrows and lines of conifers. The future of employment in the flow country should be as bright as it is in the Norfolk Broads, where the Government have taken such keen interest, if it is given equal priority.
I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to take into account the serious problem which concerns not simply wildlife and the environment; it is a social community problem in the far North of Scotland. Government measures take time and maybe no instant action is likely. Since the situation is critical and the deprivation is proceeding, perhaps my noble friend can express concern about it and consider reviewing the question of subsidies in that area, especially tax concessions. I myself like tax concessions, if I can find them. However, these are unjustified because they are against the public interest and the local interest.
The Government have shown commendable concern in the Norfolk Broads. The wild country of Sutherland and Caithness is just as important for the recreation and employment of future generations. The area needs comparable protection now.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Henniker: My Lords, I want to join the chorus of thanks to my noble friend Lady Stedman for introducing this important subject and doing it so very well. She soared like a lakeland buzzard over the whole scene. I shall approach it from another angle, a more earthbound position of the toad beneath the harrow.
For the last 10 or 12 years—and I should declare an interest because I have been involved in all matters connected with the environment in my area—we have tried to conduct what a visitor called a controlled experiment in seeing how we can improve the environment, open it to the public and prevent the countryside in a very rural area of Suffolk becoming a museum, with little employment and a small amount of housing.
684
I have followed all the speeches and concur with nearly all of them. From my worm's eye view, on a small scale, I think that I can say something optimistic. What we have done at home is totally unimportant. But we have been trying to show farmers and landowners that what we have done can be achieved without threat, without ruining the countryside and without any really serious problem.
When we started 10 years ago we had a lot of obsolete farm buildings and we converted them. We now have 14 separate industries working in them, some trading abroad. I hate saying that we have created jobs because people get jobs if they want them, but we have provided a foothold for about 40 jobs. We have also opened a place for helping handicapped people to start their own industries.
We have heard things said about planners. All I can say is that the planners considered me to be a zany diplomat when I returned, but they let me perform one job that I wished to do. They were pleased and since then we have become total allies. They are ahead of me most of the time and it is an extremely satisfactory partnership.
If we are going to do this, we must have housing for rent. This is one of our big problems. Suffolk is becoming a commuter county. I am all for the sale of council houses. I think it has done good. But we have now to get on to providing houses for young and old people. The young are starting their work; the old are finishing and wish to stay in their villages. We are very much homebound in Suffolk. We have to provide houses. I have managed to provide five out of my converted farm buildings. We have also made, with the assistance of the National Agricultural Centre Housing Association, a small scheme in the village. I am chairman of the Suffolk Rural Housing Association. We are trying to go ahead with what villages want; that is, small housing schemes. We have no wish to be ripped apart by large developments.
It is very sad, in a way, that we go so slowly. We started about three years ago. We are getting our first bricks on the ground this year. The Housing Corporation that will fund us spends 87 per cent. but, of course, its priority consideration is the inner cities and we recognise that. However, it spends less than 1 per cent. of what it receives on small villages and the need is getting urgent. Our houses now cost up to four times what they cost about two years ago and the people there cannot possibly buy them.
Another matter that worries me is that as we try to provide work, the infrastructure shrinks. For example, just as we got going the doors of the post office clanged shut. The number of children in the village having risen in six years from three to 49, we were treated to an argument that the local school must be closed on the grounds of a demographic trend which we thought we had bucked. We are also trying to develop access to bridle paths and to create walks in woods and in areas around ponds, providing recreation for our locals and also for London children. We have a big camp to which children from less happy homes come in the summer and throughout the year. We have reached a figure of 20,000 people a year and can prove to our peers that there is no threat. We are very vulnerable. We sit in the middle. The context is that we have no

685
particular house to show and no particular site to display, but we have beautiful countryside. Unfortunately, we have no large capital sums that we can spend. We have shown our farming colleagues what can be done without threat. We turned our cow house into a school for environmental studies, and last year we had 6,000 children visitors.
My experience is that militant people on both sides create most of the trouble between conservationists and countrymen. Most people do not understand, and one has to help any educational project. We urge the Government to adopt this approach, perhaps by exchange rural and urban studies between urban and rural schools. We find that even with country children—we had 75 in on Saturday from Bury St. Edmunds—some have never been in a green field in their lives. The problem, of course, is finance. One needs to be very experienced or very clever to find where one can get money. We have been greatly helped by the Countryside Commission which has provided a warden. My wife and I did all the work at the start with the local council. I am glad to see that the development commission—Cosira—has more resources now and it has also been of great help.
The MSC has been absolutely invaluable in country districts, particuarly in connection with the community programme. We hear that the programme is going to be cut., and the enormous problem is trying to get labour to do the things that need to be done. Rural people have at their fingertips, when they start, all the things which the MSC has to do; for example the ability to dig, saw, cut ditches and so on. I hope that instead of unemployment schemes there can be provided subsidised jobs in a rural craft, such as forestry. I am sorry that I have exceeded my time and I apologise.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is happy with the result of the debate which she initiated. I have been very interested in all the contributions which have been made. It is a pity that the television cameras are not here today when we are discussing a matter of far greater importance than some of the issues upon which we normally spend much of our time.
Conservation takes many forms, both in creating and preserving what is fine and beautiful and in improving the environment. I take, for example, old buildings. For some years I was a member of the Historic Buildings Council in Wales. We inspected castles, great houses, cottages, churches and even dovecots. Of course, we gave grants to deserving cases where we could afford it. As a result, part of our heritage is the richer today. This is going on in England and in Scotland, too.
In the sphere of archaeology, for example, last month the Offa's Dyke Society, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was once a notable president, and of which I myself have the honour to be president at the moment, heard a lecture on the action being taken to maintain and preserve Offa's Dyke. As its current president I should like publicly to thank English Heritage for the work it has done in renewing and improving the Dyke at Sedbury. The present use of the Dyke and the care taken of it by the society and by
686
others again adds to our heritage. However, like other remains, if it is not repaired it can be damaged.
As regards nature conservancy, in the past few years care by the RSPB has safeguarded the existence of many bird species. I remember inquiring in 1972 from Mr. Lovegrove, the head of the RSPB in Wales, how many peregrines there were and he told me there were six pairs. Today the position is very different because there are now a great number of hawks around. For people in some areas there are perhaps rather too many—and for some small birds! Indeed, the picture has changed greatly. I only wish that other countries, like Italy, would stop this needless slaying of uccellini and the netting and shooting which goes on. In time, education may teach them.
It is reported that the RSPB has lately had a report from an expert committee on the "edge effect"—the effect of forestry on bird populations at the edge of plantations. Press reports say that the report casts great doubt on the RSPB's former understanding of this matter, and it would be as well if the report were to be published by it. If its former understanding of that point were found to be inaccurate, the RSPB would gain great kudos from admitting that its views had changed. We should base all these value judgments on the evidence of expert and scientific research.
Let us take acidification, which has been mentioned. It is a huge problem. The latest research, which I and other Members of your Lordships' House were privileged to see the other day portrayed by the Welsh Water Authority, shows that the water run-off from conifer forests is more acid than the run-off from bare moorland. To alleviate the problem, the Forestry Commission has issued instructions about keeping such planting away from watercourses. Other steps have also been taken.
Timber Growers (UK), of which I am at present chairman, has also issued a code of practice to achieve the same improvements in the private sector. The real cause of acid rain, as others of your Lordships have said, is the sulphur and other muck which for years has been gushing from the timbers of industry. Very few people have criticised that. I welcome the start that the Government have made in finding money to improve that matter. However, it is a long-term problem and it is heavy industry, rather than forestry, which is the prime cause. Here again, the efforts which must be made could over a long time eventually improve our heritage.
I say on behalf of the timber growers that we have created the Minet award for the best woodland managed for commercial and conservation objectives. It is rewarded by the presentation of the Dulverton Flagon as its first prize. I do not see the noble Lord in his place, but I am sure that he is here in spirit.
Let us take the work of the national parks, which has already been referred to. Country parks, camping sites, chalets in the forests, nature trails, footpaths, bridle paths and paths in the woods for the blind all add, as other noble Lords have said, to a continual improvement in our heritage. Let us not forget the great contribution made by voluntary organisations.
Being a forester, I must also talk about the work of foresters, both state and private. Since 1919, not only have they created a viable industry that is attracting

687
investment from overseas, but over 40,000 jobs in the countryside are now found in that industry. I welcome the recent policy statement on forestry targets and farm forestry as sensible guidelines for the future, although I think that the Treasury will have to cough up a good deal more money if the target is to be reached.
Forestry has made a great contribution to our heritage, and by co-operating with the NCC and other bodies in many areas it must be admitted that advance has been made. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, talked about the flow country. I shall not go into the details of the problem which I readily admit exists, but the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland who has said that any planting in the flow country will take place now only after discussions between the Forestry Commission and the NCC is a great step forward. That should complete what the noble Lord told us today about that area.
Finally, I wish to say a word for those who live and work in the countryside and who have cared for it for generations. I quote from the Countryside Commission for Scotland:
"It behoves those who seek to promote conservation policies to bear in mind all the time that, without the conviction and practical support of those who earn their living on the land and are directly responsible for it, no conservation policies are likely to succeed.".
How true! Without the willing co-operation of those people, none of the improvements in the quality of our heritage can be achieved. That voluntary principle was recognised when the Wildlife and Countryside Act was debated in both Houses and became law.
We all have a part to play in conservation—to make Britain a better place. Only then can we hope to influence those other countries which lag behind.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, and my neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, in this debate. I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us this timely opportunity to debate the environment.
It has taken a long time for the present consensus on the importance of the environment to be reached. In 1962 when I was in Washington, I got to know Stewart Udall who was President Kennedy's Secretary of the Interior. He was then one of the few politicians who took a real interest in the environment. I remember at dinner in my house that we spent a great deal of the night trying to persuade the late Hugh Gaitskell that there was political mileage in conservation. Nowadays I think that everyone knows that there is.
The other day I received, as other noble Lords will have done, a glossy pamphlet from Shell, extolling what the oil industry has done in the field of conservation. I contrasted that with a visit that I paid to Shell with some of my colleagues in the early 1960s when Shell Chemicals' executives sought to persuade us that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was nonsense. Well, it was not. But happily, attitudes have changed in politics and in industry.
In the 25 years since then, as we all know, immense damage has been done to our environment in Britain.
688
But, if we go about it in a common sense way, we now have a chance of reversing the trend, not only in this country but throughout Europe.
We have reached the point where there is general agreement in Europe that we cannot go on generating vast agricultural surpluses at enormous cost. All the talk now, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, pointed out, is of set-aside, low-input farming, alternative crops or what is known as the policy of 'conifers and caravans'.
What is important is to ensure that, now that radical changes in the pattern of agriculture are being forced upon us, environmental considerations should at last be given their full weight, and that we should no longer merely subsidise overproduction but link grants to environmental and social needs. Environmentally sensitive areas are a modest but useful start. But it is the whole countryside which needs sensitive handling, not just a few special sites.
There should be no more taking of chalk downs, wetlands, moorlands and old broadleaved woodlands to grow food which no one needs. Not only that; we must not merely halt but should reverse the process. We should put back the chalk downs to grass, re-flood some of the wetlands and plant more native, broadleaved trees. We must also take a much stronger line over agricultural pollution. Silage and slurry effluent are damaging our streams and the life in them. I hope that Her Majesty's new Inspectorate of Pollution and the water authorities will pay attention and that offenders will be prosecuted.
We need an end to the excessive use of chemicals. I was very much struck by what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said about nitrogen in this House on 21st January. I am sorry that what seemed to me to be his sensible suggestions were dismissed by the Government.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now has a responsibility to consider environmental aspects. Indeed, it has acknowledged that. But not everyone in that great empire has caught up. I have a high regard for ADAS and for its work in our part of Wales. But the latest ADAS Powys Digest, which we have received this month, has an article called:
"Sulphuric acid—the cheap silage additive".
It says that the number of brands sold has increased to 17 and that the cheapest is waste acid from industry, such as battery acid, which is extremely corrosive and dangerous to handle. That type of thing puts off consumers of agricultural products just as they are put off by what they read about growth hormones and the misuse of antibiotics. There has been a sharp reduction in the consumption of red meat. At big supermarkets, like Waitrose, organically-grown vegetables are now specially labelled in response to public demand.
Agriculture is not the only culprit. There are developments that gives cause for concern. For instance, there are over 30 threatened barrages on rivers such as the Severn, the Mersey, the Taff and the Humber, which may have a devastating effect on birds and possible migrant fish. Ski developments in the Highlands, although very desirable in some places, may, if not carefully watched, affect bird life there. The case for protecting the countryside and the environment is overwhelming. However, we can only put

689
things right if we tackle the problem more vigorously and with a greater sense of urgency, first and foremost here at home, but also in Europe, and wherever we can make our influence felt in the world.
We are on the eve of a general election. I should therefore like to end by quoting a leading article which appeared in the Financial Times on 29th August last year, which was entitled "Politics of conservation". It said:
"If 'green' issues play a large role in the next election the Labour and Alliance parties will have to convince voters that their substantial programmes are not just vote-catching rhetoric but could and would be implemented; the Conservatives will have to explain their very late interest in the subject …On one set of issues … all parties would need to be resolutely convincing: their determination to control agriculture, conifer forestry and land drainage".
That is the end of the quotation but I might add that at the end of the leading article the Financial Times pointed out that the Conservative Party had more individual members than the individual members of the other three major parties put together but that their numbers were still less than those belonging to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
6.43 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I was driving, I think last Friday, on the Surrey-Sussex borders. I was looking at the surrounding green trees and thinking that there was absolutely nothing wrong with England; it was so mind-blowingly beautiful. I had to draw myself up short and remind myself that there were, as my noble friend Lord Buxton said, issues such as The Flows of Sutherland, the ruined Dorset Downs, and the hedges and ditches which have been removed from the finest hunting country in England.
It seems to me that the greatest threat to our environment at the moment is the problem of surpluses. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, spoke about this issue just now. By using chemical and plant-breeding methods I believe that we can double yields of corn per acre from what we have at the moment. Saudi Arabians are exporting wheat. I did not know this fact until the other day when I met someone who is in the wheat business. They exported a large tonnage of wheat. It cost them about £800 a tonne to grow. They sell it at £36 a tonne but they like to do so because it is a way of spending some of their oil money. Anyone can grow wheat now, given the right financial support and the correct tools to do so. We are in danger of churning out infinitely large amounts of feed grain which nobody knows what to do with.
I shudder to think what will happen if Mr. Gorbachev manages to turn Russia back into what it was in the days of Tsar Nicholas II: a grain exporting nation. At the moment they are the only buyers of surplus wheat on the world market. Not only are these surpluses threatening everyone's environment but they are ruining third world agriculture. As I have said, anyone can grow wheat but there must be some price that one has to be paid for it. If the Community and the United States of America are dumping wheat on the market which has a subsidy of approximately £86 a tonne we shall ruin third world agriculture. Third world agriculture can easily pull itself up by its
690
bootstraps. It does not need aid. It has only to be shown what can be done in the Punjab. The green Punjab area of India is now flourishing. In the Punjab area of Pakistan they are still being incompetent and are not growing wheat properly. Anyone can grow wheat; it is a question of getting their act together. I suggest that the famines in East Africa are helped by God and made certain by man.
This brings me back to the damage that these surpluses can do to the countryside of Great Britain. Unless we plan for the rundown of food production in the United Kingdom and Europe—and I am afraid that this then goes on to link not only with Europe, but with the United States of America and Australia—it also means opening up the Japanese food market. Your Lordships may have seen an article in the Economist about two weeks ago on the question of Japanese land use. Their governing party is based on small farmers who are subsidised. One can buy rice in America f.o.b. at 136 dollars a tonne and it costs 2,000 dollars a tonne in Japan. This is how to ruin things. This is a global problem and has to be attacked globally.
However, we return to this question. What do we do with England's green and pleasant land?—because, by golly, it is still green and pleasant in England especially at this time of the year. I suggest that the way we do this—it is perhaps a hobby-horse of mine—is that we pay farmers to be gardeners and gamekeepers instead of producing food. What the farming or land-owning world has done is exactly what the public and Parliament have asked them to do. Because there were U-boats in the Channel and because we thought the world was going to starve we were told to go and produce food, and we did so. We did it superbly efficiently and superby well. What I would hope that the Government will say to us now is, "Thank you, farmers. You have done absolutely splendidly. We now want to change your remit. The countryside of England is marvellous. We want you to grow food, not by having grants to cut out hedges, but in a way that is attractive and we shall pay you to manage the landscape".
It seems to me that there are two uses for grants. One is to create wealth. I am not convinced about the value of grants to create wealth; but I am convinced about the value of grants with which to do nice things. Most of us like the idea of going out to earn money; that is a good thing. We then like to spend our money on something that is pleasant and civilised. I suggest that it is reasonable, with the growth economy that we have in this country, with the surplus in FEOGA funds, to say, "We have created the wealth and now let us use some of that wealth to look after this very precious asset—the European, English, Scottish and Welsh countryside."
There have been methods put forward to start this process. One may say to a farmer, "We want you to keep your dry-stone walls. We want you to plant small copses, hedges and cut and ley them. We want you to grow old meadow grasses." Let us take some of those Dorset Downs which have all been ploughed up—perfectly reasonably, because the U-boats were in the Channel and we needed the food and wheat. One might say, "Instead of paying you £86 a tonne subsidy on feed wheat to grow 2½ to 3 tonnes of wheat on

691
Dorset Downs" (because that is the net subsidy on feed grain) "we shall pay you to put 2½ sheep per acre on that land and to put it down to an old ley with lots of wild flowers and so on." The country would save money, the countryside would be prettier and we should hit at surpluses. That seems a very good combination.
There is one matter on conservation about which we have to worry. I am president of a canal preservation society in Surrey and Hampshire. After 19 years' hard work we have practically re-opened this 18th century canal. Lo and behold, the Nature Conservancy Council has said that if we put any boats on it we shall ruin all the water life. This is an interesting example of a clash between two totally legitimate conservation interests.
That is outside the remit of my speech and I have gone slightly over time. I shall finish with the delicious thought of the cure for unemployment of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, which is reproduction troughs for virgins' blood.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on arranging for the subject to be debated this evening. I should like to contribute a word or two about the marine environment. To mark the European Year of the Environment, an international organisation, the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, known generally by the acronym ACOPS, is organising an international conference later this year. The organisation started in Britain. Its headquarters is still here though it is now widespread and has members in many countries. I should explain that I am speaking on this matter because I have suddenly become the acting chairman again for unexpected and sad reasons. I was acting chairman for a year and a half before the late John Silkin became chairman. His untimely death has deprived us not only of a friend and able parliamentarian but also of his leadership in ACOPS. I was asked to become acting chairman again as the time for the conference was approaching.
There are some achievements to record in the progress of reducing marine pollution. It has been steady but not as rapid as some of us would have wished. Regarding oil, the international conventions, combined with practice and policing which have improved, have had this effect. Deliberate operational creation of oil slicks through cleaning oily ballast out of tanks at sea is now much less common. For accidental and casual spills, vigilance and discipline are essential and must be sustained. Of course navigational disasters like the "Amoco Cadiz" could still occur but in Britain we are much better prepared and our neighbours are also.
Other causes of marine pollution such as toxic chemicals must have our attention. In this area, part of what is known as the MARPOL Convention has recently come into force. It is not enough, however, to conclude international agreements; it is necessary to have the facilities at ports to put the intentions in the agreements into effect, such as facilities for disposing of chemical waste. Two other sources of pollution
692
must be controlled, effluents from rivers and refuse from shipping thrown overboard which makes unpleasant litter on the coastline and spoils beaches.
Turning from the marine to other parts of our environment, there are some measures on which there is general agreement but they cost money. There is the conversion to unleaded petrol by stages and reducing pollution emissions from coal-fired power stations. I am glad to see that there has recently been an announcement from the Central Electricity Generating Board which operates in England and Wales that it is to spend £170 million over the next 10 years. No one wants to make electricity more expensive but the control of pollution is a common end. Then there is control of the effects of the use of nitrates and other substances in agriculture. Here the aim must be to avoid penalising particular farmers or adding to the price of food.
The Motion calls attention to the case for all-party support. It comes at a time when, unfortunately, for the next four weeks the areas where the political parties disagree are likely to be more emphasised than the ones on which they agree. Some months ago the SDP announced that it was proposing that there should be a new Ministry for environmental protection. The noble Baroness mentioned it again today. I have a question here as well as a word of caution. Will its scope include Scotland? It appeared from everything the noble Baroness said—and I did not want to interrupt her in a limited debate—that she was speaking about England and Wales.
The word of caution I have is that a similar Ministry was announced before the 1964 general election and was set up by the Labour Party when it became the Labour Government. That was the Ministry for Land and natural Resources. Many people will now have forgotten about it. The Ministry lasted for only two years and was then wound up. During 1964–65 when I was in another place I was questioning the Prime Minister of the day and other Ministers with a number of points. I asked in particular whether it covered Scotland. At first the answers were not at all clear. Then the answer eventually came through, no. That meant that more than one-third of all the land resources in Britain were not included, although the intention had been that this Ministry should exercise overall supervision in Britain.
I am not suggesting that Scotland should be included in the scope of such a Ministry. I am simply pointing out the difficulties. The Scottish Office and its Ministers have these responsibilities, the equivalent of those exercised for England and Wales by the Department of the Environment. It would be reversing about 60 years of administrative devolution to take them away from the Secretary of State for Scotland, and this is unlikely to appeal to any incoming government. I took the proposal in 1964 and its carrying into effect seriously but I recognised when it disappeared after two years that the role and functions of the new Ministry had not been properly thought out beforehand.
There are international problems which we should be considering in this year—acid rain; the damage to the ozone layer of the atmosphere, the layer which protects us from dangerous radiation; possible damage

693
to life from what is known as the greenhouse effect. Noble Lords will remember that I have put these points at Question Time in recent months. None of these problems seems to have obvious solutions yet and we shall have to co-operate with other countries in trying to find them.
There are also international problems which fall within the sovereign territories of particular countries where we cannot interfere. I refer, first, to the spreading of deserts, with the Sahara the particular one in mind, and, secondly, to the clearing on a massive scale of forests in Latin America. Here I applaud the recent statement by the World Bank that in future it will include some conditions in loans to countries concerned, with the object of protecting the environment.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, there seems to be a certain irony in the fact that we are devoting these last hours of a dying Parliament to debating what is perhaps the most important issue of all facing this nation and the world today. We should all be deeply indebted to my noble friend Lady Stedman for enabling us so to do.
When winding up a debate of this kind in a short time, about which I make no complaint—I am as anxious to get away as everybody else—it is impossible to comment on earlier speeches, which is very sad indeed. The speeches have been of the highest possible quality. Every one has been important and they have all been made by experts in a particular field. Each has shown great credit to the noble Lord or Baroness who made it, and all the speeches collectively have done great credit to your Lordships' House.
It is also perhaps unwise at this stage to try to introduce any new themes. I shall therefore content myself merely with trying to underline and emphasise what I believe to be the basic assumptions from the recognition of which policies on these matters should be derived.
We face three parallel, related and menacing trends. They are, first, an increasing rate of depletion of the basic, irreplaceable raw materials on which we depend for our lives and for our continued existence on the planet; secondly, an increasing rate of contamination, pollution and destruction of the environment in which we live; and, thirdly, an ever-increasing world population which itself adds to the rate of consumption of scarce resources and the rate of destruction of a fragile environment. I shall say a brief word about each of those trends.
On depletion of resources, I point merely to energy and say that our energy resources are at least finite, which means that sooner or later they will run out. It behoves us all to husband and cherish the resources we now have with great care so as to give ourselves enough time to pioneer and develop safe and adequate alternatives.
On pollution of the environment I shall look only, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at our atmosphere and what we are doing to it. There is the phenomenon of acid rain; the problem of lead in the atmosphere from exhaust fumes; the problem of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting
694
in the greenhouse effect, to which the noble Lord referred; the problems of fluorocarbons from aerosols and their effect on the ozone layer which, along with the greenhouse effect, is perhaps resulting in a measurable, gradual and steady increase in the mean average world temperature. I am not predicting that the seas will boil or the rocks will melt; nor am I saying that the Polar icecaps will melt tomorrow; but I do not advise my friends to pay a lot of money for properties at sea level.
On population, I can do no better than merely quote from an excellent address given in a committee room here in the Palace of Westminster by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to a joint meeting of the all-party group on population and development, at which I was present as president of the Birth Control Campaign (a job that I took over from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner), and also to the all-party conservation committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is the chairman.
His Royal Highness said:
"I believe that human population pressure—the sheer number of people on this planet—is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilisation of the world's climatic and atmospheric systems".
I believe that, not for the first time, His Royal Highness was absolutely right. He went on to give some startling figures. I shall not repeat them. I shall just give two more of my own. On my calculations, at the moment the world population is growing by 8,000 an hour, which means that by the end of this debate we shall have added considerably to the burdens that the world has to carry.
On recent figures it appears that 50 per cent. of the world's present total population consists of people who are under the age of 15, which is an indication of the potential for explosive growth in population. To those noble Lords who say that this is a matter for the undeveloped world and not for us, I would merely say that the United States of America, with 6 per cent. of the world's population, now consumes more than 50 per cent. of the world's irreplaceable raw materials.
In Britain we have special problems. We certainly have a population which is too big for England, and also perhaps too big for Scotland and Wales. We also have a population with an increasing amount of leisure time, with an increasing number of people choosing to spend that leisure in what they call countryside activities.
One of the principle challenges facing us at the moment is the provision of opportunities for the constructive and fulfilling use of leisure in ways which are not consumptive of scarce resources and which are not destructive of a fragile environment. We are not doing that. Noble Lords who doubt me should merely pay a visit to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads during a hot day in the middle of the season to see part of our national and natural heritage being slowly destroyed by the people who love it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the pressure on the National Parks. When I was chairman of the Countryside Commission we had a visit from the director of the Yellowstone National Park. He told us about his problems and the number of people for

695
whom his staff had to provide in a year. I was able to tell him that the figure he quoted was almost precisely the figure of the number of people who move into the Peak District National Park on a hot Sunday in August, and he thought that he had problems!
I have not spelt out remedies and I do not expect the noble Baroness to spell out the remedies. I am not recommending draconian steps like dissolving the pill in water supplies. I am merely concerned that we recognise the problem. So far as population is concerned, if we could ensure that no children are born who were not wanted at the time of conception, we would solve the population problem.
I am not expecting the noble Baroness to give all the answers, but I hope that she will tell us that she recognises the problem. I was much impressed years ago by some words of Senator Fulbright. I wrote them down and I shall quote them. He said:
"When our perceptions fail to keep pace with events; when we refuse to believe something because it displeases or frightens us, or is simply startlingly unfamiliar, then the gap between fact and perception becomes a chasm. Action becomes irrelevant and irrational".
We are in danger of being in that position.
If the noble Baroness can tell us that she recognises all these problems, we shall have partly solved the problem. I hope that in years to come our successors in this Chamber will not be saying, "What on earth were they doing? Didn't they know? Couldn't they see what was happening? Did nobody tell them?" My Lords, we are being told. We should listen, heed, and take action.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, seven minutes is not enough time to deal with what has been an excellent debate, but I happily devote 15 seconds or so to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in order to thank her for the opportunity to have the debate. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I single out just one or two things for which I have a particular feeling, particularly Lord Buxton's passionate plea for The Flow country, which I think we should all heed. I should like to add too to Lord Moran's statistics on the RSPB, which were quite telling. I understand that this year they are attracting new members at the rate of 1,000 every week. That should make the political parties think, if nothing else does.
I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in his plea that the water industry be left alone. I know that we had a hectic time over it last year, and it was mainly because of the environmental aspects of it that people got so upset and uptight. The solution to these problems will not be found in the direction that the Government have proposed to go.
With what is left of the time I can deal only with perhaps the least interesting but also the most essential part of the debate, which is how we organise the undoubted concern that everyone has for the environment and its protection. How can we translate that concern into action? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that the present system will no longer do. We have to face the fact that without exception all government policies have environmental implications. Almost all departmental activities have environ
696
mental effects. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I am sure she would also include the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, the Department of Energy and the Department of Transport. There is no way that anything they do does not affect the environment.
We must try to achieve better co-ordination of the whole range of environmental protection measures. Environmental considerations must be built into the system. We believe, with the noble Baroness, that there must be a ministry of environmental protection and we have created this post in the Shadow Cabinet. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the short life of the last one, but that was a more limited brief. Public perception and individual perceptions have changed since then. I have hope that this will be a longer lasting ministry.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will it apply to Scotland?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is a limited debate. If I can finish within seven minutes perhaps we can return to that point. In addition, there must be a requirement that environmental considerations should be part of every activity. Every significant action of government or local government—because we must not forget the impact that local government has on the environment—must be automatically examined for possible environmental consequences to the best of the knowledge which prevails at the time. All major development applications, whether publicly or privately funded, should be required to be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment. I believe that this requirement should be introduced now. It is being introduced in 1988 as a result of European Community requirement. But I hope that whichever government are in power after the election will realise that this matter is most important and will introduce it now. Some big developments where this has not been done are going ahead.
The Minister who is to reply—I do not envy her, except that I should like her 15 minutes—will no doubt produce a list of the Government's achievements. At this point I should like to add to the commendations that have been given to the Minister, Mr. Waldegrave. He has done a splendid job and I believe that his heart is in the right place. I do not believe that he has his own way as often as he should but I support his attempts.
No doubt the noble Baroness will produce a list of the Government's achievements; for example, the first marine nature reserve, the environmentally sensitive areas and the other designations which have been mentioned. While we welcome what has been achieved and do not wish to take away from it in any way, I emphasise yet again that if the facts are taken in isolation from a more general, positive approach to environmental detection their value is greatly reduced.
Past and present policies of this Government—I hope not future—show a disregard for the generality of protection. We are faced with a programme which would in the long run leave us with a few isolated museums of the countryside in a landscape of commercial development. It could even be argued,

697
given the lack of sympathy in other policies, that creation of these special areas diverts public pressure and in the end defeats what should be our main objective.
Finally, we must remember, as has been said by other noble Lords this evening, that we are part of a very small planet which is at risk. Though this evening we may have been talking primarily about our own environmental protection, we must remember that everything we do affects our neighbours. We do not have the best reputation in European terms, but as the years go on I hope that we shall do something to improve that situation. I leave your Lordships with a less exalted quotation than others which have been given this evening. It comes from my grandmother who, after all, was a Victorian. She quoted often to us as children a Victorian tract which showed a picture of chubby faced Victorian children sweeping the village street. Underneath it read:
"If each before his own door swept the village would be clean".
This applies in environmental protection more than in anything else.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I begin by saying that as always on these occasions this has been a wide-ranging and most fascinating debate. I should like to emphasise that protection of our environment is a continuing government commitment. We are keen that the nations of Europe should put into practice the policies which we collectively develop. I believe that we need not be ashamed of our record. Alone among member states—apart from those most recently joined—the United Kingdom has never been taken to the European Court of Justice for failing to implement a European Community directive on the environment.
Your Lordships will be aware, I am sure, that the European Year of the Environment has two principal aims. The first is to raise awareness of the importance of environmental protection so that better progress can be made in conserving and improving the environment. The fact that this debate is taking place today is an example of such a raising of awareness. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedmen, for both introducing the debate and emphasising this point, admittedly in relation to government departments. I can assure her and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that in addition to the commitment of the Department of Environment to the European Year of the Environment, other departments are also making contributions.
For example, the Overseas Development Administration has produced a booklet entitled The Environment and the British Aid Programme. The Department of Transport is preparing a booklet entitled Transport and the Environment. The Ministry of Defence is involved with the army training areas clean-up week in July and the Department of Education and Science is organising a project on the use of school grounds for environmental teaching. The Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh Offices are supporting financially the organisation of the European Year of the Environment. We are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly, and I hope that that reassures all noble Lords who have had qualms on the subject.
698
The other main aim of the EYE is to carry out projects in support of an awareness campaign which will have lasting effects. The personal support given to the year by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is a great encouragement to all involved. The year enjoys the support of all political parties, a fact that has been welcomed in the course of this debate. I understand that the committee has already heard of nearly 1,000 events and projects which are taking place under the EYE banner. They involve schools, youth organisations, local authorities, industry, business and voluntary groups of all kinds, and of course government departments. That is exactly the kind of all-sector involvement called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
The Department of the Environment, for instance, is sponsoring a number of events, including the new better environment awards for industry and a handbook on community environmental policy. We were also a major sponsor of the recent and very successful International Pollution Abatement Fair and Conference at Birmingham. Other departments are also making contributions, some of which I have already enumerated.
I should like to draw attention to the Government's commitment to the protection of the countryside and the environment which has perhaps been the main topic of the debate. In so doing I hope that I shall be responding to a number of points which have been raised. We remain firmly committed to protecting green belt land from inappropriate development. It is worth remembering that since 1979 the area of approved green belt in England has more than doubled. I have noted the request made by my noble friend Lord Nugent in this respect. In another place we have introduced the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill, which has been referred to. This aims to create for the first time a properly integrated authority with powers and functions for the management by both the waterways and the land space. The Bill will be coming to your Lordships' House in due course. In view of his remarks, I feel sure that it will be particularly welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
The Government fully recognise the need to protect the countryside for its own sake. We firmly believe that a strong and efficient rural economy is the best protection. The farming and rural enterprise package which we launched in March has been genuinely welcomed for achieving a reasonable balance among farming, economic and social needs, conservation and enjoyment by the public.
I noted the suggestion for further action made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to the common land forum. We have recently reached the end of the consultation period on the recommendations of the forum. I know that the Moorland Association in particular has expressed concern about the effect of the access proposals on heather moorland and the lack of restriction for game purposes in the proposed model scheme for management. I can assure my noble friend that the Government are well aware of those concerns. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has already discussed their worries with the delegation. My honourable friend William Waldegrave agreed at a meeting at

699
Bolton Abbey last week that there should be further detailed meetings at official levels.
Turning to the question of adequate funding, a concern expressed by a number of your Lordships, the Government's commitment to the countryside is clear from the increased resources which they have made available to the agencies charged with its protection. Grant in aid to the Countryside Commission, for example, has risen from £11.2 million in 1982–83 to £19.5 million for the current financial year. The supplementary grant to national parks in England has increased from £5 million to £7.3 million in the same period and perhaps I might particularly draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to that fact. These are both very substantial increases in real terms.
The Department of the Environment also has a £1·3 million programme of research on countryside affairs and the Nature Conservancy Council funding has increased from £8 million in 1979–80 to £36.5 million in the current year. Therefore I trust your Lordships will not feel quite as anxious on this particular aspect as appeared in the course of the debate.
As has been said, without wildlife in its many forms our countryside, and our cities and towns too, would be poorer and meaner places. The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 now protects many hundreds of our animals, birds and plants. It also gave the Nature Conservancy Council new powers to protect habitat through the creation of national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest which have already been referred to. The Act is based on the principle of voluntary co-operation and partnership in the countryside between the statutory agencies, farmers and the voluntary conservation movement. We designated Britain's first statutory marine nature reserve at Lundy last November. I have to say that to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol! Several more such reserves are expected to be designated over the next few years. I recognise the points made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in this respect. I can also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Government are well aware of calls from some quarters for a change in the status of the national park committees. This would require legislation and could not be considered without recourse to a detailed review of the administration in national parks. The Government decided against such a review in 1981 and do not feel that decision should be reversed as yet.
The noble Lord also considered that national parks should be the statutory authority for development plans. We see no reason for a change in this system, but in any case it would not be considered without an administrative review to which I referred earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and others, spoke about the problems of blanket conifer afforestation. The Government share this concern, which stems from policies of earlier years. Certainly we are in total agreement when it comes to the development and adoption of sylvicultural practices which minimise the adverse impacts of forestry on the environment. We already have well-established guidelines and mechanisms in place to ensure that forestry developments take place in harmony with nature conservation. I can assure the House that efforts are
700
now being made to ensure that all new forestry schemes are designed not only to fit in with the landscape but to ensure that planting schemes do not harm the surrounding environment and that a balance is reached with other land-use interests. However, I have taken careful note of my noble friend's remarks and those of all the other speakers who have referred to this. I shall particularly bring them to the attention of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
Turning now to other aspects of environmental protection, we are aware of the particular problems posed by chloro-fluorocarbons and this is one of the matters which will be discussed in Brussels at the Council of Ministers' meeting scheduled for the 21st May. I can assure the House that the United Kingdom is by no means holding back the development of a European Community policy; nor are we isolated within the Community on this complex issue, as seemed to be suggested perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, also referred to this point. We are also contributing to international efforts such as the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Climate Programme in considering the implications of CFCs and the ozone layer for national policies.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am afraid there is very little time and I cannot give way: there may be time at the end of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, asked what will replace structure plans. Our proposals for replacement of the cumbersome process of structure planning were established last year. I cannot describe them in detail now because of time constraints, but I can assure the noble Lord that district councils will not be left without guidance from the county councils on the key issue of planning.
The formation of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution on 1st April presented a concentration of resources which will be deployed as the organisation develops in a co-ordinated approach to pollution control. I hope this will reassure those noble Lords who have expressed concern about monitoring and implementation. In particular, I am addressing the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Nugent. I can assure him that the Government's firm objective is to maintain and improve water policy and the HMIP will discuss the performance of individual sewage treatment works with the authorities concerned. The Government take compliance very seriously and expect all works to meet their consent conditions.
At the International Pollution Abatement Fair in Birmingham, my honourable friend William Waldegrave—and I am most grateful to all those who have paid tribute to his undoubted commitment in this area—launched the environmental protection technology scheme. This will aim to encourage innovation in the field of pollution abatement and cleaner technologies generally. We are committed to ensuring the widespread availability of unleaded petrol well before the European Communities' deadline in 1989 and we intend that newly registered cars should be capable of running on unleaded petrol by October 1990.

701
Some further matters are worth mentioning, particularly since we, as a country, are taking a lead in this area. I feel that this should be recognised. Next month our agreement with the Paintmakers' Association will reach full fruition when lead will cease to be added to all decorative paints made by its members. We have also taken strong action to control the use of anti-fouling paints for boats based on tributyl tin. That has been shown to damage shellfish and other sensitive marine organisms—a concern which has been expressed in the course of this debate. We are taking the initiative on this particular matter within the European Community to ensure that we carry our partners with us in both these actions on paint.
My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt referred to the problems of acidity, and others also referred to this point. The Government fully share the widespread concern about acid rain and accept the need for action to tackle the problem. Emissions of air pollutants from the United Kingdom have already fallen substantially since 1970 and the Government are aiming to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction on the 1980 levels by the end of the 1990s. Emissions will fall even more dramatically after the turn of the century as new "low-acid" technology comes into play. Last September the Government authorised the CEGB to instal flue gas desulphurisation equipment at three major power stations and announced that all new coal-fired stations would require to be fitted with appropriate technology to remove sulphur emissions.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy welcomed the fact that last week the Government took a further significant step in authorising the CEGB to begin a major 10-year programme to instal low nitrogen oxide burners at the board's 12 largest power stations. Low NOx burner technology will also be a requirement for all future fossil-fuel fired power stations. These measures mean that we are now in the forefront of European countries taking positive action to reduce emissions. The Government have a substantial research programme and will be guided by the research work in considering further policy options.
Every one of these topics deserves treatment at much greater length than has been possible today. I have not even got on to the points on villages which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, nor the specific schemes referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the Government recognise the problems and will take note of the many points that have been made in the course of this important debate. We believe that care for the environment transcends regional and political divisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, indicated in the wording of her Motion.
I am sure that your Lordships will join me in applauding and supporting the aims and activities of the European Year of the Environment, which I have no doubt will make a major impact, raising further the public's awareness and their concern for our common environment and our common heritage of the future.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she please answer the specific question that I asked? What will be the Government's
702
attitude in Brussels on 21st May to the cut in production of CFCs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not at liberty to reveal what the Government will do at that point but I believe I answered the noble Lord when I said that we were in no way holding up the development of European Community policy in this respect.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, it only remains for me to bring this debate to a close. I think that we are very fortunate that it has survived the turmoil of the past couple of days and we have been able to discuss this topic. The justification for the debate is the number of people who have taken part. It is not for me to wind up on the occasion of a short debate. I should just like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the Alliance would not dare take anything away from the Scottish Office. I shall let him have a note about how we see it working there, but I shall not bore the House with those details now.
I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate, and to the noble Baroness for the replies that she has given and the care that she has taken in dealing with them. I beg leave to to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Motor Cycle Noise Bill
7.31 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I must congratulate the honourable gentleman the Member for Christchurch on presenting the Motor Cycle Noise Bill and piloting it successfully through the other place. He asked for my asssistance, which was readily given, in seeking support for the Bill in your Lordships' House. The Minister of Transport, Mr. Peter Bottomley, supported the Bill on behalf of the Government. He made some amusing comments about our sharing the same surname. It is my privilege to count as friends his mother and father. I worked with Sir James Bottomley, who was an outstanding and distinguished diplomat in the old Dominions Office and in the Commonwealth Relations Office. I am glad to be associated with his son in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to control the quality of replacement exhaust systems and silencers in motor cycles when they are offered for sale. The House will be aware that legislation already exists to control motor cycle noise but that it is difficult to catch the users of noisy machines. There is now a British standard for motor cycle exhausts and the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to require replacements to be marked with a standard number or with the words "Not for road use". All silencers offered for sale will have to bear some marking. The Bill is not dealing with the initial equipment that is supplied on new motor cycles but with replacement exhausts that are deliberately designed to create as much noise as possible.
The motor cycle fraternity as a whole is composed of very responsible members of our society. Motor

703
cycling gives them a sense of adventure and mobility which is to be encouraged. This Bill is aimed at the minority who cause social nuisance and annoyance to others. Deliberately exacerbated noise from motor cycles causes much disturbance to those who go out for a gentle stroll during the summer and it annoys those who are resting in their homes. The Bill attempts to deal with noise that is deliberately made. It is aimed at those motor cyclists who set out to make as much noise as possible. Its provisions will in no way interfere with the normal everyday activities of motor cyclists.
The Motor Cycle Association is in favour of the Bill and the British Motorcyclists' Federation also supports it. It will benefit not only those who are fit and have good hearing but also those who are less fit, hard of hearing or blind. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association also hopes that the law will be strengthened as a result of the passage of this Motor Cycle Noise Bill. There has also been support from local authorities.
The enforcement of the provisions of the Bill will be by trading standard officers employed by local authorities. At present enforcement of the law dealing with noisy exhaust systems is the responsibility of the police, who have the almost impossible task of chasing offenders round the towns and countryside. Relieved of those duties, the police will have greater opportunities to concentrate on other forms of crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bottomley.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill wholeheartedly. I have been riding motor cycles for 47 years and I normally come to your Lordships' House on two wheels. Motor cycling is the last freedom of the road; traffic and parking problems disappear like magic, journeys take a fraction of the time that they do by any other form of transport; and I believe that motor cyclists should be appreciated by other road users for taking up so little space on our crowded roads.
However, I am afraid that the motor cyclist is unpopular. In part, this is due to the irresponsible antics of some dispatch riders in London who weave in and out of traffic with their radios blaring, frightening everybody—possibly including themselves. I should like to mention that the number of motor cycle accidents has decreased steadily over the past 10 years. In the past year alone motor cyclists are the one category of road user in which the number of accidents have actually gone down.
Noise is the main complaint about motor cycles. The exhaust systems that are fitted by the manufacturers are commendably quiet. Strangely enough, the larger the motor cycle normally the quieter it is. My own four-cylinder BMW is as quiet-running as any car. Motor cycles are nowadays very expensive machines. Prices range from about £300 for a modest moped up to £5,000 or more for larger motor bikes.
Unfortunately, spare parts are also expensive, particularly exhaust systems. A young rider will often
704
use all his available money to buy a machine, often without regard to any additional expense for accident repairs or spare parts. Therefore when the exhaust needs replacing he is hard pressed to find the money to buy the manufacturer's system, so he buys what appears to be a similar one from a motor cycle shop at a very much lower price. Only when it is fitted does the rider discover that it makes more noise. He may not have intended it to make more noise, and he certainly could not afford to change it afterwards. I must admit that there are riders who tamper with the exhaust of their motor cycles in order to make more noise, in the usually mistaken belief that the performance will be better. Unfortunately, these machines are often low-powered and of small capacity so it takes a long time for the noise to pass one by.
Some of your Lordships may have attended the demonstration put on by the Institute of Motorcycling in 1985, at which the difference between the exhausts supplied by the manufacturers and the unofficial ones was all too plain. It is often suggested that the police should stop motor cyclists and measure the degree of noise, but to do this requires very expensive equipment in large quantities, which would be totally impracticable. It is far better to prohibit the sale of exhaust systems which do not meet the required standards. For this reason, I support the Bill.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, I cannot claim the motor cycling experience that he has. In fact, in the long distant days when I was young and active my preference was to belong to a pedal cycling club. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, has put forward sound reasons for supporting my noble friend in bringing this Bill forward. I congratulate and thank my noble friend and also Mr. Robert Adley in the other place who sponsored the Bill originally. My noble friend Lady Nicol reminded me that there is one aspect of pollution which was not mentioned in the last two-and-a-half hour debate and that was noise pollution, which is what this Bill seeks to eradicate in one respect.
Many of the motorcyclists coming down my road have tampered with their exhaust systems and, although we can control the exhaust noise of new machines, there is a gap as regards replacement exhausts. But this Bill will get to grips with that replacement problem.
I am glad that both my noble friend Lord Bottomley and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, emphasised that this is not a Bill hitting at motor cyclists. I have never been a motor cyclist and, as I said, was a pedal cyclist, but I recognise that a vast number of people enjoy their motor cycling. We see them in the Highlands and elsewhere thoroughly enjoying their pursuits.
I wonder whether I may mention two points. Noble Lords receive, as I do, a copy of the journal Motor Cycling. There is an article in the current issue stating that unless motorcyclists wish to have more harsh laws, they should put their own house in order by refusing to buy illegal systems, by not tampering with exhausts to make them noisier and by replacing them promptly when they cease to function properly. That is the attitude of responsible motorcyclists.

705
I should like to give an example of why, although some of them weave in and out and have a high accident rate, we should not regard all motorcyclists as if they are in the same category. My daughter is chairman of the Social Services Committee of Nottinghamshire County Council. At Christmas a local motor cycling club arranged a special event and no less than 200 motor cyclists decorated their machines and rode through Nottingham City carrying a toy to be presented to children in the care of the Social Services Committee. The same thing happened at Easter, when there was a vast number of motor cyclists carrying Easter eggs to homes where children were in care. I mention that because we must not classify all motor cyclists together. There is a vast number of good motor cyclists who will welcome this measure against pollution, which will assist decent motor cyclists who wish to ride properly.
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I should very warmly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for having brought this Bill before your Lordships this evening. I should also like to pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch for having introduced the Bill in another place. After what we have heard this evening, there is very little left for me to say about this Bill, because it has been so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, and so warmly supported by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
We all know that noisy motor cycles are a cause of distress to a great many people. Many of these machines are equipped with inadequate exhausts, and this Bill aims to ensure that replacement silencers for motorcycles meet the required standards. Mention has been made of deliberately tampering with motorcycle exhausts to make them noisier. I can only say that that is an offence under existing legislation. The police do their best to prosecute where possible; but, as has been mentioned this evening, it is not easy. I can only endorse what has been said by other noble Lords, that responsible motorcycling organisations condemn this practice. We as a government equally condemn it, as it is indeed an offence.
The Government most warmly support this Bill and hope that it will become law very shortly. We shall not have to go through the normal procedures. I do not think that would have been necessary anyway, because I do not think there is any conceivable amendment that could have been necessary. Once again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for having brought this Bill forward.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind reference to myself and I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have given their support. I think that the conclusion is unanimous.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Protection of Animals (Penalties) Bill
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was piloted through the other place by Mr. Harry Greenway, the honourable Member for Ealing North, who had two previous attempts with a similar measure. The first attempt in 1985, prompted by his enthusiasm to crush the villains who promote dogfights, involved a Bill with penalties of £10,000 and 10 years in gaol. That was no good; the Government realised that the penalties were far too heavy. Cases would also have had to be tried in Crown Courts rather than in magistrates' courts. The position would have been hopeless because the Crown Courts would have been so clogged up. Under the existing Bill such cases can be tried in magistrates' courts.
This is an excellent Bill. If it is passed, the present fine of £1,000 will be increased. That is equivalent to Level 4 on the standard scale, or three months' imprisonment, or both. The present Bill will double that. The fine proposed is £2,000; that is Level 5 or six months' imprisonment, or both.
The Bill was originally entitled the Dog Fighting Penalties Bill. The reason for that title was that Mr. Greenway was concentrating on this atrocious custom—one cannot call it a sport or a pastime—which appears to be on the increase. However, it was thought to be far more useful if a Protection of Animals Bill was introduced which imposed penalties with regard to the ill-treatment of any animal. Under the terms of the Bill cruelty to any captive or domestic animal, which is considered to be extremely serious, can lead to the perpetrator of that cruelty being fined up to the maximum.
I shall now go back about 150 years to show how dog fighting came to pass. The baiting of animals 150 years ago was carried out chiefly with bulls and hears. It was made illegal principally because the bull often got loose and tossed the spectators. It would also toss dogs severely harming and often killing them. However, when such baiting was made illegal, dog fighting came into practice.
I consider dog fighting a greater evil than cockfighting, although both have been illegal for a long time. After all, the dog has been man's companion for thousands of years. The Egyptian pharaohs worshipped the pharaoh hound as a god up to 5000 BC. Apart from being a lovable animal, one could not farm sheep without dogs, especially in wild country. Guide dogs help the blind. And the police use dogs. Therefore, the dog occupies a superior position to the game cock. A game cock is bred purely for fighting, despite the fact that this has been illegal for a long time.
The dog is an extremely useful animal, a great companion, and brings enjoyment to many people. In the last five or six years, however, dog fighting has come back into vogue. It appeared to die out at about the time of the First World War, but we are told that it is now on the increase. There was a bad incident in 1985, although that was the first prosecution for dog fighting ever brought in this country.

707
Some of your Lordships will probably have seen pictures in the press of a bitch which was mangled and had her jaw torn off. She was left in a most appalling condition and had to be put down. It is extraordinary that there are men who can do that. They must be very sadistic; they must enjoy watching animals tearing themselves to pieces.
I should like to see the penalties for promoting dog fights stiffened. But the number of trials that would arise would clog the county court.
The Bill is very short; it has only two clauses. The first clause is the important one. It sets out the appropriate fines and imprisonment for such offences. The other clause is of no great importance. It repeals two enactments but those enactments do not affect the Bill to any great extent. Clause 2 also states that the Bill will become law within two months from the date that it is passed and that it shall not extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, I hope that one day, it will.
The Bill has passed through all its stages in the Commons and the Government wish it to pass through all its stages today. Therefore, there is not much more that I can say about it. Dog-fighting has been called a sport, but it is only performed before thugs. It is an extraordinary thing that people—chiefly men—can enjoy seeing animals tearing themselves to pieces or human beings such as heavyweight boxers giving one another brain damage or some such injury. It is a degenerate pastime and it appears to be on the increase. It is mystifying that people can enjoy such a form of entertainment.
Finally, pehaps I may say that if the promotion of dog fighting is not crushed there will have to be another Bill and the penalties will have to be increased. It is possible that the penalty of six months' imprisonment will have more effect in stopping dog fighting than the fine of £2,000. Having said that, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful for the clear presentation that the noble Viscount has made in moving this short but very important Bill. I also very much enjoyed the highly informed details which he gave concerning the historical background of the question of animal baiting and dog fighting.
We on these Benches certainly share the horror and repugnance that the noble Viscount has expressed at any form of cruelty to animals. I think that the necessity for this Bill has been made clear by the examples which the noble Viscount has given and which were given in the debate in another place as regards the increase in cases of dog fights which have been brought before courts in the past year or so. Therefore it seems right that the law should be amended in the way suggested in an attempt to deter people from that barbaric and cruel habit.
Perhaps I may widen the discussion briefly and touch on one or two other matters which may be kept in mind when considering how best to protect animals
708
from cruelty. The first and most important matter is education. Surely it is important to educate society and especially young people to have respect for animals and to treat them properly. That must be seen as an ongoing process which is of the most fundamental importance.
Secondly, there is the question of dog wardens. In Northern Ireland, dog wardens are already appointed by local authorities. I feel that if that practice were to be brought in throughout the United Kingdom there is little doubt that the role of the wardens in looking after and protecting stray dogs would make an important difference.
Lastly, perhaps we should also examine the powers of the police and the RSPCA inspectors in order that one day future legislation may enable them to enter premises with a warrant when they believe that an animal is suffering unduly. While recognising that such powers would have to be exercised very carefully, I nevertheless feel that that would avoid some of the appalling suffering which can at present be experienced by animals when the RSPCA cannot gain entry to relieve suffering.
With those few additional points concerning future thinking on how we may further the protection of animals, perhaps I may say that we support the Bill on this side of the House. We believe that it is a step forward towards ensuring that animals are not treated cruelly. As I say, I hope that extra safeguards will be kept in mind for any future legislation.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining his Bill to us this evening. I shall be brief. The Bill provides for a considerable strengthening of the legislation protecting the welfare of animals. The Government wish to ensure that effective penalties are available for all instances of cruelty to captive and domestic animals and we are therefore pleased to support this important Bill. I know that the Bill has support on all sides of your Lordships' House and I warmly commend it to your Lordships.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for what she has said. As regards dog wardens, it has been suggested that we should follow the example of Northern Ireland. However, I am not sure whether they would have any effect on dog fighting. Perhaps that does not go on in Northern Ireland. Having said that, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Prescription (Scotland) Bill
8.7 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

709
This Bill is a small but important measure introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden. Before I deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill now before the House, I must take the important step of declaring an interest since I hold a position as a director of Clydesdale Bank plc. As I hope to make clear, however, the provisions of the Bill which I move are not designed to benefit solely institutions such as a bank but rather are designed to protect the interests of all creditors. I can confidently assure the House, therefore, that in promoting this Bill I do not in any way seek to forward my own or my bank's pecuniary interests. With that assurance, I now go on to deal with the Bill itself.
The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the law of prescription in Scotland to correct an anomaly resulting from the combined effects of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act 1986. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I remind the House that the law of prescription in Scotland is the law relating to the periods of time after which rights and obligations are extinguished and cannot be enforced.
The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act and the Insolvency Act had the effect of repealing the enactment which provided that the presentation of, or the concurring in, a petition for the winding up of a company or the submission of a claim by a creditor in the liquidation of a company interrupted the running of prescription (or the time limits) on the debt claimed. This interruption was achieved by Section 9(1)(b) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. However, the combined effects of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act and the Insolvency Act have resulted in creditors requiring to raise a court action to preserve their entitlement to their debt.
These effects have been twofold. From 1st April 1986 until 29th December 1986 only the submission of a claim in a winding up (and not the petition for winding up) had the effect of interrupting prescription. The anomaly arises in the case of a claim by a creditor in liquidation only in liquidations commenced after 29th December 1986 when the Insolvency Act came into force.
What should have happened is that when the relevant section of the Companies Act 1985 was repealed on 29th December 1986 by Part II of Schedule 10 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act and by Schedule 12 to the Insolvency Act, Section 9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act should have been amended in the way now proposed in this Bill.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill amends Section 9(1) of the 1973 Act by adding to the definition of what is a "relevant claim" for the purposes of interrupting the running of prescription after which the debt claimed is extinguished and cannot be pursued. It provides that a relevant claim should include the presentation of, or the concurring in, a petition for the winding up of a company or the submission of a claim in a liquidation in accordance with the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 made under Section 411 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Clause 1(2) repeals in Section 9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act the references to the now repealed Section 613 of the Companies Act 1985, which I mentioned earlier.
710
Clause 1(3) makes the amendment to Section 9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act retrospective, or I should perhaps more correctly say retroactive, so that it covers expressly any claim which has been submitted in a liquidation which commenced on or after 29th December 1986. This is an important point. It will ensure that the submission of a claim will always have had the effect of interrupting prescription and will avoid the need for creditors to resubmit claims in order to derive any benefit from the Bill. The Bill therefore preserves rights. It does not take away any vested right. It is not considered necessary to make the Bill retroactive all the way back to 1st April 1986 because, as a practical matter, the submission of a claim in a liquidation would have protected any creditor who petitioned, or who concurred in a petition for the winding up of a company.
I appreciate that this Bill, however small, contains technical and complex provisions. It is important, however, that it restores the position to what it should always have been and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, rather unexpectedly it has fallen to me to respond to the noble Lord. I fear that I do not consider myself to be a great expert on this subject. However, I have listened most carefully to what the noble Lord has said; and everything he has said seems entirely logical and acceptable. Therefore, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove I should like to support the noble Lord in his Bill.
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for intervening on behalf of her noble friend. I am sure noble Lords will wish to join with me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, for his very clear explanation of this complex matter. We are indebted to him for this, and also to the honourable Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden who introduced the Bill in another place. As we have heard the Bill will restore and preserve rights which would otherwise have been lost because of an anomaly. For that reason it is welcome, and from this Bench I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her very swift reply and the Minister for his comments. I believe that the Bill will put something right which has gone wrong; and I am sure those affected will be grateful to see the Bill passed.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Access to Personal Files Bill
8.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that

711
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 Tordoff.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Channel Tunnel Bill
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eight o'clock.