HL Deb 12 January 1988 vol 491 cc1141-53

7.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Trumpington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 [Grants in respect of faun woodlands]:

Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 41, leave out ("and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Amendment No. 3 is a small drafting amendment to facilitate the arrival of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to ensure that tree planting under the farm woodland scheme will not take place on upland areas which are of conservation value. Farmers in less favoured areas should be able to enter the scheme provided that it contains adequate safeguards against damaging certain habitats and against the planting of inappropriate tree species.

Upland farmers who have only a small amount of improved land which they need for livestock purposes should be able to enter the unimproved land into the scheme, but land with wildlife habitat ought to be protected. Proposals to plant in less favoured areas should therefore be subject to environmental scrutiny.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds supports the amendment, as does the World Wildlife Fund. The RSPB suggests that it is important for the Government to make clear what types of unimproved land they will consider as being eligible for grant aid. It goes on to suggest: In particular, Ministers should specify what vegetation types will be considered, and give details of the criteria which they will apply in judging whether applications for planting on unimproved land should be accepted". It points out the benefits to wildlife of woods dominated by birch and oak on upland areas of Wales, England and Northern Ireland and of Scots pine and willow in Scotland. The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain the Government's views about offering that kind of guidance to farmers.

I come to Amendment No. 5. Improved grassland which has been improved in the past but is now reverting to rough grasses and rushes can provide important breeding habitats for wild birds, notably the curlew and the lapwing. We are concerned that aid should not be granted for the improvement of grassland which is of importance to wildlife.

I remind the Minister of the balancing duty under Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 and ask for assurances that the requirements of that section will be observed in evaluating applications for grant aid for grassland regeneration. The RSBP again points out that there is a worry that farmers could apply for grant aid under the agricultural improvement scheme for grassland regeneration and reseeding thus destroying valuable habitats, and then apply for grants under the farm woodland scheme. We wonder what steps the Government intend to take to prevent such developments. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, taken together, as the noble Baroness suggested, these amendments provide that any scheme made under Clause 2 may provide for certain areas of land or certain types of agricultural land to be excluded from it. Ministers already have powers under the clause as presently drafted to make such exclusions and will be doing so. We propose to exclude national nature reserves from the scheme altogether.

Outside the less favoured areas, which we tend to refer to by their technical names of disadvantaged area and severely disadvantaged area, unimproved land will not be eligible for grant at all. If we wanted to make further exclusions at some future date we could do so by amending the subordinate legislation that we hope to bring forward later this year.

The noble Baroness asked me about Section 17. My reply to her is, yes. If I understand her line of argument, she has in mind some of the ideas presented before the adjournment of the Report stage by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who unfortunately cannot be here tonight; that is, they would like to exclude marginal land from our proposed scheme in order to have a more comprehensive and different woodland scheme in the uplands. That is not what we are planning at present, although the enabling legislation would allow us to make different arrangements for woodland in the uplands if we wished to do so at some future date. However, our existing agricultural policies already take into account the need to provide appropriate support to meet the special needs of the hills and uplands. Farming UK, which was issued last year, reiterated our commitment to that policy. In any event, I am not persuaded that it would be right to exclude hill land from the farm woodland scheme completely.

There is proportionately less improved land in hill areas—this applies especially in Scotland and Wales—and therefore we are setting aside 3,000 hectares over three years for unimproved land planted under the scheme in the DA or SDA. I am sure the noble Baroness is worrying about my references to the noble Baroness, Lady White.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, the idea of the amendments I tabled is not to exclude all marginal land. If a piece of marginal land had notable habitat interests we would wish it to be excluded. We wanted an assurance that it would be taken into consideration.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I think I can very simply say "Yes" and leave it at that. I received a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady White and did not want her to feel disregarded in this whole argument, but I think my answer is, "Yes, yes". I am extremely glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, says, particularly since at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that he certainly wanted upland land in Scotland included.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give us an assurance that the habitat for humans will be the first consideration and not the habitat for some species of denizen of the rushes? The most important point is surely the inhabiting of the highlands and uplands by the human denizens thereof and not some obscure corncrake.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, quite honestly I am not sure what the noble Lord has in mind. I should have thought that the needs of the curlew were slightly different from the needs of humans. Having been responsible with another noble Baroness, for preserving the curlew in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, I am at a loss to know how the noble Lord equates their needs with those of humans. However, humans can speak for themselves and curlews cannot.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment. I am very intrigued by these amendments. That is why I supported them from the point of view of the RSPB, which is always worried about changes in habitat. In these areas where farmers have improved their land the habitat has changed but the birds and so on have accustomed themselves to it. Now people want to preserve what they were against in the first place. I think we should agree to that.

The second point which my noble friend made is that farmers should not be allowed to improve land and then in three or four years' time apply for an extra grant to plant. I think he is quite right. I know it is covered anyway, as the noble Baroness said, but I think we should be very happy if it were pinpointed somewhere. That was the reason for the amendments, which are probing for an assurance that these matters will be more clearly pinpointed than is the case here. The words, make different provision for different cases", do not seem to be quite enough.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I hope I have given the noble Baroness the reassurances which she required and I hope that she will withdraw her amendments one by one.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Her words are very comforting and I shall read them with great care. Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I do not think the needs of curlews, lapwings and humans are mutually exclusive. I hope we can all live in harmony with them. Certainly it would not be my wish to exclude humans so that the curlews and lapwings could flourish. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]

7.45 p.m.

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 6: Page 3, line 42, at end insert— ("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this section, the Minister may—

  1. (a) provide for the training of such persons as may be so specified or determined;
  2. (b) provide for the giving of advice by such persons as may be so specified or determined to persons who are in receipt of grant under a scheme under this section:").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness said at Second Reading that the Government, while anxious to keep costs down, would be allocating some additional manpower to deal with the farm woodland scheme, both in the Forestry Commission and in ADAS. This seemed to me good news and her remarks on this were welcome. If the scheme is to work, there will need to be a high standard of such professional advice on woodland design, management and marketing. Hence the present amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.

I believe that experience so far on projects such as Coed Cymru, the Culm Measures Study and small woodland schemes has shown the importance of really good advisory services if farmers are to be encouraged to plant and manage woodland with a broad set of objectives in view.

However, I wonder whether the Forestry Commission and the agricultural advisory services now have the necessary staff resources to cope if a good many farmers apply to join this scheme. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can tell us the number of staff who will be responsible for providing advice under the scheme and what training they will receive in the proper management of woodlands for conservation and amenity. Perhaps I may ask her too who will be the first point of contact for farmers wishing to enter this scheme. Will it be ADAS or the Forestry Commission? I suggest that the agricultural advisory services may be best placed to take on primary responsibility for managing the scheme. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and would agree wholeheartedly about the importance of adequate training facilities and advisory resources being available to those who wish to join a farm woodlands scheme. However, the position is that Ministers do not need to take new powers in order to make such provision.

With regard to the first point of contact for training, ADAS will be a first point of contact for the farmer, but the kind of training he needs will depend on his particular requirements. If he wants specialist forestry training, a Forestry Commission course may be appropriate. If a general course on farm woodlands is needed, the Agricultural Training Board course may be recommended.

Perhaps I may say that in the last few weeks I have been to see the people at Stoneleigh and I was mightily impressed by the work they do. We cannot assess the number we shall need until we know how successful the scheme is. However, we are allocating extra manpower to the scheme. This will be adequate according to the numbers when we get the figures. If the noble Lord, Lord Moran, wishes for more detail, I can certainly provide it.

Finally, I should just say that at the moment both the Forestry Training Council and the Agricultural Training Boards have asked to be closely associated with the provision of training services to farmers when the scheme comes into effect. This is most welcome and we hope that farmers will not be slow to take advantage of this training. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is more reassured about the powers which already exist and will he aware of our plans for the future. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Moran

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said and glad that the Government emphasise the great importance of proper advice if this scheme is to work well. I am sorry that the noble Baroness cannot give us an estimate of the numbers who will be required for this scheme but I have noted her remark that the numbers will be adequate. Of course I accept that assurance. I am also glad that she confirms that ADAS will be the first point of contact for farmers wanting to come into the scheme.

I do not want to ask the noble Baroness now to give me the additional details which she said she had, but perhaps she would like to write to me later with those. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 42, at end insert— ("(2A) The appropriate authority shall review the rates of any grants which may be provided for by a scheme under subsection I above after not more than three years have elapsed from the time the scheme became available to the persons to whom the grants are payable and shall review the rates of grants at intervals of not more than five years thereafter and shall publish the results of such review.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment would oblige the authority, the Minister, to review the rate of grant at the end of the third year and thereafter every fifth year and to publish the results of such review. Specifically, it does not oblige the Minister to do anything about the review. The hope is, however, that having had his attention drawn to the matter the Minister would look at any grants in the light of the rate of inflation or whatever increase or decrease over the previous three or five years applied at the time. The Minister should also make the result of that review known, whether or not anything was done.

The only other point that I wish to bring out (although I possibly have not got the wording right as I am not an expert at drafting these things) is the word "published". I looked up that word in the Library of your Lordships' House. The primary definition of that word is "to make generally known". That is really what we are after in this case. If, as has happened once or twice in the past, these primary grants which after all in this case must run for 30 years for coniferous woods and 40 years for broadleaved woods are never reviewed they could become quite ridiculous towards the end of the day. It seems a reasonable exercise to look at the grants at the kinds of interval that I have suggested. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

My Lords, from this side of the House we welcome and support this amendment. We have accepted reluctantly but without being convinced by the reasons that the Government have given us why they could not accept the indexing of woodland grants as we suggested in Committee. But the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, did commit the Government in Committee to regular reviews of these grants. It is hoped that this amendment seeks to stiffen the Government's resolution in this matter.

We all want the woodlands scheme to succeed, but it will only succeed if farmers can be satisfied that the rates of grant under the scheme will be regularly reviewed. As the amendment merely seeks to set out in the Bill what the Government are committed to do anyway, we feel sure that the noble Baroness will be able to accept it.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment, with little hope that the Government will support it.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, ho, ho ho! I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Radnor and other noble Lords have said. Strictly speaking, we feel that this amendment is unnecessary because the Bill as drafted does not prevent Ministers from undertaking the reviews in question and we have publicly stated our intention of undertaking them. However, we have obviously taken account of the weight of feeling on this issue that was expressed in Committee. We are therefore prepared to accept the principle that periodic reviews should be provided for in the Bill as this amendment seeks to ensure. However, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that we wish to redraft his actual words in order to clarify the position regarding the communication of the conclusion of such reviews. If my noble friend is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I shall take the matter away with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment on Third Reading.

The Earl of Radnor

My Lords, I am most grateful for the remarks of my noble friend. She has of course put her finger on a very important part of the amendment which is concerned with communicating the result of any review which takes place. I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that we can perhaps have a word about that and bring something to the next stage of this Bill which is satisfactory to everyone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 42, at end insert— ("( ) Grants provided for by a scheme under this section will be paid only to persons whose plan of operations includes a minimum broadleaf component of two-thirds of planted stock.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Second Reading the noble Baroness told us that the Government were: anxious to give encouragement to mixed woodland containing a high percentage of broadleaves". She also said that the Government: remain committed to the aim of achieving at least one third broadleaves under this scheme, and … actual planting … will be closely monitored so that action can be taken if broadleaf proportions fall short of what we expect."—[Official Report, 5.11.87; col. 1092.]

In my own speech on Second Reading I expressed concern about the possibility of more extensive planting of conifers, about the proposed 95 per cent. of conifers in the uplands, with risks of increasing the growing and serious problem of acidification, and 65 per cent. of conifers in the lowlands. I said that I should prefer to see two thirds broadleaves not one third; hence this amendment.

It seems to me that the unambitious ratios of broadleaves to conifers proposed by the Government merely reflect the existing pattern of planting. Most of us have seen how unsatisfactory that is. I think that we should set our sights higher and aim for a much greater proportion of our native broadleaved trees. After all, one of the four aims of this scheme as set out in last year's consultation paper is: to enhance the landscape, to create new wildlife habitats, to encourage recreational use including sport, and to expand tourist interest".

That aim will simply not be achieved without a very substantial upward revision of the minimum levels of broadleaves. There is much concern in the country about the onward march of conifers and strong support for much wider planting of broadleaves. Therefore there is every reason to amend the Bill along the lines I have suggested. I beg to move.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment. There is no question that broadleaves, as the noble Lord has said, are attractive from the point of view of amenity; but I cannot understand this antipathy to conifers. It is particularly difficult to understand when one thinks of the places that people go to in America, in Bavaria, in Sweden and in Norway to admire the conifers. Some people at long last have discovered that conifers in this country can also be beautiful. If one goes to the Great Glen one can see some of the most beautiful Norway spruce that one could possibly wish for. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been to Grisedale in Cumbria, but he would see some of the most beautiful conifer forests there that he could wish for.

I do not understand people who ignore the fact that 24 million visits are made to the conifer forests of the Forestry Commission and that the Forestry Commission spends 15 per cent. of its budget on recreation and amenities. To try to curtail the planting of conifers is ludicrous as apart from anything else they give a quicker return than any broadleaves. It is not the fault of broadleaved trees that they take anything up to 100 and in many cases 150 to 200 years to mature. Conifers give a quick return and we need that quick return in this country. Now we are buying over £5,000 million worth of soft wood from abroad for all kinds of purposes.

The unemployment situation in the north-west of Scotland where propaganda is being circulated on this subject at the moment is 15 per cent. To in any way inhibit conifer planting would be entirely wrong. The Forestry Commission applies certain conditions to the planting and the landscaping of conifers.

When I first read the noble Lord's amendment I thought that he was talking about a mixed plantation for broadleaved trees. I hope that his amendment would not have an effect on that because one can plant a mix of up to 50 per cent. of broadleaves and conifers. Anyone who wants to plant broadleaved trees would be well recommended to do so. Within three or four years one will have some Christmas trees and in 10 or 11 yeas there will be thinnings for posts. However, those would have to be removed as soon as they began to shade the broadleaved trees. They give a return which cannot be had from broadleaved trees alone for many years to come.

8 p.m.

Earl Waldegrave

My Lords, perhaps I may add a word on the unpopular conifer. We must not exaggerate their unpopularity by saying that they are all foreign Christmas trees. The Scots pine has its origin in this country. A mature Scots pine is one of the most beautiful trees that grows.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble kinsman with regard to mixed plantations. I have planted a number of those on my downland farm. I have always recommended planting rather more than 50 per cent. of conifers to encourage the broadleaved trees to come up when the thinnings are taken out. I therefore cannot support the amendment.

Lord Kilbracken

I spoke on a related subject at the Committee stage and I should like to intervene briefly to support the two noble kinsmen, who sit on either side of me, in their opposition to the amendment.

I know that conifer plantations can be extremely beautiful when planted properly. A great deal of prejudice is wrongly directed against them. The question is whether we are talking about a mixed plantation or one plantation of broadleaves and one of conifers. I dispute what my noble friend Lord John-Mackie has said about having to cut out all the softwoods in order to give broadleaved trees more space to grow. If they are planted as a nurse crop, I think it is often possible to leave a few Scots, Norway or Sitka pine trees to grow on for 60 or 80 years before it is necessary to cut them out. Then the broadleaved trees, which they have helped to grow, will still thrive for another 100 years before they have to be cut.

I yield to no one in my love and admiration for broadleaved trees. I love to walk through a beech or an oak plantation. However, we must consider the profitability of the planting. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie mentioned that softwood trees give a much quicker return. That is true because they are quite often cleared in 35 or 40 years and one has a good return from Christmas trees and the poles coming out in 17 or 20 years. However, I dispute whether, in many cases, a broadleaved plantation is profitable at all. When one takes into consideration the effect of having to wait an enormously long time for a return, I believe that in a majority of cases a broadleaved plantation is not profitable. Another factor which has been mentioned is that softwood is in great demand. The recent hurricane-force winds have turned the timber market completely upside down. However, in general there is an insatiable demand for softwood and there is no such demand for hardwood.

A further point which must be considered is that a great deal of the land which we hope will be planted is completely unsuitable for growing hardwoods. The nature of the terrain must be considered in putting in softwoods, hardwoods or a mixed plantation. Hardwoods need better land and much more attention.

If this amendment were to be approved and two-thirds of all the trees, to qualify for a grant, had to be broadleaved or hardwood trees, that would mean that a great deal of land would not be planted simply because it is unsuitable for the planting of hardwood trees. Two-thirds of the trees planted could not be hardwoods because they would not grow on such land.

I am pleased to find myself in agreement with my Front Bench on this matter, rather than opposed to it as I was on the previous amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I should like to support very strongly what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Mackie of Benshie. I live in the middle of the biggest forest in the United Kingdom or in Europe. The Forestry Commission is clear-felling in plantation areas which it planted 50 or 60 years ago. It is clear-felling trees for which there is an enormous demand and it is replanting partly with broadleaves but also with an enormous number of conifers. The reason, as the noble Lord has just said, is that it is an area where conifers should be grown and are grown successfully and very much faster than broadleaved trees can be grown.

On the other hand, it is very nice to have some broadleaved trees along the edges of roads and so on. That is being done now by the Forestry Commission and I strongly recommend the current policy of the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture. I think that it would be a great mistake to interfere with that by laying down any suggestions for control. They know best and I should like to support them.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I certainly welcome the words of my noble friend Baroness Elliot in her sturdy defence. Your Lordships will be aware that we are seeking to maintain desirable proportions of broadleaves by means of incentives and advice. We have extended the period of payment to 30 years for mixed woodland containing more than 50 per cent. broadleaves, which usually become broadleaved woodland when the conifers are felled, and to 40 years for pure oak and beech woodland.

This amendment, on the other hand, would write into the Bill a wholly inflexible limit which could not be changed except by primary legislation. It assumes that all broadleaves are good and all conifers bad. May I say again how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave for his defence, and for that of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, of the noble Scots pine. The amendment could lead, particularly in Scotland, to the planting of species at least as alien to the habitat as the kind of planting which conservationists sometime bewail, assuming that farmers were willing to plant trees at all under such a rigid scheme.

Perhaps even more important to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the existing powers in the Bill will be sufficient to allow us to lay down minimum proportions of broadleaves by secondary legislation if, in the event, this Government or some future government decided that that was necessary. However, we are not willing to see such a provision on the face of the Bill and in the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Moran

My Lords, I am sorry to find that I am a minority of one in supporting the broadleaves against the conifer. In listening to some of the remarks made by noble Lords, I feel that it is worth emphasising that we are talking about farm woodlands and not about great forests. I am in favour of mixed planting, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is obviously good practice to plant a nurse crop of larch when planting in many parts of the country. I think that that is a sensible practice which everyone will support.

I also fully agree with the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, concerning the splendours of the Scots pine. My only anxiety is that there are many parts of the country which have been adversely affected by badly planted ranks of conifers of uniform age. That has been a great pity. After all, we are speaking of Britain and not of Nevada.

Having said that, I am a bit surprised to hear some of the remarks made by noble Lords in accepting the Government's aim of having one-third broadleaves. It sounds as though many of them would not like that provision. I think that that is important and I am sorry that the proportion is not higher. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 46, at end insert— ("( ) Where grants have been made under this section, the Minister shall keep under review the effect on the countryside of those grants and of the requirements to be complied with by persons to whom they are paid, and shall publish annually such information as he considers appropriate about those effects.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. Many people feel that when we are spending a great deal of money we should know the results of the expenditure, keep under review the areas which have been paid for and allow for annual publishing of information which is considered appropriate. I am sure that the Government would like to do this because it keeps everything in the public eye and keeps the public in the picture on how their money is being spent and whether it is having an effect environmentally, financially or in terms of surplus.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I have just agreed, as a result of the advocacy of my noble friend Lord Radnor, to bring forward a government amendment providing for regular reviews of the rates of grant. However, Amendment No. 9 would involve a much greater commitment and one which we do not think it would be right to include on the face of the Bill.

Certainly I do not wish to imply that we shall not be keeping the environmental effects of the farm woodland scheme under review. Indeed we shall. We shall be monitoring the scheme from the outset and we shall be reviewing it fully after year three in consultation with interested parties. I am sure that the statutory conservation agencies and other bodies will be able to help us in evaluating the environmental aspects of the scheme in that review. But of course there are other important aspects to be covered as well, notably patterns of uptake, CAP savings, farm income and employment and timber growing aspects.

Although we shall be keeping an eye on the scheme as it progresses we believe that an on-going review with results published annually would simply generate unnecessary uncertainty about the future of the scheme. As a result we might use up as many trees in the form of paper for the exercise as we planted under the scheme.

Moreover, we are legislating for the long term. Assuming the experimental scheme is a success and we bring forward a more definitive scheme, less intensive review arrangements could be appropriate. The Bill as it stands leaves us with the powers we need to make whatever arrangements seem appropriate.

I hope that my explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is probably right that three years is sufficient. I hope that at the end of that time the review will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that a lot of deciduous trees have been planted. I look forward to the review and hope that I shall survive until it comes along. With that observation I shall withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (4)

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if I may, I intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together. I very much hope that your Lordships will warmly welcome these amendments. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carter, proposed an amendment to Clause 1 which applied directly the provisions of Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986. I said then that I accepted the principle of the amendment and would bring forward a government amendment on Report. This I have now done. The amendment introduces a new subsection in Clause 4 applying Section 17 of the 1986 Act to those functions conferred on Ministers by both Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 2(4) thereby becomes redundant.

I consider Section 17 to be a very important provision in that it places a duty on Ministers to balance a number of interests when exercising any functions connected with agriculture. I should perhaps point out that Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 was introduced to give statutory backing to what has been our policy for some time. Our commitment to securing a balance of countryside interests in the development of policy could be seen before 1986. The successful broads grazing marshes conservation scheme was launched in 1985.

Since that time we have given a vivid example of our commitment to the environment by introducing no less than 12 environmentally sensitive areas in England and Wales and more elsewhere. These are specifically aimed at encouraging farming practices which are designed to maintain or enhance the environmental interest of the areas. We are also helping the rural economy through financial assistance for tourism and craft industries to help maintain the viability of farmers in the less favoured areas.

All this clearly shows that we are taking our responsibilities towards rural areas very seriously indeed. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

My Lords, we are very pleased that the Minister has felt able to accept the arguments that we advanced at Committee stage and reflected them in the amendments. As she says, they now make it completely clear that in all the activities covered by the Bill both under the diversification scheme and the farm woodland scheme the Minister has a duty to balance all the interests involved—farming interests, the countryside and environmental matters. We welcome and support these amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Short title and extent]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 25, at end insert— ("(1A) It is hereby declared that any function conferred on a Minister of the Crown by or under section 1 or 2 of this Act is to be treated as a function connected with agriculture for the purposes of section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 (duty to balance interests when exercising functions connected with agriculture).")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.16 to 8.30 p.m.]