HL Deb 27 July 1989 vol 510 cc1637-62

4.18 p.m.

Baroness Nicol rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Commission were consulted about the proposals to restructure them in Scotland and Wales; and if they were consulted when that consultation took place, what form it took and what were the topics covered.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before I begin perhaps I may welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham. I am sure that in view of his great experience his contribution will raise the level of our debate and I look forward to it very much indeed.

The Question which I have asked today arises from statements made by way of Written Answers on 11th July by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment in this House and by the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland. Subsequent press reports and press releases from a number of organisations indicate that the decision to dismember the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission had been taken without consultation with the two bodies concerned and that they had merely been informed of the decision shortly before publication. If in his reply the Minister confirms those reports, I look forward to hearing his explanation of why this surprising method of decision-making was employed.

The Minister must by now be very much aware of the widespread dismay and anxiety among conservation bodies about the proposed changes and their anger at the lack of consultation. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation which speaks for 48 wildlife trusts is appalled by the proposals which it feels will seriously weaken the whole of nature conservation in Great Britain. The RSNC gives examples of cross-border sites which will give problems if the split occurs.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds opposes the fragmentation of the United Kingdom approach to wildlife conservation and habitat protection and asks how the Government are to be advised on international issues and obligations. The Ramblers Association is concerned that access and conservation policy-making should not be devolved. The Council for the Protection of Rural England is alarmed by the effect on staff morale of the way the affair has been handled. It too fears the loss of international prestige. The views of the Nature Conservancy Council itself and of the Countryside Commission have been well publicised. There are many more examples, but I shall not list them all today.

It seems at best inefficient and at worst insulting to make major changes of the kind proposed without seeking the advice and opinion of those actually doing the work. Without their expertise and guidance, even in matters of detail the Government are quite likely to get it wrong. The way in which this affair has been handled suggests that the proposals have more to do with silencing an inconvenient conservation voice than with reorganising the forces of conservation more effectively.

The Nature Conservancy Council has dared to give honest opinions, for example on certain provisions in the Water Act, and it is now to pay the price. At a time when active steps are being taken to improve international co-operation to protect wildlife and to combat pollution, it seems odd to consider splitting our United Kingdom organisations into even smaller units without compelling reasons for doing so.

Have the Government considered the importance of interntional leverage? Does it not weigh with the Government that in an area subject to many important international agreements such as the Berne and Bonn conventions, the birds directive, the RAMSAR convention and others, and with the likelihood of a Community directive on flora and fauna habitat protection, there should be a strong voice in the United Kingdom to speak on these things? We enjoy some influence in Europe on conservation matters and the Nature Conservancy Council has earned a high reputation. Have the Government considered whether that influence will be weakened by these proposals? Are the Government aware that Wales is expecting to have a direct voice in Europe under the new proposals? I am sure that Scotland is too. This emerged in my discussions with those in Wales who are dealing with nature conservation.

There may well be persuasive arguments in favour of amalgamating the functions of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. Many of us have discussed that possibility and have seen some merit in it. It is a view shared by some non-government organisations, but careful consideration would need to be given to drafting the terms of reference of the new organisation to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities. It is certainly not an exercise to be blundered into without proper thought and consultation.

The proposed arrangements are a hotch-potch, showing every sign of being a reaction to political and vested interest pressures rather than an intelligent attempt to improve what is admittedly an imperfect situation. The suggestion of combined bodies in Wales and Scotland, while continuing separate organisations in England, is a recipe for confusion. I can readily understand the warmth of some practitioners in Wales and Scotland towards what looks like an opportunity to achieve a more responsive national body within which to work. However, I wonder how much of that natural wish for greater autonomy is a reaction against the defects of the present situation rather than because of inherent difficulties of a Great Britain-wide system. I think they would be very wise to see exactly what is on offer before their full approval.

The Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link, speaking for 12 organisations, has expressed anxiety about a weakening of conservation in Scotland. That body is concerned at the lack of justification given so far for such a move. It suggests that the Scottish consultation paper, published after the decision was announced, is bereft of substance. England and Wales have not had a consultation paper at all, with or without substance.

The arrangements for research after dismemberment will be crucial. In another place on 21st July, Mrs. Bottomley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said: The Government fully accept that the work of the three successor bodies must be underpinned by rigorous science, using data and expertise that the council has built up over the past 40 years. We shall, therefore, ensure that provision is made for the Government to maintain a Great Britain overview and that each body has access to adequate scientific advice on a Great Britain basis where this is desirable. We are ready to discuss how best this might be done".—[Official Report, Commons 21/7/89; col. 709]

Following those encouraging words the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State went on to enlarge on the options that she mentioned. As I read it, they do not include the option of in-house research. Perhaps that should be a matter of close consideration by the proposed new bodies before they commit themselves.

The Glamorgan Wildlife Trust questions whether finance will be available to give Wales the facilities it can presently obtain from Cheltenham and Peterborough. It points out that unless the present base of the Nature Conservancy Council is safeguarded wildlife conservation will be seriously weakened. I know that the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales confidently expects, in addition to having its own voice in Europe, to have its own in-house research.

I have not done justice to the many letters I have received from concerned organisations. I hope that in the autumn, at not too late a date, we can have a better opportunity to discuss in full the implications of what is proposed. Obviously there must now be a rational debate to decide where nature conservation in Britain goes from here.

I have some questions to put to the Minister along those lines. Can he tell us what kind of consultation is envisaged? Will there be consultation papers for England and Wales? One hopes for a better quality than that offered to Scotland. Will non-governmental organisations seriously be involved and their possible relationship with future statutory bodies explored? Might the Secretary of State give serious consideration to the idea of a sensible merger of the two English bodies with the possibility of their having responsibility for a United Kingdom overview?

The aim for all of us must be to do our best for nature conservation in the United Kingdom. What could have been a constructive redeployment of resources has got off to a very bad start. With a more sensible and flexible approach from here on much could still be achieved. However, the work of the Nature Conservancy Council has already been in limbo for some considerable time while it undertook an exercise on the future of its national nature reserves. We are now faced with a long pause before this legislation comes into force. I feel that there is some urgency required in laying down the lines along which the Government are thinking to give us all a chance to discuss realistically what is proposed. I hope that we may have satisfactory answers to my questions.

4.28 p.m.

Lord Lewis of Newnham

My Lords, first of all perhaps I may take the opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her kind words. I am also grateful to her for organising an opportunity for me to speak on this occasion in this Session. If I add the word "just", that describes the situation in which I find myself.

My contacts with the Nature Conservancy Council have been primarily through my position as chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Therefore I shall address myself primarily to those aspects which are scientific in origin. If your Lordships will forgive me, they may be even more parochial and concerned with studies that have been associated with that group of people.

I should like to start by saying that I am sure that the House will reflect on the necessity for this country to be concerned with problems involved with environments and with general conservation. If we accept that, it naturally follows that any change that is to occur in the structure of an institution concerned with that aspect will be of primary interest to the House. I must admit a certain failing inasmuch as I cannot quite work out exactly what is involved in those changes other than that change seems to be the air and mode of operation.

I have followed closely the debates in this Chamber and have noted with great interest the sensitivity of the House towards problems of the environment. I note in particular that it recognises the complexity that is often associated both with the collection and interpretation of data, with the possibility of other than an objective view being taken of data of that nature. It is therefore of considerable importance to recognise that any problem in ecology is rarely simple and that, when we deal with problems of that nature, we inevitably end up with a complex and seriously debatable issue in many instances.

The importance to me of the Nature Conservancy Council is that it was originally founded in 1949 and had its roots in the NC itself. It was spawned from that organisation in 1973 so it has the equivalent of about 40 years experience of the environment. That is an extremely important point to recognise in anything that we do with the organisation. It has certainly been internationally accepted as an authority. Those of us who, I am sure, visit various parts of the world will often find reference made to the excellent work done by the NCC. It plays a pivotal role in many discussions on the environment.

It was in that respect that I and my colleagues in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, when we addressed the problem of the release of genetically engineered organisms, had necessity to appeal to the organisation for help. Clearly anything that involves the release of an organism must involve a consideration of the ecological viability of that creature. In many instances, we found that the NCC were the people—in some instances, the only people—who could offer us serious advice on the issues.

It is for that reason that it finds itself a member of the RELEASE Committee which is a sub-committee of the ACGM and plays an important role in discussions on the environmental viability of release of those organisms. It is for that reason that the commission suggested in its recommendations that the NCC should be very much involved in any consideration of the release of genetically engineered organisms.

I may perhaps be pre-judging the issue because this has not yet been formulated, but, if it becomes the way in which we shall consider the release of genetically engineered organisms, I maintain that it would be a serious blow to the thoroughness with which proposed releases are assessed, and hence to the safety of the environment if the expertise currently available through the NCC were put in jeopardy by the proposal to split it into three parts. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what arrangements are proposed to ensure that the new bodies will be able to play as full and effective a part in such discussions as the one body does at present.

A related role that is already carried out by the NCC is that of advising on the release of exotics into the country as a whole. I merely remind noble Lords of the classic rabbit in Australia story to make one recognise the importance of that type of advice. Animals or creatures do not respect political boundaries. They are far more sensitive to ecological boundaries. One of my concerns would simply be how this problem will be dealt with when once again we split this community into three different sections.

Of course any problem in pollution or environmental study is very much more easy to detect than to predict. As a scientist I should love to be able to inform the House that the facility to predict is extremely well developed. Unfortunately, as I have already stated, ecological problems are extremely complex. Their very nature involves a whole variety of steps being taken. For instance, I recall that the myxomatosis problem with the destruction of the rabbit had a consequential effect on the green woodpecker. I shall not go through that chain of logic but I defy anybody to have been able to predict the correlation. For those noble Lords who want to know the answer, perhaps I may recommend reading the commission's last report. It is given in Chapter 4.

Equally well I believe that it is important to recognise that this country has been blessed with a variety of organisations that have spent many years inspecting the flora and fauna. Such amateur organisations are extremely useful as a mechanism for monitoring the general position over so many different aspects of environmental problems.

Perhaps I may just refer back to the problem of genetically engineered organisms. Once it reaches the stage of being a commercial rather than a research operation, the importance of monitoring will become extremely sensitive. I remind the House of the classic story of DDT and its relationship to birds of prey and the weight of their eggs. These were discoveries that came very much from the amateur approach to this problem.

Even accepting all the excellence that we find here—and in this respect I genuinely believe that this country is unique in having this great and useful body of people—there is no substitute for a systematic and continuing assessment which is only possible from a professional organisation. To my mind one of the many virtues of the NCC is that it is able not only to correlate the facts but to present them in a uniform manner—and I must emphasise that that in itself is a very important aspect of any problem. It makes the information available not only to people in this country but as a general contribution to the whole range of environmental studies.

Finally, I should like to turn to the fact that the NCC advises the Minister and the Government on international aspects of pollution. I feel that that will be extremely difficult to do if there is a three-headed rather than a one-headed situation. I recognise that many of my problems may not be real but imaginary. I hope and sincerely believe that in the long run the NCC will become an important factor within the general ambit of environmental studies. I hope that we shall find a very satisfactory solution to what at the moment I find to be a very worrying problem.

4.34 p.m.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, I am today especially fortunate since it falls to me to have the very great pleasure on behalf of the whole House of thanking and congratulating a maiden speaker in this Chamber. It is not just a pleasure but a particular privilege because we have heard today a maiden speech of the highest quality and calibre, which I think bodes well for our House. It was the kind of speech which we are entitled to expect and indeed have learned to expect from a Fellow of the Royal Society. We know what to expect from a Fellow of the Royal Society because, as the noble Lord will presently discover, our Benches are festooned with them. But we are not in fact full of immediate past presidents of the Royal Society of Chemistry, nor do we have many former professors of chemistry from my own university, the University of Manchester, or indeed boys from Barrow Grammar School, which I am delighted to tell the noble Lord I shall be visiting tomorrow.

It is customary on these occasions to say that we look forward to hearing the noble Lord on many occasions in the future. I should like to go a little further. I do not look forward; I insist that we shall hear the noble Lord on many matters in the future. Indeed, I have made a list of matters of extreme importance scientifically upon which the Government are in the greatest possible need of the noble Lord's advice. The calibre of the noble Lord was evidenced by the fact that in making an entirely non-controversial speech he made it utterly clear that he has certain scientific misgivings about proposals to do with a scientific organisation.

The Nature Conservancy Council is a scientific body, not just a collection of welly-booted Greens. It is a scientific body with an immense amount of expertise developed over many years which is held in the highest possible repute not only all over Britain but in Europe and the rest of the world. As the noble Lord suggested, it would be disastrous if that regard where weakened in any way. On behalf of the House I should like to say how privileged we are to have the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, with us and how much we look forward to his taking a further part in our discussions, including those on this matter, because we shall have to have many bites at this cherry before it is finally swallowed.

Perhaps I may give a brief apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, who would have liked to be here. He would have liked to say, as chairman of Wildlife Link, that he was wholly opposed to the proposals we are discussing. I must now make my own speech and not that of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport.

Let me at once thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for having introduced this subject. So often at Question Time the noble Baroness has raised matters of immense importance. Very often they are issues that have been initiated by the Nature Conservancy Council, on which it has seemed to us that the Government have been been somewhat dilitory in taking action. The noble Baroness has done us such a service on many occasions. On this occasion she has opened the batting on a subject with which we shall deal often in the future.

The subject is very complex, with many strands to it. I shall endeavour to deal with them one by one. I agreed with every word that the noble Baroness said about the manner in which this decision has been arrived at. I shall not discuss that now. I agree with what she said. I prefer to concentrate my remarks on what is proposed.

The first strand is the question of merger between the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. That is not a new idea. It has been thought about very often, and indeed was proposed by one previous Secretary of State who later had second and in my view wiser thoughts. During the years when I had the privilege and honour of being chairman of the Countryside Commission, we worked very closely indeed with the Nature Conservancy Council. That was at the time when Professor Fred Holliday was the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council. I had a very close working relationship with him, as indeed did the Country Commission's officers with the officers of the Nature Conservancy Council.

At one stage when the Nature Conservancy Council was required to vacate its very expensive premises in London, we offered it a share of John Dower House in Cheltenham where we had spare capacity, in the hope that it would move in and join us in the physical and geographical sense so that we could share overheads and infrastructure and so save money. It did not find that possible but I mention that to show that the Countryside Commission always wishes to work very closely with the Nature Conservancy Council.

Let us pause a little and think about mergers. It is not at the moment proposed to merge the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, though there are mergers contained in these proposals. I have always had doubts because I think that there are conflicts in the statutory duties of the two bodies. If we look at the statutory duties of the Countryside Commission, it has the duty to advise the Government on matters to do with the preservation of the natural beauty of the countryside; and the Government have a statutory duty to seek the Countryside Commission's advice before they take certain steps. Unfortunately, they do not have a statutory duty to heed the advice; but at least they have to seek it.

One of the main statutory duties of the Countryside Commission which is enshrined in the legislation is to promote access to the countryside for open air recreational activity. That is an immensely important part of the Countryside Commission's work in Scotland and Wales and indeed in England. The Nature Conservancy Council's statutory duties are similar: to advise the Government on various matters. But it means that on many occasions the Nature Conservancy Council's statutory duties are to keep people out of the countryside to preserve flora and fauna. There is an innate conflict there in which a merger between the two could cause possible difficulties. I have always thought that it was better to keep them marginally separate.

I now move onto the other aspect of this matter which is the proposal to dismember the Nature Conservancy Council into three component parts. I know that much has been said about this by many people. Many of my honourable friends in another place have been inclined to welcome it almost in Scotland and I am afraid that rather too many people have shared the view expressed from this Bench on a number of occasions by my noble friend Lord Grimond, who has amused us greatly by describing the Nature Conservancy Council as a collection of bowler-hatted bureaucrats who march off to the Highlands and Islands to tell crofters how to do their business. It is not like that. The Nature Conservancy Council is a scientific body, with a wealth of scientific knowledge built up over a long period. While I am bound to accept that its officers have had a great deal of scientific training, they appear not always to have had a great deal of training in diplomacy. They may have erred occasionally in the way in which they have given advice to crofters about the duties which are likely to be imposed on those who are lucky enough to live on a site of special scientific interest. Sometimes they have not put that advice in the kind of terms in which it is wholly acceptable to the Scottish people.

There are people in Scotland who believe that by merging or dismembering the Nature Conservancy Council and having a separate body for Scotland and merging that with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, which has always been separate—there is a separate Countryside Commission for Scotland with magnificent headquarters at Redgorton near Perth—they would get rid of a layer of bureaucracy so that there would be fewer of these bowler-hatted bureaucrats coming from England to tell the Scots how to do their work.

It is not as simple as that. I hope that my honourable friends in another place who take that view will think again. I hope that others will think very carefully, because the two functions of the two bodies are different.

The Countryside Commission for Scotland has different duties from that for England and Wales, as it now is, because there are no national parks in Scotland. The general view is taken that the whole of Scotland is a national park. Much of the work of the Countryside Commission of which, as I have said, I have had he honour to be chairman, deals with very sensitive areas such as the national parks in England and Wales (of which noble Lords know there are many) and other designated areas such as the areas of outstanding natural beauty, the heritage coasts and places like that.

The two bodies are marginally different. In this matter of dismembership there is the question of Wales. Hitherto the Countryside Commission has always had a Committee for Wales which has been given as much autonomy as possible and has its own headquarters in Newtown. Its officers have had very close links with the Welsh Office but the Countryside Commission for England and Wales as it now is has the statutory duty to report to the Secretary of State for the Environment and also to the Secretary of State for Wales.

I am told by colleagues in your Lordships' House from all parties who have great experience of Wales that they have a great fear that once the Committee for Wales is separated and becomes a Countryside Commission for Wales in its own right, reporting to and wholly dependent upon the Welsh Office, there is a real danger that that body will become a creature of the Welsh Office and its powers in some way will be reduced. I believe that those fears are soundly based. I should like them to be thought about carefully.

At the moment the Committee for Wales operates separately with a great deal of autonomy from its own headquarters in Newtown. Because it is part of a larger body which has a statutory duty to report to government and to the Secretary of State for the Environment in particular, the Welsh committee has been given a degree of independence 1hat perhaps it would not have under the new status. When in my day the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was the Secretary of State for Wales he gave the Committee for Wales and the Countryside Commission all the assistance that he could as did the earlier Secretaries of State. The anxieties which have been expressed to me are real and should be considered.

Dismembership of a scientific body—which is the Nature Conservancy Council—will not strengthen it; it will be in danger of being weakened. Its advice is necessary to the country as a whole, to Europe and to the world. The world seeks the advice of that scientific body on many occasions. I should not like to see any steps being taken which are likely to weaken its influence.

Similarly, I should not like to see a merger with what remains of the Countryside Commission for England. I hope that at the end of the debate the noble Lord will be able to tell us that there is no overall intention to merge the Countryside Commission with the Nature Conservancy Council. The idea may be attractive because there will be only one body with fewer officers. However, fundamentally the two bodies have different jobs to carry out. If one body has the statutory duty to promote access to the countryside and the other body has the statutory duty of keeping people out of parts of the countryside, I am not sure that the same outfit can carry out the two jobs.

In the past a better case could have been made out for merging the Nature Conservancy Council with the Forestry Commission. Had that been so it might be that the Forestry Commission would have behaved differently. A most distinguished forester, who happens to be the father-in-law of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, once told me that the extraordinary habit of single species, even-age planting with total clearance felling is practised by only two groups of people; the Prussians and the Forestry Commission. That is an interesting point.

The Forestry Commission has learnt a great deal possibly from the independent influence of the Nature Conservancy Council. Therefore there has been a great increase in the planting of broadleaved species and a movement away from the regimented blocks of sitka spruce marching across the Highlands and through the Lake District. Had the Nature Conservancy Council's advice been thought about a little more in relation to conifer forests planted in the flow country of Caithness, Sutherland and Wales, the situation may be a little better.

We shall have many bites at the cherry. The proposals will require legislation so we shall have further opportunities to look at them. While I am interested in some of them I am not happy about them. I am sure that they must be thought about most carefully before they are finalised.

It was an immense pleasure to hear a maiden speech of truly wonderful proportions. It gave me great encouragement for the future of this subject. We heard from a persuasive noble Lord with scientific knowledge of the subject of unequalled proportions so perhaps in the fullness of time our advice will be heard.

4.53 p.m.

Lord Craigton

My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, on his maiden speech. All conservationists in this House will feel that he will fill a niche with technical knowledge and support which we have not had previously. We welcome him to the House and congratulate him on joining us.

I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that although he will disagree with what I am about to say, I think that he will come to believe that what I say is correct.

As regards Scotland, I know that the right decision is to create a purely Scottish organisation to care for its land and wildlife. Looking back over my nine years as MP for Govan—I fought three elections and the largest majority was 373—five years as Under-Secretary of State in another place, and five years as Minister of State in your Lordships' House, I cannot remember any substantial Scottish branch of an English-run undertaking that was a success. The English do not fully appreciate that Scotland is a separate country. It is the Secretary of State for Scotland who matters and not the English department Minister. Anyone who has worked, as I have, in a Scottish department with administrative responsibilities knows that his department is equal and not subservient to his English counterpart, nor does he follow English policies unless in his opinion they suit Scotland.

We conservationists have for many years been gravely worried about the apparent inability of the Scottish authorities to nurture and protect their wild life. I attend the trustees' meetings of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. Many times over the years we have discussed Scotland's apparent inability to do what was needed. We have spent money but we have never had anything really worth while to be happy about.

So concerned was I that, as my contribution to the dilemma, this time last year I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible —because the Secretary of State could not come—to talk to my all-party conservation group of both Houses of Parliament under the title "The Importance of Scotland to European Conservation". I asked him to extol the unique nature of the terrain and wildlife of Scotland not only for the United Kingdom but for Europe as a whole. I hoped to instil into all concerned more pride and awareness of Scotland's heritage.

Of course the right solution is the proposal now before us. We should have thought of that ourselves. The new combination of local direction and control for the Scottish countryside and wildlife in the interests of the United Kingdom and Europe will put new life and energy into the Scots, who can at last run their own show. This proposal for Scotland outweighs other disadvantages.

I would have been worried if the proposal had been to combine the English Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. There is so much dedication and expertise in those two directing headquarters that much would have been lost. However, for the NCC, the bulk of the planning ahead and the vital technical information at Peterborough must remain undisturbed. Much of the NCC's field of advice and responsibility is nationwide and international. It is nonsense to suggest that what it does and has done for 40 years, as the noble Lord said, can now better be done by a government department.

The advisory committee for England was an afterthought. The Bill leading to the Nature Conservancy Act 1973 established committees for Wales and Scotland. The intention then was that for England the NCC would make its own arrangements. I wish now that I had not done it, but it was I who suggested an English council on Second Reading on 12th April 1973. On 8th May in Committee I moved and withdrew an amendment which was approved on Report on 5th June. All that is needed is to merge the English office with Peterborough's other activites, as was the original intention.

The changes—and there must be changes—need only be minor and with goodwill the problems will be solved. However, whatever they may be, they may be justified by the major change that at long last, in the interests of the United Kingdom and Europe, Scotland can take responsibility for her own conservation.

5 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, that was a very strong speech from the noble Lord and I can agree with only half of it, as will become apparent as I speak.

There can seldom have been such a united cry of outrage as there has been on Mr. Ridley's proposal to dismember the main statutory body for nature conservation in Britain. It is not only the decision to break up the NCC which has raised the fury of conservation bodies but the manner of announcement: in Written Answers to planted Questions, with no consultation whatever with the council or its chairman, Sir William Wilkinson.

The failure to consult is the latest of several lines of evidence of the low regard in which the council is held by the ex-Secretary of State and the shabby treatment it has received from him. There has been behind-the-scenes direction from him on its stance over field sports in general and shooting rights in protected areas in particular. There was an interesting and convincing article on this in the Oberserver last Sunday by Geoffrey Lean and Callum Macrae, headed, How Ridley Conserved His Killing Fields". There has been pressure to privatise those national nature reserves owned by the NCC when the council believes that ownership is the only sure means of being able to achieve management wholly directed to the nature conservation aims. An example of how things can go badly wrong when others retain ownership is the Gualin nature reserve. There a magnificent valley and mountain area in Sutherland is being turned into the semblance of a tank-training area. The nature reserve agreement terms do not allow the NCC to prevent the owners using tracked vehicles to ferry fishermen back and forth.

There is the present embargo on the declaration of new nature reserves and failure to make a single conservation order during the past year. There has been a shortfall in DoE funding of the NCC of 5 per cent. in real terms, as publicised by the chairman at the launch of the annual report last November. This was disputed by the DoE but the council has already had to implement cuts in its programmes and in the funding of voluntary bodies.

There is reference in Mr. Ridley's statements to present arrangements being "inefficient" and "insensitive". I hope the Minister can explain what exactly is meant by those terms when he replies. One source of inefficiency known to the NCC can easily be cured; that is, to stop the DoE and others in central government from continually interfering in the NCC's running of its affairs. The Directorate of Rural Affairs in the DoE acts as minder to both the NCC and the Countryside Commission. In the past few years the NCC has had a Rayner scrutiny, a Pliatzski review and currently a Rogers examination on efficiency, added to which there are continuous staff inspections by a team of DoE and NCC staffing inspectors. This kind of peering over the NCC's shoulder is a continuous drag on the business of getting on with is proper job.

In 1973 the NCC went through the trauma of the splitting off of its research (left in NERC as the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology) and transfer to the DoE. Apart from the upheaval and demoralisation for many of the staff, headquarters officers were completely diverted from normal work by the endless consultations, the working out of the small print in legislation and so on. Little real conservation was done for at least a year and the publication of the Nature Conservation Review was delayed for three to four years. The proposed three-way split will involve still more complex legislation over allocation of staff and properties and will surely cause, at best, a marking of time until it is all over, predicted to be not until April 1991 at the earliest.

The word "insensitive" is a key one. One suspects that it expresses the resentment and complaint, especially in Scotland, that the NCC has ridden roughshod over the proper and rightful wishes of people on the ground to benefit from development of their own resources. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, that there have been some tactless actions which were perhaps not at all diplomatic by some of the officers. However, the main purpose of the new proposals is no doubt to tame the NCC by putting it under the control of the Scottish Office, which is so beholden to the Scottish establishment of landowners, farmers, foresters, developers and entrepreneurs. The Scottish Office intends to take charge of the SSSI and NNR designations, and we can be sure that there will be less opposition from the NCC Scotland to many schemes which will be damaging to nature conservation.

There will of course be emollient reassurances of the familiar sort, but the indications of what is to come are in the past actions and words of those who will be in control. The Scottish Office has an abysmal record of non-support for nature conservation whenever it has been placed in the seat of judgment on conflicting issues. Both Mr. Younger and Mr. Rifkind have sided with the developers, either giving an outright thumbs down or, at best, a poor compromise over threats to important sites.

I shall cite some examples. In relation to afforestation on Mindork Moss and Arran Northern Mountains (both SSSIs) planting was approved after call-in by the Secretary of State. In the flow country there was a compromise deal with a four-zone presumption for forestry, ranging from against to strongly favoured. The NCC may be allowed to schedule about 50 per cent. of the internationally important bogs. Fifty per cent. afforestation at Creag Meagairdh was supported despite that being the only unplanted area left in a 20-mile stretch of hill from Glen Spean to Laggan Bridge.

As regards industrial development, there was support for peat extraction on Duich Moss in Islay to keep the whisky distillery working. An alternative source was only accepted after the EC threatened legal action. On Morrich More, another SSSI, and an important sand dune system in Easter Ross, a steel pipe construction site was approved. A ski tow extension into the Caenlochan nature reserve was approved in spite of NCC objections. Since then a reasoned opinion has been received from the EC saying that the intrusion should be removed.

So it is not surprising that conservationists are alarmed at what is likely to happen if the proposed change goes through. Scottish Wildlife Link, which represents all voluntary conservation bodies in Scotland, is unequivocal. It states: The Scottish Office's record of ignoring the advice of the NCC gives little hope that Scotland's precious wildlife and countryside heritage will be in safe hands, especially if the new combined quango has a reduced staff and status". Professor Duncan Poore, a former head of Nature Conservancy, and a Scot, said that the idea was complete madness. There is every justification for believing that the dismantling of the NCC as set out by Mr. Rifkind in a wretched four-page consultation document (published only in Scotland) has not been thoroughly thought through.

One suspects that the Welsh scheme was added in an attempt to make the proposal appear to have a devolutionary aspect. The Welsh section of this new wildlife conservation service is likely to be the smallest of the three country units and with that it may be under-resourced and ineffective.

The noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, whom I congratulate very much for his excellent maiden speech, referred to the scientific achievements and the quality of the science done at the NCC. The science base will suffer especially from any carve-up since its efficiency and effectiveness depend on building a common base of information, free from any artificial barriers of geography. It is essential that problems can be studied countrywide in order to have the best chance of understanding them, for many of the most serious problems are common to England, Scotland and Wales. Some of them are international.

Acid rain falls all over Britain and we have to understand its pattern. We also export it to continental Europe. The global warming will affect the whole world. We need to put up an integrated UK programme of monitoring and prediction. I suggest that there can be good reasons for a debate on whether the NCC and the Countryside Commission could benefit from greater integration. But that debate should be conducted over a period of time and there should be full consultation with all the people and organisations involved.

I believe that all of us here are dismayed and horrified by what has been done. I hope the Minister will convey to his new Secretary of State the feelings that have been expressed here today and encourage a fresh look at the situation. It is not too late for that to be done.

5.8 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers, but I hope that I may have your Lordships' indulgence to speak for a very short time. I understand that the changes the Government intend to make will require an Act of Parliament. Meanwhile, I believe that we should regard this as a consultation period of which I hope the Government will take good note. The changes that they propose are controversial and in my opinion they are not generally welcomed. If they are a sop to Scottish and Welsh nationalism, that of itself it not a good reason. I speak as one with a foot on each side of the Border. I am kind of Anglo-Scottish migrant at different times of the year.

I hope that the Government will use this as an opportunity for not legislating in the next Session. They have said that they do not wish to legislate so much. This is a subject that they can well leave out to advantage.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I should explain I am a humble honorary life member, is the largest single environmental protection body in this country. I would remind my noble friends on the Front Bench that the thousands of members of that society represent a great many votes. May I ask whether they have been consulted? Have the leading people in the RSPB been consulted? If not, why not, and will they be?

The noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, whose maiden speech we so much valued, pointed out that nature ignores political boundaries. Experience with the National Conservancy Council has indeed shown the advantage of being able to deal with wildlife problems and other ecological issues on a United Kingdom basis, on a national scale. Let nobody think that this is a mere frivolous example. It is a very vivid example. The Greenland whitefront—one of the rarest and most protected of all the members of the goose family—does not just come to Scotland to migrate; it comes to Wales, to parts of England and to Northern Ireland too. For us to have a policy for protecting such species on a purely Welsh or nationalist scale would be ridiculous.

Also, surely it is important that as a member of the European Community the United Kingdom should speak with one voice. It is no good disintegrating the advice what we give to Europe. I hope that the Government will abandon that idea.

If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the Countryside Commission has done very fine work in enabling the people of this country to enjoy access to our countryside on a much wider scale than used to be the case. But their statutory function is quite different from the purpose of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is to give serious, independent, scientific advice, and fearlessly to point out to the Countryside Commission if necessary—I use the vernacular expression—"You can't do that there 'ere". It is only advice that they can give; they have no final word, no veto; but that advice is very good and valuable, and needs to be given independently and not as a part of a conglomeration.

I have welcomed the change of heart (especially that of the Prime Minister herself), and the improvement in the Government's attitude towards environmental matters. Indeed, they have gone international on the subject. I wish them luck, because matters of the kind which we are discussing this afternoon are a test of the validity of the Government's commitment to preserving our environment. I should point out in conclusion that our environment is extremely vulnerable in our modern industrial society and in our country, parts of which are so heavily overpopulated.

5.14 p.m.

Lord Airedale

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point to say but a few words about the wording of this Question which refers to, "proposals to restructure". I wonder where the word "restructure" comes from and why we need it. We have been building and rebuilding ever since the Anglo-Saxons taught us that word. There are those who prefer Latin derivations, such as, construct and reconstruct; therefore why do we need to restructure? It is a word with no counterpart. There is no verb to the word "structure" so why do we need the verb to restructure?

Perhaps we can get rid of this silly word and go back to reconstruction. That word has been quite good enough for everyone up until now.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, first, I must say that we on these Benches wish to pay a very warm and generous tribute to my noble friend Lady Nicol for seizing the chance—literally at the very last hour—to present this House, and a great many people outside the House, with an opportunity to give the Minister and his colleagues something, yet again, to think about during the Summer Recess.

I certainly take very kindly the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that if we are serious about our democracy then this is part of the continuing consultation process. In the nature of these debates, we know in actual fact that decisions are not taken and votes are not struck. Nevertheless, we very much hope that the manner in which my noble friend Lady Nichol presented a most powerful case—indeed, she did so knowledgeably, sensibly and reasonably—will have been noted by the Minister.

Secondly, we are enormously indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for one of the most outstanding maiden speeches I have had the privilege to hear during my short time in this House. His speech was so apt, so knowledgeable and, if I may say so, so positive. Many maiden speeches seem to box all around the matter under discussion and one wonders at the end of the day whether it was simply a pleasantry. But the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, has taken the opportunity and nailed his flag to this particular mast. Therefore we look forward very much to hearing more from the noble Lord on this and many other subjects in the future.

As someone who is passionately interested in the subject, but who is not remotely as well-qualified as I believe every other speaker who has spoken in the debate to be—I profess I am lower in the batting order in that respect—the key word which strikes me is not "restructure"; it is the word "consult". I do not think as parliamentarians that we can quibble with the Government's right to decide that they wish to see changes made, especially so far as concerns public money and public responsibility. It is only right and proper that they should do so. However, as we know, "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it".

I listened with appreciation to the statement that this is not in fact a new concept. However, we are looking at this concept in 1989 with a whole panoply of environmental issues—they are not all issues that we have been suddenly faced with, although some of them are—which we now recognise need to be grappled with. I appreciate, again, the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that we do not want to arouse the suspicion that there is some sop to nationalism as part of the nexus of the matter.

I must say to the Minister that there is a strong suspicion in some respects, whether the "p" is large or small, that politics is playing a part in the matter. That is not a surprising charge as regards a government who, of course, are a political body. But we do not want to think that here is an attempt to give Scotland the feeling that for many reasons, other than the ostensible ones, it is in the interests of the Government politically to move in the way in which they have.

Sadly, I believe that the Government have gone about the matter in the wrong way. I think that the case has been made with considerable force. I listened with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who certainly gave as good as he got—not that he got very much from the point of view of personal attack or abuse. However, on the argument side he was very strong. I do not say that there is no case to be made for the changes the Government propose to make.

However, I have received from organisations which I respect and which have helped me over the years with environmental matters such as the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, the Local Government and Planning Bill and the Water Bill expressions of grave disquiet about the proposals. I refer to bodies such as the Ramblers Association, the RSPB, the Countryside Commission and so on.

In the light of the likely reaction to the proposals, why did the Minister decide not to engage even in the most tenuous of consultations with the groups who will be affected by them? It cannot be that the Minister is afraid of an argument. The noble Lord who is to reply is certainly not afraid. The Secretary of State who has just gone to another department would not be afraid of an argument. The Minister must tell us why in such a cack-handed way the department has decided that this is the best way to make friends and influence people.

We are a small country. We are part of a large continent. That continent is a small part of a large world. It is no good talking in terms of managing environmental challenge on the basis of a border between England and Wales. We are small enough not to subdivide or to divide what we already have. I listened with great attention and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who speaks with special knowledge of these matters. He told us about these power struggles between the groups. We are all mature people. The people who are affected—the chairman, the committees and the range of people, most of them volunteers, who are drawn in—are all adults. They are committed and experienced and deserve to be treated better.

In an excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady David, said that the way in which such people were treated was symptomatic of the low regard in which they were held by the Secretary of State. I honestly believe that the Minister has an opportunity to smooth down a great many feathers. This issue will run and run in many ways.

When the noble Lord comes to reply perhaps he will deal with one or two points that have exercised my mind. It is quite clear that people in Scotland who take an interest believe that this will be to their benefit. We have to ask how many people in the country take an interest. What consultation took place with the Welsh Office in order to get the view of Wales on this matter? We know that the practitioners, the people at the coal face, feel assuaged. Can the Minister say to what extent the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State for Wales were consulted, and what were his views on these matters? Were views canvassed, even outside a formal consultation process, to get some reaction?

On the Front Bench with me today is my noble friend Lord Williams, who is president of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. He speaks with considerable knowledge and without presumption on these matters. He has told me that there is a very strong suspicion among his colleagues on that body and others as to precisely what the Minister seeks to achieve. If my noble friend Lady White, who takes a very keen interest in these matters, had been here, she would certainly have expressed those views.

What can we try to do? I do not wish to weary the House by repeating for the third or fourth time how outraged the other bodies are by what has happened. When one looks at the statement made by the Minister on 11th July, I think that those bodies are entitled to be very angry indeed. Mr Ridley said on that occasion that there were increasing feelings that those arrangements—that is, the current arrangements—were inefficient, insensitive and meant that conservation issues in both Scotland and Wales were determined with too little regard for the particular requirements in those countries.

Where is the evidence? Who are the people who have said that? I believe that the Minister is entitled to defend the former Secretary of State and give us chapter and verse as to where the evidence came from. There are other bodies which have spoken in similar tones of outrage.

We need the Minister to tell us where we go from here. A number of Members of the House have reminded us that legislation will be required to give effect to these changes. I noted very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said—in effect that no changes were desirable. However, if changes are to be forthcoming, then they need to be put in the form of a statute so that we can examine them.

The Minister and his colleagues would recoup a great deal of their authority on these matters if during the next stages they took consultation seriously. We all know that the intention of the Government has been trailed very heavily to produce what has been called a "green" Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Within that "green" Bill there will be matters—I see the eyebrows of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, rise with surprise. It is not very often that I can tell him something, especially on these subjects. Perhaps this will not be in the next Session, but the Government have rested very heavily on their stand on environmental matters on the basis that they will produce a "green" Bill. In that Bill there are certain to be chapters which deal with these subjects.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to respond to a suggestion. When the House was dealing with the copyright Bill and the Consumer Protection Bill there was wide consultation among groups of people who knew what they were talking about before the Bill appeared. They were able to make sure that as far as possible it contained the elements which would satisfy most of the people who would be vocal on the matter.

Can the Minister tell us whether that kind of suggestion would be examined sympathetically by him and his colleagues? Unless the Government decide to take people with them, they will find them standing against them. It is nonsense for the Government to say that they wish to protect our environment and do many things when the people who are affected believe that the true purport of what is being done is not to strengthen environmental and ecological protection but to weaken it. People deserve to be treated as senior, adult and committed. What the Minister has done has certainly been the reverse.

5.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)

My Lords, I share the sentiments and concern which have been expressed on all sides today about the need to preserve and enhance the proud reputation which the United Kingdom has earned as a pioneer in understanding and conserving wildlife and beautiful landscapes. Before going another inch in the progress of your Lordships' debate this afternoon, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, on an elegant and erudite contribution to your Lordships' debate

That is all the more so when one considers that there are many who might have thought it would be worth while waiting until the next Session rather than attending on what could be assumed to be an empty afternoon. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, ensured that it would not be an empty afternoon and your Lordships' debate has been greatly enhanced by the maiden speech of the noble Lord. We were all grateful and privileged to be present to hear it.

The proposals which the Government have put forward for reorganising the conservation agencies are designed to streamline the work of the NCC and the Countryside Commission so that over the next decade we shall be in a position to respond to the increasing need for conservation initiatives in a way which respects the separate needs of different parts of the Kingdom.

I was surprised to hear these modest proposals being assailed in some parts of the House with emotive language such as the "dismemberment" of the Nature Conservancy Council. I am afraid there have been some misrepresentations in the English media, accusing the Government of various crimes, including rural vandalism. I refer to the English media because the reactions in Scotland and Wales have in many ways been supportive, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, pointed out to your Lordships' House. In Scotland the chairman of the NCC's own advisory committee has written to Ministers stating that: the new arrangements have my wholehearted support, provided that the new agency is properly staffed and funded". A number of other existing members of the NCC have told my colleagues that they echo these views. When our proposals have been fully digested, I believe that the whole council will come to accept the views expressed by the chairman of the influential voluntary body in Scotland, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, who stated in a recent letter to The Scotsman that they: could turn out to be the most effective and imaginative in our generation".

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will also allow me to tell the House that in that same letter, the trust also stated: while Scotland undeniably has problems which do not apply south of the Border, we are an integral part of the UK with many cross-border links with both statutory and voluntary sides of nature conservation. It is important therefore that formal liaison is kept with England, Wales and Westminster".

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, we have in no way proposed that there will cease to be liaison. I thoroughly concur with the reputation which both the NCC and the Countryside Commission for England and Wales have acquired among conservationists for the high standard of their work over the years. How has this reputation come about? The Government's role in providing the right conditions for their work to flourish has been a help. We have done this in two main ways, through legislation and increased resources.

Many noble Lords will not need me to remind them about the Wildlife and Countryside Act which your Lordships' House passed in 1981 after long debate in this Chamber. The Act marked a sea-change in conservation. It provided the most comprehensive protection for wildlife habitats and individual species ever seen in this country. The Act stands comparison with the statutory framework of every other country in Europe and beyond, not just because of what it lays down but because of the thoroughness which has been shown in implementing the concepts and strategies it contains.

The Act has many provisions to summarise. However, I wish to mention those which created the network of new style SSSIs. SSSIs designated by the Nature Conservancy Council now cover more than 7 per cent. of the land surface of Great Britain. That should rise still further as the programme is completed; and completed it will be by the NCC and by its successor bodies. The success it has brought is also undeniable. As the NCC has reported, not a single SSSI notified under the 1981 Act has been destroyed in the past three years. A very few—but still more than we would wish—have been damaged, but the overall record for a small and densely populated island is surely a matter of pride.

None of the NCC's achievements—which go far beyond SSSIs—or those of the Countryside Commission would have been remotely possible without the resources which the Government provided to implement the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In 1979–80 government grant aid to the NCC and the Countryside Commission came to a total of £13 million. This year the NCC alone will receive some £40 million, and the Countryside Commission a further £22 million. That is a total of approximately £62 million. Virtually all the agency spending—99 per cent.—is provided out of government grant-in-aid. I know that there has been criticism of tighter resources this year, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out, but the overall record shows that we have increased our grant aid to the two agencies by some 134 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80.

During this decade both agencies have been transformed by their expanded duties and resources. That is particularly true of the NCC. When the council's precursor, the old Nature Conservancy, was orginally set up in 1949, it was designed to be a small research council. It was perfectly sensible that it should cover the whole of Great Britain. In 1955 it employed just 125 people. Numbers rose during the 1950s and 1960s but even in 1973, when it was amicably divorced from the NERC under the Nature Conservancy Council Act, it was intended that the NCC should employ only about 350 staff. Today the NCC has more than 1,100 staff, many of whom are deployed on the new duties given to the council under the 1981 Act.

Furthermore, the absolute size of the NCC is only part of the story. Even more significant is the fact that it has to carry out many of its functions—designating and monitoring SSSIs, negotiating management agreements, planning marine nature reserves—in areas of the country which have very different circumstances and needs. If conservation is to work it must be based on consent—active consent by the myriad landowners, farmers and voluntary bodies and individuals who are in a position to look after wildlife and landscape. The consent must be willingly and preferably enthusiastically given. Obtaining it means that the statutory agencies have to tailor and present their policies to fit the local context. Imposing them from on high simply will not work. Where this has been tried—in the Flow Country and Islay to name two examples—the effect is entirely counter-productive to conservation and a new start has had to be made.

The NCC already has country headquarters in Edinburgh, Bangor and Peterborough, and a devolved regional structure below that, implying that there is no problem. The Government questions this. Under current legislation, there is little scope for the NCC to delegate any major decisions from Peterborough. And even if it could, there will always be the impression in Scotland and Wales that an alien body, out of touch with local feelings, is attempting to impose a straitjacket on the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and the great upland areas of Wales, labelled indelibly "Made in England". Quite often the position in Scotland, and in Wales has been reached where scientifically valid arguments for a strict conservation policy have been obscured by a chorus of protest about the origin of those arguments and the manner of their presentation.

Our proposals to create separate agencies in England, Scotland and Wales will establish much clearer lines of responsibility and accountability for nature conservation. They will improve the sensitivity and efficiency with which the agencies carry out their functions, and provide opportunities to find further ways of carrying forward the cause of conservation with the support of the whole community, and not just committed conservationists, important though they are. They will also remove the anachronism whereby the Secretary of State for the environment is involved in the detailed implementation of nature conservation policies in Scotland and Wales through sponsorship of a Great Britain-wide body. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales already exercise considerable powers in their countries, such as the making of nature conservation orders and the designation of marine nature reserves. It is only logical that they should be able to exercise them in partnership with agencies specifically attuned to the needs of Scotland and Wales, in the same way as we already organise built heritage.

I shall now say more about the position in both Scotland and Wales, where our proposals will have the further benefit of requiring integration between the work currently carried out by the NCC and the Countryside Commission. Our proposals have been fully set out in the consultative paper entitled Scotland's Natural Heritage published on 11th July. This details the special qualities and directory of Scottish wildlife and landscape, and I shall not repeat the arguments today, especially as they have been so well received by Scottish opinion. I have already mentioned the support they have received from the chairmen of the NCC's Scottish Committee and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. To these must be added endorsements from the chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland, Mr. Roger Carr, and the convenor of the Scottish Landowners' Federation.

Let there be no doubt that our proposals in Scotland do not in any way represent a dilution of nature conservation or of the science base on which it depends; rather the contrary is the case. We have developed proposals which best suit the different circumstances in Britain.

I now turn to the position in Wales. There too there will be a single, new body with responsibility for the functions at present discharged by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. Although both bodies at present have a committee for Wales, they are purely advisory whereas we propose that the new body should have full executive powers and its own grant-in-aid from the Welsh Office. It will be responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales for carrying out all the appropriate conservation and countryside activities in Wales under the relevant legislation.

Although Wales has much in common with England, it is nevertheless a separate nation with its own culture and language. Wales is particularly rich in upland habitats which are often remote and have become the home of many rare species of flora and fauna. The same areas are also among the most beautiful parts of Wales and attract millions of walkers, tourists and holidaymakers during the course of the year. Wales also has three of the 10 national parks in England and Wales—two in the uplands (Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia) and the unique Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.

In the lowlands, the farms tend to be much smaller than in England and a high proportion of the traditional hedgerows and other field boundaries have survived. Another important distinguishing factor is that nearly 80 per cent. of Wales has been designated an EC less favoured area. All of those special factors can be better covered by a body based in Wales, attuned to Welsh needs. Once again, our proposals have been welcomed by the majority of opinion in the Principality who see the benefit and opportunities for conservation.

I should now like to deal with two related areas where there is genuine concern—the position of existing NCC employees and the organisation's science base. When we announced the proposals, we rightly paid tribute to the achievements of NCC's existing staff who are carrying forward conservation in many different spheres. They set high standards for themselves. Many carry on their work in their own time. They are dedicated professionals. The Government want their skills and enthusiasm to be harnessed by the successor bodies.

Whenever the Government change structures in the public sector, we are asked to give assurances about the future employment of staff. That is always difficult because the new bodies will be employers in their own right and must eventually take responsibility for their own staff. However, I can say that the Government intend to ensure that all members of the NCC's staff employed by the council at the date of transfer are offered employment in the new organiltion on terms and conditions no less favourable than those that they have at present. That applies not only to staff in the regions and existing country HQs, but also to those in the Great Britain HQ in Peterborough, including scientists and other specialists.

That brings me on to the second area of concern to which the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, drew our attention; namely, the NCC's science base. First, I should define what I mean by that concept. I define it as the scientific expertise and data held in all parts of the organisation. It does not reside exclusively in the chief scientist's directorate in Peterborough. The whole of the NCC's work is very properly underpinned by science. That must continue, but it is far from the case that all of that work requires unified organisational arrangements across the whole of Great Britain.

There are scientists employed at every level in the organisation. There are some specialisms, based mainly but not exclusively in Peterborough, which it would be difficult or uneconomic to duplicate in each of the successor bodies. There are also some functions where the need exists to take a GB or UK-wide view. We expect that the relevant expertise, including staff, and data will be utilised via co-operative arrangements between the successor bodies to enable that view to be formed and, where appropriate, for the Government to be able to obtain advice on that basis.

We are very ready to discuss those matters in detail with the NCC and other relevant interests before deciding how best to meet the needs of conservation. If necessary, the legislation will provide for such co-operation. The point here is that perfectly satisfactory arrangements are available within the organisational framework that the Government intend. It would be wrong to allow the understandable but mistaken concerns that have been expressed to overshadow the very real gains in conservation where it matters—on the ground—that we are determined shall flow from the new bodies.

Having said all that about the science base, I want to re-emphasise that the NCC is not a research council and already commissions most of its scientific work from other bodies such as the Natural Environment Research Council and universities. The NCC has been aware for several years that as much research work as possible is subject to competitive tender and is contracted out where appropriate. We intend to continue to apply that policy to the successor bodies.

I should like to say a few words about international issues which many noble Lords have mentioned during the debate. There appears to be a widespread belief that because wildlife crosses political boundaries, and this point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, the NCC has to be a GB body.

In fact, the priority for the conservation agencies is to ensure that wildlife is effectively protected at grass roots level in local communities, and in co-operation with voluntary bodies like the county trusts. Where advice is needed at international (and national) level, we shall make arrangements for the new agencies to provide it, and for the Government to act on it, whether in Brussels, or in the various international wildlife conventions to which the UK is party, such a CITES and Ramsar, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, drew your Lordships' attention.

We believe that there is a strong case for the reforms that the Government have put forward. I shall of course ensure that my colleagues take note of the concerns which so many of your Lordships have expressed this afternoon, bearing in mind the wealth of experience for which your Lordships' House is noted on all matters affecting wildlife and the countryside. It will be most valuable as we frame our legislative proposals in the coming months.

Perhaps I may end by saying that discussions are now taking place. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the Welsh Office was fully consulted about the details of organisation to ensure the best way to carry forward the Government's wishes and, as many noble Lords pointed out from all sides of the House, there will be a full opportunity to debate these matters in both Houses when the Government submit legislative proposals in due course.

As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, drew to your Lordships' attention, this is the very first and simple bite of not one but many cherries. Finally, let me say that I shall use the opportunity of the Recess of your Lordships' House to investigate the connection between Prussians and the Forestry Commission.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I asked whether there would be consultation documents for England and Wales and I do not think that the answer was among the great amount of information that he gave.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, currently consultations are taking place between the NCC and the department. We believe that those will then spread to other interested bodies such as the RSPB and so on during the autumn. I shall have to inquire about the discussion documents and in due course write to the noble Baroness, if I may.

Forward to