Lords Sitting of 18 December 1990

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

Sunday Trading: Circular to Justices Clerks
Lord. Boyd-Carpenter Lord. Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that an organisation describing itself as "Keep Sunday Special" has been circularising clerks to justices with a document embodying that organisation's view of the state of the law on Sunday trading; and whether this attempt to influence the advice given by their clerks to benches of justices is in accordance with proper legal procedures and the proper administration of justice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I have no doubt that the clerks to the justices can be relied upon to deal in the appropriate way with all the correspondence which they receive.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, without speculating as to what my noble friend means by "the appropriate way", does he not take the view that for clerks to justices to be approached by an organisation behind the backs of its opponents is a rather tedious and perhaps a not very well behaved process? Would it not be better to leave clerks to justices alone? Does my noble friend's Answer also cover similar approaches to judges?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asks whether it would not be better to leave people alone. The sane argument might be produced to those who write to Ministers and to those who try to make political points to Ministers about subjects over which they have no control. Clerks are perfectly entitled to receive letters and people are entitled to write to clerks. It is for the clerks to conduct themselves in the most a appropriate way. I have no doubt that they will do so.
Lord Monson: My Lords, given the many changes in policy over the past fortnight, can the noble Earl assure the House that the wishes of a small, vocal fundamentalist minority will no longer be allowed to prevail over the freedoms of the majority in England and Wales?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is, if I may use a colloquialism, an old chestnut. Many people have strong views about the opening of shops on Sunday. Until those people who have loaded interests can come to some form of accommodation it is unlikely that the Government will introduce measures into Parliament. The last time they did so Parliament refused to accept them. I can only advise my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to get hold of his
724
opponents, as he calls them, and discuss with them ways of getting round the problem. It is almost an abuse of parliamentary time if the Government produce proposals which are thrown out by another place.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is very unfair to law abiding shops when some shops break the law by opening on Sunday? Perhaps the Minister can say what point the Government have reached in their consultations with retail workers and their representatives, shop proprietors and the consumer bodies to find some way of bringing up to date the Shops Act 1950.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government are entirely content to have conversations with anyone who has a loaded interest in this matter. It is up to local authorities to make such prosecutions as they consider necessary. The law cannot be altered until agreement is reached in both Houses to alter the law. My experience at the moment is that that has not been obtainable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that abuses of parliamentary time are not altogether that infrequent?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be so but it would not be for me to say which was an abuse.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, should not all noble Lords take the view of The Times and other newspapers that what is important at the present time is that we should all condemn the breaking of the law by whomsoever and in whatsoever context?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the law is there to be obeyed. It should be obeyed by all law abiding citizens.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us how the authorities responsible decide whom they should prosecute? All over Westminster on a Sunday one can buy anything but the authorities prosecuted Hamleys. Who makes the decision?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is for the local authorities to decide whom they should prosecute.

Inflation: Bank of England's Role
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering giving a more important role to the Bank of England in fighting inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government and the Bank are firmly committed to the objective of getting inflation down. We have no plans to change the Bank's role.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a strong case for giving greater authority to a body which is independent of the political cycle in fighting inflation and stabilising the currency, always subject to the ultimate control of Parliament? Furthermore, in the light of the negotiations now going on in the European

725
Community in which central banks will clearly be playing a greater role, should we not be looking at the structure of the Bank of England in anticipation of those developments?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not agree with either of the noble Lord's points. It is the Government's task to get inflation down. We are firmly committed to that and we are fully supported by the Bank. A change in the Bank's status either on a national level or within the European framework would add nothing further.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as economics seems to be such an inexact science, is there not some advantage in both the Treasury and the Bank of England having the benefit of being able to consult each other as they frequently do under the present system?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The truth of that has been shown by the success which the Treasury and the Bank of England have had over the past few years.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, with or without a change in the role of the Bank of England, can the Minister confirm what his right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently said; namely, that there is no intention to cut interest rates while the pound is weak inside the exchange rate mechanism? If that is true, does it also mean that there would be no intention of allowing the pound to fall in order to cut interest rates, even if the length and depth of the recession clearly required it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a very good question, but unfortunately it has very little to do with the Question on the Order Paper, which deals with the role of the Bank of England.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the ultimate responsibility for managing the economy must rest with the Government? Does he further agree that this could be improved by sharing that responsibility between two individuals—namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England—one of whom is not elected?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree. As I said earlier, the current method of control through a directly elected government has worked well.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever success the Government have had in tackling inflation with the co-operation of the Bank of England, that does not compare with the success the West German Government had when they were assisted by an independent central bank?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is very difficult to make international comparisons. It is a well-known fact that different countries have different ways of controlling their central banks. Some banks are fully independent and successful, while others are not fully independent and not so successful. We have developed our way over a number of years and it has worked reasonably well.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is not the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street the grandmother of all central banks and might she not therefore have her status returned to her by denationalisation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is where I bow down to age and experience. I believe that the noble Earl probably knows more about grandmothers than I do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the noble Lord see the television broadcast on Sunday last when the Governor of the Bank of England was interviewed by Mary Goldring? During that interview he said that he had a preference for being governed by an independent central bank sitting somewhere in Europe, rather than being controlled by politicians sitting in Parliament. Will the Government repudiate that and inform the Governor of the Bank of England that it is not their policy to denationalise the Bank of England?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the Governor of the Bank of England is well aware of the Government's policy on the issue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the text of the Bank of England Act 1946, will the Government consider taking steps to prevent officials of the Bank of England, including the Governor, from giving their views on highly controversial political matters which ought not to be their prime concern?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, any changes to the Bank of England Act would have to be approved by Parliament. However, there is nothing to stop the Governor of the Bank discussing various issues with a variety of people, not least members of the committees of this House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Question refers to,
"giving a more important role to the Bank of England".
I understood the noble Lord to say that the Government have no intention of giving a more important role to the Bank of England. However, for the sake of clarification, can he at least tell the House what has been the role of the Bank in recent years as regards fighting inflation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I should draw the noble Lord's attention to the supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Renton. He said that detailed discussions took place between the Treasury and the Bank of England in order to decide what monetary policy should be in the long term.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I did not understand the question put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because he made the great error of referring to economics as an inexact science, which left me completely bewildered. However, am I to understand that the Government view the Bank of England as having solely a secret advisory role and no more role than advising the Treasury; in other words, that it has no independent role and should have no independent role in their view?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government maintain that the current role of the Bank of England is one that works extremely well. We have no plans to change that role.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by his remarks mean that economics is not inexact or that it is not a science?

Prison Building Programme
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to revise their programme for building new prisons in view of a continuing fall in the prison population and in the light of the provisions for restricting the use of custody in the Criminal Justice Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, plans for three new prisons have been dropped. The new prison building programme now comprises of 13 prisons, all of which are under construction. Those are expected to be sufficient to meet the likely needs as now forecast.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that his honourable friend Mr. John Patten, addressing the All-Party Penal Affairs Group on 19th June, said that the prison population had dropped by about 3,000 or 4,000 in the previous year and that he expected that trend to continue over the next four or five years? In view of the succession of highly censorious reports from chief inspectors, culminating in the most recent report by Judge Tumim on the deplorable state of most of our urban local prisons, in anticipation of the report of Lord Justice Woolf, and in view of some of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, is there not a powerful case for freezing, or at least a further scaling down, of present plans to build more prisons outside urban areas and to give the highest priority to improving conditions in our local urban prisons with a view, in particular, to ending by a firm and early date the degrading practice of slopping out?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asks a number of questions. The projected prison population for 1998 has dropped from the expected 62,600 to 56,700. He asked whether it would not be better to stop work on the new prisons. All the new prisons are under construction. The point about new prisons is that they will not just provide better places but will be capable of replacing older prisons. We shall be spending about £162 million in 1991–92 on the existing estate and £300 million on new prisons. A great deal is being done in the prison world to meet the criticisms that have been levelled.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prospect of falling numbers in the prison population will provide an opportunity to decant prisoners from wings of urban local prisons and to refurbish them? Can he confirm the estimate that I have received, that the expenditure of £30 million over seven years would end the slopping out practice to the great improvement of our prison system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all want to end slopping out as soon as possible. A great deal of work is being done to encourage that result. My noble friend asked whether £30 million over seven years was an accurate figure. Integral sanitation is in many cases installed as part of a major refurbishment of wings, and it is not possible to disentangle the cost of providing integral sanitation from total expenditure. We are steadily increasing the resources available. The amounts spent on installing simple systems of integral sanitation will rise from £4 million this year to £9.5 million in 1991–92.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can the Minister give me any information about the provision of new open prisons? Are any open prisons included in the building plans, or are there plans to use existing buildings for open prison, which is a possibility?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point. I do not have the figures.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will my noble friend close some of the old prisons when the new ones are in use?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be possible. The important point it to get the new buildings into use. When they are in like it will be possible to forecast likely requirements for the old prisons.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that mental hospitals are being closed at an alarming rate; that, for example, Hellingly Hospital in Sussex, which has 1,000 patients, is being closed, and that it is strongly rumoured that a prison will take its place? Do we not have our priorities all wrong if we close mental hospitals and build prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we had a discussion on this topic the Other day. I know that the noble Earl is worried about mental hospitals. It would be wrong were mentally disturbed prisoners to end up in prison if a mental hospital is the right place for them. The Government are addressing that matter.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the money saved by ceasing to build the new prisons should be spent on getting remand prisoners out of the prisons, and stopping the scandal, which was pointed out 10 years ago in a debate initiated from these Benches, which has been described by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in precisely the same terms after a whole decade as being unacceptable and intolerable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the money made available for new prisons was made available on the forecast of the likely requirements for new prisons. The fact that that forecast has been revised means that those new prisons will not now be made available. At the same time, a great deal of work is being done to modernise existing prisons and to update remand prisons.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in a previous answer today was the Minister giving an undertaking that there would be no diminution in the funds being made available for the upgrading of terrible prisons such as Walton in Liverpool and Armley in Leeds? Any diminution in the resources needed to correct

729
conditions there would be sad, in view of the conditions suffered by prisoners, including remand prisoners who should not be there.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, nothing I said in my replies should have indicated that there would be a diminution of funds to those prisons.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is 20 times cheaper to supervise an offender in the community than to send him to prison? Does he agree that the focus should be on providing non-custodial sentences rather than putting people into prison?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am delighted to say that the noble Baroness is at one with the Government on that point. I shall look forward to seeing her come onto these Benches as a result. She knows well that the whole onus of the Criminal Justice Bill is to encourage the punishment of offenders within the community; but where they cannot be punished within the community, and where the community has a right to see that those people are detained in custody, it is correct that that custody should be acceptable and proper.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the Minister accept that part of the purpose of my Question was to draw a distinction between the building of new prisons outside towns and the crying need to improve existing local prisons in urban areas; and that the priority should be to improve those prisons which do not serve the same purpose as those outside the towns?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's distinction. All that I was trying to tell him was that the work on the prison building programme by the Government is designed to try to improve existing prisons and to create new prisons where possible. When it is necessary to draw a distinction between urban prisons and other prisons, we do our best to ensure that both receive a fair crack of the whip.

The Gulf: Casualty Contingency Plans
2.58 p.m.
Lord Smith Lord Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
With the shortage of in-patient beds in our hospitals, what arrangements they have made to admit and treat casualties evacuated to this country if there is a war in the Gulf.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in consultation with the relevant government departments, health authorities have reviewed their existing contingency plans for NHS treatment of military casualties in the event of hostilities breaking out in the Gulf. Detailed guidance on the reception and treatment of casualties contains sensitive information which it would not be appropriate to make public; but the guidance has gone out to the relevant individuals in the health regions, and contingency planning will be taken forward as necessary.
Lord Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that many consultants are perturbed about the NHS being able to cope adequately with a rush of casualties, especially given the call up of medical reservists? Is she aware that some consultants, largely involved with the occupancy of beds in private hospitals, feel strongly that those beds should be available in an emergency? Have the Government any plans to urge private hospitals actively to support the National Health Service by accepting casualties?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the purpose of the National Health Service contingency plan is to treat United Kingdom armed forces casualties evacuated from the Gulf once the Ministry of Defence hospitals in England are full and up to that point to meet the demand for any specialist facilities and treatment which the defence medical services cannot provide. So far as I am aware, there has been no suggestion to date that the Ministry of Defence would use private hospitals.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that while nearly every region has waiting lists, in some regions the situation is worse than in others? Does she agree that they ought to be identified and that a system of priority should be worked out by the Government to try to relieve areas with waiting lists and primarily those with chronic waiting lists?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reception of casualties would obviously affect the National Health Service waiting lists. We are considering how best to recover the situation, should it become necessary, but we all most earnestly hope that it will not. What will need to be done depends on the number of casualties and how long they require to be treated. In a sense, this is an extension of the usual difficult area where decisions must be made on clinical priorities, sometimes at short notice, where emergency admissions are involved.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if the recommendations of the Audit Commission and the Royal College of Physicians for a much wider use of one-day surgery were carried out, waiting lists could instantly be cut by 300,000?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel that we are straying into different territory. I can tell the noble Lord that we make every use of one-day surgery. The results are seen in the faster and greater turnover of numbers in day surgery as well as in patient care.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there is obvious uncertainty about what might happen. Some prophesy that it would all be over in 24 hours; others say that there might be a six-month battle. The committee under the presidency of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg has postulated as many as 200,000 UK casualties. May I have an assurance that the Government base their planning on the worst case scenario so that we are able to cope? Further, may I have an assurance that adequate ambulance planes will be provided to bring patients back from the Gulf if, tragically, that is necessary?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have asked the National Health Service to base its Gulf contingency planning on the arrangements for dealing with major civil incidents such as rail or airliner crashes. Within that framework, obviously individual regions are responsible for their detailed arrangements which would include ambulance services. I can tell the noble Lord that dispersal is the name of the game; he will know exactly what I mean.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer my specific question? Are the Government making preparations on the worst scenario basis rather than simply hoping for the best?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hesitate to say on a worst scenario basis; they are making the best possible plans.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a parliamentary delegation visited the Gulf recently? It had the unusual experience of meeting British doctors, surgeons and other medical staff who were desperately looking for patients on whom to practise their skills. May we have an assurance that the Ministry of Defence will ensure that medical reservists go to the Gulf as soon as they are needed but that they will not be taken off work here until that need is imminent?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was not aware of the noble Lord's recent visit to the Gulf. I am glad that he was in a position to meet some of our medical reservists and to know that they are ready for action. Of course, contingency planning is made on the basis that it will be used as and when necessary and that there should be no unnecessary rundown in anticipation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House what provision is being made in the Gulf? How many beds are available for casualties there? Will she further tell the House what facilities are available under Ministry of Defence control in the United Kingdom so that we can be apprised of the size of the problem?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, because of the sensitivity of the information, I am not in a position to inform the noble Lord of the detailed figures. I can reassure him and all of your Lordships that we are making as adequate provision as possible in all the circumstances.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council in Rome.

London Docklands Railway Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Scottish Natural Heritage]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and access to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am aware that it may not seem appropriate to raise this matter again at this stage of the Bill. However, the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in relation to the insertion of the reference to access in Clause 1(1) were less than satisfactory in my opinion. The words "access" and "enjoyment" are not synonymous. One may wish to use a right of way for the purpose of access with no element of enjoyment involved. If it is said that "enjoyment" subsumes "access" it would introduce a useful clarity into a crucial debate on whether the Bill refers explicitly to access. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that access, getting to a place for enjoyment, may be anything but enjoyable in itself. This is a small amendment but it would clarify the point. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, noble Lords will know how important we consider access to be as an aim of SNH. We expect to build on and develop the work done in this area over the years by the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Access is an important part of SNH's general aim of facilitating the enjoyment of the natural heritage.
As I said in Committee, however, it would not be proper to single it out over other aspects of enjoyment. When we discussed the issue in Committee, I gave a commitment to table amendments to extend to SNH the access powers contained in Part II of the 1967 Act. As your Lordships will have seen from the Marshalled List, I have fulfilled that commitment. Therefore, I can see no need for this amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we shall come to another long Government amendment on this matter a little later. I do not think we shall get any further with this matter at this stage. It may be rather a fine point, but I believe the amendment should have been accepted. However, obviously that will not be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, after ("heritage") insert ("and resources").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that "heritage" is too narrow a term and has implications only of cultural and aesthetic values. The whole thrust of the report Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead was to widen the agenda for conservation beyond the narrow approach based on interest and aesthetic considerations. It clearly sets the Government's objectives within the terms of the world conservation strategy which seeks to tackle the wider issue of natural resource use. The report reaffirms,
"the government's commitment to positive action to protect the environment and promote the sustainable management of natural resources".
That matter clearly goes well beyond the protection of heritage to include natural resources in general. That must be reflected in the statement of Scottish Natural Heritage's general aims and purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this amendment seeks to relate the aims and purposes of SNH to something described as the natural resources of Scotland, which is apparently viewed by noble Lords opposite as somehow different from the natural heritage of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made it clear that he felt there was a difference between natural resources and natural heritage. However, as defined in Clause 1(3) the natural heritage includes flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features. I do not consider that the explanation that the noble Lord offered for including the term "resources" in the Bill adds anything to the scope of Clause 1. I suspect that it would serve to raise confusion on the meaning of "natural heritage" in other parts of the Bill. I do not wish to detract from what the noble Lord has said, but I believe that the scope of Clause 1 covers all the necessary aspects. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, again I believe this is a fine point. I should have thought that the inclusion of the word "resources" would have benefited people's understanding of the Bill. However, in view of the Minister's explanation and the fact that the Bill has a long way to go in another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("have regard to the desirability of securing") and insert ("take all practicable steps to ensure").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we believe that the words proposed in Amendment No. 4 reflect far more accurately than the words in the Bill the strength of commitment which Government Ministers have consistently expressed in spoken and written form during the past 18 months. The first six pages of Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead contain no fewer than 16 references to sustainability. No
734
reader could fail to gain the strongest impression that the document implies much more than the concept conveyed in the words,
"have regard to the desirability of securing".
The duty in the Bill must therefore be stronger than it is at present. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said he hoped to find a middle way between what the Bill proposes and what is contained in these amendments. I do not believe that that has happened in this case. I regret therefore that we are in danger of repeating the same arguments. I am obliged to reiterate that the Government do not consider this amendment to be realistic. It would not be practical to encourage unlimited interference by SNH in the activities of others. In the long run that would be very likely to prove inefficient and ineffective. SNH will of course do all that it reasonably can to seek to ensure that the work it undertakes at its own hand is done in a sustainable way. It will persuade others to do likewise. The Bill provides for that. I do not consider the amendment would serve the purposes which the noble Lord hopes to achieve. It could cause confusion rather than produce effective solutions.
We thought carefully about the wording in the Bill when we included the words,
"have regard to the desirability of securing".
We felt that those words implied the right kind of duty rather than the stricter duty implied in the words,
"take all practicable steps to ensure".
I realise that one could argue about this matter for ever. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will accept my assurance that we have looked at this matter with extreme care. We believe we have produced the right form of words. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister said that this measure was a repetition of an amendment proposed at an earlier stage. I had hoped to obtain fresh words for the amendment but with my limited resources that is difficult. I am glad that the Minister, with his vast resources, was able to reconsider this matter. I am sure that he has reconsidered the matter honestly. If he cannot find words that cover exactly what I and my advisers were attempting to convey, I doubt whether I can at this late stage. The Bill, however, will pass to another place, where perhaps more resources can be devoted to the wording and more time will be available to debate such matters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 15, after ("undertaken") insert ("overall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to persuade the Government to take a wider view. The aim is to ensure that some developments which may cause some loss of heritage occur at some locations but are balanced by no development at other

735
locations. The concept of sustainability should be applied strategically to the whole of Scotland and to major areas. It should not be applied on a small site-by-site basis which could, cumulatively, be quite destructive to the Government's aims in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in that I have at my disposal the vast resources of the Scottish Office which enables me to counter the arguments that the noble Lord proposes. However, I should point out that although the noble Lord's resources may be meagre, his arguments are effective and he has made us think again on many occasions in Committee and now again on Report.
This amendment presents me with some problems. I am rot entirely sure how the amendment would operate. I consider that the intention of the amendment is to weaken the idea of sustainability by requiring that anything done should be,
"undertaken overall in a manner which is sustainable".
It implies that some activities which were not sustainable could be supported. This is not the Government's intention. I am sure it is not the noble Lord's intention, either.
As I explained in Committee, sustainability is an important and increasingly understood concept, and one which is fundamental to the Government's approach to environmental matters. We do not wish to see it weakened. An activity may either be considered sustainable or not sustainable; and the addition of the word "overall" will make it more difficult for SNH to interpret its aim under Clause 1(1).
As I said in Committee, the Government feel that the sustainability duty should be applied to individual activities and more generally to support schemes and policies. It is not a question, as this amendment implies, of one or the other. It is, of course, the case that there will be variations in the extent to which particular activities which are otherwise entirely necessary or desirable can be carried out in a sustainable way. That does not make sustainability any less desirable as an objective.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, followed that explanation. I felt myself getting lost half way through, and my thoughts may have become rather confused. We are dealing here with sustainability in given areas. If we include the word "overall" we shall diminish sustainability rather than enhancing it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, my noble friend has convinced me that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was right and that my noble friend is wrong. The word "overall" means overall. It does not diminish sustainability, it extends it to the whole area. I should have thought that that was desirable.
As it stands the Bill provides that if one can say that some part of what is done in relation to the natural heritage is sustainable then one fulfils the purpose of the Bill. That is exactly what we do not want. We want the major aspects of a development to be sustainable overall and to extend to the whole area of the development. I should have thought that the
736
amendment would be a valuable addition to the Bill in maintaining the overall development—whether in forestry, land or some other development. In that sense it is a balanced, overall development, which I should have thought would be the wish of Parliament.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not like to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. However, it appears to me that the phrase:
"is undertaken overall in a manner which is sustainable"
is hardly English. It is certainly not comprehensible to me. I should have thought that leaving out the word "overall" would be of great benefit to the simplicity of the clause.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has such a reputation in the House for clear thinking, gained over many years, that after the Minister's explanation I was very glad to hear his explanation, which was made on the hoof as it were. I think that we are on to something here. I agree that the wording may not be quite right; and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has a point in that the English is not as good as it might be.
We are concerned that developments should be considered from an overall point of view, and I hope that the Minister will think again and agree to take the matter back between now and Third Reading.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, because it is Report stage, perhaps I may add one or two points. May I say to my noble friend that the purpose in writing the Bill in this way is to make sure that conservation and sustainability are the primary functions. Naturally, in carrying out its functions Scottish Natural Heritage will have a duty to look at other aspects of the development of forestry, agriculture and other areas in relation to that overriding duty. In the Government's view adding the word "overall" would weaken that duty. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, admitted that there may be some aspects which are not sustainable.
I am sorry that I cannot give any undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on this issue. We have gone through it at some length. I hope that he will read what I have said before he decides what to do at Third Reading.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that we shall return to the concept of sustainability fairly soon. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert:
("(4) For the purpose of this Act, "sustainable" shall mean "consistent with the principles of preserving biological diversity, protecting major natural ecosystems, and using natural resources only in such a way as protects them from long term degradation or depletion".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I understand it, this is the first time that the word "sustainable" appears in United Kingdom legislation. After extensive promotion of the concept in the World

737
Conservation Strategy and the Brundtland Report, the Government have adopted the concept in countless references in government publications and Ministers' speeches. It must be clearly defined in the Bill, in the terms in which it is used in the Brundtland document, in the report Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead and the environment White Paper This Common Inheritance. The Minister will be aware of that helpful definition. I hope that he will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Nichol: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on this point. When we discussed the definition of "sustainable" at Committee stage it was clear that a number of us needed clarification as to what the word meant. It would be very helpful if the definition was included in the Bill at an early stage. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I congratulate noble Lords opposite on this attempt to define the word "sustainable". I welcome the approach. There is no doubt that the concept of sustainability is essential to the setting up and operation of Scottish Natural Heritage. I recognise that the definition emanates from the World Conservation Strategy and that it was, as the noble Lord said, set out in our consultation paper. I have no difficulty with that.
Where I have difficulty is with the idea that it is desirable to enshrine any definition of sustainability into statute. On the one hand there is no disagreement on what "sustainable" means in a natural heritage context. The key aspects are related to the nature, range and intensity of usage, and it is those aspects which Scottish Natural Heritage will keep in mind. The more agreement there is on the meaning of the concept the less the need for a statutory definition.
There is a further general disadvantage to statutory definitions. By including the definition in statute the noble Lords who propose the amendment could unwittingly restrict SNH. I believe that it would be better to leave "sustainable" undefined. Circumstances can change and while the definition may seem satisfactory to us now it may not always be so.
It is in that spirit that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will appreciate that we are not opposed to what he said but that we do not want to impose a straitjacket on SNH through a definition of sustainability.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, having just listened to a debate in another connection on that marvellously vague phrase:
"such force as may be deemed necessary",
which no one has ever been able to define, it seems to me that here again we shall create a field day for the lawyers if "sustainable" is not clearly defined in the Bill. In every Act of Parliament there are certain phrases for which everyone has a different interpretation, leading to endless litigation. Surely, in a Bill of
738
this character, it cannot be beyond the wit of the civil servants and Ministers to deal with this very serious issue.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lady Phillips and Lady Nichol. The Minister suggested that the world changes. Of course it does, but I should have thought that it would be easier, and—as my noble friend Lady Phillips said, we shall provide a field day for the lawyers if we do not include the definition—perhaps it would take some work away from the lawyers and make their pleadings somewhat shorter if such a definition were included.
I am sorry that the Minister, while agreeing with the principle, finds it impossible to support the amendment. I am sure that this will be a matter which will be discussed again at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 23, after ("persons") insert:
("() the power to guarantee obligations arising out of loans or otherwise incurred by any person receiving assistance from SNH;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, argued that Highlands and Islands Enterprise does not have the power to guarantee obligations and therefore no requirement could be seen for Scottish Natural Heritage to have such a power.
I think that on reflection the Minister is bound to agree that the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise will have such a power. It is defined in Section 8(1)(c) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990. Under Section 13(1) of that Act, Scottish Enterprise is restricted to using the power only to provide financial assistance to persons carrying on any commercial activity. There appears to be no restriction upon Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
However, the point is that Scottish Natural Heritage, as a body empowered to foster environmental enterprise and support or promote private sector involvement in services or activities to do with the care or enhancement of the natural heritage, should have at least the same portfolio powers as the enterprise agency. The gist of the argument is contained in that. I shall not go to any great length to explain it further, unless the HIE and Scottish Enterprise do not have the powers which I am told the Minister wrongly said they do not have. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, moved an identical amendment in Committee. I said then that I did not see the need for SNH to have such a power, and I stand by that statement. SNH is not an economic development organisation. Noble Lords will surely agree that it is the role of private sector financial institutions to

739
guarantee loans and mortgages. It would be wholly wrong to transfer the contingent liabilities to the public purse by accepting this amendment.
As tae noble Lord himself pointed out, I suggested in Committee that equivalent powers did not exist for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I am now advised that I was wrong and that that body does have such powers, in addition to Scottish Enterprise. Nevertheless, I do not think that there is any logical parallel between those two bodies charged with furthering economic development and Scottish Natural Heritage. In this area of operation, HIE and SE might expect to make some use of such powers in particular circumstances with a long-term aim of securing important jobs and investment for a particular area. Such guarantees would be given subject to strict financial guidelines to limit any liabilities to an absolute minimum. Furthermore, both Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise have the knowledge and experience of operating such projects developed over several years by their predecessor bodies, HIDB and SDA.
It would be wrong to place additional responsibility of that nature on SNH by asking it to make decisions on such matters which are well beyond its remit. SNH will have significant opportunities to make grants and loans to the private sector and the Government see that as an appropriate and sufficient extension of its powers in that area.
I hope that that explanation puts at rest the mind of the no Lord, Lord Carmichael and that he will agree that it is better for SNH to look after its environmental duties and allow HIE and SE to look after their economic development duties.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am glad that I was able to help the Minister to clear up a difficult point. I am sorry that I did not perhaps speak for as long as I could have done on the ability to expand economically and commercially. I accept that guaranteeing obligations could put a considerable burden on the public purse if it were not well controlled. However, I am sure that there is scope for the Treasury to come to an agreement with SNH as to the level of guarantee that might be appropriate under a range of circumstances.
This matter will have to be pursued, although I can see the dangers to which the Minister pointed where a body is not quite so commercially oriented as the other two which have such powers. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("and
(h) the provision of advice and guidance to any government department or public body on the preparation of an environmental strategy which sets out how that department or body will have regard to the desirability of securing that anything done in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner which is sustainable, and assisting in periodic review of the implementation and effectiveness of such a strategy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment allows for Scottish Natural Heritage to tender advice to the Government or other public bodies concerned with the environment. Ministerial statements have made clear that the overriding concern of government is to secure a sustainable natural heritage and to ensure that when change occurs in the use of land or water resources it does not irretrievably damage the natural environment and imperil the heritage that we wish to hand on to future generations. We believe, and the Minister also, I think, feels that Scottish Natural Heritage is a significant step in that direction. But it is illusory to imagine that SNH is the only body to he concerned with Scotland's natural heritage. Indeed, much of the conservation versus development conflict in Scotland in recent times results from different bodies or agencies pursuing different objectives to their individual or mutual advantage.
Sustainability is dependent on fostering a common purpose. It is a helpful suggestion that Scottish Natural Heritage should be available to give advice to the Government and to public bodies in respect of any developments that will affect the environment of Scotland. In that spirit I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there appear to be two elements to the amendment. The Government do not see the need for statutory provision for either of them. First, the amendment would give a specific function to SNH to provide advice and guidance on the preparation of an environmental strategy. We are certainly not against SNH providing advice to government departments and public bodies; indeed specific provision is made for it in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2(1). We do not, therefore, see the necessity for this further specific provision.
Secondly, by implication the amendment suggests that departments or bodies will prepare environmental strategies, and will periodically review their implementation and effectiveness, particularly focusing on securing activities that result in the natural heritage of Scotland being sustainable. I am pleased to see that the Opposition accept the Government's view that departments and government bodies should have such responsibilities. Obviously they have read and taken on board the proposals in our White Paper This Common Inheritance. For example, there is a nominated Minister in each department who is responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of that department's policies and spending programmes as well as for following up the relevant parts of the environment White Paper.
Furthermore, annual departmental reports can also set out the action that they have taken to follow up the White Paper and any other environmental initiatives which they are proposing. The Government have also set work in hand to produce guidelines for policy appraisal where there are significant implications for the environment in the work of government departments.
I hope that the noble Lord will believe me when I give him the assurance that the Government are

741
committed to a co-ordinated departmental strategy to deal with the environment. No doubt he will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("and
(h) the duty to keep under review all matters relating to the provision, development and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside and the need to secure access for the purposes of open air recreation, and to encourage, assist, or promote the implementation of any proposals with respect to the enjoyment of the countryside, being proposals which SNH consider to be suitable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to avoid a certain amount of doubt that could arise. Along with mentioning explicit nature conservation functions, we believe that there should continue to be explicit reference to access and recreation. Without the amendment the Bill appears to fail in its attempt fully to bring together the work of both the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. The existing reference to enjoyment and amenity is insufficiently precise. If the amendment is accepted it will ensure that the functions of the Countryside Commission for Scotland as detailed in Section 3 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 are properly carried forward within the new agency. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the amendment seeks to retain the provisions of Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. We do not think that these provisions are necessary on the statute book in the degree of specificity which the amendment suggests. Indeed, I go further. The aims and purposes set out in Clause 1 could not be pursued, and the general advisory functions in Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) could not be undertaken by SNH without keeping under review all relevant matters which would include enjoyment of the natural heritage. Similarly, when undertaking its more specific powers—for instance, grant aid under Clause 8 and development projects or schemes under Clause 5—SNH would need to have a broad strategy to enable it to make decisions on individual cases and proposals.
We are quite satisfied that the general powers in Clause 2(1), in particular paragraphs (b), (c) and (g), will give Scottish Natural Heritage all the powers that it needs to achieve this. The amendments as drafted are unnecessary, as well as being backward looking in their terminology. They refer back to statutes which are well over 20 years old. We are trying to achieve a synthesis of the legislation. These amendments would perpetuate the language of the 1967 Act. In particular, the concept of designated countryside to which the amendment harks back is being abolished. I cannot therefore accept it.
742
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that we are trying to achieve a degree of flexibility. The amendment does not allow that. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that we are all in favour of flexibility. However, there are some aspects in law that one wishes to pin down or one finds that one has not achieved what one had believed when the Bill was passed. The Minister gave a full and interesting explanation. I shall consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

European Council, 13th and 14th December
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the European Council in Rome on 13th and 14th December. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council in Rome on 13th and 14th December, which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
"The Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House. After the Council itself I attended a formal joint opening session of the intergovernmental conferences on political union and on economic and monetary union. This was followed by a short working session of each conference attended respectively by my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These meetings were mainly formal and procedural. The conferences will start in earnest in January.
"Five main subjects were dealt with by the European Council: first, political union. On this, the Council reached agreement on a long list of items which are to be considered—and that is the operative word—at the intergovernmental conference on political union. The list includes Britain's proposals for closer co-operation on foreign and security y policy, better implementation of Community decisions, a role for national parliaments in the affairs of the Community, better financial accountability, and observance of the principle of subsidiarity. Other countries have also added items to the list. Some of them we welcome; others are less palatable.
"The key, so far as Britain is concerned, is that the issues have simply been put on the table for discussion. None is agreed. All are for consideration. The conclusions of the Council do not constrain or prejudge the intergovernmental

743
conference's decisions, which have to be reached by unanimity. One of our principal objectives in Rome was thus satisfactorily achieved.
"The second main item was assistance for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community's aim is to support the economic reforms which President Gorbachev and the Soviet Government are introducing, and to help the Soviet Union make proper use of its own resources. We therefore agreed to make available technical assistance to particular sectors of the Soviet economy, and notably to food distribution. We also endorsed the aim of energy co-operation, in which Britain is particularly well placed to play a part.
"To meet the Soviet Union's short-term needs the Community will provide substantial food aid. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and stressed that there should be guarantees that the food actually reaches those for whom it is intended, and does not undermine attempts to make Soviet agriculture more responsive to the market. These points are reflected in the Council's conclusions.
"The Council also recognised the particular difficulties being experienced by Eastern European countries as they make the transition to democracy and a market economy, while coping simultaneously with sharp increases in oil prices and the change to hard currency trading. The Community will contribute, along with other Western countries and the international financial institutions, to meeting their financing requirements. It will also provide emergency aid to Bulgaria and Romania, in the form of food and medicines.
"Thirdly, the Council discussed the GATT negotiations. It called on all parties to show the necessary political will to reach a satisfactory agreement and asked the Commission as the Community's negotiator to be in touch with other participants in order to resolve remaining problems. This refers to agriculture in particular.
"We thus achieved another of our main objectives; namely, to ensure that heads of government dealt fully with the difficulties in the GATT negotiations and gave a strong signal of the Community's resolve to see a successful outcome. I hope other countries will show themselves no less willing to make progress.
"Fourthly, the Council dealt with the situation in the Gulf and agreed an admirably firm statement. This shows the Community as firmly committed as ever to ensuring Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate government. The statement makes particular reference to Security Council Resolution 678 which envisages the possible use of force if attempts to resolve matters peacefully have not succeeded by 15th January.
"The Council's discussions made clear that the Twelve do not accept any linkage whatsoever
744
between Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait and progress on other Middle Eastern issues. Saddam Hussein must not gain from his aggression.
"Lastly, the Council welcomed the changes which President de Klerk has, with Mr. Mandela, brought about in South Africa. It also decided to lift with immediate effect the voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa. That is a step which Britain has been urging for many months. I know the decision will be most welcome to Members on this side of the House. The Community is committed to lift other restrictive measures as soon as the South African Government takes certain additional steps which it has already promised to do.
"I underline the importance of this move by the Community, which will encourage further reform and political progress in South Africa. I hope Europe's example will rapidly be followed by others.
"For the sake of completeness, Mr. Speaker, I should make two further points. First, the European Council reaffirmed its determination to complete the single market on time. Secondly, the Council did not discuss economic and monetary union on this occasion. But my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced that we shall very shortly table draft treaty amendments to give effect to Britain's proposals for a hard ecu and a European monetary fund.
"The Council was marked by a positive and co-operative spirit—despite some subsequent remarks—and by a willingness on the part of all member states to work for solutions which will enable us to go forward as Twelve. There is no doubt that there will be difficult discussions ahead in both the intergovernmental conferences. It would be foolish to deny that. But the Government's aim will be to work for agreements which are acceptable to this House and match both Britain's interests and those of Europe as a whole. We made a good start in Rome".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. This second summit in Rome was both interesting and important. It is clear that the proceedings were conducted in a friendly atmosphere. To that extent it was an improvement on most recent summits. The big question is whether it gives promise of closer understanding and co-operation in the future. That is particularly important as the Government approach the January meetings of the two IGCs on EMU and political union.
I note the reference to political union, which is of the first importance, especially to the British Parliament. A number of key items are to be considered and they are on the table for discussion without prior agreement. Will the noble Lord confirm that major decisions—for example, the role of this

745
Parliament and other parliaments in Community affairs—will be fully debated in both Houses before a final conclusion is reached?
We welcome the general aim to support the efforts being made by President Gorbachev to find a stabilising economic policy in the Soviet Union. Can the noble Lord tell the House what contribution this country will make towards the wide-ranging assistance to be provided? Does he agree that we in this country have an efficient agricultural industry which could provide experts to advise and help the Soviet Union in its present grave predicament?
The noble Lord will be aware of the dismay and anxiety of all Members of this House about the breakdown of the GATT round. It does not appear that any agreement on the matter was reached in Rome. The Statement is sparse about the steps to be taken. When in the Statement the Prime Minister states that heads of government dealt fully with GATT, does he mean that conclusions were reached? Are any further meetings to be held to break the deadlock which appears to exist? The Statement does not refer to the deadlock but gives the impression that the difficulties are over. The noble Lord could help the House by confirming that immense difficulties have yet to be overcome.
We welcome the unity of the European Community governments on the Gulf crisis. I note that the initiative reportedly being taken to arranging a meeting between the Italian President of the European Community and Mr. Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, is not reported in the Statement. However, its importance is so great that it will be interesting to know whether there is any foundation for the report and, if so, whether there has been any response from Baghdad.
The Statement refers to EMU, which was not discussed in Rome. Are the Government still firmly against a single currency, however gradual the move towards it may be? Do the Government believe that the amendments that the Chancellor is now drafting to introduce a hard ecu and a European monetary fund are likely to be acceptable to the majority of EC countries?
Is the noble Lord aware that we must look carefully at the proposals for South Africa? We must ascertain whether sufficient progress has been made to justify the lifting of the ban on new investments referred to in the Statement. There must be some doubt about that matter at present and we shall need to debate it in the House in due course. I too hope that substantial reforms will be made soon. Furthermore, I hope that the conference will lead to more constructive debates which will not unduly upset M. Delors.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that one former President of the European Commission takes a more enthusiastic view of Mr. Major's performance in Rome than M. Delors appeared to take? I do not believe that Jacques Delors's comments should cause too much excitement; nor should they be used to treat
746
him as one of the ogres a former Foreign Secretary, in what now seems an age away, asked the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, not to create in Europe.
I listened to the President of the Commission on Sunday and was sympathetically struck, remembering vividly my experience in that respect. It is dangerous to undertake a spontaneous interview in a language in which one is not an absolute master. It is so easy to say too little or too much. I am doubtful about whether the hard ecu will run. I do not believe that it obviates the disadvantages that we suffer compared with Japan or the United States in having 11 different currencies in an increasingly closely integrated Community of twelve members. However, there is no reason why those issues should not be studied and argued about in the intergovernmental conference.
In view of past, recent experience it is understandable, however, that others may be suspicious that what Britain wants is not a constructive alternative solution but to see the whole enterprise run into the sand. Mr. Major has made considerable progress towards dissipating such suspicions. I believe that atmosphere is important. However, he still has some way to go and must move from atmosphere into substance. Nonetheless, I agree with the Statement that a good start was made in Rome and I greatly welcome that.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is right to say that the atmosphere in Rome was friendly, and there is a real prospect of success in the IGCs. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether in the context of the debates about political union the role of this Parliament will be debated. The answer must be yes. He also asked about the contribution that will be made by this country towards the assistance to be given to the Soviet Union. We consider that we are able to make a considerable contribution, particularly as regards technical assistance in the field of energy.
As regards the GATT round there can be no question of agreement being reached in Rome. Agreement depends on the agreement of parties who are not present in Rome. The Ministers at the Council in Rome instructed the Commission to be in touch with the other participants in order to make the greatest possible effort to procure agreement.
As the Statement made clear, the Council did not discuss economic and monetary union as such. However, my right honourable friend made clear that in due course the British Government will present their proposals for the hard ecu. We believe that an imposed single currency is not on. If the market-driven common currency approach is successful the hard ecu could in due course become a single currency.
I do not believe that anyone will deny that progress has been made in South Africa. That was recognised by the Council. It is hoped that progress will continue to be made as further important initiatives are taken by the South African Government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his remarks. Certainly he gave a timely warning to us all about spontaneous interviews. I do not believe that one should take too seriously remarks attributed to

747
the President of the Commission because I repeat that the atmosphere at the council was extremely friendly and helpful. There is every reason to believe that the intergovernmental conferences which are now to begin in earnest will yield fruit. There is no reason why our proposals for the hard ecu should not receive a friendly and favourable reception from our partners in the Community.
4 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the delicate nature of the discussions which will shortly take place as a prelude to the intergovernmental conferences may provoke a considerable amount of political controversy as between the heads of member states and, indeed, within the member states themselves. When reflecting upon possible revisions to the treaty, will the Government consider tabling the appropriate amendment to Article 157 of the Treaty of Rome which lays down the standards of conduct expected from individual commissioners? Will he make it clear that remark s such as: "If we need to provoke a second political crisis, we will do so", are not acceptable? Nor is it acceptable for any member of the Commission to act in a partisan political campaign against proposals put for ward in good faith by any member state. Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will remember the provisions of Article 158 of the Treaty of Rome which provide for the renewal of individual commissioners' mandates which are not automatically given?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add to what I said a few moments ago. Perhaps it is not profitable to dwell for too long upon remarks made by individuals which may have been rather ill-considered. The point is that a shopping list was put forward by all the member states, a whole series of subjects was raised for discussion and now we must wait to see how those substantive discussions proceed.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on the very successful outcome of the Rome summit. Does my noble friend agree that the issues raised in a 30-page communiqué will take many months and possibly years to consider?
As regards the subsequent remarks which were referred to, perhaps we may note with some satisfaction that the President of the Commission is reported today to have said that his reference to a political crisis did not refer only to the United Kingdom but may have applied to other countries. Is it agreed that other countries may also be proposing amendments to the draft treaty?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend has been helpful in drawing attention to the most recent statement by the President of the Commission. I understand that nobody is expecting the discussions which are to take place in each of the intergovernmental conferences to last for less than most of next year. Any amendments to the treaty are not expected to be ratified by the member states until a year after that. Therefore, it will be a long process.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as a pro-European, is the Minister aware that I should want him to strongly assert that we are on the train to political and economic union within Europe? However, we reserve the right to apply the brakes if we believe that the train is travelling at ruinous or breakneck speed. Secondly, I do not wish the Leader of the House to be on the defensive regarding Delors. Is he aware that bungler Delors should be informed that his foolish outburst has united the anti-Europeans, much to the detriment of those who wish to see a united and co-operative attitude on the developments within the EC? Delors should be so informed. His spoken word cannot be unsaid.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not know whether the President of the Commission reads Hansard but I am quite sure that any expressions of opinion emerging from the press or this House will be drawn to his attention. The point about political union is that it is a process. At the council it was agreed that we should not define the final goal and the progress towards political union must respect fundamental national identities and institutions.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the spirit of that part of the Statement which lays down that any future discussions will take fully into account British as well as separate European interests was not completely reflected in the long interview which the governor of the Bank of England gave on Sunday? Will he give an assurance to this House that it is the spirit of the Statement and not the spirit which seemed to come from that interview given in his native tongue which will be the basis of any future action which we may take?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the long conclusions, a copy of which have now been placed in the Library of the House, bear careful examination. A shopping list was drawn up and no agreement was reached which could cause anxiety to my noble friend.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join in welcoming the improved atmosphere which, it has been noted, was apparent at this conference. I welcome also the assistance promised to the central and East European countries which have suffered and are suffering acutely from increased oil prices which gravely affect their advance towards political democracy.
That having been said, while I understand the need to secure guarantees that aid to Russia is delivered to those to whom it is intended, the problems of the USSR are problems of distribution rather than anything else. On the other hand, in offering emergency aid to Romania I believe that most stringent guarantees should be insisted upon to see that that aid is not absorbed by the present administration whose auspices are, to say the least of it, extremely dubious. There should be guarantees that that aid will be distributed to those who need it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. It seems that there is no general food

749
shortage in the Soviet Union but there are acute distribution difficulties. We pressed successfully for a technical assistance package which will cover transport and distribution of foodstuffs. It is important to give short-term humanitarian help to the Soviet Union. There is no point in giving that help if it does not reach the people who need it.
I take the point made by the noble Lord about aid to Romania and Bulgaria which is emergency aid for food and medical help. I am sure that every possible step will be taken to see that that aid goes to the people whom it is intended to help.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that although of course we congratulate Mr. Major on a relatively quiet summit conference, we have become used to somewhat emollient statements about what has been agreed? Can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that they continue to have control of the currency, that they will not agree to an independent central bank and that they will ensure that vital decisions concerning monetary, economic and fiscal policy continue to be taken by Her Majesty's Government and Parliament?
Secondly, as regards Mr. Jacques Delors, who seems to be an insufferable autocrat who wishes no less than the sovietisation of Western Europe, people in this country are offended by a top European civil servant appearing to threaten this country if it does not do certain things and goes even further and threatens to take action to undermine and destabilise the position of the Prime Minister.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is perhaps right that the House should take note of the helpful remarks made by my noble friend. Regarding monetary union, I was very careful in the remarks I made a short time ago. An imposed single currency is not on. If, having embarked on a common currency approach, that approach is successful, then in due course the hard ecu could become a single currency. That is the way we believe we should proceed.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps it might be as well to remind the House that we do not normally attack civil servants who cannot reply for themselves, particularly when they have been appointed by the head of this Government. In the case of Monsieur Delors I believe an explanation was given in today's press that he was not attacking the United Kingdom. Perhaps it would be better if we did not in this House, or any other House, attack a man attempting to do a job on behalf of the Community.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have never met the gentleman who has been referred to so often this afternoon. I am always hesitant in criticising someone I do not know.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in view of the oblique digs that have predictably been made in one or two quarters against the right honourable lady who was Prime Minister until a few weeks ago, perhaps I might ask the Leader of the House a question. Although the response, "No, no, no" may not always be the
750
appropriate one in regard to EC proposals—I believe however it was the appropriate response to the over-zealous proposals made a month ago—would the noble Lord agree that the question, "Why, why, why?" is not only appropriate but always essential? There is nothing to be said for change for the sake of change. Therefore, every single proposal emanating from Brussels should be examined with the proverbial toothcomb to see whether it is in the interests of the British people and accords with their culture and traditions.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I find it very difficult to disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord. We attach a great deal of importance to the principle of subsidiarity. Indeed, we were one of the first to suggest that that principle should be written into the treaty. It is certainly no wish of the British Government to see the Community taking a greater part in affairs which can be better dealt with by the individual governments of the Community.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend the Leader of the House say whether or not I am right in detecting from reports of what occurred in Rome a movement by the heads of some governments — notably the French Government—towards the view that the way to strengthen the Community and abolish democratic deficit is to strengthen the position of national governments and national parliaments? It is not to strengthen the role of the Commission. Is not that the conflict which underlies the problem referred to regarding the present president? Could not Hansard be graced to sum up the opinions of this House with three French words, alors, Delors, sors!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, a short time ago I too referred to a shopping list, and on the shopping list is the role of national parliaments. There certainly were some at the Council who believed we should not forget the important role that national parliaments can play in future developments.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, in reference to the paragraph regarding the Gulf crisis, whether he can confirm that the Statement sets out the Community's view that Security Council Resolution 678 permits military action but does not make it either mandatory or certain? I ask that question because this afternoon I heard the Prime Minister say that there will be military action after 15th January if there is no solution. I hope that that was a slip of the tongue. I should like the noble Lord to confirm whether that is the view of Her Majesty's Government and the Community.
On the same issue will the noble Lord advise the House whether there was any discussion in Rome concerning the strengthening and tightening of sanctions against Saddam Hussein? Military action will almost certainly destroy what is left of Kuwait and the Kuwaitis. Sanctions are already weakening Saddam Hussein's military forces. Was there any discussion on tightening them still further thus giving time to reduce the result of the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can only invite the attention of the noble Lord to the declaration on the Gulf crisis, which is Annexe 1 to the presidency conclusions. It begins,
"The European Community and its member states remain firmly committed to full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions. Complete Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty and of its legitimate government remain the absolute conditions for a peaceful solution of the crisis".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly stressed Her Majesty's Government's addiction to their route towards a common currency through the hard ecu. I hope that his talk of an imposed currency does not rule out supporting a negotiated path towards a single currency which is considered by industrialists in this country to be desirable.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I stated quite firmly the British Government's position. It is obvious that a single currency is not something one can impose on the Parliament of this country. However, I repeat that European monetary union was not discussed at the Council.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with respect the noble Lord did not answer my question. Perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat that section of the Statement—just the first sentence—regarding the Gulf crisis and reference to Security Council Resolution 678.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe I clearly answered the question. I would be wasting the time of the House if I repeated the answer.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert:
("(h) the power to convene meetings of the representatives of any interests where, in its opinion, discussions are needed to allow it to pursue its general aims and purposes as mentioned in section 1(1) above;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is a probing amendment. Much play is made in Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead of the need for discussion and communication to deal with the conflicts which have beset the conservation development debate in recent years. In tabling the amendment I ask whether it is helpful to give Scottish Natural Heritage the power to convene meetings of representatives of any interests where in its opinion discussion is needed.
The flaw in the amendment is that it gives great power to Scottish Natural Heritage. Perhaps the Minister could suggest a word other than "power"; maybe "opportunity" or "ability". The power to summon all the other bodies together is somewhat draconian. That is a weakness of the amendment. I hope to discover from the Minister whether Scottish
752
Natural Heritage could be the organisation to pull the group together and perhaps reach a consensus. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I had hoped not to see the reappearance of this amendment. We discussed it at another stage and we remain opposed to it. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me to elucidate more clearly why we do not wish to accept it, and I shall do so.
As I said previously, there is no need for a specific power for SNH in this regard. Its general power under Clause 2(1) (g) will allow it to convene this kind of meeting. It is an important power. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has accepted, the SNH will be keen to encourage partnerships with others and practically to seek to convene such meetings as are appropriate. There is no need to spell out such powers on the face of the Bill. To spell out each precise detail of SNH operations might imply that any other powers not included did not exist. That is why we have drafted Clause 2(1) (g) to cover all powers and to allow the SNH a greater degree of flexibility in its operations.
We discussed flexibility with Amendment No. 10 and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, agreed that it was necessary. It is in the light of that spirit of flexibility that I am keen not to accept the noble Lord's amendment and instead to rely on paragraph (g), which will allow the convening of such meetings.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am not as convinced as my noble friend. What is the problem here? There is to be a small body which will take decisions affecting man. It is extremely important that this measure should be implemented with the full accord of the people concerned. Therefore it is desirable to have meetings and to say what is proposed and what the effect will be. I think that my noble friend is missing the point in not encouraging the people who have the responsibility to get together with the people concerned in the area and say "We want to do this and we want you to understand what we are doing".
If the people on the spot understand their objections will probably diminish, which will make it easier for the SNH to do its work properly. I believe that this is a useful opportunity to show that throughout there is a readiness for agreement. The danger of this opposition is that some thickheaded chap will make himself a thorough nuisance and become unpopular throughout the country. The work of the organisation will then be more difficult. However, if people are called together and told what is proposed and the reason for it, those responsible will make themselves more popular. That is of great importance to the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I entirely endorse what the Minister said. It seems clear beyond a peradventure that the activity described in the amendment: namely—
"the power to convene meetings of the representatives of any interests where, in its opinion, discussions are needed"—
is within the power conferred by Clause 2(1) (g),

753
"the power to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions".
I say with all due respect to those who take an opposite view that it seems unarguable that the terms of this amendment are not already within paragraph (g).
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it appears that all those who have taken part in this debate, including the Minister, have the same aim; namely, that there should be an opportunity for a general discussion. The Minister said that the power is already in the Bill. I know that we discussed this matter on an earlier occasion. We have now discussed it again. Perhaps there is a possibility that this provision will be taken on board if a future conflict arises. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("may, and if so requested") and insert ("shall be consulted").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this amendment as a life-long member of the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland. The two amendments in my name are very simple and they go together. The first asks that the Scottish Natural Heritage organisation, which we all support enthusiastically, should be included in the societies and the local authorities which are consulted when any planning applications involving special scenic areas are being discussed. Although the special areas are supposed to be under the protection of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, in practice that council has no statutory right to protect the SSSIs from damage or destruction.
That could be avoided if the statutory authorities were obliged to consult Scottish Natural Heritage first. That does not mean that all plans would be stopped, but those areas of special interest and beauty would be preserved. That would include recommendations involving national scenic areas, national nature reserves, environmentally sensitive areas and marine nature reserves. This amendment is intended not to prevent development in rural areas but to protect them from unnecessary and wanton development and to ensure that the new national environmental protection body is strong enough to carry out its work properly. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I appreciate fully my noble friend's motives and concerns in moving this amendment. I am of the opinion that no change is needed to Clause 2(2). It repeats the present Section 8 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, except for the reference in that section to land in the countryside. We have substituted the natural heritage in keeping with the functions of the new Scottish Natural Heritage. The provision has worked well in the past on its present basis, and we see no need to alter it. The Countryside Commission for Scotland has been consulted in accordance with Section 8 and has felt able to offer advice as it saw fit.
754
Obliging the Secretary of State or a planning authority to consult SNH gives no guarantee that they will accept its advice, which is surely my noble friend's real aim. The amendment also has the disadvantage that it leaves no room for discretion. SNH would need to offer advice on all cases under the 1972 Act, even if the planning authority itself did not look favourably on a particular case. Given the number of planning applications which would affect the natural heritage as defined in the Bill, an enormous number of cases would need to be referred to SNH. The absence of any discretion under the amendment would mean that no such case, however trivial, could be excluded. I suspect that my noble friend will agree that that would be a great misapplication of resources.
On a more general point, it may reassure my noble friend if I tell her that SNH will inherit the current arrangements under which the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland are notified of planning applications of particular interest to them. In the case of NCCS, those are planning applications relating to SSSIs, which therefore includes national nature reserves, special protection areas and RAMSAR sites. In the CCS's case, certain applications relating to national scenic areas are referred to it. As I say, that will continue to be the case, and all such applications will in future be notified to Scottish Natural Heritage. I trust that in the light of those remarks my noble friend will withdraw her amendments. I hope she will understand that I have a great deal of sympathy with what she is trying to do. I feel that we have essentially covered the point that she has been trying to make.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am disappointed by what my noble friend said. Can he assure me that the authority of the SNH will be great enough to enable it to stop unfortunate or bad plans which, let us say, get the support of a local authority for no particular reason or because it thinks that that is the right decision? It may be that the plan will be very destructive. I simply want the SNH to have the authority to stop a plan if needs be.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is difficult to give that assurance because so much depends upon the specific case. In Clause 1, we are essentially giving SNH powers to consider the natural heritage of Scotland and its sustainability. In Clause 3, SNH has to take into account various duties; for example, the needs of agriculture, of fisheries and of forestry, among other things. So that it is difficult to give my noble friend a totally categorical assurance that SNH, in all cases, will be able to stop development.
Essentially, Scottish National Heritage is an advisory body. It can advise the Secretary of State, and can advise local authorities on what their decisions should be. Obviously, no local authority will take a decision, and neither will the Secretary of State, which goes against what Scottish National Heritage has advised, unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so. That is the point that I am trying to make and I hope that my noble friend will accept that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not true that, in any case, any appeal against a development goes to the Secretary of State eventually?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. That in itself will give the Secretary of State an opportunity to look again at the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage, and he can make his decision in the light of that advice.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall not move the next one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
4.30 p m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. There is an error in the legislation. I am most grateful to him for pointing it out. I am also delighted to be able to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 41:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

  Report on proposed research
  .—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 2(c) above, SNH shall furnish the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (established in pursuance of section 128(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) with details of research projects which it proposes to commission or support including—

  (a) research which may he initiated or carried out by SNH itself; and

  (b) research which SNH proposes to commission, support, initiate or carry out itself on a direction given by the Secretary of State.

  (2) Details formulated in accordance with this section shall be included in the annual report made by SNH to the Secretary of State under section 9 of this Act.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to hear that this is new ground for him. He has not had this amendment from this side before. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the waste of scarce resources, money or staff, on overlapping or duplicating of research between country councils. Your Lordships will recall that in March this year the Science and Technology Committee of this House produced a report on the Nature Conservancy Council, a report which has come to be known as the Carver Report. That report stated in paragraph 3.22 on page 16:
  "The agencies should cooperate to avoid unnecessary duplication. For this latter purpose, lead agencies in specialist areas should be agreed and extensive use should be made by the Joint Committee of techniques like working parties and cooptions to bring the staff of country agencies together in professional groups."
  When I raised this problem at the Committee stage on 3rd. December, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replied:
  "in practice there is no statutory requirement except through the work of the JNCC. Of course if there was overlapping it would not be the best use of resources, which it is a requirement of the SNH to provide. It would be impossible for me to say that it would never happen. All I can say is that it is something we do not want to happen."—[Official Report, 3/12/90; col. 38.]
  That seems clear enough.
  But on 5th December, at the launch of the NCC's Earth Science Strategy, which I attended, I put a question to the platform on this same subject and was given reassuring remarks from the platform. The question was then passed to the chairman designate of JNCC, Professor Holliday, who happened to be there.
  756
  He, too, made reassuring remarks. But in conclusion he said that, in any case, some competition in research was no bad thing.
  This may be all very well for commercial research, but surely, when we are talking about publicly funded bodies, especially bodies which are already very short of money, we do not want to go down the road of competition between them on something as fundamental as nature conservancy research. This amendment provides a very simple mechanism to avoid this situation, and I hope that the noble Lord is prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this amendment is quite a good one, in so far as it ensures that proper information on current research passes between the two bodies. As long as the amendment does not force Scottish Natural Heritage to use any facilities which are available—if they think, for example, that a Scottish university is much more competent about something—then it is quite a good amendment. But if it will force Scottish Natural Heritage to use available research in Peterborough, it is a bad amendment. But, as I understand it, it is not doing that.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I feel that there is no need for this amendment. If SNH wished to supply such information to the JNCC, it could readily do so by virtue of its general function under Clause 2 of the Bill. SNH would also include information about research in its annual report, as that report must include information about the discharge of its functions, of which research is one. The amendment would give SNH no discretion, however, as to whether it wished to report on research in quite so much detail.
  Moreover, the amendment shows a misunderstanding by the noble Baroness of the relationship between SNH and JNCC. First, it seems to assume that there will be little or no contact between these bodies, or that SNH will attempt to carry out or commission research without telling JNCC. I agree wholeheartedly that we do not want duplication of effort in the research field, but we do not need to resort to statutory provision to achieve that purpose. Secondly, and more fundamentally, it would permit JNCC to determine the research which SNH wishes to undertake for its own purposes or to undertake in pursuit of a direction from the Secretary of State. This is quite contrary to Parliament's wishes as set out in Section 133 of the 1990 Act, which allows JNCC to give advice or information to the county councils, and in Section 132 which places a duty on these councils to have regard to any advice provided by JNCC.
  Nothing like this duty was thought necessary for the other country councils. As a result, there is no equivalent to this provision in the legislation concerning the England and Wales councils, both of whom, along with SNH, form the JNCC, concerning the performance of their special nature conservation function. It would be odd if SNH were to be the only one of the three bodies with such an obligation.
  I reiterate our concern that we would not want to see public money being wasted. I think that, since the

  757
  country councils are, essentially the members of the JNCC, there should be no problem. For the reasons that I have laid out, I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment. But, more importantly, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, understands why I do not wish to accept it.
  Baroness Nicol: Yes, my Lords, I understand. But I want to pick up one or two points. First, I should have said in moving the amendment that it refers to SNH because that is what we have before us. I would wish some mechanism to be found to apply it to England and Wales. Obviously, it would not be fair to put any kind of restriction on one body and not on the others. But that I would have come to in due course, had the amendment found favour.
  As regards the annual report, I consider that information in the annual report would be too late. At that stage, we are being told what the body has done for the year and there seems to be little point at that stage in wringing our hands about duplication in research; so that is not a very valid argument.
  I know that SNH may, as indeed may any of the other councils, inform JNCC of what they intend to do. But it is not necessarily so that they will tell JNCC in good enough time or in enough detail for some sort of arrangement to be made about the amount or kind of research that they are doing.
  I wonder, would the Minister consider whether directions might be issued to all three country councils, to draw their attention to the need for not having overlapping research and for avoiding this waste of resources? I would have accepted the Minister's answer very confidently but for the remark made by the chairman designate of the JNCC which seemed to indicate that he might even welcome competition in research. That has to be avoided.
  I should like to hear that the Minister will give some more thought to whether directions can be issued. Does he wish to come back on that point?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall certainly consider that point and see whether or not it is possible. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Duty to take account of certain matters]:
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 16 to 18.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 2, line 39, after ("agriculture") insert ("field sports").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would lay a duty on SNH to take appropriate account of the needs not only of agriculture, commercial fisheries and forestry but also of field sports. By field sports, I mean fishing for sport, shooting and stalking. The amendment is also designed to make sure that
  758
  SNH is sufficiently sympathetic to the legitimate and honourable interests of landowners and their tenants, particularly in the Scottish Highlands where much of the natural heritage lies.
  I am of course aware that there is a good deal of mistaken prejudice against landowners and field sports, particularly perhaps among those who live in towns and who may be ignorant of the truth of what goes on in the countryside. The truth is that field sports are often vital to the social fabric in the isolated areas of Scotland and can be just as important there as forestry, commercial fisheries or indeed agriculture. The more isolated and fragile the community, the more important field sports often become. They are also highly sustainable in the best sense of that expression, as intended by the Bill. They receive no subsidy from the taxpayer, whereas all the other activities set out in the clause are quite heavily subsidised. Just on the figures alone, I should have thought that field sports merit inclusion in this clause.
  Let us look at sporting salmon fishing. The Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board published a report last year which concluded that more than 3,400 jobs and at least £50 million are generated each year on Scotland's salmon rivers. I do not have figures for the much more popular sport of trout fishing, which is often free in the Highlands, but it must also be a strong contributor to Scottish tourism and the Scottish economy.
  I turn now to shooting, including stalking. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has recently commissioned a report from the prestigious Fraser of Allander Institute. It concludes that these sports generate more than 7,200 full-time equivalent jobs and more than £50 million of income for Scotland. Again, those jobs tend to be in the outlying and fragile areas.
  So, at 10,600 jobs and more than £100 million of income, field sports compare very favourably with commercial fisheries. The netting side of commercial fisheries in the whole of Scotland has declined to some 390 jobs and £3 million of annual income, but the HIDB estimates that fish farming in its area now has an income of some £100 million and supports about 6,500 jobs. I do not have the figures for fish farming outwith the HIDB area but the comparison with field sports is clearly a close one, with field sports possibly offering more jobs. The long-term sustainability of some fish farming may be open to more doubt than field sports, I am afraid.
  But, this Bill is not motivated by the quest for a bottom line profit. Its purpose is to secure in a sustainable manner the conservation, enhancement, understanding and enjoyment of the natural heritage of Scotland. It is that purpose which field sports may serve better than any of the other activities set out in this clause. Let us take a closer look, for example, at deer stalking, which is certainly a vital industry to the remotest areas of mainland Highland Scotland.
  The Red Deer Commission estimates that red deer support some 500 full-time equivalent jobs, mostly in these areas. None of these jobs is subsidised by the

  759
  taxpayer, though they are heavily supported by the landowners. Many of the people concerned will also work with sheep, which are subsidised, but the future of subsidies for sheep is in some doubt at the moment. I therefore feel sure that SNH will come to welcome the support given to the social fabric of some of our remotest communities by the deer forest owners.
  Red deer are also certainly sustainable in the Highlands. Indeed some would say that the females —the hinds—have become too self-sustaining, and should be reduced in number. In this respect a rumour is going round that the Government plan to table an amendment, perhaps in another place, to give SNH the power to instruct the Red Deer Commission to execute any necessary reduction in numbers. If the rumour is true I fear that such instructions would put the Red Deer Commission in a very difficult position. The resultant large scale killing of hinds would be extremely unpopular in the locations where it took place and would even be unpopular nationally.
  Any surplus in hind numbers would be better dealt with by the existing deer management groups, possibly with enhanced powers, and by opening the season in which hinds can be shot earlier in the year, say, on 1st September instead of on 20th October as at present. I have made this suggestion before and I believe it would solve the problem very quickly. It would also have other connected benefits for the Highland economy and would be entirely in keeping with the purposes of the Bill. My noble friend the Minister may have referred to this problem at Second Reading. I wonder whether he can tell us what the plans are, if any.
  SNH is in effect to be a merger between the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. Landholders can perhaps be forgiven for feeling that the Countryside Commission has sometimes been a little too close to local authority and other interests which are not always wise in matters affecting the natural heritage, and that the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has sometimes taken too narrow a scientific view in some of its SSSI designations. The success or failure of the Government's worthy aims may therefore depend to an unusual extent upon SNH's chairman, on whom high hopes are riding, and on its members. It is with these fears at the back of my mind that I have moved this amendment. I hope I have said enough to show that field sports merit inclusion in the clause in the way I have suggested. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support the amendment. It does not oblige Scottish Natural Heritage to take the advice it is given. Field sports in the Highlands are an important source of income in a large number of areas. The inclusion of this provision would not do any harm and it would oblige Scottish Natural Heritage to consider the points made so excellently by the noble Lord.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I support the amendment. Sport and Scotland, particularly in the
  760
  northern part, are almost synonymous. This matter should be in the Bill and should not be left to chance. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in moving the amendment I am sure that my noble friend is attempting to protect the interests of those engaged in activities such as deer stalking and shooting, which are a vital part of the financial viability of estate management throughout the Highlands. I entirely accept that. As such they are important components of the concept of the economic development of Scotland, which I think is adequately covered already in Clause 3(c).
  Field sports are not in the same category of uses of the natural environment as are agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Clause 3 at present picks out the three primary industries using the natural environment with which, because of their nature, SNH will have a special relationship. On the other hand, field sports are no different from other types of enjoyment of the countryside. SNH will approach them in the same way as other uses of the countryside. Earlier today I had to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that I could not accept his amendment on access and enjoyment of the countryside on the basis that the concept was already covered. I must say the same to my noble friend.
  I would expect SNH to carry out its functions with regard to these economically vital activities in a responsible manner. There will be no attempt on its part to intervene unnecessarily in such activities. Therefore, I see no need for a more specific reference in Clause 3 to field sports or, indeed, any other activities.
  My noble friend also spoke about deer. I can now confirm what I said on Second Reading. I said then that amendments would be put forward, probably in another place, to deal with the problem of the overpopulation of red deer, especially hinds, which has resulted in considerable damage to natural vegetation and habitats and which has a negative impact on the landscape. To overcome the problem, we intend to bring forward an amendment to the powers of the Red Deer Commission to allow it to cull deer in order to protect the natural heritage interest following advice from Scottish Natural Heritage.
  I know that my noble friend has made certain suggestions as to how the problem can be dealt with. I should like to extend to him an invitation that he and I, and perhaps a group of officials, have discussions aimed at avoiding confrontation and seeking, especially in the Highlands, a genuine solution that enhances co-operation among landowners, stalkers and those who believe that the environment is important. I believe that all those bodies could, and should, agree with one another.
  I hope that my noble friend is reassured on the question of deer. I hope he agrees too that, although I am not turning down the idea that Scottish Natural Heritage should have regard to field sports, this

  761
  amendment is inappropriate and, indeed, unnecessary. The responsibilities of SNH for field sports will be taken up in its regard for the economic and social welfare of the countryside.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurances. I am not entirely sure that I follow his reasoning on why field sports are in a different category to the other three activities mentioned in the clause. However, I shall certainly have a careful and enthusiastic look at what he said. I am also grateful for his invitation to be involved in any discussions with the Red Deer Commission and others over the future of the possibly excessive number of hinds in Scotland. I thank him again for those assurances and the invitation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 2, line 39, leave out ("and").
  The noble Lady said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak not only to Amendments Nos. 17 and 20 which are grouped together but also to Amendment No. 18 which was grouped with Amendment No. 15, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, which was not moved.
  I read very carefully what was said in Committee on 3rd December. In particular, I noted the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at col. 48 of Hansard. He said that the amendment I moved at that stage was unnecessary. Nevertheless, a very real fear remains; namely, that Scottish Natural Heritage may put conservation above the livelihoods of the local inhabitants. That is something which the Nature Conservancy Council has not always been slow to do. The amendments will not have the undesirable effect of amounting to an injunction to ossify rural communities, which many noble Lords rightly said in Committee would be the effect of the amendments I put forward at the time. They would help to ensure that a sensible balance is kept.
  Sustainable development involves sustainable jobs which will endure over a long period of time and not vanish overnight leaving members of rural communities high and dry with no work and no means of earning a living. The amendments would safeguard the interests of local communities. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in Committee we discussed, as the noble Lady has said, the question of protecting rural interests. I believe that all of us, even those who were supporting the amendment, were not entirely happy with the then wording which featured preservation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde warned us that if an amendment along those lines were adopted it would run the risk of leading to the ossification of rural communities and he pointed out quite correctly that a hundred years ago, if communities had not been allowed to change as they have done, that would have been unfortunate.
  762
  It seems to me that the noble Lady in her present suggestion has got the matter about right. First, we need something in the Bill which is specifically about rural communities. Secondly, I believe that the present wording which refers to their best interests avoids the overtones of ossification and keeping them just as they are. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, at Committee made an extremely good point when he said, that the Bill, in referring to social and economic development, conjures up in our minds development on a very large scale which does not necessarily take note of the interests of rural communities. For that reason I urge my noble friend to accept the balanced wording of these amendments.
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, the rural community in Scotland is of crucial importance. In the Highlands I would have said that it is more crucial than in any other part of the islands. A matter of two jobs can mean a very high percentage of the village population. The giving of, let us say, six or seven new jobs has on many occasions breathed totally new life into a community that was dying.
  My noble friend on the Front Bench may remember that at Question Time a few weeks ago I raised with him the matter of the loss of six jobs in a tiny community at Kinlock Laggan. Such a loss is bound to have a tremendous effect on the small rural community in that area. I believe that the point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in a supplementary question. That particular loss of jobs was not caused by anything that the Countryside Commission had done. However, I can certainly see the possibility of the commission taking some such action. I agree that this may be a hypothetical example, but it is perfectly possible that it could take action which would have a crucial effect on a small community.
  In conclusion, I must tell my noble friend that, having occupied the position in another place which he now occupies in this place, I often find the scarcity of amendments which the Government are prepared to accept quite extraordinary. It was always my policy, no doubt in order to keep the peace at all costs, to go over matters with my officials and say, "Well, what can we accept?" It certainly sweetens not only the Opposition but also the Back Benchers who are—in another place, at any rate—dragooned into supporting the Government. The amendment is not just of great importance; it contains words that cannot possibly damage the purpose of the legislation.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for again directing our attention to this important matter. I am deeply impressed by the amount of concern shown by noble Lords for the interests of local communities. I share that concern. My noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston suggested that I should sweeten the Opposition and my Back-Benchers. He gave the example of another place. I have always tried hard to sweeten my Back-Benchers. I am not always so keen to sweeten the Opposition, but I believe that tae noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will agree that I have sought to be as

  763
  sweet as possible, and have explained the Government's position carefully. Where I have been unable to accept his amendments, I have explained why as clearly as possible without taking an unduly partisan approach.
  We had an interesting debate on this issue in Committee. I emphasised then that I have a great deal of sympathy for supporting rural areas, rural economies and local communities. I pointed out that, with my responsibilities for agriculture, fisheries, tourism and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the interests of local communities are of paramount importance to me and the various government organisations which exist in the Highlands.
  We intend that SNH will not operate as a centralised body issuing edicts to the detriment of local people, and I am sure that that is part of what the noble Lady intends by this amendment. As I stated in Committee, I do not see the need for an amendment to ensure that. The provision as drafted is all-embracing and covers everything that the noble Lady and other noble Lords as well as I would wish to see here.
  I feel that there is a slight problem with the use of the word "community" here; I am not convinced that it fully identifies every interest of which we would wish to take account. Your Lordships will know that throughout many parts of rural Scotland, there are numbers of people, particularly crofters, living in isolated locations, often not forming any sort of "community" with others. Certainly SNH would consider their interests in its operations in their respective localities, but I am not sure that they would he covered by the proposed amendment.
  I sense beneath the arguments of those in favour of the amendment an unspoken feeling that conservation is somehow a blight to rural areas. I am sorry that that should be the case. Scottish scenery is famous the world over. Our flora and fauna are of international significance. It would be a great pity to perpetuate the attitude that attempts to conserve them somehow spell the kiss of death to local communities. We need only consider the number of visitors that our natural heritage attracts to realise what potent assets they are.
  An important aspect of the concept of sustainability involves the recognition that conservation and development complement one another. We must move forward from the antagonisms of the past into a more co-operative and less conflict-ridden future.
  The other aspect of the noble Lady's concern relates to the need to ensure that people receive no less consideration than protected species. I agree with that argument, but it loses sight of our basic purpose in bringing forward the Bill. Of course, people in rural areas must be considered, and there is a whole range of bodies which have that as their main role. The main role of SNH is, however, conservation and it would be misleading to deny that. There is therefore a limit to what SNH can do in relation to the interests of local communities. Without for a moment denying the importance of human needs, we must be careful not to impair SNH's basic aims. We are placing on it an explicit duty to take account of the social and
  764
  economic needs of Scotland or any part of Scotland. There is no restriction on how small a part of Scotland SNH might focus on. The Bill therefore covers adequately the interests of local communities, but the duty is a balancing duty, and I think that that is proper, given SNH's fundamental orientation.
  I know that we have already covered that ground in Committee, but it was useful to return to it on Report. I hope that I have convinced my noble friends and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I am not against the principle of her amendment, but it does not fit into the Bill and in any case a substantial part of her concern is already covered by SNH's balancing duty.
  Earl of Perth: My Lords, I listened to the Minister's reply. When we were discussing the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the Minister pointed out—I believe rightly and I was ready to accept it—that the word "economic" covered field sports. As I understand his argument, I am doubtful whether the word "social" covers the interests of local inhabitants, if he does not like the word "communities".
  Some years ago, the Government believed that it was important to develop a new site for constructing rigs in one of the West Coast areas. Many of the local inhabitants were against the proposal. Nonetheless, it was imposed. The sequel, 10 or more years later, is that the scheme has been dropped. That was the result of consultation. Consultation on such issues is important. The local inhabitants often know better than anyone else.
  There is nothing in the Bill which makes it obligatory for SNH to consult local inhabitants or communities. It is all very well for the Minister to say, "Oh, but it will": what certainty do we have about that? I beg the Minister to think again and to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, about occasionally giving way and accepting an amendment which cannot do any harm but which could satisfy many of us as being in the interests of the whole scheme of things.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are of course on Report, which means that certain rules apply. With the leave of the House, I shall read carefully what has been said. I have listened attentively to the words of my noble friends. The point is that SNH is a body which is essentially concerned with conserving Scotland's natural heritage. Other organisations deal with developments relating to local inhabitants. Those two duties are not mutually exclusive. Different government bodies will be able to discuss with one another what line to take. At the moment I cannot offer the noble Lady any succour by saying that I shall accept the amendments at a later stage.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
  The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I must inform the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that we are on Report.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I should have thought that crofters' needs were catered for under agriculture, which has been mentioned, and that,

  765
  when needs are specified, those which are not specified, are ipso facto excluded. On that basis, I have to differ from my noble friend Lord Perth. I should not have thought that under the previous amendment "economic" covered field sports.
  I appreciate the point that the Bill concerns conservation, not the economic development of local communities nor the prosperity of local inhabitants. However, I did not ask for the SNH to concern itself with the economic development of local communities. I merely asked that it should have regard to their interests in what it did. I should not have thought that that was asking too much. What I ask is not unreasonable, nor does it militate against the objects of the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  5.11 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 88.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Abinger, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Addington, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Airedale, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Jay, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Birk, B.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Longford, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Carter, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  Cox, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  David, B.

  Manton, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Mills, V.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Dulverton, L.

  Newall, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Nicol, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Perth, E. [Teller.]

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Peston, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Gallacher, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

  Gladwyn, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Seear, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Gregson, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Grey, E.

  Shepherd, L.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Halsbury, E.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  766

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L

  Walston, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Varley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aldington, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Knollys, V.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Arran, E.

  Long, V.

  Astor, V.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Auckland, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Mersey, V.

  Blake, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Mountevans, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Munster, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Braye, B.

  Norrie, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Butterworth, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Pender, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Pym, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Reay, L. [Teller.]

  Cottesloe, L.

  Rees, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Renton, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Romney, E.

  Denham, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Elles, B.

  St. John of Fawsley, L.

  Elton, L.

  Savile, L.

  Faithfull, B.

  Sharples, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

  Gainford, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Henley, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Hives, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Holderness, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Wise, L.

  Ingleby, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.20 p.m.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 is not moved.
  Noble Lords: It is consequential!
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 2, line 40, after ("for") insert ("sustainable").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("and
  (d) the policies and strategies of national and regional organisations with responsibility for social and economic development in Scotland.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed earlier a matter that approached the aim of this amendment, but I am motivated to move the amendment because it comes from the Scottish Sports

  767
  Council. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, remarked earlier that he had never participated in a Bill which had been so strongly defended by the Government. He said he gained the impression that there had never been a Bill quite as perfect as this one. I came to much the same conclusion in Committee when I experienced the way the Minister was fending off arguments. However, Government Amendment No. 41 comprises six pages of schedule. One could hardly say that that was not a sweetener from the Minister. We shall reach that amendment later, but I wish to say in passing that while I appreciate the help that the Minister has provided it would have been even ricer had he sent us an explanation of that measure. We on this side of the House had little time to commit over the weekend.
  However, as regards Amendment No. 19, the Scottish Sports Council is merely calling attention once again to what it considers is a deficiency in the organisation of conservation. The council believes there should be some process whereby inter-agency disputes could be discussed at an early stage of consultation and planning. It is important to let the Minister know how strong feelings are on this matter in Scotland. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I recognise that this amendment is closely related to one that was discussed in Committee. I explained then that SNH would obviously seek the views of many different organisations, and not just those of the type and with the responsibilities mentioned in the amendment, to allow it to take appropriate account of all the factors set down in Clause 3. Furthermore, inclusion of this amendment would simply invite the inclusion of references to the policies and strategies of other non-departmental public bodies, local authorities and other organisations to the extent that the legislation could never be adequate and comprehensive. Clause 3 is perfectly adequate as drafted, in particular paragraph (c) which addresses the issues raised by this amendment.
  This amendment would require SNH to take account of the policies and strategies of such bodies, and not merely their views. I do not feel that that is acceptable. Scottish Natural Heritage will, of course, take account of those policies and strategies in exactly the same way as I would expect those bodies to take account of the policies and strategies devised by SNH. The amendment is therefore not needed here any more than it is needed in, for example, the constitution of the Scottish Sports Council.
  The amendment also fails to recognise that it is the Secretary of State who has the opportunity to adjudicate where there is any difference of policy, strategy or view between non-departmental public bodies which is both fundamental to their operation and to the implementation of government policy. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will understand why his amendment is not required and will withdraw it.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I believe I made the point earlier that it was important for the Minister to
  768
  realise that there is a widespread feeling in Scotland that sufficiently early consideration is not given to the need for the different agencies to get together to discuss matters. There has been sufficient discussion on this point to make SNH aware that consultations at an early stage should be encouraged. It is not enough to say that the Secretary of State has the final power in the matter. I hope that only matters of fairly grave importance will be referred to the Secretary of State. I would hope that most other matters could be settled amicably between the bodies themselves. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("and
  (d) the interests of local communities.").
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, just before we accept this amendment, I must say that I have some confusion in my mind. I believe that earlier on the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, sought not to move Amendment No. 18, but then moved it. At the time I was slightly confused. I believe the noble Lady was right originally not to have moved Amendment No. 18 which is grouped with Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 20 is grouped with the amendment that we voted on and which the noble Lady won. I hope I may take it that the noble Lady did not intend to move Amendment No. 18—as was her original intention—but she is seeking to move Amendment No. 20 which I shall not speak against.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. Amendment No. 20 is consequential on Amendment No. 17, or vice versa. However, Amendment No. 18 is a separate amendment. We are now discussing Amendment No. 20. I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, there is some confusion here. I believe that Amendment No. 18 should have been taken with Amendment No. 15. I did not move Amendment No. 15. I am not sure how Amendment No. 18 stands if it was not moved with the other amendment it was grouped with. Obviously the House does not need to accept the grouping, but in this case it was accepted. Therefore, subject to the ruling of the House, I should have thought that Amendment No. 18 should not have been called.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in view of the confusion that exists, I hope the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will agree to us sorting the matter out on Third Reading.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in the circumstances, I believe that would be the best arrangement.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
  Clause 4 [Nature conservation functions]:
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 3, line 6, at end insert:

  769
  ("() Where in the exercise of its functions relating to the designation of sites of special scientific interest, + SNH receives an objection, after consulting the General, Regional or District Planning Authority, or any person with an interest in the land in question, the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State who shall have authority to confirm, amend or withdraw the proposed designation after appointing a local hearing.").
  The noble Lady said: My Lords, an identical amendment to Amendment No. 22 was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, but later withdrawn. Unfortunately, the noble Lord is not able to be here this evening. The Government's response at cols. 54 to 56 of Hansard of 3rd December was correct in fact but it ignores the true issues, which are that the ability to object to a notification is not the same thing as the right to appeal; that as any proposed changes to land use require the agreement of the Nature Conservancy Council in any case, the argument that notification places no restriction on use is not really valid; and that it is wrong that the Nature Conservancy Council, incorporated into SNH, should be the only judge of scientific interest. It is perfectly possible that it might be mistaken. I believe that it has been in the past. There should be some system of, at least, scientific appeal. That is what Amendment No. 23 is designed to achieve.
  Appeal and arbitration procedures with respect to land use do not allow for appeal against the actual designation of an SSSI, which is the most important stage in the operation of the system. The Nature Conservancy Council is an appointed body and its functions are conferred by statute. Whereas the Secretary of State gives the NCC directions of a general character, he has no authority to overrule the council's powers of SSSI designation under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, at Committee stage, if I am not very much mistaken.
  The power of the NCC in Scotland has therefore been absolute and there is no independent body to which an aggrieved party may appeal. Absolute power is only too easily misused and is inconsistent with the philosophy of SNH and the Secretary of State's intention to be accountable for all the Government's environmental policies in Scotland. Accountability means the safeguarding of individuals' rights.
  Although the NCC and the Government may claim that SSSI designation simply identifies the environmental importance of a site and carries with it no presumption against development or normal agricultural and land use operations there is continuing concern among rural and farming communities and a strong feeling that normal operations and reasonable development will be restricted by SNH using the potentially damaging operations procedures once a site has been designated. Instances of that have arisen in Glen Feshie, where historic operations to ease the flow of the river and protect farmland are being challenged as damaging to a proposed geological SSSI, and in Caithness, on Stroma, where an increase in sheep numbers and the takeover of a farm by the farmer's son have been refused by the Nature
  770
  Conservancy Council. In addition, there is the autocratic way in which the Nature Conservancy Council so often clamps SSSI status on a large area of land in order to protect a small area of real importance within it.
  The Government hope that relations between SNH and the rural inhabitants of Scotland will be much better in the future than they have been in the past between the NCC and local inhabitants. That will only be the case if SNH is not able, as the NCC is, to ride roughshod over local interests and people's livelihoods and to be judge and jury in its own cases.
  Amendment No. 23 is a narrower proposition, confining the right of appeal to scientific grounds. Naturally, I prefer Amendment No. 22, which would include the principle of Amendment No. 23. However, Amendment No. 23 would be better than nothing. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, perhaps the first point that we need to consider in relation to this question, however concerned we may be about the right of appeal against designation of an SSSI, is whether there may already be satisfactory redress in the Bill. As the noble Lady has just pointed out, there is certainly the right to object to notification. However, that is not the same as a right of appeal.
  Secondly, it is true that it does not follow from notification that there will be restriction on land use. It is up to the owner or occupier to decide how he uses the land. Nevertheless, when he proposes to change that land use he needs to have the consent of SNH. Therefore, if SNH does not wish a particular change to take place there is a restriction nevertheless. Yet, in spite of that, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out in Committee there is still the redress of appeal against an objection which SNH might make to a change of land use by an occupier or owner. However, as can be seen from this description of procedures, those combined arrangements fall short of a right of appeal against the designation of an SSSI in the first place.
  Thus, the next question is: do we think it right that there should in principle be redress and a right of appeal? As the noble Lady has pointed out, there is of course a very strong case in favour. It is also inconsistent that representatives of an appointed body should be able to lay down the law without question where there might nevertheless be conflict with representatives of an elected body in a local authority area.
  In the case of appeal on scientific grounds, equally, your Lordships may feel that the monopoly of scientific wisdom will not necessarily always lie with the representatives of SNH and that therefore it would be very useful to have in the Bill some redress so that an appeal can be made on scientific grounds. In that case, and as is proposed in the amendment, the Secretary of State would be able to appoint a specialist or specialists to arbitrate on the matter.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to support these amendments because in 1985 I had

  771
  the unfortunate experience of having large areas of my own ground on Rannoch Moor declared an SSSI by the Nature Conservancy Council. I thought that it might be appropriate to share with your Lordships some of the mystifications of the process.
  The three main reasons given by the Nature Conservancy Council were: first, that the waters of my largest loch were very poor in nutrients and getting poorer—in other words, the loch was dying, or "oligotrophic" as the jargon goes; secondly, that about 1,000 acres along its shores were important wetlands which might contain rare plants, although I gather that in the intervening period the plants have not been found; and, thirdly, that a patch of yellow lilies in a lochan in front of my holiday cottage were very rare and would benefit from the water in which they grew becoming even more oligotrophic.
  There was, and is, no appeal against the designation, the justification for which seems very questionable to a layman like me. Lengthy letters to the Nature Conservancy Council have not produced reasoned scientific answers, just replies along the lines of, "It's an SSSI because we say so, and that's an end of it".
  The main bone of my contention in this particular case is that the land in question and the water which flows off it, and so the loch itself, have become noticeably poorer over the last 150 years or so, in part because of constant grazing by sheep and deer, to the exclusion of cattle. Cattle, with their more nutritious manuring pattern and their preference for the long molinia grass, do the ground nothing but good. Molinia grass is a growing cancer in my area, and indeed in much of the Western Highlands. It grows long and if it is not grazed it falls over and shuts out the light from everything under it.
  I have tried to point out to the Nature Conservancy Council that cattle have been part of the natural grazing, balance since they were created—or since they evolved, whichever you prefer. Deer and sheep eat the short, nutritious grass, cattle eat the long grass which sheep and deer will not touch. That is the natural order of things. Yet the Nature Conservancy Council, under the SSSI order, now forbids me to put cattle on the ground in question. I have had to build a fence five miles long to exclude them from it. So the land continues on its path to decay as a result.
  I have managed to put cattle on land outwith the SSSI The molinia grass is receding, heather and other plants are advancing, to the benefit of all manner of flora and fauna. The ground in the SSSI remains a dying desert.
  The decision over the lilies seems even stranger to me. Since the SSSI designation, and the consequent forbidding of any activity which might be nutritious to the ground surrounding the lochan in which the lilies grow, the lilies started to look a bit sick. I was told by the Nature Conservancy Council that that did not matter; in view of the restriction they would soon recover. But they did not; they became even sicker. Then I realised that their sickness coincided with the nearby holiday cottage having been comparatively
  772
  unused for two years while a temporary forester came and went. An interesting fact hit me. I suddenly realised that the lilies grow near to the place where the sewage overflow from the cottage enters the loch. The cottage has now been occupied for two whole seasons and the sewage has been suitably activated. I am sure it has nothing to do with the scientific facts but all I can say is that the lilies have recovered in a remarkable way.
  This makes me wonder about the wisdom of the SSSI designation in the first place. Therefore I wanted very much to test that designation, at least with other scientists, with some of whom I have been able to talk off the record. They have all agreed that the exclusion of cattle from such an area is very short-sighted and unlikely to be in the interests of good nature conservation in its real sense. That is why I should like to support this amendment.
  Lord Kimball: My Lords, it is with some diffidence, as the English proprietor of a cleared highland estate, that I say anything on matters so essentially Scottish as this amendment. However, I declared an interest earlier, in that for the whole of the wilderness area of Altnaharra in central Sutherland I have since 1987 been investigating the possibility of a management agreement under the 1949 Act.
  In the meantime, with the peatland survey team of the Nature Conservancy Council I have had exactly the same experience as my noble friend Lord Pearson. Three major SSSI designations have been put on three different parts of the estate. According to the booklet which was sent with the paper giving notification of the designation, within nine months of notification the Secretary of State must confirm the designation of the SSSI and I have three months in which to object. However, even if I get the Department of Land Use from Edinburgh University and some of the most distinguished scientists to support my view, there is no scientific committee to which I can make a proper appeal. Therefore it is my intention to support Amendment No. 23. I believe that it will solve that problem.
  Let us look for instance at one of the SSSIs, which is an area of 18,000 acres spreading over two watersheds. Surely we all agree that in all matters to do with nature conservancy one has to look at the wilderness areas and view nature conservation as it is bounded by the natural boundaries of existing watersheds. To make an 18,000 acre SSSI which goes across two different watersheds defies all sensible scientific knowledge. In fact I am advised by scientists that within those 18,000 acres there are only 1,000 acres of what they call deep blanket flow bog with special bog communities and a high density of nesting wading birds. In order to protect those 1,000 acres it is intended to put round them an SSSI 17 times their size.
  It happens that on that SSSI of 18,000 acres two men are employed: a shepherd and a keeper. If the SSSI designation is confirmed, my ability to continue to employ those men and pay them increasing wages will be severely limited. I can only continue to employ the shepherd if I increase the sheep stock and I can

  773
  only increase the sheep stock by fencing in the land to give me more ground which I can improve to carry more sheep. If I were to get rid of the keeper the first thing to happen would be that the SSSI itself would be damaged because there would be nobody to control the deer. Whatever one may say about sheep grazing, deer grazing will be just as damaging to the SSSI.
  If the SSSI is to thrive and keep its high density of nesting wading birds, something has to be done about the mammalian and avian predators in the area but one will not be allowed to act without a special licence from the Nature Conservancy Council. We all want to preserve what is valuable but we want to be satisfied that what is being done is done the correct scientific way. We need a body such as the one set out in this amendment to which we can appeal and make our case, a body which will be respected by the crofters, farmers and those who have to try to get a living from the area.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, my motive in supporting this amendment is based entirely on parliamentary experience of service on Select Committees of your Lordships' House—to specify three of them: Select Committees on the Dartmoor Commons Bill, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. In every case I listened to arguments to the effect that something which would completely frustrate the purpose of the Bill was in the public interest in that the Bill invaded something designated as an SSSI.
  Listening to the evidence, I could not help feeling that there are environmental enthusiasts who specify SSSIs much as a philatelist collects postage stamps. I have listened to very little evidence that convinces me that there is anything very special about the designated areas. I grant that they are of marginal scientific interest but there is nearly always some other place where something of very much the same character flourishes. I see no reason why the absolute authority to specify an area as special without having listened to arguments for and against it should be allowed. Therefore I support the amendment in the hope that your Lordships will agree to it.
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, both my noble friends have given examples of the operation of the SSSIs in the highlands. But let us not for one moment suppose that those operations are confined to that area. SSSIs exist and cause considerable dislocation in many lowland areas. There are a great many of them, causing considerable dislocation to private operations as a result of the actions of a public outside body.
  I overheard my noble friend, in reply to an amendment proposed a little while ago by my noble friend Lady Elliot, say that, although with regard to her amendment he could not allow a form of appeal, the Secretary of State would automatically be involved with any planning operation because he has a locus. If I remember rightly, that is what he said.
  This is a most suitable amendment for the Scottish Office. Unlike England and Wales, where separate
  774
  Ministers are involved with the interests of agriculture as against those of science and the environment, in Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for both those matters. He is therefore an admirable person to whom an appeal can, and in my view should, be made.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I urge the Minister to look into the matter and perhaps combine the points made in Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. It is obvious that the fauna of the highlands in the form of the landlords are in great need of help. Certainly they are in need of justice. The simple fact is that giving anybody unrestricted power is against British justice and certainly Scottish justice. I hope that he will be sensible and consider those problems.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise to support either Amendment No. 22 or Amendment No. 23 or both. It seems to me that these amendments are even more important than the amendment which we succeeded in winning a short while ago. What is at stake is a right of appeal. If there is no right of appeal one has a body which is autocratic and all-embracing: what it says goes. One has heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others, examples of their experience.
  I believe that the amendment goes to the heart of the matter. I should like the provision to be made even wider. We refer to SSSIs. But what about the designation of a national park, for example? Is that a suitable designation without a right of appeal?
  Schedule 2 contains an amendment of enactments in relation to access. The provision states that the right of access (as designated by I know not whom) will have to be confirmed under certain conditions by the Secretary of State. The Government accept that in that one instance—because it is very controversial—one can appeal on access to the Secretary of State. But why not on all aspects? Because an appeal is a big undertaking, one will do so only if there are good grounds.
  The amendment is of key importance to the operation of the system. I hope that it is accepted.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the past we have had several debates about the need for an appeal system in relation to SSSI designation. I take it that we are speaking also to Amendment No. 23, though I do not suppose that we could agree to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. That obviously would not work. However, I realised as soon as I saw these amendments again on the Marshalled List that even after reading what I had said in Committee several noble Lords remained unconvinced by my powers of persuasion. I noticed too that Amendment No. 22 still contains the defective grammar to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy drew attention. I therefore hope that we shall not seek to press that amendment.
  I should like to take as my starting point this time the telling comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in Committee. She expressed disappointment that even though Scotland was getting its own

  775
  organisation to deal with its own problems, noble Lords had set out to distrust SNH before it had even begun. I too share that sense of disappointment.
  In this Bill we are setting up a new organisation, Scottish Natural Heritage, which will be made up of the old Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Scottish constituent part of the Nature Conservancy Council. The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has been introduced because of some of the problems that have been obvious to everyone for a long time in having a Great Britain-organised Nature Conservancy Council. We have already conceded that something was essentially wrong with the way that the NCC operated. That is why we set up the NCC for Scotland. That is why we are now going further to set up Scottish Natural Heritage.
  I have a number of objections to these amendments. In the first place, we have made it clear all along that what we are undertaking, both in this Bill and in the Environmental Protection Act, is a reorganisation of the administration of conservation. We do not intend to tamper with the substance of nature conservation, as these amendments would. Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would need to be amended to accommodate the procedure envisaged here. The amendments make no provision for that.
  In failing to do so, the amendment establishes a system of designation in Scotland different from that in England and Wales. In other circumstances, Members of this House have been extremely anxious to ensure that nature conservation in Scotland remains on all fours with nature conservation in England and Wales. Acceptance of this amendment would be a fundamental breach of that principle and a commitment that government have given, not just in this House but in another place.
  Much of the earlier discussion was couched in terms of the supposedly undemocratic way in which Scottish Natural Heritage would be expected to proceed. Those arguments were based on the lack of an appeals procedure. As I explained in Committee, it will be for SNH to decide that a piece of land merits designation; and that is a decision which will be taken with very great care. While Scottish Natural Heritage is the sole statutory judge of the scientific interest of a site, the criteria it employs will be scrutinised by its scientific peers and Scottish Natural Heritage will be able to consider with the other country councils, through the JNCC, whether those criteria are uniform with those in other parts of Great Britain. There is the further protection to the landowner that where disputes about land use change arise, Section 29 nature conservation orders are matters for the Secretary of State, and Schedule 11 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 sets out detailed procedures dealing with objections, including the holding of a public local inquiry.
  Once SNH has decided that a site should be designated, it has a positive duty to notify the local planning authority, every owner and occupier concerned and the Secretary of State. Any of these parties can object to the notification. I have on several
  776
  occasions made the claim for Scottish Natural Heritage that it will mark the start of a new era in conservation in Scotland. It will adopt more positive approaches and seek to promote co-operation rather than conflict because that suits nobody. The experiences of my noble friends Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kimball refer to situations that were part of an old order. I cannot believe that they would be repeated again under the co-ordination of Scottish Natural Heritage.
  Those who would argue that the SSSI procedures are unfair and undemocratic seem to me to be missing a fundamental point; that is, that notification of an SSSI in itself places no restriction on the use to which the owner and occupier put the land. All that is required is for any changes to the use of that land to be agreed with SNH. The system is a voluntary one. SNH will not be able to impose a particular land use on an unwilling owner.
  I have some sympathy with the essence of the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, which relates to peer group scrutiny. We consider that very important for Scottish Natural Heritage's operations. The amendment, however, ignores the fact that SNH will be exposed to such scrutiny. The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland intends to establish a scientific steering group which will act as a panel of scientific experts of the sort envisaged by the amendment. I am sure your Lordships would wish to join the Government in welcoming that initiative.
  The amendment also ignores the role of the JNCC of advising on common approach to site search, identification and notification.
  I have little hope of being able to convince noble Lords who have spoken on this point. But we have gone over this ground several times before. I can only ask them to read very carefully what I have said and to approach the establishment of the new body in a new spirit, prepared to give it the opportunity to establish new procedures and to encourage a new attitude towards conservation in Scotland.
  Whatever may have happened in the past, I am quite convinced that Scottish Natural Heritage, whenever it receives objections to proposed designations, will reconsider the matter very carefully. In the light of that assurance I hope that the proposers of the amendment will be prepared to withdraw it. I hope that we can discuss carefully the environment in which Scottish Natural Heritage should work in designating SSSIs before we agree either of the two amendments.
  I have no idea of the position of the Labour Party on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke in Committee. I am not sure of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on the appeals procedures for designation of SSSIs. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, speaks for the Liberal Democrats. He has made it plain that he supports an appeals procedure. However, he has suggested that there should be further thought about the matter. That is the approach that I wish to offer the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.

  777
  I cannot give a commitment at this stage. However, I am keen to resolve the position because today so many noble Lords have spoken in a negative way about the Nature Conservancy Council. Scottish Natural Heritage is a new body with similar responsibilities. It has the new role and responsibility of co-operation rather than confrontation. It is in that spirit that I ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendments until further consultation has taken place.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am in as great a difficulty as are many other Members of this House. I am willing to give a guarded acceptance to the Minister's comments, largely because he said that the new body will play a new ball game. However, there is the possibility of an abuse of the old powers. The Minister has gone some way towards assuring me that that will not happen, and perhaps we should discover what will happen to mistakes that have already been made.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the proposition that I have been making is that many problems arose with the designation of the SSSIs because of the insensitive approach of the Nature Conservancy Council based in Peterborough. However, we have split up the NCC into country councils and now we are developing Scottish Natural Heritage. It is our hope and desire that in future Scottish Natural Heritage will be a far more effective organisation in dealing with local people at a local level. It will be interested not only in conservation but in a whole range of activities ensuring that Scotland's natural heritage is looked after in the best possible way.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wish to understand his speech correctly. Is he unwilling to consider the question of appeal but believes that a Scottish body may be less autocratic than a British body?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not so much whether a British body will be more or less autocratic. We all recognise that the NCC, which was based in Peterborough, was not an English organisation but a Great Britain organisation and could not react to some of the problems that arose in the outlying areas of Scotland. Now that we have a Scottish NCC and Scottish Natural Heritage there will be more opportunity for the type of co-operation that we all wish to see.
  Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend but before he sits down I wish to ask two or three questions which arise out of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. First, the Minister said that he does not wish to see inconsistency between the two new bodies. He then went on to say that the new body will be more sensitive and, therefore, different. That means that it will be inconsistent. Secondly, how does the Minister see that transferring the venue and the people will alter
  778
  the principle of there being a body against which there is no sensible appeal? There will be no difference whatever.
  The Minister may object to Amendment No. 22, but Amendment No. 23 produces a totally unassailable suggestion of an appeal body which is in no way affected by the argument that he has put forward. He talks about co-operation versus conflict. I am sure that those of us who support the amendment will bitterly resent being accused of being anti-conservationist. We are not. However, some of us worry about the fact that unless such a provision is added the Nature Conservancy Council will acquire a bad name in Scotland. In order to protect that body surely it is necessary for it to justify its decisions to a sensible body such as is suggested in Amendment No. 23. I am totally unconvinced by the Minister's reply.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall respond to my noble friend's comments. I am being entirely consistent in my approach. I am not comparing the NCC for Scotland or Scottish Natural Heritage with the NCC for England. I am comparing it with the old Great Britain NCC which no longer exists. Therefore, there is no question of my being inconsistent. The NCC for Scotland and the new SNH will be organisations far more receptive to local needs than the old NCC for Great Britain could possibly have been. That is why I am saying that we do not need the appeal procedure.
  The second reason why we do not need the procedure is that we have a long history of environment legislation. By statute we have set up a body which is specifically designed to advise Government on the best way forward in respect of environmental issues. The amendments propose, first, a complete right of appeal on every decision that the body of experts may make. Effectively, that is second guessing a statutory body. Secondly, Amendment No. 23 gives the right of appeal to a second panel of experts.
  I have already said that I have some sympathy with the second amendment and the scientific panel. However, I have suggested to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that before taking that step forward we should stand back for a few more weeks until Third Reading and consult widely with the NCC for Scotland and the Countryside Commission in order to ascertain how the operation will work. I am not sure where the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, stands but I suspect that he will side with the Government on this issue. However, that remains to be seen.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the Minister has made out a convincing case. The only difficulty is that I am not entirely convinced by it. He hopes that SNH will begin a new era in the history of conservation in Scotland and is sorry that we are so distrustful of SNH. We distrust SNH because we distrust any organisation which has unlimited powers such as those of the Nature Conservancy Council, with no right of appeal. It is as simple as that.
  I accept that Amendment No. 22 is defective. I noticed only when it was too late that the noble Lord,

  779
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe, had tabled the identical amendment which was found to be defective in Committee. For that reason I shall withdraw the amendment while reserving the right to bring it back at Third Reading in a redrafted form.
  It has been argued that if either of my amendments were accepted the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would need to be amended, repealed or whatever. It is said that the Act applies to the whole of Britain and cannot be amended only for Scotland. I cannot accept that argument because I can see no reason why in amending the Act for Scotland it should not also be amended for England and Wales. I believe that would be more satisfactory to the inhabitants of those countries. However, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 22 and reserve the right to return to it at a later stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 3, line 6, at end insert:
  ("() Where in the exercise of its functions relating to the designation of sites of special scientific interest, SNH receives an objection, and where the objection is on scientific grounds alone, the Secretary of State shall refer the matter to a panel of appropriate scientific experts, who will advise upon the scientific merits of the proposed designation.").
  The noble Lady said: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has said, I should like to ask the opinion of the House on this amendment. I beg to move.
  6.10 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 82.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Abinger, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Airedale, L.

  Mills, V.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Newall, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Cox, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Perth, E. [Teller.]

  Denman, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Pym, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Renton, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Fitt, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

  Gainsborough, E.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Seear, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Greenway, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Grey, E.

  Shepherd, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Strange, B.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Tryon, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Whaddon, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Wynford, L.

  780

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Holderness, L.

  Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Arran, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Astor, V.

  Ingrow, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Belstead, L.

  Kagan, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Birk, B.

  Lawrence, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

  Blake, L.

  Long, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Longford, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Carter, L.

  Munster, E.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Pender, L.

  Cross, V.

  Plan of Writtle, B.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Prior, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Reay, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Rees, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Elles, B.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Faithfull, B.

  Savile, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Shackleton, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Hanson, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Henley, L.

  Wise, L.

  Hives, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.18 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 3, line 24, at end insert:
  ("(10) SNH shall have powers to designate Marine Protected Areas.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment in order to ask the Minister what are the Government's intentions on marine conservation. I believe that the existing arrangements are inadequate. Scotland still has no marine nature reserves after many years of negotiations. The existing informal arrangements for the identification of non-statutory marine conservation areas have proved ineffective, basically due to the lack of statutory backing.
  An environment White Paper entitled, This Common Inheritance, gave little indication of the Government's intention, though I believe there was a suggestion by Mr. Trippier in another place that proposals would shortly be put forward. I tabled the amendment to inquire of the Government what is their view for a Scottish provision in that respect. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we believe that the best solution to the problem of marine conservation lies in the review currently being undertaken in this

  781
  area, as was made clear in the White Paper. We would hope that work on the review would progress with some speed, but I trust your Lordships will accept that it would be wrong to pre-empt the findings of the review since much detailed and valuable work will doubtless go into it. Any recommendations of the review will, of course, be directed at government, but could also be of relevance to the work of SNH in the future. I might have hoped that noble Lords would have accepted this point when I made it in Committee rather than press it now, but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would like to know more.
  No one doubts the need for protection of the marine environment, but to develop a specific designation, as the amendment proposes, when a review of marine conservation legislation is promised and consideration is being given to statutory protection of one area and the extension of informal consultation procedures in England and Wales is, in the Government's view, unjustified.
  I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he could say when the review is likely to be completed, if it has started; or started if it has not yet begun.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not able to shed any light on when the review will be complete. As on all matters which the Government take as seriously as they do the environment, they will conclude the review as speedily as possible. It is a complicated issue and we need to ensure that we are right. However, the review will be carried forward as quickly as possible. When we obtain the results we can take the situation further.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. However, I did not understand whether new legislation would be required or new amendments would be needed to set up a Scottish marine conservation organisation. It is slightly more difficult for the Minister to respond at this Report stage. Perhaps he will consider my remarks and pass them on to another place. I am reasonably satisfied with his statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 [Development projects or schemes]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: The Goverment's objective is that Scottish Natural Heritage should be more than an advisory body. I expect that it will form partnerships and companies to help carry forward actions. Clause 5 provides SNH with the statutory backing to set up and run projects either land or subject based.
  If Scottish Natural Heritage is to make the best use of projects and is to develop an integrated programme of action on the ground with others, it should be enabled to set up and run projects whenever and
  782
  wherever they are needed. Clause 5(2) restricts SNH to projects which are both experimental and demonstrational. That surely is not right. It should have the power to set up and undertake, either by itself or with partners, any project which seems to be appropriate to achieving its objects, whether or not it has an obvious demonstrational role. By leaving out subsection (2) the amendment allows SNH an unrestricted hand in formulating and implementing ideas or projects which promote positive conservation, landscape enhancement and improved recreational provisions. With that relaxation, and considering that the Secretary of State will still have a great deal of power, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I remain convinced that what we are proposing is appropriate for SNH. The intention is that such schemes which could be undertaken under the provisions of the clause should be able to demonstrate new approaches to natural heritage issues. The provision in the 1967 Act was drafted in that way to emphasise the role of the Countryside Commission for Scotland as a leader of practice in countryside projects. The' amendment would remove the emphasis on experimentation and creativity. That would be a considerable loss. We hope that the provision will encourage positive thinking to address situations in new and creative ways.
  Concern was expressed in Committee that SNH would be able to operate projects in green belts and in the countryside around towns. That is very much the kind of work the CCS was doing under the selfsame provision of the 1967 Act. There is nothing in Clause 5 as it stands to prevent SNH from carrying forward those valuable initiatives. Therefore the amendment is not needed to secure that state of affairs.
  Clause 5 is a sensible clause which will offer a wide set of opportunities to SNH to operate projects that will improve our natural heritage. I am content with the provisions as drafted. Subsection (2) provides the incentive for SNH to be innovative in approaching situations, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is an important consideration. The intention of the 1967 Act was that once a project had been approved it would be disposed of to a local authority or appropriate voluntary body or private enterprise, depending on the type of project. We believe that that intention still holds good. Furthermore, SNH should not be able to embark on a project again once it has tried it out, as could be the case if subsection (2) were dropped. It is for others to follow the pattern set by Scottish Natural Heritage in relation to those projects.
  For those reasons I am unable to accept the amendment. I hope that in the light of what I explained in some detail regarding the purposes of the clause the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will see their worth.
  Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can help me. I am sure he can. I do not understand what is meant in subsections 2(a) and 2(b). Quite frankly, I do not understand those two paragraphs. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me by giving an explanation as to what they truly mean. I do

  783
  not believe that they mean very much as they stand. They are certainly capable of any number of interpretations, depending on one's viewpoint. I am not seeking to gain a political point, though I often do so. For once, this is a straightforward question. If the noble Lord cannot answer at this stage, perhaps he will write to me.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the essence of the clause is to allow Scottish Natural Heritage to define the purposes of development projects and schemes, and hence allow such projects or schemes to be used in whatever way Scottish Natural Heritage considers achieves the conservation and enchancement of, or fosters the enjoyment and understanding of, the natural heritage of Scotland. The noble Lord may say that he does not understand what that means.
  Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, does the Minister?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course. I have lived with the Bill for some time. Subsection (2) requires that such proposals must either involve new or developed methods, concepts or techniques, or serve to demonstrate the appropriateness of the project to the area concerned. As the leading body with responsibility for the natural heritage, SNH will be able to develop new ideas for prototype development schemes. SNH should be encouraged to identify new solutions to problems and this is the means by which it will do so.
  I think that the noble Lord is looking for a specific example. Let us suppose that there was a proposal to create a forest outside an urban area. Clearly, it would have a role in developing that area and would be obliged to use the most up-to-date techniques to make sure that the development was as efficient and effective as possible. This provision gives that role and it is a very sensible one.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister's example was much clearer than the earlier explanation that he gave. He seems to suggest that there will be a restriction to pump-priming only. I understood the provision to mean that the body would be unable to get involved for too long and as soon as the development became viable it would be handed over to some other body. I assume that the scheme will be handed over to a commercial body already operating in the development of the scheme. There are problems in that a bottomless purse may be given to provide development if there is anything more than just an experimental scheme.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. Perhaps it is the case with most Bills that the more one reads them the wider the interpretation one can give them. I am not sure whether the Minister's explanation will be worth looking at with a view to doing something at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 30:
  Page 4, line 15, leave out ("may be registered").
  784
  Page 4, leave out line 17 and insert ("the Land Register of Scotland, may be registered in that register").
  Page 4, line 18, after ("case,") insert ("may be recorded").
  Page 4, line 20, after ("so") insert ("registered or").
  Page 4, line 25, at end insert ("registered or").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these amendments I shall speak also to Amendment No. 38. They are minor technical amendments to improve the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Powers of entry]:
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 5, line 10, leave out ("seven") and insert ("twenty-one").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the Government are not aware of any problem arising over the years with the present notice of seven days. That does not mean that problems have not arisen. Between weekends, public holidays and the deficiencies of the postal service in many parts of Scotland, I do not consider seven days to be fair notice. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, thought that 28 days was too long. I am now suggesting 21 days.
  In regard to the argument that if the notice were too long a proposed SSSI might be damaged or destroyed, it would surely be possible for the notice to demand that all development be frozen until the question of whether the proposed site was to be designated had been resolved. I cannot accept either that the occupier is the person most affected by a notice to be served and that an occupier or tenant will not necessarily inform the owner. I accept that owners are not always easily found, but the duty to try should surely be written into the Bill. Clause 23 provides an admirably simple method for serving documents on people whose addresses cannot be ascertained.
  At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the Government were proposing to introduce amendments into Clause 6 to bring it into line with Clauses 16 and 20. Those amendments will be welcome. Can the noble Lord say at what stage it is proposed to introduce them? Sadly, they have not yet appeared, but they will not make my amendments unnecessary concerning Clause 6. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, at Committee stage when we were dealing with the question of the time in which it is reasonable to give notification, I believe the feeling was that seven days was far too short a period to be satisfactory and that the owner or occupier could easily be absent over this period. Even if he were not absent, with postal delays being what they are in the Scottish Highlands it could well take the better part of a week for notification to arrive. However, at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was probably right to object that our proposal to give 28 days for notification was rather too long. That is why we currently propose 21 days, which I think is a satisfactory balance. I hope that my noble friend will look on this amendment sympathetically.

  785
  Amendment No. 32 asks that, where possible, the owner should be notified in addition to the occupier. At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made two valid points. He said that it could often be difficult to find out who the owner was, let alone contact him. Therefore, if this provision that the owner had always to be contacted were written into the Bill that might well take up a disproportionate amount of the time of the SNH. He also said that he hoped that the occupier would always pass on the information to the owner in any event.
  At Committee stage the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that she thought it unlikely that the occupier would always pass on the information and she is quite right. The wording of this amendment says "where possible", which means of course that if the owner really were to be difficult to contact there is no obligation on the SNH to alert him. As a result, I think it would be well worthwhile to write the wording of Amendment No. 32 into the Bill.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in Committee I explained that I had some sympathy with these amendments and that I intended to bring forward amendments which would rationalise different powers of entry within the Bill and correct any related technical anomalies that there might be. I said at that time that such amendments would be put forward at Report stage. This is clearly an important issue. Therefore, I felt obliged to consult interested parties, especially on the points raised in Committee. As a result, it has not proved possible to have such amendments finalised in the short time available.
  I realise that this is a subject to which the House in general, and the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Dundee in particular, attach considerable importance. It is all the more necessary that we get this provision absolutely right. That will take longer than I had expected. I am sure that noble Lords, rather than have me repeat now the arguments raised in Committee, would prefer to wait for the government amendments to be brought forward before debating the matter again. Subject to satisfactory completion of the consultations with interested parties I hope to be able to bring forward suitable amendments at Third Reading. In the circumstances, I trust that the noble Lady will withdraw her amendment.
  I do not think that I have given quite enough to enable the noble Lady to do that. I listened very carefully to the arguments that were put forward in favour of 21 days' notice. I do not consider that such a long period is necessary. However, I am prepared to consider extending the period of notice from seven to 14 days. I hope that with that promise the noble Lady will feel that her amendment can be withdrawn. As regards the serving of notice on owners, I am very pleased that the noble Lady has come forward with a slightly improved amendment by stating:
  "and, where possible the owner".
  I shall take that provision fully into account in considering amendments to this clause. Perhaps she
  786
  will leave the matter with me so that I can bring forward a provision that will satisfy her and my noble friend Lord Dundee on the issues of days and owners.
  The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to hear my noble friend at least conceding something to the noble Lady. But the position is much worse than he is prepared to admit. You can usually walk into somewhere and ask, "Do you mind if I have a look at this and that?" and there is no difficulty. But in this case you write a letter and what have you then? You demand admission as of right, as of law, and if you are stopped you can probably call the police and demand to go in. Twenty-one days is in no way unreasonable. If someone is objectionable, there are all sorts of ways of coping. But to cut down the time to 14 days and think you have won a victory is sheer nonsense. This power is to be used very rarely.
  Speaking in the interests of this body, they want to be popular people. They do not want to throw their weight about in the community. That is usually unnecessary. In 21 days, all sorts of things can happen. You may be on holiday or a letter may be lost in the post, which is not unusual. I think that, for once, my noble friend should take a sensible view on this subject.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend uses very strong words. The provision of seven days has been in legislation for many years, and as I said in Committee, has not given rise to any great problems at all. I believe that there have been fewer than half a dozen complaints over the past 10 years. In fact, I have received information that in the past 10 years the Countryside Commission for Scotland has never requested the power of entry which my noble friend is complaining about. It is very difficult to decide whether the time should be 21 days or 14 days. What I have conceded—and it is a genuine concession on the part of the Government, and demonstrates understanding of what the noble Lady said—is that seven days is too short. I have said that I will bring something forward about 14 days.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the most one can ever hope for in moving amendments in this House is to have the spirit of one's amendments taken on board, for they are invariably defective or have something the matter with them. I am therefore almost dumbfounded by the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in conceding the spirit of these two points.
  When I first suggested 28 days, I did so rather as a carpet seller might demand at least twice the price that he expected to get for the carpet, with the full intention of being prepared to bargain and to settle for a considerably lower price in the end. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
  Clause 10 [Directions by Secretary of State]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 7, line 21, after ("functions") insert ("other than those functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy

  787
  Council for Scotland under the Acts amended by Schedule 2 to this Act and as are assigned to it in accordance with the amendments effected by that Schedule,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that during the Committee stage I put down an amendment with the same purpose as this one. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, accepted the principle of the amendment and gave an assurance that Scottish Natural Heritage would have,
  "exactly the same relationship with the Secretary of State as its sister bodies in England and Wales".—[Official Report, 3/12/90: col. 73.]
  The Minister also undertook to,
  "bring forward an amendment to ensure that powers of direction apply equally to Scottish, English and Welsh bodies in relation to their nature conservation functions". —[Col. 73.]
  This amendment is based on the provision applying to the new Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and it will ensure that the powers of direction apply equally to Scottish Natural Heritage. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this amendment is indeed in accordance with our policy on this matter, and the Government will bring forward an amendment to this effect, hopefully on Third Reading. In the circumstances, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 34:
  After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:

  Access to open country
  (" . Part II of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Access to open country) to this Act to enable SNH to enter into access agreements or to make access orders under that Part of that Act.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 46 to 51. These amendments will extend to SNH the powers presently available only to planning authorities to enter into access agreements or make access orders. I gave your Lordships notice of the Government's intention to introduce them during the debate on the access role of the SNH in Committee. These amendments meet the commitment made by Government in the consultation paper, Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead to make such powers available to SNH.
  I should make it clear that these amendments, although extensive, do not alter the substance of Part II of the 1967 Act at all. They simply extend to Scottish Natural Heritage powers currently available to planning authorities. These powers are not available to the Countryside Commission for Scotland at present and it is for this reason that I said earlier that SNH will have wider powers in relation to access than CCS has at the moment.
  Overall, these amendments serve to demonstrate the Government's commitment to extend to SNH the
  788
  statutory provisions for access to open country, and that this area will be an important aspect of its operations. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Dissolution of bodies]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 7, line 48, at end insert:
  ("(6) Every minister, government department and public body, in exercising their functions, must take all practicable steps to ensure the preservation of biological diversity, the avoidance of damage to ecosystems and the sustainable use of resources with due regard to the advice of SNH.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the responsibilities of other agencies and departments towards the environment are covered by so-called "balancing duties" contained in the relevant legislation. However, these duties are expressed in language which many people would find to be outdated; for example,
  "to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
  Also, these duties are expressed in a different form in different Acts, and it is time that they were drawn together and modernised to reflect statements of government policy contained in the Environment White Paper and in Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead. This is meant to be a helpful, if perhaps fussy, amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, noble Lords will recall the ground that we covered in relation to the "balancing duty" in Committee. By dint of these amendments to Section 66 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, Schedule 9, paragraph 3(7), the balancing duty provision will read:
  "In the exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, government department and public body shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural heritage of Scotland within the meaning of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991".
  The duty as proposed by this amendment, while I have some sympathy with it, could not be considered at all practical, efficient or indeed feasible. To require all government departments and public bodies to operate in accordance with such a duty might require an immense amount of effort at the outset, in order that they should have any hope of operating it at all. The wording of it would not be readily understandable to a great number of individuals, and so a large staff training effort would be required for the bodies concerned. It is surely not reasonable to expect that the body should have to consider all potential indirect consequences of a particular action; some actions may precipitate a chain of events where the last event could not possibly be predicted. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that no body could be expected to guess such outcomes.
  The amendment also fails to recognise that a duty in keeping with the aspirations underlying this amendment is already on the statute book. All Ministers, departments and public bodies will therefore have such aspirations in mind in carrying

  789
  out their functions. I therefore doubt the need for such a wide-ranging and indeterminate duty to be placed on all the parties.
  Therefore, there is no practical basis for this amendment to operate on and I accordingly trust that the noble Lord will withdraw it. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may think that I am being too damning. But we have looked carefully at the amendment. I have some sympathy with it, but it just will not work.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as the Minister replied, I began to realise how difficult it would be for him to accept the amendment. He then began to say that what is proposed in the amendment is being done already. He should look at his brief and recognise that there are contradictions in what he said. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 36:
  Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

  Duties in relation to management of water resources.
  —(1) It shall be the duty of each of the following, that is to say, the Secretary of State, every river purification authority, every local authority and every water authority, when formulating or considering any proposals relating to the management of water resources in Scotland, to exercise any power conferred on him or it with respect to the proposals so as to further the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent upon an aquatic environment.
  (2) In this section—
  "local authority" means a local authority within the meaning of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968; and
  "water authority" means a water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will place a requirement on the Secretary of State and the various bodies involved in the management of water resources in Scotland to manage water resources in a way which is conducive to the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic environment. What objections can the Minister have to the principle of the amendment? It looks fearsome but it is quite simple. I hope that the Minister will accept it or will at least take it away and consider it. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, perhaps I may first reply to the question raised in Committee on 3rd December by my noble friend Lord Elton. He asked whether an abstraction control order could be made for the sole purpose of protecting flora and fauna. I am happy to be able to report that, where the conservation of water resources is considered necessary to protect these interests, then the Bill as drafted enables an order to be made. I can therefore confirm that the amendments tabled in Committee, and equally the amendment tabled for today by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would not be necessary as regards control of abstractions for irrigation. However, I quite understand that the present amendment is intended to go much wider than abstractions for irrigation in that it relates to any matters concerned with,
  "the management of water resources in Scotland".
  790
  I also understand and am aware of noble Lords' concern on this point. As I said in Committee, we firmly endorse the importance of protecting flora and fauna since that is one of the principal concerns of the Bill as a whole. I am aware too of the concern which has been expressed over the years since the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 conferred an equivalent duty to conserve flora and fauna, as well as other duties, on the then water authorities in England and Wales. Since the passing of the 1981 Act, my department has exhorted the Scottish water and sewerage authorities and the RPAs to further wherever possible the conservation of flora and fauna and to consult the NCC. So far as we know, from the absence of any complaints to us, our authorities have responded appropriately.
  We have always maintained therefore that such an explicit duty appears unnecessary. But we do not want to appear to be resisting the idea of protecting flora and fauna, since that is far from being our intention. Indeed the consultation paper Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead contained a commitment by Ministers that all agencies involved in land use and development should have regard to achieving a reasonable balance between their duties and the conservation and enhancement of the natural heritage. The amendment, however, embodies a major new proposal which would not only require, but would deserve, wide consultation with the many interests which would be affected by such a new duty. It does, after all, go much wider than the purposes of this part of the Bill, and could well have financial and manpower implications.
  I am therefore willing, bearing in mind the concern and interest on this point, and subject to the withdrawal of the amendment, to initiate a consultation exercise on the possibility of a new general duty. In carrying out the consultation, we would aim to complete it in time for any decision in favour of legislative amendment to be reflected in the Bill.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we have another example of the perfection of drafting, which I am sure will please the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, who has had a good deal of experience of Bills. The noble Lord's explanation was lengthy. I am sure he will accept that I shall have to consider what he has said. I may have to raise the matter again or at least refer it to my colleagues in another place who may have something to say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 37:
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:

  Water Resource Management.
  .—(1) River purification authorities shall advise the Regional Councils and Forestry Commission upon the siting of afforestation in order to protect water resources in Scotland.
  (2) Where, following advice from the relevant river purification authority, the Forestry Commission intends to approve a planting grant application which will lead to a significant deterioration in water resources, the river purification authority may request, and the Forestry

  791
  Commission shall comply, that the planting granting application is referred to the relevant regional forestry advisory committee and the river purification authority may make such representation as it considers desirable to the Forestry Minister.
  (3) In this section "water resources" means the quantity and quality of water available for domestic, agricultural, industrial, fisheries and nature conservation uses.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee I said that this amendment was necessary in order to increase the ability of the river purification authorities to fulfil their present duties of promoting the cleanliness of rivers and conserving water resources. My noble friend the Minister responded by stating that:
  "the Forestry Commission presently operates a very effective consultation arrangement over plans for afforestation. The effect of those arrangements is that the Forestry Commission consults the relevant local authority on every new planting scheme of any consequence".
  He went on to say:
  "I should expect the local authority to seek the views of the river purification authority".—[Official Report, 3/12/90; col. 80.]
  He concluded by saying that the consultation arrangements are very tough.
  I cannot accept that the consultation arrangements are very tough because the Forestry Commission is not required to consult directly with the river purification authorities. I have consulted three river purification authorities in quite separate areas of Scotland; namely, the Solway, the Highland and north-eastern regions. They would support the proposed amendment because in their opinion it would increase their ability to prevent the possibility of proposed forestry plantations adversely affecting water resources.
  Perhaps I may give an example of where quite obviously a river purification board recognises a water quality problem associated with afforestation but has not been in a position to prevent it. The Solway purification board's annual report for 1989 reported that:
  "In 1989 the Cree and Fleet rivers failed the PH requirement of the EC fresh water fisheries directive throughout their catchments".
  The report went on to say:
  "The directive also expects authorities to make improvements to ensure that quality standards are met, but such improvements are outwith the scope of the board for this particular problem. Forestry has been implicated in the increased acidification of some upland waters, and more land is being planted in these sensitive areas".
  This does not suggest to me that the present liaison arrangements are always satisfactory. My discussions with other river purification boards indicated that, as well as increased acidification, increased phosphorous levels in streams due to forestry fertiliser application, increased torpidity, and in local areas effects on flow patterns and total run off, were all problems associated with forestry development.
  The Minister also said in Committee:
  "There are no problems about water resource in Scotland; there is an awful lot of it".—[Official Report, 3/12/90; col. 81.]
  792
  I would accept that in many parts of Scotland high rainfall and low population density means that water shortages are infrequent. However, there are considerable differences in both rainfall pattern and the demand for water in different parts of Scotland. For example, in parts of the Grampian region on the drier east coast of Scotland, abstraction is increasing, and so also is the need for water conservation. Allowance has also to be made for exceptional conditions. Indeed, Part III of the Bill contains measures to allow for the provision of drought orders in Scotland. Despite the fact that Scotland is generally an area of high rainfall, afforestation can have significant effects on water resources, particularly by affecting water quality and flow patterns.
  I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the proposed amendment as a positive contribution. I consider, as do the river purification boards I have consulted, that the proposed amendment would improve on present liaison arrangements. It would also support government acceptance that it is essential to watch for changes in land use which may damage water sources.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to express my support for this amendment and cast some doubt on what my noble friend the Minister said in Committee on 3rd December about the efficiency of the Forestry Commission's present consultation arrangements. I propose to do so by giving your Lordships another example of where the consultation arrangements over plans for afforestation do not seem to have had the desired effect. I am afraid that I must again declare an interest because the story concerns my own water supply and that of the small village in which I live.
  By 1984 the Forestry Commission had drained and planted about half the catchment area for the burn —or stream, for those who may not be familiar with the word—which supplies our village. This burn has never run dry in living memory. It may be that that first swathe of planting would have been enough to exhaust the burn in dry weather in a few years' time when the trees have grown a bit. But we certainly did not want the Forestry Commission to drain and plant the rest of the catchment area. So I wrote to the commission in 1984 and asked it to agree that any further planting would be inappropriate. I received no satisfactory reply, and so my lawyers wrote in 1985 on behalf of myself and the village. We were told that the commission was aware of the position.
  In 1985 the commission sold one of its houses in the village. The purchaser wrote to the commission in 1986 to ask for its confirmation that his water supply was not about to be removed by the commission's further planting of the catchment area. The commission replied:
  "If and when further planting is to take place in the area, due regard will be given to the water supply and your rights to it".
  That is the last any of us heard until the ploughs moved in this year to drain most of the rest of the catchment area. It is now also largely planted.

  793
  My solicitors have advised me that there is nothing we can do until the water supply actually dries up. Then, if we can show that millions of trees have drunk it, we would be able to claim compensation. Even though trees are notoriously thirsty creatures when they get to about 30 feet or so, we have been advised that it may not be easy to prove the case because water flow charts of the burn in question, going back over time, do not exist, of course.
  When I heard my noble friend the Minister give assurances to my noble friend Lord Mills in Committee, I thought that I had better discover how these wonderful consultation procedures had actually worked in our case—or not worked, as it would seem. I received a reply from the local Forestry Commission conservator last night. He confirms that the commission did indeed consult with the local authority. The local authority made a number of observations about the shape of the area, the species mixture of the trees, the need to keep conifers back from the burn, which is our water supply, and the desirability of planting some native broadleaves for landscaping and conservation reasons. The conser-vator assures me that subsequent planting has taken these views into account.
  I do not know whether the local authority considered, or was asked to consider, or was competent to consider if it was asked to consider, whether the new planting would eventually remove our water supply in dry weather. But I can tell your Lordships that it never consulted with anyone locally at all, let alone widely.
  I have to say that the burn in question has not yet quite run dry, but I would have thought that it most certainly must when the trees are a few years older. I suppose that we shall then proceed along the dreary road to seek compensation, whatever that may be. It is not easy to see how one can be compensated adequately for the removal of the water supply of an entire village, but there it is.
  I know that that is a small example but I hope that it throws some doubt on whether the consultation procedures are working as well as they ought. That is why I support the amendment.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I mentioned when this question was raised in Committee, there is already in place a consultation procedure over plans for afforestation. The Forestry Commission is under direction of the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities on every new planting scheme of any consequence and the local authorities, in turn, consult with wider interests including RPAs where appropriate. The consultation procedure has been found to work effectively in the past and the proposal to require statutory consultation with river purification authorities seems overly bureaucratic.
  However, I listened closely to what my noble friends said. I am sorry to hear about the particular problems of my noble friend Lord Pearson. In the light of that, I am willing, if my noble friends will agree to withdraw their amendment at this stage, to look
  794
  more closely at the whole question of compensation. I am aware of the concerns about the effects of planting on water quality and I certainly wish to ensure that the system of consultation is as effective as possible and covers all the relevant stages of planning for, and management of, forestry development. Should it prove necessary to make any improvements to procedures, these would certainly have a high priority. In view of that commitment to my noble friends, I hope that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Viscount Mills: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments. In view of his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 [Offences by persons other than natural persons]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 18, line 29, after ("of") insert ("or to be attributable to the negligence of").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Constitution and proceedings of Scottish Natural Heritage]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 20, line 20, at end insert ("which shall be—

  (a) the conservation and enhancement of,

  (b) the fostering of the understanding and the facilitating of the enjoyment of, and

  (c) the promotion of access to and the pursuit of physical recreation in relation to,

  the natural heritage of Scotland.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a brief amendment. The purpose is to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage has a clear responsibility to discharge a major function of one of its predecessor organisations; namely, the Countryside Commission for Scotland. As the Minister will be aware, it is sponsored by the Scottish Sports Council which is concerned that it may be forgotten and that the thousands of sportsmen who use the Scottish hills, land and countryside may be treated less well by the new body than was the case under the old one. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment do not add much to the Bill as they repeat provisions already clearly spelled out in Clause 1. Subparagraph (c) refers to access. I have already made it clear that there is no need to highlight this aspect of SNH's general aims and purposes as it is covered under the phrase "facilitating the enjoyment". The amendment is also unnecessary in the light of the extensive amendments I have tabled on access agreements and orders.
  The reference to,
  "the pursuit of physical recreation"
  is a more subtle attempt to accommodate the wish of the Scottish Sport Council to see that subject represented on SNH. This is quite clearly ground

  795
  which we covered in Committee. I do not wish to go over old ground. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 2 [Amendment of Enactments conferring nature conservation functions]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 24, line 20, after ("time") insert ("to time").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.

  Schedule Access to Open Country
  1. Part II of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (access to open country) shall be amended as follows.
  2. In section 10, in subsection (2) (definition of "open country') after the words "any land appearing" there shall he inserted the words "to Scottish Natural Heritage or".
  3.—(l) Section 13 (making of access agreements) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(1) An access agreement may be made—

  (a) by Scottish Natural Heritage with any person having an interest in land;

  (b) by a general or district planning authority with any person having an interest in land situated in the area of the authority,

  whereby the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to access agreements shall apply to the land."
  (3) In subsection (2) after the words "payments by" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".
  (4) In subsection (7) after the words "confer any right against him, and" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".
  4.—(1) Section 14 (making of access orders) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, an access order may be made—

  (a) by Scottish Natural Heritage, as regards any land in Scotland;

  (b) by a general or district planning authority, as regards any land in their area,

  but an order so made shall be submitted to the Secretary of State and shall not have effect unless confirmed by him."
  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) in paragraph (a) for the word "authority" there shall be substituted the word "body"; and

  (b) in paragraph (b) for the words "said authority" there shall be substituted the word "body".

  (4) In subsection (3) for the words "said authority" there shall be substituted the word "body".
  (5) In subsection (8) after the word "order" there shall be inserted the words "made by a general or district planning authority".
  5.—(1) Section 15 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)—

  (a) in paragraph (a)—

  (i) for the words "authority by whom" there shall be substituted the words "body by which"; and

  (ii) for the word "authority" where it second occurs there shall be substituted the word "body"; and

  (b) in paragraph (c) for the words "said authority" and "authority" where they respectively occur there shall be substituted the word "body".

  (3) In subsection (3) the words "(whether made by the Secretary of State or by a local planning authority)" shall be omitted.
  (4) In subsection (4)—

  (a) after the words "Secretary of State" where they first occur, there shall be inserted the words ", except as regards an access order made by Scottish Natural Heritage,"; and

  (b) for the words "the local planning authority concerned" there shall be substituted the words "the body by which the order was made".

  6. In section 16, for subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
  "(5) As soon as practicable after an agreement or instrument such as is mentioned in subsection (4) above is made or an order so mentioned is confirmed, it shall be registered or, as the case may be, recorded in pursuance of subsection (6) or (7) below.
  (6) In the case of an agreement or order made by Scottish Natural Heritage or an instrument or order varying or revoking such an agreement or order—

  (a) if an interest in the land to which the agreement, instrument or order relates falls to be registered in the Land Register of Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage shall cause the agreement, instrument or order to be registered in that register;

  (b) in any other case it shall cause the agreement, instrument or order to be recorded in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

  (7) In the case of an agreement or order made by the general or district planning authority or an instrument or order varying or revoking such an agreement or order—

  (a) if an interest in the land to which the agreement, instrument or order relates falls to be registered in the Land Register of Scotland, the general or district planning authority shall cause the agreement, instrument or order to be registered in that register;

  (b) in any other case they shall cause the agreement, instrument or order to be recorded in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

  (8) Subject to subsection (9) below, an agreement, instrument or order registered or recorded in pursuance of subsection (6) or, as the case may be, subsection (7) above shall be enforceable at the instance of respectively Scottish Natural Heritage or the general or district planning authority against persons deriving title to the land or the relevant interest therein from the person so entitled when the agreement, instrument or order was made.
  (9) An agreement, instrument or order shall not be enforceable as mentioned in subsection (8) above against

  797
  a third party who has in good faith and for value acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land or to the relevant interest therein prior to the agreement, instrument or order being registered or, as the case may be, recorded in pursuance of subsection (6) or (7) above, or against any person deriving title from such third party.
  (10) In this section "relevant interest" means an interest which is subject to an agreement, instrument or order such as is mentioned in subsection (4) above."
  7.—(1) Section 17 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4)—

  (a) for the words from the beginning to "situated" there shall be substituted the words "Where, as regards any access agreement or order made by Scottish Natural Heritage or a general or district planning authority, it appears to it or them";

  (b) for the words "an access" there shall he substituted the word "the";

  (c) after the words "subsection (2) above," there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,"; and

  (d) for the words "the authority" where they second occur there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or the authority, it or, as the case may be, they".

  (3) In subsection (5)—

  (a) for the words "the local planning authority" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority";

  (b) after the words "fourteen days' notice of" there shall be inserted the words "its or";

  (c) before the words "the authority" in both places where they occur there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,";

  (d) after the words "reasonably incurred by" there shall be inserted the words "it or";

  (e) after the words "reduced by" there shall be inserted the words "its or"; and

  (f) for the words "authority's contribution" there shall be substituted the words "contribution of Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the authority".

  8.—(1) Section 18 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) for the words from "the last foregoing section" to the words "contravention occurred" there shall be substituted the words "section 17 of this Act—

  (a) if the agreement or order was made by Scottish Natural Heritage, it;

  (b) if the agreement or order was made by the general or district planning authority, they,";

  (b) after the words "as may appear to" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".

  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "the local planning authority" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority"; and

  (b) before the word "them" there shall be substituted the words "it or".

  9.—(1) Section 20 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For the words from "the general or district" to "situated" there shall be substituted the words "—
  798

  (a) where the order was made by Scottish Natural Heritage, it; or

  (b) where the order was made by a general or district planning authority, they,",

  and the words from the beginning of the section to the words "depreciation or damage" shall become subsection (1) of the section.
  (3) In the proviso the words "Provided that" shall be omitted and the remaining words of the proviso shall become subsection (2) of the section.
  10.—(1) Section 22 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) for the words "local planning authority by whom" there shall be substituted the words "body by which"; and

  (b) for the word "authority" there shall be substituted the word "body".

  (3) In subsection (3) for the words "local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "body by which compensation is payable".
  11.—(1) Section 23 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) for the words "local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "body by which compensation is payable";

  (b) for the words "authority are" there shall be substituted the words "body is"; and

  (c) for the word "they" in both places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "it".

  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "local planning authority" and the word "authority" where they respectively occur there shall be substituted the word "body";

  (b) for the word "their" there shall be substituted the word "its"; and

  (c) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the word "it".

  12.—(1) Section 24 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) after the words "Where it appears" there shall be inserted the words "to Scottish Natural Heritage as respects any land in Scotland or";

  (b) in paragraph (b) for the words "the local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority"; and

  (c) before the words "the authority" in both places where they occur there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".

  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "A local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, a general or district planning authority";

  (b) before the word "them" in each place where it occurs there shall be inserted the words "it or"; and

  (c) before the word "they" there shall be inserted the words "it or".

  (4) In subsection (3)—

  (a) for the words "a local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, a general or district planning authority";

  (b) before the word "them" there shall be inserted the words "it or"; and

  799

  (c) before the words "the authority" in each place where they occur there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or".

  13. In section 26 at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(3) Scottish Natural Heritage shall, within 14 days of—

  (a) an access agreement having been made by it; or

  (b) an access order made by it having been confirmed,

  send to the general or district planning authority in whose area the land to which the agreement or order applies is situated a copy of such agreement or order."
  14.—(1) Section 27 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) for the word "authority" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "body".
  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "authority by whom" there shall be substituted the words "body by which"; and

  (b) for the word "authority" where it second occurs there shall be substituted the word "body".

  (4) In subsection (3) for the words "said authority" in each place where they occur there shall be substituted the word "body".
  (5) In subsection (4)—

  (a) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,";

  (b) before the words "the authority" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or"; and

  (c) before the word "them" there shall be inserted the words "it or".

  (6) In subsection (5) for the words from "a local planning authority" to the end there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or a general or district planning authority as respects land held by it or them".
  15.—(l) In section 28—

  (a) for the words "A general or district planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Where Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, a general or district planning authority have made an access agreement or order it or they"; and

  (b) after the words "comprised in" there shall be inserted the word "such".

  16.—(1) Section 29 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) At the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".
  (3) The words "in their area" shall be omitted.
  (4) After the word "order" there shall be inserted the words "made by it or them".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it is possible that the Minister did not hear what I said earlier in connection with this amendment. It was discussed along with a number of other amendments. I asked whether we would be receiving explanatory Notes on Clauses in respect of this rather important six-page schedule.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall furnish the noble Lord with an explanation of this new schedule.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Provisions as to applications for, variation, revocation and transfer of licences under Part II]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 31, line 23, leave out ("the area") and insert ("that part of the control area which includes the waters").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment clarifies the requirement on applicants for variation of a licence, and late applicants for a licence, to publish a notice of their application in a newspaper circulating in the area of the waters affected by the licence. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Further provisions regarding drought orders]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 43 and 44:
  Page 32, line 43, leave out from ("shall") to ("(as") in line 45.
  Page 33, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert (",
  and shall take such other steps, if any, as they think appropriate for bringing the prohibition or limitation to the attention of the persons to whom the prohibition or limitation will apply; and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments clarify that the authority must in all cases either publish a notice in a newspaper or serve notice of the prohibitional limitation upon the persons affected. In addition, it must take any other steps it thinks appropriate to bring the prohibitional limitation to the notice of those affected. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Compensation in respect of drought orders]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 37, line 11, after ("discharged") insert ("or").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment corrects a minor omission in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 8. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous Amendments]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 50:
  Page 38, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:
  ("(4) In section 54 for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection
  "(4) Scottish Natural Heritage may in relation to land—

  (a) owned or managed by it; or

  (b) to which an access agreement or order made by it applies,

  make byelaws with respect to any of the matters mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section."").
  Page 39, line 2, at end insert:
  ("() In subsection (3) of section 70 (application of provisions relating to compensation) for the word "authority" in the second place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "body".").
  Page 39, line 2, at end insert:

  801
  ("() In Schedule 2, in paragraph (e) for the words "the local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority".").
  Page 39, line 2, at end insert:
  ("() Schedule 3 shall be amended as follows—

  (a) in paragraph 1(1)—

  (i) for the words "an authority make" there shall be substituted the words "a body makes"; and

  (ii) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the word "it";

  (b) in paragraph 4 for the word "authority" in the second and third places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "body".").

  Page 39, line 2, at end insert:
  ("() In Schedule 4 for sub-paragraph (2) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
  "(2) Before or as soon as possible after the coming into operation of an access agreement—

  (a) Scottish Natural Heritage, in relation to an agreement made by it; or

  (b) the general or district planning authority, in relation to an agreement made by them,

  shall agree with the owner of the interest in the land what proportion of the figure set by the district valuer should be paid by Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority in respect of each twelve month period."").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 51:

  Page 41, line 19, column 3, at end insert:

  ("In section 13, subsection (6).

  In section 14, subsection (6).

  In section 15(3), the words "(whether made by the Secretary of State or by a local planning authority)."")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 7.11 to 7.16 p.m.]

Local Election Voting Rights for EC Nationals
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the Council of Ministers towards agreement on the European Commission's proposal for a directive on voting rights for Community nationals in local elections in their member state of residence (Com. (88) 371, as amended by Com. (89) 524).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with some humility to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is only after your Lordships have adjourned for some short pleasure that I address you on this matter. I apologise for not having been in the
802
Chamber when I should have been. I am grateful to your Lordships for arranging the affairs of the House so that the Unstarred Question could nonetheless be heard. The Question is directed towards the Commission's proposals on voting rights and the right to stand in local elections for EC nationals resident in another member state. The purpose of the Question is, first, to ask Her Majesty's Government about the progress on that measure in the Council of Ministers; secondly, to draw attention to the Select Committee Report of 6th February this year and, for the first time in your Lordships' House, to have a debate upon it; and, thirdly, to probe further what is the Government's true case on this issue.
I also ask the Unstarred Question in the hope that the Government can be persuaded to take a fresh look at the matter. In a letter I sent earlier to the Minister, I asked him whether he would come with listening ears to this short debate. Perhaps I may mention that the Minister has a record as a good European and has spent no fewer than six years in the European Parliament. It was not the original intention of your Lordships' Select Committee to have a debate. It was prepared to rest its case upon the contents of its report; but regrettably I have to say that our Select Committee was disappointed in the quality of the Government's evidence before it and their response to the report.
Without being acrimonious, I should add that the Select Committee was also a little upset about the unfortunate delay in the Government's statement, in the form of an explanatory memorandum, on the Commission's revised proposals which deprived the Select Committee of comment upon it in its report, although the Government well knew that the Select Committee was considering the proposals and was about to report upon them.
The Commission's proposals are contained in draft directive (88) 371, as amended by draft directive (89) 124. I give the latter number because there is an error on the Order Paper. The principal feature of the proposals concerns the right of EC nationals to vote and to stand for local elections in member states other than their own. This is contained in Article 2.
As proposed, that right can be exercised only after application is successfully made for entry on the local electoral register, which must follow:
"A continuous period of residence in the host member state of not less than the term of office of a municipal council",
in that state. I refer to Article 4.
Concerning the right to stand for election, as proposed, this can only be exercised after continuous residence of not less than two terms of office of a municipal council. That is covered in Article 8.
As concerns other voting qualifications, for example minimum voting age, EC nationals are to be treated equally with the nationals of that member state. I refer to Article 5. Other measures are proposed in the draft directive, such as a mayor or deputy mayor may be restricted to the member state's nationals. I refer to Article 10(1). If members of the municipal council also act as electors for national parliaments, as

803
they do in some instances in France, nationals of other member states who have been elected to that municipal council cannot participate in that process. I refer t3 Article 10(2).
There are also transitional provisions. For example, there is a waiver when the proportion of EC nationals exceeds 20 per cent. of the total population of that member state. That was specifically included in the draft directive to cope with the situation in Luxembourg. It is covered in Article 11. Another transitional provision is that elected EC nationals cannot occupy over one quarter of the seats in a municipal council. That is to be found in Article 12.
The core of these proposals is that nationals of member states residing in another state who pay the local taxes, use its local facilities—roads, parks, schools, public swimming pools and so on—and participate in local affairs should have the right to vote and stand for election at a local level on matters of direct concern to them and for which they pay. Your Lordships may think that that proposition which, as I have just described, is the core of the proposals, is intrinsically fair.
The history of the matter goes back to the Paris Summit of December 1974 when there was a commitment made to the right of nationals to vote in local elections in other member states. There was also a most thoughtful report which may be described as a green paper which the Commission presented to the European Parliament in October 1986. There has been support for these proposals from the European Parliament which on two or three occasions has endorsed them. It also encouraged the Commission to enact them. There has also been support from all other member states except the United Kingdom and Germany. In the case of Germany there were special reasons. The position of the United Kingdom is a matter that we still seek to probe.
This proposal affects 5 million out of the 13 million non-nationals in the Community. In the United Kingdom it currently affects between 100,000 and 200,003 EC nationals living here, depending on whether the figure is based on the figure produced by the Commission, which is the 100,000, or that put forward by the Home Office, which is 200,000.
Your Lordships may wish to note the present United Kingdom voting rights at local elections. All United Kingdom citizens, including your Lordships, are allowed to participate in voting at local elections. All Ccmmonwealth citizens are entitled to do so, as are Irish citizens. There are 600,000 Irish nationals resident in the United Kingdom who have that right.
I would mention, in passing, that while the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in local and national elections is most welcome, it has to be noted that some come from far regions of the Commonwealth and are far more remote from the matters which concern us than, for example, many of the EC nationals who also reside in our country. Three member states—Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland—already have full voting rights for all foreign nationals.
The report of your Lordships' Select Committee, as is invariably the case, is a report of high quality. I do not say that to congratulate myself because, although I participated in the proceedings of the committee, I had nothing to do with the drafting of the report. It was left in the skilful hands of our good chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. I am grateful to him for his presence in the Chamber tonight. It was also in the good hands of our legal adviser and clerk.
In summary, your Lordships' Select Committee came down decisively in favour of the general principle of the draft directive but thought that some matters in it should receive further attention. For example, the voting rights of Irish citizens should be the same as those of other EC nationals. This point was misunderstood in the correspondence which was conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, with the Home Secretary. The committee did not recommend that Irish citizens should be deprived of any of their current voting rights. It merely made the point that they should line up with those of other EC nationals. To put it the other way round, the rights of EC nationals should be lined up with those of the Irish. For that and other reasons, we were brought to the recommendation that the residence requirements which I have outlined to your Lordships should be greatly simplified and that the qualifying period should be omitted altogether.
We agreed with the Government on the problem concerning a proper treaty base. In doing so we disputed that Article 235 of the EC Treaty provided a proper treaty base. We, with the Government, considered this to be most important and preferred that this measure should be brought in by way of resolution of the Council of Ministers in the same way as the European passport was introduced.
It has been hard for our Select Committee to ascertain the true position of the Government. It is clear that there is some hostility on the part of the Government on the issue. We were circulated with a newspaper report from the Daily Telegraph which wrote of,
"Ministers planning to stage a vigorous campaign against what they regarded as yet another example of Brussels' interference in the domestic politics of member states".
However, while it is not difficult to identify the hostility of the Government to these proposals, your Lordships' Select Committee has had considerable difficulty in establishing the constitutional basis, in the United Kingdom and the European Community, of the position which the Government appear thus far to have taken. I should therefore be most grateful if the Minister—to whom I referred earlier as a good European—could assist your Lordships' House by answering certain specific questions. I gave him notice of them, although I did not give a great deal of time.
The questions are as follows. First, what exactly are the Government's "reservations of principle" to which there is reference in the penultimate paragraph of the letter which the former Home Secretary, now the Leader of our House, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on 20th June 1990. Secondly, what do

805
the Government mean when they state, "This is a matter within national jurisdiction of member states". I refer to the fourth paragraph of the same letter.
To this end, do the Government propose that each member state should do its own thing? That does not seem to fit well with harmonisation between member states. Also, what is the practical application of this proposition from the Government? We can think, for example, of Spain giving local voting rights to French and Italian nationals but not to British nationals because there has been no agreement between the governments of Spain and Britain. Vice versa, suppose that there is a reciprocity agreement between Italy and the United Kingdom which gives rights to Italian nationals in Britain voting in local elections but not to others.
I mention this also because one of the reasons put forward by the Government against these proposals was the difficulty in organising the electoral register. If that is the situation and certain EC nationals on a reciprocation basis have rights in local elections here while others do not, I venture to suggest that system would create complications in the electoral register well beyond those posed by the Government.
Thirdly, what is the Government's position on the issue of public opinion? I refer to the sixth paragraph of this letter. Are the Government saying that there is hostile opinion on this issue, and if so where is it? If that is not the case, are the Government saying that there is no evidence of public support, and until there is they will oppose the measure?
Fourthly, on the differences in local electoral systems, are the Government saying that these are grounds for opposing this measure? I refer to paragraph seven of the letter dated 20th June. I do so because there is a sentence in paragraph seven in connection with differences in local electoral systems which refers to,
"a weakness of the proposal rather than a decisive obstacle".
What does that mean? The public opinion argument is perhaps the most intriguing of all. Originally the Government's position was that there was no public opinion in favour of this proposition. With it, there was a strong suggestion in the Government's evidence —which was not in any way substantiated—that public opinion was hostile to the proposition.
On 12th December your Lordships' Select Committee at a hearing attended by officials from the Home Office drew to the attention of witnesses the Euro-Barometer Survey carried out in December 1986. We had been told about that earlier by the Commission officials who gave evidence. Rather to our surprise, that was the first time that the officials from the Home Office had ever heard about the survey. The survey discovered that, taking the Community as a whole, 62 per cent. were in favour, in varying degrees, of the proposal.
It was further discovered that no less than 58 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom were in favour in varying degrees of the proposal. What was the Government's response to that? It was not entirely
806
attractive. It downgraded the survey and said that it had taken place four years ago and questioned the quality of the questions in it. I refer to a letter that the Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd, wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. The Minister in his letter took points in minutiae on the quality of the questions in the survey.
We then asked the Government whether there was reason to think that any change had occurred since the report was published four years ago. As far as I can ascertain, the Government have not replied to that question. I believe that there is a simple question that could be put to members of the public which, when questioned, would show that they were in favour of the proposal; this is the proposition that I spelt out in the earlier part of my speech. In any event, is it not a fact that this Government seek to lead public opinion on measures the Government favour, such as the curbing of union power, the sale of council houses, privatisation programmes and other such measures? The matter goes further than that. If there is no ascertainable opposition—for example, there are no threats to wreck polling stations or to scare EC nationals as they seek to exercise voting rights—why is it necessary to have to prove that public opinion is in favour of the proposal, particularly when the public has not been asked to think about it?
Those remarks are sufficient for an introduction to the matter at this time of night. There is, I believe, some light at the end of the tunnel. As I said in introducing this debate, our purpose is, among others, to ask the Government to give further consideration to this matter. The light at the end of the tunnel is the high respect which the Commission has for our Select Committee's report. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will remember, Dr. Taschner paid us a great compliment at the beginning of his evidence to us. Then there is the new Prime Minister, who has just been able to report positively on last week's summit in Rome. The letter writing of the former Home Secretary played no insignificant part in bringing about this debate. He has now joined your Lordships' House although he has not, alas, been present for the debate tonight.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for bringing this subject before your Lordships, and particularly for putting such sharp and relevant questions to my noble friend the Minister. The timing of this debate tonight is particularly useful. It has only recently been announced that the inter-governmental conference on political union which started on Sunday will have on its agenda an item dealing with European citizenship. Under that heading the subject of voting at local elections throughout member states will be raised. I hope that at the conclusion of this evening's discussion and after due consideration of the matter by the current Home Secretary, the Government will realise that they can be seen to be supporting something positive. The measure will do no harm to British subjects and will help many other British subjects living throughout the Community.

807
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has given a full analysis of the draft directive and the problems arising from this matter. I shall just touch on one or two other points which have perhaps not been enlarged upon sufficiently. The first concerns the people who will be affected by the measure. That ties in with what the former Home Secretary, the then David Waddington, wrote in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on 20th June 1990. At page 28 of the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities entitled Correspondence With Ministers, the Home Secretary stated:
"More importantly still, as far as United Kingdom public opinion is concerned, there remains no evidence of any substantial public support for an extension of the franchise".
However, the people who were asked to give an opinion already had the franchise. Therefore there is no reason for them to ask for an extension of the franchise. Presumably it was the British electors who were asked whether they wanted the franchise extended.
The Government may have been afraid that there would be an ugly rush of foreigners coming in to benefit from voting in local elections in the United Kingdom. However, the number of British electors who vote in United Kingdom local elections is, even at a generous estimate, around 35 per cent., and often that figure is around 20 per cent. Therefore one can see that there will not be much enthusiasm for such voting in any case.
The idea of this ugly rush of foreigners coming in to benefit from the beautiful British local authority electoral system is not borne out by the statistics. The statistics show that not many European Community citizens are particularly keen on coming to the United Kingdom in any case. The number of European Community citizens coming to the United Kingdom under the heading "acceptances for settlement on arrival and on removal of time limit by nationality", amounted to 3,540 in 1981. In 1989 that number had dwindled to 1,190. Over the past 10 years a maximum of about 25,000 European Community citizens have come to settle in the United Kingdom. Should this directive go through, they would be entitled to vote in local elections. I understand that around 100,000 EC citizen5 would be affected as regards the United Kingdom. That leaves out approximately 450,000 Irish citizens who already have the right to vote in this country.
The other point I wish to press is the question of reciprocity. While the Government may not want to give foreign citizens rights in this country, let us remember that there are something like 600,000 British citizens resident abroad within other member states of the European Community. As the entire directive is based on reciprocity and would apply to all member states of the Community, the people who would benefit from this measure would be the 600,000 British subjects who are resident throughout the other member states of the Community. There are some 300,000 resident in Spain alone, I understand. They would benefit.
808
The situation is different for British Commonwealth citizens. Under the Representation of the People Act, British Commonwealth citizens have the right to vote in this country—even if they have only just arrived here by the due date for registration —without speaking the language, without any knowledge of the country and without necessarily staying longer than a year. So long as they have registered on the due date, which is usually in October, they have a right to vote. I understand that very few Commonwealth countries give reciprocal rights to British citizens.
The directive would give British citizens that right wherever they might be within the Community. It is reciprocity that I should like to stress and which I believe would be of benefit.
The Home Office, and in particular the new Home Secretary, should be encouraged to look positively at the draft directive. It will benefit 600,000 British subjects. It is an issue on which the British Government can be seen to take a positive attitude when no doubt they will stick on many other issues. I shall be grateful to my noble friend if he will impress on his right honourable friend the Home Secretary the views of this House expressed in this debate.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, I am conscious that we are approaching the end of a long day. However, as the chairman of the sub-committee which was responsible for drafting the Select Committee's report on voting rights in local elections in February of this year, I should like to make a few observations in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, particularly as it was at the sub-committee's request that he was good enough to raise the Question for discussion by the House.
The House will be aware that the report was made to the House for information. I believe that I speak for the other members of the sub-committee as well as for myself in saying that we were a little saddened by what seemed to be the wholly negative attitude to the Commission's proposals which emerged from the evidence given by representatives of the Home Office. Nevertheless, it did not seem to us at that time appropriate to increase the burdens upon the time of this House by recommending a debate on proposals which were in any event likely to be further distilled and which we hoped would evoke a more positive response when the Select Committee's opinion had been published and considered.
Again, I have to say that the Government's considered response to the report was no less negative in approach than had been foreshadowed by its evidence. It emerged however that the Government would evidently welcome the assistance that they would derive from a debate. The Home Secretary's letter to the chairman of the Select Committee said:
"We shall doubtless be in a better position to judge public opinion on this issue after it has been debated in both Houses".
It concluded by noting—possibly through a Freudian slip, possibly through momentary dyslexia—the Committee's recommendation that the matter should

809
be debated by this House. I only hope that those citations are not to be taken as indications of the attention with which the remainder of the report was read.
Of course there are difficulties in the way of implementing the Commission's proposals in their present form. Not the least is the question whether a directive under Article 235 of the treaty is permissible and whether the proposals should not be recast as a resolution of the member states in council. The report draws attention to those difficulties, and they are reiterated in the Government's response. However, they are not insuperable.
What I have found so depressing about the response is the total absence of any indication of the desire to tackle the difficulties or to address what I, and, I think, the other members of Sub-Committee E took to be the central core of the Commission's proposals—proposals which, it should be said, were brought forward after years of steady pressure from the European Parliament. According to the recital to the draft directive:
"Steps must be taken to ensure that free movement of persons is not achieved at the expense of a loss of political rights at local levels".
Paragraph 15 of the report quotes the Commission's 1986 report to the European Parliament where it says:
"The most important considerations are those of morality and justice. There is no doubt that non-nationals contribute to the economic development and prosperity of their country of residence. Added to which their presence contributes to the cultural life of the local community".
There are substantial numbers of citizens of Community states more or less permanently resident in Great Britain, just as there are substantial numbers of British citizens resident in other Community states. They live here; they pay community charge here, they send their children to local schools. They are here in exercise of the right of free movement conferred by the treaty and incorporated into our law by the European Communities Act 1972. Come 1992 their numbers are likely to increase. We simply have to ask ourselves the question: can it really be morally justified that, by the exercise of a right which lies at the very root of the treaty, those persons while compelled to contribute to local government finances, should be deprived of any say in the conduct of affairs in the local community in which they spend their working lives?
It is said that there is no evidence that anyone is dissuaded from moving to another Community state by the prospect of the consequent disenfranchisement. Indeed, it would be very surprising if there were. However, that is not the point.
It is said that there is no evidence of popular support for any alteration of the qualification for voting in local elections. There is in fact some evidence, as paragraph 25 of the report makes clear, although I accept that it is now somewhat out of date. But certainly the injustice of the position has not escaped those who are disenfranchised. Noble Lords who read The Times newspaper may have seen only four days ago a letter from a lady in north London complaining that her foreign nationality deprived her
810
of a local vote. If she had been resident in Denmark, in the Irish Republic or in the Netherlands she would not have felt moved to complain. While we in Great Britain are not alone in lagging behind those countries, we have to address the question. And we have to address it sooner rather than later. I should like to think that this country would at least be in the vanguard in moving to rectify what by any objective standard is an obvious injustice.
So far, the response to the committee's welcome in paragraph 64 of the report to the broad thrust of the Commission's proposal—as if it were the final and unanswerable argument—has been:
"The Government, however, remain of the view that the Commission's proposal relates primarily to the conferment and exercise of a political right, which has only a marginal bearing on the free movement of citizens between Member States".
That is what I have ventured to categorise, I hope not unfairly, as a negative approach. It is not an answer to the moral imperative. I would hope that your Lordships could be assured that the question is being approached in the Council of Ministers with rather more interest and commitment than that response suggests.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, since this Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was first put down, a Community summit has taken place which, according to the reports which have appeared in the newspapers, has planned meetings to agree further advances towards the European Community as now envisaged. Against that background the answers which the Minister will give this evening in response to the Question will be carefully studied in the expectation that we shall be granted an insight into the future conduct of the negotiations towards that European Community.
There are a number of questions now at issue, some of which have appeared in all their strength only in the past few months. It is clear now that under the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act we are moving towards a Community of the present twelve member states on four fronts.
First, there is the front on which most progress has been made. That is the economic union front, which is currently in danger of running aground through its failure to solve external problems of free trade. Secondly, the front upon which there has been a great deal of recent comment and publicity is that of monetary union. The third front, which has been the subject of some discussion and has now come to the fore, is the one raised by the Question now before the House; namely, political union. The fourth front relates to matters of social policy. That has made some progress, though not much, since the Social Charter.
The Question tonight lies in substance and reality within the political union area. In its report the sub-committee took that view, as did Her Majesty's Government. Therefore however desirable may be the proposed variations in voting rights at local elections, it seems that, as they are outside the present treaty provisions designed to bring about economic and

811
monetary union, it requires the unanimity of all 12 member states to agree to effect those variations. Therefore the proposals will fall into the discussions for political union which are now to take place.
The report itself shows that this is a good example of the Commission to date attempting, for reasons which could well be described as spurious economic reasons, to include a matter lying within the political area as a proposal falling within the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. It would certainly assist the future development of the Community so far as concerns public relations if the Commission were now to deal with problems within their proper areas and not try to force political and environmental wedges into the economic union area where they do not belong Should this be a matter within the political area and be treated as such, it will be of great assistance if Her Majesty's Government could indicate whether they will treat the proposals as set out in this report as part of the steps towards political union now to be put under discussion.
The first problem that arises is the doctrine of subsidiarity. Where does that fall within the present proposals? When Her Majesty's Government come to deal with discussions on political union, will the doctrine of subsidiarity leave it to the United Kingdom Parliament to deal with local government elections within the United Kingdom or will the Commission itself have a right to direct how local elections will take place in the United Kingdom?
My first question is this, therefore. This doctrine now having reared its head, especially in the monetary union area, how does the Minister regard the principle of subsidiarity as affecting the proposals in the report? Does he consider that that doctrine has any applicability here and, if so, how will Her Majesty's Government treat that point in the discussions?
I come to my second question. Will the Minister now consider whether it might be possible for Her Majesty's Government to bring out some document indicating the kind of political union that they can see coming at the end of the day? How will that political union appear at the end of the tunnel? Apparently we have laid on the table various proposals, which I must admit that I have not yet seen, in order to enable the 12 member states to hold discussions with a view to progress in that area. At the end of the day, what kind of political union are we looking at and how will accountability and answerability—those two important facets of democratic government—appear when these Proposals are put into effect?
I know that that is a large question and cannot possibly be answered tonight. However, I believe that the electorate will be most grateful if, in connection with these talks, it can be informed for discussion now how Her Majesty's Government envisage the progress that will be made and the goal towards which they are moving.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for tabling this Unstarred Question. We have had the advantage of a
812
comprehensive summary from the noble Lord and additional comments from the chairman and two members of the committee. Except for the Minister, I am the only person taking part in this debate who has not been a member of the committee.
I found the report extremely interesting and well written, as one always expects from a Select Committee. I have read it about three times, as the blue and red marks that I have made on almost every page will show. I note that the noble Lord's Question refers to the directive on voting rights, whereas in his opening remarks he referred to voting rights and standing for election. I note that the first conclusion of the committee refers to voting rights and the right to stand for election. The amended directive, Directive 524, which is also set out in the report, refers to both voting rights and the right to stand for election.
However, I recognise that the bulk of the report deals with voting rights. I note very carefully—and no noble Lord has said anything to the contrary—that there is no proposal whatever to extend voting rights for national elections; that is, parliamentary elections. It will be recalled that in the Representation of the People Act 1985, amended in 1989, our legislation gave the right to United Kingdom residents abroad to vote in United Kingdom elections for Parliament and for the European Parliament. That is purely United Kingdom legislation for our citizens who may be abroad.
The legal arguments regarding Article 235 are dealt with comprehensively in the report and have been covered by both the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. Therefore I do not propose to refer to that article at all except to note that paragraphs 69 and 70 of the report recommend a cautious approach. The report states:
"If Community competence were accepted, it would extend to national elections".
The committee therefore proposes that the draft directive be adopted as a resolution of member states meeting within the Council.
I again quote from the report. It says:
"This is a less formal instrument than a Treaty amendment, and would imply that the franchise remains within national jurisdiction".
The last sentence of paragraph 60 states:
"In the view of the Committee such an instrument offers the necessary flexibility, would enable implementation in the member states to go ahead without the full formality of Treaty amendment, and would acknowledge that even at local level the franchise is a matter remaining within national jurisdiction".
I should like amplification of what that means. What are the rights which remain within national jurisdiction? It is important to know the precise meaning of those words.
Conflicting views were expressed about whether or not there is a public demand for an extension of the franchise. I do not know whether there is. From my contact with people, very few know much about the proposed extension of the franchise. Whether or not they would support it, I do not know. I know—as is

813
stated in paragraph 20 of the report —that the organisation of which I am president, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, was unable to give a definitive comment on the report because of conflicting views from its 36 affiliated organisations. I therefore do not know whether there will be a general desire for such extended franchise. I believe that once it was decided to pass such legislation, the public would readily accept it.
When writing in the House Magazine on 10th December, Mr. Glyn Ford, MEP, leader of the European Labour Party and vice-president of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, stated:
"Europe as a genuine community must be a community of citizens and be responsible to citizens' wishes. Citizens and residents of Europe should be able to vote in European elections in the member states in which they reside".
Noble Lords may know that a recent statement made by European socialist leaders meeting in Madrid included a declaration—which I paraphrase—that all Community policies must lead to the improvement of the living standards of European citizens. Measures to achieve that should include political rights such as the right to participate in local and European elections in the state of residence. However, any such development must be subject to further consideration of constitutional and citizenship arrangements in the member states. My interpretation of that declaration is that there is sympathy for the proposed objective but that consideration has to be given to possible constitutional and electoral questions.
In considering the main points raised in the report, I emphasise that my views are purely personal reflections. I state them mainly because of my keen interest in electoral matters, and because I also regard myself as a good European. At the time of the referendum, I decided that we should remain in Europe. I therefore consider the issue from the angle of a European who supports the Community and consideration of the electoral questions involved.
Reference has been made to the numbers involved. The Commission's estimate is that Community nationals represent 1.3 per cent. of the total UK population. Of those, about 600,000 Irish nationals already have the right to vote in UK elections. The Commission states that only 100,000 citizens would be affected by the proposals. However, in paragraph 28 the UK Government estimate that 200,000 Community citizens might benefit. That is twice the figure put forward by the Commission.
However, even if one takes the higher figure, on my simple arithmetic that represents about 430 persons per district council in Great Britain. I do not believe that that would greatly affect elections. When one sub-divides that figure into wards, the number of individuals involved in each ward would be very small. That disposes of any argument that to give voting rights to European citizens resident in this country would unduly affect election results.
More importantly, the report states that twice as many foreign residents in the United Kingdom were
814
nationals of non-Community countries. Paragraph 28 of the report draws attention to the suggestion made by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that,
"the introduction of voting rights for Community nationals might draw criticism from nationals of non-Community countries … who were resident and paid local taxes or charges in the United Kingdom, but had no voting rights".
However, I note that in reply to question 38, when giving evidence to the committee, Dr. Taschner said:
"We should not and would not, cannot and could not, hinder you in granting rights to third country nationals".
Nothing could be more definite about the right of Britain, if it so desired, to give voting rights to non-Community nationals. I do not say that we should do so, but clearly if we gave rights to non-Community nationals the important question of reciprocity would arise.
The position of Irish citizens resident in the UK is dealt with at some length in the report. The issue was raised by some noble Lords. It is argued that the rights given to Irish citizens in UK legislation may be considered anomalous if not extended to other European Community nationals. The committee concludes that there is need for those rights to be brought into line to avoid discrimination.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said that Irish citizens must not be deprived of their present rights. I am certain that the general view in the United Kingdom is that nothing should be done to interfere with the present right of Irish nationals to participate in United Kingdom elections. I believe that it would be most dangerous to do so, in particular with regard to the present situation in Northern and Southern Ireland and the endeavour to obtain agreement.
We therefore have to consider the existing franchise for local elections in the United Kingdom. It is governed by RPA 1983. The right to vote at local elections is restricted to Commonwealth and Irish citizens over 18 years of age on the date of election, resident in the area on the qualifying date and not subject to any legal incapacity to vote. It must be emphasised that there is no period of residence. The normal registration procedure obtains. All noble Lords will be aware that Form A, to which reference is made, makes it absolutely clear that those who may register to vote are British, other Commonwealth and Irish citizens. I am certain that there will be no desire in the United Kingdom to interfere with that procedure.
However, the question of a qualifying period of residence is raised in paragraphs 51 to 56. A period of years is proposed in the directive, together with the issue of residence certificates. I was pleased to note that the Select Committee proposed no residence period requirement. It emphasised that such a proposal would also remove the need for a tier of administration for the issue of residence certificates.
At paragraph 68 the committee concludes that the issue is best left to national or local law. I understand that a period of residence could still be prescribed provided that all Community countries were enfranchised equally. The question of reciprocity will arise; whatever we lay down in this country we shall

815
wish to see laid down in other Community countries. If a directive is approved, any change in the franchise qualifications will need primary legislation by our Parliament. It will be highly desirable to retain our present registration requirements.
Another issue dealt with in the report relates to the local government bodies which will be affected by the change. The Commission's first proposal referred to municipalities, which were defined as first tier councils. That was criticised by the Home Office, which said that the powers of the first tier would vary from member state to member state. It pointed out that in the United Kingdom the structure of local government varies from area to area. Some areas have three tiers, some two tiers and others only one. I note that the Commission amended Article 1 of the proposed directive to state:
"Local elections shall mean elections which are defined as such by Member States".
I dare to suggest that that is a loose definition. In the Select Committee's report, reference is made to a Community national who has lived in, say, Aberdeen for some years and who then moves to Hackney. It is asked what he will know about local conditions. The same argument already applies because a United Kingdom citizen who has been living in Aberdeen for some years can move to Hackney. He may know nothing about the area but, provided he is properly qualified, he can register and vote.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, raised the issue of reciprocity. We could find one member state—for instance, Great Britain—deciding that the right shall be given to Community nationals to vote in county council elections. However, another Community state may give the right only in relation to the lowest possible unit. Therefore, the directive must be more definite and state that the matter is solely for member states to determine.
Reference has been made to the right to stand for election. Although the committee included that in its recommendation, the report dealt mainly with voting rights. I believe that, if the directive includes the right to stand for election to local government bodies in the area in which a Community national resides, it will be highly desirable to retain in the United Kingdom the qualifications for candidature which appear in the existing Representation of the People Act.
I have endeavoured to draw attention to some of the important observations made by the committee. I have also endeavoured to look at a few matters that are pertinent to the United Kingdom. They are issues which will require the most serious consideration as suggested by the Conference of Socialist Leaders which was recently held in Madrid and to which I have referred.
8.4 p.m
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I am also grateful to all those noble Lords who have contributed to this useful debate. I hope that in the time available I shall be able to deal with all the points which have
816
been raised; if not, I shall certainly write to the noble Lords concerned. I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that I have listening ears. I can assure him and my noble friend Lady Elles that the department will pay close attention to the views that have been expressed.
This House has traditionally taken something of a back seat on matters concerning the franchise and representation of the people generally. We have thought it better to leave the minutiae of such matters to our colleagues in another place. Your Lordships may, for instance, recall the Representation of the People Act 1990, which dealt with the provision of long-term absent votes for those who move house. As a matter of convention, detailed scrutiny of such technical matters is not undertaken in this House. But it is clearly right that this House should express a view on such a fundamental issue as the proposed extension of our franchise, albeit only at a local government level, to resident nationals of European Community member states.
I must begin by paying tribute to the chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, whom I am pleased to see is present and to all the members of the committee, for their work on this directive. The committee's report, which was published in February of this year, is a painstaking and comprehensive analysis of the Commission's proposal. It emphasises the important principles with which we are all concerned in considering this issue and highlights the various technical and practical difficulties which are involved. I am glad that so many of the committee's members have been able to attend the debate this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, asked what progress has been made in the Council of Ministers on the Commission's proposal. I should like to deal with that specific point first before moving on to discuss the merits of the draft directive.
The idea of a European Community franchise for local elections in member states dates back at least to the Paris Summit of 1974, since when there have been several attempts to achieve concerted action. The draft directive was published in July 1988 following many years of intermittent pressure—mainly in the European Parliament—for action in this area. In October 1989 the Commission published an amended proposal which had been revised in the light of the views of the European Parliament, and which made only a few minor changes to the original directive. If adopted, the directive would require the United Kingdom and those other member states who deny their local government franchise to foreign nationals, to extend such voting rights and the right to stand as candidates to all citizens of other member states after a minimum period of residence in the host state.
At the beginning of this year an ad hoc Council working group was established under the Irish Presidency to consider the detail of the directive. The working group has since met on three occasions and discussion has generally focused on details of drafting and on the difficulties envisaged by member states

817
with various provisions of the directive. A report from the presidency on progress went to the Committee of Permanent Representatives of Member States, and thence to a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in June. The report made clear that, although some progress has been achieved on points of detail, this has not yet gone so far as to overcome the constitutional, legal and practical difficulties expressed by various member states. At its meeting in June the Council took note of the current position without discussion and the Commission proposed that work on the directive should continue. The Council has therefore asked the Committee of Permanent Representatives to pursue the detailed study of the proposal.
That is the current position on this proposal. I shall turn now to the Government's approach to the proposal and the position that we have adopted in the current deliberations in Brussels. The Government agree with the Select Committee that this proposal to legislate in the field of voting falls outside the Community's competence and, therefore, that the Council does not have power under Article 235 of the EC Treaty to adopt the Commission's draft directive. Therefore, there is insufficient basis in the treaties for the Commission's proposal. In a report to the European Council in 1975 the Commission itself said:
"At present there are no provisions in the Community Treaties, even including Article 235 … which grant the power to act on political rights".
And that remains the case. I think there can be no doubt that we are talking here of a political right. A number of our major partners in the Community share this view.
We do not accept—as a justification for Community legislation—the argument advanced by the Commission and set out in the preamble to its draft directive that the right to vote in local government elections (after a period of residence of up to five years or so) is integral to the free movement of persons for which the treaties do provide, and that it is, therefore, itself covered by the treaties. To suggest that the right to vote is fundamental to freedom of movement would be to accept a significant extension of the competence of the Community institutions; but if, as the Select Committee, the Government and other major member states believe, the Community is not competent under Article 235, then the proposal in this draft directive should not be a Community measure at all.
If we are now, as I think we are, agreed that this directive cannot be adopted by the Council, then, if its aims are to be achieved, some other means must be found to do so, and I shall return, if I may, in a few moments to the question of where we go from here. First, however, I should like to say a few words about some of the practical difficulties which the Commission's proposal gives rise to. Changing the franchise is always fraught with difficulties and it may help if I give an example or two of the sort of thing that I have in mind.
There is, for instance, the problem of deciding to which type of local government election the franchise
818
would apply. Functions and powers vary considerably between, and sometimes within, member states, rendering the value of the vote widely different according to the country or type of local authority involved. The problem therefore is that this proposal would have a discriminatory effect because the value of the vote given to citizens of member states would vary according to the country they were residing in and which particular powers local authortities in that country were capable of exercising.
Another difficulty arises in respect of the registration process itself. Registration as an elector is in effect compulsory at present in the United Kingdom. But it could not be so for Community nationals resident here, who would be able to choose whether they wished to vote in local elections here or in their own country. It would therefore be necessary to maintain a separate and additional electoral register for resident Community nationals, and this would doubtless have significant resource implications for local authorities.
The Select Committee has identified many other practical points which need to be addressed. There is, for example, the potentially anomalous position of Irish citizens under the directive. It seems likely that, were the proposal to be adopted, citizens of the Republic of Ireland would have to be subjected to the same requirements of length of residence as nationals of other member states. Their position would therefore be worsened under the terms of the directive, and we would not find this acceptable. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said on that point.
The Select Committee also pointed to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposed residence requirement in the directive. We are inclined to agree with the Committee's suggestion that the best solution would be to drop this requirement altogether, and that it should be left to individual member states to decide whether to require a specific period of residence before Community nationals could be enfranchised. But your Lordships may think this is a rather peculiar way of attempting to harmonise arrangements relating to the local government franchise.
None of these points need constitute an overwhelming obstacle: far from it. But these, and similar technical difficulties faced by other member states, will need to be overcome if real progress is to be made.
I should not like to leave your Lordships with the impression that the United Kingdom is out on a limb in seeing some difficulties with this directive. That is not so. A number of member states share our doubts on the issue of the Community's competence to pursue those proposals—most notably France, Denmark and Germany. France and Germany also have constitutional difficulties with the proposals, as do Italy, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg. All those countries would need to make some amendment to their constitution in order to adopt the proposal. Severe practical difficulties with the directive's proposals are also envisaged by Germany, Luxembourg, and France as regards making suitable administrative arrangements for the proposal.

819
Where do we go from here? In its report, the Select Committee suggested that, as the Community does not appear to have the power to pursue this matter within the scope of the treaties, the Commission's proposal might be considered and adopted as a resolution of member states meeting within the Council. This is a mechanism whereby a proposal which could not be put into effect by means of a legislative act of the Community can nevertheless be pursued if member states are broadly in favour of its substance. In our view, this is the only way in which the objectives of the Commission and the Select Committee could be achieved.
As I have said, the matter now rests with the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Progress on this issue is dependent on resolving the difficulties raised by this proposal so that the necessary unanimity may be achieved. There is little point in attempting to predict how swift or how satisfactory that progress will be. But I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will continue to play their full part in the search for agreement.
I need not remind your Lordships that the intergovernmental conference on political union, which was launched in Rome on 15th December, will consider proposals for revision of the treaty. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, who is now on the Woolsack and therefore obliged to accept anything I say in reference to his remarks without being able to gainsay it, that the United Kingdom will play a central and a positive role in all of these negotiations. We are looking for reforms that will make the Community more open, liberal, democratic and efficient. We have already made a number of suggestions, and we will make more as the conference gets under way. Among suggestions made by others is the inclusion in the treaty of a recognition of a Community citizen's right to vote in European Parliament, and possibly local, elections, which would have the effect of making possible a directive along the lines that we are discussing. All of these proposals will be discussed in detail by the conference.
We understand the argument put forward by the Select Committee, reflected in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, that the right to vote complements freedom of movement and would reflect the close and growing ties between member states. Such arguments should not be dismissed out of hand. Our mind is not closed. We will consider carefully and without prejudice whatever proposals are put forward in the course of discussions at the conference.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, pressed me on the Government's reservations on principles. I have explained that those reservations stem from our doubt; about the Community's competence to propose legislation in this area. The noble Lord asked me also what the Government mean when they say that this is a matter within the national jurisdiction of member states. We consider the extent of the franchise to be a matter for individual national parliaments to
820
decide. We agree with the Select Committee that that is not a matter which comes within the scope of the Community as set out in the treaties.
The noble Lord asked about our position on the issue of public support. I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Public support on the issue is hard to estimate. While there may be some support for the Commission's proposal, we see no evidence of overwhelming public interest in the matter. For example, in 1989 the Home Office received 31 letters from EC citizens resident in this country asking for the right to vote-l2 directly and 19 via Members of Parliament. By contrast, we received over 50 letters criticising the breadth of the existing franchise; in other words, arguing in the opposite direction. I agree that not all legislation needs to be preceded by public clamour. We do not regard the absence of evidence of public demand as an insuperable obstacle to legislation.
The noble Lord asked whether the Government are saying that differences in local election systems are grounds for opposing the proposal. No. We merely point out that such differences throw up practical problems which must be addressed before any significant progress on the proposal can be achieved.
My noble friend Lady Elles asked whether there is an estimate of the number of EC nationals resident in this country. Based on labour force surveys for 1984–86, we estimate that there are approximately 200,000 European Community nationals usually resident in Great Britain who may become eligible to vote under this proposal.
My noble friend made the very good point about the reciprocal nature of this proposal. As regards Commonwealth countries, not all Commonwealth countries offer reciprocal voting rights but a number do so. For example, of the approximately 500,000 Commonwealth citizens eligible to vote at the 1987 general election, around 150,000 came from countries which allow reciprocal voting rights to British citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to what he described as the negative attitude of Home Office officials. I am sorry that he found their attitude negative. It may be that they had a number of negative things to say in respect of potential problems raised by the Commission's proposal. I assure the noble Lord that their concern was to give the committee the fullest possible explanation of the Government's position and to help the committee in its inquiries in any way that they could.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked how the principle of subsidiarity would apply to the proposal. If a change were to be made by a resolution outside the scope of the Community treaties, legislation would have to be enacted by national parliaments and Community institutions would not have a legislative role.
I should like to close by reiterating the Government's thanks to the Select Committee for its detailed consideration of the proposal. Its work helped to clarify the issues involved, to focus on the practical problems that need to be addressed and to

821
point the way forward. As I said at the outset of my remarks, we shall give careful consideration to the many further interesting comments put forward this evening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will accept that assurance in the spirit in which it is given, and that he and the other members of the Select Committee will feel that in raising the matter this evening they have accomplished a worthwhile exercise.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.