Lords Sitting of 4 July 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 Chester.

European Court of Justice: Powers
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour an extension of the powers of the European Court of Justice to enable it to fine member states for breaches of European Community law; and if so what proposals they wish to make in this regard.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place, there is a good case for strengthening the role of the European Court of Justice in respect of the enforcement of Community law and in ensuring compliance with its judgments. This is a matter for consideration in the present review of Community institutions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. Will he indicate more specifically the lines along which the Government are thinking? How is it possible, for example, to impose fines against aberrant member states? Might the Government think in terms of extending the rules relating to competition law to other areas of policy where there is a failure to comply with the law? In that connection I have in mind invoking the power of the sanctions of fines against those responsible rather than dealing directly with governments. Can the noble Lord give the House some further specific indication in this regard?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all the ideas mentioned by the noble Lord are worthy of consideration. We have not yet reached the stage of specific proposals. I am convinced—and I believe that this represents the Government's view—that there is a good case for strengthening the role of the European Court of Justice in this way. The precise manner in which to do so requires further consideration. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions; I am sure that others could be made.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that we ought not to rush with too much enthusiasm into putting member states in the dock? If proposals are made, would it be sensible to ensure that before sanctions are imposed—be it a fine or whatever—there is an order giving a member state the opportunity of remedying a breach?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, there is no dock at present in the
2090
European Court of Justice at Luxembourg, so far as I recall. I am sure that we all desire the judgments of the court to be complied with, with no question of putting anyone in the dock. If we have respect for the rule of law that is what we would wish to see.
However, the Question concerned what would happen if by any chance a member state did not obey a ruling of the court. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it would not be wise to be precipitate. One wants a reasonable procedure for trying toovercome the difficulty. It is not tolerable that if there is a judgment against a member state that state should do nothing at all about it and nothing should happen thereafter. That situation is detrimental to the rule of law.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, might the suggestion in the Question have certain implications in respect of national sovereignty? Is that not therefore a further reason for the caution which my noble and learned friend has indicated?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the situation would apply only in respect of European law which has been made part of the law of the member state concerned by the proper legislative means in that member state. I agree that caution is required. It is a difficult and delicate area and I believe that the best way forward is for a member state to implement judgments once the court has given them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be unprecedented for a court sitting outside these shores to be able to impose a fine on Her Majesty's Government? Does he further agree that the long-suffering taxpayers in this country—who have already paid £12,000 million to the Community—would not take well to fines being imposed upon them? Finally, exactly who would enforce the law? Would it be the British police, the German jackboot, or perhaps even the French gendarmerie?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps the shortest answer I can give to the noble Lord is to say that no question of a fine arises if the judgment of the court is observed. The United Kingdom Government have a uniquely good record in that respect. In the Sixth Annual Report to the European Parliament on Commission Monitoring of the Application of Community Law, it is reported that there was only one judgment against the United Kingdom with which it had failed to comply. That judgment, which had been given on 21st June 1988, would have been complied with on the adoption of the Finance Act 1989.
The United Kingdom's record is good by comparison with that of the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, which had not complied with four judgments. Belgium had not complied with 12 judgments. Denmark had not complied with two judgments and France had not complied with five judgments. Both Greece and Ireland had not complied with two judgments and Italy had not complied with 24. The Netherlands had not

2091
complied with two judgments. Those figures show that the actions of the United Kingdom speak as effectively as those of any other country in showing that we observe the Community law in an exemplary fashion. Some speak about it, but we do it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope that the comparative figures that the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated in relation to breaches of the law by Britain and Germany respectively will not reflect the score to night. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: The noble and learned Lord!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have now fathomed the reason for these extraordinary House of Commons-like outbursts. I apologise. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can indicate how long the Government are likely to take in their consideration of these matters and whether, for example, a statement will be made before the end of the year. In so far as there is no dock available for aberrant Ministers at the European Court of Justice, does not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that there may be an overwhelming case for this measure being the only effective sanction in certain instances?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is too early to come to a conclusion. This is an important subject and, as has been said, it needs to be approached with a good deal of caution and discretion. It is a matter for consideration in the Community as a whole. It is not something that we could alter at our own hand. As I have already suggested, the measure may be particularly effective in respect of certain countries. I join with the noble Lord in hoping that the figures I gave will not be reflected in the score tonight. However, I have no means of knowing when a conclusion will be reached on this matter. I hope that we shall have a constructive consideration of this matter, perhaps stimulated by this Question.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that any decision on enforcement would have to be reached unanimously and not by a majority vote?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the precise position to be adopted needs to be considered with some care. One would expect that a decision on any additional powers to be given to the European Court of Justice would need to be reached unanimously. Some of the treaty articles, particularly Article 172, could be used as a basis for developments in this area.

Regional Policy
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to make any changes in their regional policies.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there are no plans at present to make changes to regional policy. The Government remain committed to an effective regional policy and will continue to make the necessary resources available.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that is a disappointing Answer. Is the Minister aware that when there is a rise in unemployment, as is happening now, the regions are hit first and they are hit the hardest? Is the Minister further aware that the unemployment figures for the regions can and do hide pockets of high unemployment? In my own area, for example, yet another pit closure was announced last week with the loss of another 1,000 jobs. As the change in regional development grants has resulted in a huge loss to the regions, will the Government now consider an increase in regional assistance grants and at the same time make the administration of those grants much more flexible?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord talked about unemployment. However, our regional measures have had a significant impact on unemployment in the assisted areas. Unemployment has fallen faster in the regions during the three years to May 1990. It fell by 7 percentage points in Wales, 6·4 in the North and 6·3 in the North West, compared with 5·3 for Great Britain as a whole and 4·1 in the South East. The noble Lord also asked about regional policy and regional grants. The public expenditure survey for 1991–93 constitutes some £630 million. By any stretch of the imagination that is a large sum of money.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, how much money will be available within RESIDER in terms of European regional development funds? RESIDER is the new form of European economic aid to the regions. Will that money from RESIDER be in addition to the present level of Government aid to the regions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord regarding the RESIDER programme, but I can tell him that funds from the European Regional Development Fund in respect of the integrated development operation programmes have been agreed under the Community support framework. The sums involved are £50 million for Cleveland-Durham area and £58 million for Tyne-and-Wear-South East Northumberland area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Viscount in respect of the RESIDER question. Is it not the case that the Treasury does not apply the doctrine of additionality; that is to say, it deducts from Treasury money whatever is received from Europe? Is that not a scandal? Furthermore, may I press the noble Viscount to be more forthcoming about the regional selective assistance programme in the light of 1992? He quoted unemployment figures when they were falling generally but they are now rising generally. Is not my noble friend Lord Dormand right in saying that the regions will suffer most as unemployment increases?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about additionality. European Community receipts are taken into account in determining public expenditure levels. That enables programmes to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be possible. On the point about whether unemployment will rise faster in the regions than in the South East, my information is that because jobs in the South East are mainly in the service industries unemployment may rise faster in the South East than in the regions.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, with particular reference to the area which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and I both come from, can my noble friend give some idea of the progress of urban schemes and to what extent they differ from the position which existed before the Government came intooffice?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, more than 1,000 projects in nine inner area districts in the North East—in Tyne-and-Wear and Cleveland—are being supported through the Department of the Environment's urban programme. The region's urban programme allocation for 1991 is £42 million, an increase of 4 per cent. on 1989–90.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister seen the Fraser of Allander analysis of the consequences of regional policy in which it is stated that the new policy is wrong in principle and damaging in practice? Can the Government's commitment to regional policy be reconciled with the fact that the London Docklands Development Corporation's state funding for this year is substantially more than the entire regional development assistance to the Scottish Development Agency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we remain committed to an effective regional policy. The Scottish Development Agency combines all the effective departmental resources and supervises regional policy in that way. I return to my original contention that the figure of £630 million for the regions is a considerable sum of money.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that large sums of English taxpayers' money have been spent on regional aid for projects such as Ravenscraig and the Linwood truck plant at various times in the past, all of which have ended in failure and gone against the market and all of which have been wasted? Does he agree that an awful lot of the regional aid goes to Japanese machine tool manufacturers, has no effect whatsoever on jobs and is a distortion of subsidy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. Regional policies have done a great deal to support jobs, especially in the North East and the North. For historical reasons those areas have suffered a rundown of their traditional industries and it is very important that they should be provided with others.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister explain to his noble friend that Scotland is not a region?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I dare say he has heard the noble Lord's words.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I turn the noble Viscount's attention to Wales for a moment? Is he aware that during the last 10 years industrial employment has fallen by 20 per cent. in Wales but the regional aid programme has been cut by 50 per cent. in the same period? How does he reconcile those two figures?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, regional policy for Wales comes under the Welsh Development Agency. One of its projects is the Welsh valleys initiative on which there is a Question to morrow. I shall be very happy to go into the matter in more detail to morrow.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is there not an urgent need to co-ordinate national policies for energy and transportation to link the whole of the United Kingdom under one regional development policy? In my view, the regions have been sacrificed because of the lack of a national policy for transport and energy.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the European Regional Development Fund is devoted to infrastructure. It will provide finance for the transport network that the noble Lord requires.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the CBI, the Forum of Private Business and the London Business School, among many other objective observers, are saying that there will be a substantial increase in unemployment, which is the basis of my Question? As he referred to the regions, will the Minister comment on the fact that the Northern region, to which he referred, after 11 years has an unemployment rate of 13·4 per cent., which is only six points from what it was in 1979?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my figure for unemployment for the North is 9·6 per cent. and for the North West 8·4 per cent. The figures have almost halved since May 1987.

Exchange Rate Mechanism
2.56 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they intend to make to consult the British people about the advisability of the United Kingdom joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made very clear their policy on joining the exchange rate mechanism. There has been ample opportunity to discuss the policy in this House and in another place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a most unsatisfactory Answer? It may very well be that we in this place and in another place, and even those in the City and the banks, know government policy, but will he agree that there has been no widespread discussion of this matter, which affects people's jobs, the exports of this country, its financial position and the ability of the Government to run the economy as they should as elected representatives of the people? Will he not agree at least to publish a new White Paper on the subject setting out the pros and cons of the whole matter? If he does not do so, should one not expect people to believe that the Government have something to hide?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government have nothing to hide. They have made their views on this matter perfectly clear on many occasions, not least in an Answer by my noble friend Lord Caithness to a Question from the noble Lord not so very long ago. I remind the noble Lord that this is a parliamentary democracy and the subject has been discussed in both Houses on many occasions.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, before asking the public detailed questions on these complex matters will my noble friend remind the noble Lord that the British Labour Party is fully and publicly committed to membership of the Common Market?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend but I understand that there are problems on the other side of the House in that some members of the party opposite seem to have different views on the subject.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the Government intend to publish a White Paper on this question do they agree that in the White Paper there should be listed those Ministers who are pro and those who are con?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not say that the Government intended to publish a White Paper on this matter.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Labour Party has different views, which is certainly true. Will the noble Lord tell the House how many views there are on the other side of the House and indeed within the Cabinet?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is one view and that is the Government's view.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a most important article in to day's Daily Telegraph the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, points out that European monetary union would mean that the fiscal prerogative would no longer be exercised only at the national level and that the power to raise taxes would gradually shift to ward Europe, by which he means the EC? Is he further aware that the noble Lord goes on to suggest that we may be going a bridge too far, to use the Arnhem analogy? Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government share the noble Lord's fears?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Question does not relate to EMU. It relates to sterling joining the exchange rate mechanism. The question about EMU is slightly different from the Question on the Order Paper.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be appropriate for us to await the report of my noble friend Lord Aldington, who is chairman of the ad hoc committee on European monetary and political union, and that we might well wait to see the conclusions of that report?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I look forward with interest to that report. Only yesterday Dr. Karl Otto Pöhl spoke to that committee.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as these matters are likely to be discussed at the meeting of the Council of Ministers to be held on 23rd July, does the noble Lord consider that the request of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon for the public to be made more fully aware is a reasonable one? In pursuing that point perhaps I may ask him a specific question which arises in particular in view of the apparent disagreements between No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street and with the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party. If the visible trade deficit with the EC, mainly with Germany, continues at its existing rate of some £15 billion a year, and bearing in mind our own inflation rate which is running at 9.7 per cent. and rising, will the Government consider entering the ERM with the deutschmark standing to day at 2.945? In those circumstances, do Her Majesty's Government consider any time to be the right time for entry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, the Government do not intend to publish a White Paper. I repeat that there is no disagreement between my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In view of the noble Lord's wish to be better informed, I shall repeat what my noble friend and my right honourable friends in another place have said on many occasions; namely, that the Government are committed to join the ERM when the level of United Kingdom inflation is significantly lower, when there is capital liberalisation in the Community and when real progress has been made toward the completion of the single market, freedom of financial services and strengthened competition policy.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I detect in the noble Lord's reply any similarity in the Government's attitude to ward joining the ERM and their attitude to the Easter Act of 1928?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Easter Act 1928 was a somewhat long time ago. I do not think that it would serve any purpose if I were to repeat the conditions laid down by the Government for joining the ERM. I merely stated them to the House in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will my noble friend be surprised to learn that in dining rooms, drawing

2097
rooms, clubs, pubs and restaurants throughout the United Kingdom the desirability or otherwise of the United Kingdom joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system is not a favourite topic of conversation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is possible that my noble friend has been in many dining rooms, clubs and so on in the United Kingdom, but I do not know.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I am in favour of a common market. Indeed, I went round the country with the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, at the time of the referendum, trying to persuade the electors to vote for the common market. But I am not in favour of entering a federal Europe.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Glenamara: It is a question, my Lords. Anyone who appears tooppose being drawn into a federal Europe is regarded as rather odd nowadays. The Government have no mandate whatever to take this country into a federal Europe. When will the Government consult the people about this issue? We do not want to go into a federal Europe.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the matter has nothing to do with a federal Europe. I note that the noble Lord has different views from those held by some of his other friends in his party. I have repeated the Government's view that we shall enter the exchange rate mechanism when the time is right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Question was short, but the noble Lord's answer was very unsatisfactory. Is he aware that the Prime Minister herself does not realise that to alter the bands of the exchange rate mechanism will need unanimity? So, even if it is only to inform her of the real situation, does he think it would be as well if the Government were to issue a Green Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think I can take the matter any further than I have already taken it.

Electricity Supply Industry: Privatisation
3.6 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry was carried out with adequate preparation and information, and in particular on the basis of reliable costings, and what effects these may have had on the future of the nuclear energy industry.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the preparation for the flotations is taking place on the basis of the best available information and costings. They are wholly satisfied with the advice that they are receiving on the privatisation. The decision not to privatise the
2098
nuclear industry was taken in the light of all the relevant information. The future of nuclear power will be reviewed in 1994.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will understand when I direct my supplementary question to the second half of my Question on the Order Paper. Is he aware that in an article in last Sunday's Sunday Express Mr. John Wakeham made the categorical statement that nuclear power in this country is not finished? In terms of the requirement of nuclear power on an international basis because of the population explosion, is the Minister aware that unless the moratorium of 1994 is lifted immediately it will simply mean that the French nuclear industry will continue to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of our industry? May I plead with the Minister to urge Mr. Wakeham to lift that moratorium in the interests of everybody concerned?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are completing Sizewell B and will review the prospects for future nuclear capacity in 1994. Apart from the contribution to diversity in fuel supply, nuclear power has important environmental benefits. It does not contribute to acid rain and Sizewell B alone will avoid the emission of 300 million tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime. I understand the noble Lord's concern about the moratorium but it is up to the nuclear industry to prove itself before that time.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that there can be no reliable costings for nuclear power? Will he agree that that is so for two reasons? First, there is a lack of political decision over the future of the fast reactor, which will consume the by-products of the thermal reactor. Secondly, there is the enormously extended timescale over which these decisions can be taken. Will he further confirm that for the next 40 years Torness and Heysham II will be turning out plutonium as a by-product on which no reliable value can be placed as a credit against the cost of electricity?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Earl makes an extremely valid point. To date the nuclear programme has been undertaken on a bipartisan basis.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Viscount reminded us that in 1994 there will be a review of the future of the nuclear industry in this country. Will he indicate whether at the same time there will be a review of the privatised organisation in view of the fact that there are many people who feel that it should have been done differently and that after three or four years of experience it might well need to be reviewed?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I can give no further undertaking.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, my noble friend's Question referred to adequate preparation and information for privatisation. Will the noble

2099
Viscount confirm that a warning that it would not be possible to privatise the nuclear industry was given in August 1988 by the financial advisers to the Government? It was given 15 months before the programme was abandoned. Will he further confirm that that warning was not sent by the department as a document to the Select Committee of another place which studied this matter? It therefore blamed the financial advisers for what was after all a Government error.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the department and the financial advisers supplied the committee with full and wide-ranging information. The Select Committee has expressed its appreciation of that. However, there were many letters and meetings between the department and its advisers over the whole period.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister inform my noble friend that the nuclear industry has no future and that therefore there is no need to speculate upon it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I cannot agree with the noble Lord in his premise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Viscount—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, we have now had 33 minutes of Question time. Perhaps I may suggest that we keep an eye on the time. Three noble Lords opposite wish to intervene. I suggest that we hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, then another noble Lord, and then the noble Lord, Lord Dean. Perhaps we can then bring this Question to an end.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I should like to press the noble Viscount on my previous question. Is it not the case that Kleinwort Benson supplied the Select Committee with two letters that it had written to the department? One was dated 11th September 1987, and one was sent on 6th November 1989. However, if the August 1988 letter, which was the crucial letter saying that this was not a viable prospect, was not supplied to the Select Committee by the Department of Energy, why not?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the various letters that were provided for the Select Committee were made available on the basis that that was the information required by the Select Committee. I go back to what I said to the noble Lord: the Select Committee was thankful, and expressed its thanks in its report, for the amount of evidence that it received from the department.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that three Members from the Labour Party should speak. My noble friend Lord Hanworth has risen on a number of occasions but has not been invited to speak. Will the noble Lord please comment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount. I saw three noble Lords rising on the Opposition Benches. I did not see another noble Lord. We have now had 35 minutes of Question time. I think that it is reasonable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who was on his feet, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and then to call it a day.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with respect, it is not reasonable to have three Members from the Labour Benches speaking and none from this Bench.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am trying to be as courteous as I can to noble Lords. I am in the hands of the House. On this occasion perhaps the noble Viscount might have been a little quicker on his feet.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, the noble Viscount said that there were certain responsibilities on the industry to supply the Government with information. Can the Minister say whether the industry has been informed of that responsibility?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I indicated to the noble Lord that it will be up to Nuclear Electric to run the nuclear industry until 1994. It will be on that record, and other matters, that a decision will be taken.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I consider the question posed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins that the nuclear industry has no future is absolute bunk? Is he aware that I was directing my Question to the pursuit of the international, not domestic, provision of power? Does he recall that your Lordships' Select Committee recently debated this very question? It indicated the need for a substantial increase of power in the near future because of the population explosion internationally. I am trying to make the point to the Government that the moratorium that they placed on the industry until 1994 is seriously damaging our nuclear industry's capacity to compete with our main competitor, the French. Will the Government consider that issue as a matter of urgency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said. I am sure that he will note what the noble Lord has said, as I do. However, I cannot go back on what I have said about 1994.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment the Third Reading of the Access to Health Records Bill and the Consumer Guarantees Bill will be taken.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.16 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the House moves into Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill, I feel it only proper that one should make some protest at the conditions under which Members of the House are being asked to carry the weight of legislation that we are being asked to undertake by the Government.
We have before us a groupings paper that was not available until ten minutes to two this afternoon—and then I think not in the Printed Paper Office. I appreciate that the usual channels consist of representatives from all quarters of the House, and that it is not exclusively a responsibility of government to present amendments for groupings. But we are being asked to day to work on a Bill where there are 24 amendments in the second grouping of the Sixth Marshalled List. It was almost impossible to go through it in the time available and to identify the 24 amendments intelligently. The printers have also found life too difficult for them. If one looks at page 10 of the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 353 appears after, instead of before, Amendment No. 354. On page 11, Amendment No. 354 appears after Amendment No. 355.
I am speaking because I believe that the House is being asked to undertake too much legislation at too rapid a speed. It is making it very difficult indeed for ordinary Members of the House—who have minimal secretarial help—to keep pace with the speed at which the Government expect us to get through complicated and very important legislation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for the fact that the groupings are late. I think that I am right in saying that it is the only day this Session that they have come late. It is not for the convenience of your Lordships. The noble Baroness is owed an apology. I unreservedly give her that apology.
However, decisions on groupings are not in the hands of the Government alone. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chose the groupings on the second group that the noble Baroness has identified. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not mind my saying that groupings are for the convenience of the House. If any noble Lord or noble Baroness does not wish a particular amendment to be within that group, that noble Lord or noble Baroness can make the point clear, and can make it clear that he or she wishes to speak—and indeed to vote—separately on that particular amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said, it is only fair to say that we received a draft set of groupings from the Government yesterday afternoon. It took us most of this morning to make our own revision as to what we thought was necessary. I am also very pleased to confirm what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said: that there is an opportunity to speak on any
2102
amendment as and when it arises, whatever the grouping may have been. The intention of the work on the groupings this morning was to simplify matters rather than to complicate them. I hope that my noble friend will find that that is in fact the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Campbell of Croy: With leave, before we start, perhaps I may call attention to a defect in the Marshalled List. It is one of some importance. I refer to Amendment No. 344ZKA. It is attributed to three names, one of which is mine. It is certainly not our amendment. It seems that a name or names has been omitted from above the amendment. Some of us would like to know whose amendment it is. It is due to come up in the second debate. If the information is not available immediately, perhaps by raising it now I shall give time for the information to be given to us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot lie; it is my amendment.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 343:
Before Clause 118, insert the following new clause:
("Countryside Council of the United Kingdom

.—(1) (a) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Countryside Council of the United Kingdom (in this Part referred to as "the Council") for the purpose of carrying out the functions assigned or transferred to it under this Part.

(b) The Council shall consist of not less than eight nor more than fifteen members, appointed by the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall designate one of the members appointed by him as chairman of the Council and may, if he thinks fit, designate another member of the Council as the deputy chairman of the Council.

(d) In appointing a person to be a member of the Council, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of the Council, as conferred by subsection (4) below.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

(a) to establish and maintain regional advisory committees, consisting of persons who are not members of the Council, for the different regions of the United Kingdom;

(b) to consult the advisory committee for any region as to any proposals of the Council relating generally to the manner in which the Council carries out its functions in that region; and

(c) to consider any representations made to it by the advisory committee for any region (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (b) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Council carries out its functions in that region.

(3) The duty to establish and maintain advisory committees imposed by subsection (2) above is a duty—

(a) to establish and maintain an advisory committee for each region of the United Kingdom, as may be determined by the Council; and

2103

(b) to ensure that the persons appointed by the Council to each such committee are persons who appear to the Council to have an interest in matters likely to be affected by the manner in which the Council carries out any of its functions in the region in question.

(4) The Council shall be charged with the following functions—

(a) the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the United Kingdom:

(b) the provision or improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside;

(c) the conservation of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features;

(d) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting countryside and nature conservation in the United Kingdom, and for achieving relevant international obligations;

(e) the provision of advice and dissemination of information about countryside and nature conservation;

(f) the establishment, maintenance and management of National Parks, Nature Reserves, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas of special scientific interest:

(g) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) or research relevant to the functions of the Council.

(5) In subsection (4) above "countryside and nature conservation" means the conservation of natural beauty and amenity, and of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features.").
The noble Earl said: I have just returned from a treat. This morning I woke up and looked over the Grand Canal in Venice. As I was preparing my papers for to day's debate one or two thoughts crossed my mind with a certain amount of irony. Had Attila the Hun attended the Ramsar Convention it is probable that Venice would still be a heavily protected wetlands site. Had Theodoric had a regional fund there is not the slightest doubt that he would not have invested it in Venice hoping that it would be the centre of the spice trade between the eastern Mediterranean and the Western world. Had the blind doge Danolo been subject to building regulations there would have been no buildings. I bring that historical perspective to my few words. It indicates that we must be immensely careful when undertaking any concept of planning or control of our surroundings and countryside. Almost invariably we have got it wrong.
The whole of the English, Scottish and Welsh countryside is man-made. There is not a single square inch which remains unaltered by man. Therefore, it requires to be looked after most caefully. The stone walls in Derbyshire are akin to those in Scotland and Wales. The river valleys of the Tweed or the Severn straddling the borders of the kingdoms of Scotland and England and the Principality of Wales should be regarded as such. The idea that the merganser on the north of the Tweed should have a tartan wing and be run by one conservation body while its starboard wing wearing north-country tweed is run by another body, both designed to appease Scottish pride, verges on the unreasonable.
When the Government first came to power in 1979 it was said that a great swathing axe would be cutting through the quangos. The favourites for amalgamation were the Nature Conservancy Council
2104
and the Countryside Commission. That did not materialise and I believe that there was a sound reason for keeping them apart. However, I have always believed that there is a more sound reason for joining them together. The countryside should be regarded as a whole and examined for its many facets and uses.
I was taken by a noble friend to see a bird which had not inhabited this country for a long time. I was rightly told to say nothing about where it was or what it was and I have not done so. Until that time its presence was unknown in the United Kingdom. That part of the countryside had to be protected and kept as free from interference as was humanly possible. Large areas of the Pennine Way are being used by too many people and the paths are being eroded. That damage can be seen also in the Welsh mountains and in parts of Scotland. The problems of the British countryside are not the sole concern of the kingdoms of Scotland and England or the Principality of Wales. They are connected with the pressure created by a growing population which is rightly—and thank goodness for it—more conservation minded.
There is a genuine care for our countryside and a desire for access to it under responsible and reasonable conditions. There is a desire that our countryside should not merely be a machine for making food. In other words, we must garden and gamekeep our countryside. The idea that it should be cared for in one way north of the Border, in another way in the principality and in a third way in England is nothing short of nationalist whingeing. It is time to look at the problem on a sensible, natural basis rather than in the light of political borders.
Needless to say, the amendment was drafted for me by someone else because I am much too idle and not nearly clever enough to do so. The new body combines the duties of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission and it is modelled on the National Rivers Authority. The duties set out in subsection (4) sum up the way in which we should treat our countryside, be it Scottish, English or Welsh. We should look at the problem in that non-nationalist way which reflects the needs of the countryside as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: This is a probing amendment. As a result of a rumour that the noble Earl might not be able to attend the Committee this afternoon I added my name to it yesterday. I believe strongly that it goes some way towards establishing the kind of structure which might have resulted from the White Paper promised this autumn if only the Government had given it a chance and had not been so quick to dismember the NCC without any discussions with bodies outside this Committee which are anxious about what is happening.
I am sitting on these Benches with a Scottish colleague next to me and another behind me. By derivation I too am Scottish. Any reference to Scotland being a region will be sat on quickly by my colleagues. Therefore, I do not associate myself with the word "region" in this context. It is a nation, as is Wales. However, the amendment goes some way towards what the Government should be achieving

2105
if they want to establish an overall UK view of nature conservation, countryside issues, forestry, and so forth. The bodies in Scotland and Wales should have executive functions and should not be purely advisory, but there must be an overall UK view. The body must have some power and it must be advisory and receive finance. I support the amendment if only to hear what the Government have to say about it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My noble friend is proposing a countryside council but clearly it will cover nature conservation. Indeed, subsections (4) (c) and (d) indicate that. The amendment aims to replace the Government's proposals which are to be added to by their amendments proposing four bodies, including the joint committee. I should prefer to build, on what exists already and on the functions of Ministers and their departments which Parliament has laid down. I entirely understand the spirit in which my noble friend tabled the clause as an alternative. However, I do not believe that its provisions would fit in easily with many statutes which set out the duties of Ministers and their departments. The Government's Bill which we are now considering does not affect those duties. That was confirmed by the Minister when I raised that point on the first day in Committee. This amendment enables us to make a few general comments on Part VII at the beginning of our discussion.
I was invited to serve on the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who presided outstandingly in that capacity. I was glad to have that privilege and I believe that the proposals which the Carver Commitee put forward, most of which the Government have now accepted, lead in the right direction from the point of view of reaching a satisfactory structure which is better than the present one.
The four chairmen designate of the bodies clearly agree. Their letter in The Times on 23rd June supports those proposals. I should like to make it clear that that is the line which I should prefer to follow rather than that put forward by my noble friend.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has expressed the thoughts which I had about this amendment and, of course, has done so better than I should have done. I add only that, if we are seriously considering adding this new clause to the Bill, the consequentials involved by way of amending previous legislation, amending this Bill and dovetailing this new clause with what is already in the Bill, will take several parliamentary days of great endeavour.
Therefore, I hope that it does not disappoint my noble friend Lord Onslow and those who support him to say that, although I think his sentiments are admirable and that we should regard most of these matters as one problem, we have a legislative foundation dealing with them separately and in somewhat specialised ways. As my noble friend Lord Campbell said, we should try to build on that.
Baroness David: I was very glad to add my name to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as it is the only amendment on this vast list which gives one the opportunity to say how hostile one is to the way in which this organisation has come about. One asks why, when a White Paper is to be published in the autumn, there is such unseemly haste to push forward these proposals, which are ill-thought out, uncosted and give maximum anxiety and uncertainty to those working in the NCC and in all those voluntary bodies which have done so much for conservation in this country; for example, the World Wildlife Fund, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and others which have done such marvellous work. This is the only amendment which positively asks for Part VII to be removed.
No one has attempted to say that there should be no reorganisation of the NCC. In fact, the Government have still not explained why the scheme for devolution of the NCC which had been prepared by the council and was ready on the very day on which the bombshell burst on 11th July—and that is a year next Wednesday—has not been considered. Indeed, it has not even been discussed.
Of course, there are many possibilities for reorganisation. Discussion after a White Paper would be the ideal way to explore them. In this amendment the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has proposed one possibility based on the National Rivers Authority model, namely a national body with regional arms. That would appear to be a possible way forward and an excellent basis for discussion. I applaud him for his initiative in moving the amendment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, although I can guess what will be the tenor of his remarks.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I must say to the noble Baroness who has just spoken that, from the point of view of the people of Scotland, the proposals made in this amendment are breathtakingly inappropriate. I hope that she realises that.
I do not know how serious is my noble friend in moving the amendment. It has been spoken to from the Front Bench of the Liberal Party. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that he thought it was a probing amendment. I do not know if that is what it is in the eyes of my noble friend Lord Onslow. I do not know what it is in the eyes of the noble Baroness, Lady David. She is a prominent Front Bench spokesman although she has spoken from the Back Benches today. She is a very prominent member of the Labour Party in this Chamber. A Liberal Front Bench spokesman spoke in favour of the amendment. That demonstrates the problems which both the Labour and Liberal Parties have nowadays on the subject of devolution.
This amendment not only frustrates the Government's intention to devolve nature conservancy to Scotland, it also takes away from Scotland, as I read it, the existing powers which we have as to how we use and enjoy our own countryside.

2107
Members of the Committee may have noticed that this proposal refers to and treats Scotland as a region of the United Kingdom. If the proposed council is gracious enough to designate us as a region, we should be allowed no more than an advisory committee which would say what it thought should happen in Scotland but would have no power to make decisions. That would apply not only to nature conservancy but also to how we use and enjoy our countryside. On countryside matters, that would put the clock back 21 years. Scotland has had its own Countryside Commission since 1968.
We are always being told that the Labour Party, and indeed the Liberal Party, are parties of devolution and are in favour of policies which enable the people of Scotland to decide for themselves. What does this amendment and the other amendments which we shall discuss later tell us? They will attempt to weaken the extent of devolution for Scotland and Wales proposed in the Bill.
I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and any of their noble friends who support them in this matter or in other matters which attempt to weaken the Bill, that they should tune in somewhat more to their Scottish colleagues. Perhaps we shall hear from them when discussing this amendment. In particular Members of the Committee belonging to the Labour Party should tune in to remarks made by their honourable friend in another place which are recorded at col. 81 of Hansard for 15th January. His speech was to the effect that the southern-based environmental lobby, including the Nature Conservancy Council, has been seen by what he described as "ordinary highlanders" as aloof, insensitive, remote and sadly lacking in any appreciation of the special history and culture of the Highlands and Islands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Order!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not quoting, I am paraphrasing. Members of the Committee opposite should tune in to those remarks. The way to persuade the people of Scotland—and I dare say the people of Wales too—to identify with nature conservancy is by devolution of powers to them. That is what the Bill achieves and that is what this amendment to tally frustrates. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a direct challenge to the Labour Front Bench and I must respond. The noble Baroness claimed to be making a passionate defence on behalf of the Scottish people. I always believe it to be unwise for Members of this Chamber especially to be making passionate claims that they are representing the people. It is also unwise for the noble Baroness to run the risk of unwittingly breaching the rules of this Chamber by quoting my honourable friend in another place without naming the Member to whom she was referring. That makes life exceedingly difficult.
There is no concealment on any side of this Chamber that there are different views on this matter. Some noble Lords, particularly those from
2108
Scotland and Wales, feel very strongly that the Government's proposals are an improvement on the existing situation. Others, who have a concern for nature conservation and the countryside on an island-wide basis, feel very strongly that there is a great deal to be lost by the arrangements proposed by the Government. Those differing views are held by individuals in all parties. I have not concealed the fact that there are differing views in my party.
The position I took on Second Reading—I do not want to repeat a Second Reading speech—which I believe was accepted by most of my noble friends, was that it would be inappropriate at Committee stage to seek to take out the whole of Part VII of the Bill. Our approach should be to look at the detailed arrangements proposed by the Government for the replacement of the Nature Conservancy Council by country councils and a joint committee; to seek to improve the arrangements as best we can using the procedures of the Committee as available to this Chamber; and then to look at the result at the end of the Committee stage and decide whether we need more radical measures.
That was the view that we took and the view expressed from this Dispatch Box. I adhere to that view and that is the way we have approached this Committee stage. I am bound to say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that, as has been made clear by other noble Lords, his amendment would in effect take out Part VII of the Bill. It would not allow the detailed attempt to scrutinise and amend the Government's proposals which are the subject of today's business. On that basis—I believe I speak on behalf of all my noble friends—having given us a valuable opportunity to discuss the matter, I hope that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: It may be helpful if I add to that point now. Of course I will not press the amendment to a Division. It seems to me that this is an intelligent way to approach nature conservancy and countryside matters for the whole of the United Kingdom. As my noble friend, Lady Carnegy, has obviously not grasped, I was trying to apply the new Scottish and Welsh system to England as a whole.
This is not a nationalist matter. It is a question of looking after the countryside, whether in Scotland, Surrey, Caithness, Cumberland or wherever. It is nothing to do with nationalism or such other petty views. It is concerned with looking after the immensely varied and valuable countryside in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is what I hope to discuss.
I agree with the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, that the amendment would in effect take out Part VII. I am trying to suggest an alternative, which it is not inappropriate to discuss at this moment. However, I accept that it would be inappropriate to insist on it going into the Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hate to step in before the distinguished noble Lords behind me, but on behalf of the Liberal Party I wish to welcome the conversion of my noble neighbour, Lady Carnegy,

2109
to devolution. It is a remarkable conversion and I look forward to her carrying it into other fields.
My noble friend Lord Ross of Newport made a sensible and valuable short contribution. He voiced the disquiet of many people who have been desperately interested in conservation over a long period of time and who view the Government's measures as being rushed and without sufficient consultation. For that reason it is perfectly reasonable to put one's name to an amendment which radically probes the whole approach.
I am grateful for the kind words correcting the normal English attitude towards Scotland as a region. I also agree with the noble Earl that one cannot separate conservation in an island as small as ours If an eagle which normally prefers Scotland strays into Cumbria, it should not encounter a different set of rules. That would be nonsense.
Again as my noble neighbour Lady Carnegy said, the administration of a policy for the United Kingdom is often better carried out by a devolved body. In that respect I am sure that the application to Scotland of conservation measures for the whole of the British Isles will be very much better understood by the people of Scotland if the executive power is in the hands of a Scottish body. I welcome the probing effect of the amendment; I cannot say that I agree with the content.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The case submitted today by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is not only inappropriate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested, but I regard it as insulting. There is an implication that the Scots are not concerned about conservation and cannot be trusted to look after their own affairs in that field. I regard that as insulting, and it is to tally wrong.
For some years I was chairman of the Forestry Commission, the biggest landowner in the country. I had to deal daily with problems of conservation; I had to consult the Countryside Commission, local landlords and everyone who was concerned with the countryside. The Countryside Commission for Scotland at that time was devolved and still is devolved. It is a separate Countryside Commission. We worked with them in harmony; we discussed on the ground some of the problems of land management. Those issues cannot be discussed in Peterborough.
There was an article in The Times on Saturday, centre page, in which one of the conservationists suggested that as politicians in this country are under pressure from constituents, they cannot be trusted to manage the countryside, and the whole of our conservation and national parks' policy should be determined in Brussels—not in Scotland, London or Wales, but in Brussels. That is carrying the matter a little too far.
In Scotland at the moment the figures are quite interesting. The number of SSSIs—sites of special scientific interest, designated by the Nature Conservancy Council—total 773,000 hectares. That represents more than 10 per cent. of the entire land area of Scotland. I suggest therefore that there is a
2110
special Scottish dimension and that we might just be trusted to be concerned about the nature of Scottish conservation as much as people from Peterborough, London or elsewhere.
Lord Ross of Newport: Or Edinburgh; is not the headquarters of the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: One of the jewels in my crown is that I moved the Forestry Commission headquarters from 25 Savile Row, where it was when I became chairman, to Edinburgh. The first question I asked was, "Where is the planting taking place?" I found that 95 per cent. of all new planting was taking place in Scotland. I said that that is where the headquarters should be. By the same token, in view of the substantial impact of the activities of the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland, I suggest that the nearer we get to the ground, the better.
There are problems beyond the conservation of certain flora and fauna. There are problems beyond caring for the birds, important though they are. There are problems of caring for people. Increasingly in the Highlands of Scotland people are becoming the endangered species. The Nature Conservancy Council held a press conference in London, of all places, and decided that no more trees should be planted in the flow country. The flow country has a nice ring about it. I do not know how many Members of the Committee have been there. It is dull marshland and important for protecting certain species of birds. However, it is also important for people to earn their living there, as they have been doing for years. Nevertheless, the Nature Conservancy Council decided that there should be no planting of trees in the flow country because it would affect the habitat of certain birds.
The council did not consult the local authority which has some responsibility for the welfare of the community and whose members are the elected representatives of the people. The council did not consult the Highlands and Islands Development Board to which the Government give grants in order to protect industrial, commercial and environmental interests in the Highlands. The decision was made here, in London. I suggest that there is a case for devolution in this matter. Consideration not only of the rights of people but of birds, forestry and other land use can best be studied and satisfied close to the areas affected.
I deeply resent the suggestion that this is a plea for Scottish nationalism. It is a plea for devolution, and I am a devolutionist in these matters. It has been implied that there is some kind of conspiracy on the part of the Government to reduce the power and the authority of the Nature Conservancy Council. That is not borne out by the facts. In 1984–85 the grant-in-aid to the Nature Conservancy Council in this country was £14.9 million. Last year, after five years, that figure had risen to over £40 million. In view of all the other claims on government funds that is a remarkable figure. It represents surely a certain sensitivity on the part of the Government to the needs of nature conservancy.

2111
With an organisation growing so rapidly there is inevitably a danger of bureaucracy. It happens in all companies. Therefore, to counter the danger of increasing bureaucracy from a central authority I suggest that there is a great deal of sense in decentralising responsibility to people on the ground and having sensible co-operation in Scotland of the Countryside Commission, with its special responsibilities, and the Nature Conservancy Council, with its special responsibilities. In that way, the Government's proposals are certainly welcomed by the various bodies, voluntary organisations and others concerned with environmental protection in Scotland. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, should be heavily rejected.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: I rise briefly to deal with the international aspect, which is almost invariably ignored. We have nothing but inward-looking domestic debates on this whole issue. Perhaps I should say first in view of the fervency of previous speakers, that I have had a second home in the north-west of Scotland for a long time. My daughter is now living there. Although I live in England and am English I find that I know far more about the flow country than do most Scotsmen. It is utterly ridiculous for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to imply that only Englishmen can understand conservation in England. The reason I resigned from the Nature Conservancy Council was that it was embarrassing to hear Scotsmen implying that only Scotsmen know about conservation in Scotland.
We live at a time when the Government, led by the Prime Minister, are endeavouring to mobilise third world countries into supporting conservation measures for the whole of the environment. How can we possibly stand up and say that we think we can do that better in three little bits? I know that this is water under the bridge but I want to support the presentation of this amendment, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ross. It has enabled us to make some very important points and to keep the subject on the level at which it should be addressed—not in a parochial manner.
In Africa, experts of all nationalities have contributed for 50 years to the conservation of parks in north, south, east and west Africa. They are still involved in that task. It is welcomed by the nations. The experts are not told, "Go back, you are the wrong colour" or "You come from the wrong country". Conservation is a global, international matter. The Americans are at present helping the King and the Government of Bhutan to work out an environmental conservation scheme for Bhutan in the Himalayas. It does not matter whether they are Americans, Chinese, Dutch, or whatever. Conservation is an international matter; it is not local, parochial or domestic.
The hole in the ozone layer was not discovered by penguins and elephant seals but by English scientists in Cambridge. The penguins are not objecting! It is probably of great assistance to everyone that the hole has been discovered by Englishmen. Perhaps I may express a personal position. For 25 years I assisted
2112
in the conservation of the Galapagos Islands. The President of Ecuador, I am proud to announce, has given me a noble award—a sort of Ecuadorian knighthood—for my work in contributing to the conservation of those islands. Therefore, all I ask is that we keep the debate on a proper level.
Unfortunately, as has been said, the Government's proposals were made with no consultation; otherwise many of us could have been of great assistance in avoiding all these pitfalls and in pointing the way forward. We all agree about devolution of administration and management. The Nature Conservancy Council itself agrees and was working on that. All that has happened is that we have got the cart before the horse and the wrong horse behind the wrong cart. Somehow, during the progress of this Bill, we must get it right.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps I may intervene in this debate. I am comforted to remember that my father was an Irishman. Having seen the fury of the Scots and the beginning of the fury of the English I hope I can lower tempers a little.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made an unfortunate speech in that she brought party politics into the debate. It is apparent, as my noble friend on the Front Bench and others have made clear, that this is not a party political issue. Moreover, the noble Baroness did not give way to my noble friend Lady David. It is the custom of this Chamber—and courtesy demands it save in exceptional circumstances—to give way for interventions. It is a pity that that raised the temper of the debate.
I intervene only briefly because this is a Committee stage and noble Lords will recall that practically every Committee stage begins with a second reading debate. We do not want to have that now. However, I am bound to make one point. The noble Lord who was a co-opted member of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology referred to the very good job done by the committee. However, the committee reserved its position on the merits of the Government's proposals on the various councils. The committee said it was not within its terms of reference and compiled a report which was predicated on the assumption that the Government would continue with their plans.
My noble friend Lady David pointed out that the Government have made an awful nonsense of this matter. My inclination therefore would have been to support the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, but we are bound to test the Government's intentions on our amendments. I hope the Government will be inclined to accept them, because if not some of us are bound to return at a later stage and seek to take the whole of Part VII out of the Bill.
The Government have made a nonsense of this issue. I shall not go into arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, made clear that there are powerful arguments. There are split views within the Nature Conservancy Council. Despite what my noble friend Lord Taylor said, the Scottish conservation organisations are critical of the Government's

2113
proposals. Therefore, I hope that the Government will pay attention to some of the issues that will be raised later.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt: I rise to support the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Earl. I understand that he does not intend to press it to a Division. However, I shall support one of the subsequent amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. That will have the same effect as regards a joint committee proposed by the Government as is suggested in the noble Earl's amendment.
In effect, I am following the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. I shall be extremely brief. Today there is concern about the environment both globally and, no less important, locally. That concern is widespread. Everyone is concerned, including all the political parties, for this subject is high on the political agenda. It is extraordinary that the Government apparently still do not accept the need for a United Kingdom authority. I am not thinking of it as a national authority any more than the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. No one is thinking of such an authority except the government department concerned. It should have the remit, powers and finance to oversee the environment as a whole.
It is no less extraordinary that the Government apparently do not accept the notion that the countryside, including urban areas, covers and embraces all the scientific sites and the flora and fauna which are the present remit of the Nature Conservancy Council. That became apparent during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act of a decade ago, with which I was involved. These two considerations are far above national considerations such as those voiced on both sides of the Committee this afternoon. These considerations argue for a body or an authority with the kind of remit and powers which the noble Earl has in mind.
Lord Borthwick: I support my noble friend Lady Carnegy and parts of what other Members of the Committee have said. I wish to come down to ground level. People count for a great deal in this matter and a great deal more than paper. One has to consider the people who are selected for particular jobs. Local people know far more than those who live in another county. For example, the postman will call some mornings and make a complaint about something. The person addressed can then walk out and look at what the postman has described. The postman may be wrong or be may be right.
Other people will come along and they will learn a great deal about the area in which they live which they would not have done living down in Peterborough. A complaint came to me the other day to the effect that Peterborough is not very happy and does not appear to get on and deal with matters. I do not blame Peterborough for that because the information required may not be available or the people concerned are not local. They may not know the post man or anyone else in the area.
That is why I am keen to have a body to back up those who are working in the area under discussion.
2114
For example, we need some authority in Scotland. It may be a little scouting patrol. There has to be someone bringing in information from Scotland. Scotland depends a great deal on fishing and at the moment there is a considerable amount of farm fishing. The situation is bad there. However, fishing will not be dealt with by the committee. A great deal of what is taking place in Scotland will not be the concern of the committee. It is all right having a committee and calling it that, but there is a need for wisdom, co-operation and knowledge to go with it.
Baroness White: It would be regrettable if there were no voice from Wales. We have heard a good deal from Scotland. The Scots are rather talkative people. There are many of us who are distressed at the manner in which this legislation has been brought forward. It is most unsatisfactory. It would be very nice to start again and in a much more sensible way, but we have to deal with matters as they are.
I could bandy statistics with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I point out that 25 per cent. of the total land area of Wales is either a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty. Proportionately, we have as many sites of scientific interest as there are in Scotland. I do not intend to pursue that. I simply make the point that many of us would have been far happier if Part VII had not been included in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, will appreciate that while the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales has the greatest possible sympathy for its partner, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, it was not included in the list of names in the petition which he presented to the House. The reason is that in Wales we already have an organisation, and a prospective organisation which, with all its faults, will be better than a regional advisory committee as proposed in the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
That would not be a satisfactory pattern for the Principality. We have a Secretary of State for Wales and a Welsh Office. In other words, we have an administrative pattern in Wales which should be used to better advantage than that envisaged in the Bill as it now stands. However, it would not be satisfactory to accept the proposals put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, even though they are supported by my noble friend Lady David. I have the greatest sympathy with her. For those reasons I am glad that the noble Earl does not intend to press this matter to a Division.
Viscount Blakenham: This is neither a party nor a devolutionary issue. We are talking about conservation in the British Isles. If necessary we can move the headquarters of the NCC to Scotland. That would be a perfectly satisfactory solution as far as I am concerned. We are talking about an issue that, unfortunately, raises emotions. There are organisations in Scotland as well as in other parts of the British Isles. They are represented by about 80 organisations in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, presented the petition. About a dozen of those bodies are Scottish organisations.

2115
This should not be a nationalistic issue. If we support my noble friend's amendment we could probably be accused of running into the same problems as those faced by the Government's proposals; namely, that they were ill thought through. We should put forward the constructive amendments that are before us and, if they are not accepted by the Government, only then should we consider very seriously our scheme for the withdrawal of the whole of Part VII and for it to be dealt with at a later date.
Lord Grimond: I rise to do something which I do not often do and that is to say a word in defence of the Government and another word in defence of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I thought she made a rather good speech, though she does not need any defence from me. I think she stated some of the things that many people in Scotland are thinking. The Government's proposals contained in the Bill are sensible, unlike most of their proposals in most Bills.
There is now a great demand in Scotland for some form of devolution. The Government have sensibly said, "Here is an example. Scotland can look after some of its own affairs in connection with the countryside and the environment". After all, the countryside in Shetland is quite different from the countryside in Surrey. It is absurd to suppose that they can be protected in exactly the same way.
It is certainly necessary to have overall liaison because many of the problems are global. But some of the problems of medicine are also global. That does not prevent us from devolving some control of medical matters to different countries. In Scotland there is a certain sensitivity about absentee landlords. I know that there is no question of ownership in the Bill but there is sensitivity among crofters about being pushed around by faraway people in Peterborough, London or Edinburgh. In my old constituency we were profoundly suspicious of Edinburgh. It was at any rate rather nearer than London or Peterborough. That suspicion goes back to the time when landlords or their factors never came near the place and simply handed down directions about rent and so forth. That lingers on.
It is quite unnecessary to create a great division between those who want overall control and those who want a certain amount of devolution. The proposals before us are perfectly sensible. There will be a combination of similar bodies in Scotland, Wales and England. No doubt they will liaise and no doubt they may want some overall body. But the essential devolution is, I believe, right and will be appreciated in Scotland. I hope therefore that the Government will stick to their guns. Having said that, I believe that it was perfectly fair to raise the matter. This is an admirable probing amendment. It has given us the opportunity to put forward attitudes held not only in Scotland but in Wales and in great parts of England too.
Earl Peel: I do not wish to become involved in devolution arguments. It seems to me that the Government are attempting to sort out for all of Great Britain the most effective and efficient way of
2116
running nature conservation. That surely is the key issue. When I spoke at Second Reading I thoroughly endorsed what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. I repeat that now. I am sure that this is the way forward. To use the countries in this way is obvious and sensible. But that is not necessarily the reason behind it. Having said that I want to raise one matter in relation to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on the flow country. I hope very much that a Scottish council would behave towards the flow country exactly as the Nature Conservancy Council has done to date. We are talking about a site of international importance. The damage that has been done by planting and forestry has to be seen to be believed. I hear what the noble Lord has said, but I believe that the matter cannot be allowed to go unremarked upon.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Can the noble Earl indicate how much of the flow country is planted and how much remains for the birds?
4.15 p.m.
Earl Peel: I am aware of the point. The bird species in that part of the world require large areas, a fact established by the Nature Conservancy Council on many occasions. I do not wish to get involved in a detailed debate with the noble Lord. I simply make the point.
I wish to move on to one part of my noble friend's amendment which I think is worthy of comment. Subsection (4)(f) refers to the maintenance and management of national parks being the function of the proposed council. I am very much aware that the whole question of national parks is being discussed at the moment, particularly in Scotland. I live in a national park: I have a degree of experience of the way they are working. I am worried—extremely worried—about some aspects of the standard of management within national parks themselves. They are not working efficiently. In many cases there is a higher degree of habitat loss inside the national parks than outside. The lack of consultation between the national parks and landowners and farmers living within the parks is at times pitiful. I do not refer to all national parks. But there is no doubt that one or two are failing in their duty to consult. That leads to bad feeling and to breakdown of communications. I seriously question whether the present structure is the right one. There is a real danger that the national parks may end up destroying the very thing that they were set up to try to conserve.
The merger of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council should be welcomed. I understand the Government's reasons for not bringing the merger forward at this stage; but I believe that it will happen. Leading on from that, that is the correct body to administer the national parks in this country. I question whether the whole idea of designation as such is a good thing. People tend to home in on such areas. We are seeing the designated areas of Great Britain suffering from this huge influx of people. I welcome my noble friend's amendment from that point of view and from that point of view alone. It may enable us to concentrate our mind on that very real problem. Having said

2117
that, I am totally committed to the principle of what the Government propose in the Bill.
Lord Burton: We have heard a good deal of opposition to devolution. It is opposition not necessarily to the devolution of powers to Scotland, but to the area concerned. Scotland is a very large part of it—about one-third of the British Isles. There was a good deal of controversy earlier concerning the powers that should or should not be devolved to Europe, We have been told by some people today that conservation should be an international affair. What would have happened had it been only a European affair? Would those same people have been as happy if the Italians and Spaniards were looking after nature conservation in Britain?
We have the same feelings in the north of Scotland. We are not happy about the way things have been looked at from Peterborough. The National Farmers Union in Scotland, the Scottish Landowners Federation in Scotland and the Highlands and Islands Development Board are emphatic on this point. They say that we must have this devolution. My noble friend Lord Onslow said that all the countryside is man-made. I agree with him. By whom has it been made? It has been made by the very bodies which want this transfer to Scotland. Why are English Peers, Welsh Peers, and I think some Peers of Irish extraction, opposing the amendment? It seems for once that the Government really have it right, although I often disagree with them.
The officials of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Scotland are in favour of this proposal, so how the noble Baroness, Lady David, can say that it has caused a great deal of worry I do not know. It may have caused worry in Peterborough which is losing some of its influence, but it has not caused worry in Scotland where both those bodies are anxious that the Government legislation should go through.
I do not want to become involved in the controversy over the so-called Flow country which is part of Caithness and Sutherland but the planting of forests was asking for trouble. That having been done, the Nature Conservancy Council also asked for trouble. It went to the other end of the spectrum and slapped a complete blanket on the matter, which was quite unnecessary and caused a good deal of ill-feeling. That is not the only matter on which it has caused ill feeling. As other Members of the Committee have said, the designated areas of SSSIs in Scotland are enormous. It may well be that there are more actual sites in Wales, but the designated area in Scotland is vastly greater than anywhere else and what has been done is stagnating the area. The local authorities are most disturbed by the way matters are proceeding as are, so far as I am aware, all the bodies involved in Scotland except, possibly, a few so-called conservationists—although I often wonder if that is the right word to use—who seem to have other vested interests in keeping things in Peterborough.
Much has been said—and I do not wish to go into the details—of what the Nature Conservancy Council has and has not done in Scotland. However, perhaps I may give just one example. I refer to the
2118
case of the deer on Creag Meagaidh. They were being murdered quite indiscriminately to the extent that helicopters were required to carry them off the ground. No such action has ever been required before in connection with that ground and it is still not required. At the other end of the spectrum, on the Isle of Rhum, they were trying not to kill any deer. But that would have resulted in the wretched animals dying of starvation in the winter because they had no teeth left. Therefore, one can go from one end of the spectrum to the other. I really believe that these facts are not widely known in Britain. If this form of control should come to Scotland, with a little luck, people will know what is going on and will be able to get in touch with their representatives on the various councils.
Lord Moran: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, said that this was a probing amendment as regards the general principle of Part VII of the Bill. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister one question. Can he tell us at this early stage of the Committee proceedings what the Government's proposals will cost? I believe that two days ago the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked a question in order to elicit that information. However, the Answer seemed to tell us very little. In my view, when this Chamber considers the Government's proposals it is very important that we should know what they will cost. It is an essential part of the matter. At present we have reports and we have heard rumours; but we have had no authoritative statement of what the proposals will cost. I hope that the Minister will cover that point in his reply.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps the Minister could also give us the figures as regards manpower. Of course, as he knows, there will have been an estimate which will have been put before the legislative committee. Therefore, there must be an estimate in existence. This factor is most crucial in relation to the question of money.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have one worry about this part of the Bill and the amendment with which we are dealing. Do the Government's proposals make the conservation industry stronger or weaker? If they strengthen the conservation industry, I tend to be against them; if they weaken the industry, I tend to be in their favour. I do not know the answer to the question, but it will certainly influence how I vote on the matter.
What I have in mind is an issue which arises from the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe and the noble Lord who has just spoken. I refer to the large number of sites of special scientific interest in various parts of the world. My belief is that there are far too many of these. If we strengthen the conservation industry, there will be more of them. We shall find ourselves in a country which consists largely of sites of special scientific interest and listed buildings with which nothing can be done. The industry is burgeoning and it ought to be curbed. We should watch the situation very carefully. I do not greatly care whether it means control for London, Edinburgh or the Flow country. However, I think that it should rapidly be put into reverse.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is my noble friend suggesting that we should establish sites of special engineering potential?
Lord Howie of Troon: Most certainly. I should point out that I am speaking for the people.
Earl Peel: I think it is worth pointing out that the area designated to SSSIs is a meagre 7 per cent. I do not think that that is an overlarge area of land for specialised nature conservation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: It is 10 per cent. of the area of Scotland.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may intervene for just a moment. It seems to me that I have let several hares out of the bag and they are running all over the place. It may be that they should not be preserved at all. I think that it would be best if the Committee were to hear what the Minister has to say, after which I can withdraw the amendment. That will enable noble Lords to move on to the next issue.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I rise to speak slightly later than I anticipated with regard to this first amendment. I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, immediately: further expenditure will be involved. He drew noble Lords' attention to my two favourite subjects; namely, the Committee stage of the Bill which is now being considered by this Chamber and listed buildings for which I hold responsibility when I am not in this place.
This amendment proposes a complete restructuring of all the conservation and countryside agencies, to create a "Countryside Council for the UK" which would presumably combine the functions of the existing Nature Conservancy Council, Countryside Commission and Countryside Commission for Scotland. It would in fact amount to an even more centralised model than we have at present, particularly as the "regional committees" in my noble friend's amendment would have purely advisory powers. I am afraid that the whole thrust of this conflicts with the Government's strategy of creating more sensitive and effective agencies at local level.
When I introduced this part of the Bill on Second Reading in this Chamber I said that the Government believed that the case for this first comprehensive reform of our conservation agencies for 40 years stood undiminished. It would be of benefit to the Committee if I crave noble Lords' indulgence in giving a rather comprehensive outline of the position of the Government at this stage, rather than repeating it in dribs and drabs throughout the proceedings on Part VII of the Bill. As I explained on Second Reading, there are six fundamental objectives which lie at the root of reorganisation. These are, first, clearer accountability to Ministers, secondly, improved sensitivity to local circumstances; thirdly, a reduction in bureaucracy; fourthly, retention of the existing legal framework for wildlife conservation created by the 1981 Act; fifthly, effective coverage of national and global
2120
nature conservation issues; and, finally, protection of the Nature Conservancy Council's science base built up over 40 years.
I shall deal first with accountability to Ministers. I want to start by reminding the Committee today that the current arrangements for the Nature Conservancy Council—hallowed though they may be by the passage of time—actually stand comparison with most other executive non-departmental public bodies acting in the environmental field. In almost every other field within my department's ambit—the built heritage, water, rural development, sport, housing associations—there are separate NDPBs for Scotland, and, in some cases, for Wales. They report to the territorial Secretaries of State. This a prosaic but, nevertheless, fundamental aspect of the machinery of government and its relationship with NDPBs, which critics of the proposals continue to overlook—although those who know how government works, like my noble friend Lord Campbell, are well aware that the current arrangements are a recipe for confusion and disputes—to the ultimate detriment of conservation. I accept that the NCC has done its best to try and overcome the effects of this problem.
However, the present arrangements have become even more difficult to defend as NCC's role has changed from the small quasi research council of the old Nature Conservancy of 1949 to its current status as a major executive agency deploying extensive powers under the 1981 Act. Where any NDPB has these kind of powers, I believe that Parliament will want the reporting lines to Ministers to be as clear as possible; for it is Ministers who eventually have to account for the use of those powers, for funding the agencies and for deciding the broad framework of policies and priorities for conservation. It is certainly not a soft option. In fact, my colleagues in the territorial departments are well aware that they will be taking on a deeper responsibility for the well-being of the wildlife and countryside in their areas when the new agencies are established.
I should like to take the next two objectives—improved local sensitivity and less bureaucracy—together as they are inter-related. The existing NCC has many strengths, not the least of which are the skills and dedication of its scientists. However, it has long been an introvert body, both in the sense that it has a tendency to preach only to the converted and in its own internal workings where tiers of officials are geared to inward struggles and arguments rather than to dealing with the outside world, especially its key clients among country dwellers, industry, the wider public and, not least, local and central government. There is no doubt in the minds of most objective observers of the NCC that its long lines of communication—from its UK headquarters in Peterborough through three country headquarters and then to regional offices, area offices and individual nature reserves—have damaged the effectiveness of the organisation.
The effects have varied from area to area. In some parts of Great Britain, the NCC has undoubtedly become highly unpopular, to such an extent that it is counter-productive for conservation. When one

2121
reads in the John O' Groat Journal and the Caithness Courier—occasional bedtime reading—of elected local councillors referring to the NCC as indulging in "creeping Stalinism" and comparing its activities with the memories of the Highland clearances, one becomes anxious about the way things have gone in that part of the world. It is all very well for English-based conservationists to encourage the NCC to take up battle lines on this or that issue, but once we reach the point where local support is alienated, the object of the exercise—to conserve our wildlife heritage—is defeated.
Those problems have been recognised by senior figures within the NCC itself. Its former chief scientist, Dr. Peter Bridgewater, who viewed the organisation with the refreshing dispassion that Australians often show in dealing with our great institutions, wrote a most perceptive article in the New Scientist earlier this year, in which he said:
"The potential for better conservation delivery is inherent in the Government's proposals".
In March, Mr. Alexander Trotter, the retiring chairman of the NCC's Scottish Advisory Committee, publicly referred to the NCC as "a paper chain".
Reorganisation will provide the right framework to resolve those problems. An entire tier of the existing command structure will be removed and lines of communication dramatically shortened. In Wales, and later in Scotland, we shall create integrated agencies merging wildlife and countryside responsibilities, which will allow "one stop shopping". In time too we shall see even more of the NCC's work being done from its regional offices, close to the "coal face" of conservation.
The opportunities are there. That is reflected by the quality of the three men who have accepted the Government's invitation to be the first chairmen of the country agencies—my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for England, Michael Griffith for Wales and Magnus Magnusson for Scotland. They are already working hard to prepare for the implementation of the changes next April when this measure becomes law. This is our chance to bring conservation back to the grass roots and, as Magnus Magnusson put it himself:
"We are at the start of something hugely exhilarating and constructive".
The fourth objective is to retain the gains made through the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. Here, more than elsewhere, we come up against a clash between myth and reality. The myth is that the Government are in some way motivated by a desire to destabilise state protection for wildlife. To that is added a dash of the conspiracy theory—that some kind of deal has been done with big landowners and foresters to weaken the NCC. That line has been pushed endlessly in debates in another place. They were, as ever, rather short of factual material to back it up; but I suppose that it all added to the entertainment of the debate.
The reality, as ever, is less exciting but thoroughly reassuring for all serious conservationists. It is that this Bill will pass on every one of the NCC's existing statutory responsibilities to protect wildlife to the new councils. Each will be required to designate and
2122
protect sites of special scientific interest, to establish and manage national and marine nature reserves and to advise Ministers and the public. On 1st April next year, every existing SSSI and NNR designated over the last 40 years will become the responsibility of the new council in whose territory it lies.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps I may interrupt and ask a question about the important statement made by the noble Lord. Under the Bill, who will have the power now possessed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act by the Nature Conservancy Council to draw attention to a major conservation issue? Will that be dealt with by the co-ordinating committee or by the three separate councils? Who will raise an issue of national importance? At present there is a power under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Lord Hesketh: The powers of designation will go to the new country councils and then either the new committee, because it may oversee a site, or the country council itself will draw the matter to the committee's attention. The matter could be dealt with in either way depending on the circumstances of the case.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I point out that only recently there was a great scare about marine shellfish—prawns and so on—in an area which stretched up the east coast from the middle of England to the middle of Scotland. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is important. Who would speak with authority on that subject for the Government?
Lord Hesketh: The Joint Nature Conservation Committee will speak on national issues. I believe that my noble friend refers to the case of the blue crabs which occurred about a month ago.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Will the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries draw attention to such matters, as it did in that case?
Lord Hesketh: I must correct myself. The ultimate responsibility for the case that my noble friend Lord Buxton drew to my attention would rest with the Department of Health.
While we are discussing designated sites, I should like to refer to two recent developments which will add to their number. First, the Nature Conservancy Council is pressing forward with a renewed programme of designations of National Nature Reserves in England. As a result, the NCC plans to declare about 16 new reserves this year, making a total of 137, which will be a wonderful dowry for the new council for England next April. They include some outstanding sites, such as the Somerset Moors NNR, with its ornithological interest which was designated three weeks ago, the Medway Marshes, Hambledon Hill and Wedholme Flow.
The second development is the announcement by the Secretary of State for Wales that he is to declare Britain's second statutory Marine Nature Reserve to protect the outstanding but fragile waters around the island of Skomer in West Wales. I understand that

2123
the public advertisements which will confirm that designation are to be placed in the newspapers by the end of next week.
Finally, I am sure that the Committee will have noted the announcement last week by the Secretary of State for Scotland of his response to the Highland Regional Council structure plan review. In particular, he has proposed that the HRC's policy to develop skiing in Lurcher's Gully in the Cairngorms should be deleted. In reaching that view, the Secretary of State had regard to the national and international value of the area for conservation. I am sure that the Committee will welcome the announcement.
In ensuring that the existing NCC conservation functions and sites are passed on to its successors, we have, I believe correctly, argued that the present Bill is not the right vehicle through which we should attempt any major reform of the 1981 Act, even assuming that such a reform was desirable in itself. Were we to do so, we would muddy the waters hopelessly for the new councils. When I recall the number of amendments to the 1981 Bill which were considered by this place—I believe that there were about 2,300 in all—I think that the Committee will pause for thought. Nevertheless, I have been impressed by the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for some relatively technical reforms which will assist the new agencies to carry out the 1981 Act more effectively. I hope to give a positive response to several of the amendments that he has put down later in the Committee stage.
To return to my six objectives the fifth is an extremely important one—to ensure effective coverage of national and international nature conservation issues. That is where the role of the statutory Joint Committee to be established under Clause 123 of the Bill will be so crucial. It is the object of the majority of the major government amendments that we have put down for consideration by the Committee. We shall be able to look at the structure that we propose more closely when we discuss those amendments.
However, I should like to make two general points at the outset. First, the government amendments stem directly from the commitments that we gave last month when we responded to the report prepared by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. As we said then, the Government recognise the valuable contribution made by the Select Committee Report and have accepted nearly all its recommendations. The constitution and role of the joint committee set out in the Government's amendments follows the prescriptions of the report very closely indeed. When we come to consider some further amendments put down by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver and other noble Lords, I shall be able to give further reassurances to this Committee.
The other general point I want to make is to acknowledge quite freely how the composition and role of the joint committee had evolved since the Secretary of State announced last November that a
2124
statutory committee was to be created to deal with British and international matters. This had undoubtedly been the most difficult part of Part VII to get right. I cannot over-emphasise that the Government entirely share the view of the Select Committee that the joint committee must not become an independent quango, while at the same time sharing its view that its role should be set out as strongly and unambiguously as possible in the legislation. This has presented counsel with a considerable challenge. I believe that he has risen to the occasion in the amendments that we have put down.
The result will be a statutory committee, which we now intend to call the joint nature conservation committee, and which will not only perform the joint functions set out in Clause 123, but also, I believe, will be in a position to do so even more effectively than the current NCC. This is because the joint committee will deliberately not be burdened with executive functions, which will be fully dealt with by the councils acting individually. Free from that responsibility, the committee will be able to take a cool and strategic look at some of the key issues affecting wildlife at the national and global level, not the least of which will be the effects of climate change on our natural and semi-natural habitat. A further advantage not present under the current arrangements is that the joint committee will include two representatives from Northern Ireland, who will help to ensure that a United Kingdom view can be formed on key issues.
The joint committee will be guided in its work by a chairman of outstanding calibre in Professor Sir Frederick Holliday, and three independent members of great distinction in their fields: Professor John Harper, emeritus Professor of Botany in the University of Wales; Professor John Knill, Chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council and Professor of Geology at Imperial College; and Professor Robert May, the Royal Society Research Professor of Zoology and Professor of Zoology at the University of Oxford and Imperial College.
The sixth and final objective is also very important: to protect the science base which the NCC has built up over the past 40 years. This point also exercised your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, and I commend the text of the report to the Committee. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I run through the main measures which the Government have taken to protect the science base during reorganisation. The most important asset of an organisation like the NCC is its staff. The Government took very prompt action to retain the confidence of existing NCC staff after reorganisation was announced last July. On 27th July, I announced to the House that the Government would ensure that all members of the NCC's staff employed by the council at the date of transfer would be offered employment on terms and conditions as a whole no less favourable than those which they have at present.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Does he include the large number of contract staff who are essentially part-time? Will they be offered jobs?
Lord Hesketh: I shall come to that later in relation to the first question which the noble Lord asked when he spoke earlier and also in relation to his second question. I shall deal with those points at the end.
The commitment, which was later extended to Countryside Commission staff based in Wales, has been fully delivered by Clause 127 and Schedule 9 of the Bill. Work is progressing well on preparing organisational structures for each of the new councils and the joint committee. When this is complete, each member of staff who wishes to join one of the new bodies will be offered a post, taking account of personal skills and family circumstances. In that way, we should ensure that as many of the skilled staff as possible are available to the new councils.
This brings me to the next point about protecting the science base, which is that each of the new councils—and the joint committee—will have a substantial scientific capacity of its own, ranged under a chief scientist or equivalent who will hold a senior grade in the organisation. This is very much the pattern envisaged by Dr. Bridgewater in his article in the New Scientist to which I referred earlier this afternoon. In addition, the Government have accepted that the joint committee must have its own scientific and secretarial support unit comprising staff on secondment from the country councils. As the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver put it, they will form the axis around which experts from the country councils and academic institutions will rotate. The noble and gallant Lord recommended that the unit should contain up to 20 professional scientific staff, with supporting secretarial and technical services. We have looked at this area in detail, and I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee today that the likely final complement for the joint unit will be about 50 staff in all, of whom about half will be in scientific or senior grades. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will not think me immodest if I say that the Government believe that this will represent a generous interpretation of his report, and one which will be welcome to the conservation world.
I wish to assure the Committee that, having taken some time, I shall make no remarks with regard to devolution as I feel that the subject has been well aired in the Committee this afternoon. I shall however make one remark concerning the interesting point made by my noble friend Lord Burton. He asked, if at some future time this Bill came up in a bigger Europe and if I were standing here proposing a European nature conservancy council based in Turin, what would be its reception in your Lordships' House.
With regard to contract staff to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, existing contracts will all be honoured in full.
The Earl of Onslow: We have had 86 minutes of full and frank debate—I believe that is the expression used in such circumstances. I totally support the aims of the Government, but I am not to tally convinced that a slightly larger body with greater downward management devolution would not be more appropriate.
2126
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that Surrey and Shetland are different is exactly the one that I made. The corollary is that some of the Perthshire moors and the moors where my noble friend Lord Peel lives, may have much in common. There are rich farmlands in Scotland and rich farmlands in England; there are rich farmlands in Wales and poor uplands and farmlands in Wales and in England. There are conservation problems common to all parts of the United Kingdom. The point made by my noble friend Lord Buxton about the crab crossing the Border by sea across the mouth of the Tweed seems to me valid. The problem now has to be dealt with by the Ministry of Health and not by the Department of the Environment or the Department of Agriculture.
I hope that this will work; I have certain doubts. I hope that the duplication of all these councils will not mean duplication of the science base with four scientific establishments, none of which is strong enough. That worries me somewhat.
However, all I can do is to thank Members of the Committee for their remarks and for such a wide variety of views—some nationalist, some supra-nationalist; some parochial and some global. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 118 [Creation and constitution of new Councils]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 343A:
Page 123, line 16, leave out ("to be") and insert ("(established for the purposes of nature conservation in their respective countries)").
The noble Lord said: Now that we have had the Second Reading debate on the Nature Conservancy Council abolition Bill and the Nature Conservancy Council abolition (amendment) Bill, I suggest that we turn to the Committee stage of this Bill! In moving Amendment No. 343A, I wish also to speak to my Amendments Nos. 343B, 354, 355, 356, 356B to 356D, 360B and 361. I understand that it will also be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 344 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, government Amendments Nos. 344ZB, 344ZC, 344ZD and 344ZJ. The latter gives rise to my Amendments Nos. 344ZJA and Amendments Nos. 344ZKA, 344ZK in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA, 355ZAD, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Chorley, and others, and Amendment No. 373ZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I hope that I have covered that adequately.
It is necessary to put this on record because of the complexity of the debate that we have before us. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something about the way in which I see the debate developing. Some effort has been put into turning something that could otherwise be a total shambles into something that is at any rate marginally comprehensible. The intention of this series of amendments is to deal with the issue of the

2127
joint committee, or as the Government propose, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. They seek in particular to deal with the issue which is raised in my Amendment No. 343B which concerns the responsibility of the committee for countryside matters as well as for nature conservation matters.
The Government have rightly decided that their amendments should be debated with my amendment. Therefore we shall deal with a number of matters about the establishment of the statutory committee, including the membership and some of the aspects of staffing, resources and other matters which are expressed in the government amendments. Further amendments on the countryside stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I shall comment on those amendments in a minute or two. The amendments I have referred to constitute a single group of amendments. It may seem complex, but all those amendments have to be discussed together if we are going to look at the establishment of the joint committee, or as the Government would have it, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
There is a second major group of amendments to discuss this afternoon. It starts with Amendment No. 344ZL standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. That is followed by an amendment standing in the names of my noble friends Lady David and Lady Nicol. Those amendments are concerned with the resources for the joint committee. They are grouped with Amendment No. 344ZN which is the Government's amendment on the same matter. There is a further large group of amendments on the joint committee starting with the Government's Amendment No. 353C. That is followed by further amendments standing in my name and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, which concern the functions of the joint committee.
The first major group of amendments to consider concern the establishment of the joint committee and countryside functions. The second major group concerns resources, and the third group concerns the functions of the joint committee and its areas of responsibility. If that rather drastic summary of the major elements in this afternoon's business helps the Committee, I shall feel that the time I have spent on it has not been entirely wasted.
The objective of our approach to these matters throughout, as we made clear on Second Reading, has been the constructive reform of amendments which we firmly believe were introduced into the nature conservation arrangements in this country without adequate consideration or consultation and, even in the light of the government amendments now proposed, without adequate regard to a number of important functions which should be performed on a national or an international basis. They were certainly introduced without adequate regard to the resources which will be necessary for that. I say that even in the light of the interesting statement which the Minister has just made in response to the previous amendment. We certainly welcome the fact
2128
that he provided figures which he was unable to give to my noble friend Lady David only two days ago. We also welcome the fact that the Minister answered—I do not know whether he answered this to his satisfaction—some of the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Shackleton.
However, there are still many matters about which we are not satisfied and where we believe that it is necessary for the Committee to tease out information from the Government and, if necessary, overturn the Government's decision if we are to have a coherent body of nature conservation legislation in this country.
I shall deal briefly with my amendments and say a few words about the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 343A reflects the recommendation numbered 4.6 in the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The amendment makes it clear that there must be a statutory basis for the joint committee. That is now recognised more fully by the Government than it was when this amendment was first tabled. Therefore I do not propose to seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 343A, but I shall instead pursue the wider issues raised in Amendment No. 343B. Those issues add to the statutory basis of the joint committee the issue of the protection of the countryside.
There are many Members of the Committee here this afternoon who know much more than I about the work of the Countryside Commission and that of the many statutory and voluntary bodies concerned with the protection of the countryside. They will be able to explain why the extension of the role of the joint committee is essential. In all the concessions that have been made, there has been no concession in that direction. As an amateur or an outsider I shall merely say that I cannot conceive how we can adopt a wider view of nature conservation, which includes the enhancement of our natural environment, unless we take countryside responsibilities into account. I cannot see how the compromise which has been reached in the Government's proposals; that is that there will be a bringing together of countryside and conservation functions in Scotland and Wales but not in England, can be thought to be a coherent response. For that reason, despite the concessions which are proposed on the membership of the joint committee by the Government's amendments, we still believe it is essential to pursue this matter in our amendments. I commend to the Committee in particular the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and his noble friends. In due course, in favour of those amendments I shall gladly withdraw my Amendments Nos. 355, 356 and 357 which were tabled at an earlier date.
I shall now turn to the issues raised by the Government's amendments, of which the most important is the Government's Amendment No. 344ZJ. That amendment sets out the composition and some of the details of operation of the new Joint Nature Conservation Committee. In many ways these concessions reflect—the Minister has mentioned this—not only what was undertaken in another place and on Second Reading, but also some

2129
of the arguments which have been put forward throughout the country. In other words, these amendments are reasonably satisfactory as regards the structure of membership, although we should like to see better representation of voluntary organisations. However, they are still quite unsatisfactory on the budget, staffing and on the provision for an annual report on the issue of grants, on common standards and on the resolution of disputes. A number of amendments in this group cover those points.
Our Amendment No. 344ZJA specifically covers the need for assessors who should be non-voting. Our Amendment No. 344ZKA covers the need for better rules about staff, a budget and resources. Our Amendment No. 359A covers the need for annual reports. That matter is also covered by amendments standing in the names of other Members of the Committee and also in the recommendation numbered 4.19 of the Carver Committee's report. We have tabled amendments which cover the need to pay for the initial expenses of the joint committee and to deal with any dispute on functions which may arise.
There are other amendments on the subject of an annual report, notably Amendment No. 373ZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I am sorry that this matter continues to be complex, but I think the coherence of this group will be obvious to the Committee. Unless we discuss all these matters together when we consider the establishment of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, we shall not be able to make a successful judgment of the adequacy of the Government's new proposals in their amendments.
I put it to the Committee that if we agree now to Amendment No. 343B, which both establishes the statutory basis of the Joint Committee and the need for its countryside functions, we shall have agreed to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and his colleagues, to the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and to one or other of the amendments about the annual report. If the Government then decide, that they wish to withdraw their amendments—and this is important because I do not know what they will do—we shall proceed with the amendments which do the same job as the government amendments but in our view do it better. On the other hand, on the assumption that we win Amendment No. 343B, if the Government decide to proceed with their amendments we shall persist with our amendments to the Government's Amendment No. 344ZJ.
In other words, whatever the Government decide to do with their amendments, we have a coherent programme for the reform and strengthening of the Joint Committee. We can do it with the Government or we can do it without the Government. That does not matter very much to us; but we must have a coherent form of protection for nature conservation as a nationwide activity. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Chorley: Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at his invitation, and begin by congratulating him on the exceptionally lucid and masterly way in which he took us through a very complex grouping of more than 20 amendments. As he said, they are all concerned with aspects of the work of the Joint Committee.
I wish to speak primarily to the three amendments to Clause 123 which stand in my name; namely, Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA and 355ZAD. I shall explain their purpose. The essence of the amendments is simple: to widen the functions of the Joint Committee so as to include wider countryside conservation considerations. In that respect only do they increase the functions of the Joint Committee as presently set out in the Bill. The need for this was identified by a number of Peers on all sides of the Chamber during the Second Reading and by the report of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
I should like to begin by emphasising that these are all-party amendments. I am pleased that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has added his name to them. The amendments are supported by a number of organisations—the National Trust, the CPRE, the CPRW, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and several other bodies.
For my part, I must start by declaring an interest in that I have the honour to be an elected member of the council of the National Trust and also a member of its executive committee. My views and my reasons for putting down the amendments reflect the experience of the National Trust. The National Trust now has almost 2 million members. It is the leading conservation body in England and Wales. It has therefore a strong, direct and practical interest in the matter. That interest is not just because it is a custodian on behalf of the nation of extensive landholdings—over half a million acres and more than 500 miles of coastline, much of it land of the highest landscape quality. What is more important is that those landholdings include 21 national nature reserves and 8 per cent. by area of all declared SSSIs in England and Wales.
In managing that great estate, we have to balance and co-ordinate nature conservation needs with other needs—what one might loosely call Countryside Commission interests and economic and social factors. That is a very complex matter. I am happy to say that in carrying out that task, not only have we worked very closely with the NCC and the Countryside Commission but we enjoy very good relations with those organisations and receive much help and advice from them. I am equally glad to say that in acquiring properties and running them, we have received considerable help from them in the past.
Having said that, I hope that the Committee will agree that the National Trust's views on the functions of the Joint Committee are relevant. They are, as I have said, derived from very practical considerations of land management, of carrying out a very difficult

2131
and sensitive task and in carrying out the statutory responsibilities laid upon us by our own Act of Parliament. It is therefore of the greatest importance to the trust that the administrative arrangements for co-ordinating countryside matters are properly dealt with.
The Carver Committee—if the noble and gallant Lord will forgive me for attaching his name to the Select Committee's report for convenience—was quite clear on the problem. It conducted a most detailed and thorough inquiry and took extensive evidence. Paragraph 3.25 of the report states that:
"There are compelling arguments for bringing nature conservation closer together with countryside conservation".
The report went on to explain and expand on that statement; but I shall leave it to the noble and gallant Lord and others to elaborate the argument. The Committee recommended, in paragraph 4.11, that:
"The remit of the Joint Committee should extend to countryside and landscape conservation (under the Countryside Acts) as well as to nature conservation."
We come to the Government's response, which was produced just before Second Reading. The Government accepted a number of the report's recommendations, but they rejected that particular recommendation on the grounds that it implied:
"a potentially huge extension of the role of the Joint Committee"
and that it would lead to a significant change in focus of the Committee's remit. I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks on the previous amendment but I did not detect any advance on that position. If I have misinterpreted him he will no doubt correct me.
I shall make just three observations. First, I believe that the Government's fears are exaggerated. After all, the extension of role relates only to those aspects which need to be dealt with at a Great Britain level. Secondly, the view of all those directly involved in the matter, the experts, do not support the Government. In particular, the Countryside Commission, which might be supposed to suffer some diminution of authority, seeks a wider remit for the Joint Committee. Thirdly, it is the view of the Carver Committee (in paragraph 3.27) that it is:
"totally illogical to amalgamate nature conservation and countryside conservation in Scotland and Wales and to perpetuate the divide in England".
However, the Government went on to accept in their response that
"there are areas where the 2 interests overlap, and occasionally conflict",
and that the wider considerations could be taken into account by Countryside Commission representation on the Joint Committee. That was a further recommendation of the Carver Committee, a recommendation which accordingly was accepted by the Government.
The Government, having accepted that there is overlap and may be conflict do not, astonishingly, go further. This is an area of major interaction between two sets of interests. It is an area in which strategic co-ordination is vital and where, as the Government pointed out, that need and the complexities are growing every year. I find it
2132
astonishing that it is not thought necessary in those circumstances to spell out by statute the requirement of a wider function for the Joint Committee.
Representation of the Countryside Commission on the Joint Committee would certainly be useful. We welcome it, but it is not a sufficient condition. How can representation be sufficient when the functions set out in the Bill make no reference to those wider considerations?
So as things stand we have what I can only describe as a rather bizarre situation. The Government accept that there is an overlap of interest. They dealt with the overlap in Wales and propose to deal with it in Scotland but not in England. They now propose to give the Welsh body and presumably in due course the Scottish body the right to bring countryside issues to the joint committee. I take that to be the effect of a new amendment tabled by the Government, Amendment No. 352B. The Government steadfastly refuse to give the same right to England. I am bound to say that the new amendment serves only to emphasise even more strongly the illogicality of the Government's approach.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships just one specific example that has come to my attention. The Government recognise that an integrated approach is appropriate in upland areas. As I understand it that is how they justify the structures in Scotland and Wales. They seem oblivious to the existence of major upland areas in England. What, one is entitled to ask, about the Lake District, the Peak District, the North Yorkshire Moors, Dartmoor and so on? Is an integrated approach not necessary for them?
Finally, by the same token, it beats me how one can argue that there are no strategic considerations for Great Britain as a whole on these matters of the uplands.
If we are to accept the Government's view, we are entitled to a much more cogent development of their case. I hope very much that the Minister, even if he is unable to accept the amendments in the form in which they are tabled, will feel able to accept their general intent. They have been drafted to reflect how we believe that recognition of wider countryside considerations and the work of the joint committee should best be reflected on the statute book. Nevertheless, I accept that there may be better ways to achieve that objective. I am not seeking to be confrontational. I prefer that we should agree the general principle today and then work out how best it can be secured.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Norrie: I shall speak specifically to Amendment No. 343B and then go on to deal with Amendments Nos. 356B, 356C and 356D and, lastly, Amendment No. 373ZC. The purpose of Amendment No. 343B is to establish proper integration of countryside and landscape functions with nature conservation within the remit of the joint committee. The Select Committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, recommended such integration. I believe that that is one issue for which—the Government apart—there is almost universal support.

2133
The chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, in a recent letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, referred to the Government's failure to integrate countryside and recreational interests with nature conservation as illogical, provisional, incomplete and untenable. The Government's thinking is remarkably muddled. On 14th June the Secretary of State, in his reply to the CPRE, acknowledged that there would be an advantage in the Countryside Commission being represented on the joint committee so that it,
"can have the benefit of advice on countryside matters to set its deliberations in a wider context".
That sounds like an argument for extending the committee's remit to include countryside matters. It is the argument used by the Government in favour of integrating nature and countryside conservation in Wiles and Scotland. However, it is conveniently forgotten when it comes to the joint committee. Representatives from those countries are apparently supposed to abandon all principles of integration when they attend the joint committee and to consider only issues of nature conservation. If the logic of integration is true at the grass roots level, as the Government argue, it is also true at the United Kingdom level. For the joint committee to consider nature conservation in isolation from countryside matters defies the logic of integration at any level. To include the Countryside Committee on the joint committee, welcome though that is, without extending the remit to include countryside matters, compounds the confusion.
Neither do I understand the Government's attitude to integration in England. To say, as the Government have said, that it is more appropriate to keep the NCC and the Countryside Commission separate in England does not hold water. The committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, exploded that argument by saying that for precisely those same reasons integration in England was all the more logical.
I hope that when he comes to respond, my noble friend will be able to give a firm commitment that the Government will follow through their own logic and set in motion a proper timetable with adequate consultation to achieve full integration of nature conservation and countryside matters in England at the earliest opportunity.
What is perhaps especially disappointing about the Government's proposals is that such a great opportunity has been missed to overcome the historical (and rather unfortunate) divide between nature conservation and wider countryside interests and the lack of UK or GB advice on countryside and recreational issues in the past. I firmly believe that some of the insensitive delivery of nature conservation in the past, so often quoted by the Government in support of these proposals, could have been avoided if nature conservation had been seen in the wider countryside context.
I hope that by now my noble friend will have seen the importance of proper integration of nature conservation and countryside matters and will understand the value of achieving that in the joint committee and, in turn, in England. If not, I hope
2134
that the Committee will have no hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting the amendment.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 356B, 356C and 356D. These amendments seek in part to achieve what the Government have already accepted; namely, that there will be 11 voting members on the joint committee and an independent chairman of that committee. Both proposals were recommended by the committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and accepted by the Government. However, it is important that those voting members of the joint committee who are not members of the country councils should be individuals with expertise in matters relating to the functions of the joint committee. Similarly, any non-voting assessors should also be representative of the interests being considered by the committee and, for instance, might be selected from relevant voluntary organisations.
I believe that many Members of your Lordships' Committee from all sides of the Chamber support the principle that countryside matters should be integrated with nature conservation in the remit of the joint committee. That being the case, voting and non-voting members quite rightly should be individuals who have expertise relevant to the committee's functions, which will include nature conservation and countryside, landscape and recreation interests. These amendments seek to achieve just that.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 373ZC, which is also in the grouping. This amendment is similar to Amendment No. 344ZK and goes beyond a conventional annual report. It will require the joint committee to assess the extent to which the new country councils have carried out their statutory functions and how far international obligations have been met. This will provide for parliamentary scrutiny and accountabilty of the country agencies both individually and collectively. The report will also provide an assessment of the extent to which the respective Secretaries of State in England, Scotland and Wales have complied with international obligations. I urge the Committee to support these amendments.
Lord Carver: There are three matters in the Select Committee's report with which this group of amendments is concerned. The first, on which my noble friend Lord Chorley has already spoken, is that of extending the remit of the joint committee to countryside affairs. The second concerns the composition of the joint committee itself. Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA and 355ZAD, to which I put my name, relate to the first issue. The second point—the composition of the committee—is largely covered by the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 344ZJ. There is also the question of a report by the joint committee. I shall speak to my own amendment, Amendment No. 344ZK. Amendment No. 373ZC, which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has just mentioned, is relevant to it.
With regard to the matter of extension to the countryside, my noble friend Lord Chorley has already drawn attention to Recommendation 4.11 of the Select Committee. He quoted the first sentence

2135
of the paragraph of the report which was relevant. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I continue beyond the first sentence.
The report stated that the two interests—countryside conservation and nature conservation—are inter-related. It said:
"They need some of the same data and expertise, they tend to concentrate attention on the same landscapes. Nature conservation is moving on from interests in individual species of flora and fauna or narrow habitats to a more synoptic interest in groups of species, wider ecosystems and the relationship between wildlife and the whole environment".
It has been called the shift from autoecology to synecology.
"The principle of sustainable development is preferable, in the long term, to a form of nature conservation which is based on fossilising single sites and defending them against all corners. This makes the separation between nature conservation and countryside conservation begin to look dated".
All that we have heard from the last three speakers has emphasised that.
In the Government's reply, they state:
"The Government sees some advantage … in the Committee's being able to take account of considerations of landscape and wider countryside matters".
They expect—this was said at Second Reading—that the representation of the Countryside Commission of England on such issues would be sufficient. I do not feel that it is sufficient. I have put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, which will put matters right.
We come now to the composition of the committee. It is set out by the Government in Amendment No. 344ZJ. I certainly recognise the difficulty involved in our recommendation that the joint committee should be strong enough to drive forward the cause of nature conservation at a national level. However, we accepted that it should not be an independent quango and should derive its funds through the country councils.
We are extremely glad to see that the Government have moved so far. They moved some of the way while we were carrying out our study. They have moved further since, and have accepted our recommendations, first, that there should be an independent chairman, and that not only should there be three independent members but that they should have votes. Originally the Government intended that they should not. That move is extremely welcome.
I draw attention to the importance of subsections (1) and (2) of the amendment after Schedule 6 in the Marshalled List, which relates to the importance of the chairman when choosing the independent members. One of the difficulties about the Bill is that when one reads "Secretary of State" it does not necessarily mean the Secretary of State for the Environment in London. It can also mean the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. Our recommendation is that the independent members should be appointed on the recommendation of the chairman. It was made specifically in order to try to avoid the suggestion that one independent member should be nominated by the Secretary of State for the Environment in England, one by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and one by the Secretary of State for Wales. Those
2136
members should be chosen for their scientific qualifications. I am glad to see that it is quite clear in the Government's amendment that it will be on the recommendation of the chairman.
Recommendation 4.19 was that the joint committee make its own report. The Government's reply was very weak. It was that the chairman would draft something to be put into each country council report. That seems not only a ridiculous method but one which did not bring enough public notice to the importance of the joint committee's responsibility both for national and international affairs. That is why I have put down the amendment which stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lady, Baroness Nicol. Amendment No. 344ZK would make it necessary for the joint committee to report on its own responsibilities separately from the country councils.
In this group of amendments, those are the three matters which are affected by our Select Committee recommedations. The functions and powers of the council arise in later amendments.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for having grouped so many amendments together and having explained so clearly how they come together. It means that we can deal with the subject of the setting up of this joint committee in one debate. It is necessary that there should be a joint committee. Its purposes broadly are, first, co-ordination within the United Kingdom, and secondly, to handle where necessary international matters.
I support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has just been saying about the recommendations which affect the issue of the sub-committee's report. Amendment No. 344ZK stands in my name also. It would require the joint committee to make an annual report which should be concise and to the point. It need not occupy many man-hours but I believe that it is a useful addition.
Mention has been made of devolution in the earlier debate in Committee. I remind noble Lords on considering these amendments that the functions of Ministers and their departments are already devolved. Administrative devolution where England and Scotland are concerned has existed for many years. The noble and gallant Lord pointed out, as I have done before, that when "Secretary of State" appears in the Bill in the singular, in this part of the Bill it applies to three Secretaries of State acting singly or together.
The Department of the Environment and its predecessor of 20 years ago—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—have not operated in Scotland. Decisions in Scotland in this field have been made the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland by Parliament. There is now a need to bring nomenclature up to date. I may be in a unique position not only in the committee but in this Chamber, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland—I started in that 20 years ago—to speak on Recommendation 4.23 in the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which suggests that the name of the Scottish Development Department should be changed. I should like to

2137
explain why I believe that it is important and not simply cosmetic.
The Government have replied to that recommendation saying that it is now being considered by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am therefore speaking before a decision is taken.
The Scottish Development Department (SDD) was created by regrouping subjects, and was named some 30 years ago. Within the Scottish Office it brought together in Scotland what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government did in England and Wales. The Welsh Office was not then in existence. In addition the SDD covered roads, electricity, tourism and sponsoring the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the new town corporations.
Development department was not a felicitous name but the department's many functions could not be conveyed in a short title. About 10 years later the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was renamed the Department of the Environment, still dealing with England and Wales. I remember that the word "environment" seemed very strange to the public at that time. It had not been much used before then. The word is now widely understood and the adjective "environmental' is much used and its meaning is clear.
Soon afterwards, in the early 1970s, a new department in the Scottish Office was formed called the Scottish Economic Planning Department. It was created mainly to deal with the new offshore oil industry and associated subjects. There was no Department of Energy in the UK until 1974. The new department also took some of the functions from the SDD. Later it was succeeded by a department known as the Industry Department, Scotland in which were concentrated industrial and development subjects. As a result a much larger part of the SDD's work is now concerned with environmental subjects. Its name is misleading because it can give the impression that its purpose is to promote development, generate jobs and assist industry at almost any cost.
There is another widespread misunderstanding—that the Department of the Environment operates in Scotland. It has never had functions in Scotland other than the inherited Ministry of Works duties in relation to government-owned property now being privatised. A clearer public understanding of the true situation and where responsibilities lie would be achieved by renaming the SDD. It would also help to dispel the two misconceptions that I have just mentioned.
Members of the Committee may ask what it should be called. I suggest "the Environment Department, Scotland". In these days of initials and acronyms "the Scottish Environment Department" would be confused with the Scottish Education Department SED which has existed for many years. The new name would match the designation already used by one of the junior Ministers in the Scottish Office. He is described as the Minister for Local Government and the Environment, reflecting his duties in two of the roles of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Other Ministers in the Scottish Office are labelled similarly; for example, Ministers for health, agriculture or education. Having urged a
2138
change of name it is only right that I should offer a suggestion. It is important that the word "environment" should be included and that a new name should be given to the SDD.
As I said on the first day of the Committee, although the Secretary of State for the Environment deals with England and has no statutory functions in Scotland, I believe that he should be and continue to be the lead Minister on United Kingdom policy and international affairs. That will be more important in the future than it has been in the past.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I too thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for explaining how the amendments fit together. However, I sometimes felt that he was a skilful spider spinning a web into which a rather fat Tory fly would flop and find himself voting against the Government on a number of issues about which he did not believe the Government were wrong. I give the warning that he is a fly old fly and can struggle his way out of many a web.
I wish to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA and 355ZAD which were so eloquently proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Norrie and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I wish to wear my Countryside Commission hat for one moment. As was mentioned the commission is thoroughly in support of the amendments. The joint committee will be the one piece of co-ordinating machinery which will address conservation issues at the UK level. It would be illogical if its remit were so narrowly drawn as to exclude consideration of conservation and enjoyment of natural beauty which is the Countryside Commission's area of interest.
The Commission is required to co-operate with others at the UK level in a wide range of responsibilities: for example; it must advise government and Parliament on European Community matters; advise Ministers on the designation of environmentally-sensitive areas; formulate policies and advice for the coast, national parks and other special areas of the countryside; monitor landscape change by satellite image and aerial photography; understand the social and economic forces behind recreation pressures on the countryside; and promote knowledge internationally of the British approach to conservation. A more broadly-based joint committee with a wider remit is needed for seven reasons. It is needed to give government and Parliament advice on topics such as the following, in so far as they need to be considered at UK level: agriculture and the countryside; forestry and the countryside; planning as it affects the countryside; the relationship between tourism, recreation and access and conservation; the economic and social needs of rural communities; the link between energy and transport policy and conservation; and pollution impacts on the environment.
The amendments would demonstrate the Government's belief that a new agency in Scotland and Wales should give equal status to nature conservation and the enjoyment and appreciation of the natural beauty of the countryside by the public.

2139
However, the present proposals tend to fuel the fear that wider countryside issues will come a poor second best to site-based nature conservation. Even the new title of the committee—the joint nature conservation committee—fuels my worries about that aspect.
I was delighted that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, supported the amendment. He gave the reasons why his Select Committee thought that it was an important matter. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will think long and seriously before turning down at least this small group of amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: Some of the amendments are tabled in my name and I shall speak only briefly because I do not wish to repeat what has already been said. If the Government cannot accept the additional responsibility of the joint committee to cover countryside and wider issues they should at least give the matter consideration and come back on Report. I hope that they will do so because their answer to the Carver Committee at paragraph 4.22, referring to the amalgamation of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, indicates that the option for institutional change across the whole range of bodies concerned with the environment is being considered in the context of an environment White Paper and that the Government are considering the question of furthering that context.
We cannot continue to have constant changes and amalgamations during the next few years. Already we have a situation in Scotland in which the NCC will continue for one year before being merged with the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Members on all sides of the Committee have said that they would like to see a wider remit. Surely it would be better for the Government to say that they will consider the proposal, come back on Report and delay the implementation. A later amendment tabled by the Government appears to suggest that implementation will now be in October 1991. I believe that it would be sensible to extend the date for at least six to 12 months in order that we can get it right once and for all. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion.
Baroness Nicol: I have added my name to four amendments in the group; three were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and one was spoken to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I shall be brief because all the points have already been made. However, I wish to emphasise two of them. First, the Government's response to the Carver recommendations on countryside issues and the joint committee was that the recommendations imply a potentially huge extension of the role of the joint committee. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that is not so because few countryside issues would have a UK dimension. It is to tally illogical to leave that responsibility outside the role of the joint committee.
Secondly, I wish to stress the need for an annual report to Parliament. At present the NCC reports
2140
annually to Parliament and the countryside councils will do so under Schedule 6, paragraph 19. However, the joint committee has important functions other than its co-ordinating duties in relation to the countryside councils. Parliament will be particularly concerned with the working of the UK and international aspects of its responsibilities. Once the Bill has left this House and become an Act we must rely entirely on annual reports from the relevant bodies in order to know how it is working. Therefore, it is quite proper that such a report should be available.
A further point is that if the joint committee is to achieve consistent policies towards nature conservation in Great Britain, it must have some small sanction—perhaps sanction is too strong a word to use but I cannot think of a better one—to influence the country agencies. Therefore, it should have an opportunity to report annually on the activities of the country agencies. Such reports must be objective and capable of being critical if necessary. Therefore, they must come separately from the joint committee. I hope that that amendment can be accepted.
Earl Peel: With regard to Amendment No. 354A, whereas I appreciate that that applies to GB matters and therefore is the responsibility of the joint committee, the implementation of the responsibilities as laid out in Amendment No. 354A will inevitably affect the country councils. That is fine as regards Wales where we shall see an amalgamation of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. In Scotland that will happen. However, in England that is not proposed at this stage. It seems to me that this amendment may well put responsibilities on the Nature Conservancy Council in England which are presently those of the Countryside Commission. That may lead to confusion. I should be interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on that point.
Lord Chorley: My understanding is that the Countryside Commission accepts that. I tried to indicate that in my speech. Nevertheless, for all sorts of reasons it would prefer to have a proper standing as regards functions on the joint committee.
Earl Peel: The Countryside Commission may well accept that. However, I am wearing my Nature Conservancy Council hat. I should be worried if at this stage new responsibilities with which we were not able to cope were foisted upon us.
Lord Chorley: The joint committee would have the extra responsibilities. The Countryside Commission for England still continues.
Earl Peel: It seems to me that the responsibilities of the joint committee would inevitably seep down to the various country councils. I do not believe that that can be avoided.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Listening to the debate so far, it is quite obvious that the Committee is of the opinion that nature conservancy and the

2141
countryside go together. That is obvious, and I hope that the Government will agree to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others.
I disagree very strongly, although politely, with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. In the setting up of the joint committee nationalist feeling will want to know whether the joint committee is a creature of the councils in the various countries or whether the councils in the various countries are a creature of the joint committee as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. That needs to be clear. If the joint committee is to have sanctions on its parent bodies, it is rather illogical that the parent body should set up the joint committee.
Amendment No. 343B states:
"for the purposes of nature conservation across Great Britain as a whole, exercising functions in relation to countryside and landscape conservation".
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether that means that the three councils will have a remit to control the actions of the parent bodies or whether they will exercise, as in the last sentence of the amendment:
"functions assigned to it under section 123(1)".
As regards the position in Scotland, we realise the immense importance of a joint committee for joint work on international obligations. However, we should be rather worried if we obtained a budget from the Government of a reasonable character in order to set up university studies for research purposes and from which we planned conservation for Scotland, only to find that that money had been taken away for ventures approved by a joint committee on which we do not have a majority and would not expect to have one. Without direct government funding of those projects, that is a pitfall. I hope that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will look at that problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 123(1) is concerned with the provision of advice and the maintenance of common standards and is not concerned with executive action. I believe that the noble Lord's fears are unfounded.
Lord Craigton: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, my amendment has nothing to do with the joint committee. My Amendment No. 344 requires two members of the Nature Conservancy Council for England to represent the Countryside Commission for England. That deals with the points made by my noble friend Lord Peel. At a later stage it may be right to combine the English Countryside Commission with the English Nature Conservancy Council. I should like that to happen, but it will take time. In the meantime, it must be right to put England on the same footing as regards joint representation as is already the situation in Wales. I ask only that two members of the Nature Conservancy Council for England shall represent the interests of the Countryside Commission for England.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the Countryside
2142
Commission for Scotland supports the idea of adding countryside matters to the remit of the joint committee. I do not agree with it on that from the Scottish point of view or indeed any point of view. Of course, consideration of conservation matters cannot be carried out without considerable reference to countryside matters. That is why the chairman of the Countryside Commission and the other two merged bodies dealing with countryside matters are on the joint committee.
However, if that new area of responsibility is added to the remit of the joint committee, all sorts of matters will need to be discussed in addition to those which would need to be discussed under the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that that would not make a great deal of difference because not many countryside matters have a UK or an international dimension. However, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, read out a long list of examples. My noble friend Lord Peel, from experience of the Nature Conservancy Council, realised that the joint committee would have many extra responsibilities.
It is very important that the joint committee should concentrate on that which is essential in order to get right the international or UK dimension. Broad matters such as how the countryside is used and preserved are better carried out by the bodies in the countries without a lot of extra advice. Such advice might conflict with advice received from local authorities which would complicate the issue. I believe that that would add to the rather unwieldy animal which has been arrived at. I hope that that will not happen.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Hesketh one question. Until the two bodies are merged, the chairman of the body with countryside interests in Scotland will not be a member of the joint committee because under the Bill, the chairman of the merged committee is a member. On an interim basis will he consider that the chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland should be a member until the merger takes place, if and when it does, in order to ensure that there is countryside input from Scotland when conservation issues are discussed?
Lord Hunt: I take up the point raised by the noble Baroness purely for clarification. She voiced the view that the two broad interests—nature conservancy and the wider countryside—should not be brought under a single umbrella at the level of the joint committee, for all kinds of reasons. I should like to ask, through the Committee, whether the noble Baroness is saying that the intended Countryside Council for Wales, which has exactly that overall function, and the proposed merger between the two bodies in Scotland, will not work either.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think they will work very well. For Wales and Scotland it would be a mistake to add the countryside element to the joint committee because there might be dual discussion of all kinds of matters. I deliberately did not make the point because we are discussing the joint committee for the whole of the UK. I respect the views of the area where the two bodies may stay

2143
separated, but it would be better not to introduce that element. It will inevitably come into the discussion and the relevant people will bring that area of interest, and the experience of England, Wales and Scotland, to bear on the discussions. However, if one adds the remit it will make for very unwieldy business.
Lord Moran: I was a member of the Carver Committee. I should like briefly to support two of its recommendations which are reflected in this group of amendments. The first is that the remit of the joint committee should extend to countryside and landscape conservation. That seems to me to be common sense. It would be absurd if the two representatives from the Countryside Council for Wales, who would be representing under the Government's proposals an integrated organisation, were to have to come to the joint committee, divest themselves of their countryside functions and consider problems only from a nature conservation point of view. It is important, as the committee recommended, that the remit should be extended.
At Second Reading I raised the question of the joint committee making its own report. I felt that the initial response of the Government to this recommendation of the Carver Committee was not very satisfactory. It is important that the joint committee should itself make a report which can be considered in this Chamber. That was what the Carver Committee recommended. In a sense it would be a touchstone of whether the Government take the joint committee seriously that they should allow it to report direct, as the country councils will do.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My name has already been mentioned and my position in this Committee is clear. Since 1st April I have been a member of the Nature Conservancy Council; I am the current chairman of the existing advisory committee for England and my name has been mentioned today as the chairman designate for the new agency for England. In that capacity I am a member of the shadow joint nature conservation committee which has already met once.
My concern in intervening in the debate is to ensure that ultimately what is given to me to operate, should the Bill be enacted, is workable. I therefore have some questions. I entirely appreciate the tone of this series of amendments in requiring the joint committee to be concerned with the preservation, enhancement and enjoyment of natural beauty. I should be glad to learn where the term "natural beauty" came from. It is confusing that Section 52(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states:
"References in this Part to the conservation of the natural beauty of any land shall be construed as including references to the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features".
"Natural beauty" is not defined in the Bill. In the Water Act 1989 "natural beauty" is defined in similar terms to those I have read out. Therefore, if the term is to be used and if I am to end up with a workable Act, the intent must be clarified.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Earl continues, perhaps he could refer to Amendment No. 34A in his name and the names of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, relating to the Countryside Council for Wales. Subsection (3)(b) refers to the "enjoyment of the countryside", and subsection (5) to the "natural beauty" of the countryside. The answers to the noble Earl's question lie in his own amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: That amendment simply picks up the Countryside Commission aspect. The amendment, which we have yet to discuss, brings into the Welsh council its Countryside Commission inheritance. There is a conflict which needs to be sorted out.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps my noble friend will give way. I may be able to help. No doubt the Minister will be able to confirm what I say, but the term, "area of outstanding natural beauty" appears in Scottish legislation. Scotland does not have legislation for national parks. In bringing all the various terms together it is no surprise to me that that term should appear. That may help my noble friend.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It is no surprise to me, but the term needs clarifying. My second point is that, taking on board this series of amendments, I have been discussing with Countryside Commission members exactly what is the main difference in the activities of the joint committee that would be achieved. The joint committee would inherit the overall United Kingdom activities of the Nature Conservancy Council. If we look at a document that is already available, the latest annual report, we can see what the Nature Conservancy Council is already doing. We can consider its publications, Ecological Changes in the Uplands; The Conservation of Cornfield Flowers, the Conservation of Meadows and Pastures; the exhibition, "The Wider Environment" and the many other activities in which the Nature Conservancy Council already plays a major part in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that he wished to see incorporated into the activities of the joint committee the duty to pay attention to the conservation of the wider environment. That aspect is already cared for. It is already within the remit of the joint committee as inheritor of the Nature Conservancy Council's activities. I am not sure what more is wanted.
That the joint committee should publish its own annual report, I find, speaking personally, entirely commendable.
Lord Hesketh: I rise to speak for the second time this afternoon. These amendments include the first of a series tabled by the Government which are designed to fulfil the commitments given in our response in May to the report published earlier in the year by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
Amendment No. 344ZB establishes the committee which is to carry out certain key functions jointly on

2145
behalf of the three country agencies. We propose to change its formal name from joint committee to joint nature conservation committee on the recommendation of the noble and gallant Lord. The Government believe that this is a more apt and accurate title for a body whose remit is to deal with nature conservation matters which transcend the country boundaries.
Amendments Nos. 344ZC, 344ZD and 344ZJ are perhaps the most important of all those which the Government are bringing forward today. Their effect will be to add an entirely new schedule to the Bill prescribing arrangements for the composition, financing and functioning of the joint nature conservation committee, and replacing part of the existing Clause 123(2)(a) and 123(3). Paragraph 2 of the schedule sets out the membership of the committee, which is to have 11 voting members, exactly as recommended by paragraph 4.8 of the Carver Report. These will comprise an independent chairman appointed by the Secretary of State; three independent members appointed by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the chairman for their scientific knowledge or experience in nature conservation; two members of each of the country councils (including the chairmen of each council); and the chairman of the Countryside Commission who will, as the Government explained in their response to Recommendation 4.11 of the report, help the JNCC to take account of landscape and wider countryside considerations.
There will also be two non-voting representatives of Northern Ireland conservation interests to be appointed by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, as foreshadowed in the Government's original announcement about the decision to create a joint committee last November and endorsed by Recommendation 4.10 of the report. This will help to fulfil the Government's objective that the JNCC should be able to take a UK-wide view where necessary and to act as focus for the exchange of information between all four countries.
The schedule goes on to make standard provision for the personal remuneration and expenses of committee members. Paragraph 7 replaces Clause 123(3) and considerably then strengthens the provisions for the financing and staffing of the committee by placing a duty on the councils to provide the JNCC with appropriate staff, accommodation and other facilities, as well as financial resources and giving the Secretary of State a reserve power to determine such matters if the councils cannot agree. This change needs to be read with Amendment No. 344ZN which will also give the Secretary of State powers to attach specific conditions about the funding of the JNCC to the grants-in-aid received by the country councils. Together, these changes mean that the commitments we have given to guarantee or, as some people put it, "ring-fence" the budget of the joint committee can be securely delivered by Ministers as promised in our response to another of the recommendations in the report.
The remainder of the schedule deals with the proceedings of the JNCC and delegation. The
2146
provisions are once again quite standard for this type of legislation. I appreciate that there is some concern on the part of the NCC, and perhaps of some noble Lords, that the power of the JNCC to delegate to a country council could be misused to sidestep the entire concept of the joint committee. That is not so. The delegation powers must be read as subsidiary to the key provisions of Clause 123 which will require certain key nature conservation functions to be exercised jointly by the country councils acting through the JNCC. Blanket delegation to the country councils would not in fact be delegation but an abrogation of the duties under Clause 123. However it is important that the option of delegation should be there to allow the joint committee to carry out certain activities by asking one or other of the country councils with a particular area of specialist knowledge or expertise to carry out work on a "lead agency" basis. A good example of this is likely to be work of national and international importance carried out by the NCC's Seabirds at Sea team in Scotland. We expect the team itself to be transferred to the new Scottish Council which will then contract with the JNCC to provide the necessary work required for national or international purposes.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 343A and 343B. There are two main objections. The first is that by attempting to delineate too sharply between the country councils and the joint committee they would undermine a key principle of the Bill that the wider British and international functions under Clause 123 are to be exercised jointly by all three country councils but acting through the joint committee. It is very important to stick to this principle which means that the country councils must have wider horizons. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would not actually argue with that objective.
Amendment No. 343B would conflict with the Government's policy that it would be unwise to extend the remit of the joint committee to cover landscape and other countryside issues, carrying the risk that the joint committee would be transformed into a quango supervising what would then be little more than regional agencies. I do, of course, accept that this was a subject on which we begged to differ from the conclusions reached in the report; though it was in fact the only major recommendation among the 24 which the Government could not accept. I would point out that by accepting the report's recommendation to appoint the chairman of the Countryside Commission to the JNCC the Government recognised the need for the joint committee to have access to broader thinking about the countryside but without muddying the statutory responsibility of the committee. The Government's stance is responsible and reasonable.
6 p.m.
Baroness White: Before the noble Lord moves on to the next amendment I remind the Committee that the Carver Committee was restricted by its terms of reference in the same way as the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Carver Committee did not consider in any depth the countryside aspects of

2147
the work of the joint committee. It was in no position to do so. One cannot therefore rely entirely on the admirable work of the Carver Committee when looking at the wider aspects of landscape and countryside which will be part of the remit of the Scottish and Welsh situation and which will be represented—I fear not entirely adequately—only by the chairman of the Countryside Commission representing the English scene.
Lord Hesketh: I will be returning to that point a little later. Noble Lords suggested that in perpetually seeking satisfactory solutions we could find ourselves in the position of never formulating legislation. I remind the Committee that there is a White Paper coming out in the autumn. The preservation of the countryside is an on-going activity. A part of that activity is covered in this Bill but I would be the first to admit that it is certainly not the last.
Lord Shackleton: Does the noble Lord envisage amendments to this Bill being suggested in the White Paper?
Lord Hesketh: No, but I do visualise a White Paper proposing further primary legislation which will have some interest as regards the countryside.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But not until the next Session.
Lord Hesketh: I do not know about that.
Amendments Nos. 344ZK, 361 and 373ZC deal with the question of annual reporting arrangements by the joint nature conservation committee. This was also the subject of a recommendation by the report. In responding the Government drew attention to the fact that, as drafted, paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 to the Bill already requires each council to report annually on all its functions, including those carried out under Clause 123 through the JNCC. We had envisaged a common section of each report to be drafted by the chairman of the JNCC which would deal with the activities of his committee.
The Earl of Onslow: Did I understand my noble friend to say that we have to go through all this again in September after the new White Paper? Surely that must be getting things the wrong way round. First, there is a Bill to which an immense amount of amendments are tabled, then there is to be a White Paper and eventually another Bill which changes everything. Swift wrote some very funny stories about such situations about 300 years ago.
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend probably slightly misheard me. I was not a regular attender of this Chamber in 1981 but even I could not avoid newspaper coverage. The subject of this Bill will be perpetually before the government of the day for the foreseeable future.
I come back to the three amendments. We have had further discussions with the noble and gallant Lord about the recommendation in his report following the comments he made in this House at Second Reading. I can accept that he and many
2148
other noble Lords attach importance to securing a provision which gives the joint committee an unfettered right and duty to report on its activities direct to Ministers and to Parliament. I am therefore happy to accept Amendment No. 344ZK tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
I hope that this will help to persuade the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, not to press Amendment No. 361 and my noble friend Lord Norrie not to press Amendment No. 373ZC. The amendment I have accepted would achieve their central objective of requiring the JNCC to prepare and publish an annual report. I appreciate that their amendments also contain a list of particular items which they wish to see included in the annual report. Except for the references to a wider role for the committee, to which I have already explained the Government's objections, I can see nothing wrong with most of the items suggested and I am sure that the JNCC would include material of this kind. However, it would be unusual for the contents of the report to be prescribed in such detail by statute. We must leave it to the committee to decide, in the light of changing circumstances and priorities, which material it wishes to include and highlight in its report. I feel sure that a chairman of the calibre and with the integrity of Professor Sir Fred Holliday will give a full and incisive report.
As regards Amendments Nos. 344ZJA and 344ZKA, tabled by the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, the joint committee will need to take account of the views and specialisms that will not always be provided by the statutorily-appointed members. The committee has powers to regulate its procedure. That will include the power to invite non-voting observers to its meetings for such purposes. I can assure the Committee that the chairman-elect will use this power where necessary. He has already agreed to invite the chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland to attend JNCC meetings in an observer capacity until the CCS merges with the NCC in Scotland. I hope that covers the point made earlier by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does that mean that he can contribute? It is not much good just listening.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure it means that he can contribute. As regards Amendment No. 344ZKA, we feel that the noble Lord's intentions go a little too far in the direction of turning the joint committee into an independent quango in its own right. That is a course of action which the Government will have to resist. It was also rejected by the Select Committee in its report. For example, paragraph 7.1 would give the JNCC power to act as an employer in its own right, while paragraph 7.2 would virtually remove any discretion whatever from the country councils in deciding what could be afforded in financing the joint committee's activities.
I find the final subparagraph of subsection (3) rather extraordinary. No such provision exists or is sought by the Opposition in relation to existing expenditure by the NCC or its successor country

2149
councils. The underlying assumption seems to be that, despite the Government's record in financing the NCC since 1979—I remind the Committee that its budget has increased by over 160 per cent. in real terms—and despite the assurances that we have given about providing adequate funding for all the activities of the new bodies, including those carried out through the JNCC, there is a belief that the country councils will in some way try to do down the joint committee.
Amendments Nos. 354, 354A, 355, 355AZA and 355ZAD, would conflict with the policy that it would be unwise to extend the remit of the joint committee to cover landscape and other countryside issues, carrying the risk that the joint committee will be transformed into a quango supervising what will then be little more than regional agencies. I accept that this is a subject on which we beg to differ from the conclusions reached in the report of the Select Committee. I also remind the Committee that on this matter we differed with only one of the 24 conclusions.
I also remind the Committee of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Peel. He is absolutely right when he says that, as drafted, the amendments would place countryside responsibilities for the GB dimension on to the Nature Conservancy Councils and not on the JNCC itself. Therefore, leaving aside any other consideration, the amendments are defective. That is not a technical point. The fact is that the committee exists as a vehicle for the three country councils to exercise their joint functions and not for the responsibilities that they do not have in their own territories.
Amendment No. 356, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ross, I take to be a probing amendment. I hope that the noble Lords will agree that it would be odd to legislate for specific subject areas in which Ministers responsible to Parliament would first have to consult with a body like the joint committee. If that is its purpose I am happy to assure Members of the Committee that, just as the views of the NCC about nature conservation at the GB or international level are already taken into account by Ministers in many different policy areas, so will the views of the joint committee be listened to most carefully on the same subjects. Professor Holliday will also have direct access to Ministers, as will the chairmen of the new country councils. I cannot see that diminishing the influence of nature conservation on government thinking.
Amendment No. 344, in accordance with the current practice, provides that appointments to the Nature Conservancy Council for England will be made on the basis of the appointees' personal qualities and not because they represent any particular interest. As the Government have already said in their response to the proposals contained in the report of your Lordships' committee, we do not believe that this is the appropriate time to consider the merger between the Countryside Commission and the English Nature Conservancy Council. We believe that it would be inappropriate to confuse the roles of the NCC for England and the Countryside Commission. I believe that this amendment does precisely that.
2150
The main thrust of Amendments Nos. 356B, 356C, 356D and 357 has already been accepted by the Government in their new schedule covering the composition of the joint Nature Conservation Committee. I repeat that the joint committee may, through its powers, regulate its own procedures to invite observers or assessors to attend its meetings in a non-voting capacity. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not wish to see the joint committee turned into a conference of delegates mandated by other bodies, however worthy those bodies might be.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy raised a point that I do not think was covered by any of the substantial list of amendments that I have responded to. I can give him an assurance that the Government will look sympathetically at the proposal to rename the Scottish Development Department and that they will react entirely positively in the near future.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this inevitably complex debate and to the Minister for the clarity of his winding-up speech. Perhaps I may in one sentence say what I think we shall be doing as the immediate result of this debate. I take it that we shall be making a decision on Amendment No. 343B, as I made clear. I take that amendment as being a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA and 355ZAD, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and his colleagues. I think that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, understands. I understand that he wished to add his name to Amendment No. 343B and thought that he had. That is the immediate issue.
I am saying this for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who fears that I may be trying to entrap him into further commitments that he does not adhere to. I would not expect anyone who supported this matter to go further than those four amendments.
The Earl of Swinton: I do not think the noble Lord will trap me with that one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall come back to that matter before closing. We can with gratitude thank the Minister for his acceptance of Amendment No. 344ZK. That amendment is primarily in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I think the Minister is right in saying that, on the basis of the acceptance, I shall not move Amendment No. 361. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will feel the same about Amendment No. 373ZC. The point is that the principle of an annual report has been accepted. I am sure that, with goodwill, the amendment which is to be accepted will work very well indeed.
There are issues which have been properly debated together with the matters that we have discussed so far; namely, issues about staff, the budget and the resources of the joint committee, whatever name it takes. Though I believe that the discussion has been extremely valuable, I do not suppose for one moment that it has completely closed all further discussion.

2151
I do not expect to move Amendment No. 344ZKA, in response to the government's amendment, without the opportunity of further debate. I certainly would not expect anybody who supported us on Amendment No. 343B necessarily to support us on the other amendment. However, if we are to take the government amendments regardless of the result of this debate, I make it clear that I shall not move my alternative amendments, Amendments Nos. 357 and 359A as they will no longer be necessary. They will be dealt with in amendments to government amendments. I hope that I have cleared up the matters with which we are not concerned. Perhaps I may briefly return to the matter with which we are concerned.
The Government have got themselves into a strange position. They are, as the Minister acknowledged, not accepting one of the 24 recommendations of the Carver Committee—one and only one. The Minister described it as going a little too far. But if one looks at the wording of the amendments, one sees that there is no legal basis for suggesting that what we are doing in the amendments and what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and his colleagues are doing in their amendments is somehow making the joint committee a quango and turning the other country councils into regional agencies. What we are proposing is no change in the legal basis of the joint committee other than that already proposed by the Government.
What we are proposing, however, is that the inclusion of the chairman of the Countryside Commission and the inclusion of members with countryside interests should be matched by the inclusion of countryside matters in the remit of the joint committee. It astonishes me that the Government do not recognise that this concerns the single most important function of the joint committee. The coherence of our approach to countryside and nature conservation matters depends upon it. It is not a challenge to the legal structure of the joint committee as proposed by the Government. It concerns only the functions and the size of the committee.
As the Government have unfortunately made no movements towards recognising the justice of the argument expressed not just by those who have put their names to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, but by Members of the Committee on all sides, and as the amendments are being opposed on a basis which has no legal foundation, I am afraid that, unless any other Member of the Committee has anything to add, I shall feel it necessary on Amendment No. 343B to seek the opinion of the Committee. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 343A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 343B:
Page 123, line 19, at end insert:
("(1A) The three Councils created under subsection (1) above shall establish a committee to be known as the Joint Committee for the purposes of nature conservation across Great Britain as a whole, exercising functions in relation to
2152
countryside and landscape conservation, and carrying out the functions assigned to it under section 123(1) below.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 343B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bancroft, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Moran, L.

Carver, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Chorley, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Norrie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Falkender, B.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Shannon, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sherfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Varley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Walpole, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Carnock, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Arran, E.

Cox, B.

Auckland, L.

Craigton, L.

Balfour, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Belstead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blakenham, V.

Cross, V.

Blatch, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Boardman, L.

Davidson. V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elton, L.

Brentford, V.

Flather, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Gainsborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Burton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Grimond, L.

Caccia, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caldecote, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

2153

Henley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hesketh, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hives, L.

Radnor, E.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Rees, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rochdale, V.

Kimball, L.

Rodney, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sharples, B.

Mancroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Somerset, D.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Newall, L.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinton, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ullswater, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vinson, L.

Peel, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Pender L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 344 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 344AZA:
Page 123, line 27, at end insert ("who in appointing the members for Wales shall have due regard not only to the conservation functions of the council but also to those functions which encourage and facilitate access to, and recreational use of, the countryside.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 349A. The basis of Amendment 344AZA is contained in the remarks which I made on Second Reading. The Minister will recall that at that time I had received advice from the Sports Council for Wales on the need for the arrangements for nature conservancy matters to allow for a proper balance to be struck between conservation on the one hand and access to the countryside and recreation on the other. The amendment seeks to introduce an obligation on the Secretary of State to make appointments to the new Countryside Council for Wales in such a way as to give some confidence to the governing bodies of sports, and to those with a particular interest in outdoor recreation, that due regard is being given to the recreational point of view.
I must tell Members of the Committee that a similar amendment was tabled in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Paul Murphy. On that occasion, the Minister explained that if you give sport and recreation a special status you must do the same for such interests as forestry and agriculture. The amendment I move today seeks to avoid that difficulty. We are not asking for the appointment of a representative of the recreation lobby; but we do ask that in the traditional debate between commercial use and conservation—that important third party—access to the countryside for pleasurable recreation should not be downgraded. I am not talking about theme parks or football
2154
stadiums; I am talking about walking, canoeing, cycling, caving and climbing and many other excellent outdoor pursuits which we all want to encourage in our schools and, in particular, among our young people.
The Countryside Commission in Wales, which has now been abolished, had plenty to do besides monitoring the recreational use of the countryside. The commission did its best given its numerous duties and created a recreation and access branch at its headquarters. It liaised with increasing effectiveness with the Sports Council for Wales on a series of joint projects. However, because of its amalgamation with the Nature Conservancy Council, there is now a clear worry that recreation and access will become even more peripheral to the main concerns of the new council.
There are many outdoor sports—for example, canoeing or water skiing—which many conservationists find intrusive in terms of enjoyment of the countryside. However, the participants in these sports need to feel that they are being treated fairly and that the interests of informal and passive enjoyment of the countryside such as simple walking, which are perfectly valid interests in themselves, do not dominate the situation unfairly. If there are conflicts in this area—and there are bound to be—a conciliatory approach around the same council table is preferable, in so far as it is practicable, to a noisy public debate between different bodies representing different interests. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look again at the wording of the power to make appointments to see whether he can find a form of words which would provide greater reassurance to the sports bodies in Wales.
I turn now to deal with Amendment No. 349A. This amendment returns to the same theme which I have already raised. Again, I have received advice on the matter from the Sports Council for Wales. It refers to consultation rights. As I said before when I moved the earlier amendment, there is a need to ensure that in our zeal for the protection of conservation rights we do not lose sight of the fact that for many people the key issue is access to the countryside for recreational purposes. That is especially true for young people.
I am sure that we all acknowledge the importance of conservation but, equally, we must all acknowledge the fact that conservation is not about preserving our countryside in aspic; we need to acknowledge that sporting and recreational use is inevitable and that it should be encouraged and not unduly hindered. The legislation recognises that fact as there is specific reference in the Countryside Act 1968 to the need to secure public access to the countryside for the purpose of open air recreation. That will be a duty of the new Countryside Council for Wales, as indeed it was of the old Countryside Commission. There is also a duty to consult with local planning authorities and such bodies as appear to the commission to have an interest in the area in which it is involved.
The view of the sporting bodies in Wales is that the Sports Council for Wales should be specifically named as a consultee. It is the only body which has a direct link with the multifarious sporting endeavours

2155
which take place today in the outdoors—that includes everything from mountaineering and caving to ballooning and hang-gliding. Nearly all those organisations have their own representative bodies. However, the appropriate consultee in this connection should be the Sports Council for Wales which contributes to their development and keeps a friendly eye on them. It should also be said that the council often takes the lead in encouraging policies of restraint, codes of conduct and voluntary restrictions.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will note that when the Water Bill went through Parliament a similar amendment was accepted by the, Government—namely, what has now become Section 10(4) of the Water Act 1989—in which the sports councils were specifically mentioned. In my view this is also an appropriate occasion for naming the Sports Council for Wales as a consultee. It may seem a small point to him, but it is a considerable point of principle for Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness White: In some ways I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I have the greatest sympathy with what he said about the Sports Council for Wales and about the natural desire of many people to exercise their preferences. However, I am somewhat concerned about the proposal to name the sports council specifically because there are a number of other bodies which are also very much concerned in various ways about access to the countryside. Some of those organisations come rapidly to my mind; for example, the Ramblers Association, the Youth Hostels Association, the Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society and various aspects of the Council for National Parks of which I am vice-president and so on. They are all very much concerned about access.
There are certainly differences of interest between certain sports and bird watching, which needs peace and quiet and no disturbances, and there are also certain difficulties between anglers and canoeists. However, I feel that it may not serve the best interests of those wishing to secure access to the countryside in the Principality if we name one body to the exclusion of others. Clearly it is highly desirable that there should be reasonably wide consultation in making such appointments. If we were to name one body specifically, it would probably create more problems than it would solve.
Lord Hunt: I rise to express my support for the two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Apart from what has already been said, I think that the point should be made about the enormous numbers of what I would call "outsiders" who are now visiting the Principality for the very purposes which the noble Baroness, Lady White, just mentioned. In addition to the concern about potential conflicts of interest which may arise between what one might call the recreation bodies and those concerned with countryside and landscape issues, there is the need to watch over the spread of the use of the facilities—that is, the mountains, the moorlands and
2156
the inland and coastal waters—so as to minimise such conflicts.
Although it is not covered in the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—I believe that it comes up in a later amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—there is the question of the consideration that must be given by the Countryside Council for Wales to the fact that the vast majority of those who come in for recreational and enjoyment purposes—tourists, walkers, climbers and so on—are outsiders. The interests and sensitivities of the people of Wales must be taken carefully into account in view of what one might call a growing invasion which is at the moment tolerated and brings great advantages to the Principality. Those are all reasons for supporting the proposal in the first of the two amendments to which the noble Lord spoke.
Baroness White: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not against the first amendment. It is the second amendment with which I have difficulty.
Lord Shackleton: I should like to support the amendment. I find it slightly embarrassing to put myself alongside the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a mountaineer. The fact that I climbed Snowdon in my seventies, is not equivalent to climbing Everest in one's forties or fifties. I have seen something of the work of the Sports Council in Wales. I admire its professional skill, commitment and its ability to show people how to do things and to stop silly fools like me getting stuck on Tryfan because I do not have the right skills. There are many mountaineering associations who can give advice, but the Sports Council has a particular role to play in Wales, as it has in other parts of the United Kingdom. I took some young people to Wales. One or two of the boys had never seen a mountain and the help given to me by the Sports Council was very professional. That professionalism should be represented in the consideration of such matters.
Lord Renton: I am a little puzzled. I would have thought that, if the amendment is sound in principle, it should not be confined to Wales, but it should apply equally to the Nature Conservancy Councils for England and for Scotland respectively. However, I doubt whether it is necessary because the Secretary of State, when making those appointments, will choose people who are capable and useful at advising on the responsibilities stated in the Bill. It would therefore rather surprise me if my noble friend on the Front Bench were to advise that the amendment should be accepted.
Earl Peel: I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about these being sensitive issues. He put his finger on the main point. However, bearing in mind the activities that will be represented by the Sports Council, it seems logical to counteract that aspect—if I may put it that way—that we should also have representatives from the owners' side. They must put up with a great deal of increased pressure—much of it perfectly justifiable—but there is the other side. If you insist that the Sports council

2157
is represented, there should also be an insistence that the landowning side be represented.
Lord Moran: Although I sympathise with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in moving this amendment, I share the doubts expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, about the second of the two amendments.
As I understood the Minister earlier, appointments will be made to the country councils on the basis of the personal qualities of the appointees and not in any sense on the basis of their representative capacity. That principle might be breached if there were to be representatives of the Sports Council. The Countryside Council for Wales will have to have close relations with the Sports Council for Wales in order to deal with all those problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, they are frequently delicate matters, but I am inclined to think that we should leave them to the good sense of the Secretary of State in making his appointments, and to the good sense of the Countryside Council for Wales, when it is in operation, to deal with those admittedly important problems.
6.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): Perhaps I may give the Government's view of these two amendments. I shall take first Amendment No. 344AZA. As several noble Lords have said, members of the new councils will be appointed for their personal qualities and not to represent any particular interest or body. That is the basis on which appointments to the NCC have always been made. However, in appointing members, the respective Secretaries of State will undoubtedly have due regard for the functions of the council concerned, including, in respect of the new Welsh council, the countryside functions.
Tuning to Amendment No. 349A, Section 2(2) of the Countryside Act 1968, as already amended by this Bill, requires the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales to keep under review all matters relating to the provision and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside, the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and the need to secure public access to the countryside for the purpose of open-air recreation. The subsection goes on to require the commission and the council to consult such planning authorities and other bodies as appear to them to have an interest in those matters.
The noble Lord's amendment would insert
"and in Wales, the Sports Council for Wales"
after "planning authorities". On a purely technical point, the amendment destroys the structure of that part of the subsection and creates uncertainty. Is it intended that the Sports Council for Wales shall be consulted in all matters concerning Wales, whether or not they are likely to have an interest in the subject at issue, or is it intended that consultation will be subject to the qualifying words at the end of the subsection
"as appears to the Council to have an interest in those matters"?
2158
It is also interesting that there is no proposal that in England the Sports Council should be consulted. Why is there a need for mandatory consultation in Wales but not in England, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton?
As to the substance of the amendments, we do not consider that the noble Lord has made a case for singling out the Sports Council for Wales for special mention in this subsection. There are many other organisations which could be included, but it is surely better to use the present umbrella provision, which clearly includes the Sports Council for Wales when it would be appropriate to consult it.
If the intention is only that the Sports Council for Wales should be consulted when appropriate, then that is already provided for in the existing provision and the amendment would achieve nothing. For that reason and bearing in mind the doubt about interpretation and the exclusion of an equivalent provision for England, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. The case had to be made. It has generated a great deal of interest. Those outside this place will be grateful for all the comments; but I know when I am beaten. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 344ZB:
Page 123, line 31, at end insert:
("(3A) The Councils shall establish a committee to he called the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (in this Part referred to as "the joint committee" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 344ZC and 344ZD:
Page 123, line 32, leave out ("Schedule 6") and insert ("Schedules 6 and (The Joint Nature Conservation Committee).
Page 123, line 33, after ("Councils") insert ("and of the joint committee').
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 344ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Nature Conservancy Councils for England and Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales: Constitution]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 344ZE:
Page 169, line 8, after ("member") insert ("or former member").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 344ZF and 344ZG. These are simple, straightforward drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 344ZF and 344 ZG:
Page 169, line 30, after ("employees") insert ("or former employees").
Page 171, line 20, leave out from ("papers") to ("give") in line 21 and insert ("and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 344ZH:
Page 171, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, the report of the Countryside Council for Wales for any year shall include a statement of the action taken by the Council to promote the enjoyment of the countryside by members of the public who are disabled.").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I wish to move Amendment No. 344ZH. The Countryside Commission is at present required to include in its annual report to Parliament a statement of the action taken by the commission to promote the enjoyment of the countryside by members of the public who are disabled. This was inadvertently omitted when the annual report provisions were drawn up for the new countryside council for Wales. This amendment ensures that the commission and the council will have similar responsibilities in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 344ZJ:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:
("The Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Preliminary
1. In this Schedule—
"chairman" means (except in paragraph 2(1) below) the chairman of the committee);
"the committee" means the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; and
"council" means a council established by section 118(1) of this Act.
Membership
2.—(1) The committee shall consist of eleven voting members, namely—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State;

(b) three members appointed by the Secretary of State;

(c) the chairman of each council and one other member of each council appointed by that council; and

(d) the chairman of the Countryside Commission;

and two non-voting members appointed by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.
(2) The committee may appoint any voting member to be deputy chairman.
3. The chairman and the three members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be persons who are not members of any of the councils and shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointments.
4.—(1) The three members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have experience in or scientific knowledge of nature conservation; and the Secretary of State shall, in determining who to appoint, have regard to any recommendations made to him by the Chairman.
(2) Before appointing such a member the Secretary of State shall consult the chairman and such persons having scientific knowledge of nature conservation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Remuneration and allowances for members
5.—(1) The councils shall—

(a) pay to the chairman such remuneration and allowances; and

(b) pay such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the chairman or make such payments towards the provision of such pension, allowance or gratuity;

2160
as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
(2) If a person ceases to be chairman and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, the Secretary of State may require the councils to pay to that person a sum of such amount as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
6. The councils shall pay to the three members appointed by the Secretary of State, and to the non-voting members, such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
Staff etc. and expenses
7.—(1) The councils shall provide the committee with such staff, accommodation and other facilities, and such financial resources, as the councils, after consultation with the committee, consider appropriate for the proper discharge of the functions conferred by section 123(1) and (2) of this Act.
(2) The expenses of the committee shall be defrayed by the councils in such proportions as the councils may agree.
(3) In default of agreement between the councils as to any question arising under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above the Secretary of State shall determine that question.
Proceedings
8.—(1) The committee may regulate their own procedure (including making provision in relation to the quorum of voting members).
(2) The proceedings of the committee shall not be invalidated by any vacancy amongst their members or defect in the appointment of any member.
Delegation of functions
9.—(1) Anything authorised or required to be done by the committee may be done by any member of the committee, by any council or by any employee of a council who is authorised (generally or specially) for the purpose by the committee.
(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall prevent the committee from doing anything that another person has been authorised to do.").
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I call, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, Amendment No. 344ZJA.
[Amendment No. 344ZJA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I call as a second amendment to the new Schedule, Amendment No. 344ZKA. The amendments have been wrongly marshalled.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, Amendment No. 344ZKA:
Line 52, leave out paragraph 7 and insert:
("7.—(1) The Joint Committee may appoint—

(a) a Director;

(b) persons to such other posts as the Secretary of State may agree;

(c) such other persons on secondment who are employed by a Council as that Council may agree.

(2) The Joint Committee shall notify the Councils and the Secretary of State in respect of each financial year as to the amount which it considers necessary to enable it to fulfil its functions, and the Councils shall make available that amount in such proportions between them as they may agree or in the absence of such agreement as the Secretary of State may determine.
(3) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each financial year, having regard to any representations made by the Committee or the Councils, satisfy himself that the resources
available to the Councils and the Committee are adequate to enable them to fulfil their functions under this Part.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been debated. It is a matter of major importance that we should get the membership, the staffing, financing and security of financing of the joint committee right. I beg to move Amendment no. 344ZKA.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment proposed, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ—there is a marshalling mistake—line 52, leave out paragraph 7 and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. This amendment has been debated.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has moved this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The matter has been debated by the Committee. I did not propose to prolong the debate. However, I reserve my right to seek the opinion of the Committee on my amendment.
Bareness Nicol: The amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, to which the Government agreed, has not been called. Should it not be called at this stage?
Lord Campbell of Croy: We have already heard from the Chair that the amendments are marshalled in the wrong order. Can the matter be clarified?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We shall not take Amendment No. 344ZK yet. I shall put the Question on Amendment No. 344ZKA. The Question is that Amendment No. 344ZKA shall be agreed to?
6.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 344ZKA), as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Hunt, L.

Blakenham, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blease, L.

Jay, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Chorley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Melchett, L.

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Shackleton, L.

2162

Stedman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boardman, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Newall, L.

Burton, L.

Norrie, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Onslow, E.

Caccia, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Peel, E.

Carver, L.

Pender, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Coleraine, L.

Radnor, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigton, L.

Rees, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cross, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cumberlege, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Flather, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Tranmire, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hives, L.

Walpole, L.

Holderness, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 344ZKA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, disagreed to accordingly.
7 P.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, Amendment No. 344ZK:
At end insert:
("10.—(1) The committee shall:—

(a) as soon as possible after 31st March following the date appointed under section 121(3) of this Act make to the Secretary of State a report on their activities down to that date; and

(b) make a similar report to him as to each period of twelve months thereafter as soon as possible after its end:

and a copy of each such report shall be laid before each House of Parliament by the Secretary of State.
(2) The committee shall, at the same time as they make a report under sub-paragraph (1) above, send a copy of it to each of the councils.").
The noble and gallant Lord said: I am most grateful to the Government for having accepted this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment No. 344ZK, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful that the chairman of the Countryside Commission was made a member of this body. However, does this literally mean that it must be the chairman alone who fulfils that function and that he cannot send a delegate if he is taken ill or suffers a long illness? I do not expect my noble friend to reply to that straight away; perhaps he can write to me before Report.
Lord Hesketh: I believe I am correct in saying that it is only the chairman of the Countryside Commission who can fulfil that function as the legislation is currently drafted.
Amendment No. 344ZJ, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I propose that we return to this business at 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Access to Health Records Bill
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Without wishing to take up more than a few minutes of your Lordships' time, I want to reiterate my thanks to all noble Lords who have made such constructive contributions to the debate on this Bill. I particularly wish to express my gratitude to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who have given the Bill both great encouragement and a fair wind.
I wish to raise two points which have not been mentioned to date. Naturally, I do not expect the Minister to respond to those points, but I hope that they may be borne in mind when regulations or departmental guidance are drawn up. My first point concerns appeals. The Bill provides a two-stage process for appeals on the part of someone who believes that the requirements of the legislation are not being met. Initially a complaint would have to go through an internal complaints procedure to be laid down in regulations. Only when that procedure is exhausted will such a person be entitled to appeal to the court. My concern is that the internal procedure should not involve excessive delay and that there should be a time limit by which a decision on the complaint must be reached. I raise this matter because the health service already has various complaints systems. Sometimes, however, it takes more than a year to deal with complaints. I understand that steps are being taken to speed matters up.
The regulations under the Bill may well use or adapt existing procedures. Under the Bill complaints issues will be relatively simple compared with, say, those dealt with by the clinical complaints procedure used by health authorities where grave allegations, perhaps about the cause of a patient's death, may be
2164
investigated. In the present context we are dealing with people who merely want to see their own records and who will still be waiting to see them while an internal appeal takes place. I hope it will prove possible to specify a time limit by which an appeal must be dealt with, and perhaps to say that if no decision is reached by that time the applicant will be deemed to have complied with the requirements of Clause 8(2) and will be free to take the complaint to the court.
My second point concerns the requirement in Clause 7 that a health authority or other health service body must consult "the appropriate health professional" before reaching any decision about withholding information. The Bill's definition of "the appropriate health professional" suggests that if the patient is under the clinical care of a doctor the health professional to be consulted is that doctor, even if the records that are sought are those of another health professional such as a health visitor, midwife or member of the nursing staff. However, those records may not be under the control of the doctor. The doctor may not normally see or contribute to them and may not know whether the information within them has already been discussed with the patient. It would make sense in those circumstances for the decision on access to depend on the advice of the health professional to whom the records belong. I raise this matter as a point which I hope may be addressed when the time comes to draw up guidance on the procedures to be followed in implementing the Bill.
Although I know there is a strong competitor for your Lordships' time at the present moment, I believe this to be a useful Bill. It is an important step forward in the long march towards establishing greater freedom of information. I believe that its provisions will create better understanding and greater trust between doctors and their patients.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Ewart-Biggs.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in giving the Bill their support the Government have always been aware of the reservations expressed by and on behalf of the medical profession on access to records. It is right that those concerns should be subject to public debate, as they have been in this House. I believe that on the whole points raised by your Lordships on Second Reading which required clarification from the Department of Health have been met either during that debate or in subsequent correspondence. However, the noble Baroness has now mentioned a couple more points which I shall be happy to respond to. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for holding the fort, as it were, on Second Reading.
We have said that as regards opening up nursing records, we shall undertake consultation with the appropriate health professional. In that case the professional would be the health visitor and not a doctor. The health visitor may however seek the advice of a doctor before allowing access if the nursing record contains information which has been

2165
extracted from medical records, or otherwise received from a doctor.
On the question of using hospital complaints procedures as an appeal mechanism against a refusal to allow access to health records, we intend to use the hospital complaints procedures to review appeals. There is no apparent reason why inordinate delays should develop. However, our guidance to the National Health Service will propose specific time limits for action. We anticipate that both those issues will be covered by guidance and that the people concerned will be consulted before the guidance is finalised. I hope that that assurance is helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs.
It may also be useful if I comment on a matter which exercised your Lordships during the debate at Second Reading relating to the question of when an application for access is deemed to have been made. I understand that that question was resolved. The Bill provides for a patient's right of access to be excluded in certain circumstances. In order that that provision can be exercised properly a thorough knowledge and understanding of the applicant's medical history is required. The exclusion should therefore be determined by the holder of the record only after careful consideration. That would indicate that in all fairness the holder of the record must be given the prescribed time to respond, starting from the time when the application is brought to his or her personal attention.
On a more general point, and in response to doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the provisions of the Bill could well induce him to second thoughts when as a practising doctor he prepares his notes since what he records could be seen by his patient, I remind your Lordships that the provisions of the Bill, once enacted, will take effect from November 1991. That long lead time should give health professionals plenty of opportunity to adapt to the new regime. It should also allow for it to begin with the support of everyone concerned. We hope that that will be very much the case. It will also allow training to be organised and procedures implemented.
The principal aim of the Bill is one which, as has been said, the Government are happy to support. It is clearly one which also has wide public support. I am happy to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on bringing the Bill successfully through this House and I wish it well.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Consumer Guarantees Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.13 to 8.5 p.m.]

Environmental Protection Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 119 [Grants by Secretary of State to new Councils]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 344ZL:
Page 123, line 36, after ("Councils") insert (and the Joint Committee (as defined in section 123(2)(a) below)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment appears on the Marshalled List under my name coupled with that of the noble Baroness, Lady David. It would add the words "and the Joint Committee"—in other words, it would enable the Secretary of State to fund not only the country councils but the joint committee as well.
I anticipate that this amendment may be anathema to the government spokesman when he comes to reply. I want to delay the committee a little on this matter because there is great concern about the funding of this joint committee and there have as yet been no real answers from the Government. Earlier today we were told—I welcome it—that the joint committee will be properly staffed. We have heard mentioned a figure of up to 50 full-time staff. We have also been told that contracts with outside bodies contracted to the NCC will be honoured. We have heard rumours of a fairly substantial sum of money having been promised to the incoming chairman of the new council in Scotland and we wonder where the rest of the money will come from.
Will the Government give some indication during this debate—I trust they will—as to what they consider will be the likely cost and how much money the Treasury will allow the Secretaries of State to spend on what I think will be an expensive exercise?
I say to the noble Baroness on the other side of the Committee that I am in no way against devolution. I am a devolutionist. I am to tally in favour of devolution and want to see far more power given back to the local authorities in this country. I think that a great deal more decision-making at local level would be a very good thing. I am not at all against that. But I want to see a proper federal structure.
As I understand it, a federal structure means that the joint committee as we now have it should be properly funded and should have responsibility for dealing with matters which have a United Kingdom context. I find it hard that Scots in particular seem to think that this is an attack upon them. It is not—not in any way, shape or form. However we have signed international conventions—the Bonn convention, the Berne convention and CITES. We are signatories to all those conventions. The Secretaries of State who go to Brussels and other cities speak for the United Kingdom.
We want to know exactly whether the joint committee will be the body to which the Secretary of State will turn for advice on matters of this kind. Will it be properly financed or must we simply hope that the country councils will cough up the money which they think is adequate to maintain the kind of body that we hope will support the joint

2167
committee? It is not just the NGOs, such as the RSPB and so on, which are very concerned that the joint committee will not be adequately financed and that they in turn will suffer.
A week ago some Members of this Chamber attended the opening of Bats Week. Assistance had been given through NCC funds by Dr. Stebbings, now an independent consultant. However, bats do not stop at the Border. They are in Scotland and Wales. Many of us are very concerned about the depletion of bats in the country. What will happen in the future if we wish to launch a bats week? Who will fund it? Will it depend on the joint committee council? If Scotland decides to opt out, what will happen? Some method of direct funding of the joint committee ought to be written into the Bill.
The NCC has recently issued photo graphs and descriptions to our North Sea fishermen, such as are left, of seven different varieties of turtles. It hopes that when they are picked up in the nets the fishermen will put them straight back into the sea. We wish the turtles to survive. They do not breed here but they are in our waters. In future, will such a project be funded by the joint committee, or will it have to be separately funded by the three individual councils? If Scotland or Wales does not wish to contribute, will the whole project fall to the ground?
Those will be the day-to-day issues that arise. I wish to hear from the Government in their response some indication that they are prepared to match their words with the necessary finance. We must have an answer.
We know that there has been an internal operation partly funded by the Department of the Environment and partly by the NCC to indicate the likely cost of the changes. We hear that the staff complement may increase by as much as 50 per cent. At least £20 million or £30 million is involved. Some people have said that it will be rather more. What will happen if the joint committee proposes a budget that the three councils find excessive? The joint committee may say that it cannot carry out its work adequately from the funding by the joint councils. Can it turn to the Secretary of State for additional funding? Presumably at the moment it cannot.
Those are the issues that I raise in the amendment. It is important that we have a proper response today. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked this question in the Chamber two or three days ago. We did not receive a proper answer. We did not have a proper answer when the Minister replied to the earlier debates. We expect one now. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: Having read the amendment and having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I tend to agree with him. He asked who will fund a bats week supposing that one of the councils does not wish to do so. It seems an untidy and unnecessary way of handing on money. The joint committee will have to have a separate, different sum. I cannot understand why it is not funded directly. I do not see the logic of the Government's thinking. I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or consider it before the next stage.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness David: I wish to raise two points on the amendment. First, independent funding for the joint committees is extremely important. Secondly, I wish to complain about the lack of information that we have had. The Government received my Written Question about a fortnight ago. I received a very unsatisfactory answer: that the Government could not tell me anything. I asked an oral Question on Monday. I received no information then. I asked whether information would be available today. I was told that it would not.
I admit that we have had information about the number of staff, but we have not had information about funding. That is the subject of these amendments. It is extremely important that we should know the answer. It is an insult to the Committee, having reached this stage of the Bill, that we have had no information about the amount of money that will be available to fund the various committees. The Government admit that this system will be much more expensive. We have been told repeatedly that there will be adequate funding. But we have been told no amount, or whether the Treasury is willing to fund this folly that the Government propose.
We very much wish to know to night what is happening. I hope that the Minister will have some information. He is referring to his file. I hope that we shall receive some good information. We have had information about staffing but nothing on finance. I hope that we shall hear some rather more positive information.
We have been told that there has been an investigation by consultants, and by the relevant organisation in the NCC, about the numbers of staff and the funding necessary for the three country councils and the joint committee. We therefore know that the Government have had information on this issue. The consultants were P. E. International plc of Egham, Surrey. Much work has been done on this matter. If the Minister cares to listen to what I say, I hope that we shall have information on what the consultancy firm and the NCC have produced, and whether the Government accept what they say.
The figures that we have been given are much greater than the amount which has been spent on the NCC in the past year or two. We want information. I hope that we shall receive it.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: Perhaps I may briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the noble Baroness. I hope that I may be able to assist the Minister. The history of the matter occurred, happily, before the issue fell into his lap.
I am very worried about the position of the independent committee. My main concern is the UK's standing in international conservation and environmental matters. There is no doubt that the committee is a very unfortunate poor relation. It should stand out as the representative body in international circles. But how can it do so when it is subject for its pay, control and even the payment of its chairman to the councils that have been established? We know perfectly well, whether in

2169
industry, politics or charities, that the people who control the budget and the purse strings are in a dominant position. The person who is subject to those dominating partners is in a weak position. Yet the committee is supposed to be the national representative on international matters concerning the environment and conservation.
I therefore implore my noble friend to consider this matter extremely carefully. It will not embarrass him if I recount the history. When the announcement was made about the break up of the NCC there was no mention of a committee, science, or a UK overview. Then, fortunately, we had the report of the Carver Committee and ultimately the new committee was set up. Frankly, that was window dressing designed to meet the requirements in the Carver Report and to deal with the furore which arose on the announcement of the break-up. The problem has not yet been solved. It remains to be attended to and looked at extremely carefully. As things stand, the committee, which is supposed to represent the United Kingdom, will be a poor relation of the country councils.
Baroness Nicol: I wish to address most of my remarks to Amendment No. 344ZMA. It is an attempt to put into effect the recommendation of the Carver Committee set out at paragraph 4.3. The paragraph states:
"Each country council must have a strong scientific base appropriate to its own needs. This will be considerably more expensive than the present arrangements and the Government, having taken the decision to devolve, must provide the necessary resources".
The Government replied that it does not necessarily follow that the new arrangements need be considerably more expensive than the present arrangements.
Since then we have received estimates from a number of organisations. We also have news of a report which is said to be in the Government's hands showing that at least 600 additional members of staff will be needed by the NCC alone in order to cope with the present level of work. Can the Government tell the Committee whether all the reports are wrong? If they are wrong, can the Government say on what they base their argument if they do not have any information?
Amendment No. 344ZMA does not require that the joint committee should have separate funding. It allows far the joint committee to be funded by the ring-fencing provided in the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 344ZN. We are not suggesting that it is necessary for the joint committee to be separately funded. However, in the amendment we propose that the general level of resources should be adequate and the Government have said that that is their intention. In particular, we propose that the funds available to the joint committee should be supplied directly or ring-fenced in such a way that its funds are adequate for its task.
Lord Carver: At paragraph 4.6 of our report we accepted that the joint committee should not be an independent quango and should derive its funds through the country councils. In the following recommendation we state:
2170
"The Government's proposals for guaranteeing the Joint Committee's funds by 'ring-fencing' must be implemented".
The Government accepted that. I believe that the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 344ZN, provides the guarantee of ring-fencing which we sought.
Baroness Nicol: Although the guarantee of ring-fencing is introduced in the Minister's amendment, the level of resourcing is not fixed. It is that about which I am anxious.
Lord Shackleton: I was not a member of the committee which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, chaired so brilliantly and which has achieved great success. However, from the outset I was sceptical about the willingness and ability of the Government to provide the necessary funds and I remain so.
My noble friends have given certain expected figures. It is no use seeking to carry through the plan unless the money is adequate. The Government have given several assurances that the money will be available. However, I should like the Minister to comment on the figures which are available and which are authoritative. He will know what has been studied and produced by consultants and the funds that will be required.
The ring-fencing sounds beautiful, as do many of the proposals, but if the money is not available the scheme will not be successful. It is on that ground that I have remained sceptical about the financing. Perhaps the Scots will receive the money because the Secretary of State for Scotland appears to have a particular pull with the Treasury in certain circumstances. However, I do not know whether the English and the joint committee will receive the money.
Frankly, I do not believe that the scheme will work. For that reason I should have wished to have had the whole of Part VII deleted from the Bill. I hope that the Government will give the anticipated figures for manpower and for the money available to the joint committee. I shall be surprised if they meet the estimates that have been made and about which some of us have the detail. I appeal to the Minister to be frank about the matter because without the funds the scheme will not work.
Lord Moran: I too support the amendments and agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that the Government's scheme, which was announced a long time ago, should now be before the Committee when we have no idea what it will cost because the Government will not tell us. With great restraint the Carver Committee said that it would be considerably more expensive. However, the committee was not in a position to judge how much more expensive it would be. Only the Government can know that.
I have now raised the matter twice without receiving a reply. That is most worrying: the information is fundamental to our debate. If we do not know whether the money will be forthcoming we do not know whether the scheme will work and

2171
whether we should support it. Therefore, I echo the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. The Minister should tell the Committee in round figures what the extra cost will be.
Baroness White: I should like to give the Minister more time to study the papers that have been handed to him one by one. I reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. We are within one week of it being 12 months since the announcement was made by Mr. Ridley, then the Minister responsible. Rather disrespectfully, some of us have called the whole exercise "Ridley's last kick". The Government have had almost 12 months in which to make some kind of estimate. What are we to make of the Government if they cannot give a reasonable estimate of the main areas of expenditure?
I am astonished. Ministers are under an obligation to appear before the Committee. Well, one talks of "going naked into the conference chamber". That was a quotation from Mr. Bevan but said before the Minister's time. I have every sympathy with Ministers if they do not have the material to respond to the requests that are made. In those circumstances we can say only that we are sorry for them. However, we must also say that it is beneath the dignity of this Committee to be expected to pass legislation if it cannot be given rational assurances about the magnitude of expenditure. As my noble friend Lady David said, the NCC has provided computations, but I did not find them convincing. They seemed to me to be somewhat overestimated. On the other hand, there will be considerably greater expense. Nobody can doubt that. The Government must have made some kind of estimate. A government of a different complexion would probably say about us what we are thinking about them. What would the Government think of a company in the private sector to which they are so dedicated trying to float a share issue or something along those lines with the lack of information which they expect us to swallow?
8.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I suppose that it is the DoE which employed the consultants, PE International of Egham. Presumably some attention is paid to consultants, otherwise it is rather a waste of money to employ them. Can we hear more about that?
Viscount Blakenham: I support the views of the previous eight Members of the Committee who have spoken. It is impossible to judge the likely success of the new arrangements without being given a fairly clear idea of what the funding will be. We know that it will be much more expensive to deliver the same amount of conservation. We are told on the one hand that funding will be available and adequate and yet on the other hand we are told that it will not amount to much more than it was before. That leaves us in no position to judge whether or not the scheme will be workable.
Earl Peel: In addition to the question of the overall financial sums available, there is another point—which may have been answered and, if it
2172
has, I apologise—which is the question of how the funding will be administered. Will it be paid directly to the joint committee or will it be paid to the country councils or will it be a combination of both? The arrangements under which it will be paid are as important as the overall amount which will be made available. I should be grateful if my noble friend could answer that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hesitate to intervene in this debate because the argument has been so well put by my noble friend and all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I fear that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is being too generous in his interpretation of the government amendment. It is true that Amendment No. 344ZN states:
"including in particular conditions as to the use of the money for purposes of the joint committee".
However, that must be read in the context of Clause 119(2), which states:
"A grant under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may … think fit".
It does not say that it "shall be made subject to such conditions". It does not say that the conditions "shall be adequate". It does not say that conditions will be imposed by the Secretary of State. This is a permissive power to the Secretary of State to add to the conditions which he imposes on any grant to the country councils. In truth, it adds nothing to what the Bill already says because those conditions are unrestricted in Clause 119 as it stands at present.
I am afraid that no amount of tinkering with that sort of formulation and wording will do the trick. If it is to work effectively, the joint committee needs independent funding.
Lord Hesketh: I assure the noble Baroness, Lady White, that, although I have a poor academic and educational record, I am well aware of the achievements and, more importantly, the words of Aneurin Bevan. I should not like her to think that I was unaware of nakedness or the conference chamber.
Government Amendment No. 344ZN needs to be read with paragraph (7) of the new schedule dealing with the joint Nature Conservation Committee. It helps to deliver the commitment which we gave in response to Recommendation 4.7 of the Carver Report about ring-fencing the resources of the joint committee. In practice the conditions attached to the grants in aid of the country councils will be contained in the financial memoranda which are now being drawn up by the Government. Those will ensure both that the Secretary of State has the final say in how much the joint committee budget should be in any financial year and that, if the councils later wished to amend it significantly, ministerial consent would be needed.
Baroness David: Perhaps the Minister could speak rather more slowly. It is very difficult to follow what he is saying.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise. I hope that the effect of the government amendment will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the noble Baronesses,

2173
Lady David and Lady Nicol, that their amendment is unnecessary. It is identically worded to Amendment No. 344 ZMA. These would in any event go much further than we intend, and would more or less make the joint committee into an independent quango in its own right by giving it a direct grant-in-aid from the Secretary of State on exactly the same basis as the country councils. Also I have already explained in dealing with amendments to the new schedule that I think it is unnecessary to amend the Bill on the assumption that the country councils will be less willing to spend resources on their joint activities than on their country-based ones.
I understand the fears which exist about the funding of the joint committee. However, we should always remember that the committee is a mechanism whereby the crucial national and international conservation responsibilities of the new councils will be carried out. The councils cannot sidestep their joint responsibilities to provide necessary resources and neither—this is important—can Ministers, as the ultimate source of funds. The amendment which we have proposed to Clause 119 will ensure that Ministers can direct funds to the joint committee if it ever becomes necessary.
I have already announced today that we are prepared to agree and finance a support unit of 50 staff for the joint committee. Our record on increasing the NCC's budget by over £35 million in the past decade is not open to dispute. That is a 160 per cent. increase in real terms. Adequate resources will be found for the joint committee and we shall announce the figures in the autumn at the end of our usual discussions with the Treasury which I drew to the noble Baroness's attention some two days ago. To answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Peel, the joint committee's funds will come solely from the country councils.
When we return to the disparity of figures which has been alluded to this evening, it is worth pointing out that the figure given by the Worldwide Fund for Nature in April referred to a complement for Scotland of 557 staff compared with a complement of only 250 today. The Government are entitled to treat that figure with a certain amount of caution.
With regard to consultancies, to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred, the reports of the consultants will not be available until later in the summer. Therefore, I am unable to provide the figure which she thought I had to hand. Much paper has travelled up and down this Chamber this evening but that figure was not on those pieces of paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to national initiatives and events such as Bat Week and Wild Flower Week. It is true to say that money can be targeted to particular areas, some of which may be nationwide. However, the powers contained in Clause 104 give the country councils the maximum flexibility to continue grants on a more localised basis.
With regard to the financial situation, the Government's record and their commitment since 1979 have been second to none. In response to Recommendation 4.3 of the second report, we answered that we would provide the necessary
2174
money. The Government accept that this scheme will cost more money. However, we do not accept that it will cost as much money as has been suggested. We believe that the amendment provides the necessary protection. I was grateful to hear the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Carver, as to the assumption that there will be ring-fencing.
Lord Shackleton: We are grateful for the attempts of the noble Lord. He dismisses—which he is entitled to do—some of the outside estimates. However, what about the PE estimate? He must have that. Does he know what that is? That is a very respectable and well known firm of consultants. I do not believe that the Government will provide the money. I wish that I did. That is really the test of whether the scheme will work. I do not believe that the money will be there.
The Minister speaks of the good record of the Government. Their record may be good in comparison with other governments, but the Nature Conservancy Council is underfunded. It will go into the new scheme with three new councils again with a shortage of manpower. The money is needed immediately, as soon as they start operating.
We should like to know what the Government estimate, regardless of what happens when they examine the public expenditure survey. We have no indication of what the Government have in mind. It is still my view—I do not know whether it is the view of my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver—that we are sceptical of the Government's estimate. Can the Minister give any figure either for the joint committee or for the three regional committees? The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will not be able to do his job if so much of the money is ring-fenced for the joint committee. I should like to hear a little more, because this will be the real test of whether we believe in this scheme.
Baroness Nicol: Before the Minister replies, does he recall that I asked on Monday whether the Government expected the new country councils to be ready to operate on 1st April 1991? I pointed out that it was estimated that considerably more staff would be needed in advance of that date. Can the Minister say whether staff are being recruited, and whether the Government are making extra money available to take on these new members of staff?
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, concerning the private sector. There is one survey, which is the PE consultancy survey. If the Government were operating this scheme in the private sector, there would be no question of their committing themselves to figures until all consultancy figures had been assessed.
As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, Lady David, two days ago the Treasury would not be impressed if my department approached them with a half-finished figure. That is the key. We are already spending £1·4 million more this year to make allowance for the extra costs involved. I am sure that we would not receive a very happy reception from the Treasury unless we arrived properly prepared with all the information to hand.
Lord Shackleton: The Minister has not answered my question. Could he give the figures of the PE study? I presume they are in the hands of his department.
Lord Hesketh: The department not only has figures for the PE study—which I do not have with me—but they also have figures which I referred to earlier regarding the Worldwide Fund for Nature. As I say, the department cannot make its assessment unless it has all the figures and not just some of them.
Baroness David: I thought that PE consultants were employed by the DoE. Is the department not going to pay attention to the people they employ? That seems to be rather a waste of money.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baroness, Lady David, is right, but we have to have all the figures from all the consultants and not just some of them.
Baroness David: How many consultants are being employed?
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps the Minister needs a little time to obtain an answer on this topic. The Minister indicates three, but I do not know what that means. Perhaps his advisers know. The Government must have a figure. I am not interested in, and noble Lords are not standing by, the figures that various voluntary bodies have attempted to estimate. We congratulate them on that. We are looking at the official figures provided under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy Council. Does the Minister now have the figures?
Lord Hesketh: I thought the figure was three; but I was wrong, and I stand corrected. There are four consultants. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is referring to one. I am saying that the responsibility and onus on the department is to wait until we have the other three.
Lord Shackleton: Which are the other three?
Lord Hesketh: On this occasion I shall have to write to the noble Lord and inform him of the other three consultants.
Lord Shackleton: The purpose of a Committee stage is to examine the detail of these matters. I sympathise with the Minister. He has stood up extremely well to this badgering and I congratulate him on his courtesy and self control. But we should like to know what figures the Government have. If they could give the separate totals, it would be useful. We do not believe the Government will finance this change adequately.
Lord Hesketh: I do not believe that I can usefully add a great deal to what I have already said. The Government's record is 110 per cent. indicative of coming up with the goods. The Government have a responsibility to wait until all the information available to them is correct before they present it to the Treasury.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness White: Would it be helpful if we adjourn this debate until October? We can then discuss these matters more intelligently. We shall not finish the Bill before the end of July in any case because broadcasting takes precedence over the environment. I should have thought adjournment until October would be useful.
Lord Shackleton: We will then have the figures in the White Paper.
Lord Hesketh: The Government's view is very clear. We want to do something now for the benefit of conservation. If we adjourn this matter until October, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, suggests, we shall lose this part of the Bill for the benefit of conservation. We shall have to wait until there is time available to present a restructured Bill. I remind the noble Baroness of my remarks earlier this afternoon when I suggested that looking after the countryside of these fair islands depends on a continuous process of legislation. We would lose more than we would gain if we were to accept her suggestion.
Baroness White: October is the spill-over period. I am not suggesting that we wait until the Queen's Speech. I am willing to come back in September if necessary.
Lord Ross of Newport: The Minister has certainly kept his cool. This is a Chamber where we are not supposed to be rude to each other, but if a Member of the Opposition were putting forward this proposal, the first thing the Government would say would be, "What will it cost?" We are now told that the Government do not know what it will cost and we do not know whether the Treasury will come up with the goods.
It is true that the Government have been generous to the Nature Conservancy Council. However, they were not particularly generous two years ago; they actually cut its budget two years ago. It is only this past year that they have increased the budget, and I congratulate the present Secretary of State on that.
All noble Lords on this side of the Chamber, and many on the other side, are concerned that when the real facts are known and the Secretary of State goes to the Treasury, the Treasury will say no. It has all sorts of other problems to consider. It has to do with something about poll tax and housing. The Scottish Budget may be different. It sometimes appears that public money in Scotland and Wales is far more forthcoming than in England. It is time that the English stood up. I am certain that at the end of the day it will be the English side of nature conservancy and the Countryside Commission that will suffer.
I see that the chairman-elect is sitting opposite. I hope that he is pushing this point. He may have some information, and it may be that I am over-stressing the position; but I doubt it. All who have spoken in this debate are very anxious. We welcome the concessions that have been made. We want the scheme to work, but we are certain that

2177
it cannot work unless we see that the money is forthcoming.
I did not use the World Wildlife Fund figures. I spoke in terms of what we believe, and what has been leaked to a certain extent—quite honestly and without any actual quotes—from what one of the internal surveys has disclosed. We are now told that there are four consultants. Heaven knows what that is costing! That alone indicates to us that at least another £20 million or so will be needed. Would the Minister confirm or deny that figure?
Lord Hesketh: The only point that I can confirm or deny is that the PE survey was carried out for the Nature Conservancy Council and not for the department. Speaking of surveys generally, we have a further three. We have the common services, the IT and the joint committee unit. The first two are not yet complete. The figure of £20 million is a ridiculous sum for the cost of those surveys.
I must respond to the noble Lord by saying that responsible government depends on assessing the information. If the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is happily willing to proceed on the basis that it is responsible for the Government not to pay attention to figures not yet collated or added to, and if he feels that that is the proper way to handle the Government's business, then fine. But I do not agree.
Baroness Nicol: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, withdraws his amendment, if that is his intention, I remind the Minister that it is a year next Wednesday since the announcement was made. When were the investigations put in train? When were the consultants employed? How long has the investigation been going on? It seems to me that, 51 weeks after the announcement by the Secretary of State, we should have more information. It is unthinkable that we are still in such a vague state.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I may add my voice here in regard to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The proposals have been considerably added to and changed. During the course of today's discussions we have encouraged and welcomed them. Therefore, the situation is not the same. I, for one, am satisfied that the Government have taken on board the fact that extra money will be necessary. I do not expect the Government to give exact figures today. If they tried to do that we might end up with less than we need. Therefore, it is not necessary to press the Government for exact figures at this stage.
Lord Ross of Newport: We know from the Bill that the cost to date will be between £1 million and £1·5 million. We have had the Minister's response that he believes it will be less than £20 million. If it is less than £20 million and if, as we suspect, the Treasury says that we can only have £X then undoubtedly the county councils will get the money. They will say that they need all the money in order to carry out their job. What will then happen to the joint committee? It will have to go back to the Secretary of State and say that it cannot operate with so little finance. For starters, it will not be able to pay for its 50 members of staff. The whole
2178
arrangement will start off on an appalling basis. That is why we are determined to have some definite information.
I did not want to divided the Committee to night. I did not think that it would be right. However, I honestly believe that I should now ask the Committee whether or not we have had a satisfactory answer.
8.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 344ZL) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Attlee, E.

McNair, L.

Blakenham, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blease, L.

Moran, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hacking, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Norrie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Burton, L.

Peel, E.

Caithness, E.

Radnor, E.

Caldecote, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Reay, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Carnock, L.

Rochdale, V.

Carver, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Sharples, B.

Chorley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Cox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigton, L.

Somerset, D.

Cranbrook, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Donegall, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Flather, B.

Swinton, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Walpole, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.59 p.m.
[Amendment No. 344ZM had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 344ZMA not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 344ZN:
Page 123, line 38, at end insert ("(including in particular conditions as to the use of the money for purposes of the joint committee)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 120 [Countryside functions of Welsh Council]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 344A:
Page 124, line 11, at end insert:
("(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above the Countryside Council for Wales shall exercise their functions so as to—

(a) conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales and

(b) improve and extend opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment of the countryside and public access thereto for informal recreation in a manner consistent with subsection (3)(a) above.

(4) In discharging their functions the Countryside Council for Wales shall have regard to the desirability of promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development which conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales.
(5) References in this section to the "natural environment" shall be construed as including references to the natural beauty of the countryside, fauna and flora and their habitats and geological and physiographical features.").
The noble Earl said: With Clause 120 we move to perhaps the slightly more peaceful waters of the Principality of Wales. I say that because I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has added his name to this amendment which is basically on much the same subject as we debated earlier this evening; namely, the wider countryside values being placed alongside those of pure nature conservancy. I am very glad that he had added his name to the amendment. It shows that there is no disagreement whatever here between the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.
The two existing bodies are quite different in style of operation and size. The NCC is heavily science-based and devotes a great deal of time to designating, monitoring and managing sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves, and in preparing management agreements. It works mainly on an executive basis through the use of its own staff and resources. But in contrast the commission covers a wider field of work, much of which is achieved through the agency of local authorities, voluntary bodies and the private owners of land, often with the incentive of grant aid.
Thus, while the commission has a permanent establishment in Wales of only 12 compared with the NCC's 93, the commission funds the appointment of nearly 150 countryside staff throughout the Principality. The commission's small team in Newtown is responsible for several hundred schemes where active work is going ahead to help farmers, the rural community and the general public to ensure that the natural beauty of Wales is protected.
This work covers not only nature conservation and the conservation of landscape features, but also the development of opportunities to enjoy the countryside through schemes as varied as national trails and picnic sites. In all its work the commission seeks to ensure that people can enjoy the countryside without interfering with the daily life and work of the rural communities who make their living from the land.
The new Countryside Council for Wales therefore has the opportunity to draw on the best and most successful aspects of the working methods of the commission and the NCC, as well as linking both conservation and recreation to the social and economic development of rural communities and strengthening its activities in urban areas. However, it is not enough just to transfer the existing remits from the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council to the new council.
The benefits of merger will only arise if these two approaches are completely integrated. In particular, it is essential that a proper balance is struck between countryside conservation and nature conservation; between landscape and nature conservation and public enjoyment of the countryside.
If these objectives are to be truly integrated and potential conflict avoided, there needs to be a complete fusing of the aims and objectives of the two existing organisations and the new unified body. To achieve that fusion it seems only common sense to replace the existing separate duties of the Countryside Commission and the NCC with a single, brief statement of purpose. Such a statement would provide the council, the staff and the general public with a point of focus. Its existence would encourage the abandonment of former loyalties for separate organisations and the early emergence of a new and coherent identity for the new Countryside Council for Wales.
Partly in response to these arguments, Ministers, in a Statement to Parliament on 6th March 1990, published draft forms of reference that will be the basis for discussion with the new Countryside Council for Wales. This Statement is welcomed, and in particular the emphasis that it gives to the commission's own responsibilities for conservation and enjoyment of the natural beauty of the countryside. However, a Ministerial Statement is not an adequate substitute for the proper statutory integration of responsibilities.
Moreover, the version published in March is lengthy and somewhat generalised. A short clause in the Bill containing a succinct exposition of the new council's remit and bringing together the main responsibilities of the council into a unified mandate would be much more effective. It would be more enduring than a Ministerial Statement. I need not remind Members of the Committee that, unfortunately, Ministers tend to come and go.
Incidentally, that argument found favour with the House of Lords' Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is on the basis of the draft referred to in the report prepared by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that that amendment has been prepared.
More specifically, the amendment as drafted would make clear that the council should give equal weight to both the conservation of nature and landscape protection within the all-embracing term "natural environment". There is a well-founded fear that otherwise the narrower but more precise duties of nature conservation will take precedence over wider countryside interests. The amendment would make it clear that access to and enjoyment and appreciation of the countryside would be a primary duty of the council and that this should be pursued in a manner consistent with the council's conservation duty. It would encourage the council to adopt a positive approach to those forms of rural development which are good for the Welsh environment. It would thus also provide a test for those forms of development which it should oppose.
I believe that the new Countryside Council for Wales must have a clear and concise statutory remit. I consider that this amendment will greatly strengthen the new council and make it more effective. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I support this amendment for two reasons. First, it seems important that the new Countryside Council for Wales should have very clearly its own independent and somewhat unique terms of reference laid down on the face of the Bill. Secondly, it provides a particular definition, which has functions only within this clause, of the phrase "natural environment".
In general, the Bill has been criticised in a number of quarters for the wide range and variety of definitions of the term "environment" that appear in different and successive stages of the Bill. I admit that this amendment is yet another and to that extent it is somewhat awkward. Nonetheless, it is clear that for this particular clause the concept of natural beauty is something that amplifies and goes beyond and outside the conservation of
"fauna and flora and their habitats and geological and physiographical features".
That was the point that I raised earlier when it was not clear from the amendment proposed that natural beauty was an additional feature of the environment over and above the organisms and the substrata that constitute it. For those two reasons I support the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am pleased to support the amendment. Perhaps it will take some of the sting out of the earlier debate. I am in favour of devolution and I wish the new Countryside Council for Wales every success. It has every chance of succeeding. I was asked by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to support the amendment. I am pleased to have been one of those who supported it.
Baroness White: I find myself in an awkward position. I think that I am the only almost pure Welsh Member in the Chamber. I had one Somersetshire great grandmother. Otherwise, I am to tally Welsh.
I am very glad indeed that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, introduced the amendment so comprehensively. He fully justified it in my opinion.
2182
It is a welcome amendment. It goes a good deal further than some people may have expected. It is absolutely on the right lines. If we are to have a Countryside Council for Wales it should be on the lines of this amendment. It is important that something should appear on the face of the Bill and that the matter should not be left to the generality of a parliamentary statement, which may or may not remain authoritative according to changes of Ministers, which are fairly frequent, or changes in government.
The amendment would give an auspicious start as the basis for the proposed Countryside Council for Wales. It goes into even more detail than I had frankly thought might be suggested by the noble Earl. He is entirely on the right lines, particularly when we are thinking primarily of rural Wales. In rural Wales our face is our fortune. The amendment would deal successfully with the situation.
I do not wish to detain the Committee. We have had long discussions on previous amendments. To the voluntary organisations in Wales with which I am associated this is a welcome proposition.
Lord Moran: I shall be very brief. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has put the case for the amendment very eloquently. As someone who lives in Wales, I congratulate him. He should now regard himself as an honorary Welshman like myself. Something on these lines is a valuable addition to the Bill. I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendment or something very much like it.
Lord Hesketh: Accept an amendment! I have listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Earl and to those of other noble Lords to see if I would better appreciate the arguments in support of the amendment. This is not the first time that the subject of a statutory mandate for the Countryside Council for Wales has been raised. The main proponents of the idea have been the Countryside Commission, of which the noble Earl is a member. I have seen some of its correspondence on the subject with the Minister of State for Wales, Sir Wyn Roberts.
I have to say that I am still not persuaded of the benefits of such a mandate, particularly in the terms now proposed. The amendment before us is firmly based on the suggested mandate submitted to the committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, by the Countryside Commission and recorded on page 71 of Part II of that report. I wrote to the noble Earl in June to point out that virtually all the key phrases in the commission's draft mandate are already in existing legislation.
I shall not detain the Committee by making all the comparisons but I should like to draw attention to the central part of the first paragraph of the amendment. It states that,
"the Countryside Council for Wales shall exercise their functions so as to—

(a) conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales and

(b) improve and extend opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment of the countryside and public access thereto for informal recreation".

2183
Let us compare that with Section 1(2) of the Countryside Act 1968 as it will read as amended by the Bill. It states:
"The functions conferred by this Act on the Commission and the Council are to be exercised for the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in their respective areas, and encouraging the provision and improvement, for persons resorting to the countryside, of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside and of open air recreation in the countryside".
The access point is covered by Section 2(2) of the same Act which, as amended by this Bill, will read:
"The Commission and the Council shall keep under review all matters relating to".
There follows a list. So the first part of the amendment is little more than a restatement of Section 1(2) and Section 2(2) of the 1968 Act in slightly different words. Subsection (4) of the amendment is very similar to Section 37 of the same Act and subsection (5) is based on Section 49(4) of the same Act.
The Bill is long enough without adding provisions which are already in existing legislation. I hardly need remind the Committee of the undesirability of making similar provisions in Acts in different words. Which version does one consider in the event of a dispute? To the extent that there is a difference between the two versions, it would mean that the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales would have different basic functions which might sow the seeds of confusion.
The Welsh Office accepts that the Countryside Council for Wales needs some guidance on its functions. A draft statement of policy has already been prepared and made public. Copies have been lodged in your Lordships' Library and it is open to anyone to comment on the draft statement before it is finalised. The document runs to five pages and gives the council a real framework upon which to build its policies.
I accept that the statement of policy is not enshrined in the legislation; but some would see this as a strength rather than a weakness as this enables it to be modified as policy develops over the years. There are strong grounds for thinking that a document of this description should not be set in concrete. Nevertheless, I recognise the strength of feeling on the issue and the underlying reasons for it. I am therefore willing to reconsider the question.
The Earl of Swinton: Like the Welsh dragon, the sting is in the tail. I am most grateful to those Members of the Committee who have supported me. This is a new Act of Parliament establishing a new authority in Wales and it seems to me to be most strange that we cannot write into the legislation exactly what it means. Instead, we have to refer to the Countryside Act 1968, only to find that it is amended by paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule VII to the Bill, and so on. Surely it would be much better to have this written on the face of the Bill. As I said, this is a new Bill which establishes a new authority and all this should be clearly written into the legislation. I hope that my noble friend will continue to do battle so that there will be rejoicing in the
2184
valleys. In view of the remarks made by my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Countryside Matters]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 345:
Page 172, line 16, after ("preservation") insert ("and enhancement").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 346 and 347. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 345 and 346. The Countryside Commission's current responsibility is to enhance as well as to preserve natural beauty. I am sure that the Minister will wish that to continue.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 347. Under Schedule 7, the Countryside Commissions for England and Wales must encourage and improve open-air recreation and nature study in the national parks. Those pleasures can, and usually do, conflict. But nowhere in the schedule has the commission power to say, "Not there!" in respect of either facility, and especially in respect of recreation.
The term "recreation" includes hikers, campers, motor-cyclists and those driving dune-buggies, and so on. Indeed, one never knows what will happen, or what disagreements may arise. Therefore, it seems wiser that the commissions should have, if necessary, a say in how an area is to be used or whether for a period of time it is not to be used. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I should like to say a few words about Amendments Nos. 345 and 346. If these amendments are not accepted, the work of the Countryside Commission and the new countryside councils will be confined simply to preserving the natural beauty of landscape. These bodies would be precluded from a wide variety of activities to enhance the landscape, such as amenity tree planting, and the creation of community parks, improving the community forests around cities and towns, and grant aiding country parks. I am sure that this omission must have been an oversight. I hope that the Government will accept these two amendments.
Earl Peel: As a matter of interest, is it possible to enhance natural beauty? Is it not finite?
The Earl of Swinton: I disagree. I am sure that my noble friend is enhancing the natural beauty of Swalesdale and much of the tree planting. That is what needs to be done here. I have seen what he is doing. I think that it is possible to enhance natural beauty. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
The Earl of Arran: Had it not been for my noble friend Lord Craigton and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the Government would have laid these amendments before the Committee. We accept them with pleasure and alacrity.

2185
However, having said that, I turn now to deal with Amendment No. 347. While we appreciate the concern about our national parks which lies behind the amendment, it must be said that it introduces a number of problems. On the one hand, it might be argued that the amendment is not really necessary as the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales would scarcely encourage the provision or improvement of facilities in the national parks other than in areas which meet with their approval. On the other hand, it could perhaps be interpreted as meaning that any proposal for the provision or improvement of facilities in a national park which could conceivably be attributed to encouragement by the commission or council would have to be approved, so far as concerns the suitability of the site, by the commission or council.
To the extent that such proposals might require planning permission, that would need to be obtained from the national park committee or planning board and approval by the commission or council would introduce yet another level of control. To the extent that the proposal would not necessitate planning permission, we would not want to introduce a new form of control which would not apparently carry with it any rights of appeal.
In view of the reasons that I have outlined, I ask my noble friend and the noble Baroness not to press the amendments further this evening.
Lord Craigton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: It sounded as if my noble friend on the Front Bench was prepared to accept the first two amendments, in which case I had hoped that they would be moved. I understood that the third one was unsatisfactory.
The Earl of Arran: That is quite correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 172, line 20, after ("preservation") insert ("and enhancement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 346A:
Page 172, line 22, after ("designated") insert ("under this Act").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 348B to 350A.
These are simple amendments. Amendment No. 346A is a minor drafting amendment. Amendment No. 348B merely corrects a minor grammatical error. Amendment No. 350A is a drafting amendment for the removal of any possible doubt. If any noble Lord seeks further information on the final amendment, I shall be only too glad to give it.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may ask a question about the amendment. Why is it necessary to insert "under this Act" for the designation of a national park? No doubt all noble Lords here to night know that an investigation into the future of national parks is proceeding. If by any chance there should be
2186
some suggestion of further designations, do we need further primary legislation in order to implement that?
A noble Lord: Wait for the White Paper!
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness on this amendment. It modifies paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 so that it makes clear that the consultation required of the Secretary of State before he determines national park supplementary grants is with the Countryside Commission as respects national parks in England and with the Countryside Council for Wales as respects national parks in Wales.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 347 not moved.]
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved Amendment No. 348:
Page 172, line 28, at end insert:
("(3) In this Act the word "natural" when applied to beauty, includes beauty which is not exclusively natural and beauty which arose as a by-product of archaeological features and buildings where they are intrinsic elements in the wider landscape").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 352.
This amendment, which is supported by the Council for British Archaeology, is designed to clear up and define more nearly the term "natural beauty" when applied to landscape. It seeks to include anthropogenic features—those features which have their origins in the activities of man. It was some six-and-a-half hours ago that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, suggested that everything in the country was under the influence of man anyway. Examples are probably not necessary at this time of night. It is more difficult to find genuine nature which is not interfered with by man in this country. We have already touched on the lack of consultation before the Bill came out. I feel that my amendment is the second best option for sorting out the problem. I shall be particularly interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
The proposal is aimed at ensuring that the new bodies are more aware of man's influence on the countryside. That is not to say that they are not aware of it at the moment. For instance, in the set-aside proposals of the Ministry of Agriculture, the premium scheme which is administered by the Countryside Commission allows certain topping-up moneys for habitat restoration, such as for wooded margins and similar improvements to the landscape. It does not in any way take into account archaeology, which is a pity. It might have been possible under set-aside arrangements to prevent people—as I suggested to the House last October—ploughing long barrows. It might stop people cultivating deserted medieval villages and might have taken out of cropping certain archaeological sites which await investigation.
I do not believe that the Government should be in any way nervous about the amendment. It seeks slightly to tip the balance towards archaeology. It seeks co-operation between the new bodies which are set up under the Bill and the existing bodies which are responsible for archaeology and will

2187
remain. I cannot see that any extra resources are involved, with the possible exception of time. The amendment seeks to prevent any duplication of effort. Above all, it seeks an integrated approach to the conservation of archaeological remains, wildlife habitats and management of the historic countryside.
Amendment No. 348 amends the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 with the words on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 349 amends the Countryside Act 1968. As regards Schedule 8, Amendment No. 364 amends the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; Amendment No. 365 amends the Countryside Act 1968; Amendment No. 367 amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those amendments are put forward to fit in with the amendment proposed under Clause 121. I await the Minister's reply with interest. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I support the amendment for all the reasons that the noble Lord has given. It seems to me that the matters for discussion are similar to those raised during the passage of the Water Bill. At that time the Government were sympathetic to the principle. I hope that they will extend that sympathy to the noble Lord's amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The intention in this series of amendments is to bring into the realm both of the new national nature conservancy agencies and bodies such as English Heritage a common interest in archaeological features. It is a truism in England to say that virtually all the environmental features which the Nature Conservancy Council today wishes to preserve are man-made. However, the purpose of Amendment No. 348 as the foundation to this series of amendments is to list the features as:
"a by-product of archaeological features and buildings".
My suggestion for the appropriate way forward would be not to take this as an amendment to the Bill but to look to the Nature Conservancy Council of today or its successors to reach an 'agreed statement of intent with the Council of British Archaeology or a similar body as regards sites of overlapping interest. The Nature Conservancy Council already has such existing statements of intent with bodies whose activities affect the conservation issues in the countryside. It has them, for instance, with the Ministry of Defence which manages many SSSIs in battle school areas, and also with the opencast executive. I believe that this is the appropriate way forward.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: We must admit that we find the first amendment a little confusing as it purports to define the word "natural", whereas it really defines the words "natural beauty". This also leads to an unsatisfactory cross-reference in the second amendment.
It is doubtful whether the amendment would serve any real purpose as the Countryside Commission and national park authorities already take account of archaeological features and buildings in the countryside for the very reasons referred to in the
2188
amendment; namely, that they are intrinsic elements in the landscape. We are sure the Countryside Council for Wales will adopt the same approach when it assumes its responsibilities. Similarly, they take account of beauty which is not exclusively natural. Indeed it would be difficult for them to do otherwise as there are few areas of this country which are not significantly influenced by man, especially through his agricultural activities. There is also a danger that the amendment might be contrived as limiting the scope of the term "natural beauty" in the context of archaeological features and buildings in a way which may be undesirable. How does one decide, for example, whether an archaeological feature or a building is an intrinsic element in the wider landscape? We may well be creating problems where none exists.
There is a danger that the amendment will be seen as placing a responsibility on these bodies for archaeological features which would conflict with the functions of Cadw in Wales and English Heritage. As the present wording has applied for over 40 years without causing any problems we would ask the noble Lord if he would withdraw this amendment and the following one which flows from it, as we fear they could cause more problems that they would solve.
Amendments Nos. 352, 364, 365 and 367 seek to extend the definition of nature conservation and would widen the remit of the NCC to notify SSSIs and declare nature reserves for archaeological reasons. In the Government's view it would be inappropriate to convey an archaeological remit on the new councils that they would not have the competence to fulfil. However, we would be quite happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, an assurance that the NCC is prepared to agree a joint statement of intent with English Heritage over the management of land notified as a site of special scientific interest to ensure that their interests are fully taken into account so that no feature of anthropogenic interest is damaged—subject of course to the primacy of nature conservation interests. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Walpole: No doubt we shall be able to see the statement of intent before we come to Report stage. With the assurance that I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 348A:
Page 172, line 28, at end insert:
("(3) The Commission and the Council shall have powers to apply to the county court for an order for the removal of unlawful buildings, fences or other works on common land and the restoration of the land to the condition in which it was before the work was erected or constructed.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 363A. Both Amendment No. 363A and Amendment No. 348A have essentially the same purport. One of the amendments falls in Schedule 7, and the other in Schedule 8. Both amendments have the intention of

2189
righting an ancient wrong. Under the Law of Property Act 1925 the only people who can take action in the courts when someone erects a building, fence or other construction on common land without consent are county councils, district councils, the lord of the manor and any other person who has an interest in the common—for example, a registered commoner.
Lords of the manor and registered commoners are hardly likely to take action as very often they will be the people responsible for erecting the building, fence, car park or other construction. Although county councils and district councils may well be pressed by people who want to use the common land and their rights to the common land, they have other matters to deal with and they may not necessarily act on requests from ordinary people to protect common land.
This problem was recognised by the Common Land Forum in its 1986 report. The solution proposed by that body was that county councils should have a duty to take action in the courts against infringements, and that the public should have the power to take action against infringements. That recommendation of the Common Land Forum in 1986 found a place in the Conservative manifesto in 1987. One would have thought that when there was an opportunity for it to come before your Lordships' House in this Bill the Government would have sought to adhere to their 1987 manifesto and bring in such a provision. However, they have not done so and therefore it is up to us to seek to preserve the purity of Conservative policy.
We have not done so in exactly the form of the amendment which the Common Land Forum wanted because we are dealing with the powers of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. We propose a very modest alternative which provides that the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales should be added to the list of those who can take action in the courts against infringements of public rights on common land.
In case anyone should think that this is a purely theoretical matter, the Open Spaces Society has a considerable list of infringements on common land, both in England and in Wales. They relate particularly to fencing but also to car parks and sometimes barns, go-kart tracks or sheds. There have been quite a number of different infringements of common land. The existing law is not adequate to deal with the matter. I hope that these modest amendments will find favour with the Committee and the Government and help to put things right. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: I do not wish to appear pedantic, but there is a rather important point that I should like to put to the noble Lord regarding the amendment. It concerns the comma that comes after the word "buildings". Its presence could cause it to be construed that the adjective "unlawful" refers only to buildings and does not refer to "fences and other works". If that is the case it would imply that any fence or any work could be dealt with through the commission of the council applying to the county
2190
court for an order. We must make it absolutely clear that there are certain fences and other works which are perfectly legal on common land. It is a drafting question, but if there is any doubt at all about the matter then the amendment is technically incorrect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can only respond to that by saying that there are commas in Section 194(1) of the 1925 Act.
Lord Moran: I should like to give my strong support to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on this amendment. It is extremely important that the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales should have those powers. There is a good deal of unlawful building on commons, certainly in my part of Wales. The Open Spaces Society had identified two cases in Powys and there may be many more. It is very important that the point should be covered. If there is a defect in the amendment as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has suggested, I am sure that it can be corrected because if is obviously important that the wording is correct. In general I support the amendment very strongly.
Lord Reay: Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides for the relevant county, borough or district council, the lord of the manor or any other person interested in the common (which means a person with a legal interest in the common, such as a commoner) to apply to the appropriate county court for an order for the removal of any building or fence erected or other work constructed on certain common land without the consent of the Secretary of State where that consent is required by the section.
The intention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in putting down the amendment is clearly to add the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales to the list of those who can apply to the county court for such an order. Amendment No. 363A specifically adds those two bodies to Section 194(2) of the 1925 Act. Amendment No. 348A in itself is unsatisfactory in that it creates uncertainty as to the meaning of the word "unlawful" in this context. Moreover, a county court order under Section 194 carries with it a right of appeal to the High Court but an order under this amendment would not do so.
The noble Lord's other amendment, Amendment No. 363A, better achieves his purpose, if I may say so. However, even though it is technically an improvement we still should not want to accept it. The Government consider that there is already adequate access to the country court. Although the commission and the council have no direct access to apply for an order it is open to them, as it is to anybody else who considers that an order should be issued, to ask the appropriate local authority, the lord of the manor or a person with a legal interest in the common to make an application to court.
This Bill is not the proper vehicle for making piecemeal amendments to the legislation on common land, which is a very complex subject. It is the Government's intention to introduce comprehensive commons legislation when

2191
parliamentary time permits, and that would be a better occasion on which to consider such a change. This measure has nothing to do with NCC reorganisation and in our view reorganisation legislation is not the right vehicle for it. In view of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am prepared to be told that Amendment No. 348A is defective in drafting terms, and I reserve the right to come back with a better draft. So far as concerns Amendment No. 363A, the Government have made clear that they will not now adhere to their manifesto commitment. We shall certainly seek an opportunity to take this matter further when we come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 348B:
Page 173, line 36, leave out ("it applies") and insert ("they apply").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 349 and 349A not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 350:
Page 175, line 6, at end insert:
("(h) there shall be inserted a new subsection as follows—
"(10) The Commission may oppose Bills in Parliament or may oppose applications for orders, byelaws, schemes or awards to be made under any Act." ").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 353, which is a related amendment. Amendment No. 353 is in fact my major interest but the two amendments are closely related.
As the Committee very well knows, in England and Wales late developers have used private Bills to promote developments. Several of those developments have affected SSSIs and the Nature Conservancy Council has therefore become involved in the private Bill procedure. At one stage the NCC commented on the proposals in private Bills by means of reporting through its parent department but that procedure does not allow the Nature Conservancy Council's representatives to appear before Select Committees on private Bills to present their own evidence with greater force. Therefore the NCC sought to petition, regarding that as a more effective method to make its views known on the issues covered by private Bills.
In 1986 the Private Bill Office in the House of Commons wrote to the Department of the Environment saying that the House authorities would not object in principle to petitions from statutory amenity bodies on private Bills. Subsequently the department made the rule that the NCC must decide whether it is to petition or to present its views through the department. If the NCC is not granted locus to petition by the House authorities, the facility to report through the department is no longer available.
However, in law at present there is no explicit power for the NCC in this respect. When the NCC petitioned the King's Cross Railway Bill, the promoters—British Rail—challenged the petition on the basis, among other grounds, that the NCC had no powers to petition Private Bills. English Heritage, which was also petitioning, was similarly challenged. In that case the NCC withdrew its petition. English Heritage was denied locus standi and was unable to petition.
The Countryside Commission is in a similar position. The NCC, English Heritage and the Countryside Commission all have an interest in acquiring the power to become involved in private Bills. They are faced equally with the situation that their petition with regard to a private Bill may be challenged on the basis that they lack explicit powers.
Amendment No. 350 seeks to establish the vires of the Countryside Commission. It is an amendment to Schedule 7. Amendment No. 353 inserts a clause on the face of the present Bill with regard to the Nature Conservancy Council. The effect of the amendments is to give both the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council explicit power to oppose private Bills. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Earl has made clear that his amendment is intended to refer to private Bills but not to any public Bill. Perhaps the position should be clarified so that the amendment refers to "private Bills" instead of merely "Bills".
I believe that the amendment would be strengthened if it were to read,
"The Commission may support or oppose private Bills in Parliament or promote amendments".
I can imagine circumstances in which the body felt that opposing a Bill might not be feasible but would like it amended. Therefore, power not merely to oppose but to promote amendments might be helpful.
Perhaps I may suggest that, provided my noble friends on the Front Bench feel that there should be an amendment along these lines, my noble friend might withdraw the amendment and table a fresh amendment at Report stage dealing with those matters that I have mentioned.
The Earl of Swinton: I support what both my noble friends have said. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has put the case which also worries the Countryside Commission. Procedurally if my noble friend accepts the amendment, I shall not be worried if it is amended at a later stage. If it is in the Bill it can be amended later. I am not unhappy at the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Renton that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook withdraws the amendment and returns with a revised version later.
Baroness Nicol: I support the amendments. The use of private Bills as development measures has increased dramatically in the past few years. It has been remarked on many occasions that by such a measure proper investigation of possible environmental damage is often avoided. I believe

2193
that the provision would be very useful. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment, if not in these terms in some other form.
Lord Campbell of Croy: While my noble friend prepares his reply perhaps I may add my voice. The right to petition is very widespread in this country. So far as I know—and my noble friend may confirm this—individuals have that right. Clearly there has been some doubt as to whether those bodies come direct to a Select Committee of Parliament for opposed private legislation or whether they come to the Department of the Environment. It would be best for the matter to be cleared up.
Baroness White: I believe I am right in saying that there are now steps to reduce the number of private Bills. However, there will still be private Bill procedures. I hope that the amendment will be helpful even if it needs redrafting.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments and so giving me an opportunity to explain what powers non-departmental public bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, already have in relation to petitioning against private Bills and promoting Bills.
The position on private Bills is quite clear. The House authorities have confirmed that the NCC and other non-departmental public bodies are able to petition against private Bills, subject to certain conditions. These are, essentially, that a petition must be made in an independent capacity and not as advisers to the Secretary of State; and that in each case the NDPB should be able to satisfy the Court of Referees, or the appropriate committee in your Lordships' House, that it has a genuine interest affected by the Bill.
As for promoting Bills, it is not the policy to allow government bodies—even non-departmental ones—to promote matters that affect public interest. The procedure is for the NDPB to advise the relevant department, which would then deal with the matter through a public Bill if it were found necessary.
2194
I very much hope that my noble friend considers that a satisfactory explanation and that, as a consequence, he will not press these amendments.
Lord Renton: Can my noble friend make it clear that the right to petition also includes the right to promote amendments?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I wish to draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that recently the Nature Conservancy Council has been involved in several petitions. It was involved in the petition on the Cardiff Bay barrage, which will result in the loss of the Taff-Ely SSSI. Many other barrages are proposed for British estuaries, including the Severn, which will affect the SSSIs. It is always possible that the private Bill procedure will be used in such cases. The NCC was involved in petitioning against a Bill to reopen the Montgomery Canal which affected a nationally important wetland SSSI. There is also the problem of hybrid Bills, which perhaps I should have mentioned earlier. The NCC petitioned against the Channel Tunnel Bill. It appears likely that the second Severn crossing will also be a hybrid Bill against which the NCC is likely to be interested in petitioning.
Lord Hesketh: The answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Renton is yes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Surely that part of a hybrid Bill which is considered to be private legislation is normally treated in exactly the same way as a private Bill. I hope that there is no doubt on that score.
Lord Hesketh: The answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is also yes.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Having heard that helpful statement from my noble friend on the Front Bench, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 350A:
Page 176, line 25, leave out from ("inserted") to second ("and") and insert ("the words "(as respects National Parks in England) and the Countryside Council for Wales (as respects National Parks in Wales)" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121 [Nature conservation functions: preliminary]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 350B:
Page 124, line 16, after ("conferred") insert ("on them").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 350C:
Page 124, line 24, after ("may") insert ("after consultation in each case with the Councils").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 351B. This is a slightly more complicated issue. The effect of the amendment would be that, prior to issuing a direction under Clause 121(4), consultation should be carried out with each of the three councils prior to the issue of any direction, and that, when a direction is issued, there will be a statutory requirement that a council shall provide particulars in its annual report of the direction received.
At present the Secretary of State is enabled by the 1981 Act to give the NCC specific directions only in relation to grants, loans and certain other matters relating to direct expenditure. Clause 121(4) extends that power of specific direction to other functions of the councils, including the establishment, maintenance and management of nature reserves, advice to Ministers, advice and dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation and the commissioning of, and support for, research.
The reason given for the extension of specific directions is that the power to give directions of a general character is, in practice, so draconian in effect that for all practical purposes the Secretary of State would not use it. If he is to have a usable power, it needs to be specific.
That power of direction does not apply to functions listed in Schedule 8. That means that it does not apply to, for example, the notification of SSSIs, management agreements, the declaration of national nature reserves, licensing or the quinquennial review of protected animals or plants. However, it would apply to such matters as land acquisition for nature reserve purposes, grants and loans, advice to the Secretary of State and all research.
That power of direction would enable different directions to be given to different councils on the same or different issues. Therefore in practice the exercise of that power could lead to distortions in the development of the manner in which nature
2196
conservation is delivered in the three countries. Exceptionally, such directions might be necessary. However, to help ensure that distortions do not occur as a result, before any direction is given consultation with each of the councils should be undertaken to allow them the opportunity of making representations about the proposal. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that we are discussing also my Amendments Nos. 351, 358 and 360. I should like to introduce them briefly, because they are complementary to my noble friend's amendment, which I support.
Amendment No. 358 seeks to restrict directions to the country councils to matters of finance and new work. In brief, that returns to the situation of control which the Secretary of State has over the Nature Conservancy Council instead of the very much wider power of direction of both a general and specific nature which is given to the Secretary of State under Clause 121 as drafted. I do not believe that anybody will accuse me, after this afternoon's debate, of being excessively jealous of the terms of reference of the country councils. However, in this respect, I believe that they must be protected against what is virtually a statement that the Secretary of State can do what he likes. That is what it comes to.
Amendment No. 358 is a comparable amendment in Clause 123. It is intended to protect the independence of the joint committee in its dealings with the Secretary of State and it removes the power which the Secretary of State would have under the Bill as drafted to move functions back from the joint committee to the country councils.
We have been discussing in considerable detail the relationship between the joint committee and the country councils. It would be fairly pointless if, as a result of our discussion, we reached the conclusion about what should be the balance between the country councils and the joint committee and then find that the Secretary of State—and I repeat the phrase—has the power to do what he likes after the Bill has been passed.
Amendment No. 360 would give the joint committee a direction-making power operated in concert with the country councils although ultimately applicable to such a council. That is not unrestricted. The amendment sets out four areas in which such a direction-making power would be appropriate. They relate to the application or improvement of common standards in relation to SSSIs, NNRs, AONBs or national parks; the designation of sites in those categories which do not fall wholly within the boundaries of one of the country councils—not, I hasten to say, designation in general; the determination and maintenance of common standards in relation to information and statistics concerning wildlife and conservation, and the development of conservation policies in respect of which action is being, or in the opinion of the joint committee ought to be, taken by more than one of the country councils. The amendment should say "country councils" and not "county councils" as appears in the Marshalled List.

2197
It will be clear from what I have just said that the amendment is not seeking to give executive powers to the joint committee. The amendment is restricted to the maintenance or improvement of common standards. The only executive powers which are appropriate are those where an area such as an SSSI crosses a country boundary or where, in the opinion of the joint committee, action should be taken by more than one country council. It could be that the SSSI is entirely within the area of one country, but has an effect on the nature conservation in another country. Both of those cases are very restrictive and need not occur very frequently. But I hope the Committee will feel that they complement and add to the case made by my noble friend Lady Nicol.
10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like some clarification of Amendment No. 360, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. It is clear that there are three misprints. He stumbled on one, but "county councils" is referred to three times. I am sure that it is meant to be "country councils". It is important because if it were county councils it could not apply to Scotland. There are no counties in Scotland. The equivalent of a county council in Scotland is a regional council. Before we continue with the debate that should be made clear. I hope I am right in thinking that in each case where "county councils" appears it should read "country councils".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is correct. The amendment is intended to refer to country councils wherever the phrase "county councils" is printed.
The Earl of Cranbrook: We recognise that it is important, in order to carry out nature conservation under the proposed system, that we should be protected against distortions in the different ways in which different councils will operate. The two amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, examine possible distortions through directions given by the Secretary of State.
We must also recognise that in this Bill the Secretary of State has extended powers of such direction, greater than exist in the Act of 1981. It is regarded as important not only among the voluntary conservation organisations but also within the Nature Conservancy Council that the future delivery of nature conservation within the United Kingdom should be free of the kinds of distortions which can arise. The consultation process which the noble Baroness seeks to implant would be a protective weapon to prevent such distortions and therefore has my support.
Lord Hesketh: Government Amendment No. 351A makes clear that any reference to the councils in this clause includes the JNCC. For example, the JNCC will have to take account of ecological changes. The amendment also makes clear that directions may be given by the Secretary of State to the joint committee.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps the noble Lord could speak more slowly. I cannot understand the gist of what he is saying.
Lord Hesketh: Government Amendment No. 351A makes clear that any reference to the councils in this clause includes the JNCC. For example, the JNCC will therefore have to take account of ecological changes. The amendment also makes clear that the directions may be given direct by the Secretary of State to the joint committee in respect of any of the joint functions except those under Clause 123(1)(aa) which include specific duties such as preparing advice on endangered British species under the quinquennial review where it would be inadvisable for the Secretary of State to have a reserve power of direction. The direction power is important as a reserve measure. We hope that it never has to be used but it is the sensible answer to the theoretical possibilities of disputes arising between the councils and the JNCC and much to be preferred over attempts to build in detailed statutory "umpiring" in advance. Although the Select Committee would have preferred to see a specific power for the joint committee to resolve disputes—which the Government cannot accept on legal or policy grounds—I hope that the Committee will recognise that the amendment goes a considerable way towards meeting the spirit of the recommendation.
Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to give the council (and now also the joint committee) for which he is responsible directions of a general or specific character concerning the discharge of their functions under Clauses 122 to 124. With the exception of those in Clause 122(1)(a) and Clause 123(1)(aa) the subsection will replace two existing direction-making powers in the current NCC legislation. The first, in Section 1(6) of the 1973 Act, covers all NCC functions in Section 1(1)(a) of that Act. The second, in Section 38(5) of the 1981 Act, covers grant- and loan-making powers in that section.
There is often provision of a direction-making power when public bodies are established. Although other similar provisions have sometimes contained a requirement that the body concerned should comply with any direction it received, this is considered to be unnecessary. The implication of a power to issue directions is that the body must comply with it. The subsection does not allow the Secretary of State to give directions in relation to the conservation functions which councils will exercise under various enactments by virtue of Clause 122(1)(a), Clause 123(1)(aa) and Schedule 8. This is consistent with the approach and direction-making powers adopted in the 1973 Act which did not apply to the functions exercised by the NCC under outlying legislation. Such powers are thought to be unnecessary and, in some cases, inconsistent with the enactments themselves where a role is already exercised by Ministers as well as the NCC.
Amendment No. 350C would require the Secretary of State to consult the councils before issuing a direction. It is a change which the NCC itself is seeking. Consultation is perfectly reasonable as a working assumption on how things would

2199
normally happen if the reserve power was invoked. However, mandatory consultation, as proposed in this amendment, would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to say "cease this action" immediately; for example, if he felt that a council was acting improperly over a grant to a private individual or organisation. The normal practice in the case of this kind of provision is that consultation is not a compulsory requirement. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore resist the temptation to press her amendment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 351 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. This would restrict the direction-making power to financial matters or policy innovations and undermine its value as a reserve power, which I have already mentioned. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government have no intention of intervening unnecessarily. Indeed, we hope the power never has to be used, but it seems unwise to draft it in such a limiting way that it could not be used successfully if a real justification arose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, seeks through Amendment No. 351B to require any council which receives a direction to publish the details in its annual report. Once again, I can see the attractions of this and in practice there is nothing to stop the council from publishing the entire direction in its annual report if it so wishes. However, I am again not persuaded that we need to make this a mandatory requirement, even though the Countryside Commission has been under such a remit since 1949. More recent legislation does not often make it mandatory and with good reason. For example, if a direction referred to impropriety which became a matter for the courts, or concerned a matter that was later resolved between the council and the Minister, I cannot see why the council should be under a compulsion to parade its dirty washing for the record. Again, that seems to be a matter where common sense and discretion should prevail.
I hope that Amendment No. 358 will not be pressed because it is essential that the Secretary of State should be able to direct a single country council to exercise Clause 123 functions as part of the safety net against the possibility of disputes. Indeed, the power will probably be invoked before the wider powers of direction in Clause 121.
The element in Amendment No. 360 is the draconian power given to the joint committee to issue directions to the country councils in relation not only to site designation but also to licensing and even policy formulation. Members of the Committee will know why I am sceptical about introducing dogs into the debate on any part of this Bill. I have to say that the effect of this amendment will be to undermine the entire Bill by relegating the country councils to mere poodles of their own committees. The other detailed matters mentioned in this amendment, such as the provision for cross-boundary designation, data standards and habitat designation guidelines, are already dealt with in the Bill as it stands or in the government amendments that we have already put forward. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Ross of Newport: I hope that I have not missed something. This may be a very naive question: who will carry out the quinquennial review which is due next year? Will it be done by the joint committee or by the individual country councils working together?
Lord Hesketh: I am reliably informed that it will be done by the joint committee.
Baroness Nicol: The Minister's reply to Amendment No. 350C was even more complicated than my introduction of it. I shall need to read very carefully what he has said. As regards Amendment No. 351B, we should have used "may" instead of "shall". However, I wish to look at that matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 351 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 351A:
Page 124, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) Any reference in this section to the Councils includes a reference to the joint committee and, accordingly, directions under subsection (4) above may be given to the joint committee as respects any of the functions dischargeable by them (other than under section 123(1A)(aa).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 351E and 352 not moved.]
Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 122 (General functions of the Councils]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 352A:
Page 124, line 33, leave out from ("the") to end of line and insert ("Acts amended by").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 352B, 352C and 354B. These are simple and straightforward amendments to improve or correct the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 352B and 352C:
Page 124, line 35, leave out ("to those enactments").
Page 124, line 44, leave out ("other person") and insert ("persons").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 352D:
Page 125, line 3, at end insert:
("and, the Councils shall, in discharging their functions under this section, have regard to any advice given to them by the joint committee under section 123(2) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 353A and 353B. Once again, this group of amendments stems from commitments given in the Government's response to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. In response to Recommendation 4.16, we undertook to make it clear that the joint nature conservation committee could give advice to country councils, and that the country councils

2201
would be placed under a reciprocal duty to have regard to such advice. The amendments in fact deliver the latter part of that undertaking.
The former will be covered by Amendment No. 356ZA to Clause 123. Amendment No. 353B also clarifies the powers for the councils to give information or advice to the JNCC. These changes are important because they remove any doubts which may have existed about the powers for the bodies to exchange information and for the JNCC to be able to give advice to the country councils. It is advice, and not instructions. There is a delicate balance here between placing the JNCC in an overbearing position, which would be against the Government's devolutionary policy, and giving it no influence at all. I should like to believe that we have the balance right.
Lord Carver: I have certain reservations about the amendment. Taken together with Amendment No. 356ZA it appears to weaken the Bill as published. Perhaps I may refer again to Recommendation 4.5 of the Select Committee that the joint committee should be strong enough to drive forward the cause of nature conservation at a national level. Clause 123(2) of the Bill states:
"No function falling within subsection (1) above shall be exert sable except—
(a) through the discharge of that function by a committee of the Councils (to be known as the Joint Committee)".
I am no lawyer and I am therefore hesitant to know exactly what "have regard to any advice" means. I know what it might mean if someone gave me advice and I had regard to it. I would courteously accept it and then I would decide what to do on my own. To amend the Bill by saying that the joint committee may give advice and that the council shall,
"in discharging their functions under this section, have regard to any advice given to them",
is a weakening of the position in the original Bill. The Bill stated:
"No function falling within subsection (1) above shall be exercisable except".
I am concerned that this could be interpreted as a weakening of the relationship between the joint committee and the country councils. With this issue we come to the heart of the whole reason for the joint committee. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why this change was made. The original wording seemed all right. Can he assure the Committee that "having regard to any advice" really means that the councils will act on that advice?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may presume to try to allay the doubts of the noble and gallant Lord with regard to the meaning of the words in this context "have regard to any advice". I suggest that it means that the councils are obliged to receive and consider any advice given but that they are not obliged to follow it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and gallant Lord and other noble Lords will no doubt remember the opening chapter of G. K. Chesterton's The Napoleon of Notting Hill in which he describes the favourite English game—I think it was an English
2202
game rather than a British game—of cheat the prophet. What the English people do, says Chesterton, is to receive the prophet with a great deal of reverence, listen with great care to what he says and go away and do something else. I fear that the noble and gallant Lord has it right and that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has confirmed it. It is not a strong enough phrase. There is too much scope for ignoring the advice given.
I am also concerned by the weakening in Amendment No. 353B which makes it clear that the country councils are free to give advice or information to the joint committee about any matter relating to any of the functions dischargeable by them. What it does not say, and what it surely ought to say, is that they ought to be obliged to comply with reasonable requests for information and advice from the joint committee. If the joint committee is to fulfil the functions set out in the Government's own amendments let alone in the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, it should be considering matters which cover the interests of more than one country. In order to consider those matters it would necessarily, because of the limitations on its staff and resources in its terms of reference, be seeking information from the country councils. The Bill should contain a provision that the country councils should meet such reasonable requests. However, this is perhaps a matter to which we should return at a later stage.
Lord Hesketh: I can bring two points to bear on the Committee. One is anecdotal and the other is factual. I believe that there is a slight misunderstanding over the original wording, which relates only to the special functions. Those may still only be exercised through the joint committee. However, the requirement to have regard relates to all the other functions of the country councils; that is, those in Clause 122. That is a substantial extension of the joint committee's powers in relation to the original context to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred.
I do not wish to run the risk of repeating myself as regards the noble and gallant Lord, but for the benefit of the Committee I must say that I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his apt description in respect of the words "have regard". However, I should point out to Members of the Committee that many are the times I have been sent in to bat at this Dispatch Box to resist on pain of death the inclusion of those words in an amendment put forward by the Benches opposite in respect of other Bills which have come before this Chamber.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 353 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 353A and 353B:
Page 125, line 18, after first ("Councils") insert ("(a)").
Page 125, line 20, at end insert ("; or
(b) from giving advice or information to the joint committee about any matter relating to any of the functions dischargeable by them.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 123 [Special functions of Councils]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 353C:
Page 125, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert ("The Councils shall jointly have the following functions which may, however, be discharged only through the joint committee; and in this section the functions so dischargeable are referred to as "special functions".
(1A) The special functions of the Councils are—
(aa) such of the functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy Council under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as are assigned to the Councils jointly as special functions in accordance with the amendments to that Act effected by Schedule 8 to this Act;").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important group of government amendments which will transform the drafting of Clause 123, covering the special or joint functions of the councils, in a way which is consistent with our response to the report. They have not been particularly easy to draft because we have to maintain the essential principle that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is not to be an independent quango in its own right. In preparing the final version of those and other related amendments to be tabled, I have had the benefit of discussions with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and with the Nature Conservancy Council. I believe that they recognise the strides which we have made towards improving this part of the Bill in a way which will help conservation and the maintenance of our science base.
The key to this group, and the Government's approach to Clause 123, lies in Amendment No. 353C. This makes it clear that the special functions, including those for nature conservation at a national and global level, are to be vested jointly in the three councils. The councils are then required to carry out their joint functions through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, whose composition and construction are to be modified in line with the recommendations made by the Select Committee through the new schedule which we have already agreed.
There is then an addition via Amendments Nos. 353C, 366H and 366J to the joint functions under Clause 123(1). The amendments will deliver undertakings made by government in another place that the duty of the NCC to give advice to Ministers about species in danger of extinction in Great Britain under Sections 22(3) and 24 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 will become a joint responsibility to be exercised through the JNCC. That includes the quinquennial review, which will thus be overseen by the JNCC in future.
The next import change is to the geographical definition of the JNCC's remit. At present, the Bill requires it to give advice about nature conservation,
"in Great Britain or elsewhere".
We are changing this via Amendments Nos. 353D and 354C to read:
"for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain"
to make it clearer that the JNCC's role is to look at the sum of the parts, and at the international dimension. Amendment No. 356ZA then gives a definition of Great Britain as a whole which is deliberately designed to encompass the JNCC's role
2204
in giving advice to the country councils about issues which are common to all three countries as well as issues which are of national or international importance.
I know that there has been concern to ensure that the JNCC is empowered to issue guidelines to the country councils about the criteria for the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. That work falls exactly within the defintion of a common issue under subsection 123(3)(b) of Amendment No. 356ZA. I can also assure the committee that Professor Sir Fred Holliday and his shadow committee are quite clear that they will take over responsibility from the NCC for site designation guidelines, not just for SSSIs but for sites of national and international importance too, including National Nature Reserves and international designations under the Ramsar and Berne Conventions.
I have already mentioned the other main innovation in this group—the inclusion in Amendment No. 356ZA of a new duty on the JNCC to give advice to the country councils about matters arising in connection with their country functions under Clause 122. That is not designed to encourage the JNCC to second-guess the country councils on country issues, but to provide a locus for the committee to give advice or information if it thinks that it is sensible to do so.
Finally, I should mention Amendment No. 355ZAB, which will clarify the JNCC's role in setting monitoring and research standards throughout Great Britain. That is an important role and one which we believe can be more effectively carried out by the JNCC than by the NCC at present, as the JNCC will include special support staff to oversee standards for peer review and the collection of data in each area on a compatible basis. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: This group of amendments is the most complicated and difficult to follow of any group of amendments that we have had to consider under the Bill. Although I tried hard to concentrate on the lengthy and rapid explanation which my noble friend gave, I am none the wiser. I tried to work them through before my noble friend spoke and I shall naturally read with interest what he has said. It is an extremely complicated matter. It might not matter so much but for its importance. We are dealing here with the functions of the reconstituted bodies and we must understand what is happening.
Having made those general observations, I have only one detailed observation to make. One could take up a great deal of what remains of tonight in going into too much detail. With regard to Amendment No. 353C, will my noble friend explain the significance of the word "assigned"? The amendment reads:
"such of the functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy Council under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as are assigned to the Councils jointly as special functions in accordance with the amendments to that Act effected by Schedule 8 to this Act".
By whom are these functions assigned? Quite frankly, they do not appear to be assigned by the Bill at all. I have looked at Schedule 8. Perhaps I have

2205
not looked thoroughly enough—it is very long—but I cannot find a reference to the assignment of these functions. Perhaps my noble friend will explain how they are assigned, by whom and by what method. Then one might begin to understand this group of amendments.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I may ask for clarification on how many amendments we are taking. From my copy of the grouping list, it looks as though there is an indented second line which includes Amendment No. 355ZAC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I want to be clear whether we are taking a group of two lines, as appears in the grouping list, and whether that includes the official Opposition amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is quite right; we are taking two lines. The group includes my Amendment No. 355ZAC as well as my amendments on the first of the two lines, Amendments Nos. 355AZB and 355AZC. I wish to speak to those three amendments.
Perhaps I may start by saying that if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is none the wiser from a study of the government amendments, what hope is there for the rest of us? Like him, I have looked at the existing drafting of Clause 123 and the new draft particularly of Amendment No. 353C. I fail to see what substantive difference there is between them. Clause 123, as printed, provides for the special functions which are listed in subsection (1). Subsection (2) states that—and we go in for double negatives here—"No function" of this kind,
"shall be exercisable except … through the discharge of that function by a committee of the Councils (to be known as the Joint Committee)".
The amendment proposed removes the double negative and states that it shall be,
"discharged only through the joint committee".
Although it is an improvement to remove a double negative, it does not change the meaning very much. I find it difficult to see what substantive point is being made by the amendment.
That does not mean that there are not valuable additions in the amendment generally. We think that in Amendment No. 356ZA the wider advice-giving power which is given to the joint committee for standards and designations, and so on, is valuable. But it seems to us that subsection (4) of Amendment No. 356ZA makes nonsense of the claim that the functions are being discharged only through the joint committee. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on that.
My purpose in speaking to my three amendments is that they follow directly from the report of the Carver Committee. I commend them to the Committee on that basis. Amendment No. 355AZB concerns advice on international obligations. That is in accordance with the Carver recommendations in paragraphs 3.16 and 3.41. I should have thought it was fairly obvious from government statements about the legislation that it was intended that the
2206
joint committee should have the responsibility for giving advice on matters directly related to our international and European Community obligations and the selection of sites for international designation.
Amendment No. 355AZC again refers directly to the Carver committee recommendations which are mentioned in paragraph 322.12(f) of the report on the provision of common scientific facilities, including information technology, for the use of the councils and the review of the scientific work of such councils. We are to some extent reassured by the statement made earlier today about the scientific staff. We were told that 50 staff will be assigned to the joint committee, of whom half will be scientific or senior staff. However, we would like to know the significance of the balance between scientific and senior staff and how many will be qualified in science if we are to be happy that the assurance is meaningful.
Amendment No. 355ZAC refers to,
"common standards and operating criteria for … Sites of Special Scientific Interest … and … National and Marine Nature Reserves".
That reflects the recommendations of the Carver Committee in paragraph 3.22 12(c) and 12(d). All of these provisions refer directly back to the wise recommendations of the Carver Committee. We hope that they will find favour with the Committee and that the Government will agree they should be included on the face of the Bill. Indeed that is in accordance with the Government's own intentions. None of this interferes with the structure of the country councils or the joint committee. It simply makes clear those joint committee functions which are inescapably national, international and scientific obligations.
Lord Carver: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, the Select Committee listed what it recommended should be the functions of the joint committee. Neither the Bill nor the amendments go into much detail about those functions or are specific about them. Some amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are specific; for example, Amendment No. 355AZC which concerns the provision of common scientific facilities.
In talking about this group of amendments, I must refer to three other amendments which are not grouped with them. I cannot understand why that is so. Amendments Nos. 355ZAA and 355ZAE in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, refer to exactly the same thing as the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I should have thought that Amendment No. 360A which also stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, which states:
"Any question as to whether a particular function falls within the provisions of subsection (1) above or within the provisions of section 122(1) above"
is also relevant to this group of amendments.
Amendments Nos. 355ZAA and 355ZAE were tabled because I am concerned that, as the Bill stands, the special functions mention monitoring

2207
and the establishment of common standards for monitoring but are not specific about the extremely important issue of the,
"establishment of common standards and criteria for the notification of areas of special scientific interest".
It is extremely important that there should not be different standards in the three country areas. Although the noble Lord has said that he quite understands that that consideration will be part of the functions of the joint committee, I believe it is important that it should be put on the face of the Bill.
None of the other amendments makes provision for the extremely important business not just of monitoring the standards but of monitoring the implementation of the standards. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 355ZAE. One can lay down standards and make them common standards, but someone must monitor the implementation of those standards and ensure they are being implemented and call attention to them. That is an extremely important matter to include in the Bill. If differences of opinion between the country councils and the joint committee are not continually to be referred to the Secretary of State it is important both for practical and possibly for legal reasons that it should be made clear that where there is a difference of opinion the final decision should rest with the joint committee.
All of those points are relevant to this group of amendments dealing with the functions of the joint committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may say that I agree entirely with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that his amendments fall within the grouping. However, neither the Government nor we have the right to group his amendments. We can only take our own amendments and put them together in the most sensible shape. The noble and gallant Lord must take responsibility for where his own amendments fall within the groupings.
Lord Ross of Newport: One of the problems is that our amendments were put down before the Minister's, which were only put down last Friday. I am having great difficulty in deciding whether the Minister's amendments cover all the points. Having heard the advice of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, it is clear that they do not. I believe that in some respects the Government have not gone far enough. However, they have gone a long way and I congratulate them on the fact that it is now fairly clear what the role of the joint committee is to be. It has a role in respect of international and European Community obligations and also in trying to achieve common standards throughout the UK.
I am no wiser than the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is much more able in these matters than I am, but I assume that the wording covering the assignment of functions is intended to avoid the joint committee having direct executive powers. In other words, the powers are assigned to the three country councils which in turn go through the joint committee to operate those powers. I presume that
2208
the jargon is intended to get over that problem. It might be better if we allowed the joint committee to have its own executive powers, but I shall not dwell on that point now. I believe that I understand the reason for the wording and I wait to hear whether the Minister agrees with that interpretation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In discussion with the Countryside Commission for Scotland I found that it welcomed warmly the clarification in subsection (1A)(aa) of Amendment No. 353C that the special functions are assigned to the councils jointly. The commission finds the word "jointly" very helpful, and I agree.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Hesketh the meaning of the first paragraph of that amendment:
"the following functions … may … be discharged only through the joint committee".
Does that mean that the functions may be discharged only after consideration by the joint committee or does it mean that the joint committee has to formulate those functions?
I believe that my amendments—Amendments Nos. 355A and 356A—should have been grouped with these amendments. Perhaps it is my fault that they are not. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I have been a little confused by what the Minister has said. My amendments are aimed at ensuring as far as possible the advisory nature of the joint committee and keeping the executive function to a minimum. I believe that that objective has been met by the strengthening of the advisory nature of the joint committee by the Government's Amendment No. 352D which we have already agreed and, if it is passed, by Amendment No. 356ZA. If we pass that amendment I shall read with care what the Minister has said. I shall not move the amendments now and if necessary I shall come back to the matter at Report. Therefore, I should just like to have clarification of the first paragraph of Amendment No. 353C.
Earl Peel: I should like briefly to say that I have a great deal of concern for what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said on this matter. I am very much of the opinion that the country councils should develop their relationship with the joint committee as freely as possible. But there will undoubtedly have to be standards which must be adhered to. Particularly in the case of sites of special scientific interest, that is of fundamental concern to the way that nature conservation is to be run in this country.
I hope that we can instil into this Bill some form of standard which will ensure that we go forward on an even keel; otherwise, as some noble Lords have said, we shall have continuous references to the Secretary of State which will lead to all kinds of difficulties.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: There is a slight element of confusion here because, owing to a misguided inability to add up the numbers, I did not respond to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I intend to do that now and return to the points raised

2209
by other noble Lords with regard to the government amendments that preceded the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he spoke to his amendments.
With regard to Amendment No. 355AZB, the Government do not consider it necessary to specify in the way suggested that the JNCC will be the vehicle for the provision of advice affecting our European and international nature conservation responsibilities. Undoubtedly the JNCC will have a major role here and the government amendments will clarify the international role through the use of the phrase "nature conservation outside Great Britain", as I have already said. I can also assure the noble Lord that the JNCC will have an international branch, probably of about eight staff (which specifically covers the numbers about which he inquired) to deal with these matters. I hope therefore that he will agree not to press that amendment.
Amendments Nos. 355AZC and 355ZAC concern common standards for the designation and monitoring of sites, including SSSIs. I have already explained when I presented the Government's amendments to Clause 123 that these amendments had been deliberately designed to ensure that the JNCC provides such guidelines. I should add that the NCC is also satisfied that our amendments give full scope for the JNCC to take an overview of the implementation of any standards which it promulgates for specific categories of habitats.
Amendment No. 355AZC would again extend the role of the JNCC by requiring it to provide common facilities for the country councils. That is the opposite of the way that Part VII is intended to operate. It is not a large central bureaucracy under the JNCC which will support the councils but the councils which will support the JNCC itself. There will be scope for the councils and the JNCC to share facilities, including computers, and we have commissioned consultants to look at the options. But we are opposed to the reinvention of the NCC as a large central body.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, inquired whether subsection (4)(b) weakens the JNCC's powers. Subsection (4)(b) of Amendment No. 356ZA is a reserve power to allow the GB body an international function to be carried out by a single country council under direction from the Secretary of State. That power would only be used in extremis if the joint committee could not carry out that activity.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to common standards for SSSIs. I know that there has been concern to ensure that the JNCC is empowered to issue guidelines to the country councils about the criteria for the designation of sites of special scientific interest. This work falls exactly within the definition of a common issue under Amendment No. 356ZA. I would add that the NCC is content that this amendment will secure the objective that I have stated and that the revised Clause 123 will also give full scope to the JNCC to oversee the monitoring of standards of implementation of SSSI designation.
My noble friend Lord Renton, who always has an ability at a late hour to ensure that the Government
2210
are paying maximum attention to the finer points and the correct presentation of the material within a Bill, referred to an assignment. I believe it means that the functions are given for the joint committee by the amendments to the 1981 Act made in Schedule 8.
Lord Renton: I have read those amendments. I should be so grateful if my noble friend could point out where the assignment takes place in those amendments. I cannot see that it does. Admittedly, it is a tremendously complicated and lengthy piece of legislation by reference. If the assignment is achieved in those amendments listed in Schedule 8, it is only by implication. There is nothing express about it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: While my noble friend is considering that point, perhaps I may say that I am glad the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, pointed out that the amendments which stand in his name and mine are relevant to this group. Therefore they are being discussed with the group which starts with Amendment No. 353C.
My noble friend has just given an answer. I wish to make sure that I have understood correctly. He said that the NCC at present is satisfied that the point raised in Amendment No. 355ZAE concerning monitoring will be covered in the arrangements set out in the Bill. That was one of the important points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, when moving our amendment.
I raise the issue now. As the amendments are being considered as part of the larger group, for the convenience of the Committee, I presume that they will not be moved later.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise to the noble and gallant I Lord. It would have been proper for me to have responded to his two amendments. I did not do so.
Perhaps I may initially reply to my noble friend Lord Renton in the hope that I can provide a satisfactory answer to his question. The assignment is that the amendment itself provides that function of the NCC which will now be covered by the JNCC.
While my noble friend Lord Renton considers the quality or otherwise of my reply on the third occasion to his question, perhaps I may reply to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. Amendment No. 355ZAA concerns the standards for the designation of the sites including SSSIs. I have already explained, when presenting the Government's amendments to Clause 123, that they have been deliberately designed to ensure that the JNCC provides such guidelines. I hope that that will be satisfactory to the noble and gallant Lord.
I refer to Amendment No. 355ZAE. I hope that I can give the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the assurance that they seek. I have explained that the Government's amendments to Clause 123 have been designed to ensure that the JNCC can provide guidelines and common standards for the designation and monitoring of SSSIs. The government amendments—and this is the point accepted by the NCC—also give full scope for the JNCC to take an

2211
overview of the implementation of any standards that they promulgate for specific categories of habitat, thus I hope meeting the point and the spirit of Amendment No. 355ZAE.
Lord Carver: The noble Earl, Lord Peel, reinforced this important point. The provision does not relate to giving guidelines about standards for or monitoring of SSSIs. It relates to providing common standards for SSSIs which apply throughout Great Britain. It is the responsibility of the joint nature conservancy committee to monitor the implementation of those standards throughout Great Britain. The wording used fudges the issue. I would prefer it to be taken away and strengthened in the way that we have suggested.
Lord Hesketh: We believe that the revised Clause 123 will give full scope to the JNCC to oversee the monitoring of standards in the implementation of SSSIs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 354 and 354A not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 353D and 354B:
Page 125, line 26, leave out from ("conservation") to end of line and insert ("for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain").
Page 125, line 27, at end insert ("to any persons").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 355 and 355AZA not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 354C:
Page 125, line 28, leave out from ("conservation") to end of line and insert ("for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 355AZB and 355AZC not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 355ZA:
Page 125, line 28, at end insert:
("(bb) the provision of advice for or making of recommendations to the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 1 of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 (restriction on importation and exportation of certain animals and plants) and section 3 of the said Act of 1976 (power to modify Schedules),").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to the trade in endangered species of wildlife. The United Kingdom Government are party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, colloquially knows as CITES. One of the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council is to provide advice to the Secretary of State on the conservation implications of importing and exporting wildlife species or their derivatives; such as handbags made from Nile crocodile skins. To illustrate the significance of the Nature Conservancy Council's role in this important matter, I point out that last year it dealt with 20,000 applications for import and export licences and gave advice to the Government about them. The work is currently handled by the Nature Conservancy Council's chief scientist directorate.
2212
The Government have indicated a need for a co-ordination of the NCC's licensing functions. The Department of the Environment has confirmed that the new agencies and the joint committee will assume responsibility for advisory work connected with CITES. That is to be welcomed. However, the distribution of responsibility is not clear. The amendment clarifies the situation and will give the joint committee special responsibility for providing advice to the Secretary of State on the conservation implications of individual applications for licences to trade in endangered species or their derivatives.
It is impossible for the three new country councils to inherit this function due to its specialised nature. Moreover, decentralising the provision of advice will require a triplication of staff resources and technical data. It will also leave the system open to abuse by unscrupulous dealers; for example, a dealer who is refused a licence to import ivory piano keys into Scotland may make an application to import the same items into England and transport them up the A1 to Scotland. That may sound a wild exaggeration, but the loophole currently exists in Europe in relation to the parrot trade and it has been exploited considerably. Since the Nature Conservancy Council currently provides advice on 20,000 licence applications each year the potential to exploit a muddled and fragmented system is infinite.
If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, I have three questions to put to him. What safeguards will be introduced to ensure that loopholes are not allowed to develop in the CITES arrangements; secondly, will the joint committee be given any specific responsibilities in relation to CITES; and, thirdly, how many staff will the joint committee employ for the purposes of advising the Government on CITES?
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment as it stands. However, if not, I look forward to hearing his answers to those questions. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With my noble friend's amendment, we are discussing also Amendments Nos. 355C and 355D. They are in my name and I believe them to be fully complementary to the excellent amendment which my noble friend has just moved.
Amendment No. 355C seeks to ensure that the issuing of licences for protected and non-native species should be the responsibility of the joint committee rather than of country councils. The reason for that is fairly obvious. As my noble friend said, you could finish up with a situation where something is permitted in one country in the British Isles and not in another country.
We return to the question of international obligations, to which the Minister responded when replying to one of my earlier amendments. He assured me that the NCC was satisfied with the provision in the powers of the joint committee that international obligations would be respected and would be part of the duties of the joint committee. We must have that on the face of the Bill more clearly than it is at present.

2213
Those international obligations are listed in Schedules 1, 5 and 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are listed there for very good reasons: first, to ensure that there is a consistent view about the protection of species in other countries so that we are not importing endangered species here and damaging their survival elsewhere; and, secondly, from the point of view of our protection, so that we are not importing species, including protected and non-native species, which would cause damage here. Therefore, from both points of view, the whole thrust of our international obligations must be that we are taking a national view and not merely a country view about them. We should not run the risk of duplication and even inconsistency as between the activities of the country councils.
On Amendment No. 355D, the Minister confirmed earlier that the quinquennial reports were the responsibility of the joint committee. We now seek to ensure that the quinquennial reports will include statements of any amendments to Schedules 5 and 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which deal with the listing of wild animals and plants. I am sure that that need not be a matter of principle. It is a very logical extension of the principle which the Government have already accepted in agreeing that the joint committee, or the JNCC as it is now to be called, will make that quinquennial report.
Lard Ross of Newport: My name is attached to this amendment. This issue is absolutely vital. It will be total nonsense if it is not to be the responsibility of the JNCC to deal with those matters. I implore the Minister to accept these amendments or something like them.
Lord Reay: I understand that grouped also with these amendments is Amendment No. 363ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lord Norrie. I do not know if he wishes to speak to his amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend. My amendment extends and clarifies the role of the joint committee. The Nature Conservancy Council currently has a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to review every five years the status of animals and plants in Great Britain and to advise the Secretary of State whether endangered species are deserving of legal protection. That is known as the quinquennial review.
The Government said in Committee in another place that the joint committee would assume responsibility for the quinquennial review. However, the RSPB is anxious to ensure that this quinquennial review also covers wild birds. Such advice would materially assist the Secretary of State to fulfil his obligations under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. The status of birds that are widely dispersed or migratory should be considered on a GB or UK basis.
The amendment proposes that in addition to a review of the status of species, a review of the main habitat types, such as broad-leaved woodland, graze marshes, estuaries or upland moorlands, should be
2214
undertaken and results recorded every five years. As the great majority of such habitats are found throughout Great Britain, it is sensible that there should be co-ordination by the joint committee. The new clause includes that important provision; I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Reay: These amendments would add a range of specific advisory and executive functions to the JNCC's statutory remit. In asking for them to be withdrawn I would make three main points. First, the Government have already covered some of the ground in their own amendments, notably in providing for the joint committee to make its own annual report, as sought in Amendment No. 363ZA, and in making advice on species covered by Schedule 5 and 8 to the 1981 Act a JNCC responsibility, as sought in Amendments Nos. 363ZA and 355D. I would add that the Government also intend to obtain advice on CITES and trade in endangered species from the joint committee's support unit which will be staffed for this purpose. No amendment to the 1976 or 1981 Acts is in fact required for this purpose, but the spirit of Amendment No. 355ZA is accepted.
To make myself clearer I should say that the JNCC will take on the CITES work although no statutory change is required. Regarding the amount of staff about which the noble Baroness asked, of the 50 staff assigned to the JNCC there will be an international branch of around eight who will handle all the CITES work currently undertaken by the NCC in Peterborough.
Secondly, the Government remain opposed to extending the remit of the JNCC to cover executive functions such as licensing, as suggested by Amendment No. 355C. We are prepared to make administrative arrangements to secure as much streamlining and "one-stop shopping" as possible between the country councils themselves on licensing, and the shadow chairmen are looking at possible options. However, it would defeat the object of the Bill—and incidentally go far beyond the recommendations of the Carver Committee—if we were to try and re-centralise functions like licensing in Peterborough.
Thirdly, we believe that advice on birds—here I address the amendment of my noble friend—should come in the main from the country councils. The provisions for animal and plant species covered by Schedules 5 and 8 to the 1981 Act have been allocated to the JNCC because the law already requires a national (that is, a Great Britain) view to be taken. That is not the case for birds. Indeed, much more of the government side of the work is already done by the territorial Ministers, and it would be logical for them to deal with their respective country councils.
Country councils will have a major role of their own; for example, giving advice on severe weather orders or on local and country issues affecting birds. I should also emphasise that the majority of ornithologists working for the new bodies will be based with the country agencies, although their expertise will be available to the JNCC. That does not, of course, mean that the JNCC cannot, if it wishes, provide advice on birds from a GB, UK or

2215
international dimension; it is already empowered to do so under Clause 123.
Lord Norrie: Before the Minister sits down perhaps he can clarify one point. Can he confirm that the NCC's present advisory committee on birds will continue to exist and co-ordinate bird conservation matters for the joint committee?
Lord Reay: My understanding is that it will not.
Baroness Nicol: The reply of the Minister appears to meet the requirements of Amendment No. 355ZA. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 355ZAA and 355ZAC not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): In calling Amendment No. 355ZAB, I should inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 355ZAD.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 355ZAB:
Page 125, line 29, leave out from ("standards") to ("the") in line 30 and insert ("throughout Great Britain for the monitoring of nature conservation and for research into nature conservation and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 355ZAD, 355ZAE, and 355A not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 355B:
Page 125, line 33, leave out from ("in") to ("to ") in line 34 and insert ("the opinion of the joint committee is relevant to any matter mentioned in paragraphs (aa)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 355C and 355D not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 355E:
Page 125, line 35, leave out from ("the") to ("as") in line 36 and insert ("special functions").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 356 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I now call Amendment No. 356ZA. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 356A, 356B, 361A or 363ZB.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 356ZA:
Page 125, leave out lines 38 to 49 and insert—
("(2) The joint committee may give advice or information to any of the Councils on any matter arising in connection with the functions of that Council under section 122 above which, in the opinion of the committee, concerns nature conservation for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain.
(3) For the purposes of this section, references to nature conservation for Great Britain as a whole are references to—

(a) any nature conservation matter of national or international importance or which otherwise affects the interests of Great Britain as a whole; or

(b) any nature conservation matter which arises throughout Great Britain and raises issues common to England, Scotland and Wales,

2216
and it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) above that a matter arises only in relation to England, to Scotland or to Wales.
(4) The Secretary of State may, as respects any matter arising in connection with—

(a) any special function of the councils, or

(b) the function of the joint committee under subsection (2) above,

give directions to any of the Councils requiring that Council (instead of the joint committee) to discharge that function in relation to that matter.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 356A to 356D, 357 and 358 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 359:
Page 125, line 46, at end insert—
("(2A) The Joint Committee referred to in subsection (2) above shall meet in public").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Its purpose is to require meetings of the joint committee to be held in public. It is generally agreed, and certainly we recognise on this side of the Committee, that there have been considerable changes in attitude by the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill on the issue of access to environmental information. As we have said, that is extremely welcome and I am glad to reiterate it.
An extension of Government thinking on this matter would be to allow meetings of the joint committee to be held in public. On 31st October 1988 the European Commission submitted a proposal for a directive on freedom of access to information on the environment which would allow the public right of access to environmental information held by public authorities. The Council reached a common decision on 27th March 1990. Having received this political agreement the proposal can be expected to go through in its present form at any time.
The implications of the directive are that any information held by public bodies will be available without the public needing to display an interest. Although many member states already operate freedom of information legislation, this directive will have the effect of harmonising and strengthening citizens' rights throughout the Community. Individuals and pressure groups will find it easier to bring legal action in their own right. Adoption of the directive, coupled with adoption of the civil liability directive, will have a profound effect on company liability. Consequently, it seems appropriate that at a time when local authorities allow public access to most committee meetings, government and/or quasi-government committees should adopt the same policy. Public confidence can only be gained by public access to such meetings and information gleaned from them.
Considerable disquiet has been expressed about government appointments to such committees. I believe that the public would have more confidence in the independence of this joint committee if, first, all discussion on appointments was heard in public and, secondly, the committee's proceedings were similarly accessible. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The Government are not persuaded that nature conservation will benefit if the joint committee is required to hold its deliberations in public. The Government expect from the committee the highest standard of scientific detachment and advice that will carry weight. It is not being formed to act as a lobby group or as some kind of buffer or consultation body between the Government and the NGCs. For those reasons, this step would not in our view be in the long-term interest of nature conservation. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment, particularly in the light of the fact that the Government have today agreed that the JNCC will be required to give an independent and public report of its activities to the council, Ministers and Parliament.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is a most disappointing response. I appreciate that the night is long and I am as anxious to get away as the Minister. What he is saying is that he is satisfied that the work of the committee will be carried on properly; that in his view its work is not likely to be of interest to the public; and that members of the public who want to come along and listen to democracy in practice are being tiresome and irksome. He is saying that these issues should be left to the committee, the Minister and his advisers. I am sure that those outside this Chamber who read what the Government have said will be extremely disappointed. I may very well come back to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 359A and 360 not moved.]
Lord Carver Lord Carver moved Amendment No. 360A:
Page 125, line 46, at end insert—
"( ) Any question as to whether a particular function falls within the provisions of subsection (1) above or within the provisions of section 122(1) above shall be determined by the Joint Committee.").
The noble and gallant Lord said: I raised this matter very briefly when we were discussing another amendment, but I did not get an answer. This amendment relates to a matter on which the Select Committee felt quite strongly. The amendment comes directly from Recommendation 4.16 of our report. It is designed to meet a situation in which a country council disputes whether a particular function is a special function of the joint committee or whether it is within the country council's own remit to deal with.
In their response the Government suggested that this kind of argument was unlikely to happen very much and that in any case there was bound to be a certain overlap between what could be said to be matters for the country council and those which would fall to the joint committee. I must accept that the government's acceptance of our recommendation that the independent members of the commitee are to be voting members has made a difference to the importance which we attach to this measure. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be a useful
2218
addition to the Bill to save having to refer such disagreements to the Secretary of State. We then return to the argument as to who is the Secretary of State. What happens if different Secretaries of State disagree with each other?
It is possible that this may be quite important from the legal point of view. Someone might challenge the competence of the joint committee in a certain area, saying that an issue did not fall within the special function of the joint committee but within the function of the country council. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Subsection (2B) of Amendment No. 259A in fact contains a similar provision that the JNCC shall have the final word on whether an activity falls within Clause 122 or Clause 123. The Government gave a clear answer to this suggestion when we responded to Recommendation 4.16 of the Select Committee report. Only the courts can interpret the law, and it is not practicable to give such a power to the JNCC. The fundamental concept of the joint committee is that of a mechanism to enable the country councils to work together on national and international issues. In that duty they will be assisted by an independent chairman and independent members. The representatives of the country councils and the independent chairman and members will be able to vote. The chairman will have a casting vote to be used if necessary.
The Government do not believe that further provision is necessary or desirable. As we also said in our response to the report of the Select Committee, attempts to tighten the legislation unduly could be counter-productive in depriving either a country agency or the committee of a legitimate conservation function. In practice, any disagreements should be rare and will be subject to the final arbitration of the Secretary of State under the powers of direction in Clause 121(4), which we intend to amend to make clear that the directions can be given to the joint committee as well as to the country councils. The Government have also honoured their undertaking to empower the joint committee to give advice to the country councils and to require the country councils to have regard to such advice.
Lord Carver: Of course the courts interpret the law, but the law is what the Bill says. We want to avoid bringing in the courts to decide these matters. I accept that the changes to the voting pattern in the joint committee have made this less important than it was when we felt so strongly about in the Select Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will think again about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 360B to 361A not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 362:
Page 125, line 49, at end insert—
("(4) The Joint Committee may, in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, and from funds made available to it for that purpose, give financial assistance by way of grant or loan (or partly in one way and partly in the other) to any person in respect of expenditure incurred or to

2219
be incurred by him in doing anything which in its opinion is conducive to nature conservation or fostering the understanding of nature conservation in the United Kingdom as a whole or at an international level").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 374, 374ZA and 374A. These amendments relate to the same point. A range of matters that are likely to be the subject of grant do not respect country boundaries. I give as illustrations, first, areas of land which fall across boundaries; secondly, coastal waters or areas of coast, which in this context cross boundaries by definition; thirdly, research or other work on species of plants or animals which are either common across more than one country or which migrate across boundaries. In all those circumstances there are powerful arguments for enabling Great Britain-based grants to be given by the joint committee.
Amendment No. 374ZA seeks to give the joint committee a grant-making power in projects and organisations of interest to more than one country council. There must be grant assistance via the constituency agencies for projects or organisations working at Great Britain or international level to be undertaken under direction from the joint co-ordinating committee, using funds specifically ring fenced for that purpose, as the country councils will naturally only want to fund projects working within their country boundaries. The joint committee is the logical body through which such Great Britain-wide work should be funded.
Examples that can be quoted are grants that are currently made to bodies for research such as the RSPB, the RSNC and marine organisations. The country councils individually would not feel in a position to fund such research work that extended outside their country. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: Amendment No. 374A stands in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. It deals with grants and loans by the joint committee. The amendment would give the joint committee statutory powers to provide financial assistance in the form of grants or loans. The NCC already has the power to make grants. Each year it processes around 1,000 applications from landowners, schools and conservation organisations.
Clause 124 of the Bill transfers the NCC's grant-giving powers to the new country councils. In some ways, this is to be welcomed. However, more than half of the NCC's expenditure on grants, which totalled some £1·3 million last year, is provided for organisations with a Great Britain remit for projects which relate to more than one country. I referred earlier to the bat week. There is also the problem of peat extraction which is being examined in a national context. In addition a report is being undertaken by the NCC—it is, I understand, at an advanced stage—on the threat to our many estuaries throughout the United Kingdom. Those are but three examples of such projects. The grants are processed and paid for out of the central funding. Therefore, it is only logical that the proposed joint committee should also be given grant-giving powers.
2220
If grant applications in respect of Great Britain projects have to be made to each of the country councils, there is a very real danger that funds will not be forthcoming from one or more of the councils. Given the tight squeeze which we anticipate on the NCC's funding as a result of fragmentation, we are likely to witness a reduction in urgently needed conservation grants for projects with a Great Britain or international dimension. I hope very much that the Minister will take that fact on board. I say that because some of the NGOs which have received grant-aid in the past will, undoubtedly, be making applications for grants. However, they are not, at present, constituted in such a way as to be able to apply differently in the different parts of the three countries for loans or grants. It will take them some time to re-establish themselves in that way if, in fact, that is what the Government insist upon. It seems to me to be a stupid way of implementing the system.
There should be some sort of federal funding for the purpose. If that is not what the Government have in mind, will funds be made available to the joint committee for the purpose of making grants to organisations with a GB or a UK remit? How many staff will the joint committee have to employ to administer GB grants? If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, will they provide safeguards against a short-fall in grants available to GB organisations such as those I have mentioned, including the Marine Conservation Society, the RSNC and others?
Lord Norrie: I rise to express support for Amendment No. 374ZA. In supporting the amendment I stress that our purpose is not to cut across the proposed new regional system but to make provision over and above it for activities which clearly have an inter-regional or national significance. The new devolved bodies will naturally provide their hard-pressed funds first to conservation work central to their area. We must ensure that this logic does not prohibit or disrupt projects that are too expensive for a single council to support or which seem insufficiently relevant to local needs to gain all the support they require. Perhaps I may illustrate my point with a few examples.
The Game Conservancy Trust recently conducted some excellent research work, partly funded by the NCC, on the ecology of the black grouse. Although the work was done in Scotland, it will be invaluable to those studying or conserving the black grouse throughout its territorial range in the British Isles. That range includes parts of England and Wales. The outstanding work done by the Hawk and Owl Trust into the long-term causes of the decline of the barn owl achieved its breakthrough in the Lincolnshire Fen country. However, the ecological solution devised and promoted by the trust will need implementation throughout the bird's UK and European range.
Several recreational bodies foresee difficulties in helping to protect the environment where their members practise hobbies. The British Mountaineering Council has recently published an invaluable booklet, entitled Tread Lightly, which

2221
advises mountaineers, climbers and hill walkers on good environmental practice. The council approached the NCC at its Peterborough head office and won financial support for its excellent document. The Youth Hostels Association receives support from the Countryside Commission for its countryside information centre. The centre gives advice on matters throughout the British Isles, but is located in England—in Bristol. Should small and lightly resourced bodies have to approach three different country offices it would be an unnecessarily exhaustive exercise in time and motion.
The inclusion of the amendment in the Bill would allow the joint committee to ensure continued support for the valuable work, not only of the bodies mentioned but also of others contributing to our rural heritage on a national basis such as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Central Council of Physical Recreation.
Baroness David: My name is attached to Amendment No. 374A to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport has already spoken. I should like to emphasise one point. The noble Lord said that the NCC already has power to make grants and that each year it processes around 1,000 applications from land owners, schools and conservation organisations.
I should like to make the point about the schools. Unless the joint committee has the right to make grants, the schools may suffer. I hope we all agree that we want to educate young people about the environment, nature conservation, and so on. It is important that those bodies should be able to give grants to schools. I hope that the amendment will be supported with that point in mind.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I wish that every time the noble Baroness made a late impassioned appeal I was able to be of assistance, as I was last time.
The amendments are designed to give the joint committee an executive function of giving grants or loans, and, in recommending that, they go beyond the conclusions reached in the Select Committee's report. I apologise to the Committee if I repeat myself, but the joint committee is designed to be an advisory committee looking at national and global issues. In the Government's view, it will do that more effectively if it is not burdened with executive duties such as grant giving which is exactly the kind of responsibility that should be exercised by the country agencies.
There is nothing to stop the country agencies agreeing between themselves how they should handle grants for projects which transcend country boundaries, but that is surely not a unique or insurmountable problem when so many other public agencies, already organise on a country basis and have relevant experience which can be shared with the new conservation agencies. We have deliberately drafted Clause 124 to be as wide as possible so that no worthwhile project will be deterred from seeking grant or legal grounds.
Lord Ross of Newport: This is an important point. I realise that the Minister is trying to avoid giving the joint committee executive powers. However, will he at least state that it is the Government's wish that the three country councils should jointly set up a body so that they can consider as one applications from such organisations as the RSPB?
Surely he realises that it is nonsense to say, with regard to something which should be funded and which is of interest to the United Kingdom as a whole or internationally, that the bodies concerned should have to make three separate applications. If they could have an informal get-together to consider grants and loans jointly—not necessarily through the joint committee—that would be a major step forward. Outside bodies would then know where to apply and would not have to trail all round the country. That would be mad. The Government desperately need the help of the voluntary organisations to make the proposal work; otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot. I beg them to do something in that regard.
Lord Hesketh: We must lower the tone of excitement. The object of having three agencies rather than one is in order to respond better at a local level. I should have through that that was a great Liberal tradition. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, says that it will be difficult for the RSPB, which is a rich and well-organised body, to make three applications when it knows perfectly well where to make the applications to obtain grants. However, if we balance that against the small voluntary organisations which do not operate on a unitarian basis and which will find it much more user friendly to be able to go to their own country organisation, the Government's proposals will benefit those who most need help.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and, I suspect, of others who have spoken in this series of debates. I do not doubt that the Government recognise that grants such as we are discussing here are likely to be called for, but they say that the method that we propose may not be right. Those people outside this place who read with great interest what the Minister has said will have to decide whether the proposal is satisfactory. The Minister is saying that together they ought to be able to come to sensible arrangements. We have sought to write on the face of the Bill what we and they consider to be a sensible arrangement. It is quite clear however that the Minister and his advisers have a certain view. I hope that when the country councils come up with an ad hoc arrangement which can provide a mechanism whereby they can do this, the Minister will not say that it is ultra vires. That would be wrong.
Those outside the House are entitled to believe that the Minister recognises that in the circumstances that have been imposed there will be times when one wants to make grants that transcend the territorial boundaries of the councils' remit. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to those suggestions. It is possible that we shall propose another amendment

2223
at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 363 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 363ZB not moved.]
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 363ZA not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Amendment of Enactments conferring Nature Conservancy Functions]:
[Amendment No. 363A not moved.]
Lord Carver: Should not Amendment No. 363ZB come before the end of Clause 123?
The Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 363ZB was pre-empted by Amendment No. 356ZA to which your Lordships agreed. I said at the time that I could not call the later amendment.
[Amendment No. 364 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 364A:
Page 178, leave out lines 23 to 26.
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I should like to move Amendment No. 364A and speak to Amendments Nos. 364B, 364C, 366A, 366B and 366C. These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 364B and 364C:
Page 178, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("relating") in line 40 and insert:
("4. In paragraph 7 of section 39(1) of the Superannuation Act 1965 (public offices)—

(a) there shall be inserted in the appropriate place the following entry—
"The Countryside Council for Wales."; and

(b) for the entry").

Page 178, leave out line 44.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 365 not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 366:
Page 179, line 13, after ("interest)") insert:
("(a) subsection (2) shall be deleted and in its place there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2) Where, for the purposes of conserving those flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, it appears to the Council expedient to do so the Council may enter into an agreement
(a) with the owners, lessees and occupiers of any such land or of any land adjoining such land and
(b) with any person having an easement, profit, right or privilege over such land which imposes restrictions of the exercise of rights over such land by the persons who can be bound by the agreement." (b) ").
2224
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment to Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968. At present subsection (2) of that section is one of the most important tools of the Nature Conservancy Council. It allows the council to enter into management agreements with,
"owners, lessees and occupiers of land which imposes restrictions on the exercise of rights over land by the persons who can be bound by the agreement".
The amendment introduces two additional classes of person with whom Section 15 management agreements could in future be negotiated if this amendment is accepted. First, there is the class of persons who are,
"owners, lessees and occupiers of … land … adjoining"
the SSSI. It is quite frequent that the occupiers of land adjoining SSSIs can do things on that land which affects the conservation value of the SSSI itself. For instance, in a wetland site the occupiers can drain their land and thereby affect the water level on the special site. They can own and farm perfectly legitimately arable land adjoining pasture SSSIs. Spray drift can cause great damage to the scientific interest of the SSSI. The Nature Conservancy Council is anxious to be able to enter into management agreements with such persons and thereby provide them with compensation for not carrying out potentially damaging operations. The second class of persons, covered in paragraph (b) of my amendment, are those who have,
"an easement, profit, right or privilege over such land".
These people include persons with common rights over land—for instance, people who have grazing rights and the right to run cattle on SSSIs. However, by exercising those rights they can damage the scientific interest of sites. Therefore the Nature Conservancy Council seeks to enter into management agreements with such people to provide them with compensation because the exercise of their rights is restricted.
The effect of this amendment is to strengthen the capacity of the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor councils to protect sites of special scientific interest. It is important to note that this provision is not obligatory on the councils, but they may enter into management agreements with any of these persons for the purpose of conserving the special interest of an SSSI. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: Before the noble Lord sits down I should add that I support this amendment which will give the new councils the power to reach agreements with those who have rights on SSSIs and with owners and occupiers of land adjacent to SSSI land. I consider this to be a necessary power which will prove helpful in the safeguarding of SSSIs.
I wish to highlight the problem of the Nature Conservancy Council not being able to enter into an agreement with an owner or occupier of land which is adjacent to an SSSI with a view to modifying the management of that land. This is a major problem because many SSSIs are vulnerable to what happens on adjacent land. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to wetland sites. Such a site would depend for its survival on what happens on the land around

2225
it. For example in the Somerset Levels—the area of land which stretches from Glastonbury to the Bristol Channel—the NCC is paying some farmers who own SSSIs to keep up the water levels while other farmers who own adjacent land continue to drain their grazing marshes because the NCC is unable to enter into a management agreement with them. If the Government consider that this situation is already covered by existing legislation, will the Minister give an assurance that funds will be made available to enter into this kind of management agreement?
Earl Peel: I, too, wish to support the amendment. As regards covering those with common rights, there is no doubt that much damage has been caused to SSSIs in this respect. The Committee will no doubt recall a recent list of damaged SSSIs. I believe that list was released by Friends of the Earth. I think I am right in saying that the damage to the majority of those sites originated on common land where the Nature Conservancy Council was unable to enter into management agreements with those who held common rights. Therefore I most definitely welcome this amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward this amendment. The Nature Conservancy Council is at present empowered under Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 to enter into management agreements only with owners and occupiers of land within a site of special scientific interest when it appears to the NCC to be in the national interest to do so. This power is crucial to the NCC's ability to safeguard SSSIs, but the reference to "national importance" in Section 15 of the 1968 Act serves no useful purpose as the section applies to all SSSIs.
I now turn to the question of the NCC entering into agreements with persons who are not owners and occupiers but who either have rights over the land, or who manage land adjoining SSSIs in a manner adversely affecting an SSSI. The NCC has advised that its inability to enter into agreements where it would be expedient to do so is leading to a deterioration of some SSSIs even where the owners and occupiers are sympathetic. As I understand it, the problem is becoming serious, for example in areas of Cumbria where damage is occurring because of overgrazing by livestock owned by commoners.
In those circumstances I would be pleased to accept this amendment, but some small technical drafting errors have been identified so I will undertake to bring foward at the Report stage an amendment to have the same effect as that proposed here.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am most grateful to my noble fiend for those remarks.
Lord Hesketh: I said that there were a couple of small technical flaws in the amendment. Therefore I propose to produce a similar amendment at Report stage.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Under those circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 366A:
Page 179, line 39, leave out from ("the") to ("; and") in line 40 and insert ("words from "the Nature" to "functions" there shall be substituted the words "each of the following bodies, namely, the Nature Conservancy Council for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales as to the exercise in the respective areas of those Councils of the functions of those Ministers").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 366B and 366C:
Page 180, leave out lines 4 and 5.
Page 180, line 33, after ("Council") insert ("under section 122 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 366B and 366C en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 366D to 366J:
Page 180, leave out line 39.
Page 180, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) In section 15(2) (endangered species) for the word "Council" there shall be substituted the words "Councils".").
Page 180, line 45, at end insert ("and, after the word "exercise" there shall be inserted the words "in the area of that Council".").
Page 181, line 9, leave out ("all of").
Page 181, line 10, at end insert ("and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the words—
("and the functions of the Nature Conservancy Councils under this subsection shall be special functions of the Councils for the purposes of section 123 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990" ").
Page 181, line 13, at end insert (", for the words "the passing of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "30 October 1991" and at the end there shall be inserted the words—
"and the functions of the Nature Conservancy Councils under this subsection shall be special functions of the Councils for the purposes of section 123 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990".").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 366D to 366J are drafting amendments. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 366K to 366P:
Page 181, line 14, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 15 and insert ("words from "the Council" there shall be substituted the words "to the advice being given.").
Page 181, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("lay") in line 17 and insert ("for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) The Secretary of State shall").
Page 181, line 18, leave out from ("given") to ("and") in line 19.
Page 181, line 20, at end insert ("; and
(d) in subsection (4), for the word "Council" there shall be inserted the words "Nature Conservancy Councils".").
Page 181, line 21, leave out ("for Part II") and insert ("of Part I").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 366K to 366P are also drafting amendments and, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 366Q to 366S:
Page 181, line 35, after second ("in") insert (", or land covered by waters adjacent to,").
Page 181, line 37, after second ("in") insert (", or land covered by waters adjacent to,").
Page 181, line 39, after second ("in") insert (", or land covered by waters adjacent to,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 366Q to 366S, 372B and 373ZA are straightforward drafting amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 366Q to 366S en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 367 not moved.]
Lord Carver Lord Carver moved Amendment No. 367A:
Page 181, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In section 28(1) (areas of special scientific interest) after the words "Nature Conservancy Council" there shall be inserted the words "or the Joint Committee constituted under section 123(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990" ").
The noble and gallant Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 367A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 371B, which is a similar amendment dealing with marine nature reserves.
Amendment No. 367A amends Section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which reads:
"Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiogrpahical features, it shall be the duty of the Council to notify that fact—

(a) to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated;

(b) to every owner and occupier of any of that land; and

(c) to the Secretary of State".

As the Act is amended by the schedule, "Nature Conservancy Council" would include the three country councils. However, it would not include the joint committee itself. The object of the amendment is to make it possible for the joint committee, acting in the national interest or representing international interests, itself to identify an SSSI and, in the case of Amendment 371B, a marine nature reserve, presumably because none of the country councils was prepared to do so.
I believe that it is an important amendment. The joint committee has the responsibility of acting in the interests of Great Britain and in the international interest and the amendments would allow it to do so in the case of both SSSIs and marine nature reserves. I feel that this is an important matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: In supporting the noble and gallant Lord's amendment, perhaps I may add that the future of the marine nature conservation review is not clear. I do not know whether the Minister can give an answer on that point to night. The position is not helped by uncertainty over future funding. Since so many marine conservation matters cross country borders it is essential that there should be a Great Britain overview.
I remind the Committee that, of the seven marine nature reserve sites which were identified in 1981, only two have so far been designated. If the
2228
programme is to be slowed any further by uncertainty it will be a great tragedy. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Simply on the ground of practicability, I cannot see how this amendment can work. I do not want to expound at length on the processes by which SSSIs are notified, but there is an enormous amount of casework involved and legwork on the ground. The whole system by which the process is organised depends on the active deployment of assistant regional officers and staff on the ground. It is work which the joint committee simply will not be equipped to undertake.
It is impractical to think that from a remote and comparatively small joint committee of this nature one can suddenly decide that an area is an SSSI and notify it without having done the groundwork and casework involved.
Baroness Nicol: As I understand it, the amendment gives the alternative. It says "or" the joint committee. Presumably the joint committee would only exercise its authority or function when it appeared to be necessary to do so. One would hope that the country councils would act properly in respect of marine nature matters, as I am sure they will in everything else. But I think that as a reserve power this is a very useful measure to include in the Bill.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Perhaps I should say for clarification that I was referring simply to Amendment No. 367A, in the names of the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. That amendment does not mention marine matters.
Lord Carver: As I understand it—and I am not an expert on the matter, as is the noble Earl—the situation with which this amendment is meant to deal is where a great deal of the detailed work has been done and yet agreement has not been reached that the site should be notified as an SSSI.
Lord Reay: The effect of this amendment would be to confer on the joint committee an executive function; namely, the notification of sites of special scientific interest under Section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The country councils would then be obliged to notify any SSSI recommended for notification by the JNCC.
As we said earlier, it is not the Government's intention to confer on the JNCC executive functions of that kind. It would have the effect of turning the joint committee into a fourth quango, which is something that the Government have strenuously tried to avoid. The actual designation of SSSIs is clearly a country matter.
Where the JNCC has an interest is in the setting and monitoring of common standards for SSSI designation. I would point out that that is a function covered in Clause 123 of the Bill, which we have already discussed at some length. I remind the Committee that we have given clear assurances to night that the joint committee will give guidelines for SSSIs and monitor their implementation.
Lord Carver: If this amendment is not accepted, and I realise that the Government are reluctant to accept it, the procedure that would have to be followed in the case that I suggested is that the joint committee would then have to turn to the Secretary of State and get him to issue directions. That can happen, and this amendment would have been a way of avoiding that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 368:
Page if 181, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In section 28 (areas of special scientific interest), the following new subsection shall be inserted—
"(15) Where the Council are of the opinion that it would be conducive to the protection or proper management of any area of land notified under subsection (1) they may notify any person appearing to them to have an interest in or rights over that land or part thereof and the provisions of this section shall apply to such notification as if it had been made under subsection (1)(b) hereof'.")
The noble Earl said: We are still considering the amendments to Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which is the section dealing with the notification of areas of special scientific interest.
The effect of this amendment is to extend the categories of persons who can be notified to persons who hold common rights. At present Section 28(1)(b) requires the Nature Conservancy Council to notify every owner or occupier of a site of special interest. Other subsections require the Nature Conservancy Council to specify in that notification the nature of the special interest and any operation that is likely to damage the interest. The owner or occupier is thereafter required to give the Nature Conservancy Council prior written notice of any intention to carry out the potentially damaging operations. That is essentially the site safeguarding mechanism operating through SSSIs.
Part II of the Act, which contains Section 28, does not define "owner" or "occupier". The lack of definition of an owner has not proved a problem; but the lack of definition of an occupier has caused problems in relation to persons who have the right of enter land and to carry out works and those who have common rights and sporting rights over the land. The Nature Conservancy Council has received conflicting legal advice as to whether such persons can be treated as occupiers for the purposes of the Act. The balance of opinion is that they cannot.
Nonetheless, as was made clear in the earlier debate on the previous clause about persons holding common rights, the activities of such persons can damage the special interest of the site. The problems are particularly acute with regard to SSSIs that lie within common land. A quarter of a million hectares of SSSIs lie within common land in England and Wales. That is about a quarter of the total SSSI area in those countries. That very large area is not afforded the full safeguard provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As a consequence it is suffering damage in many cases.
The Nature Conservancy Council is not able to use the preferred safeguard mechanism of offering a management agreement to commoners because of
2230
the legal opinion that such people are not considered to be occupiers within the terms of the Act. If the operations proposed could damage the special interest, such an offer could be made either under Section 28 of the SSSI legislation, or under Section 29 where the Secretary of State has made a nature conservation order.
It is therefore important to the Nature Conservancy Council that such persons should be treated as occupiers, or that the definition of persons who can be notified be extended in the manner proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: In rising to support the amendment, I should like to emphasise that at present the SSSI provisions do not apply to common right holders. Peat cutters, turf cutters and grazers are examples.
Amendment No. 368 would bring common right holders within the scope of the SSSI procedures and provide a mechanism for discussing and agreeing management of the land. The amendment is an enabling one only and would permit the NCC to notify right holders if it so wished.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment gives the NCC a discretionary power to notify persons such as commoners of the scientific importance of a site and of the potentially damaging operation affecting that site.
I am interested to hear the noble Lord's arguments. Some of the damage may be unwittingly done to SSSIs by persons who are not owners and occupiers of land but who nevertheless by carrying out the legitimate activities can affect the special interest of land by inappropriate management. As things stand at present, the NCC is not empowered to draw the attention of other than the owner and occupier to the importance of such land. However, the Interpretation Act 1978 already provides that land includes any right or interest in land. It may be that in applying to owners of land the 1981 Act will already apply to people with the interests in land which were mentioned by both noble Lords.
We are in sympathy with the aims of the amendment. I shall consider very carefully what has been said. If there is a gap in the legislation I shall return to the matter at Report stage.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am grateful for the information about the 1978 Act which had not previously been drawn to my attention. Having heard what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 369:
Page 181, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In section 28 (areas of special scientific interest), the following new subsection shall be inserted—
"(16) Where the Council are of the opinion that any area of land notified under subsection (1) has for any reason ceased to be of such special interest then the Council may give notice of that fact to the persons mentioned in that subsection and where appropriate to the relevant body or bodies mentioned in section (9) of the Water Act 1989 and on the giving of such notice the notification shall cease to have effect.".").
The noble Earl said: We are still dealing with the same section of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The amendment gives the Nature Conservancy Council and its successors the power to denotify sites of special scientific interest where, in the opinion of the council, that special interest no longer exists. Where the special interest of a site has been lost, for whatever reason, the Nature Conservancy Council has a responsibility to inform the relevant persons who have been notified previously that that is so. It is important that that act is undertaken in a formal and legal way. It demonstrates that the Nature Conservancy Council is taking its duties seriously by rigorously applying the criteria for special interest which have been worked out.
The practical effect is that the denotification rescinds the obligations placed upon the relevant persons. Denotification is not a new exercise. The NCC has denotified hundreds of sites over the years because their special interest had been lost. Even during my short term as chairman of the Advisory Committee for England I recommended the denotification of several sites.
Problems can arise if such denotification is considered to have the effect of removing from the owner, occupier or other person notified what he or she considers to be a benefit. For example, land which has been acquired by a county naturalist trust as a nature reserve has a reasonable expectation of being able to be supported by management grants when the land is an SSSI. If it is denotified such expectation is lessened or destroyed. Similarly, there are conditional exemptions for personal taxes, including inheritance tax, which may or may not be related to the designation of land as an SSSI. Therefore, the NCC requires positive powers of denotification and that would be the effect of the amendment. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Norrie: It is obviously sensible that when land that has been notified as being of special scientific interest ceases to possess that special interest it should be denotified and the owners and occcupiers should no longer be bound by the provisions relating to SSSIs. The omission of the power to denotify SSSIs from Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act was surely an oversight. It is right that the new council should have such and explicit power. For that reason I support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I believe that the figure 9 in the subsection of the amendment should not be in parenthesis.
Earl Peel: I support the amendment in principle. However, it is possible that a farmer may change his farming activities in order to comply with the recommendations of the original SSSI. If, for whatever reason, the NCC deems the site not worthy of such a designation, the farmer may not receive compensation and the land will not provide a return. That situation would be unfair on the farmer.
The Earl of Cranbrook: If the NCC or its successor bodies are to operate the designation process
2232
according to established guidelines which will be monitored and supervised by the joint committee those actions must be taken with rigour. If land ceases to be of scientific interest it cannot continue to carry that designation, whatever the consequences. However, the farmer would be free to farm in an unfettered fashion and would no longer be bound by the restrictions placed upon him in any management agreement.
Earl Peel: I accept that statement but it may take some time for the farmer to return to a profitable system. I wondered whether it would be possible to include in the amendment some form of compensation to lighten those circumstances.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this amendment, which would clarify the position concerning the existing powers of the NCC to denotify a site of special scientific interest.
Since the 1985 amendment Act there has been a power to withdraw a notification within nine months of notification and an implied power to denotify is contained in Section 28(5), which uses the words:
"while the notification remains in force."
However, the Government accept that there is not a general power which enables the Nature Conservancy Council to withdraw the notification of a SSSI whenever appropriate and that it would be appropriate to add such a procedure.
We are therefore happy to consider the amendment. However, we should be grateful to have an opportunity to consider the details of the amendment in relation to other provisions of the 1981 Act, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Peel, and to return to the matter on Report.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Again, having heard the words of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 370:
Page 181, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In section 29 (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest) subsection (4)(a), for the words "commencement date" there shall be substituted the words "making of the Order".").
The noble Earl said: We now move on to Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which deals with special protection orders issued by the Secretary of State. In effect there is defective wording in the existing provisions of the 1981 Act in so far as the requirements placed on an owner or occupier of land subject to a Section 29 order are to give prior notice of an intention to carry out a potentially damaging operation and either to wait out the period of notice or to undertake the operation in accordance with the Nature Conservancy Council's consent or under the terms of an agreement.
The defective wording in the Act is that, as interpreted by Section 71, notice can be given at any time after the coming into effect of the Act whereas it is intended that notice can be given at any time after the commencement of the order.
Therefore, the effect of the amendment is to tidy up what is obviously a drafting error in the original Act. Similar defective wording was also formerly used in provisions relating to SSSIs but that was amended by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985. Unfortunately, the wording relating to Section 29 was not amended at the same time and this amendment seeks to rectify that. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I support this amendment, which closes a loophole that currently exists in relation to nature conservation orders under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Those orders are the last resort available to the NCC to prevent an SSSI from being damaged or destroyed. They are granted by the relevant Secretary of State. Fortunately, only a handful are used every year.
As currently drafted, the landowner is allowed to give notice to the NCC in anticipation of his land being subject to a nature conservation order. That was never Parliament's intention, since the notification arrangements should apply after a nature conservation order has been made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Reay: This amendment seeks to clarify an anomaly between Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 concerning the notification of potentially damaging operations. It makes clear that an owner or occupier of land which is the subject of a nature conservation order should, once the NCO comes into force, give notice of his intention to carry out a PDO. We are happy to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 371:
Page 181, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In section 29 (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest), in subsection (4)(a), after the word "Council" there shall be inserted the word "written".").
The noble Earl said: This is the last in my short series of amendments to the 1981 Act, all of which are regarded as important by the Nature Conservancy Council in order to improve the delivery of conservation within the United Kingdom and, therefore, important to the successor bodies.
In this case the word "written" is introduced into Section 29(4). At present, notices from owners and occupiers of their intent to carry out an operation, which is likely to damage the special interest of an SSSI in relation to Section 28, have to be in writing.
In Section 29, the necessity for written notice is not specified. The result of this anomaly is that when Nature Conservancy Council staff have been told orally by an owner or occupier of proposals of that nature, they are uncertain whether or not that constitutes valid notice. One must realise that for a great deal of the time the Nature Conservancy
2234
Council officers operate in the field, dealing with farmers and landowners much of whose business is conducted orally. Remarks are made over the hedge and it is not clear to the officer whether or not the spoken intention to carry out an operation is notice under the terms of the Act.
The proposed amendment would require consistency within the Act; it would require that notices from owners and occupiers of their intent to carry out an operation likely to damage a site of special interest be in writing. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendment corrects an apparent drafting error in the original Bill and brings Section 29(4)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which provides for the giving of notice to carry out a potentially damaging operation in respect of land subject to a nature conservation order, into line with the equivalent provision in Section 28(5)(a) in respect of SSSIs. The Government are pleased to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 371A:
Page 181, line 46, at end insert—
("(8A) In Part II (nature conservation etc), before section 30 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Right of Nature Conservancy Council to apply1Or Nature Conservation Order.
29A.—(1) Where it appears to the Nature Conservancy Council that any feature of interest by reason of its biological, geological or physiographical importance is likely to be destroyed or damaged by any operation the Nature Conservancy Council may notify the owner or occupier of the relevant land, or the person who is to carry out, or is carrying out, the damaging operation of their intention to apply to the Secretary of State for a Nature Conservation Order under section 29 above.
(2) Any person notified under subsection (1) above who carries out an operation to which the notice relates shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A notice made under this section shall take effect immediately upon being served and shall cease to have effect three days after being served".").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 371A too is concerned with Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Although it is phrased in the form of a new clause to be inserted in the Act, it is a very modest amendment. Under Section 29, where there is a risk of damage to a feature of interest, the Nature Conservancy Council has the power to impose a nature conservation order to protect that feature of interest. Section 29 is supposed to do that but there have been delays. It has been difficult to enforce this provision of the 1981 Act and therefore damage to sites has occurred.
We are proposing that the Nature Conservancy Council should have the opportunity to notify the owner or occupier of the land, or the person who is to carry out or is carrying out the damaging operations, of its intention to apply for a nature conservation order and that under subsection (2) the person so notified has to comply with that order and is guilty of an offence if he does not. In other words, this is a stop notice order which is intended to speed up the process of implementing a provision which has existed in the Wildlife and Countryside Act since it was enacted in 1981.
Amendment 381ZB, to which, with the permission of the Committee, I shall also speak, is a comparable protection, but it is outside the scope of the 1981 Act. It therefore has to be expressed in the form of a new clause. It provides—I apologise that it does so at some length—that there shall be something called a "Special Countryside Feature Protection Order" which can be put forward by a planning authority either on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council or when the planning authority considers that the amenity interest is justified, to preserve special countryside features. The special countryside features to which the new clause refers are specified in subsection (6). They include,
"any individual plant or group of plants, hedgerows, ponds, walls used as a habitat by any plant or animal, rocks, boulders or other physiographic feature, and any other features of interest for biological, geological and physiographical features".
I note that the amendment reads "features". The last word should be "reasons". I apologise for that error, which I have only just noticed.
Other subsections of the new clause provide powers to prevent the chopping down or uprooting of plants, using pesticides on plants or water, draining ponds or dumping substances in them. There are powers under subsection (5) for the Secretary of State to set out the form of the orders and the procedures for them so that there is adequate protection for occupiers to have notice and to provide for objections, and so on.
These are relatively minor amendments but they help to make effective the protection which is necessary, and which the experience of the Wildlife and Countryside Act has shown to be necessary, against damage to special features and to protect the environment. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: In practical terms I do not know who advised the noble Lord on this amendment. I cannot for the moment see the practicality of a three-day stop order in a process which takes several months to operate. The minimum notice required under Section 29(5)(c) is three months and during that process naturally the Nature Conservancy Council is obliged to try to obtain a management agreement. If such a management agreement is not obtainable, clearly the officers of the NCC become increasingly edgy as time proceeds. In general, however, it takes about three weeks to issue a nature conservation order. There is plenty of time within the notice period for this to happen under ordinary circumstances. Given the length of the notice period I cannot see what the provision of three days extra is intended to achieve.
Lord Reay: The effect of the amendment is to require the NCC to give to landowners advance notice of an intention to ask the Secretary of State to make a nature conservation order. Such a notice would be effective for only three days. The effect would be to forewarn landowners and enable the unscrupulous landowner to exploit the potential loophole whereby he need only wait for the notice to expire before carrying out damaging activities. The amendment undermines the existing powers of
2236
the Secretary of State and is contrary to the voluntary principles of the 1981 Act.
The noble Lord may have misunderstood the purpose of procedures for the making of nature conservation orders by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Such orders are not made lightly, and then only when it becomes clear that additional protection is required to safeguard land or species of national or international importance. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that advance notice by the NCC of a request to the Secretary of State for an order is not necessary. Such a notice would be contrary to the voluntary principles of the legislation and in a small minority of cases might give the opportunity for unscrupulous landowners to carry out a damaging activity. For that reason we are opposed to the amendment.
Amendment No. 381ZB would bring in substantial powers for local authorities to intrude on the operation of landowners and farmers. The spirit of the amendment runs counter to the voluntary principle on which all the Government's countryside conservation policies are based. There does not appear to be a provision for an appeal against a local authority's decisions.
Our policies of encouraging conservation through the set-aside scheme, through environmentally sensitive areas, the countryside premium, and so on, are to be preferred. These point the way to winning the support of country communities for the objective of conserving the character of the wildlife in our countryside, which I know is shared on all sides of the Committee although we may differ on the best means of achieving that objective. In our view the amendment points the wrong way and I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's response and the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, certainly deserve careful attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 371B:
Page 181, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) In section 36(1) (marine nature reserves) after the words "Nature Conservancy Council" there shall be inserted the words "or the Joint Committee constituted under section 123(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990" ").
The noble Baroness said: The noble and gallant Lord spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 367A. I now wish to move it formally in order to give the Minister the opportunity of replying to my question about the future of the marine nature conservation review. In his reply to Amendment No. 367A he spoke of SSSIs but, so far as I can recall, he did not mention marine nature reserves. I hope that the Minister now has an answer for me. This amendment is grouped with others, and I do not know whether the sponsors of the other amendments wish to carry on with the debate while the Minister gets an answer. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I shall be able to supply the noble Baroness with a perfectly satisfactory answer. However, I propose to wait to hear my noble friend Lord Cranbrook speak to his amendments which are grouped with this amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Since my Amendment No. 372 is grouped with this amendment, it is appropriate that I speak to my amendment now. We are venturing into the general area of marine conservation, which is extremely important. In this connection, unfortunately, the 1981 Act has not proved to be as successful as was hoped by those of us who supported the moving of the original clauses which were concerned with marine nature reserves.
At resent, the marine nature reserve is the only conservation designation which covers the sea below the low-water mark under Section 36 of the 1981 Act. Since 1981, only one marine nature conservation reserve has been designated at Lundy, though earlier on today we heard the good news that Skomer may be very nearly with us. The procedures have proved to be very lengthy. There are a large number of preliminary stages and consultations that have to be gone through, and agreements have to be obtained.
Marine nature reserves under our present 1981 Act are likely to achieve the protection of only a small area of the important marine nature conservation resource of this country. It is the general feeling within the Nature Conservancy Council that a simpler designation is needed so that all those bodies whose activities affect the marine nature resource become aware of this special interest and can take precautionary measures.
As has been mentioned earlier this evening, the Nature Conservancy Council is undertaking a marine nature conservation review which will involve the systematic survey of the coastal waters of Great Britain together with areas of particular interest for species of marine birds, fish and marine mammals including the dolphin nurseries in the Moray Firth and Cardigan Bay. The marine conservation review will identify the sites which are appropriate for protective action.
The effect of this amendment will provide a process of notification by which the council can notify the special interest of the marine site to the Secretary of State, to Ministers and relevant authorities. In that notification, potentially damaging operations on such land and the waters covering it can be defined. Under subsection (2) of the new section, in the exercise of their function in relation to such notified sites, the Secretary of State, Ministers and the relevant authorities would be obliged to take into account the conservation of flora and fauna and geological and physiological features. In so doing, it can seek the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council.
In a sense this is a consultative process. It will give the NCC the powers that it needs to notify marine sites. It would also place requirements on others to consult in the case of any potentially injurious operations. One hopes that this will permit them to take in to account the conservation of the features of special interest in connection with any activity.
Earl Peel: I go along with what my noble friend has said on this amendment. The 1981 Act, successful though it has been in regard to land conservation through the voluntary system, has meant a raw deal for marine conservation. Anything we can do to try to improve matters must be welcomed. As my noble friend said, only two reserves have so far been agreed. It has taken an inordinate amount of time to have those agreed. I hope that we can speed up matters and I welcome anything that can help.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I note that my Amendment No. 373 has also been grouped with this marine collection. This is an alternative approach to bring the SSSI system out, as it were, into the waters. Treasury counsel's present opinion is that SSSIs are tied to planning law and the land to which they can apply is therefore restricted by the application of that law. One of the implications of that is that SSSIs may not be notified below mean low water in England and Wales and mean low water springs in Scotland. That has caused considerable difficulties in as much as nature conservation interests do not terminate at mean low water or mean low water springs nor are they restricted to local planning authority areas.
Problems are encountered in two ways. First, there are problems with regard to offshore sand banks which are important for wader feeding and seal basking—for instance, the offshore banks of the Wash, which is the country's largest SSSI. Secondly, there are problems in relation to parts of estuaries which are outside the jurisdiction of local planning authorities or below the low water mark yet may be important for the marine flora and fauna. Examples of deeper estuaries which are SSSIs are the Severn and the Solway. Developments in those two areas can be detrimental to the nature conservation interests within the site but SSSI legislation is not applicable. There are therefore no safeguards for these interests and in many instances the Nature Conservancy Council is not consulted about proposed developments.
The types of activities that cause concern include dredging, fish farming and certain methods of fishing, including suction dredging. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the power to control such activities but is not obliged to consult the Nature Conservancy Council. Dredging to maintain navigation channels is a duty placed on harbour authorities. Again, the Nature Conservancy Council would like to be able to designate and notify marine SSSIs and then be consulted about the timing of works and the disposal of the soil.
There are other practical problems. Restricting SSSIs by definition involves the mean low water or mean low water springs mark in so far as such boundaries are not fixed. The position of sandbanks can change and so the actual borders of the land exposed at low water vary in time. The effect of the amendment would be to enable the Nature Conservancy Council to notify SSSIs under Section 28 in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may intervene in regard to paragraph (c) of the amendment, where we find the words:
"which at low tide does not exceed six metres".
I wonder whether in dealing with this problem it might not be to the Government's advantage and to the advantage of nature conservancy to refer to the Admiralty chart tables on which the astronomical level of low water is marked and is clearly defined. The problem of low tides—be they mean tides or spring tides—can make a considerable difference to the situation.
12.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendments Nos. 374K and 379C, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, are also included in this grouping. My noble friend apologises through me, for the fact that he is unable to be present this evening. These amendments are also concerned with the conservation of marine zones, but they go somewhat wider than the marine nature reserves the designation of which, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, has been very slow. I hesitate to say that they have been a disappointment; but if, after all the time that has passed since the 1981 Act, there is only one so far designated at Lundy and one close to being designated at Skomer, then clearly this is not the most speedy form of legislation.
The problem is that the European Commission has issued a directive on the protection of wild birds. We should be very concerned about the dangers of being in breach of that directive. There is also the Ramsar Convention on wetlands to which we are signatories and which we should also be careful not to breach.
The marine conservation zones which are proposed in my noble friend's amendment—Amendment No. 374K which is amplified by the advertising provisions in Amendment No. 379C—provide two new features to the existing legislation. First, they lay emphasis on the active management of the marine environment through a mechanism of consultation and management plans; and, secondly, they provide that which the marine nature reserves do not provide at present: greater protection for birds at sea. After all, marine birds spend only part of their life on land in the nature reserves; they also spend a considerable part of their lives at sea where they are at great risk from pollution. We know of this risk from the discussions which have taken place at the various North Sea conferences.
I hope that noble Lords will feel that the concept of a marine conservation zone adds to the existing legislation, which is not entirely satisfactory. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Lord Hesketh: I have sympathy with my noble friend's intentions in introducing these amendments. I have to say, however, that we have come to the view that the law as it relates to the sea and to activities within it and on it is too complex for us to be able to accept further statutory complications without first understanding better
2240
what more needs to be done to achieve our conservation objectives.
I hope that noble Lords will be in no doubt about the Government's intention to make progress in this area. Our record of positive actions in relation to successive North Sea conferences speaks for itself. At the last conference, the UK led an initiative further to protect marine wildlife. Much needed international co-operation on research aimed at providing a better understanding of what is happening in the North Sea is now underway. We have decided in the light of this and other experience on the establishment of marine nature reserves that it would be wrong to introduce further piecemeal legislative changes which are not founded on any clear idea of what needs to be done or what overall is the best way forward.
We want to make progress, but we do not want to take ad hoc legislative suggestions which may at the end of the day prove to be more an impediment than a help to achieving our objectives. We want, in fact, to deliver the substance, in nature conservation terms, of what my noble friend is proposing, but without the complication of piecemeal legislative provisions. Therefore, while we support wholeheartedly the voluntary approach that permeates Amendment No. 372, we cannot at this state accept further statutory duties for the new councils in marine areas.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides for the establishment of marine nature reserves. The designation of the second such reserve, at Skomer, has very recently been announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales—the first MNR is at Lundy. While this is a welcome advance, we accept that progress has been disappointedly slow, as my noble friend Lord Peel pointed out. The difficulties of persuading marine interests to accept statutory restrictions on ancient rights have been formidable. Yet it remains the case that the most effective way of achieving conservation in practice is through the voluntary co-operation of all concerned. The truism that it is impossible to put a fence round an MNR has been quoted many times before but remains valid.
To try to overcome some of the major difficulties of establishing MNRs we will undertake actively to consider voluntary consultation arrangements for sensitive marine areas. In our view a way forward might be to extend the scheme already established with some success in Scotland throughout the English and Welsh coastal areas.
In many respects that would be a consolidation of the consultation arrangements that already exist. For example the Crown Estates commissioners already consult the NCC on marine aggregate dredging proposals; the Department of Transport closely involves the NCC in marine pollution incidents; and the Department of Energy consults before issuing offshore oil exploration licenses. We want to build on these foundations and to learn from the experience gained from the marine nature reserve programme.
If this course seems appropriate, we would intend to issue guidelines on how marine agencies should participate in these arrangements, and, in particular,

2241
relate their activities to the nature conservation interest of these areas. I understand that the NCC has undertaken a considerable volume of work on identifying sites of importance as part of its marine conservation review and will soon be sufficiently advanced for us to be able to identify where it would be appropriate to establish such areas. We shall actively pursue their establishment. It would be our hope that formal MNRs might follow in appropriate areas when the voluntary arrangements have been seen to have been tried and tested by the local communities.
We shall however also set in hand an examination of existing legislation to determine the extent to which it is appropriate to secure nature conservation objectives and if necessary, after appropriate consultation, we shall bring forward proposals to meet any needs that are identified. In parallel we shall look to the new councils and others to gather evidence on how marine activities affect the marine environment to advance our present knowledge of appropriate and effective measures to secure our natural heritage of the sea. This will necessarily take time and we shall wish to proceed with suitable regard to all relevant interests. But, at the end of the day, our clear objective is to secure policies, mechanisms and programmes that will in practice deliver the conservation objectives which I believe are shared throughout your Lordships' House.
With regard to Amendment No. 373, it is already well established that the land referred to in Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 includes land covered by water within the boundaries of a local planning authority; so the first two insets of the amendment are otiose. With regard to the third inset, I must repeat our reluctance to accept a piecemeal measure that would intrude on a very complex area. I have to say also that the SSSI concept does not transfer readily to the marine environment. The protection offered by SSSI notification is through the development control system. By agreements with landowners and users to compensate them for the profit forgone by not pursuing potentially damaging operations on the land, is also possible for landowners to be remibursed for the costs of management activities that would benefit the nature conservation interest but which would otherwise be unprofitable. This concept of compensation for landowners pursuing less than optimum profit is not valid in the marine environment where in most cases we would be dealing with the effects of exercising international, ancient, common or specific legal rights.
If, as seems to be the case, the noble Lord's concern is to secure that the NCC is consulted about operations in sensitive areas, our proposals will achieve that objective without the complications of inappropriate legislation. As I have said, experience over the past decade has shown that the whole question needs careful examination before we can determine the best way foward to achieve our longer term goals. In the meantime our proposals for encouraging voluntary action, will, I hope the Committee agrees, provide a useful step forward and further valuable experience.
2242
The effect of Amendment No. 371B would be to give the joint committee the executive function of making application to the Secretary of State for an order designating specific areas of marine waters as a marine nature reserve. I have said many times that the Government do not intend the joint committee to have executive functions. These are for the council operating in each country. It will be open to the joint committee to agree criteria that should govern the selection of such areas. That would be entirely proper. The advice would be passed to the councils to act upon it. That is a good illustration of how the new system will work. In answer to the question of the noble Baroness with regard to marine nature conservation, this will continue under the auspices of the joint committee and there will be no disruption to work in hand.
The arguments I have put forward for resisting the previous amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook apply also to those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I will not repeat them except to reinforce the point that the questions of ancient rights, common law rights, international and national law as they relate to the sea and its shores is an immensely complex subject, at which we have already undertaken to take a careful and thorough look.
Existing rights cannot be ridden over rough-shod in a cavalier manner. It is the Government's firm conviction that successful conservation in the sea, as on the land, will only be achieved by the willing co-operation of all relevant interests. We remain most reluctant to depart from this voluntary principle and will do so only with the utmost caution. The amendment proposed runs counter to the voluntary principle. In the Government's view the proposed measures would be bound to be resented by other legitimate interests, and because they would not win co-operation, would fail in a welter of legalistic wrangling.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is only because it is so late at night that the noble Lord can get away with that farrago. I have never heard a series of weaker arguments expressed in a more violent form. The violence of the form grew as the arguments became weaker. All the noble Lord is saying is that the Government are not going to do anything about this problem. They recognise that things are wrong, as a number of the noble friends of the Minister have indicated, but the Government are not going to do a blind thing about it.
The Earl of Cranbrook: That is not fair because I did not place that interpretation on the response to Amendments Nos. 372 and 373, which I believe are under discussion. However, I wish to point out to my noble friend that his right honourable friend in another place was a signatory to the final declaration of the third international conference on the protection of the North Sea on 8th March where he agreed, along with other Ministers, to give further protection to marine wildlife in the North Sea.

2243
Many non-governmental organisations and the Nature Conservancy Council attach great importance to that declaration signed by Ministers at the last North Sea conference.
Paragraph 39 of the declaration entails the adoption of a common approach to species and habitat protection in accordance with measures listed in Annex 5. Annex 5 to the declaration requires states to carry out surveys in order to
"identify sites of national or international importance"
and, in paragraph 3,
"to implement appropriate methods for conservation management and protection"
for such sites. Paragraph 3 further states that such methods may include the identification of
"potentially damaging operations to be subject to a mandatory notification scheme for … coastal sites … and consultation in other areas offshore; … legal controls over particular sea uses in designated areas".
I wish to point out that the appropriate methods referred to in the declaration signed by Ministers at the last North Sea conference are just the kind of methods which are being aired in Amendments Nos. 372 and 373. While I do not intend to press the amendments this evening having heard what my noble friend has said, I look forward to positive action going forward with the other environment Ministers at the North Sea conference regarding this important zone of our coastal waters.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful for the Minister's answer on the marine nature conservation programme. However, as he would expect, I was disappointed by his reply to Amendment No. 371B. However, at this late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 372 not moved.]
12.45 a.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 372A:
Page 181, line 48, at end insert:
("(9A) In section 39 (management agreements with owners and occupiers of land) there shall be inserted a new subsection as follows
"(7) The Secretary of State may by order either generally or in relation to a specific purpose referred to in subsection (1) amend subsection (5) to include within the definition of "relevant authority" (in relation to any area of land) such other person or body as he may consider appropriate." ").
The noble Earl said: At the moment Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act allows local authorities, including the national park authorities, to enter into management agreements; in other words to make annual payments for profits foregone.
The Nature Conservancy Council while entitled to do this within sites of special scientific interest, is prohibited from doing so in the wider countryside. This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to include within the definition of "relevant authority" any body or individual that he considers fit to carry out this task.
It seems appropriate that the statutory body for nature conservation in this country, or the equivalent authorities under the Bill, should have that power
2244
and not simply be restricted to the 7 per cent. of land comprising SSSIs, vital though of course they are to the whole structure of nature conservation. Whereas resources will inevitably determine the extent to which the NCC can become involved in the countryside, it seems a rather narrow-minded and dangerous approach to restrict its powers to such areas. There are a number of species which cannot be fully conserved in viable populations on a limited series of high-quality sites alone. It is therefore important to be able to support appropriate management of land outside SSSIs where that is necessary to conserve the characteristic wildlife of an area.
There are many instances where even a small financial commitment from the Nature Conservancy Council could persuade a farmer or landowner to change his management to a style that would have enormous advantages for nature conservation without having to go through the somewhat rigorous procedures of the SSSI agreements. On many occasions I have expressed my concern about the wider environment and I am very much aware of the danger of developing a policy which is too clearly selective between conservation here and farming there. I believe that the amendment would go a little way, but an important way, towards addressing that particular problem.
As the amendment is worded, all such schemes would require specific approval by the Secretary of State and could be limited in ways that he thought desirable. It would also allow the most appropriate body to deal with the wider range of environmental problems rather than going indirectly through other bodies. In other words, if the Secretary of State so wished, it could be done by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission or the new bodies.
Finally, I appreciate that under Secton 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the Nature Conservancy Council has power to give grants and loans. That has been carried through to Clause 124 of the Bill. However, that relates to outgoings in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred. It does not relate to compensatory payments to persons for income foregone which they would have received if they had not farmed in a way conducive to nature conservation. It is a small step forward to allowing the Nature Conservancy Council and other bodies to play a greater part in the wider environment.
My noble friend was good enough to accept Amendment No. 366 of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and I feel that that was a step towards his accepting the present amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I rise to support the amendment, which would allow the NCC to make management agreements to protect wildlife outside sites of special scientific interest. We all know that the wildlife of this country is not confined to SSSIs and that many areas which fall outside statutory protection are very important in local terms. Therefore I would welcome the extension of the NCC's powers in this way, while pointing out that as ever, the obligations for compensation might prove a deterrent.

2245
The amendment is also another good reason for integrating the NCC's responsibilities with those of the Countryside Commission in England, and the sooner we see the countryside as a whole as important, rather than just the special areas, the better.
Lord Ross of Newport: I support the amendment so able moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. It is a very worthwhile extra facility to provide to the Nature Conservancy Council. It could have a very desirable effect in the countryside.
Reverting to the previous amendment, I have some sympathy with the Minister about the marine nature reserves. I tried to set one up at Bembridge in the Isle of Wight and I was told exactly where I got off It is not an easy subject.
The Duke of Somerset: I too should like to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. It is rather more all-embracing but similar to an amendment I wish to move shortly. The noble Earl has put the case very adequately, but I should just like to establish one point.
The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State may … amend … the definition of 'relevant authority' … to include … such other person or body as he may consider appropriate".
Can the noble Earl confirm that his amendment would enable the Secretary of State to include both the councils and the Countryside Commission as relevant authorities? If he is minded to accept this amendment, perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is his understanding too. I hope that he will also be able to declare his intention to give the councils and the Countryside Commission these powers.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I should like to make absolutely clear my opinion that for the conservation of nature and the natural resources of this country in the end a limited site specific strategy will be not be enough. An extension into the wider countryside is immensely important. The amendment proposed is in accordance with the voluntary principle, and I commend it.
Lord Reay: As my noble friend explained, this amendment seeks powers for the Secretary of State to extend the scope of Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to give the NCC power to enter into management agreements anywhere that it chooses. In our view, it is for local authorities and national parks authorities to decide if and where management agreements are appropriate in the wider countryside. As my noble friend Lord Peel pointed out, we accepted an amendment which would allow the NCC to enter into agreements on land adjoining an SSSI. We should prefer the NCC to confine its expenditure to that necessary to defend SSSIs.
The NCC has power to give grants or loans to any person for any purpose which in its view is conducive to nature conservation. But I believe that the Committee will want to pause for thought before considering an extension of the "net profit forgone"
2246
principle of management agreements outside SSSIs; in other words, to more than 90 per cent. of the land surface of Great Britain. Potentially the cost could run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
At present management agreements target resources on the very best habitats of the SSSIs. It is a system which has proved its worth and we should be careful not to devalue the currency. I listened carefully to what my noble friends and other noble Lords said. I see the point of their arguments but I hope, for the reasons which I have given, that my noble friend will reconsider his amendment.
Earl Peel: I need hardly say that I am extremely disappointed with the response which my noble friend has given me, although I must express my gratitude to those noble Lords from all sides of the Committee who supported the amendment. In response to the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, I would say yes. As I understand it, the relevant authorities would include the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, and in fact any authority on which the Secretary of State wished to confer that power.
Obviously the major concern of my noble friend was cost. As I tried to point out when I moved the amendment, the cost will be restricted by the amount of finance available to the various bodies. There are statutory obligations to sites of special scientific interest, national nature reserves, and so forth, which inevitably will mean that they will have very little money to carry out what I suggest. I do not think that it would run into the many millions of pounds that my noble friend on the Front Bench suggests.
I believe that if we reject this amendment we shall be in real danger of rejecting the opportunity for the NCC or any such authority to get to grips with nature conservation outside these areas. I believe also that that is absolutely fundamental. I do not have any intention of pressing the amendment at this stage, but in view of the considerable support that I have had from all sides of the Chamber it would be fair to consider it again and possibly come back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 372B:
Page 182, line 1, leave out ("for Part III") and insert ("of Part II").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 373 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 373ZA:
Page 182, line 39, after (" "Wales" ") insert (", where it first appears,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 373ZB:
Before Clause 124, insert the following new clause:
("Special Functions of Joint Committee
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Joint Committee shall have the following functions in addition to those specified in section 123 of this Act, namely—

(a) the determination of priorities for the development and implementation by the Councils of policies for nature conservation in Great Britain:

2247

(b) the establishment of common standards for the exercise by the Councils of such of the functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy Council under the enactments specified in Schedule 8 to this Act as are assigned to the Councils in accordance with the amendments to those enactments effected by that Schedule;

(c) the establishment of common standards for the provision of advice by the Councils to the Secretary of State on compliance with an international obligation;

(d) the determination of any dispute between the Councils, or of such other matters as the Joint Committee may consider expedient, as to the exercise by the Councils of their functions in respect of any land or marine areas not falling wholly within their area;

and the Joint Committee may give directions of a general or specific character requiring the Councils to comply with their ruling on such matters.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(b) and (c) above the Joint Committee shall establish common standards for the exercise by the Councils of functions in respect of—

(a) section 28 (Areas of special scientific interest) and section 29 (Special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;

(b) the establishment, maintenance and management of nature reserves (within the meaning of section 15 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949).").

The noble Lords said: If the Government's proposals are to bring benefits to nature conservation across Britain it is essential that policies and practices are applied consistently from Canterbury to Caithness and from Aberystwyth to Aldeburgh. The purpose of the new clause is to provide a focus for the drawing up of conservation standards and priorities on a GB basis. For such purposes the clause would empower the joint committee to establish the priorities and key functions of the country councils or act as broker in the event of demarcation disputes or uncertainties.
In their formal response to the Carver Report, the Government stated, among other things, that in addition to advising on and establishing standards it would be appropriate for the joint committee to take an overview of the implementation of those standards and criteria in a GB context. The new clause would give the joint committee special responsibility for establishing standards and criteria for SSSI selection and other functions of the country councils. It would also allow the joint committee to advise where two councils share a common interest in respect of a site which lies along the boundary of two countries. The estuary of the Welsh Dee, for instance, is not only an SSSI but a Ramsar site and a special protection area under EC Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds.
Perhaps the Minister would like to answer this question at some stage. Does the Wales council or the England council or the joint committee pursue a dialogue with the Department of Transport marine division over navigational and harbour matters in the estuary?
The role of the joint committee is crucial to the success of reorganisation proposals and cannot be left to chance or, with due respect, to ministerial assurances. The amendment has been drawn up in discussions with the voluntary conservation bodies. It clarifies the functions of the joint committee and charts a course for the effective delivery of conservation in Great Britain. I urge the Committee to support the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would extend the range of duties exercised by the joint committee. I have already dealt with several of the issues covered, such as the JNCC's role in providing guidelines for SSSIs and NNRs. I hope that what I have said at earlier stages of the Bill is reassuring to my noble friend.
Other aspects, such as the suggestion that the JNCC should be able to determine any disputes or give directions to the country councils, are, we believe, inadvisable for reasons that I have already given in the debate in Committee today. However, my noble friend asked about the relationship between those bodies and the Department of Transport. Of course we are very keen that all departments that are relevant to those cases should be consulted.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 373ZC not moved.]
1 a.m.
Clause 124 [Grants and loans by the Councils]:
The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Somerset moved Amendment No 373A:
Page 126, line 3, after ("loan") insert ("or periodic payments").
The noble Duke said: I rise to move Amendment No. 373A, and with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 373B, 374AZA, 374ZB, 374ZC and 381A.
The purpose of the amendment and the consequential amendments is to broaden the scope of Clause 124 to embrace a concept of ongoing or periodic payments for the enhancement of an environmentally attractive countryside. If the public wishes the countryside to be managed in a particular way it must be prepared to pay for it. Landowners and farmers are ready to offer environmental land management services under commercial contracts. Those contracts could cover a very extensive range of activities; for instance, management of nature reserves and recreational, sporting and leisure facilities, as well as enhanced access.
Wherever there is a demand for land to be managed in a particular way the amendment would enable the landowner to meet it through a long-term contract with a customer. The customers could range from sporting clubs needing pitches and nature societies wanting habitat management, to the Government themselves. The Government should be a major customer through such agencies as the Countryside Commission and the NCC.
We need to broaden the scope of the arrangements away from having regard only to areas defined on maps. The contracts should be on sale throughout the countryside. It may well be that in the ordinary unattractive areas the service would bring the most benefit to the inhabitants. The purpose of the first five amendments in the group is to allow the NCC to enter into management agreements on all land and not simply that designated as an SSSI as is now the case.
In order to do that more effectively it is necessary to extend the concept of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 further than this Bill does. It must go beyond grants and loans to cover environmental objectives requiring continuing work, attention and expense. A longer-lasting benefit would be obtained by a flow of payments over a period of time in return for an ongoing contract. The payment should reflect the price put on the value of the environmental service provided and/or by reference to the profit forgone. The Government expenditure would not be open-ended. It would be limited to the amount that the Government are prepared to spend each year. It would be optional and avoid the case of paying park-keepers to do nothing, which has often been a criticism.
Amendment No. 381A seeks to clarify the position of the Countryside Commission and to put it on the same footing as the NCC. The Countryside Commission for Scotland has powers under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1981 to enter into management agreements with land owners and farmers. However, the power does not appear to exist in England except for experimental schemes which do not cover management agreements. Therefore, explicit provision is needed to allow the Countryside Commission to do that in line with the powers being made available to the new conservancy councils. The amendment provides for agreement between the Countryside Commission and persons having an interest in the countryside for the purpose of protecting, conserving or enhancing the beauty or amenity of the land, or the enjoyment of it by the public. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee whether the power already exists and, if so, in what legislation.
The amendments would give a much-needed impetus to the voluntary collaboration in environmental issues between owners and farmers on the one hand, and nature and countryside agencies on the other. They have the support of the CLA and the NCC, and even Mr. MacSharry has made favourable noises about the principles. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendments would provide additional powers to enable the NCC to enter into management agreements anywhere. They would extend the list of bodies or purposes to which the Secretary of State would be empowered to give financial assistance so as to include payments to the Countryside Commission for management agreements that it might enter into. The NCC is already empowered to enter into management agreements necessary to defend SSSIs. We have accepted an amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook which would enable the council to enter into agreements on land that adjoins an SSSI. Subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, the council can give grants or loans for nature conservation.
Furthermore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State already has wide powers under Section 47 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to give money to the Countryside Commission for any of its functions. That can and does include
2250
funding relating to management agreements by the commission giving grants to the local authorities or national park authorities towards the costs which those bodies incur in making such agreements in their area.
Also, the commission can use its powers in relation to experimental schemes such as countryside premium payments covering the positive management of set-aside land and entering into agreements itself. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary for financial purposes.
The commission does not have specific power to enter into management agreements as envisaged in Section 39 of the 1981 Act nor has it sought such power. However, local authorities and national park authorities have the power to make agreements for the purposes set out in the noble Duke's amendment. We see no need to extend the power to the commission at present.
Earl Peel: One of the problems is that the national parks authorities, although they have the power, for some reason which I do not understand do not seem to exercise it. That is one of the real problems. That is why there is the habitat loss occurring to such an extent within the national parks, a point which I made earlier. Habitat loss is as great within parks as it is outside them because that power is not being exercised at all.
Lord Reay: My noble friend makes an interesting point which I am sure we shall want to consider. However, the Government do not accept the case for extending further the NCC's powers to making payment to landowners, as I explained in answer to his earlier amendment. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Duke will withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Somerset: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. As regards the commitment to spend money, the choice for the Government or their agency to enter into a management agreement is entirely optional. Expenditure on environmental projects could be controlled or cash limited on the same way as any other public expenditure.
I should like to study what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 373B to 374ZC not moved.
Clause 124 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 374A not moved.]
Clause 125 (Schemes for the transfer of property etc. of the Nature Conservancy Council):
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 374B and 374C:
Page 126, line 24, after ("staff") insert ("and in respect of the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities").
Page 126, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) The rights and liabilities of the Nature Conservancy Council in respect of the provision of pensions, allowances and gratuities for or in respect of their members and employees or

2251
their former members or employees shall, on the date appointed under section 121(3) above, by virtue of this subsection, become rights and liabilities of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Offers of employment to employees of Nature Conservancy Council and certain employees of Countryside Commission]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 374D:
Page 127, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person whose contract of employment with the Nature Conservancy Council terminates on the day immediately preceding the date appointed under section 121(3).").
The noble Lord said: It has been pointed out that the present formulation of Clause 127(1) of the Bill could be interpreted as requiring the new councils to offer employment to contract staff whose contract terminates on the date prior to the appointed day. It is not the intention that such employees should automatically and by right be offered a job on one of the new councils, although they will have the opportunity to apply for any unfilled permanent post on the new bodies. The purpose of this amendment is to make that clear.
Amendment No. 374E is a straightforward amendment to clarify the effect of Part III of Schedule 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 374E:
Page 127, line 13, leave out from second ("to") to end of line 14 and insert ("offers and proposals under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transfer Schemes and Staff of Existing Councils]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 374F to 374J:
Page 185, line 45, leave out ("is") and insert ("will be").
Page 186, line 20, leave out ("new Councils") and insert ("Countryside Council for Wales").
Page 186, line 35, leave out ("each person") and insert ("those persons").
Page 186, line 40, leave out ("each person who is") and insert ("those persons who are").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 374F relates to paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 to the Bill concerning the submission of proposals by the NCC to the Secretary of State which are designed to ensure that all the relevant staff receive an offer of employment by one or other of the new councils. The amendment improves the drafting by referring to each person who "will be" entitled to receive an offer of employment instead of who "is" entitled.
Amendment No. 374G relates to Schedule 9 to the Bill, which concerns the offer of employment by the Countryside Council for Wales to certain employees. In error, the first two lines of paragraph
2252
13 require the Secretary of State to consult the new councils, which would mean all three councils, but the matter is obviously of no concern to the new Nature Conservancy Councils for England and Scotland. The amendment rectifies the matter by requiring the Secretary of State to consult only the Countryside Council for Wales.
The final two Amendments, Nos. 374H and 374J, as drafted, could be interpreted as meaning that each person involved in the reorganisation will be entitled to a number of offers of employment by the relevant council. This is not the intention and the amendments substitute "those persons" for "each person" to remove any doubt.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 128 and 129 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 374K not moved.]
Schedule 10 (Transitional Provisions and Savings for Part VII):
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 375:
Page 189, line 16, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Schedule").
The noble Earl said: As we are in the Schedule, I wonder whether the word should be "Schedule" rather than "Act". If it is "Act" then it should at least mention that it is Part VII of the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Once again the Government are deeply in the debt of my noble friend Lord Balfour for the two further amendments to the Bill. We accept both graciously.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 375A:
Page 190, line 7, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 375B and 375C:
Page 190, line 8, leave out from ("Committee") to end of line 9 and insert ("or, where directions under subsection (4) of that section have been given, the new Council, by whom the").
Page 190, line 10, leave out ("exercisable") and insert ("dischargeable (on behalf of the new Councils)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 375D not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 376:
Page 191, line 31, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Schedule").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past one o'clock.