Environmental Protection Bill

HL Deb 04 July 1990 vol 520 cc2166-252

House again in Committee.

Clause 119 [Grants by Secretary of State to new Councils]:

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 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 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: 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales and
2. (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. 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—

1. (a) conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales and
2. (b) improve and extend opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment of the countryside and public access thereto for informal recreation".

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 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 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.

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 moved Amendment No. 346: Page 172, line 20, after ("preservation") insert ("and enhancement").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) any nature conservation matter of national or international importance or which otherwise affects the interests of Great Britain as a whole; or
2. (b) any nature conservation matter which arises throughout Great Britain and raises issues common to England, Scotland and Wales,

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—

1. (a) any special function of the councils, or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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)—

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

Page 178, leave out line 44.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 365 not moved.]

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) "). 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated;
2. (b) to every owner and occupier of any of that land; and
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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" 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) the determination of priorities for the development and implementation by the Councils of policies for nature conservation in Great Britain:
2247
2. (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;
3. (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;
4. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 375A: Page 190, line 7, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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.