Lords Sitting of 17 October 1990

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

Lord Haslam
Sir Robert Haslam, Knight, having been created Baron Haslam, of Bolton in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the Lord Pennock.

Sunday Trading and the Law
2.47 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on Sunday trading in the light of conflicting court decisions arising from the judgment of the European Court of Justice in November 1989.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is for the courts in the first instance to resolve any differing interpretations of the judgment of the European court. The Government favour reform of the Shops Act 1950 and continue to encourage interested parties to try to reach agreement on a solution which would be enforceable, practicable and likely to command a parliamentary majority. No such solution has yet emerged.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what his Answer amounts to is that the Government are not prepared to do anything on a matter that is reaching dangerous proportions regarding respect for the law in this country? Four judicial courts have said that with the law as it stands, it is impossible to unravel the contradictions and difficulties that surround this matter. Does my noble friend agree that we should do something about it before disrespect for the law interferes with people's adherence to it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend's point of view. The fact is that the Government attempted to change the law in 1985 with the Shops Bill, but that was defeated in another place. Until it is plain that that will not happen again, there is unlikely to be further legislation.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have no sympathy at all with his noble friend and the Question that he has asked? Is he further aware that there is no public clamour at all for a change in our British Sunday? However, it might be helpful and remove anomalies if all commerce were forbidden on Sunday. I would support that.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was aware that the noble Viscount held a different point of view. It was the Government's belief that our proposals would find
886
favour with the majority of the population; but the Government have not succeeded in getting legislation through Parliament.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have no sympathy at all for the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy? Can he tell your Lordships what is the cost to public funds of the mass of conflicting legal decisions taken in our courts as a result of the present confusion of the law?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was also aware of my noble friend's lack of sympathy in the direction in which he expressed it. I do not have any figures regarding the costs to the different parties surrounding the present situation. I am sure that some costs are considerable.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I live a quarter of a mile away from a supermarket which is open all day every Sunday, and is invariably crowded by the population of the local district which regards it as a very good thing?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that bears out what I said earlier. The Government regard the law on Sunday trading as being outdated, full of anomalies and in need of reform. But reform can come only if it is subject to the conditions which I gave at the outset.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that, for many shopworkers, Sunday is the only day that they can spend with their families?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in the event of any future legislation the Government would seek at any rate to prevent shopworkers being forced to work on Sundays.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that anyone who has no sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, will get no sympathy from me?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure the House appreciates that remark.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this problem will not go away? If the Government agree that the law needs to be reformed, the only people who can reform it are the Government themselves. Ought they not to get on with it before we get into even greater trouble in adhering to the law than we have at the moment?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government are doing a good deal to try to reach consensus on this matter. Since January 1988 there have been no fewer than 45 meetings between Home Office Ministers and individuals and organisations representing different sides of this argument. The Government continue to play an active part, and I hope that a solution may one day be reached.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
2.52 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they regard the articles in the Non-Proliferation Treaty requiring nuclear disarmament by existing nuclear states as being equally

887
important as those seeking to inhibit the further spread of these weapons to non-nuclear and semi-nuclear states.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the United Kingdom, as a depositary power, fully supports the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We consider all the articles of the treaty to be important.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. Will he tell us precisely what the Government are doing to pursue that article in the treaty which requires existing nuclear powers to disarm in respect of nuclear weapons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to a comprehensive test ban treaty. That is what lies behind his question. The answer is exactly the same as my noble friend Lord Brabazon gave to the noble Lord—that is something for which we are ultimately working.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, what are semi-nuclear powers; who are they and where are they; and what degree of semi-ness do they occupy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when I saw the Question on the Order Paper, I too wondered what a semi-nuclear state is. I looked up the text of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I can find reference to nuclear states and reference to non-nuclear states but no reference to semi-nuclear states.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, there are currently 141 signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Is it not the case that South Africa, which has a formidable stockpile of nuclear materials and technology, has not yet signed? Can he say whether the Government have sought to influence that government to sign the treaty? Secondly, is it not the case that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is short of resources at the present time, has a vital role to play? Do the Government have any intention of helping it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, the South African Government recently stated that South Africa would accede to the NPT in the context of similar commitments by other states in the region. We therefore hope that South Africa will soon decide to accede to the treaty.
The noble Lord asked about the IAEA. I agree with him about the importance of that institution. As regards funds, I should like to look into that matter if he will permit me to do so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that just yesterday he stated in answer to a question about Iraq that it was essential that Britain should retain its own nuclear weapons? If that is the case, can he answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkins? What are the Government doing —not thinking but doing—about implementing that article of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which insists that nuclear disarmament is an essential part of that treaty? What are the Government doing about that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, although I stand to be corrected should he wish to clarify the position, I think that the noble Lord is talking about Article VI of the treaty.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Yes.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about Article VI. That article refers not only to nuclear weapons but also to general disarmament. There has been a considerable amount of progress in this field. NATO has unilaterally reduced the number of nuclear weapons in Europe by 35 per cent. since 1979 and further cuts are likely; in 1987 there was a treaty on intermediate nuclear forces which is resulting in further cuts; and it is likely that a strategic arms reduction agreement will be concluded this year resulting in significant reductions in United States and Soviet long-range weapons. There has been the chance of a successful conclusion to the Conventional Forces in Europe Agreement. Those are the areas where the British Government have played an active role.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I do not have the treaty before me but I think Article VII specifically requires nuclear disarmament by those states which already possess nuclear weapons. Irrespective of the comprehensive test ban treaty, what are the Government doing about implementing that article?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I covered that point to a large extent in my previous answer. We are working towards a reduction. We would ultimately like to see a total fulfilment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Press Complaints Commission
2.57 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any indication from the newspaper industry that the projected Press Complaints Commission will entertain complaints about standards of journalism and not only complaints by aggrieved persons; and, if not, whether they will urge that such powers be given to this new body.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Calcutt Report recommended that the Press Council be replaced by a Press Complaints Commission which would consider complaints of unjust or unfair treatment by the press and of unwarranted infringements of privacy through published material or in connection with obtaining such material. The Government have welcomed this proposal for self-regulation and made known that they will review the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission after 18 months operation. Subject to that, the Government have no intention of intervening in the remit of the commission.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in every debate in your Lordships' House about the press and its standards, the standard of journalism in certain journals has come under bitter criticism? Is he also aware that if this self-regulatory body is to be

889
effective the question of standards of journalism must be part of the remit? Why do the Government not wish to see that matter as part of the remit?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was indeed entirely aware of the noble Lord's first two points. The remit of the Press Complaints Commission will be narrower than that of the Press Council, but whether or not this narrower remit will make the commission more effective is a matter for speculation. The important point is that the Government will consider putting regulation on a statutory basis if the commission is not effective. We are confident that the commission can be effective so long as it has the support of the industry.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that "standards of journalism" also means ethical or unethical standards, such as the cruelty of intrusion into private grief, the hounding of individuals and the rottenness of cheque-book journalism? Is he further aware that the Press Complaints Commission will be of no use unless it has sanction powers publicly to call on the journalist to apologise and pay compensation; and, if the incident is serious enough, to curtail production of the tabloid paper concerned? Finally, does he not agree that only by such penalties will standards of tabloid journalism improve?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a number of points. The general assessment of the Calcutt Report was that the Press Council was ineffective. We welcome the proposal that it should be replaced by the proposed Press Complaints Commission. The situation at present is that the industry is to be self-regulated for at any rate a further 18 months. At the end of that period we shall review the situation and decide whether it is necessary to introduce legislation to put the commission on a statutory basis.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, to the post of chairman of the commission will be a very successful one?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House welcome the appointment of the noble Lord to the chairmanship of that body. He has considerable knowledge and experience both of the press and of self-regulation. We have every confidence that he will prove to be a truly independent chairman.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that a commission consisting of editors is really the best kind of body to adjudicate on complaints against the press?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the main point is that we must look to see whether this form of self-regulation works. That is the position in which we now find ourselves.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Press Council has not been a success over many years under many different chairmen? Does he also agree that its lack of success was at least in part due to its preoccupation with difficult matters of taste
890
and with regular complainers who had particular bees in their bonnets? After all these years of failure, should we not at least give the new organisation a chance?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his closing remarks which I fully endorse.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government agree with the criticism that the standard of tabloid journalism in this country is deplorable?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is plain that the situation which led to the setting up of the Calcutt Committee arose out of a widespread dislike of abuses which have, generally speaking, been observed and resented. That is the situation in which we have found ourselves. The Calcutt Committee recommended the establishment of this new commission. We give it our support, but we must wait to see whether it is effective as a method of self-regulation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to explain to the House how the effectiveness of a power of a commission can be looked at by the Government when the power is not given to that commission?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think that the Government will be looking only at the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission; they will also be looking at the effectiveness of self-regulation more widely practised in, for example, the areas to which the noble Lord referred, which are not within the remit of the commission. The Government will be looking at all those aspects of self-regulation over the next 18 months.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the commission will be drawing up a code of impartiality?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that that is another question to which I have no answer at present.

Mr. Oleg Gordievski: Representations
3.4 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Soviet Government to allow the wife and daughters of Mr. Oleg Gordievski to join him in the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have repeatedly pressed the Soviet authorities to allow Mr. Gordievski's family to join him in the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this matter again when he saw Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 24th September. There is no justification for Mrs. Gordievski being kept apart from her husband. Such reunifications are explicitly covered in the Helsinki Final Act and we shall continue to press the Soviet authorities to honour their obligations.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. However, can he say whether his right honourable friend has pointed out to

891
the Soviet Government that whatever they may think about Mr. Gordievski, his wife and small children are totally innocent parties in this matter and that it is intolerable for them to be penalised for something which was done by another person.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that my right honourable friend has already made that point forcefully. So far as we are aware, Mrs. Gordievski has done nothing wrong even under Soviet law.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we on this side of the House also regret that the Soviet Union is unable to allow Mrs. Gordievski and her two daughters to join her husband in this country? Can he say whether our embassy officials in Moscow are able to see Mrs. Gordievski frequently or whether that communication has been cut by the Soviet authorities?
Finally, I wonder whether the noble Earl will allow me to depart slightly from the Question and ask whether Her Majesty's Government are proposing to take any action in connection with Mr. Gordievski's book and his allegations about Mr. Cairncross being the "fifth man"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards the first question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure that the way he phrased it summed up the feelings of all your Lordships. I can assure him that the embassy has been in contact with Mrs. Gordievski and will continue to be so as and when necessary. However, in reply to the noble Lord's final question, I confirm that it is indeed slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
  British Railways (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
    Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
      Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
        Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
          Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]

            Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
            3.6 p.m.
            The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. These are seven House of
            892
            Lords Bills which, if your Lordships agree to the Motion, will be allowed to continue their progress in this House in the new Session.
            Moved, That the promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
            That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bills are the same in every respect as the Bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
            That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
            That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
            On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Clyde Port Authority Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a House of Commons Bill now before this House. Although the Motion is slightly different from the one that I have just moved, it will have the same effect and allow the Bill to continue its progress in the new Session.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with it, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to

893
every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report —(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 121 [Creation and constitution of new Councils]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 127, line 41, leave out from ("and") to end of line and insert ("related matters").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the course of debate on this Bill and during parliamentary Questions I have been pressed many times for information about the Government's implementation of the restructuring of the Nature Conservancy Council and the countryside agencies in England, Wales and Scotland. Therefore, I bring forward the information with agreement from all sides of the House. It has been agreed that the timing of doing so should be now. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I shall proceed to put such information before your Lordships.
There was a most informed and constructive debate about Part VII of the Bill in Committee. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Hesketh, was able to set out the Government's position in some detail and I believe that it will be helpful on this occasion if I intervene at an early stage in the debate. In doing so, I shall try to avoid going over too much of the ground we covered in Committee, and concentrate instead on bringing the House up to date with developments since July.
The arguments about the need to reorganise the conservation agencies have been widely aired, both in this House and in another place. They have, most unusually for proposals before Parliament, also been considered simultaneously by a Select Committee of this House under the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. There has also been a very extensive debate outside this House involving conservationists, scientists and many others who have the interests of our wildlife and countryside heritage at heart.
Throughout the debate, the Government have maintained and I believe justified the case for reform. In a nutshell, it is that separate agencies for each country will be more sensitive and accountable and consequently more effective guardians of our natural heritage. Since there have actually been debates on the principles of reorganisation at all five of the main stages of the Bill, I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time once again with a more detailed exposition today, I believe too that the House is anxious that I should say something about the resources and costs of the new agencies, and I shall come to that shortly.
However, before doing so, I want to make two other points. The first concerns the way in which the Government have handled the reform. I understand why there has been concern in this area, and it was of course mentioned in the report of the noble and gallant Lord. Nevertheless, whatever has been said about the period before these proposals were announced in July 1989, there can surely be no criticism of the way in which the Government have fulfilled their undertaking to listen to reasoned and constructive comments since then, and to take heed. Indeed the final structure of Part VII—and particularly the role and composition of the statutory joint committee for GB and international nature conservation—owes much to the views which have been expressed by the existing agencies, by independent scientists and, especially, by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and your Lordships' Select Committee.
Virtually all the recommendations contained in the committee's report have been accepted by the Government, either in their formal response in May or following further discussions between my noble friend Lord Hesketh and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. There will be further discussion when we come to discuss the amendments put down by the noble and gallant Lord and other noble Lords later today. I understand the strength of feeling about the structural changes for the agencies proposed in the Bill. However the Government's recent White Paper on the environment made it clear that Ministers have not closed the door on merger of the NCC and the Countryside Commission in England in the longer term. We will review that and other options when the new agencies have had a chance to settle down. If the Government do eventually opt for merger, then further legislation would be needed, and I am sure that that would have to deal with the role of the joint committee. I hope that the House will agree that this is the logical order in which to proceed.
My second general point concerns further commitments which my predecessor made in Committee in this House to consider amendments put forward by noble Lords. I shall deal with each of these later today as there will be an opportunity to cover them under particular amendments. All I would say at this stage is that the Government have delivered the commitments they made, particularly in bringing forward a statutory statement or "mandate" for the Countryside Council for Wales and in responding to

895
several proposals made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook to improve the operation of the habitat protection provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have brought forward amendments to clarify that management agreements can be made to protect any SSSI, whether of national or local importance, and to protect areas immediately adjacent to SSSIs. I shall also be able to give assurances to my noble friend about the NCC's powers to enter into agreements with people such as commoners and crofters, and about the denotification of SSSIs. Finally, I expect to be able to give assurances about the scope for the NCC's successor bodies to support nature conservation in areas outside SSSIs in response to amendments put down by my noble friends Lord Somerset and Lord Peel.
I turn now to resources. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I shall give full details today about the total costs of reorganisation, although I hope that he and all other members of your Lordship's House will understand that I cannot anticipate or commit my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will in due course be making the customary statement about public expenditure in 1991–92 and following years, which will include provision for the new agencies.
Before I give the bottom line on costs, I should like to explain to the House briefly how we got there, and in so doing dispel some of the wilder flights of fancy which have appeared in the media and have regrettably been quoted on occasion in the House or the other place. We have in fact adopted a systematic and professional approach to the task. Separate teams of staff inspectors or other experienced officials from the respective sponsor departments and the existing NCC designed organisational structures for the three new country agencies and estimated how many staff would be required to man them in a way which ensured that viable organisations would be created to press forward the existing programmes in an effective and efficient manner. At the same time, consultants were appointed to examine three other areas which would affect the ultimate shape of the new agencies: the staffing of the unit to support the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; the scope for sharing common services such as the library at Peterborough; and the immediate and long-term information and computer needs of the new agencies. The reports of the consultants were largely accepted and fed into the final organisational proposals. The Government have, as promised, published these three reports, and copies were placed in your Lordships' Library last week.
At the same time as that work was being undertaken earlier this year, the Government asked the NCC to give separate estimates of the additional staff and other resources which would be needed to enhance the level of conservation and other work which could be undertaken by the new agencies. That is in line with the normal processes of forward planning for agencies like the NCC. The results of that process have to be considered alongside the many competing claims for additional public expenditure.
896
The key point is that the NCC's bids for "enhanced programme spending", as we call them, are not attributable to the reorganisation proposals and cannot therefore be chalked up as part of the bottom line for implementing Part VII of this Bill.
I regret to say that despite our very best efforts to keep the programme bid and the reorganisation estimates separate, they have been lumped together by those who, shall we say, do not wish to see our proposals presented in the best light. That accounts for the exaggerated estimates of £20 million or even £30 million for the annual costs of reorganisation which have regularly appeared in the media.
The bottom line is in fact far more modest. The detailed estimate which we have drawn up, agreed with the NCC and the Countryside Commission, shows that the extra annual costs of the new agencies from 1991–92 onwards attributable to reorganisation should be less than £10 million. The estimate for extra staff and consequential costs such as accommodation is £9·18 million. There will be 1,350 publicly financed staff in the agencies—654 with the NCC for England, 225 with the Countryside Council for Wales, 385 with the NCC for Scotland and 86 with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. That is 294 more than the present staffing levels. I should add that within those figures we are allowing the consolidation of a number of existing temporary posts as well as the creation of some new ones required by reorganisation. That means that far from there being a major increase in bureaucracy, there will be extra permanent posts in scientific grades, and additional provision for policy and think tank work, particularly within the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, compared with current levels of activity.
The new structure will be soundly based, and when it is in operation it should be able to do more in each country than the existing NCC. That is particularly true of Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, there will be a much stronger regional presence and greater participation by council members through new regional boards. In Wales, reorganisation will for the first time provide capacity on the ground at regional level to deal with landscape conservation, recreation and access issues, and we expect that the same will also happen in Scotland from 1992.
I also draw the attention of the House to the detailed proposals for staffing the joint committee. We now envisage that there will be 51 permanent staff, more than half of whom will be scientists. In addition, 35 staff working on crucial national projects such as the marine and geological conservation reviews will come under the joint committee. In that area we have in fact gone considerably further than the recommendations in the noble and gallant Lord's report which suggested that there should be up to 20 professional staff with some additional support. That illustrates the importance which we attach to providing a scientific overview of the nation's wildlife. Indeed, the JNCC, freed from executive duties, and covering Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the UK, should be better

897
equipped than the existing NCC to provide a clearsighted and objective view of the strategic wildlife issues.
As I have said, I cannot anticipate decisions about the total public expenditure to be provided to the agencies next year. However, the Government have made it clear throughout that adequate resources would be provided to cover reorganisation without damaging current conservation programmes. I repeat that commitment, which must be seen in the context of the substantial increases in the NCC's grant which we have provided in almost every year since the 1981 Act was passed and which represent a rise of almost 160 per cent. in real terms since 1979. This Government's record in funding wildlife conservation stands comparison with any Government since the NCC was first established as the Nature Conservancy in 1949.
My attention has also been drawn to a letter by Sir William Wilkinson published in The Times last week and to a briefing paper which he has circulated to several noble Lords for this debate. Both mention a figure of £30 million, but also acknowledge that the actual direct costs of reorganisation are under £10 million in accordance with the figures I have just given. There is less daylight between the Government's perception and that of Sir William than is perhaps supposed. In simple terms, we agree with his presentation of the first tranche of £10 million (for reorganisation) and the third tranche of £10 million which is a straightforward bid for enhanced resources arrived at, as I said earlier, at the request of the Government. The difficulty comes with the middle tranche of another £10 million which Sir William claims is needed to make up for previous underfunding. Whether one accepts his argument depends on the expectations and, to some extent, on the old argument about whether a glass is half full or half empty.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Baroness forgive me for intruding? My understanding of discussions this morning was that a short statement would be made at the start of business in order to facilitate progress later on. The information would be given in that way so that people could digest it before we reached the appropriate amendment. I believe that that information has been given. Perhaps the noble Baroness is now straying into the matter of the amendments which have not yet been moved. I can see her difficulty, but perhaps it might be a good idea if we moved on to the amendments at this stage, if people are satisfied that the information has now been given to noble Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I also need to deal with personnel matters which are very much part of the interim arrangements. If the House will be patient, I shall deal with personnel matters, but I am in the hands of the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was one of those who agreed that this statement should be made. However, I confess that a statement which lasts eight minutes puts us in a totally impossible position. All the way through the passage of the Bill we have asked that we should be given adequate information
898
about the resources available to the various nature conservancy bodies, both in the countries and the joint committee. First, we were put off at Committee stage by being told that the information would not be available until all the consultants' reports were available. We are now told for the first time—because I have been given no notification—that three reports were put in the Library last week. How am I supposed to know that? How is the House to know that reports are available and could have been part of our debate?
The noble Baroness has personally been extremely courteous to me. She has sought my agreement to this intervention. However, in the absence of a written copy of what she has said, to take in and fully to react to a statement lasting eight minutes is physically impossible. We are at a halfway house between what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve —which is to help the House—and what really ought to have happened. That is, an adequate statement should have been given by the Government in advance of the debate or at least a statement following the rules of statements to the House outside Report stage proceedings. Such action would have meant that we would have been given copies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the reports that were published and put in the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pressed me hard, requesting that as soon as those reports became available I should give an assurance that they would be placed in the Library. I honoured that assurance. As soon as they became available, they were placed in the Library.
On the statement, I am in the hands of the House. The information I have was literally only brought together this morning. I asked that copies of what I am presenting at the Box today should be available in the Printed Paper Office. If they are not now, they will be available within minutes of me sitting down. I have asked that the information also be made available.
Noble Lords will have to take it on trust that my own notes and all this information were brought together literally only this morning. I have yet to deal with the personnel issues, but if the House would prefer to forgo them, I shall of course be guided by it.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may make one comment to the noble Baroness. Last Thursday I asked a Question involving the resources for the NCC. The Minister said that we would be told something this week. I believe that it was most extraordinary that she did not say at that moment that the consultants' reports would be in the Library for us to see.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry, but I believe that I have just made it clear that it was during the course of that parliamentary Question that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pressed me hard. The reports were not available at the time but they became available a day or two after the Question was asked. The moment they became available, they were placed in the Library.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we are out of order. I wonder whether my noble friend's Motion could be put to the House so that the Question would be before the House. Then the House would again be in order.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question was put before the House by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend informs us that she has only been able to put all the decisions together today. I accept that. It is helpful for those of us who have put aside the whole of today in order to consider these important amendments and the new clauses—much changed as a result of the Committee stage—to receive a general statement at the beginning, which my noble friend has given. That is certainly helpful to me. I cannot comment on what did or did not happen last week, but I believe that my noble friend is being helpful to everybody who will be taking part in this Report stage until probably a late hour this evening. She has made a general statement now, at the beginning of the debate and I hope that the House will accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish the House or the noble Baroness to misunderstand me. I said that of course she personally has been as helpful as she could. However, if we take the position of the Government as a whole, they have had since June to make up their minds about these matters.
A noble Lord: My Lords, July.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, we finished the Committee stage in June. It is not good enough for a statement of this kind to be prepared on the morning of the debate after all opportunity for amendments has passed.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am surprised, since the noble Baroness responded so promptly to my request, that nobody told me that she had reacted and that the papers were available in the Library. It is a difficult situation for us all. She is trying to be helpful. Perhaps I may also ask her to speak a little more slowly; we admire her delivery but it is rather fast.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps we may get on to the first amendment. There is no Question before the House at the moment. I understand that the Question that we further consider the Bill on Report has now been put and agreed. Therefore, we need a Question before the House before anything else can be said. If the first amendment can be moved and put to the House, then the House will be in order.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I beg to move that the amendment be now put.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is:
"page 127, line 41, leave out from (`and') to end of line and insert (`related matters')".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, shall I continue with the statement? I shall very quickly deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I apologise unreservedly if it was not brought to his notice that we responded to his request
900
as soon as we did. I went straight back to the department to ask that the reports be made available in the Library as soon as possible.
I feel that I cannot win on this issue. I was speaking quickly in the hope that I could get the statement across quickly. I shall omit some of it and if I have left any gaps I shall have to return to it in detail during the course of the amendments.
The Government have every right to be believed when we say that we will also provide the necessary resources for the agencies. However, resources are not the sole prerequisite for the success of the new agencies. Their performance will depend on the talents of both members and staff. Noble Lords will recall that we have already announced the appointment of four distinguished shadow chairmen for the new agencies and the JNCC: the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in England; Mr. Michael Griffith in Wales; Magnus Magnusson in Scotland and Professor Sir Fred Holliday to the JNCC.
We have also previously announced the appointment of three eminent scientists to the JNCC as nominees of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State: Professors Knill, Harper and May. Earlier today, my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment announced the names of 10 people who had accepted invitations to serve on the new NCC for England. Similarly, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Wales today announced eight proposed appointments to the Countryside Council for Wales, including the deputy chairman.
There are some distinguished names on both lists. In each case we are appointing a mix of new and existing members. This will ensure continuity, while bringing in some new blood. In the case of the NCC for England, seven existing members of the NCC or its existing advisory committee for England will serve on the new council. They are: Dr. Peter Banham, a consultant geologist; my noble friend, Lord Peel; Dr. Duncan Shaw, director of the Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies; Mr. Alan Swindall, a former county planning officer; Mr. James Teacher, a farmer and chairman of the Kent Trust for Nature Conservation; Dr. Michael Usher, an ecologist from York University; and Mr. Lindsay Waddell, chairman of the Moorland Gamekeepers' Association. They will be joined by three new members: Professor Janet Kear, curator of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust at Martin Mere; Ms. Janet Barber, head of conservation at the World Wide Fund for Nature in the United Kingdom; and Mr. Mark Thomasin-Foster, a farmer from Essex who is vice-chairman of the Farming and Wildlife Trust.
My honourable friend, the Minister of State for Wales, has announced that Professor David Bowen, director of earth studies at the University College of Wales and Aberystwyth, will be deputy chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales. He is already a member of the NCC. There will be four further appointments of members who already serve on the existing NCC or Countryside Commission committees for Wales. These are Dr. Allan Evans, a headmaster, Mr. John Harrop and Mr. Tom Jones,

901
both farmers, and Dr. Mervlyn Hedger, a sociologist and town planner. They will be joined by three new members: Professor Denis Bellamy, a zoologist and Emeritus Professor of the University of Wales College at Cardiff; county councillor Morgan Chambers, chairman of the Brecon Beacons National Park Committee; and Mr. Mervyn Williams, director of countryside management at Bangor Normal College. Further details of these appointments are contained in the statements made by my honourable friends today. Further appointments to both bodies will be announced shortly. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland also expects to make an announcement soon about appointments to the NCC for Scotland.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the efforts which Ministers are making to ensure that each of the new agencies has the right balance of expertise to fulfil its remit. These appointments—and those announced earlier this year—also give the lie to those who have suggested that the new agencies are intended to pander either to ministerial wishes or to any entrenched interest.
Finally I want to say a few words about the arrangements we are making to transfer existing NCC and Countryside Commission staff to the new agencies. As the House will recall, my noble friend Lord Hesketh gave an undertaking within three weeks of the original reorganisation announcement last July that every existing member of the NCC's staff would be offered a post with one of the new agencies on terms and conditions no less favourable as a whole than those they have now. A similar undertaking was given in respect of Countryside Commission staff in Wales who are to be transferred to the Countryside Council for Wales. These undertakings have been given statutory force through Clause 130 and Schedule 10 of this Bill. Not only are they important to staff as individuals, but they also help to achieve the Government's objective of making the existing scientific expertise—the science base—available to the new agencies.
In readiness for the transfer, questionnaires have been completed by staff and draft transfer schemes allotting each eligible NCC and CC officer to one of the new agencies, and to the JNCC in some cases, have been drawn up by the existing agencies. I hope that they will shortly be agreed with the Government and the shadow agencies with a view to issuing offers of employment as soon as the new bodies are vested within a few days of Royal Assent. This should provide considerable reassurance for staff at all levels.
Obviously there will be some vacant posts after offers are made to existing staff early next month. These will be filled as soon as possible using service-wide trawls and open competition. The objective is to fill as many of the posts as possible before the new agencies take over their functions on 1st April next year. I think it is fair to say that these arrangements represent a good deal for the staff and a good deal for wildlife and the countryside. They build
902
on the legacy of the existing organisations within the framework of Part VII, which, like my predecessors on this Bench, I commend to the House.
I again offer my apologies to the House, but had I made this information available after today's debate I might have been in even more trouble. Copies are available of some of the information that has been brought together for the purpose of this statement. The information has been hurriedly put together and I understand that copies are available in the Printed Paper Office for collection. If those copies run out, staff have an instruction to make a telephone call and extra copies will be made available without delay. The two amendments which have already been called are technical amendments to Clause 121 in Schedule 9. They are needed to transfer amendments to enactments such as the Superannuation Act, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act and the Inheritance Act from the schedule of nature conservation amendments, that is Schedule 9, to the place where they are correctly located, Schedule 6, which deals with the constitution of the new agencies. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, things have now got completely out of hand. I asked for help and the noble Baroness was courteous enough to give me help. I asked for the information from the Government which had been promised in Committee and which would enable us to table serious and responsible amendments on the resources for nature conservation in this country, and indeed all the countries concerned. That information ought to have been available in good time for this House to consider it and for noble Lords to be able to table amendments for this stage of the Bill. However, the information was not available and we are now told that it was hastily put together this morning.
The Government are playing exactly the same trick they played in Committee. When the Government were in a corner in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, announced to the Chamber the names of the chairmen of the country conservancy councils. Those names were welcome, but that was no way for the Chamber to be treated. I am the last person to say that statements should be made outside Parliament before they are made to Parliament. However, there is a time and a place for everything and there is a way in which the responsibilities of this House can effectively be exercised. This is not the way. What we have heard from the noble Baroness may indeed be welcome. We have in effect heard a 15-minute statement which we have not seen and which we cannot use to table amendments at virtually the last stage of the Bill.
The statement does not help us, through the way it was presented, to give a proper consideration to Part VII of the Bill. Under those circumstances I have no alternative but to say that when this amendment has been agreed to I shall move that the House adjourn during pleasure to allow us a proper time during which to consider the remaining business of Part VII of the Bill.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I wish to support what my noble friend has said. I witnessed some pretty confusing circumstances in the days when I was Leader of the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House is available but the Government Chief Whip certainly is. This is an extraordinary position. I sincerely counsel that there should be an adjournment during pleasure to review the situation.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I shall certainly give way to that. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite wish to adjourn now or when the amendment is finished. I shall be quite happy to call a short adjournment to discuss this matter outside the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that at the insistence of the noble Lord the Chief Whip we are debating Amendment No. 221. Surely the best thing to do is to get that amendment agreed to and then to adjourn during pleasure.
Lord Denham: My Lords, that is probably right. I shall certainly agree to an adjournment to discuss this matter outside the House.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 221 be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure and that consideration on Report should not be resumed before 4.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the time is now 25 minutes before 4 o'clock. I agreed to an adjournment but I think that length of time is rather over-generous. I suggest that we adjourn to discuss the matter outside the House and that we return at 4 o'clock. I hope the noble Lord will agree to that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree to that on the explicit assurance that the text of the statement of the noble Baroness is now available to us. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure and that further consideration on Report be resumed at 4 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.38 to 4 p.m.]
4 p.m.
Schedule 6: [The Nature Conservancy Councils for England and Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales: Constitution]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 179, line 37, at end insert:
("Public Records
. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), in Part II of the Table at the end of paragraph 3 (organisations whose records are public records) there shall be inserted in the appropriate places entries relating to the Countryside Council for Wales and the Nature Conservancy Council for England.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is usual for the records of public bodies of this type to be subject to the Public Records Acts. The Acts require that, under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records,
904
arrangements are made for the selection of records which should be permanently preserved at the Public Record Office and made available to public inspection at the appropriate time.
For the new agencies for England and Wales an amendment to Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 is required to achieve that objective, and that is what the amendment does. In Scotland matters are already arranged to the effect that the records of the new NCC for Scotland will be treated as records belonging to Her Majesty for public records purposes. No legislative changes are therefore needed here. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the matters which were considered immediately before the adjournment affect a very large number of amendments for debate this afternoon, but in particular my amendment, Amendment No. 223. Therefore, noble Lords will wish to know that we on these Benches propose to make clear our position and our mounting dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government are proceeding in respect of the debate on Amendment No. 223 and associated amendments. I do not dissent from Amendment No. 222.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, although I do not wish to prolong the irregularity of these proceedings, I am told that the papers that it was promised would be in the Library are not in the Library. Is that so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to answer that question. My information was that the reports were in the Library. I am having that investigated now.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House if I say that it is our intention that when Amendment No. 223 is debated the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, Amendment No. 288A, should be added to the grouping which has already been given to the House and considered together with other amendments of the same nature.
It is my information that the reports which were alleged to be in the Library were not in the Library a quarter of an hour ago but were being sent over from the Department of the Environment. Doubtless we shall hear more later.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [The Joint Nature Conservation Committee]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 181, line 7, leave out ("chairman of the Countryside Commission") and insert ("member of the Countryside Commission appointed by that Commission").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 222A I shall also speak to Amendment No. 222B. Neither of the amendments is affected in any way by statements, counter statements, papers in the Library, lack of papers in the Library, the House being adjourned during pleasure or being adjourned without giving anyone any pleasure. They are fairly straightforward and refer to the membership of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
During Committee stage my noble friend Lord Hesketh gave the information that where the chairman of the Countryside Commission is referred to as being a member of the JNCC it means just that and he or she alone can attend. The chairman of the Countryside Commission is a part-time appointment with very many commitments and responsibilities. As I understand it, the JNCC intends to meet several times a year. It is unrealistic to expect the chairman to be able to attend every meeting of that body. Since the Countryside Commission has only one seat at that table rather than the two enjoyed by the country councils there will inevitably be times when the commission's interests will not be represented in that important decision-making forum.
I have purposely put down two amendments, either of which would rectify the situation. I put down two amendments in order to allow the House and the Government to choose which they would prefer. Amendment No. 222A has the effect of allowing the chairman of the Countryside Commission to send a substitute on those occasions when he or she cannot attend meetings of the JNCC. That substitute would have the full authority to act on behalf of the Countryside Commission. That is the preferred amendment.
The other amendment recognises that the preferred amendment gives the Countryside Commission an advantage not enjoyed by the country councils in that they cannot send substitutes to replace their chairman or nominated member. However, they have the benefit of two representatives so that it is extremely unlikely that they will not be represented at meetings of the JNCC. Amendment No. 222B therefore allows the commission to nominate a member, not necessarily the chairman, to be its regular representative on the JNCC While not eliminating the possibility of the Countryside Commission being absent from JNCC meetings, it would allow the commission to be represented by someone who would be able to give more time to the work of the JNCC than is likely to be possible in the case of the chairman. I beg to move.
Lord Carver: My Lords, in speaking to the noble Earl's amendments I shall also speak to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Chorley, Amendment No. 242.
The appointment of the chairman of the Countryside Commission to the joint committee was part of the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee, which I chaired. If the House will allow me, I shall read out the relevant paragraph, which follows one which recommended that eventually in England the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission should be merged. We said:
"Meanwhile the remit of the Joint Committee should be extended to cover countryside conservation and the Countryside Commission for England should be given a place on it. There are going to be enough difficulties getting cooperation between on the one hand Scottish and Welsh agencies, whose remit unites nature conservation and countryside conservation, and on the other hand English agencies whose remit does not, without complicating matters further by having a Joint Committee which can only discuss
906
nature conservation. Such a situation would be administratively difficult and at the same time could marginalise the countryside conservation function".
In their response to the report the Government said:
"This recommendation implies a potentially huge extension of the role of the Joint Committee … It would also lead to significant change in the focus of the Committee's remit. The Government has seen it as being concerned solely with matters of nature conservation … Nevertheless, there are areas where the two interests overlap, and occasionally conflict. The Government sees some advantage therefore in the Committee's being able to take account of considerations of landscape and wider countryside matters, which the Countryside Commission's representation would assist".
Although fully appreciating the practical considerations that lie behind the noble Earl's amendments, I would not like to see the representation of the Countryside Commission on the joint committee weakened by allowing somebody else to represent the chairman. If that were allowed for him it would presumably also have to apply to other members of the joint committee and there would be a danger that it could be transformed into a committee of officials and its authority thereby devalued.
In addition, I am further opposed to either of the amendments because the Government have resisted our full recommendation and have maintained that the appointment to the joint committee of the chairman of the Countryside Commission with a vote is sufficient to meet it. That was the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, at Second Reading and in Committee. We do not accept that. That is why my noble friend Lord Chorley and I have tabled Amendment No. 242 which has been grouped with these two amendments.
We recognised that the House in Committee rejected the proposal which my noble friend Lord Chorley made and which I supported; namely, that the joint committee should give equal weight to nature conservancy and countryside matters. We therefore table this amendment, accepting that it would be a joint Nature Conservancy Council committee but trying to ensure that in considering nature conservancy matters due regard was paid to countryside considerations.
In an exchange of correspondence during the Recess, I was told—I quote the actual words—that our amendment would:
"shift the focus of the joint committee under the country councils, including the Nature Conservancy Council for England, too much towards countryside issues and it could even lead to a situation where the remit to protect wildlife is unintentionally weakened".
If that is thought to be a danger that would arise if the joint committee were allowed to use the words of our amendment (namely, to have regard to the need of the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales, and the Countryside Commission for Scotland—until it is merged with the NCC for Scotland—to further the discharge of their functions) why on earth are the Government merging the two functions in Wales and propose to do so in Scotland? If that is a real danger, why does it not arise there?

907
More recently, the noble Baroness, representing the Government, explained to me that if countryside matters were taken into account by the joint committee in giving advice to the nature conservancy councils, the Government feared that somebody whose property was affected by a designation as a site of special scientific interest, or something like that, might claim that the designation had not been based on purely scientific grounds, as required by the Wildlife and Countryside Acts. I find that to be a very convoluted argument.
The difference between my amendment and the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, which will be discussed later, is that my amendment would not give the joint committee any kind of overview of countryside matters or authority for giving advice on them. It would simply ensure that when advice on nature conservancy matters is given upwards to the Secretaries of State and downwards to the councils, due regard is paid to the countryside functions of those councils which have the responsibility of discharging them.
The reasons given for creating a new body in Wales and for proposing a merger between the Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Scotland is said to be the need to ensure that nature conservancy is not considered in isolation from other aspects of the environment. That is the whole tenor of Chapter 7, entitled "Countryside and Wildlife", of the environment White Paper.
I am sure that noble Lords will understand the reasons why I do not like either of the two amendments proposed by the noble Earl. I hope that the Government will stifle their fears about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and me, and that they will accept it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I well understand the reason why the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has a difficult problem; namely, because of the grouping of these three amendments. As I understand it, his amendment, Amendment No. 242, has nothing whatsoever to do with the simple point made by my noble friend Lord Swinton. In effect, one statute appoints the chairman of a committee. This statute then hijacks that chairman to sit permanently on a statutory commission set up by this Bill. It puts a tremendous burden on that chairman.
That is the sole issue that my noble friend Lord Swinton raised. It has nothing to do with the power politics of the "caring greenies" (for want of a better term). I suggest to my noble friend and others in the House that my noble friend Lord Swinton has tabled a sensible and simple amendment which should be supported.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I believe that we shall have a slightly confused discussion because the linkage in this grouping in some sense seems to be rather remote. It will not surprise the noble Earl to hear that I intend to speak mostly about Amendment No. 242, to which I put my name together with the noble and
908
gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I speak for myself and with the support of the National Trust, of which I have just recently had the honour to be named chairman designate.
At Committee stage I explained at length the trust's strong interest in importing into the remit of the joint committee some regard to wider countryside considerations. I shall not go over that ground again except to note that the trust has a large number of SSSIs in its guardianship and has to manage other important land holdings with wider countryside considerations in mind.
The amendment that I proposed at Committee stage obtained a wide measure of oral support. Nevertheless, it failed on Division, although only modestly, which was partly owing to government objections. In an effort to find a way forward which took account of those objections from the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was good enough to find time to discuss the problem with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and myself. Although we were not able to find a mutually agreeable solution, for my part at least we were able to clarify some of the issues. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her help.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has explained the changes that we have made in coming forward with this amendment; namely, the "have regard to" which puts a secondary focus, as it were, on countryside matters, and the fact that in effect the definition is now more tightly drawn, in as much as it is tied back to the phrases of the existing statute. I hope therefore that two possible objections have been dealt with. I have identified three remaining possible objections with which I should like to deal.
The first objection is that it creates a new quango; the JNCC becomes in effect a quango. That seems to have been an objection at Committee stage. However, that cannot be so, whether legalistically or even in a practical sense, because the opening words of Clause 126 make quite clear that the JNCC is the creature of the councils.
The next objection that I have heard raises what is sometimes called the thin edge of the wedge argument. It is said that this is a back door route to amalgamate the Countryside Commission for England with the NCC. As the Government said earlier, and again in the White Paper—and I say quite unequivocally—there is no intention of using the thin end of a wedge. Like the Government, I recognise that there are arguments both for and against amalgamation which have to be weighed carefully. There has to be wide consultation and in that sense I welcome the White Paper. I do not believe that the thin end of the wedge argument runs here.
Thirdly, there are said to be legal objections. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to that point. It is said that if this amendment is accepted, there will be grave risk of litigation and judicial review because either wider countryside matters were not sufficiently taken into account or alternatively too much weight was given to them. That seems to

909
amount to the argument that all the actions and functions of the joint committee must be based solely on nature conservancy considerations and must be untainted by any other considerations.
If that is the case it seems clear to me that it follows that there will be contradictions between the role of the joint committee on the one hand and its parent bodies in Wales and later in Scotland on the other hand. Those two bodies will be required to operate in a wider mode at the country level but in a narrower mode at the GB level. And it is not only that. The Bill reserves to the joint committee alone a series of special functions. One may well ask how those two country bodies will square the circle to deal with that incompatibility—and to what advantage we do not know. It is not clear. Again one has to ask oneself: what is the purpose of including the chairman of the Countryside Commission for England in the JNCC? What is to be his role if only nature conservation considerations are to be allowed?
We should remind ourselves that the purpose of splitting up the Nature Conservancy Council in the first place was the criticism from Scotland that the NCC took far too narrow a view of matters; that wider considerations were very important in Scotland. Yet the result of the Bill is to perpetuate that narrowness of approach with regard to special functions. Certainly the Scots have their own NCC but neither the Scottish NCC nor its successor body will be a free agent because the special functions are reserved to a GB body—the JNCC. In exercising those functions, no wider considerations are to be allowed. It was for those reasons, as I understand it, that the Scots objected to a proposal for a joint committee. With the Bill as it now stands, whether for legal or other reasons which have put a very narrow remit on the JNCC, we have a considerable muddle.
I believe that the legal objections are farfetched. Do we really think that there is a grave risk of litigation? In the first place the joint committee does not deal with operational issues. Those are a countryside matter. The joint committee has mainly to deal with strategic-type issues. Clause 126 makes provision for five special functions. Of those five, three are,
"the provision of advice for the Secretary of State".
It is hard to see how the provision of advice could give rise to litigation.
The fourth requirement is to establish common standards for monitoring research and analysis. One finds it difficult to believe that monitoring research and analysis will be fertile ground for lawyers. Finally, there are what I call the Schedule 9 functions. Again it is hard to see how the requirements regarding the Countryside Commission functions expose a flank in this area.
It is surely better to take a more practical approach. It is better to resolve the muddle inherent in the Bill by achieving a consistent approach and to run the remote risk of some adverse litigation. The lawyers may not like it but that is what practical men would do. I have talked and consulted with numerous experts on the issue. I have yet to come across anyone who does not
910
acknowledge the need to allow the JNCC to take account of wider countryside matters. That was the view of the Select Committee; it was the view from the evidence it received; it was the Government's view in response to the Select Committee. I hope therefore that the House will support the amendment, which seeks to remove the anomaly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, raised. He made the general remark that the Scots were against the establishment of a joint committee. There may have been some of such opinion, but there were other views. As one of the members of the Carver Committee—the subcommittee which went to Edinburgh for two days and took evidence from a number of organisations—my recollection is that some of the people from whom we heard may have had difficulties about the establishment of a joint committee but most of them accepted it. I must make that clear for the record.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I did not intend to state that every Scot in the land was against such a committee. However, there were undoubtedly a considerable number who were.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment and also to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, because I believe that either of those options would be better than the provision in the Bill. The arguments for widening the remit of the council seem overwhelming. They have been debated so often that I do not propose to do so again.
I wish to make one point. I was astonished to read the defence of the Government's position in the White Paper. It appears at paragraph 18.25 if anyone wishes to look it up. It was repeated by the noble Baroness today. The main argument against the inclusion of countryside matters seems to be that further change at this stage would hinder the new organisations in "finding their feet". But surely, if changes are to be made, this is the time to make them. The Bill is not yet an Act. The Government have seen fit to charge ahead with sweeping changes, before the necessary legislation is in place. Having mismanaged the preparation of the Bill, and having met widespread opposition to their proposals, progress through Parliament has been slow.
However, that is no excuse for stopping all logical thought. The statement that the noble Baroness gave us today states that,
"If the Government do eventually opt for merger, then further legislation would be needed".
Surely this is the legislation in which such provision can be made if the Government's wish to do so. The shortage of time has not stopped them making other changes to the Bill. It is better to make the changes now rather than to let the new bodies struggle painfully to their feet and then be knocked over in a couple of years' time with yet another burst of legislation.

911
Do the Government pay any regard to the feelings of the staff in all these organisations? They seem to act without any thought for their future welfare. I support Amendment No. 242. I cannot support the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for the reasons given by the noble and gallant Lord. I believe that such an arrangement would reduce the prestige of the Countryside Commission's presence on the body.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. However, I am slightly confused. If one imposes countryside responsibilities on the joint committee, that is fine so far as concerns Scotland and Wales, where the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council are joint bodies. But in England they will remain separate bodies. It appears to me (I wear my NCC hat now; and I made the point at Committee) that we may find ourselves in a degree of confusion. We might have countryside responsibilities foisted upon us that we are not capable of dealing with. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinton appears to me to eminently sensible.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I enter the debate solely as a result of the experience of having been the Secretary of State responsible for the two organisations in the very early days when they were finding their feet, having been established under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I do not like any of the amendments in this group. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Swinton suffer from the difficulty upon which both the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, firmly put their finger. Once one gives the chairman of the Countryside Commission an opportunity, in effect, to have an alternate, one devalues his presence. If it is regarded as important that the chairman of the Countryside Commission should be a member of the JNCC, his presence is essential. He attends in his own right. One cannot dissociate that view from the very distinguished current holder of that office. I do not believe that his colleagues would find themselves too upset if one said that it was very important that he should attend; and the same will be true of his successor in due course. I find that argument persuasive.
The argument on the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has been rehearsed many times. I have refreshed my memory by reading his report. It quickly became apparent to me in dealing with both Sir Derek Barber and the Countryside Commission, and Sir William Wilkinson (Mr. Wilkinson as he then was) and the Nature Conservancy Council, that the two bodies were very different animals. The essentially scientific base for the work of the NCC, coupled with what has always appeared to be the more sociological base of the work of the Countryside Commission, made uneasy bedfellows. My first question to my officials was, "Why do we have two separate organisations?". I quickly became convinced that the decision of Parliament was right because the bodies were engaged
912
in fundamentally different functions. Wales and Scotland are small countries and it would be difficult to have a proliferation of organisations. Therefore, I find the argument in relation to them as leading the other way; the situation is not clear cut. However, for England the argument is right.
It follows therefore that if they are to be separate it is because they have separate functions and a different focus. The scientific basis of the work of the NCC must not be allowed to be overridden by more general and wider sociological and related matters which are described in the Bill as "countryside matters".
That is important and it is with enormous diffidence that I beg to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. There is an important legal trap which it is essential to avoid. Some years ago Parliament approved a change in legal procedure by establishing the judicial review. At the time it might have appeared to be a relatively minor legal procedural change. However, under the well-known legal maxim ubi remedium ibi jus—where there is a remedy there is to be found the law—the existence of the power to challenge administrative decisions has in the course of a relatively short time given rise to an entirely new body of administrative law. Administrative decisions are now open to challenge as they were hardly ever before under the old prerogative writs. One of the basic reasons why there is justification for challenge in the courts is contained in the splendid phrase that the Minister, or whoever is being challenged, has "misdirected himself". It is on that ground that a decision can be overturned.
If in the course of making an essentially science-based decision—for instance, whether to designate an SSSI or to excise any of the other powers of the NCC—there are allowed to creep in matters which are extraneous to that because the commission is having to take account of the wider countryside functions, that must increase the risk of challenge by people who are either deeply upset by the designation or, if there is a decision not to designate, to say that the commission has misdirected itself in refusing.
Although that may appear to be a remote possibility, I believe that it is very real. For that reason I believe that the Government are right to do their utmost to keep the two functions separate. While the two bodies remain separate—and clearly that is the intention for the time being as indicated in the White Paper—it is equally important that the functions should be kept separate. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble and gallant Lord and to the members of his committee, I find it difficult to accept what he has said. If there is a vote I shall vote against Amendment No. 242.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has put forward an eloquent case for keeping separate the functions of the NCC and the Countryside Commission. If that is accepted, why are we merging the functions in Wales? The fact is that we are. If we are considering the Government's proposal, we shall have sitting on the joint committee not only

913
the chairman of the Countryside Commission for England but also the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, who will be responsible for both functions. At present the Government have an illogical situation because in the deliberations of the joint committee those two representatives will not be allowed to take account of their countryside responsibilities regarding access to the beauty of the countryside, landscape and so forth.
The great merit of the amendment, No. 242, tabled by my noble and gallant friend is that it does not lay new duties on the joint committee but gives discretionary responsibilities to the council which will allow it to take account of its countryside responsibilities when taking part in the work of the joint committee. That proposal is so obviously sensible and I cannot imagine how it can be opposed. However, if there is force in the legal and other objections as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others—and I realise that there may be —I hope that the Government will accept the substance of the case and, if necessary, produce a separate form of words taking account of those responsibilities. I believe that the substance is extremely important.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who finds it disturbing that at this late stage, with only a few days between now and Prorogation, we are still unsure of a fundamental element of the whole exercise. I find that extremely disturbing. During the last few minutes I have tried to visualise the position of the two Welsh representatives on the joint committee. How will they be able to discharge their functions without running into the kind of legal risks so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding? If that presents a danger for the joint committee I cannot see why in certain circumstances it will not also present a danger for the body in Wales and ultimately in Scotland. I believe that in Wales the legal power now vested in the NCC to designate areas as SSSIs, national nature reserves and so forth will be exercised by a committee which has a dual function. Therefore, would it not be putting the members of that committee at risk?
I turn to the attendance of the chairman and one other member of the Welsh committee at the joint committee. How can they possibly fulfil their representative functions sensibly? After all, the chairman may not be a scientist—in fact, he is not. As the chairman of the National Trust in Wales he is more concerned with the kind of responsibilities described by my noble friend Lord Chorley. However, if the argument is that the joint committee is to be exclusively concerned with nature conservation in the narrow sense and not at all concerned with the wider issues of countryside affairs, one must rethink the whole situation. Why have a joint committee at all? We argued about that issue in earlier days and it was said that the joint committee was needed because of standards, our position in Europe and so forth. They were all most persuasive arguments and I should be sad if there were no joint committee. However, I was
914
horrified to read certain quotations attributed to the chairman, Sir Fred Holliday and which he has made plain, obiter dicta, are correct. He said that he does not expect the joint committee to have a long life in any event. I do not know quite what one is to make of that position.
It is very disturbing that we are being asked at this late stage to go back to fundamentals. We find it very difficult to see the light. I have every sympathy for the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. What looks to be an innocent, sensible and practical amendment has raised a fundamental issue regarding the real nature of what we are doing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I also have some difficulty with the linking of these amendments because it seems to me that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Swinton is quite distinct from the other amendment. Therefore, the amendments are quite separate and I intend to deal with them separately. I am grateful to my noble friend because he is right to address the issue of flexibility. I hope that in the course of my rather brief response to his amendment I shall be able to satisfy all opinion about this matter.
The effect of the amendment would be to allow the Countryside Commission to appoint someone other than a chairman to be its representative on the JNCC. Noble Lords will be aware that one of the recommendations of the sub-committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was that the chairman of the Countryside Commission should be a member of the JNCC. The Government accepted that recommendation and do not wish to go back on that now. However, I understand the points made by my noble friend. Indeed, the chairman of the JNCC, Professor Sir Fred Holliday, has confirmed that he would be happy for the chairman's nominated representative to attend meetings of the JNCC but of course in the capacity of observer.
The point made by my noble friend is that the chairman's job is part time and at times the work may be demanding. There will need to be cover for sickness, and as there is one place for the Countryside Commission at the table on most occasions one would expect that to be filled by the chairman of the commission. However, it is suggested that on those occasions when the chairman cannot be present, rather than having a vacant place at the table he should be allowed to appoint an observer member. I hope that we do not need primary legislation to allow that to happen. That can be dealt with by regulations. The important matter is that the Countryside Commission should be represented at the table. Regulation would be the mechanism for ensuring that that takes place.
In speaking to Amendment No. 242 I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on his new appointment with the National Trust. We wish him well on taking up that new duty. The effect of this amendment would be to require the country councils, through the joint Nature Conservation committee, to have regard to the need to further the discharge of countryside functions. However obliquely this

915
amendment is worded—and as your Lordships will be aware it has changed considerably since Committee stage—there can be no doubt that its purpose is to extend the remit of the JNCC to countryside matters.
The Government remain opposed to any suggestion that the JNCC should have a statutory countryside remit. There are several reasons for our opposition. First, the involvement of the JNCC would weaken the authority of the existing Countryside Commission to deal with strategic issues. There has never been any suggestion that the commission has performed this role inadequately. Secondly, an amendment could force the JNCC to pull its punches on wildlife issues, since it would also have to consider countryside matters, which might conflict with nature conservation. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Peel.
Thirdly, the recent White Paper makes it clear that a merger of the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council for England is not an option in the short term. It would not therefore be appropriate to use this legislation to introduce a paving measure for such a merger before a policy decision has been taken.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, when these changes settle down, if it seems appropriate the evolutionary method is the one the Government would prefer to accept.
Fourthly, the amendment would muddy the legal waters considerably. That was a point touched on very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. For example, it would require JNCC advice to the NCC for England to have regard for countryside issues, but of course the NCC for England has no countryside remit whatsoever. That was another point raised by my noble friend Lord Peel. This would open up all kinds of unwelcome possibilities—for example, a judicial review of NCC England decisions based on such advice—and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to agree an amendment which could leave the new agencies open to a greater risk of judicial review.
Fifthly, an amendment to require all the country councils to have regard to the countryside dimension would explicitly dilute the duty of the new NCC for England to protect wildlife in the different circumstances in England where pressures are often greatest on a patchwork of small sites.
Finally, any amendment would also introduce confusion about the respective roles of Ministers and the JNCC. The advice which the JNCC is to give to Ministers on UK and international wildlife issues is not trammelled by the need to take other factors into account, such as social, economic agricultural and forestry interests. This reproduces exactly the current situation in which the need to have due regard to these needs under the Countryside Act 1968 is not applied to the NCC's advisory functions. This is an important principle which is worth retaining. It also reflects the position under European and international commitments—such as the birds directive—where the agency
916
gives its advice focused solely on the needs of wildlife and Ministers then take account of the wider context whether it be socioeconomic factors or countryside conservation. The Government would not want to blur those distinctions.
The Government understand why the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and bodies such as the National Trust, which covers both wildlife and countryside conservation, want to bring wildlife and countryside considerations together wherever possible. The Government have not ignored this viewpoint and indeed this was the reason why, at Committee stage, the Government added the chairman of the Countryside Commission as a statutory member of the JNCC. There will therefore be a place at the table for the wider context, but we firmly believe that the menu of the JNCC should be wildlife in its national and international setting.
I have listened very carefully to this debate. A fundamental point is being missed. The remit for the JNCC and its primary function is to advise on conservation matters. If that remit is extended and the words "shall have regard to" appear on the face of the Bill, that becomes a legal obligation. The body advises on an issue. It takes everything into account as regards the legal obligation not only for wildlife but also for countryside matters. If, on balance of the evidence, it gives its advice weighted in favour of countryside matters, conflict will be introduced into that forum.
It is absolutely inconceivable that a debate should take place around that table without inextricably linking the two issues of wildlife and countryside. It will not be possible to discuss wildlife issues without discussing also the countryside. That is why a representative of the Countryside Commission will be at the table. That is why countryside matters will be part of the discussion. However, it is absolutely fundamental that there should be a primary legal obligation that the advice proffered to the Government or to the European Parliament should be unequivocal and should relate to its primary function; namely, wildlife and conservation matters.
If there is a conflict, it will be for the Government to accept that advice and to accept advice on countryside matters. Where there is a conflict and a decision needs to be made and the evidence weighed, that would not be a matter for the JNCC but for the body to which that advice is proffered, whether it be the European Parliament or our national Parliament.
We are absolutely at one in this Chamber in believing that conservation and wildlife matters and countryside matters are important in their own right. The point of difference, which may seem a small one but is fundamental, is whether we accept that that friction, that confusion and that element of having to balance the evidence should remain with the JNCC or whether it should be left to governments and other bodies to weigh up the evidence. The Government rest their case on believing that the JNCC should not be sullied and should be unequivocal in its advice and that all the advice that it proffers should relate to conservation and wildlife matters.

917
I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will not feel that he should press the amendment because I believe that the concerns about which he feels passionately are met.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she explain the position of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively? They have certain legal responsibilities. Are they to be advised by the joint committee or are they to take the advice of their own joint bodies and ignore the joint committee?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, I believe that there is a difference of understanding about the nature of the JNCC. There is no conflict or problem for the joint body in Wales to concern itself with Welsh countryside and conservation matters, but there will be times when the conservation and wildlife matters go well beyond the boundaries of Wales, Scotland or England. It will be for Wales to take the advice of the JNCC. However, on the question of local Welsh countryside matters, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of that body to resolve its own local conflicts.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, there is no fool like an old fool. When I got up and said rather rashly that this was a simple question, I should have seen the hornets' nest that I would stir up in the House. I should have known that it was coming. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Peel, who are the only two noble Lords who kept to the point that I was trying to make. I am also grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said.
I should like to take up briefly the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and by my noble friend Lord Jenkin; namely that, if the proposal was accepted it would somehow reduce prestige. The Countryside Commission strongly believes that it should be represented on this body. I did not want to bring in the question of personalities because no one can be more outstandingly devoted and give up more of his time than the present chairman of the Countryside Commission. I understand that the body has held three shadow meetings and that he has found it impossible to attend two of them. He is desperately keen to do so whenever possible. This is such an important body whose meetings we wish to attend that we believe a substitute should be allowed to attend when necessary. It is certainly not our idea to hive it off to some official and say, "Go and do this for us". I am sure that we should get one of our fellow commissioners to attend.
I was glad to hear what my noble friend said. I shall have to check that this can be done under regulations, especially in view of the fact that her predecessor told me in Committee that it could not be done that way. If it is not possible, I may have to return to the matter on Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222B not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 181, line 37, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 40 and insert ("either—

(a) provide the committee with such staff, accommodation and other facilities, and such financial resources, as the committee in respect of any financial year considers necessary to enable it adequately to fulfil the requirements of sections 126(2) and (3) of this Act; or

(b) furnish to the committee, and lay before Parliament, a statement of the level of resources, staff, accommodation or other facilities as they consider appropriate, together with their reasons for such a determination").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 239, 253D, 254 and, as the House has been advised, Amendment No. 288A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
I shall deal with each of my amendments in turn and then, if the House will permit me, I should like to make some more general observations, which still fall within the scope of the debate on the amendment, about the issue of resources for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in the light of the Government's statement earlier this afternoon.
In Committee, we considered the funding of the JNCC and moved amendments to seek to put the funding on a more secure basis. Noble Lords will not need reminding that the funding of the JNCC is the responsibility of the country nature conservancy councils. There is no indication of the basis on which they are to make their decisions and there is certainly no adequate assurance that they will fund the significant levels of staffing which we are now informed will be employed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
We were told that it would be impossible for the JNCC to determine its budget because the Government are determined that it shall be only an advisory body and not have any functions. In Amendment No. 222 this afternoon, they went out of their way even to remove a stray word "function" from the remit of the JNCC to make sure that it would not be trapped into thinking that it might perform any functions. One might think that that was going a bit far.
We are not anxious to go over the same ground that we went over in Committee, strongly though we feel on this issue. We are therefore proposing a much more modest amendment in Amendment No. 223; namely, that the country councils which are responsible for providing the money should ideally provide the committee with the staffing, accommodation and financial resources which the joint committee itself considers necessary, or, if they cannot do that—in this amendment at any rate we accept that it is their decision—they should furnish to the committee and to Parliament a statement of such level of resources as the country councils consider appropriate, together with the reasons.
If there is to be a conflict between the country councils and the JNCC about resources—given the way that the Government have framed the legislation, that seems almost inevitable—at least the public should know about it. It is an unsatisfactory situation. This modest amendment seeks not to overthrow the relationship between the country councils and the JNCC, as the Government propose it, but at least to ensure that a public debate is possible on the basis of informed figures from the country councils about the costs involved.
Amendment No. 239 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 254, which sets out a new clause about the basis on which the JNCC could give grants for assistance for projects which fall across individual country boundaries. There was lengthy debate on that matter in Committee and a number of cross-country projects could well be imagined. Reference was made to the Severn estuary and to the Solway Firth. I am sure that many others could be cited.
Again, we are extremely modest in these amendments. We simply propose that those powers should be subject either to a general authorisation which the Secretary of State may choose to give or to specific consents for individual grants. In other words, let us surely agree that some projects will need to cover more than one country. That must be common ground in this House.
How is that to be achieved? The JNCC is to be such a feeble body that it cannot give grants itself, but at least it can organise and evaluate the grants. It can decide what is necessary and then the Secretary of State, rather than the JNCC, subject to Treasury consent—we are even careful to that extent—will be able to authorise the individual grant. I cannot think that we could have found a more modest and unassuming way of approaching what would otherwise be a straightforward scandal; namely, that there is no adequate procedure for dealing with nature conservation projects which cover more than one country.
The amendment of my noble friend Lady David is on a similar tack, but I shall not trespass on her time to explain it. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, will want to speak to his amendment, but I want to make it clear that in placing it in this group he has the entire support of the Opposition on these Benches.
That brings me to the statement which has been made this afternoon and to the position in which we find ourselves on Part VII of the Bill. Let me immediately repeat what I said before the House was adjourned. I attach no personal blame to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the Minister now responsible for this part of the Bill. In making a statement of this kind—I did not realise that it would be so extensive —the noble Baroness was responding to an undertaking which she gave last week in this House. The timing of the statement as early as possible during this afternoon's proceedings was agreed with me. Let there be no doubt about that.
However, I turn to the Government as a whole rather than to the Minister who is now sitting on the Front Bench. I am bound to say that the way in which this matter has been treated since Mr. Nicholas Ridley, the then Secretary of State, made his first announcement in July last year has been disgraceful. There has been so little concern for the rights of Parliament and the possibilities of proper parliamentary debate, so little concern for nature conservation interests and the continuity of the valuable work which is done by nature conservation bodies in this country and so little concern for the staff who undertake this work, that one would not believe, even granting the crass timing of the original statement on the day when the NCC was announcing its own reorganisation procedures, that the follow-up would be as incompetent as it is.
We were promised, to take only the most recent history, much more detail about the resources available to the JNCC when the matter was debated in Committee. What has happened? To repeat the phrase used by the noble Baroness this afternoon, this statement was hastily put together this morning—not yesterday, because yesterday it could have been presented as a Statement in the House. We could have had copies of it and given it some consideration. On the basis of a Statement we could have submitted amendments taking it into account. Oh no! What has happened is that on the morning of the fourth and last day of the Report stage in this House a statement is hastily put together and made in the form of an intervention at the beginning of a debate. If I were in the Minister's shoes I would be having several very sharp words with those responsible in Marsham Street. This is not the way in which to treat this House and, much more importantly, it is not the way in which to treat nature conservation in this country.
I turn to the statement itself and, in the time we have had available, some of the information that we have been able to ascertain from it. First, as has been stated in a debate on a previous amendment, we now learn that although conservation and countryside matters in Wales are to be brought together immediately, the prospect of doing that in England now depends, if you please, on further legislation. My Lords, we are legislating today. There is no conceivable reason why, if we can do it for Wales, we cannot do it for England. It might mean more work for those concerned but that is not our concern. Our concern is to find the right solution. As my noble friend Lady Nicol said earlier this afternoon, it is not fair to the staff, it does not make for good administration and it does not give continuity for either the countryside provisions or nature conservation provisions if the new organisation that is to be introduced by this Bill is in the knowledge of the Government, and in the acknowledged statements of the Government, to be subject to further review with a possibility of further legislation. What a way to run a railroad!
Secondly, we have the consultants' reports. The statement said that the Government have, as promised, published these three reports and that

921
copies were placed in the Library last week. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton ascertained, at the time the statement was made that simply was not true. I understand that the consultants' reports are now in the Library but they were not there when the statement was made. Even if they had been there, one would have thought that someone would have had the courtesy to say to my noble friend who was demanding the publication of those reports—and to me because I have some responsibility in these matters, if not to other noble Lords—that the reports were available in the Library so that we could have taken them into consideration. It is no good making a statement at the beginning of a debate on the last day of the Report stage, even if it is true.
Thirdly, and this is probably the most important point of all, the statement and Government statements in the past have poured scorn on the estimates made about the additional cost of reorganisation—not the cost of better provision and not the cost of making up for past under-provision, but the cost of reorganisation. We are now told that these costs—not one-off costs but annually from 1991–92 onwards —will be £9.18 million for additional staff and accommodation. We are told that there are to be 294 additional members of staff for the country councils and the JNCC. If a Labour Government had put forward that kind of proposal—not to improve the services and not to make up for past deficits but purely for a reorganisation which appears to have sprung from the lips of the Secretary of State in July 1989 without any consultation—we would have been bitterly attacked from all sides of the House.
I do not think anyone would have accepted that it was right to have a budget of £9.18 million higher than the whole NCC budget in 1980—half of the amount available to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—not to provide a service but to provide for reorganisation. If that is the way a Government who are supposed to represent businesslike interests proceeds, what hope is there for the rest of us? That is the position as firmly set out by the Minister in the statement this afternoon. On that basis alone I should have thought that these proposals should be taken back for reconsideration.
That is not all. The noble Baroness referred to the estimates made by Sir William Wilkinson in a letter to The Times last week. The wording is careful on this matter. The noble Baroness accepted that the Government agree with his presentation of the first tranche of £10 million for reorganisation and the third tranche of £10 million which is a straightforward bid for enhanced resources, but was more doubtful about the middle tranche of another £10 million. This House will want to know, if we are to understand whether the Government are behaving at all seriously or with any attempt at seriousness in this matter, what is the status of those first, second and third tranches. Is that £9.18 million part of the department's bid for public expenditure this autumn—a base bid which will be agreed? What is the status of the second tranche? Will the Government support the bid which Sir William
922
has put forward? All we have been told is that the Government agree with the figure, not whether it is to happen.
If we are not to be given answers in that respect, what is the meaning of saying that there will be 51 core staff and another 35 staff seconded? I am bound to say that we are happy with the levels of staffing proposed for the joint committee. However, what evidence is there that the Government are prepared to provide the money and that the money will come through the country councils to provide the budgets necessary to make those staff effective?
No, this is a very sorry story. It has been a sorry story from the beginning and has become a sorrier story still as we come to the end of our consideration of this matter. Whatever the decision of the House may be on the amendment now before us, I must tell the House that on Third Reading we shall be putting forward amendments to delay the implementation of Part VII of the Bill for at least one year, and probably two years.
Let us consider where we stand. We are in the middle of October. Unless I am told otherwise it is intended that this part of the Bill will be implemented on 1st April 1991. We have not even been told of the appointment of a chief executive for the JNCC, let alone about the staff who will have to be appointed afterwards. We do not know where the headquarters will be. We do not know any of the facts necessary to give us any assurance at all that it is physically possible to bring together an organisation of this kind within the period from middle of October to the end of March 1991.
I suggest that we should vote on Amendment No. 223—a modest amendment to give some security of resourcing to the JNCC—as an indication of the displeasure of this House at the way in which it has been treated and at the way in which this abominable policy has been developed. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 239 and 254 to which my name is attached. I wish to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I very much support his Amendment No. 223. We now know that the JNCC will have as many as 86 employees. Therefore, its finance must be secured. There cannot be terrible arguments between the three country councils as to how the organisation is to be financed. I believe that Amendment No. 223 is very important.
As regards Amendments Nos. 239 and 254, we are asking the committee to give financial assistance to voluntary bodies and similar organisations. What is going to happen about national and international publications? The NCC brings out some excellent publications. Will that be done on a national basis or on an individual country basis? What about the grants to the voluntary bodies on a national, Great Britain-wide basis? One thinks about the red kite that has been introduced into England and Scotland with help from the RSPB and also from the NCC. I can recommend the latest RSPB film; everyone should

923
take the opportunity to see it. It is a marvellous film and a wonderful story. It concerns the increase in the number of red kites between the turn of the century when there were 12 pairs and the mid-1960s. There are now 62 pairs breeding in Wales. The co-operation that has taken place there involving farmers, landowners, the RSPB and the NCC is to be greatly praised.
What is to happen about licensing powers and the European aspects? If the JNCC cannot do these things, will there be squabbling between the country councils who, I suspect, will be very short of funds? We had a brief from the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that its wildlife trust partnership manages a vast number of SSIs on our behalf in this country, funding the partnership totally itself. It costs the 47 wildlife trusts £2 million of their own money. If they were to do rather better, the cost would be up to £4 million. What the society obtains from the NCC is certainly helpful but it is only one-tenth of its costs. All these responsibilities cannot be put on the voluntary bodies. They will be unable to do all the work that I suspect will increasingly fall on them. That is why the central body should have the right to give grants on a national basis.
I turn to Amendment No. 288A. I have asked for it to be linked although it does not belong to the same grouping. However, it goes to the heart of the statement that we received earlier today. The House should note that those of us who are most gravely concerned with the break-up of the NCC have not tried to emasculate the Bill at this stage by tabling an amendment to the effect that Clause 131 should not stand part of the Bill. We have tried very hard to make the Bill work. This amendment is an attempt to provide the Government with more time to put their house in order.
It will be a very expensive exercise. From the statement that we received this afternoon we know that the cost will be £9.18 million. The figures were given to us by the trade union side of the NCC which has behaved absolutely splendidly throughout the whole of these discussions. The Government have accepted that figure.
I pay tribute to the Minister. I believe that she has done a great job since taking over the Bill. The manner in which she has been landed with a very difficult situation is most unfair. I am certainly not firing at her. My colleague on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Tordoff, has told me that the extra staff and accommodation will cost about £34,000 per head. That is a hell of a lot of money. I wonder whether the measure was necessary in the first place. The fact is that there are barely six months left because we are told in the statement that these arrangements have to take place on 1st April.
There are 200 to 300 vacancies still to be filled; there are 100 vacancies in Scotland, a similar number in England, and at least 70 in Wales. Two chief executives are still to be named and appointed. One appointment has been made in Wales but the
924
applicant has not yet signed an agreement; he is, I gather, still arguing over the terms. There is a long way to go.
The NCC called in ACAS to advise it. ACAS said that six months is far too short a time to allow and that at least another 12 months are needed. Originally, everything was to be completed by the Summer Recess. We are now almost at the end of October. Regrettably, experienced staff are leaving; they are very disgruntled about what is happening. About 50 members of staff with at least five years' service behind them are leaving. That is a tragedy in itself. Neither the chief in Wales, Dr. Tom Pritchard, who has done splendid work, nor his deputy, Hayden Williams, have been reappointed. As I said, the successor has not finally confirmed that he is taking the job.
It is widely believed that, due to all the upheaval, the interests of nature conservation, which has such a fine record in this country, will be put back at least five years. We were told about the three consultant reports at Committee stage. As we now know, they are in the Library. I went there to read them. They were not available then but they are now. Those important documents should be studied. One deals with the centralised computer; that is of vital importance. I gather that it is based at Peterborough. There is some argument involving one country council which believes that it should have its own computer.
How are staff to be paid? What about all the records in Peterborough? How are they to be dealt with? There is another internal report called the Bloomfield Report about which I have no knowledge at all. I would like to know what it is about. What action is to be taken on these reports? We have not heard. What action is to be taken about employees' pay and licensing across borders? If an individual wants to ring birds does he have to go to the individual country councils to get permission or can it be gained through Peterborough? What about publications, grants, international advice and all these matters?
We must know what is going to happen. There are many millions of wildlife conservationists. The Government put the number at about four million in their White Paper. I suspect that there are more than that. They all fervently hope that the Bill will work. If that is to be achieved then a lot more time and thought is needed. The Government should therefore accept my amendment. Although, unfortunately, it comes very late in the day, they should accept it. If the Minister were to say that the Government accept it, we should all be highly relieved and could proceed to the rest of the business.
We know about staff costs and very little else. We do not know what extra money will be available. Paragraph 13 of the statement made today contains a fairly strong commitment. We also know that the Secretary of State has settled his deal with the Financial Secretary. As I understand it, it is only the Secretary of State for Education who is going in front of the Star Chamber. Presumably, the matter has had to be settled. The poor man has a great number of

925
things on his plate. I suspect that there cannot be much more money coming in the direction of wildlife conservation.
In order to have the logistical arrangements in place on 1st April 1991, we have to know that the councils will be adequately staffed. They must have their systems in place in order to be able to carry forward their work effectively rather than spending the first six months desperately trying to sort themselves out. If we do not get an extension of time that is what will happen. We must have a clear view as to the modus operandi of the JNCC. How will the system of earmarked funds operate? How will it be possible to commission research that covers the whole of Great Britain? Will there be sufficient staff of the right calibre? We have gone a little way down that path today. A great deal of time will be spent before people sign up, particularly if the chairman is saying that the JNCC is unlikely to last very long. That is not exactly comforting to a senior scientist who is about to take a job. The former chief scientist left about six months ago and returned to Australia.
Some continue to have considerable reservations about the reorganisation; some see that there is opportunity; and some remain agnostic. However, surely everyone is agreed that it would be disastrous if the Government's model, because of financial and administrative restraints, proved to be incapable of working effectively. If Ministers are unable to offer sufficient assurances before Royal Assent—a pretty short period—the device of an affirmative resolution affords them the opportunity to come back to the House, when the question of resources and other matters have been settled, and convince Parliament that, with the latest facts, the reorganisation will work. There is considerable apprehension among those who are responsible within the NCC for operating the system about the six months' period which is left. There is a major job to be done, and there is just not the time to do it.
An internal poll taken in early October showed that within the NCC staff at present there are only three persons at headquarters who are actually in favour of the proposals and 184 voted against. In the new English NCC nine voted for and 283 voted against. In Scotland only 21 voted in favour and 112 against—this will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—and in Wales only five were in favour and 62 against. The ratio was about 30:1 against in England and 5:1 against in Scotland. That was the position within the staff of the NCC. We can try to help them today by asking the Government to accept the amendment.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness intends to reply to the debate. She will be aware that on Report no one can speak after her. I shall hold on to my position and speak now.
In the 30 years or more that I have been in this House I do not remember a situation quite as chaotic as the one we have been confronted with today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her attempts to help us. I am particularly grateful for her decision to put quickly into the Library the answers to the questions
926
I asked. The fact that she did not succeed in getting there—I have not yet seen them although I am told they are there—is obviously not her personal fault.
This is an alarming and worrying situation for your Lordships. In my time as Leader of the House I had some fairly chaotic moments to cope with. On one occasion one of my noble friends insisted on continuing a debate after we had already passed a Bill. But this situation passes anything resembling that. I am very critical of the performance not of the noble Baroness but of her noble friends who ought to be sitting with her listening to the debate. The Leader of the House and the Chief Whip are not here. No doubt they are doing something important but they ought to be listening to our criticisms.
I support my noble friend in his amendment but we are in an impossible situation. It does the reputation of your Lordships no good at all. We have a reputation for being fairly orderly by solving our problems easily and by doing sensible things. That is the opposite of the position we are in now. We have warned the Government consistently throughout the different stages that they would not succeed in completing the Bill in a form that would be satisfactory. I find it quite intolerable that we are being asked to carry out a Report stage when some of the matters ought to have been dealt with in Committee. We cannot now do it. I do not know what your Lordships expect of this.
This is not just a party matter. It is a very serious matter for the House of Lords as a whole. I still ask that the Leader of the House might possibly honour us with his presence. In the past it has always been the custom that the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip came in at difficult times. They flew in today just in order to agree to the brief adjournment. This is a dangerous situation for your Lordships and does not do the reputation of the House any good. I hope that these proceedings are not televised —perhaps I do not hope that the proceedings are not televised—because this is a very unsatisfactory situation.
The amendment before us asks for a number of things. We shall not get answers from the Government. I support my noble friend in saying, as some of us have been saying all along, that Part VII of the Bill ought to be taken out, considered at more leisure and brought back at another time. We asked the Government to do that and we asked for certain information to be put in the White Paper. We did not have it. I ask the noble Baroness to allow noble Lords who also have opinions to say what they have to say before she rises to reply. I deeply regret, as a keen supporter of your Lordships' House, the situation in which we now find ourselves.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about the timing. I shall not mention the merits of the Bill or Part VII because I have expressed my views so frequently. I was so disturbed at the time that I resigned from the Nature Conservancy Council last year. What I am concerned about is the difficulty in which my noble friend the Minister is now placed. It is a fact that there is no possibility of the provisions of Part VII being introduced next April. I know

927
perfectly well from administrative experience over 40 or 50 years and service of many years on the Countryside Commission, and latterly on the Nature Conservancy Council, that it simply is not possible to bring that new organisation into being in April.
On many occasions, and most recently last week, I strongly urged my noble friend the Minister to consider the withdrawal of Part VII for the time being. As it cannot now be included in the White Paper, perhaps it can be added as an addendum to the White Paper. The Government must now be given time to organise things properly and not in this haphazard and chaotic way. That is the only way I can describe it.
I knew perfectly well the moment the announcement was made last year that no thought had been given to the question of additional costs and additional staff or how things would work. Now, one year later, we received information today in a very unusual way. The Minister has all my sympathy. I do not include her in any note of criticism but I believe that it is now impossible to meet the timetable and that it may well take a year before things can start to function properly. Therefore the simple and statesmanlike way is to pause, get our breath and do this properly.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, on the day before yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said at Question Time that the Government had gone too far to change their mind. I thought that that was not perhaps the wisest thing to say at Question Time. She was saying in other words that it is quite possible that the Government had made a howling error but they had gone too far to rectify it. The Government are too proud to change their mind irrespective of whether they are right or wrong. That is not how to govern a parish council let alone a kingdom. A government like this Government, who really are rather a good government, should sometimes pause, think again and be prepared to admit that they were wrong. This is certainly an occasion for them so to do.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I do not pretend to defend the Government's handling of this matter but since my name has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, I think I should say a word or two. I support the Government in their intention and I hope that the provisions of the Bill will be implemented. It is an exercise in devolution of authority to Scotland so that we can have a much more sensitive approach to some of the difficult areas of land use and environment, not from Peterborough but on the ground. It is not sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Ross, whose colleagues in another place supported this measure, to say that ballots of the staff at Peterborough and of the small staff in Scotland were taken and that by a large majority they voted against this measure.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ross was trying to make the point not that that should be taken at this stage as being against the proposal in the Bill, but that the chaos which is clearly in the minds of the staff and which this state of affairs
928
exemplifies meant that there had to be some delay in implementing it. That was the point that he sought to make.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, it is being said that chaos will be brought about, but quite frankly this is a rearguard action by people who are opposed to Part VII of the Bill. I must compliment the opponents from all sides on their efficiency. They have written letters to The Times, lobbied and telephoned Members, and so on.
The House debated this matter on Second Reading and it seems to me to be unfortunate that we should be rehearsing some of the arguments made at that time. It would be all right if a case was made stating that it would be difficult to implement this in the time available. However, I suspect that this is a rearguard action to take Schedule 7 out of the Bill. I hope that that will not happen.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he does not support the Government in this matter and that the problem is how the Bill is handled. What does he mean by saying that he does not support them?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I said that I was critical of the handling of the Bill but that I supported the principle behind it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has made my remarks for me. It has been very sad to hear Members of the House of Lords, which represents the whole of the United Kingdom and which has Peers from the whole of the United Kingdom, talking about this issue as if the main point of this part of the Bill did not exist; namely, that people in the whole of the United Kingdom will be able to identify better with nature conservancy if the decision-making powers are devolved to the maximum possible extent.
During the course of this afternoon's debates there was not a single Scottish-based Peer present on the Labour Benches until the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, rose to speak. I also notice that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is no longer present in the Chamber so there is now no Scottish representative on the Liberal Democrat Bench.
The Earl of Onslow: Rubbish!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend wishes to say something.
The Earl of Onslow: I have already said it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, during this debate noble Lords have been trying to whittle down the powers which will be vested in the new nature conservancy bodies and those which are already with the Nature Conservancy Council. That has been the exercise. I know that it has been done for reasons which people believe are good ones. However, I hope that noble Lords listened to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and that they heard the voice of someone who comes from an area where we very much want to identify better with nature conservancy; in other words, we want to do it better. We accept the fact that

929
a joint committee is necessary in order to deal with UK and international issues, but we want to give our own grants and we do not want those powers to be given to the central committee.
I ask the House to bear in mind the way in which the people of this country are thinking about the matter and not to concentrate only on the staff of the Nature Conservancy Council, the sciences or the briefs which noble Lords have received. Clearly all the information has not been contained in those briefs.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I have not taken part in this debate thus far and, unfortunately, I was not able to be present in Committee. I regret the fact that the debate is deteriorating and moving into matters which are not the subject of the amendments before us. We are not discussing whether we approve of a Scottish, a Welsh or an English body. Because we are conservationists we are worried—whether or not we believe in it—that when this is implemented it will be a failure. That is the issue before us; it is not whether we believe in this or that section of the Bill. We are trying to decide whether it is possible to implement Part VII of the Bill by 1st April. I should like to join the people who are absolutely convinced that that is impossible.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister appears to be jumping to her feet, but I have an amendment in this group to which I have not yet had the chance to speak.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry. I was about to ask whether the other amendments in this group were going to be addressed during the course of the debate. I was not intervening for any other reason.
Baroness David: My Lords, I take it, therefore, that this is my opportunity to speak. I intend to speak to Amendment No. 253D. However, I should like to say first that, as one who has been involved, ever since the Bill came to this House, in asking questions about the funding and resources and when we would hear about such matters, I entirely agree with all that has been said by my noble friend, by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson.
We are really anxious to know how this part of the Bill will be implemented in the time available. At this very late stage we have received a statement about resources which is not in fact complete even now; indeed, it tells us a certain amount but it does not tell us everything. Therefore, I fully support the move to postpone the implementation of the Bill.
I shall deal now with Amendment No. 253D which is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The amendment tackles the problem of grants for UK-wide or international projects. It tackles the problem from a different angle from that proposed by my noble friend in Amendments Nos. 239 and 254.
The purpose of our amendment is to require the three country councils to draw up a statement relating to grants and loans for nature conservation which are of a Great Britain nature or which cannot be directly related to one country. The memorandum may include a statement of understanding on such matters
930
as apportionment of grant between the countries, priorities, or policy matters relating to the giving of grants and loans.
More than half of the NCC's current expenditure on conservation grants totalling some £1.3 million last year relates to projects covering more than one country. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, suggested that separate grant applications would be required in respect of projects covering more than one country. Let us imagine such a situation. It would lead to gross inefficiencies. Moreover, it would lead to disputes between countries as to the level of contributions towards cross-border projects. For example, the RSPB has secured £20,000 from NCC's Great Britain headquarters towards the production of a book on important bird areas in the country. The RSPB will have to complete the book before the NCC is split as the NCC is unable to promise that funding for GB projects will be available under the new arrangements.
The proposed amendment will secure a firm basis for GB grants by requiring the three country agencies to agree to a memorandum of understanding. That may cover matters such as apportionment of funds for projects covering more than one country or for projects which are not country specific. It may also set out priorities and procedures for dealing with grant applications.
If a statutory understanding is not in place, the funding of projects will be left to the goodwill of councils which would result in many conservation projects not being able to get off the ground. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said:
"There is nothing to stop the country agencies agreeing between themselves how they should handle grants for projects which transcend country boundaries".—[Official Report, 4/7/90; col. 2221.]
That is what we are suggesting in our amendment.
There is just one other aspect that I should like to mention. I refer to environmental education. Environmental education forms an important part of the work of the NCC and is likely to suffer cuts in funding as a result of the reorganisation. The NCC is Great Britain's only statutory agency with a grants programme for environmental education and training—and the Government pretend to be enthusiastic about this concept.
Over the past five years the NCC has awarded education grants totalling £1.4 million. Its schools scheme alone has provided £150,000 per year to help create nature reserves in school grounds, covering 10 per cent. of all schools in Great Britain. I believe that that is something which has been suggested by various Ministers. All of these project grants have been awarded by the NCC's Great Britain headquarters. I believe that this is an important issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to support this amendment, even if she disapproves of the one put forward earlier by my noble friend. In my view it is important not only for Great Britain projects but also for international projects. I make a special plea for environmental

931
education. It seems to me to be a very sensible and simple way forward. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree to accept the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, if there is one matter about which I am sure all noble Lords will be in total agreement it is the fact that my noble friend Lady Blatch is very well able to take care of herself at the Dispatch Box. I shall, therefore, be extremely brief in what I have to say. However, there are one or two matters which I must raise in view of the somewhat intemperate nature of the attacks which have been made on the Front Bench here by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and others.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not made intemperate attacks upon the Government Front Bench. I have defended the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I have not accused her of any discourtesy. I have attacked the Government. That is a different matter.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I used the phrase "Government Front Bench" as meaning—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I also protest. I went out of my way to say that I thought that the noble Baroness has behaved superbly since she took over her role. If the former Minister were sitting on this side of the House, I wonder whether he would be satisfied with the situation as it has been put before the House today.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Opposition are entitled to oppose. I was going on to say that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, delivered his rebukes with great force and eloquence. It is a talent that he displays with great ability. I am sure that many of my noble friends will agree when I say that I hope that he will be able to do so from that Bench for a long time.
There are one or two points which it is right to make on the amendments. The JNCC is a body which has been set up in response—the Government are to be congratulated on having listened to the arguments and responded to them—to the fact that there are matters of a national and an international nature upon which advice needs to be given. The essence of the matter is the word "advice". It has never been intended that the body should in any way be an executive one. If it is to be able to concentrate on giving advice effectively on national and international matters, it is important that it is not overlaid with detailed administrative functions which are properly the role of the national councils which the Bill sets up. The suggestion that the body should have a grant-administering function is one which must be resisted. I see no reason why it should not give advice to the national councils.
If one were to deal with the Severn estuary, or, as has been mentioned, the Solway Firth or other areas that cross boundaries, it would be proper for the joint committee to give advice. But I should strongly resent
932
the House writing into the Bill now a provision that it should become a grant-making body. Therefore I strongly oppose Amendment No. 254.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, goes less far, but surely what it proposes could be dealt with administratively. One does not want to clutter up a Bill with a mass of administrative detail unless it is necessary.
I shall reserve my final remarks for the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, who said that he was sure that conservation was going to be starved of funds. The House should continue to bear in mind that the increase in grants to the NCC since 1979 has been 150 per cent. in real terms after taking account of inflation. With a record demonstrating the priority which successive Secretaries of State, supported by successive Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, have given and the increased grants which have been provided for nature conservation, I find it wholly incredible that it should be suggested that somehow that was all to be turned on its head. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was less than fair to the Government when he said that it was all now going to be starved of finance. I believe that I heard him aright. The Government have a fine record. I am sure that that will continue. I am equally satisfied that the body will be better when it is devolved. However, I do not wish to become involved in the merits of that argument. As has been rightly said by other noble Lords, that was decided on Second Reading and by the votes in Committee.
I cannot think of anything that would do more damage to the morale of the staff, and all the organisations involved with nature conservation, if one was now to call a halt to the process which is well under way. It may not be popular with staff. No major changes ever are. That is a point fairly made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. One thing calculated to send morale to rock bottom is to embark upon a course and then back away from it. Order, counter-order, disorder is the worst recipe.
The Government have set their course and at every stage in both Houses they have been supported. Of course the proposal must go ahead. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, proposes that it should not take effect except by order and that it should be postponed for a year or two years. I can conceive of nothing more damaging to the interests of nature conservation, and I hope that the House will have none of it.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may confirm that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 223, 239, 253D, 254 and 288A. I say two things at the outset. The first is that I hope the House will bear with me as I respond in detail to the many anxieties raised, because this is a crucial part of today's deliberations. Secondly, I have already this afternoon apologised unreservedly to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for telling him that the studies were in the Library. The fact that they were not in the Library when noble Lords went there is a matter between me as a Minister and my department. I leave the statement at that.

933
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, described the proposal as showing a disgraceful lack of concern about environmental issues on the part of my department. I refute and dispute that comment vigorously. All environmental issues are a considerable preoccupation to my department and all concerned with it. To say that we have shown little concern when the Government have accepted virtually all of the recommendations of the Select Committee—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I believe that when she reads the record she will find that I did not refer to a disgraceful lack of concern for environmental issues by her department. I was criticising the conduct of the Bill. I was not criticising the department's general concern for environmental issues. It would never cross my mind to do such a thing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise if I used the wrong words. However, my remarks apply even if we are talking about the Bill. We have listened to comments and responded almost in full to the report of the committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. Only one point of division between us remains.
We gave all existing NCC and Countryside Commission for Wales staff a statutory right to a job offer. We have also backed by statute the fact that no member of staff will be disadvantaged by the changes. We have also given a guarantee that adequate resources will be provided for the new agencies. We have shown today in some detail what the extra costs are likely to be. The Government have prepared the ground thoroughly and openly. They have an open mind to constructive suggestions for improvement.
The noble Lord concentrated upon resources. The potential for public expenditure on nature conservation is almost limitless. How much the NCC receives depends upon judgments made every year by Ministers. Benefits obtained from the expenditure have to be considered, as well as the assessment of what can he invested. This financial year the Government have given the NCC the best deal it has had since its inception. In 1979–80, we inherited an annual provision for the NCC of less than £8 million. We have increased its grant substantially already. Annual provision has risen from £8 million to £44 million. That is leaving aside the additional resources provided for reorganisation.
Between 1980 and 1990, the NCC has spent over £231 million on nature conservation, including the notification of over 5,300 SSSIs, the declaration of more than 70 new national nature reserves and the negotiation of 1,000 management agreements. That is a substantial record. It is a record which refutes all that was said by the noble Lord.
A rather serious statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, on a previous amendment has been repeated in the course of this debate. I believe that it must be addressed. Sir Frederick Holliday has been misinterpreted or had a statement he made taken
934
out of context. I wish to report to the House that he tells us that he has been misquoted in the debate. There is no question of the JNCC relinquishing any of its statutory functions or reducing its efforts on them. His comment quoted by the NCC's trade union side related to the work—mainly research—on which the country agency chairmen have agreed voluntarily to co-operate, over and above the statutory functions. It is that work that Sir Fred thought might one day be reduced and returned to the country councils, a very different interpretation of what that gentleman said.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, commented on computer records, licensing and what would happen. He listed a number of areas where he felt that action was needed to ease the transition to the new agencies. I assure him that in every case action is in hand, and in many cases it is well advanced. For example, on licensing, we have agreed arrangements with NCC and the shadow chairmen to ensure that there is a smooth transfer of expertise and that comparable standards are applied in future.
On computers, again arrangements for the transition are well advanced. One of the consultants' reports that we have published deals with computers. I hope that the noble Lord will make it his business to read it, now that it has become available. All its main recommendations have been accepted by the Government and the NCC. I could go on but I do not wish to take up unnecessary time because I have a number of amendments to address.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was concerned about the inappropriateness of many comments made during the course of the debate and said that they were not to the point. The amendments that have been presented today to the House for consideration have a serious impact on the relationships between the different agencies. Therefore, as the Minister on the Front Bench, I regard all comments that have been made during the course of the debate as entirely appropriate and relevant to the amendments under discussion.
My noble friend Lord Onslow the other day quoted me as saying that the Bill had gone too far for change. If his memory serves him well, he will also remember that I came back on that comment and said that in these matters Parliament is supreme. If it is Parliament's wish to change the Bill, Parliament will do so; this Chamber and another place will decide. We believe as a government—and my noble friend Lord Jenkin said this also—that the proposals have gone too far for change. It is our belief that we are on the right track and are well on the way towards making these arrangements work.
It is necessary to go into some detail about the arrangements that are being made and put in hand. I have an impression from the debate that we are perceived as sitting here in isolation with nothing happening out there, but that all of a sudden in a single day in five months' time these measures will have to be put in place. Perhaps I may briefly run through the timetable. In July 1989, the reorganisation was announced. In August 1989 the joint steering group of NCC, CC and government officials was

935
established to oversee the detailed arrangements. In December 1989, the Bill was introduced into the Commons. From January to March 1990 the shadow chairmen of the three agencies and the JNCC were all announced. In May 1990 the Government responded to the Carver Committee and did so positively, as I have said a number of times already. In July 1990, the draft proposals for the structure of the new agencies were agreed. We hope to receive Royal Assent in late October 1990.
In early November 1990 new bodies will be vested. Also in early November 1990 the NCC and CC staff will receive offers of posts with the new bodies. During the course of the next five months, considerable activity will take place. Outstanding action to complete the transition will be taken. For example, guidelines for grants, recruitment and the issue that I know concerns the noble Lord, Lord Ross—vacant posts—will all be addressed. In April 1991, the new agencies and the JNCC will take over the functions of the NCC and the Countryside Commission. The post of chief officer for the JNCC is about to be advertised and the JNCC headquarters will be at Peterborough in the first instance. A decision about its permanent headquarters will be taken after a proper feasibility study.
I ask the House to bear with me because it is important to address the specific amendments. I turn to Amendment No. 223. The Government have already gone a long way to meet the legitimate concerns about the funding and role of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee expressed in another place, at Second Reading in this House and in the report of the Select Committee prepared by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
At Committee stage we introduced a completely new schedule to put flesh on the JNCC's bones by covering matters such as its membership, its resources and its annual report. As a result, the councils will be under a clear duty to provide the joint committee with staff and resources. However, Amendment No. 223 goes much too far by allowing the JNCC to set its own budget and staffing levels which the councils would then have to meet in full. In other words, they will be precepting on those agencies. This would allow the tail to wag the dog. The JNCC is a committee through which the councils carry out certain important nature conservation functions relating to Great Britain and the international dimension. The JNCC is not an independent quango and cannot be required to direct the councils on how much budget and staffing should be. Indeed, this would be quite irresponsible since the country agencies will have to operate—as the NCC does now—within a fixed grant in aid.
If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, it would amount to an open-ended precept on these grants to be levied by a committee of the three councils. I fear that this has much in common with the Opposition's general approach to public finance but it should not in any way commend itself to this side of the House.
936
A further problem with this amendment is that if option (b) applies—and I assume that the purpose of this alternative is to cater for the fact that the country councils may not agree with the level of funding etc. that the JNCC has requested—there are no provisions for the JNCC to be provided with any resources at all. So the effect of the amendment would be to put the JNCC in an all or nothing position as regards resources. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the existing safeguards in the Bill to deliver our commitment that the JNCC's financial resources should be safeguarded. First, there is a provision in paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 7, giving the Secretary of State the reserve powers to determine the JNCC's resources, if the councils cannot agree among themselves.
Secondly, there is the provision in Clause 122(2), introduced at Committee stage, which gives the Secretary of State specific powers to attach conditions to the councils' grant in aid to cover the use of the grant for JNCC expenditure. We have a perfectly workable framework with sensible safeguards.
Amendment No. 288A, which is linked with these amendments, would require the order to bring Part VII of the Bill into force to be the subject of a positive resolution in both Houses. It would thus open Part VII of the Bill once more to lengthy debate. My noble friend made this point very well for me. I believe that the uncertainty this would present is unacceptable to the Government at this stage. Displaying some cynicism on my part, I believe that the intent behind this amendment is not that we should properly consider these matters but that it should be a delaying tactic for the implementation of this part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was concerned with Amendment No. 288A, therefore I need to address some of his specific points. I have already said that the Government have given adequate assurances with regard to resources for the new councils. There is therefore no need for these matters to return to the House. The implementation order should follow the natural course of the passing of the Bill.
A further point is that the work is forging ahead to bring reorganisation into full effect in April 1991. I have addressed much of the detail of that process. The NCC staff are working hard to bring this about and the amendment would merely serve to introduce further delay and uncertainty into the process. It is my contention that the amendment would bring no positive benefits and it should be rejected or withdrawn. The effect of the amendment would be to put the position of the NCC staff into limbo. That is a situation that we certainly cannot accept.
Clause 154(3) is concerned only with the technical use of the word "commencement" and the date of that commencement. Commencement orders such as the order which will be made under Clause 154(3) are not made subject to parliamentary procedure because the principle behind the order, which is that the provisions of the Act are to have effect, is decided during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It would not

937
be right to re-open that principle through a debate. This principle is, in my view, reinforced by the statement in Erskine May that this type of procedure is used principally for substantial and important portions of delegated legislation on which a high degree of scrutiny is sought.
While the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has raised important matters, they are not ones with which the commencement order is concerned. The proper place for that decision is not during discussion on the commencement order. The commencement order, of itself, does not meet the criteria for the affirmative procedures.
Amendments Nos. 239 and 254 are designed to give the JNCC an executive function of giving grants or loans. The House rejected similar amendments in Committee and the arguments are unchanged. The amendments go well beyond the conclusions reached in the Select Committee's report. As my noble friend Lord Hesketh explained in Committee, the JNCC is designed to be an advisory body looking at national and global issues. In the Government's view it will do this far more effectively if it is not burdened with executive duties such as grant-giving—the point raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy—which is exactly the kind of responsibility that ought to be exercised by the country agencies. I say "hear, hear" to my noble friend's comments on that point.
There is nothing to stop the country agencies from agreeing between themselves how they should handle grants for schemes which transcend country boundaries. Indeed the Government have already asked them to do that. However, that is surely not a unique or insurmountable problem when so many other public agencies are already organised on a country basis and have the relevant experience which can be shared with the new conservation agencies. We have deliberately drafted Clause 127 to be as wide as possible so that no worthwhile project will be debarred from grant on legal grounds.
At this stage I should say that I welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. It comes as some relief to me on rather a difficult day that there is at least a modicum of support for the principles here. I venture to say that the whole House is at one as regards the implementation of the measure. We want it to work. It is not only in the interests of this House or the staff of the agencies but in everybody's interests that the measure works.
I now turn to Amendment No. 253D. The Government fully accept the principle behind this amendment. We made it clear in reply to a previous Question tabled by the noble Baroness that we have asked the three new country councils to make arrangements to ensure that grant applications covering more than one country can be dealt with expeditiously and without undue bureaucracy and double funding.
The Bill already allows the Government to bring the new councils into existence well before they take over their conservation functions next April. Indeed we intend to make an order vesting the new councils
938
as early as possible next month. This means that they will have up to five months to make appropriate arrangements for grants which cover more than one country. The conditions which Ministers attach to the grants-in-aid of the new bodies will require them to make and operate such arrangements. Clause 127 is already intentionally drafted to allow any of the councils to make grants or loans for nature conservation without any statutory geographical restriction. I hope that the House will accept that explanation.
I have one or two remaining points. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to environmental education. There is nothing in this legislation which will preclude the new bodies from taking an active part in promoting environmental education within their areas and remits. Indeed we are anxious that that should happen. We have agreed that the organisational complements should make additional provision for environmental education, particularly in Wales and Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to Great Britain-wide grants. I believe I have addressed that matter in part in my response. Perhaps I should add that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill which precludes the addressing of Great Britain-wide grants. There is also nothing whatever in the Bill which precludes the continuing of those healthy and good relationships which were described by the noble Lord in his presentation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, also referred to the peril in which he considered the NCC staff found themselves. It is not perhaps surprising—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned this—that the NCC staff are concerned about the reorganisation. It must be difficult for them to divorce themselves entirely from concern about the effects of the change on their domestic and personal circumstances. The position is that the Government have given an assurance that all staff of the existing bodies will be offered a job in the new organisation. Details of the jobs to be offered are being given to staff informally this week. Definitive offers can, of course, only be made following Royal Assent. I hope that allays the fears about the staff. I should repeat, however, that no single member of staff will be disadvantaged by the changes or the measures set out in the Bill. I thank all noble Lords for their indulgence in this discussion on a particularly critical series of amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is certainly right about one thing which is that the noble Baroness is capable of taking care of herself. She has indeed taken care of herself. I should make it clear from the outset that I have not criticised the noble Baroness. I hope that I have never criticised individual members of the Government during my period in the House. I always seek to criticise the Government and to attack the Government when I think that they are wrong.
I should also make it clear that I did not make the comments to which the noble Baroness referred. I

939
certainly did not accuse the department of a lack of concern for environmental issues. If I made critical remarks about the department in the heat of the moment in my earlier comments—that is possible—I unreservedly withdraw them. I do not wish to criticise civil servants who have no opportunity to reply. It must be an accepted principle that we attack the Government as a whole rather than individual Ministers or civil servants.
However, that does not in any way lessen my feeling that the effect of this debate has been to expose the inadequacy of the Government's thinking and planning for this major change in approach to nature conservation matters. I am confirmed in that view by the fact that only three Members of the House have spoken in support of the Government. Two of those Members were the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. They are both under the illusion that the amendment seeks to attack the principle of the devolution of the responsibilities of the NCC. That is not the case. I hope that in recognising that that is not the case, they will recognise that their votes ought not to be cast under that illusion. The third Member of the House to express support was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who spoke under the illusion that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is purely an advisory committee. I should like to draw his attention to Clause 126(2) which makes it clear that the special functions of the JNCC—they are assigned to it separately from those functions which are to be assigned to the country councils—include the implementation of the 1981 Act provisions as set out in Schedule 9, the establishment of common standards and the commissioning of research. The JNCC is not simply an advisory committee. It is a committee which undertakes what are termed "special functions". Anything that we seek to undertake in this group of amendments is intended to secure that those functions can be properly carried out and to ensure that the Government have thought things through properly.
I am totally unconvinced by the Government's arguments about the timetable. I am interested to learn that they are about to advertise the post of chief executive. However, if I consider the timetable for that post in relation to public sector appointments, I am bound to conclude that if the Government advertise towards the end of October, the deadline for receipt of applications can hardly be earlier than mid-November. Therefore the shortlisting would probably occur in the second half of November and the interviews would be held probably before Christmas. If anyone who is on a three-month notice period applies for the job—surely such a person should not be excluded from applying—he or she will be in post by the second week of March. The JNCC is supposed to be in action on 1st April 1991. I ask noble Lords to consider whether the Government have got their timetable right and whether there is any serious possibility of an effective JNCC being put into place in the timetable that is proposed.
940
I ask the Government seriously, even at this last minute, to think again about the timetable and consider whether they have not perhaps got something wrong. If the chief executive is not in post until two weeks before the council starts work how are the remaining staff who will report to him or her to be appointed?
The noble Baroness dealt with all the amendments, and I pay tribute to her for that. However, in the end her response came down to an attack on our motives rather than the wording of the amendment. I find that unacceptable. She said that the intention of the amendments was to delay the implementation of Part VII of the Bill. That may be the Government's interpretation, and it may be the conclusion that your Lordships have drawn from the debates which have taken place. However, we have put down amendments not to attack Part VII of the Bill but to try to rescue the Government from the impossible position in which they have placed themselves. The position was bad enough when we considered it in Committee; it is worse now.
I suggest to your Lordships that Amendment No. 223, which seeks to provide for the implementation of the statements about funding and staffing which have now been made, should be approved by this House.
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 223) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kissin, L.

Alport, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moran, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, b.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Oram, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Parry, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Glenamara, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

[Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt, L.

Thurlow, L.

Jay, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Varley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kearton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

941

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Aston, V.

Long, V.

Balfour, L.,

Lytton, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Blyth, L

Merrivale, L.

Boardman, L.

Mersey, V.

Borthwick, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L

Mottistone, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Moyne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Nathan, L.

Caldecote, V.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newcastle, Bp.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chorley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colwyn, L.

Peel, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Reay, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rees, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Renwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Darcy (de Knayth) B.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saint Levan, L.

Derwent, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Seebohm, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Somerset, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strange, B.

Faithfull, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Tryon, L.

Hives, L

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vinson, L.

Jenkins of Roding, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Killearn, L.

Walpole, L.

Kimball, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.19 p.m.
Clause 123 [Countryside functions of Welsh Council]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 128, line 9, leave out ("enactments specified in") and insert ("Acts amended by").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 224 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 225 and 227. These are minor drafting amendments to improve the precision of the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 128, line 11, leave out ("to those enactments").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 128, line 11, at end insert:
("(1A) The Countryside Council for Wales shall discharge those functions—

(a) for the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in Wales and of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in Wales, and particularly in the areas designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as National Parks or as areas of outstanding natural beauty;

(b) for encouraging the provision or improvement, for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales, of facilities for the enjoyment thereof (particularly in those Parks and areas) and for the enjoyment of the opportunities for open-air recreation and the study of nature afforded thereby;

and shall have regard to the social and economic interests of rural areas in Wales.
(1B) The reference in subsection (1A) above to the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside includes the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 229, 230, 231 and 232.
The House will recall that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, introduced a similar amendment at Committee stage. That amendment was based on a suggested mandate submitted by the Countryside Commission to the Committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. We had a short but informed debate. In reply, my noble friend, Lord Hesketh, explained that the amendment achieved very little as it did little more than restate certain parts of the existing legislation in somewhat different words. That would have created the potential problem that the Countryside Council for Wales would have been subject to two similar but different legislative definitions of certain of their functions. While the Government did not see the need for a statutory Welsh mandate, my noble friend acknowledged the strength of feeling in the House and elsewhere and agreed to reconsider the question. In view of that undertaking, the amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
We considered this matter carefully during the recess and concluded that we should bring forward an amendment which broadly accords with the original amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but meets the main objective which I have just mentioned. That is achieved by the consequential amendments in Schedule 8 to the Bill which will ensure that the equivalent functions in the original legislation to those now identified in Clause 123 will apply only to the Countryside Commission in England, with the new mandate in Clause 123 applying only to the Countryside Council for Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness White Baroness White moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 226, Amendment No. 226B:
Line 2, leave out subsection (1A) and insert:
("(1A) The Countryside Council for Wales shall discharge those functions so as to—

943

(a) protect, conserve and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside of Wales, both in the areas statutorily designated as National Parks or as areas of outstanding natural beauty and elsewhere;

(b) improve and extend opportunities for public enjoyment of and access to the Welsh countryside, consistent with the objectives in paragraph (a) above; and

(c) encourage forms of social and economic development which conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will be accepted in substitution procedurally for Amendment No. 226A, which last week had to be withdrawn owing to a printers' error. It is substantially in substitution for the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I move this amendment for several reasons. The primary one is that if we are to establish an important new agency in the Principality—a council for Wales —to care for our outstandingly beautiful countryside, it should be given an appropriate remit worthy of the occasion. The version proposed by the noble Baroness is in my view both long-winded and uninspired. That the Welsh Office, which probably drafted the amendment, is from time to time capable of being uninspiring does not improve matters. I courteously suggest to the noble Baroness that the revised version which I propose is clear, succinct, dignified and worthy of the occasion and is therefore to be preferred.
There is only one major difference in the substance of my version compared with that proposed by the noble Baroness. It is a matter of emphasis but it is important. I do not suggest any change in subsection (1B), which covers the functions now exercised by the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales. But in subsection (1A) it is important to recognise that the responsibilities which are being transferred from the Countryside Commission to the council for Wales are comprehensive. There is no justification for the special emphasis placed in the noble Baroness's version of subsection (1A) (a) on the areas designated as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Of course those are extremely important. I speak as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks, which covers England as well as Wales. However, there are existing bodies responsible for the wellbeing of the national parks and there are other designated areas which may be just as much in need of attention from the new Countryside Council for Wales. The heritage coast areas are especially important in Wales, not to mention the areas designated as environmentally sensitive. There are even the less favoured areas—the LFAs.
In some respects it is the undesignated areas that stand in need of special protection because they have no specifically appointed guardians should the planning mechanism prove ineffectual in protecting countryside interests. There should be no suggestion that the new council ought to single out for its
944
attention the national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty to the possible neglect of other countryside concerns.
In saying that and emphasising the comprehensive nature of the new responsibilities, I may add that the Countryside Commission itself, which in Wales will be subsumed in the new council, is strongly of the view that I put forward. I confirmed that earlier today by telephone with Sir Derek Barber, the chairman of the Countryside Commission. In any case, we do not yet know what the current committee of inquiry into the national parks will recommend for their future administration. That report is expected early next year. It could suggest radical changes. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will think again about this matter. I believe that the emphasis in her version of the proposed remit is ill advised.
Finally, I am not attracted by the phrasing of subsection (1A) (b), which reads:
"facilities for the enjoyment … (particularly in those Parks and areas)"
which are:
"for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales".
What about those of us who live there? There is a strong flavour of Victorian patronage and condescension in the phraseology. I hope that the noble Baroness will take my point.
With regard to social and economic development, I believe that the wording of my amendment is to be preferred. We do not want to spend too much time on this modest amendment so I shall not enlarge on it but those who are familiar with the Welsh scene will, I am quite sure, understand what I mean.
For all those reasons I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will indicate that she will not press her amendment, Amendment No. 226, as it stands. It is simply not good enough for what is an important development in Welsh public administration. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to thank my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment, as it was done in response to an amendment that I tabled at Committee stage. Having said that, I much prefer the wording of the noble Baroness, Lady White, not least because it is much closer to the wording that I used at Committee stage than what the Minister has brought forward today. I feel that the Government's wording is slightly strange. It seems to have been taken more or less word for word from parts of the 1949 and 1968 Acts, some of which are out of date.
I too am rather worried about the wording of subsection (1A) (a). I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Renton in his place because I believe that this is a case of what he has often described as expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Doubtless he will give me a roasting if my Latin pronunciation is wrong. It means that if one singles out something in legislation it implies the exclusion of other matters that are not included. There is a great deal of Wales which is very beautiful and well worth public access and the encouragement of the new body but which is not

945
either a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty. The very fact that such words are used in the Act may well concentrate the mind of the Countryside Council for Wales too much on those areas and not on other parts of the Principality.
I agree too that some of the wording in paragraph (b) is rather strange. It takes us back to the good old days when the Countryside Commission used to fund a few car parks, toilets here and there and some picnic places. With all respect to the Government, those days have gone. One hopes that the new body will instigate more positive thinking about the way to encourage public access. The words used are a little old-fashioned.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will reconsider the position. Perhaps the Government will come back at Third Reading with a slightly more up-to-date amendment along the lines of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady White.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady White. It represents a helpful improvement to the wording of Amendment No. 226. I say that for three reasons. First, without in any way wishing to let loose the rottweilers of critical analysis on the drafting of the amendment, as has been pointed out, there is a certain Edwardian elitism about such phrases as,
"for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales … for the enjoyment [thereof]."
I live in the countryside of Wales. I have not "resorted" there since I cannot remember when.
Whoever created the collocation in new subsection (1B),
"the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features",
was not then perhaps in his happiest vein. The wording is perhaps not as felicitous as it might be.
Secondly, if we take an optimistic and expansionist view of the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, it needs clear and unambiguous instructions, especially in view of the remark attributed, rightly or wrongly, to its distinguished chairman, Professor Frederick Holliday. Whether or not he said on 26th September 1990 that,
"it is quite possible that the new agencies will want to go their own separate ways on GB scientific research. The Joint Committee could therefore wither away within a few years",
if that is his view, then the Countryside Council for Wales may be called upon to assume functions that need to be fully and clearly defined. I believe that my noble friend's version is better than Amendment No. 226.
On the other hand, if we take a pessimistic view of the future of the Countryside Council for Wales, in the light of the fact that it has been reported that NCC senior managers in both Scotland and Wales now openly admit that the new agencies will start on 1st April 1991 with about half the staff that even their parent departments acknowledge to be necessary, it is doubly necessary to be clear about its duties. Whether
946
the Countryside Council for Wales is due to flourish or to flounder, it needs clear, unambiguous legislation and all the help that it can receive.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said about the amendments. It was a little hard of the noble Baroness, Lady White, to blame the unfortunate Welsh Office for the actions of the parliamentary draftsmen who, I suspect, had probably had more to do with it than my old department.
The wording is unfortunate in at least two respects. The phrase,
"particularly in the areas designated",
suggests that less attention should be given to the remainder of Wales. That is unfortunate. I do not underestimate the importance of the designated areas in any way. I represented one national park in Wales for 17 years, and I live in another. However, as everyone who knows the Principality will understand, a large part of Wales is equally in need of the sympathetic guardianship of the countryside council. We therefore want to remove any implication of the kind suggested.
I take some objection too to the phrase, "resorting to the countryside in Wales".
As I set out for my home on Friday morning I shall not be thinking that I am going on a trip to "resort" to the Black Mountains. However, I am less sympathetic to the proposal of the noble Baroness in new subsection (1A) (c) to move from the phrase,
"have regard to the social and economic interests of rural areas",
to,
"encourage forms of social and economic development".
I express doubts because I see possible conflicts arising. I am chairman of a public body, the National Rivers Authority. It has to reconcile a number of different statutory objectives. It is often an extremely difficult task. It seems to me quite clear that the primary task of the Countryside Council for Wales is protection, conservation and enhancement. It has to take proper account of the social and economic interests of the rural areas. However, if one gives it a positive duty to encourage forms of social and economic development, it may be faced with a number of difficult conflicts of interest when arriving at its priorities.
Such provision also creates problems of a different kind. A number of other public bodies—the Mid-Wales Development Corporation and the Welsh Development Agency, for example—have a primary statutory function to encourage social and economic development. The Welsh Tourist Board covers an area of responsibility which also involves economic development. We cause ourselves unnecessary trouble if we set up a number of parallel bodies with essentially the same function but without a clear understanding of which bears the primary responsibility.
I am quite clear about the primary responsibility of the Countryside Council for Wales. I am also perfectly clear that it must have regard to the social and

947
economic interests of rural areas. I would agree wholeheartedly with the amendment of the noble Baroness if it did not contain that final paragraph.
I hope that the Government will reconsider what has been said during the course of the debate. We welcome the principle of the amendment. It is very much on the lines originally suggested by my noble friend. I am grateful to the Government for putting the amendment down, although it is not perfect in its present form. There is still an opportunity to improve it at a later stage. I hope that my noble friend will indicate that she will consider whether improvements in the wording might be achieved.
Lord Parry: My Lords, it has been proved already that there is little that the Welsh love more than semantics. The government amendment has given us a field day. The House will recognise that we have heard a distinguished former Secretary of State for Wales speaking to an amendment moved by a former Minister of State for Wales who has had probably the finest political career of a Welsh women since Boudicca. We have the president of a university college and an ex-chairman of the Welsh Tourist Board. We all come to similar conclusions although we might wish to rearrange the government amendment in slightly different ways.
I have no intention of returning the House to the more fractious period today when we were anxious about the statement given by the noble Baroness. However, I wish to refer to paragraph 11 of that statement. Noble Lords will have had the opportunity to read it. It states:
"In Wales, reorganisation will for the first time provide capacity on the ground at regional level to deal with landscape conservation, recreation and access issues".
I should like to ask some questions of the Front Bench on that paragraph. Have the Government now reached agreement with some of the bodies that were named by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell? Some bodies were concerned about the apparent contradiction—it was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, earlier today—between the separation of the bodies in England and the merger of the bodies in Wales. Does the Minister believe that there is agreement between the bodies in Wales, and do they welcome the merger? I know that some county and district councils look forward to some of the provisions of the merger. However, I emphasise strongly that, despite the reassurances about funding given by the Minister when speaking to her statement, they are deeply concerned about being given proper funding to carry out their functions. They feel that Wales may lose out in the change of system. I know that the Sports Council for Wales was deeply anxious and it would like an answer to those questions.
At my age—approaching 65—I find it amusing to hear Members of this House speak as though they speak for all the people of Scotland and Wales. It is a fact of our constitutional democracy that at present the Government of Great Britain governs with the vote of 43 per cent. of the population and that the Opposition is trying to reach 44 per cent. in order to
948
arrest government from them. I do not believe that the hills and valleys of Wales will be singing tonight because of the long-term provisions for the long-tailed tit which are implicit in the amendment. I believe that people are more likely to be concerned with devolution for people than for birds, but in our co-operative democracy we must go for the best that we can get. I urge the Minister to co-operate and to make way for the proposals within her amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are discussing a group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Having considered the matter, I prefer them to the alternative amendment which overlaps to a great extent. It was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon—
Baroness White: My Lords, occasionally the Speaker in the House of Commons confused me with Lady Bacon, but I had hoped that in this House a distinction might be made.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. In spite of my Christian name I have no Welsh blood, but I have a great love for Wales. I do not see why we should not pay the Welsh people the compliment of wishing to resort to their lovely countryside whether by bus, Rolls-Royce, hitchhiking, or whatever.
I am worried by the point being raised by my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Crickhowell regarding the use of the words "and particularly in" in paragraph (a) and the words "particularly in" in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 226. There is a danger of ambiguity, but the position is worse than that. In each case there could be three effects. The use of those words could exclude other matters and I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. I do not believe that they wish the lovely parts of Wales outside the national parks to be ignored.
It may be that the words were included for emphasis so that more attention is paid to national parks than to the other parts of Wales. That would be wrong. It may be that the draftsman was merely giving an example by mentioning national parks, access to the countryside and areas of outstanding natural beauty. To do so could be misleading. Therefore, I hope that between now and Third Reading my noble friend will agree to consider the wording in her amendment, even though generally speaking I prefer the way she is dealing with the matter.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I support the wording suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I do so not only because it is a good deal clearer and more elegant than the wording of Amendment No. 226 but because, in substance, it is to be preferred for the reasons that she gave. I live in a particularly beautiful part of Wales which is not in a national park. It is important that the amendment should not propose that the Countryside Council for Wales should favour one area of Wales over another. Indeed, would it not be possible to leave out the words in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 226B,

949
"both in the areas statutorily designated as National Parks or as areas of outstanding natural beauty and elsewhere"?
They provide merely that national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas such as my own which are referred to derisively as "elsewhere" should be protected, conserved and enhanced. If that is correct, those words are unnecessary. As a basis for a remit for the Countryside Council for Wales the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady White, is good and I support it.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, paragraph (b) of the Government's amendment states:
"for encouraging the provision or improvement, for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales, of facilities for the enjoyment thereof".
What kind of facilities are envisaged? Facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside could be footpaths, which we should all welcome, but they could be time-share apartments, which we should not welcome.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, my view coincides with that of everyone else who has spoken —that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady White, is infinitely superior to Amendment No. 226. However, I support the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that it would be improved if the noble Baroness would substitute for paragraph (c) the words:
"and shall have regard to the social and economic interests of rural areas in Wales".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene because the amendment has already been adequately debated. However, I wish to raise the question of whether we should continue through the normal dinner hour. I do not recall the Chief Whip suggesting that we should stop for dinner. I raise the matter on the Floor of the House in case any noble Lords might find that particularly inconvenient. I should be content to continue without a break.
Baroness White: My Lords, while the Government are considering that important issue I shall speak in defence of paragraph (c). I had thought that "encourage" was an in-word on the Conservative Benches. It appears so frequently in the White Paper that I thought it would meet with universal approbation. I am concerned not only with the social and economic interests of rural areas but also with the nature of the social and economic development which should enhance the natural environment of Wales. Certain suggestions for development in rural areas certainly do not do so.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to answer the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The noble Lord opposite, my noble friend Lady Blatch and indeed other noble Lords have quite a long stint ahead. I believe that to have no dinner break is asking a great deal. If the noble Lord feels that it would be wise to get on, let us have a 50-minute dinner break instead of an hour. However, if there is no break at all that will be asking a very great deal of noble Lords involved in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I listened with interest to my noble friend Lord Swinton (who I believe was
950
the cause of these amendments), to other noble Lords and, of course, to the noble Baroness, Lady White, who has moved Amendment No. 226B.
As I said earlier, the Government's Amendment No. 226 was drafted broadly on the lines of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinton, which he introduced in Committee. I readily acknowledge that it uses the language of existing legislation. This was quite deliberate as it has been the Government's avowed intention throughout the consideration of Part VII of the Bill to deal only with the reorganisation of the NCC and Countryside Commission and not to change the present functions.
The noble Lord has expressed fears that the amendment will put the clock back by focusing on the Countryside Council for Wales' responsibilities in the national park and AONB fields whereas the Countryside Commission has moved on from its 1949 position to the wider countryside. This was certainly not the intention of the amendment. The Government's aim is for the Countryside Council for Wales (or CCW) to have the same countryside functions as the Countryside Commission has at present and that is clearly best achieved by applying precisely the same legislative provisions to both bodies. A statutory mandate, whether it is based on the language of the present Acts or couched in more modern language, is bound to run the risk of setting the bodies on different courses.
I find no difficulty in giving my noble friend the assurance he is seeking that the CCW's range of activities should be no different from that currently undertaken by the Countryside Commission. I can also confirm that it is not the Government's intention that nature conservation considerations will always take precedence over those activities traditionally associated with the Countryside Commission, but neither will the converse always be the case. There will inevitably be cases, although I do not think that they will arise very often, where what I might call NCC and CC interests will be in conflict. These will either be resolved at officer level where many of the more senior staff will have responsibilities which straddle the present divide or will be referred to the council itself. I have referred to NCC and CC interests to meet the point raised by my noble friend but I know Welsh Office Ministers are anxious that the CCW will see itself as a new body with a single but wide range of responsibilities. The present staffs of the NCC and CC in Wales have considered from the outset that there should be an integration of functions as far as possible and the proposed structure reflects this. Of course there will be internal differences on policy and casework as there are in any organisation but they will be resolved internally as any differences are at present in the NCC, the CC, or government. Welsh Office Ministers are convinced that the integration of the present NCC and CC functions in a single organisation will lead to a properly balanced understanding of all aspects of the CCW's work.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, has been critical, as have other noble Lords, of the wording of the Government's amendment and has moved her own

951
Amendment No. 226B to change the wording of subsection (1A). I assume her intention is to retain broadly the same meaning but in what she considers to be clearer words.
Those who have studied the government amendment will have realised that the wording is almost identical to that in Section 1 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and Sections 1 and 37 of the Countryside Act 1968. This is quite deliberate to ensure that the functions of the Countryside Council for Wales are kept in line with those for the Countryside Commission since it is the intention that the statutory framework shall be the same for England and Wales.
The noble Baroness's wording is significantly different from the existing statutory wording and in one important respect it would impose a new responsibility on the CCW which does not, and will not, apply to the Countryside Commission. At present the commission in the exercise of its functions is required to have due regard to the economic and social interests of rural areas, but the noble Baroness's wording would require the CCW to encourage forms of social and economic development which conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales. I know that your Lordships are concerned about that part of the amendment. It could be argued that this would impose on the CCW a duty to promote and seek social and economic development, but social development is a matter for many other agencies and economic development is best left to such bodies as the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Before winding up on these amendments, for the second time this afternoon—and, indeed, it may be the third or fourth time—Sir Frederick Holliday has been misquoted in this Chamber and, because it was a rather serious misquote, it is important to put it right. Sir Frederick Holliday tells us that he has been misquoted in that there is no question of the JNCC relinquishing any of its statutory functions or reducing its efforts in respect of them. His comment quoted by the NCC trade union side related to the work, mainly research work, on which the Countryside Agency chairman has agreed voluntarily to co-operate over and above the statutory functions. It is that work which Sir Fred thought might be reduced. In saying that, he believed that when reduced, it would return to the country councils.
I have been pressed to think again about this amendment and perhaps bring it back on Third Reading. I find that a most unattractive proposition at this stage given the amount of work which has been carried out by my department and officials from the Welsh Office. There have been many wet towel sessions on this wording and I am not convinced that more work on this will make a great deal of difference.
I should welcome a response from my noble friend Lord Swinton as to whether the objectives of my noble friend are met by this amendment. I hope that he will
952
be able to accept my amendment rather than the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am not quite sure that I have understood her. She was speaking a little faster than my mind sometimes works. Do I understand that she intends to retain the word "particularly" not so much because it is appropriate but rather because so much work has been done on the drafting? If my noble friend would take away the amendment and rectify the drafting as regards that word, then I am sure that that will give a great deal of satisfaction not only to my noble friends but also to a very wide circle of people interested in this matter.
Baroness White: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I may be prepared to do a deal on this matter. If the noble Baroness will give me an assurance that she will withdraw the emphasis on particularity as regards subsections (1A) (a) and (b), then in all the circumstances I shall be prepared to withdraw my amendment. However, this is a very serious matter and if the noble Baroness does not give that undertaking it will be impossible for me to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, your Lordships are very persuasive. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Renton that I hear what he says. Perhaps the House will accept that, without prejudice to the outcome of this matter, I shall take away the amendment and consider all that has been said during the debate.
Baroness White: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 226, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall take away this amendment and give it further consideration before Third Reading.
Amendment No. 226, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps this is an appropriate moment to adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7 to 7.45 p.m.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 128, line 14, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("Acts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 227A:
Page 128, line 15, at end insert:
("(3) In this Part "countryside matters" means matters which relate to the protection, conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, of amenity and of buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest, and the enjoyment thereof.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.

953
241A to 241C and Amendment No. 242A, tabled in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
On the face of it, these amendments on countryside matters appear to seek similar ends to Amendment No. 242, standing in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. That amendment has already been spoken to. However, I believe that the amendments in my name meet the Government's criticisms of the earlier amendments tabled in Committee and I hope, therefore, that they will be more acceptable to my noble friend on the Front Bench. They represent a rather different approach from that of the noble and gallant Lord to achieving an overview of countryside matters, but they have a similar end in mind.
The amendments seek to allow the joint committee to give advice, although not binding advice, on countryside matters to the country councils of England, Scotland and Wales on matters of national and international importance. Let us just consider what countryside matters mean. I believe that the terms refers to the protection, conservation and enhancement of the whole countryside and its landscape, including archaeological and historical features, and public enjoyment through access and recreational activities. Those aspects are covered by Amendment No. 227A, which is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 241A to 241C, and for Amendment No. 242A.
We had a long and important debate in Committee on the issue of incorporating countryside matters into the remit of the joint committee, and there was considerable support within the Chamber for enabling the joint committee to address Great Britain or UK-wide countryside issues in a similar manner to those of nature conservation. However, the Government have consistently rejected that proposal, which was one of the key recommendations of the Committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
Perhaps I may give an example of where my amendment might help. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred quite rightly to the common problems faced by upland areas in England, Wales and Scotland—areas such as Dartmoor, the Brecon Beacons and the Cairngorms. In the environment White Paper, the Government acknowledged that they would review the landscape designations in Scotland with the possibility of establishing national parks or their equivalent in that country. Considering the vast wealth of experience of the national parks system in England and Wales, would not the joint committee be in an excellent position to consider some of those common issues? The Scottish countryside body would then have access to the best possible advice because the joint committee would be in a position to call on the appropriate experts in that field. They need not take that advice, but at least it is available to them should they wish to call on it.
I now turn to the reasons given by the Government for opposing an incorporation of countryside matters into the remit of the joint committee. The name of the
954
joint committee was even amended to become the Joint Nature Conservation Committee further to emphasise that the Government did not wish to see a wider remit. In Committee, the Minister then on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Hesketh, spelt out his objections to our amendments. I have to say that I believe the Government's fears were and are exaggerated. However, we have taken special note of those in the amendments.
These amendments do not seek to extend the formal functions of the joint committee and therefore do not run the risk feared by the Government, and repeated by my noble friend Lady Blatch this afternoon, that we would be creating another quango out of the JNCC. That is certainly not the purpose of these amendments. The amendments will enable the joint committee to give advice on countryside matters in the same way as it is able to do under Clause 126 on issues of nature conservation. That is likely to involve little more than the secondment of one or two members of staff from the countryside bodies. It does not have great resource implications nor does it greatly alter its prime functions. It is merely an advice-giving power.
That advice will not be binding on the country councils nor will it create a body able to dictate to them. The joint committee will, however, be in a position to address nationwide issues, be they of nature conservation or countryside concern, as I have described in my example about national parks.
The Government were also concerned that any attempt to include countryside matters within the remit of the joint committee would involve the extension of the NCC's remit to include countryside matters and that it would be a way of achieving, by the back door, the integration of NCC and Countryside Commission functions in England. The one thing we are not trying to do is to achieve integration in England by the back door. I recognise that the Government have said in their White Paper that they will review the situation in England in the light of experience. While I may wish that the Government had said more, my aim is simply to see that an overview of countryside matters is established. That is wholly in line with the Government's logic of integrating the NCC and Countryside Commissions in Scotland and Wales. An overview of countryside matters in relation to my amendments would not be dependent on a similar integration in England.
In tabling these amendments I am convinced that we have taken on board the Government's criticisms made in Committee. I hope that my noble friend will now be able to accept the amendments or give me a commitment that she will draft her own amendments to achieve the aims I have set out and return with them at Third Reading. We have moved a long way towards meeting the Government's concerns. Being, as ever, an optimist I now await my noble friend's response with great interest. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, against all the odds I still support the concept behind these amendments. I appreciate that the arguments have been debated on a number of occasions and the subtleties of this group of

955
amendments have been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, so I do not propose to speak at length but merely formally support him.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I add my support to these amendments. Earlier this afternoon we heard the noble Baroness speak about countryside matters in relation to the role of the JNCC and I believe that this is a perfectly adequate definition which I hope will be acceptable.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that I support the amendment in spirit but, not unnaturally, I prefer the alternative approach of Amendment No. 242, which we discussed earlier this afternoon when I spoke to it at length. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did not favour the amendment but we have not yet reached it in terms of a Division and I hope that she will be more favourably disposed to the present amendment.
I am somewhat tempted to use this occasion to reply to some of the points made on my earlier intervention this afternoon and later by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but that might be thought of as taking an unfair procedural advantage so I shall resist the temptation. I will listen with interest to what the Government have to say.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am a member of the CPRE and I normally support amendments moved in this House which that organisation has drafted or inspired, but I regret that on this occasion I find myself unable to do so. There is naturally a great deal of overlapping in the work of wildlife conservation and in the conservation and improvement of the countryside. We cannot get away from that.
However, the question that arises is whether this consultative body which is intended to get together the three new councils for the different countries of the United Kingdom should have more than the advantage of a representative of the Countryside Commission, which is what I understand the Government intend. To give to the joint committee the responsibilities which by statute are well fastened upon the Countryside Commission and upon these councils would, I fear, lead to duplication, which ought to be avoided. I believe that the coincidence between wildlife conservation and preservation of the countryside is best left to the joint committee and consultation to the limited extent that may be necessary rather than imposing positive obligations on the JNCC, which, as I said, would lead to duplication.
Having said that, one must acknowledge that in seeking to secure wildlife conservation we must consider, above all, the habitat of wildlife. That includes not only the retention of hedgerows, spinneys and so on, but the whole question of afforestation as well. The preservation of marshes and heathland must also be considered. I agree that these matters are all very much intertwined, but we must be careful when legislating as to where it is we are placing positive responsibilities by statute. I think that it is better to give the joint committee the responsibilities which the
956
Government have already outlined and intend instead of fastening upon them work which could easily duplicate that of the councils.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I am bound to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, because they are in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I prefer the amendment tabled by myself, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, because we accept the fact that the idea of giving the joint committee responsibilities for countryside affairs was rejected at an earlier stage in our proceedings. However, we said in our report, and we stick by it, that it is totally illogical to amalgamate nature conservation and countryside conservation in Scotland and Wales and to perpetuate the divide in England.
The only point I wish to repeat at this stage is that all the arguments that have been produced today and on previous occasions for keeping Countryside Commission affairs and nature conservancy affairs separate within the joint committee because they will be separate in England appear to me and to our committee to undermine the arguments made for joining them together in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is entirely in line with the Select Committee's report, and although I prefer my own amendment I must, from that point of view, support his amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I shall follow the admirable example of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and not repeat the arguments that were addressed at a different stage. I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Renton said. I am unable to support the amendment which my noble friend Lord Norrie has moved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as far as possible I shall also follow that example by not repeating the arguments so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. However, I must intervene because of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hesitate long before saying this, but he has misinterpreted the group of amendments. He seems to think that to introduce the word "countryside" into the Bill as the amendments do, would be to duplicate the work of the Countryside Commission.
The noble Lord is wrong in two respects. First, there is no National Countryside Commission any longer—or there will not be when the legislation goes through—in the sense that in Wales the Countryside Commission will be absorbed into the new country council. That will happen in Scotland as well in due course. Secondly, the noble Lord has ignored Amendment No. 242A which states that all references to countryside matters in that section—that is to say, the section in which Amendment Nos. 241A to 241C occur—are references to:
"(a) any countryside matter of national or international importance or which otherwise affects the interests of Great Britain as a whole; or

957
(b) any countryside matter which arises throughout Great Britain and raises issues common to England, Scotland and Wales".
With the break-up of the Countryside Commission for Great Britain as a whole, there is no one left to take responsibility for these particular countryside matters. This is not an attempt to allow the country NCCs or the JNCC to take over all of the responsibilities of any Countryside Commission. It is an attempt to fill a gap which the legislation creates. It is no more and no less than that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall also try to follow the example set and we shall not go over much of the ground covered by the earlier amendment moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The subject of the first amendment, Amendment No. 227A, will be familiar to the House as the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, introduced an amendment to a similar effect at Committee stage. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke in support of it.
It was conceded on that occasion that the Countryside Commission was fully aware of the importance of archaeological features in the landscape, and I am sure that the Countryside Council for Wales will continue in that tradition. This amendment is much wider in its scope as it is not confined to the landscape but purports to give the CCW responsibility for the protection, conservation and enhancement of all buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest wherever they occur and, further, to give the CCW responsibility for ensuring the public's enjoyment of this built heritage. This would cause even more conflict with the functions of Cadw in Wales—I am sure that the Welsh peers in the Chamber will tell me that Cadw is the Welsh word for heritage—than would the previous amendment. It is not clear if the amendment is intended to extend to the Countryside Commission but if it is it would create similar conflict between their functions and those of English Heritage.
I say that it purports to give additional functions to the CCW. As drafted, we believe that it fails in that aim. The amendment defines countryside matters, but the words appear only as a heading to Clause 123, as part of the heading to Schedule 8, and in parenthesis in Clause 123 as a brief description of Schedule 8. The words are therefore of little or no substance and to define them in the manner of this amendment would not add any archaeological responsibilities to the CCW. I believe that some of these matters were touched on by my noble friend Lord Renton. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 241A, 241B, 241C and 241 D. We have predominantly dealt with these issues. The only point I wish to repeat from the previous debate on this matter is that there continues to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the Government's perception of the JNCC and their intention towards it. There is also a misunderstanding about the role of the JNCC in the minds of other noble Lords.
958
The extension of the remit to the JNCC, by whatever means or words used on the face of the Bill, extends to it two added functions. My noble friend Lord Norrie said that the distinction between the two amendments was that the advice was not binding. No advice is binding in that sense. Advice will be proffered and it will be considered along with a range of advices. The difference between us is where deliberation and consideration of that advice takes place and whether that occurs at the level of the JNCC. It is also a question of whether the JNCC takes into account those nature and conservation issues alongside, and to be weighed up against, the countryside issues. It is also a question of whether they retain their primary function which is advising about nature conservation issues and allowing the countryside matters to be considered externally by the body to whom the advice is proffered.
That is a fundamental difference between us. It may appear to be a small one, but it is fundamental. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Jenkin for once again helping me to press this point. I hope that I am gaining some ground though I fear that I may not be. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down can she clarify exactly what she means? I said that the advice did not have to be taken. I do not understand her answer to that point. Advice can be given but it does not necessarily have to be taken. The advice is there if it is needed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry if I have misunderstood my noble friend. At the outset when he was moving the amendment, my noble friend said that the distinction between his amendment and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was that the advice relating to my noble friend's amendment is not binding advice. I believe that those were the words used by my noble friend Lord Norrie. What I am saying is that when the Bill becomes law the JNCC will be backed by statute with a requirement and an obligation to proffer advice primarily concerned with nature conservation and wildlife issues. Even that advice when it is proffered will be considered but it will not necessarily be binding advice. However, the remit for the JNCC is clear. Its priority is to be concerned with nature conservation and not countryside matters.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am greatly disappointed by my noble friend's response. While rejecting these amendments and those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, there are no new objections as far as I can see. I am at a loss to understand the Government's continued opposition to this matter particularly as I stressed that when introducing these amendments we had met the Government's criticisms of them at Committee stage. I had honestly hoped for a better response. I am still amazed that the Government are not willing to allow the best possible advice to be given to the country councils on countryside matters. Before deciding what action to take I ask my noble friend whether even at this late hour she can indicate if there is a possibility of her offering her own amendment at Third Reading?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must say that I am obviously having difficulty in explaining what I believe to be a very fundamental difference between us on this amendment. Whatever the words are, the remit is quite clearly in the terms of the amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and by my noble friend Lord Norrie. However, I believe that my noble friend's amendment makes even more explicit that consideration of countryside matters should be an obligation on the JNCC.
As I interpret it, it would lay a legal obligation on the JNCC to consider nature conservation matters and countryside matters. It would have a legal obligation to consider them and to advise on the basis of that legal obligation. But if after deliberation on a single issue, whether it applied nationally or internationally, the weight of argument came down in favour of countryside issues as opposed to nature conservation issues, the advice it proffered would have to be weighted in favour of countryside issues.
That extensive remit not only allows the obligation to consider matters of nature conservation and countryside matters but also adds to that obligation the requirement to weigh and balance the evidence and the weight of argument in favour of one or the other. It introduces the issue of conflict in that, when it produces that advice in favour of one or the other, that advice can inevitably be subject to challenge, the point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin on an earlier amendment. I apologise for returning us to the debate on the previous amendment.
That is what I believe is the difference between us. The Government are clear that there is a single remit for the JNCC to consider nature conservation issues and not countryside issues. By extending its remit, if it has to have regard in primary legislation to countryside matters, it will inevitably have to make judgments, having weighed up the evidence, about the supremacy of one issue or the other.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Baroness has said. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two of us. In my amendment I am offering free advice. If the free advice is accepted, that is fair enough; if it is not accepted, that is also fair enough. That is the fundamental difference. I have to disagree with the noble Baroness. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
8.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.227A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Blease, L.

David, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carver, L.

Grey, E.

Chorley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lytton, E.

960

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thurlow, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nathan, L.

Walpole, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Greenway, L.

Arran, E.

Harvington, L.

Astor, V.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Borthwick, L.

Mills, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Peel, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Reay, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Renton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Sharples, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Strange, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Elles, B.

Trumpington, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ullswater, V.

Elton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Wynford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.21 p.m.
Schedule 8 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Countryside Matters]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 227B
Page 182, line 25, at end insert:
("Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)
In section 194(2) there shall be inserted after the words "Lord of the Manor" the words "the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales,".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to add the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Commission to the list of those bodies which may apply to the county court for an order for the removal of a building, fence or other work constructed on common land without the consent of the Secretary of State where such consent is required. A similar amendment was tabled in Committee. In response the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said that it was the Government's intention to introduce comprehensive commons legislation when parliamentary time permits.
We are still awaiting that legislation and, indeed, any news about it. However, I shall return to that aspect of the matter later. The problem is that even the promise of comprehensive legislation in due course appears to offer no prospect of improvement on the issue of adequate safeguards against unlawful erections on common land since, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, made clear in his answer, the Government

961
do not consider that these bodies should be added to the list of those who may prompt action and believe that access to the courts is already adequate.
The noble Lord's answer amounted to saying that there was no problem, despite the fact that he heard on that occasion from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and from my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who were able to give him many examples of unlawful buildings on a common and the erection of other constructions such as fences. It was pointed out that, although the lords of the manor and registered commoners have the right under the Law of Property Act 1925 to seek an order in the county court, they often did not do so because they were often the people responsible for erecting the buildings.
County and district councils might, among a range of priorities, not necessarily act so quickly as other bodies with a more direct interest in conservation and the improvement of common land. That is a feature which we have seen in other legislation, especially that concerning rights of way.
The amendment proposed is a modest one and is presented largely to enable the Government to correct the impression given last time that their policy when announced will introduce no changes in this area. We should like to know for certain whether that is what the noble Lord meant in his answer. As I have reminded the House on many occasions, the reforms which were suggested by the Common Land Forum to tighten safeguards against infringements of common land were included in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last election. Despite many questions and much pressure, we have not received satisfactory answers from the Government in this respect.
I must now refer to the end of July just before the Summer Recess. At that time I tabled a Question on common land. In response to a suggestion from the then Front Bench spokesman that I was about to receive a satisfactory statement from the Government, I agreed not to press the matter and not to ask supplementary questions. Therefore, I was very disappointed when the statement was eventually given because it was simply a repetition of what had gone before. It seems to me that, despite all the promises and the extreme damage which is being done to common land, the Government are not fulfilling their promise. I should like to hear something more constructive from the noble Lord in his reply this evening. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is too courteous. She was treated scurvily at the end of July. She asked a Question and was assured by Ministers that there would be a satisfactory Answer and on that basis she did not pursue the matter. However, she then found that the refusal of this Government to implement their own manifesto policy from 1987 was being continued. It was a most unsatisfactory little episode and the Government now have an opportunity to put matters right and to do what ought to have been done in response to my noble friend's persistent, but always courteous, reminders about their duty.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, an amendment which would have had a similar effect was moved in Committee, although it was technically defective.
Under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the county or district council, the lord of the manor or any other person interested in the common (which I understand means a person with a legal interest in the common, such as a commoner) can apply to a county court for an order for the removal of any building, fence or other work which was constructed without the Secretary of State's consent where such consent should be obtained. The present amendment would add the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales to the list of those who can apply to the county court for an order. The existing list is already wide ranging and we can see no reason for its urgent extension. The commission and the council, like any other organisation or member of the public, can already ask any of those on the list to take action on their behalf. We believe that this is not an appropriate time to tackle the complex subject of common land legislation, although I must repeat that there is a government commitment to legislate on the basis of the Common Land Forum proposals.
Although it has not been possible to bring forward such legislation, as the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, announced in response to a Written Question on 26th July 1990, the Government have embarked on detailed discussions with organisations which have a major interest in our commons to see how we can resolve the remaining practical problems. That was a new announcement in our statement and I must point out that the noble Baroness is not right when she says that my noble friend had nothing to add to the situation as it was at that time. We shall consider the way forward in the light of those discussions.
The present amendment is defective, in that it does not make it clear that the new powers shall be confined in the case of the Countryside Commission to common land in England and in the case of the Countryside Council for Wales to common land in Wales. In all the circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, naturally I am disappointed in that reply. Moreover, the noble Lord did not indicate to me exactly where I was wrong in what I said. I believe that the report of the Common Land Forum was published in 1986 or thereabouts and consultations have been taking place since that time. The latest information I received indicated that the only sticking point was the Moorlands Association. I really do not see that the statement which was made in a Written Answer on 26th July added anything to the matter; indeed, I could not find anything new in it. However, I leave the point for now. Since there is possibly just one further year left of the present government, I hope that we shall have

963
reference to commons legislation in the Queen's Speech. If there is none, we can take due note of what happens to manifesto promises.
Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to make a point. I am a member of the Moorland Association. I do not wish to go into details now about the discussions that took place, but I should like to make it clear that the Moorland Association is in favour of legislation. It realises the fact that legislation needs to be enacted to safeguard common land.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 182, line 29, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 233. These are minor drafting amendments to improve the precision of the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 182, line 32, after ("England") insert ("for the purposes specified in subsection (2) below;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 230 to 232:
Page 182, line 35, at end insert ("for the corresponding purposes specified in section 123(1A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.").
Page 182, line 36, leave out from beginning to third ("the") in line 39 and insert:
("(2) The purposes for which the functions of the Commission are exercisable are—

(a)").

Page 182, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("encouraging") in line 1 of page 183 and insert:

("(b) the").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when we are dealing with amendments that have been spoken to, it would be helpful to those of us who are trying to keep up with the business if the Minister would say when she introduces such amendments with which previous amendment they had been discussed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise. The amendments were grouped with Amendment No. 226.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 184, line 39, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 228. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 234:
964
Page 184, line 47, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 50 and insert ("—

(i) after the word "recreation" there shall be inserted the words "and the study of nature"; and

(ii) at the end, there shall be inserted the words "; and the purposes for which the functions of the Council in Wales are to be exercised are the corresponding purposes specified in section 123(1A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990."").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 226. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 124 [Nature conservation functions: preliminary]:
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 128, line 25, at end insert:
(" () It shall be the duty of the Councils in discharging their nature conservation functions to take appropriate account of anthropogenic features which influence directly the nature conservation value of nature reserves agreed under the terms of section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or land of special interest agreed under the terms of section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 or notified under the terms of section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981")..
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that in Committee I tabled a series of amendments designed to recognise man's influence over the countryside when it came to nature conservation. The amendment aims at ensuring that the new councils have a statutory duty to consider the archaeological value of designated conservation sites. The wording, "take appropriate account of" implicitly recognises the primacy of the nature conservation legislation in such designated areas except where archaeological interests are protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
The wording of the amendment is also consistent with the Government's Clause 124(2) which relates to ecological changes. When the amendments were withdrawn in Committee I was promised by the Minister that a letter of intent rather than primary legislation might be the way of dealing with the problem. I have now what is described as the penultimate draft of such a letter by the NCC, English Heritage, Cadw, the Historic Monuments Board in Scotland, the Confederation of British Archaeology and the Council for Scottish Archaeology. If I could have an assurance from the Minister tonight that it will be agreed by the parties and that it will have some influence over the successor bodies when they come into being next April, we should have gone a long way towards solving the problem. I should obviously prefer the Minister to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the letter of intent which the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, was kind enough to let me see. It meets all the problems which are likely to arise, but it would be helpful if the Minister could reassure us that it will not be weakened by any further discussions. There are a number of areas in which it could do with being strengthened rather than the opposite. However, I am sure that it is not meant in that way and I welcome it.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, in Committee I too suggested that a joint declaration by the NCC and the appropriate bodies rather than an amendment to the Bill would be the right way to go forward. I am glad to acknowledge that the joint declaration is now in an advanced stage of drafting and is, as far as I know, satisfactory to all parties concerned.
There is no doubt that there are joint overlapping interests. Only yesterday, I was on a newly notified extension to the Swale SSSI where the ancient banks, built by our forbears, probably back as far as the Romans, in their progressive defences against the sea on the south side of the Thames Estuary, are now important features from the point of view of archaeology, nature conservation and special flora. There is no doubt about overlapping areas of interest. I welcome the joint declaration of intent.
Lord Reay:My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Hesketh said in Committee, in the Government's view it would be inappropriate to confer an archaeological remit on the new councils which they would not have the capacity to fulfil. However, as several noble Lords have said, the NCC is currently working with English Heritage and Cadw to draw up a joint statement of intent to ensure that no feature of anthropogenic interest is damaged, subject to the primacy of nature conservation interests. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, said that he had seen the penultimate draft of the statement. I give him the assurance that he will see the final draft. It is intended to bring the matter to a successful conclusion. I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, will be content with the reassurance and will not see fit to press the amendment.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurance that the letter will reach a stage when it can be signed rather than being merely a penultimate draft. I welcome what it says. As I said, we have gone a long way towards solving the problem. I thank all those people who have been involved in the drafting of the letter and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for his kind words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 235A:
Page 128, line 29, after ("may") insert ("after consultation in each case with the Councils, save where the nature of such directions would render such consultation impracticable,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to protect against distortions in the way different councils will operate. That principle was supported in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, but the amendment was rejected on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on the grounds that there would be cases where action would need to be taken immediately. The amendment that we tabled at that time did not allow for that. The new wording of the amendment meets that objection.
I shall remind your Lordships why the amendment is needed. At present the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may make specific directions not merely as to grants and loans, as is presently the case, but on matters such as the establishment of nature
966
reserves, advice to the Secretary of State, Ministers and others in respect of research. That power of direction would enable different directions to be given to different councils on the same or different issues. For example, a direction could be given to a council about the content of its research programme without necessarily having full regard to the nature conservation needs of the research in that country or the need to complement the research efforts of other councils or the joint committee. Alternatively, a direction might be given to a council in relation to the advice it gives to, for example, a local authority on the safeguarding of sites.
In practice, therefore, the exercise of this power of direction could lead to distortions developing in the manner in which nature conservation is delivered in the three countries. To help ensure that such distortions do not occur as a result of directions, the amendment proposes that consultation be carried out with each of the councils before any direction is given to allow them the opportunity of making representations about the proposal. This would help to ensure that all relevant matters are taken into account, but in the event of a quick answer being needed the amendment would allow the Secretary of State to go ahead without consultation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I hope that I have taken a correct role throughout the passage of the Bill in that I have only spoken on issues where changes to the Bill will improve the operation of the future councils or the delivery of nature conservation in this country. Obviously I have an interest in so far as I am the chairman of the advisory committee for England on the Nature Conservancy Council and, as everyone well knows, I am chairman designate of the future body. I do not believe that on those aspects my interventions have been involved with any kind of interest. Therefore, I can repeat what I said at Committee stage: that the Nature Conservancy Council would welcome an amendment along the lines proposed by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment because it seems to me to be a sensible precaution. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree to it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Hesketh explained at Committee stage, consultation is a perfectly reasonable working assumption about the way things would normally be handled if the reserve power were invoked. As the amendment appreciates, there will be occasions when such consultation would be impracticable. I would, however, remind the House that a direction is very much a reserve power. It should only ever be needed as a last resort, but in these circumstances the Secretary of State needs to do what is right according to the circumstances. Any unreasonable use of such powers would be open to judicial review and I submit that this is quite sufficient. Clearly Parliament has accepted this in the past, since the existing clause uses standard provisions for ministerial directions. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press for an exception

967
in the case of the new conservation agencies, even with the powerful and persuasive support of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not believe that I suggested that the Minister might abuse his powers. The suggestion behind the amendment is simply that consultation should take place in order to ensure that standardisation—that is an unpleasant word to use in conservation terms. We are concerned that standards should be applied equally across the three countries. Much of our debate has been concerned with this and the amendment would have helped to ensure that there was adequate consultation where possible. I do not see that in the Bill.
The noble Baroness suggests that it is assumed that consultation will take place. I hope that it will, but it would be more satisfactory if it were spelt out in the Bill. However, I see no point in pressing the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I wish to make a statement. I understand that in Schedule 8, Amendments Nos. 229 to 232 and Amendment No. 234 should not have been agreed to. Although the circumstances are unusual, I believe that it would be a good idea if I were to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to confirm that she did not wish to move them. If that is the case and if your Lordships agree, we would then undo the damage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful for the opportunity to present to the House that in response to pressures from noble Lords I agreed to take these amendments back. It is entirely my error that I moved them. It can only be with the agreement of the House that I ask for this correction to be made.
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 232 and Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Clause 125: [General functions of the Councils]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 235B:
Page 129, line 3, at end insert:
("() the provision of advice for local authorities relating to the drafting and implementations of coastal zone plans detailing strategies for the sustainable development of estuarine and coastal habitats;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to give the country councils a new function concerning the drafting and operation of coastal plans. The amendment will provide a statutory basis for managing Great Britain's coastal areas by a system of coastal plans drawn up by every local authority wishing to do so and which incorporates coasts or estuaries.
The RSPB supports the amendment, having recently carried out a study which revealed that of the 123 estuaries surveyed 80 were found to be at risk and 30 of those were in danger of permanent damage. Some 2 million wild birds depend on Britain's shores for a winter home and essential food supplies. Over 55 of Britain's estuaries meet the criteria for designation
968
as special protection areas, but the international tag is not sufficient to ensure that their environmental value is maintained.
The RSPB, the Marine Conservation Society and the Worldwide Fund for Nature have promoted the concept of coastal zone planning which would provide a strategic approach to the use of Great Britain's coastal areas. This amendment would simply enable the country councils to provide specialist guidance in this or any other scheme which may emerge for the protection of coastal areas.
Can the Minister say in her reply whether there will be a strategic plan for Britain's coastal areas? Will the proposed rationalisation of structure plans include a duty on coastal local authorities to produce coastal zone plans? Will the JNCC have a role in producing national guidelines for the sensitive use of coastlines? I realise that the noble Baroness will have very little time in which to obtain answers to the questions. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene as chairman of the National Rivers Authority to say that I have some sympathy with the objective. However, it is only one step in a great many that will have to be taken. It is worth using this opportunity to put on record the fact that we feel that there will be a need for a further look at the whole subject.
A recent paper by, I believe, the Marine Conservation Society which I have seen sets out some of the problems we face. It identifies the multiplicity of responsibilities in this area, the need to find a more coherent way to protect not just the coast but the coastal waters and what happens in and around them. I do not know whether there are any practical difficulties about the amendment, but it is worth putting on record the need for a further look at the matter if we are to have a coherent method of protecting the coastal environment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I think the intervention from the chairman of the National Rivers Authority was helpful. I do not wish to delay him too long but I have an amendment coming up, Amendment No. 264, and I hope he will be here to listen to the debate on it.
His statement was helpful because all of us who are concerned with these matters know that our estuaries are under pressure at present. I wish to ask the Minister a question. As I understand it, the current Nature Conservancy Council carried out a review of our estuaries and the channels to them. I wonder whether that will be reported on or published before the NCC goes out of office in its national role. The figures on estuaries are quite staggering.
Obviously with the rundown in property development some of the pressure is off. At one time it seemed that marinas were going to be constructed in almost every estuary in this country. That situation has got totally out of hand. It would be helpful if the country councils and the NRA could play some part in advising local authorities when planning applications of this kind are submitted.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister considers the amendment, I should say that I believe it needs to be reworded. If my memory serves me right the Water Act used the words "coastal defence". Although I support what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, that concept would need to be introduced too.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the primary function of this Bill is to reorganise the nature conservation and countryside bodies and to build upon the good work undertaken by those bodies. It is particularly important to recognise that all the existing functions of the NCC will be taken over by the new agencies. These include the provision of advice to local authorities and others on all matters relating to nature conservation. This can of course include advice about coasts. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government are committed to a review of the existing legislation and other matters relating to the marine environment. It would be premature to introduce any particular planning blueprint in advance of that review.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell, while sympathising with the amendment, also pointed out that it is very complex. It involves a number of other governmental responsibilities which cut across departments. We are at one with the noble Baroness in our concern about this matter. We know that there are now growing pressures for a review. I cannot be specific in answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, except to say that the Government are certainly committed to a review. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment in advance of the results of that review.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, this has been a most encouraging mini debate. I am grateful to noble Lords who have made contributions and also to the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 235C:
Page 129, line 10, at end insert:
("(the carrying out of conservation work on sites of special scientific interest for the purposes of maintaining the scientific interest of the land, in cases where a management agreement under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 cannot be concluded with the owners or occupiers of the land;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 235C and 243 deal with the general functions of the councils, and damage to and neglect of SSSIs. Two similar amendments appear on the Marshalled List in my name. Amendment No. 243 concerns damage to SSSIs, while Amendment No. 235C deals with the neglect of SSSIs. I hope the House will forgive me if I deal first with Amendment No. 243, which proposes to insert a new clause into the Bill.
Amendment No. 243 will give the councils a duty to assess the effects of damage to a site of special scientific interest and will permit them to enter the land and rectify such damage. As currently drafted, the Wildlife and Countryside Act carries a presumption against damaging activities on SSSIs. Despite
970
this, more than 560 SSSIs have been damaged in the past three years. Although the 1981 Act contains provision for restoring sites which have the added protection of a nature conservation order under Section 31 of that Act, no mechanism exists for rectifying damage to the remaining thousands of SSSIs in Great Britain.
Noble Lords may be forgiven for thinking this is a rash move. However, when we were debating the Water Act last year we agreed to give the National Rivers Authority special powers under Section 115 of that Act to restore rivers that have suffered pollution damage. The NRA even has the power to reintroduce plants and fish to a river and to recover the cost from the polluter.
It is ironic to reflect on the fact that our nation's best wildlife sites are not given the same treatment. This proposed new clause would enable the councils to restore SSSIs which may suffer future damage and help repair some of the damage that has already been caused to hundreds of SSSIs.
Amendment No. 235C is slightly different, in that it enables the councils to carry out maintenance work on an SSSI in cases where sites are falling into a state of neglect and are in danger of losing their status. SSSIs are not sterile wastelands. Rather it is often the traditional agricultural management of the land which provides the essential habitat for our wild-life. For example, much of the remaining heathland in Dorset and Hampshire for example which is under serious threat, has become degraded following the retreat of traditional agriculture and an absence of controlled burning. Birch trees and introduced Scots pine have quickly invaded heathland areas, reducing their ability to support wildlife. Many of Britain's rare species of wildlife, including the silver-studded blue butterfly, the Dartford warbler, the nightjar and the poor old disappearing sand lizard depend on heathland for their survival. I cannot quote accurate statistics to the House now, but I believe that Britain had most of the heathland that was left in Europe at one time. However, it is decreasing at an alarming rate.
Although the NCC has been able to persuade many landowners to manage their land in a way which benefits nature conservation, there will always be one or two cases where a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached. This can result in the SSSI falling into a poor state and losing its statutory status. There is a recent case in Somerset which helps to illustrate the problem. Westhay Moor was notified by the NCC for its high botanical interest. It meets the criteria for designation as a wetland of international importance under the RAMSAR Convention. During four years of negotiation with the landowner, the NCC was unable to conclude a management agreement. In March this year the NCC was obliged to purchase the site. The chairman of the NCC, Sir William Wilkinson, said:
"it was the only course open to ensure that this important site could be preserved".
This amendment would enable the NCC to carry out essential management of the land. In the case of Westhay Moor, that would have involved removal of the scrub and the introduction of livestock. In order

971
not to prejudice the councils' relationship with co-operative landowners, the amendment makes it clear that any country council should only contemplate seeking such powers in cases where it has been unable to conclude a management agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have studied the amendment but I do not think that it deals with a problem that I had to cope with, which still rankles. A notification of a SSSI was made at a site near Bristol. The land was at that time in the possession of a well-known construction company whose chairman I shall refer to in a moment. A few days before the notification was due to take effect the company's staff totally destroyed the site, so there was no point whatever in notifying it. As Secretary of State at the time, I wrote an extremely angry letter to the chairman of the company but to this day I have never received a reply of any kind. The chairman of the company was Mr. Gerald Ronson, so perhaps that is not altogether surprising.
There is a loophole here, in that a landowner can be given notice of a SSSI designation and, if he moves quickly and ruthlessly enough, he can effectively destroy the whole process. That situation needs to be looked at. I am not sure that the noble Lord's amendment deals with that point. Perhaps my noble friend may be able to take advice and see whether something can be added to the Bill, even at this late stage. I am afraid that Mr. Ronson is now beyond my reach, but that was an absolutely outrageous example of commercial vandalism of the worst kind.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should not have thought that either of these amendments would deal with that situation. My name is added to the amendment which deals with the neglect of SSSIs, although I must confess that I meant to add my name to the other amendment too. I support both of the amendments. Something needs to be done to close the loopholes that exist. I hope the Minister agrees with that. She may ask where the money will come from if the councils have to put right any damage. However, I should point out that a lot of voluntary bodies operate in this area. One only has to think of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. That is the kind of body which would be willing to remove scrub and carry out other such tasks. I hope that in future more offenders will do community service instead of going to prison, and that would be a very good task for them to turn their hands to.
There is a very real problem. Those of us who know the Sussex chalklands, for example, are well aware of how they have deteriorated. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the amendments.
9 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said. He illustrated the need to act, but I am not sure that this is necessarily the right amendment to achieve the objective.
972
There is one point that I should like to pick up in connection with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. Much of the damage that has been caused in specific cases has arisen on common land where, to my knowledge, the NCC or whichever body was involved has been unable to enter into management agreements with the commoners because the commoners did not qualify as occupiers. I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend whether progress has been made towards clarifying the present rather uncertain situation and whether she can give an assurance that in future the NCC will be able to enter into management agreements on SSSIs with people with common rights.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I too support the purpose of the amendments. I gather that the NCC's records show that 2 per cent. of SSSIs which are reported to have lost their scientific value have done so because of a lack of proper management. Some form of failsafe mechanism needs to be in place to prevent Britain's prime sites falling into neglect.
The NCC already has the option to seek the Secretary of State's permission to purchase SSSIs, as we have heard. However, that appears to be an unsatisfactory way of progressing, though, as we have heard, in the case of the Somerset Levels it was necessary. Many sites are losing their conservation value because an agreement cannot be reached between the owner and the NCC. We have heard about heathlands and about chalklands in Sussex. In my part of Wiltshire the chalk downland once supported a rich species of grassland but that has been lost in some places due to under-grazing.
The amendment would permit the NCC to enter the land and carry out scrub removal to halt the decline of scientific interest and of bird life. However, it is a last resort power and would apply only to SSSIs and only where management agreements cannot be concluded. Normally, I should prefer there to be a consensus between landowners and the NCC, but perhaps in this rather unusual situation it may be necessary for the NCC to have more of a stick available.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have some sympathy with the noble Lord's intentions in introducing the amendments. However, in the Government's view, this Bill is not the appropriate means of achieving the objective sought by the amendments.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 235C, it is important to remember that all the existing functions of the NCC will be taken over by the new agencies. However, the amendment would substantially increase those functions beyond those necessary to comply with the voluntary principle enshrined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The 1981 Act provides the new agencies with the powers to enable them to protect sites of special scientific interest from damage. They may offer landowners financial incentives to maintain the special interest of the land by way of a grant or loan, or they may offer to enter into a management agreement. In appropriate circumstances it remains open to the new agencies to ask the Secretary of State to make an order under

973
Section 29 of the 1981 Act, which has the effect of extending the time available to conclude a management agreement.
They will also wish to consider the extent to which other measures that the Government intend to take on environmentally sensitive areas and the national countryside initiative can be of help in addressing the problem of damage done by deliberately neglecting land. In the extreme case it is always open to the NCC to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to use their powers of compulsory purchase.
Nor are the Government opposed to the principle enshrined in Amendment No. 243 for the restoration of land where its special interest has been adversely affected. That point was made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. Similar powers already exist in cases where damage has occurred in contravention of a nature conservation order and a conviction has been obtained. However, the amendment has a number of flaws.
Like Amendment No. 235C, Amendment No. 243 would substantially increase the NCC's powers under the 1931 Act, which already provides the NCC with all the powers necessary to protect SSSIs from damage, including the power of compulsory purchase which I have already mentioned. The term "non-natural event' is all-embracing and may well include damage arising for reasons beyond the control of the landowner, for example by unauthorised motorcycling by third parties. Those landowners who unfortunately suffer such damage to their land would be doubly disadvantaged by the threat of the NCC requiring them to restore it to its former glory on pain of a curt order to recover costs.
I was asked specifically by my noble friend Lord Peel about management agreements with commoners. It was a long time ago, and it is a rather vexatious part of our proceedings today, but I mentioned an amendment which we are to discuss later—from memory I think that it is Amendment No. 245 —in which we say that we would like to turn to the question of whether the NCC has the power to notify SSSIs to and enter into agreements with persons who are not owners or occupiers but who have rights over land, such as commoners and crofters. The NCC has indicated strong concern about damage done by over-grazing of SSSIs, for example in areas of Cumbria, by livestock owned by commoners. The NCC has expressed a desire to enter into agreements with those persons with a view to influencing the management of such land. However, they have been reluctant to do so because of the uncertainty of what is meant by the term "owner or occupier" in Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 and Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
As the House will be aware, a number of amendments were tabled which seek clarification of that question. We do not propose to take the amendments forward and it is our firm view that the construction of Section 15 of the 1968 Act and Section 28 of the 1981 Act is such as to include those owners, lessee; or occupiers with a lesser interest in the land such as commoners and crofters. It follows, therefore,
974
that not only does the NCC have an implied duty to notify all lesser right owners, it also has the power, whenever appropriate, to enter into agreements with such persons.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned a very interesting case in Bristol. I believe that the loophole that he mentioned was closed by amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or alternatively the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act, which were introduced in 1985. On reflection, I may have got that wrong. I have not been very clear about the matter but I understand that the point raised by the noble Lord has been dealt with by another piece of legislation. I shall make this matter more clear to him in writing.
I know that it is rather boring to say that we sympathise with the amendments but they are not acceptable. I hope that with the explanations that I have given the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate are met and that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response and I shall study her reply. If she has any influence on her department —I am sure that she has because her heart is in the right place—perhaps she will introduce legislation on common land in the next Session of Parliament. I believe that it has been promised in Conservative manifestos from a year or two back. I think that that would be very helpful. She will know from her previous experience in local government that compulsory purchase is a hazardous procedure and local governments do not embark on it if they can possibly avoid it because they generally become unstuck. I think the noble Baroness is saying that the remedies are there but that they are not very straightforward.
I was grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on this occasion. It is a bit of a change and I am very grateful. I am not sure that I should say what I am about to say. However, I shall tell noble Lords that at this House last Tuesday evening I entertained someone who had been resident at Ford open prison. He rejoiced in the fact that a particular gentleman who is there now has the dirtiest job in the prison. The answer is probably that it serves him bloody well right.
I was grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and also to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for playing the part of the noble Baroness, Lady David, in support. I think that I had better say no more. The remedies are there but they are a little too difficult to put into effect.
In this amendment we were trying to insist that if this is okay for the NRA, surely something ought to be done for the country councils. There is a problem with SSSIs. Far too many of them have been destroyed. It is undoubtedly the wish of every noble Lord who has spoken that we should do rather more about this problem. There was the case quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is exactly the same with tree preservation orders. One is about to put a

975
preservation order on a tree when someone finds out about it and has the tree down in double quick time so that it is too late to do anything about it. It is very sad. I wish that we could do something about this situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 235D:
Page 129, line 10, at end insert:

("(f) the conclusion of management agreements with any person having an interest in land for the purpose of conserving or enhancing any flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an amendment similar to this one. It received considerable support from all sides of the Chamber and in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport.
The intention of this amendment is to widen the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor bodies to provide for them to enter into management agreements in the wider countryside. By "wider countryside", I mean areas that are not covered by SSSI or NNR designations where such powers exist already. Therefore I am talking about 92 per cent. of the land mass in the United Kingdom.
At the moment the Nature Conservancy Council is entitled to provide grants and loans to owners and occupiers, which is a power conferred on it under Section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That has been carried through to Clause 124 of the Bill. However, that relates solely to outgoings in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred. The NCC does not have the power to provide compensatory payments to persons for income forgone which those persons would have received if they had continued to manage their land as before without the conditions relating to the nature conservation interests imposed on that land.
There are a number of instances where SSSIs are not always self-supporting of the species for which they were originally designated. Their significance could be undermined without the sensitive management of other land in the vicinity which is not always in itself worthy of designation—for example, the provision of roosting and resting sites for different species of birds and animals.
Both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere I have often expressed my desire to see nature conservation in Great Britain move more readily into the wider environment. I believe that it would be a terrible mistake if it were to be transfixed and put into the straitjacket of the designated areas. I remember that at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that, for the conservation of nature and the natural resources of the country, in the end a limited site specific strategy would not be enough. I entirely agree with him. That is absolutely right. We must start moving forward.
Certainly I welcome the ESAs and the theories of extensification, although I am disappointed at the way
976
in which extensification has been seen to be developing, at any rate over the past few months or so. I greatly welcome the proposals in the White Paper for what I believe is called a national countryside initiative which is to be administered by the Countryside Commission.
However, I do not believe that that initiative should be a substitute for the Nature Conservancy Council being granted additional powers in the wider countryside, in particular in England where it remains a separate body. I suspect that such a scheme, run by the Countryside Commission, is likely to be more orientated towards landscape than nature conservation, as we have seen—unfortunately, I think—in some of the earlier ESA designations.
As I said in Committee, there are many instances where even a small financial commitment from the NCC could persuade an owner or occupier to alter the style of management, which could have enormous advantage for nature conservation. It would allow the Nature Conservancy Council to provide payments for positive management schemes without the often cumbersome process relating to the SSSI, potentially damaging operations and so on.
In reply to my original amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord Reay said that it was up to the local authorities and national parks to decide if and where management agreements are appropriate. That power is conferred on them under Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. However, I feel that very often they are not qualified to enter into such agreement. They always have other priorities both with regard to time and finance. It seems totally right and proper that the major agency responsible for nature conservation in this country should have that power.
My noble friend's main objection to my amendment was, needless to say, cost. He stated that to give the NCC those powers over 90 per cent. of the remaining land outside the SSSIs would cost potentially hundreds of millions of pounds. But I do not believe that that need necessarily be so. The NCC will have its statutory obligations to look after SSSIs and NNRs which will always take up the largest percentage of its budget. Fiscal controls are possible in two ways. First, the Secretary of State could determine the allocation of management agreements in the wider countryside in any council's budget. Secondly, financial controls could be provided in the financial memorandum under which each council would operate and with provision for the Secretary of State to approve agreements which fall outside agreed guidelines. The wider countryside could fall outside the agreed guidelines.
I do not believe that finance is a genuine reason for turning down such an important amendment. With the pressure that is now building for the Government to be seen to be playing a wider role in the environment, they should consider the position very carefully indeed. I am aware that my noble friend Lady Blatch has given the matter some thought. I shall listen very carefully to what she says. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend has clearly explained the amendments which stand in his name. The intention is to widen the functions of the new councils in comparison with the present functions of the NCC in relationships with the public.
I agree with the principle of helping to establish good relations with everyone in the field with whom the councils have to deal. I had pleasure in serving on the Carver Committee. I agree completely now with Part VII of the Bill. I did not enter into the arguments earlier today. I waited until now to make that clear. The Government owe a debt to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. There is only one remaining point of difference between the recommendations of the committee and the Government. At the end of last year and at the beginning of this year, the noble and gallant Lord led the way with skill and expedition to finding solutions to the problems which were then quite clear.
The amendments add functions to the councils. Under the new structure the functions are considerably different from the position before Committee stage. However, major changes were made on 4th July. I should like to ask my noble friend to comment on how those functions will affect the public. The best illustration is to use the experience of part of the country which has probably felt more impact from designation of sites of special scientific interest than any other; it is northern Scotland. Earlier today the House listened with interest to situations that have arisen in Wales. I hope that now the House will be as interested to consider the effects of this part of the Bill on Scotland.
I have lived in northern Scotland for the last 32 years. I live in the constituency that I represented in another place. For most of my life I have been known to be familiar with the birds and other fauna of northern Scotland; I am regarded as a conservationist. When, during the last three decades, controversies have arisen about possible damage to habitats, local people have felt reassured and have withdrawn their objections if I was satisfied, or have become more concerned if I was worried. They reckoned that I knew as much about the threatened wildlife as anyone, whether the species was the corncrake of the Western Isles or the bar-tailed godwit of the Cromarty Firth. When I became a Member of this House 16 years ago the Lord Lyon immediately proposed that my supporters in my new arms should be birds. Appropriately they are an osprey and a curlew.
With such credentials I am, nonetheless, concerned about the way in which vast parts of northern Scotland are designated as areas of special scientific interest. More are proposed for designation. The livelihoods of people living and working there may be affected. The local authority area in which I reside is Highland region. It is equivalent to a county in England and Wales: there are no counties in Scotland. Its area is about one-third of Scotland. About 15 per cent. of that—an area, the regional council tells me, of about 380,000 hectares—is designated. I wonder whether any other part of the country is affected on that scale.
978
That should be good news. It is good news to me. The Highlands contain important flora and fauna; and also unusual formations of mountains, hills and glens which should be protected from erosion or other damage. Unfortunately, an impression has been created that land is blighted and devalued when designated as an SSSI. "Site" is hardly the correct description because in the Highlands huge areas are involved.
I hope that the Bill will help to change that attitude. The co-operation of local people can be enlisted if they have confidence in the system and if they are treated with sensitivity. Farming and crofting methods need not be severely changed to protect habitats. Unfortunately, there are at present definite fears that traditional occupations will be restricted and impaired. That is largely because not enough information is made available. Other activities which provide employment and support local communities are forestry and peat cutting. They need careful steering to areas where there is no conflict with rare species or sites of special scientific interest. However, the amount of new land needed is a small part of the total area of the Highlands. There is room for all if co-operation and common sense prevail.
I ask my noble friend Lady Blatch to comment on two matters arising from the functions that we are discussing. First, will, as I hope, the new structure and arrangements help to remove the impression that blight and bureaucracy will descend on an area when designated? Secondly, will the impression that there is no appeal against designation be removed? At present the NCC appears to outsiders to be both judge and jury because there is no forum where cases can be put for or against.
At present, the NCC operates under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, with Ministers functioning under Section 29. What rights of appeal will there be against designation for an individual, a body or a local authority if they have relevant and valid objections or views?
A picture of the Highlands would not be complete without mention of recreation. For the past 30 years the growth of recreation has been a major factor as regards employment and prosperity for many areas of the Highlands, for the whole of the year, because winter sports have developed greatly in those years. Here I must declare a personal connection because as an MP 30 years ago I obtained the first grant for winter sports; namely, a grant towards the first chairlift in the Cairngorms. A little later I am told that I made history as a Junior Minister by persuading the Treasury to authorise a grant for a road which led nowhere. Previously roads always had to lead to some form of habitation. That was the road going up into the Cairngorms and the grant was government assistance to the tourist industry.
In the past few years, conflicts have emerged over the extension of ski slopes on the Cairngorms and in particular, Lurchers' Gully. This summer for the second time a scheme to extend ski slopes into Lurcher's Gully was turned down by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Conservation considerations

979
clearly outweighed local aspirations for jobs and outdoor recreation. That decision should be noted by those who believe that decisions taken within Scotland are likely to be biased in favour of employment and development.
At the same time, it should be recognised that in certain areas of the Highlands one of the most endangered species is the resident human being. I hope that the new arrangements in Part VII will improve the situation in northern Scotland and I shall be grateful to hear the Minister's comments.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, before my noble friend on the Front Bench answers that very interesting intervention by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I should like to refer to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel, because there is a great deal to be said in amplification of his very able introduction to the amendment.
First, I should stress that this amendment is within the voluntary principles which have always been operated by this Government. As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Peel decoupled the amendments which are grouped together. He spoke solely to Amendment No. 235D, so I shall start by doing that because there are slightly different points at issue and he may wish to return to Amendment No. 235E in a few moments.
Amendment No. 235D adds a function to the councils by giving an additional power to enter into positive management agreements with anyone who has an interest in land. As my noble friend Lord Peel emphasised, that land is both within and without the designated sites.
My noble friend recognised that the NCC already has the power to give grants. However, there are important differences between grants and management agreements at present, as has been recognised. Management agreements contain a positive element that grants do not. Grants can refund expenditure. Management agreements can include an incentive element which has a strong persuasive value.
The virtue of that additional function would be not only to extend the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council outside the designated areas, which is something that I do not see in the new countryside initiative in the paper that has been passed to me. It would allow the Nature Conservancy Council to apply its skills, science and financial backing to the lesser sites, to the sites that are of prime importance and of nature conservation interest in the biological field and to what in geological terms are now called regionally important geological sites or RIGSs. These are the matrix of the high quality natural environment which makes up the background and supports the designated sites.
The importance of entering into positive agreements was illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, when discussing the previous amendment in relation to the work that is necessary to conserve the Dorset heaths. He also referred to the measures that are necessary to conserve heather heathlands, such as the
980
reduction of flocks. If the flock owner can be persuaded to reduce the number of sheep that he runs per hectare on heather moor, heather moor can be reconstituted. A management agreement, for instance, could also take account of factors such as providing compensation for damage that is done by grazing flocks of geese on crops or grass. Those are all areas where at present the Nature Conservancy Council is not able to enter into management agreements.
In providing that new function, the Bill would not, as my noble friend Lord Peel emphasised, open up the floodgates of expenditure because they would remain controlled by the budgetary systems which already exist and which give the final answer. The full measure of control lies within the power of the Secretary of State. This amendment conveying that additional function to the Nature Conservancy Council and its successors would be very welcome.
9.30 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, noble Lords have covered the amendment fully. It is similar to the amendments that I shall move a little later. It is more wide-ranging and more general, but I should like to give it my support.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, reminds me that I was hoping that the amendments would be linked for the purposes of the debate.
Noble Lords will be aware that the amendments seek to achieve similar objectives to those in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord in Committee and withdrawn. We have come to the view that the Bill is not the appropriate means of achieving the objectives sought by the amendment because the primary function is to reorganise the nature conservation and countryside bodies and to build upon the good work undertaken by those bodies. It is not intended for such a major broadening of the powers of the NCC under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is particularly important to recognise that all the existing functions of the NCC will be taken over by the new agencies.
The NCC is already empowered to enter into management agreements necessary to defend SSSIs. In a later amendment, the Government propose that that power should be extended to cover agreements on land that adjoins SSSIs in order to enhance the agency's ability to conserve the nature conservation interest of those sites. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for originally suggesting that proposal in Committee.
It is also important to recognise that there are already a number of ways in which land not in SSSIs can be protected or enhanced. For example, the Countryside Commission, using its powers under Section 4 of the Countryside Act 1968, as amended by Section 40 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, has developed a countryside premium scheme which currently operates on an experimental basis in seven counties of Eastern England. Under that scheme the commission pays farmers to manage land which has

981
been taken out of agricultural production under the set-aside scheme in ways that produce environmental and recreational benefits.
The creation of attractive meadowland that may provide a wildlife habitat or a place for quiet enjoyment by the local community, or the provision of wooded margins by the sensitive management of existing hedgerows and the planting of new hedges and broad-leaved trees are examples of the type of action that may be taken under the scheme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently announced the development of a new scheme by the Countryside Commission—a national countryside initiative which will begin next year using the same powers as those under which it runs the countryside premium scheme.
I announced the scheme to your Lordships last week in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Newall. Under the scheme the commission plans to offer incentive payments to managers and owners of land falling within target landscapes to take action which will protect and enhance valued landscapes. Agricultural departments also run schemes which are designed to protect the environment. Probably one of the best known is the designation of environmentally sensitive areas, of which there are now 19 in the United Kingdom. Within these, farmers may receive annual payments in return for following a prescribed set of farming practices which will help to conserve the environment.
I accept that there is still concern that the NCC should be allowed to do more itself in the wider countryside. I want to make two further points about the NCC's powers. First, the Government would not wish to extend the principle of compensation for net profit forgone beyond SSSIs or land immediately adjacent to them. Quite apart from the cost implications, this would run counter to the forward thrust of conservation policy, which is to encourage positive nature conservation work. In any event, I do not believe that this House would expect the Government to agree to such a wide-ranging proposal at this stage of the Bill.
Secondly, I want to make a statement today to help resolve uncertainties about the scope of the NCC's existing powers to support positive conservation work in the wider countryside outside SSSIs. The NCC's powers are in Section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is to be re-enacted as Clause 127 of this Bill. I am advised that it is already perfectly permissible for the NCC to devise a grant scheme which would involve making periodic payments to farmers and landowners for long-term project work outside SSSIs. Such projects might, for example, include the maintenance of ponds and hedges, coppicing, or the provision of interpretive research facilities for visitors.
The council also has power under Clause 127(3) to attach conditions to grants. There is no reason why the council and the grant recipient should not agree conditions which would include the husbandry methods to be employed on the land. What we are really looking at is the possibility of what one might
982
call long-term habitat conservation grants with strings attached. I appreciate that the NCC has not used its existing powers in this way but Ministers would be prepared to consider approving such proposals under Clause 127(1) if the new councils are able to present a sound case for a scheme along those lines.
I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will take what I have said in the helpful spirit in which it is intended. I hope I have resolved fears that have been expressed that, for example, longer-term grants for, say, five or seven years are not permissible under the legislation as it stands. That is not the case. I accept that what I have said may have implications for the budget of the new agencies. I cannot give any blank assurances about additional resources, but we are willing to look at any bids made as well as to encourage the agencies to realign their existing budgets to reflect any changes in their priorities.
I turn now to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and I join with him in paying tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I have to say that I have been very remiss in concentrating rather too hard all day, and although I have made much mention of the noble and gallant Lord the one thing I have not done is pay a wholehearted tribute to his work and that of his committee. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his work in that direction.
In regard to the specific point relating to the interesting aspect of the tensions between the public and the work of the NCC, the Government are well aware of the disquiet felt in many quarters over the operation of the SSSI designation programme. I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It illustrates the importance of having nature conservation bodies that are sensitively in tune with the major objectives of this legislation. It also gives me an opportunity to dispel some possible misunderstandings.
Your Lordships will recall that Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 imposes an unequivocal duty on the NCC to notify in the case of any land which it considers to be of special scientific interest. Any owner or occupier so notified may make representations to the council. It is the council and not the officials who decide whether a site should be confirmed. The balancing factor is that such notification does not involve any ultimate loss of rights over property and land. Preserving the nature conservation interests of the site is undertaken as far as possible by voluntary agreement and the owner and occupier is able to receive compensation for any loss incurred as a result.
In matters subject to development control the planning authority is required to take major conservation interests into full account together with all other relevant matters. Therefore, it does not follow that development is excluded from the site. The Government consider that, taken as a whole, the system provides a fair and balanced approach.
It is important to re-emphasise a number of points made during the course of the debate. My noble friend

983
Lord Peel drew attention to a reference by my noble friend Lord Reay to the possibility of costs reaching hundreds of millions of pounds. That was said in this context. The amendment asks for an open-ended commitment that potentially could cost hundreds of millions of pounds. There is no time limit over the period during which the payments would be made. Profits forgone are included and almost the whole of the country would be affected. It gives the NCC a roving commission over the whole of the country.
While it may seem an exaggeration to say hundreds of millions of pounds, one has to imagine that the cost may be substantial. I also take the point that the limit on resources will be dictated by the limit of funds available to the NCC. That point is taken. If these amendments were accepted expectations about these payments would be considerable. I do not want to sound negative. I believe that we have gone a long way.
If one takes the work of the NCC and the national countryside initiative scheme which has recently been announced, the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its schemes, and the environmentally sensitive areas which are designated by MAFF, I believe that the Government have gone a very long way to achieve much of the objectives sought by these amendments; namely, that where possible resources should be targeted to achieve a better environment for the people of this country.
We differ from the noble Earl on one small but fundamental point. The amendment allows moneys to be used. It is a licence to allow that to be done and for people to do nothing. There is considerable licence for NCC moneys to be used where people outside the SSSIs are positively active in taking conservation measures. We draw the line at paying money over unlimited time to people to do nothing. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I am not absolutely certain whether my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is in favour of the amendment or not. However, I very much enjoyed listening to his opinions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am in favour of the principle but, as I said, I was not sure that the Government would not find the objections which my noble friend Lady Blatch did in fact produce. In principle I hoped that my noble friend realised that I thought that if it were possible to encourage good relations with the public in the field one should go on exploring ways of doing it.
Earl Peel: I am grateful to my noble friend. If it means strengthening the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council to avoid more designations of national parks, I shall be only too delighted. My noble friend also mentioned Lurchers' Gully. Wearing my nature conservancy cap, I was delighted at the outcome of that particular decision by the Minister. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook supported me as I expected him to do. He was absolutely right when he
984
said that the two amendments are different. I shall be explaining Amendment No. 235E in a moment. He went on to mention the lesser sites which I believe are very important. We simply cannot ignore them if nature conservation is to be continued effectively in the countryside as a whole.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for the tremendous effort she has made to try to reach a solution on this problem and for her very comprehensive reply. My noble friend gave me a number of encouraging signs. I am not in a position to comment on all of them but I shall read most carefully in Hansard what she has said. I take the point about the countryside premium scheme, which the Countryside Commission has initiated, the ESAs and so on. However, I made this point when I moved the amendment and I make it again now: it worries me that very often the schemes initiated by the Countryside Commission tend to be landscape orientated. That is often done at the expense of nature conservation. That is why I was particularly keen to try to give the Nature Conservancy Council the power to enter into such agreements. That is not to say that I do not welcome the various moves by the Countryside Commission and the ESAs under the auspices of MAFF. They are all admirable in so far as they go. To date my fear is that they have not gone far enough on nature conservation.
We could go on debating the question of cost for ever but I stick to what I said in moving the amendment. The cost as regards this matter could be controlled. But my noble friend and I will obviously not agree on that point and so I shall not pursue it. I take heart from the fact that the Government will encourage the NCC to give grants. They are not grants in the sense of management agreement for profits forgone but if they were for a sustained period—I should like to ask my noble friend to give some qualification as to the period she feels the grants could be given for—that would go a long way towards solving the problem.
Finally, is my noble friend in a position to give me an assurance that the NCC will be thoroughly involved in the countryside initiative scheme, to which I made reference in moving the amendment and which I believe the Countryside Commission is to initiate under the auspices of the White Paper? The two must go together if it is to be effective.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am advised that the NCC would have involvement in the working up of the schemes under national countryside initiatives. I am not sure that I understood the noble Earl's first question. If I misinterpreted it no doubt he will come back to me. He wanted me to give some estimate of the time over which the grants could be made. I am assuming that he was still including in that an element of profits forgone. I think I made it clear in my response that the notion of profits forgone outside of the SSSI areas—the immediate environs are the subject of another amendment tonight—is not concluded. But in terms of the time in which grants could be applied to longer-term schemes, I think I

985
made mention of five to seven years. I hope that my noble friend will come back to the department and discuss that in more detail with officials.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for answering my question. I was not referring to profits forgone. I was asking about the period of time over which my noble friend felt that grants could be given. She has answered that question comprehensively. I am grateful to my noble friend. I am not as happy as I should like to be but I realise the Government's predicament. As a result, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 235E:
Page 129, line 23, at end insert:

("(c) to make an agreement (in this section referred to as a "management agreement") with any person having an interest in the land with respect to the management of the land during a specified term or without limitation of the duration of the agreement;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the specified areas of SSSIs. At the moment, owners and occupiers are compensated for not carrying out certain activities unless they threaten to do something contrary to the potentially damaging operations list. This amendment would simply allow the Nature Conservancy Council to enter into positive agreements on SSSIs so as to enable the owners actively to carry out nature conservation and be compensated for so doing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, as we are now moving into designated areas, I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for the statement she made which assured the Nature Conservancy Council that powers exist to enter into agreements with the lesser right holders, including commoners. She also promised that at some stage she would be making a statement about the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council to denotify SSSIs. I look forward to hearing that statement in due course. It is important for us to have note of such statements on the record.
As regards this particular amendment, I must stress once again the importance to the Nature Conservancy Council of having the capacity to enter into positive management agreements within the designated sites and not appearing always to react only to potentially damaging operations. That injures the overall prospect of enlarging upon the goodwill between the NCC and the populace at large, and the landowning and land occupying community to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred. It is a very important feature, which the new councils will wish to stress in the future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, much of what I said in response to Amendment No. 235D covered this general subject of applying grants. Again, I am slightly uneasy about this particular amendment because my understanding is that there are already considerable powers available to the NCC to enter into management agreements which require positive as opposed to negative action. What I am not absolutely
986
certain about, in addition to what I covered in my response to the previous amendment, is what makes this amendment distinctive.
Earl Peel: My Lords, as I understand it, as regards SSSIs, the NCC can only respond to activities which would actually damage the PDO list. However, this is a matter into which I should like to look more carefully. In my view it is most important that we should try to encourage the NCC to enter into positive management agreements on SSSIs. I believe that my noble friend is insinuating that she thinks that the council already has the right to do so. However, as I said, I should like to look again at the matter; but I reserve the right to return to it at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. I am most grateful to my noble friend for her response and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 235F not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 129, line 35, leave out from ("functions") to end of line 36 and insert ("conferred by section 126(2) and (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 240 and 241. Amendment No. 236 is a minor amendment to remove some possible ambiguity about the meaning of the word "them" in Clause 126(3) (b) as presently drafted. The other two amendments are minor amendments designed to remove superfluous wording in Clause 126(2). I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord slid over that one very neatly. However, what he did not say was that the ambiguity in the drafting arose from the Government's own amendments which were put forward in Committee. In other words, the Government are now at almost the very last moment discovering errors in the drafting of their own amendments. In my view that is pretty poor. In fact, I wonder whether the Government have got it right even now.
In Committee, Amendment No. 363B stated that the country councils had the power to give advice to the joint committee on any aspect of their functions. As the noble Lord rightly said, that is ambiguous; indeed, it is not clear whether it is the functions of the joint committee or those of the country councils. He is now saying that the country councils can give advice on the terms of Clause 126(2) (b) and (c). What that means, as the Minister will see if he turns to the Bill, is that the country councils have the power to give advice to the joint committee on the advice it gives to country councils. It is only because the Government are determined to have that peculiar half-breed relationship between the joint committee and the country councils, and will not admit that the joint committee should be a proper body in its own right, that they have got themselves into this drafting tangle.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 236A:

987
Page 129, line 36, at end insert:
("(4) In exercising their functions under this section, the councils shall, where conducive to the interests of nature conservation or public enjoyment and access to the countryside, consult and co-operate with any relevant local authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 242B. Amendment No. 236A relates to country councils and Amendment No. 242B to the joint committee. The amendments are designed to ensure that there is adequate consultation with local authorities which have significant nature conservation and countryside responsibilities.
In the absence of any reference on the statute book, one assumes that the JNCC and the country councils would not feel themselves debarred from consultations with local authorities, but it should be on the statute that they have the ability to do so where they consider that there is a benefit to be gained from joint working. I apologise for the fact that the word "conducive" is misspelt as "conductive" in the first amendment.
The amendments also draw attention to the issue of recreation and public access to, and enjoyment of, the countryside, which, as has been argued comprehensively today, cannot be considered in isolation from nature conservation. Local authorities as landowners, with their responsibilities for recreation and leisure, have an interest in that aspect of the countryside. They may be managing their own land or other land with those objects in mind. It would be reasonable to ensure that the country councils and the JNCC, where appropriate and where they believe it to be appropriate, consult the relevant local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 236A and 242B would place on the new councils and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee a duty to consult relevant local authorities where that would be conducive to their functions under Clauses 125 and 126. Such a requirement is unnecessary. Under Clause 123(d) councils already have the power to provide advice about nature conservation. So where a local authority was undertaking an activity that affects nature conservation, the councils could advise it.
Through their existing practices the NCC and the countryside Commission recognised that the conservation of our precious natural heritage can be achieved effectively only with the aid of those who have responsibilities for land management and other activities related to conservation. They therefore maintain close links with local authorities, not merely in areas where they are statutorily required to do so, such as SSSI designation, but on a range of matters relating to local authority functions, including land use planning.
The Government have every confidence that the new councils and the JNCC will wish to build upon the links that have been forged with local authorities and, in those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has every confidence. I suppose that at this time of night I cannot pursue the matter. I still believe that it would have been better to have ensured that that power and obligation was placed upon the country councils and the JNCC, but I clearly have not succeeded with that argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 126 [Special functions of Councils]:
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 130, line 5, after ("monitoring") insert ("or operation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 238 and 242ZA, and Amendment No. 260A in the names of my noble friends Lady Nicol and Lady David. The amendments are concerned with the operation of sites of special scientific interest. The concern arises from the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who expressed anxiety about the operation of SSSIs, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, neither of whom is in his place.
Clause 126 states that the joint committee shall be responsible for ensuring that there are common standards in monitoring. However, it is not specific on common standards and criteria for notification. The issue of notification of SSSIs is absolutely critical. Noble Lords with what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, calls "Scottish bases" have expressed concern about the number and extent of SSSIs in Scotland. When I hear that, it makes me fear for the future of SSSIs under the wrong kind of Scottish conservation council. I do not refer, of course, to any of the members whose appointment has been announced recently.
As the noble and gallant Lord said, it is important that we should have common standards throughout the country in order to make sure that land-owning, shooting and forestry interests, for example, in certain parts of the country could not require lower standards for notification of SSSIs than in other parts of the country. That is a fundamental concern. There is no logical distinction between having common standards for monitoring and having common standards for notification. That is what Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 provide.
Amendment No. 242ZA has a similar but slightly wider theme because it is concerned with the possibilities of dispute over the boundaries of activities by the country councils and the joint committee. The amendment proposes that in the interpretation of the clauses which set out the general and the special functions, the joint committee should have the final say, subject to any direction issued by the Secretary of State either to the councils or to the joint committee. Again, this is an outstanding matter from the Carver Report. The noble and gallant Lord referred to it when he spoke on the subject in July. It

989
is related to the earlier amendments because of the division of labour which is now becoming clearer between the designation, monitoring and setting of standards for SSSIs. That is why we deal with the two together.
We fear that even if guidance is issued as to the designation by the JNCC, in practice there could be differences in the operation and disputes between the country councils and the JNCC. It is in the interests of having the highest possible common standards that, subject to the overriding authority of the Secretary of State, the JNCC should have that responsibility. I beg to move.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is quite right in saying that Amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 242ZA derive from the recommendations of the Select Committee's report. I regret to say that I have to dispute the comments of the noble Baroness—they were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—when she said that there was only one recommendation of the report that the Government had not accepted. There are two others.
I strongly support Amendments Nos. 237 and 238. Having studied those amendments and the Bill very carefully, I have to say that I do not think the amendments go far enough. The Select Committee report stated at paragraph 3.22(12) that the joint committee should be responsible for the,
"establishment of common standards for designation of SSSIs, research, monitoring, and data collection and analysis",
and for,
"monitoring the implementation of those standards and the operation of criteria for SSSI designation".
In Committee, I tried time and time again to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, to agree that the joint committee should have a responsibility not just to establish standards but also to monitor whether they were being properly implemented. We felt that there was a possibility that one of the country councils might be thought not to be implementing those standards properly, particularly if the standards of the different councils began to diverge. Although I am not sure that the amendments go far enough, I strongly support them.
As regards the other amendment which has been referred to which concerns disputes between the joint committee and the councils, I should say that Recommendation No. 4.16 of the report stated that in the last resort if there were a failure to agree a decision should rest with the joint committee. In their response to that recommendation, the Government provided a long legal argument. At the end of it they stated:
"Any disagreements about the division of functions should be very rare in practice, and subject in the final analysis to the arbitrament of the Secretary of State. For the avoidance of doubt we shall introduce amendments to establish that the Joint Committee can give advice to country councils and to require the country councils to have regard to it".
That was what occurred in Committee. I am no lawyer myself but it was explained to me that the words "have regard to" meant that the councils would have to act on the advice of the joint committee. I
990
must admit that the combination of that provision and, what is far more significant, the agreement that all members of the joint committee should have a vote weakened the need to introduce Amendment No. 242ZA.
Baroness David: My Lords, I believe it would be more satisfactory if I spoke to Amendment No. 260A, which is grouped with this amendment. The Bill currently requires that where a national nature reserve or SSSI lies partly in one country and partly in another it shall be considered to be two separate sites. The council in whose area each part lies is responsible for exercising all relevant functions. The amendment requires each council to consult the other before exercising any of its functions and enables the councils to exercise their functions jointly.
While the number of sites affected at present is not very great, they include some very important sites. The only cross-border national nature reserve at present is Lady Park Wood, which is part of the Upper Wye gorge SSSI. However, negotiations are in progress with respect to two other reserves. There are at present some 16 cross-border SSSIs and these include such large sites as the Severn estuary, the Black Mountains, the Dee estuary, the Upper Solway and the Cheviots. No provision is made in the Bill for the resolution of disagreements between councils on the management of these sites. This is important because the management of one part of a site could affect the other. For example, an important wetland site might fall entirely in one country but the water course feeding it might be mainly in another. Council A might be reluctant to refuse consent for a proposed operation on an SSSI in its area if damage would be restricted to the part of the site found under the territory of council B, and where refusal might lead to council A having to pay the costs of a management agreement.
The management of cross-border nature reserves is also likely to cause problems. Which council is to employ the warden, or are there to be two wardens? Can a warden carry out management on the reserve within another council's area? Who will bear the overall costs of management, and how are the receipts to be divided? If the nature reserve is in private ownership are all discussions with the owner to be on a tripartite basis? And so on.
The amendment would help to solve those problems by, first, providing for the Secretary of State to determine any matters of outstanding disagreement between the councils and, secondly, permitting, by agreement between the councils, one council to exercise statutory functions, particularly management, on behalf of both councils.
There is a problem. I believe that the amendment would resolve that problem and I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are back to a central point of difference between the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and noble Lords opposite

991
concerning the nature of the JNCC. We see it as fundamentally an advisory body but the amendments propose to give it executive functions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister may inadvertently have said what she did not mean. There is no dispute between the noble and gallant Lord and us. The dispute is between the noble and gallant Lord, us and the Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is what I meant but it may not be what I said. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and noble Lords opposite and the noble and gallant Lord about the nature of the JNCC. We see it as an advisory body and the amendments seek to turn it into an executive body.
An important purpose of the JNCC is to agree common standards, to which all the councils will adhere, for monitoring our wildlife to ensure that a satisfactory conservation status is maintained and to provide strategic advice to government, the councils and others. The powers as presently drafted permit the JNCC to agree common standards for monitoring SSSIs so that data may be more readily analysed on a GB basis for strategic evaluation. It must be remembered, however, that Clause 126 lists the special functions which the councils must exercise jointly through the JNCC. The operational duties are imposed on the individual councils under Clause 125.
As regards Amendment No. 238, as my noble friend Lord Hesketh said at Committee stage:
"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 definition of a common issue."— [Official Report, 4/7/90; col. 2204.]
He also said, at col. 2209, that:
"the revised Clause 123 [now Clause 126] will also give full scope to the JNCC to oversee the monitoring of standards of implementation of SSSI designation".
I should add that the JNCC itself fully accepts that. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
I turn now to Amendment No. 242ZA. The amendment is based on two incorrect premises. The first is that the country councils and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will regularly find it impossible to agree. The Government do not consider that to be a reasonable or realistic starting point from which to assess the relationship of those bodies. The councils and the JNCC will have similar duties and responsibilities, including the furtherance of nature conservation. They will be staffed by people fully committed to that aim. Indeed, the JNCC will be staffed by officers of the country councils. In the Government's view, therefore, irreconcilable differences between the country councils and the JNCC are unlikely to arise. On the rare occasions that they do, the House will agree that it must be for the Secretary of State to decide and not the JNCC.
That leads me to a second false premise, which is that the JNCC is to be regarded as having authority over the country councils. The Government have
992
repeatedly made it clear that that is not our policy and that the aims of reorganisation would be subverted if the JNCC were to be placed in such a superior position.
Finally, I hope that the noble Lord will recall that at Committee stage the Government clarified the role of the JNCC with a number of amendments and an entirely new schedule. The scope for difference of opinion is therefore much less than might have been claimed before the amendments were accepted. Again, I hope that the noble Lord will not press that amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 260A. This is an interesting proposal which very much echoes the spirit of this paragraph of the schedule. While I cannot see any objection in principle to the councils agreeing that one of them should manage a site on behalf of both of them, I imagine that in practice the councils would be unwise to abrogate their responsibilities altogether.
What we want to see is the right for councils to delegate the management of cross-border sites; for example, by jointly appointing a warden employed by one or other of the councils to look after the whole site. But that should be done in the framework of both councils retaining their responsibilities for the cross-border sites. That is what Schedule 11, paragraph 11(3) already allows for. I see no need to go any further.
The Government also find it difficult to conceive of any circumstances arising in which arbitration by the Secretary of State would be required. As is the case with a number of other amendments to the Bill which have been considered at this stage and previous stages, there is an underlying assumption that the new councils will be ill-disposed towards each other. The Government cannot accept that as a starting point for bodies which each have statutory duties to conserve wildlife. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must say that I have seldom heard a short answer which contained so many misconceptions about not only the purpose but the nature and wording of the amendments which are before the House. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for pointing out the modest nature of my Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 and for saying that in his view they could well have gone further.
In response, the Government seem to think that somehow there is something extraordinarily different between what the Bill at the moment provides, which is the establishment of common standards for the monitoring of nature conservation, and what we propose here; namely, common standards for setting up SSSIs. How can one have common standards for monitoring nature conservation if there are to be different standards for setting up SSSIs? It is inconceivable that that could be the case. The issue of whether or not these are executive functions does not arise.

993
There are already special functions for the joint committee in relation to SSSIs. We are simply making it more logical and rational and making sure that the common standards which are called for in the Bill are achieved. It ever I were tempted to divide the House on amendment, it would be on my Amendment No. 237.
When the noble Baroness turned to my Amendment No. 242ZA, she again totally misrepresented the way in which that amendment would work. She said that it is based on the premise that there will regularly be disputes between the country councils about sites which overlap the boundaries. Not for one moment have we said that such disputes will arise regularly. We say that there is no effective procedure for resolving the disputes.
The Government say that in the end the disputes will be resolved by the Secretary of State. We are much more practical. We say that the disputes need not escalate to the heights of Marsham Street. They could be dealt with much more simply by giving the joint committee the responsibility, under the ultimate control of the Secretary of State, for resolving disputes and having the final say. To that extent the claim that disputes will arise regularly is not part of our case and never has been part of it.
Again, the Minister went on to say that this amendment gives the joint committee authority over the country councils. It does no such thing. That is not the purpose of the amendment. It ensures that in the event of a dispute the joint committee has the final say, subject to the terms of a direction issued by the Secretary of State. That gives the ultimate authority to the Secretary of State and not to the joint committee.
We propose a practical means of dealing with the occasional disputes which may and probably will arise without bringing in the ultimate sanction of a decision by the Secretary of State, who inevitably is more remote from the issues concerned than are the members and staff of the joint committee.
I am totally taken aback by the Government's answers. I do not believe that they adequately represent the nature of the amendments before us. I do not believe that proper attention has been paid in drafting the answer to the amendments. It is only the lateness of the hour which makes me beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 238A:
Page 130, line 7, at end insert:
("() the establishment of nature conservation criteria, which shall include reference to gains and losses of wildlife habitats, to be applied for the environmental audit of Government Departments in Great Britain and the provision of advice for the Secretary of State on the assessment and analysis of such audits;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment gives the countryside council the function of setting nature conservation criteria to be applied when carrying out environmental audits of government departments as proposed in the Government's recent White Paper on the environment. One of the joint
994
committee's most important functions is to ensure that common criteria are established for conserving and monitoring wildlife and the environment upon which it depends for survival.
We had a detailed debate in Committee on whether or not the joint committee should be given any functions for the purpose of assessing and reporting on the state of the environment. At that time a consensus was developing that the joint committee should be given responsibility for advising the Government on the conservation status of the species of wildlife and other matters relating to nature conservation.
In response to one of my amendments the Government gave an undertaking that the joint committee would assume the statutory responsibility for advising the Government on whether certain species of plant or animal should be given additional or less protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is a function which rightly rests with the joint committee and reflects the central role it will need to play if reorganisation is to bring benefits to conservation in Great Britain.
The Government's White Paper on the environment proposes that in future all departments will need to report on matters relating to the environment. Those reports, which have been loosely termed environmental audits, are to be welcomed since they will provide a regular environmental stock-take of government proposals and projects.
The amendment standing in my name would ensure that common criteria are applied to nature conservation matters in the preparation of those reports or audits. Since the Government's adviser on conservation matters is the Nature Conservancy Council, it makes sense that the new council should be given responsibility for establishing the appropriate criteria. That is what my amendment seeks to do. It will ensure that that function is carried out by the joint committee.
The amendment includes special references to gains and losses in wildlife habitats. For example, an environmental report by the Department of Transport would need to include a report on the number of SSSIs likely to be affected by a road expansion scheme or the amount of heathland or wetland lost to motorway developments.
Noble Lords may be forgiven for thinking that it is a novel amendment. However, it provides a simple and effective way of assisting government departments in the preparation of their reports. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 238A would give the JNCC a further duty to establish nature conservation criteria for use in an environmental audit of Great Britain. We are back to the point that has been repeated throughout the course of the day. It is conferring upon the JNCC executive functions. That is not consistent with the plans that the Government have that it should be exclusively an advisory body.
As my noble friend Lord Hesketh said in Committee, the JNCC has a clear remit to establish

995
guidelines for the designation of sites of special scientific interest and for sites of national (that is in Great Britain) and international importance. As I said in response to Amendments Nos. 237 and 238, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it is inherent in the duty to establish guidelines that there is also a duty to monitor the operation of such guidelines. But to confer on the JNCC a duty to establish nature conservation criteria to be applied to an environmental audit goes rather further than merely establishing guidelines and monitoring the operation of them.
I do not need to repeat the arguments that have been heard throughout the passage of the Bill about the dangers of conferring executive functions on the JNCC that will in effect make it a fourth quango. It is a difficult path to tread between monitoring and second guessing. In the Government's view the amendment would tip the scales too far in the latter undesirable direction. It would give the JNCC the power to interfere in activities that would more properly be carried out by the country councils.
Again we must agree to differ on the fundamental point about the nature of the body of the JNCC. I hope that the noble Lord will respect the consistency of my case and will not press the amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Before withdrawing my amendment, I ask her to explain how each department in England, Scotland and Wales can produce its environmental report to include nature conservation issues and to the same standard without the availability of common criteria from which to work.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be a function of the JNCC to advise on standards across the country. In practice the implementation of those standards would be a matter for the country councils and the agencies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene, but surely the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is about establishing criteria and giving advice. They are not executive functions.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I cannot understand the argument. Through the joint committee the Bill gives the councils the responsibility for the establishment of common standards throughout Great Britain as regards the monitoring of nature conservation. Why is it that the same councils, through the joint committee, should not have a responsibility for the establishment of nature conservation criteria and so forth in accordance with the noble Lord's amendment? I cannot understand it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have said on a number of occasions that we envisage the JNCC being involved in producing the standards. It is the implementation of those standards which is a matter for the individual agencies.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, in view of the late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 239 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 240 and 241:
Page 130, line 12, leave out ("and (3)").
Page 130, line 13, leave out ("they apply") and insert ("it applies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 236. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 241A to 242B and 243 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Schedule 9 [Amendment of Enactments conferring Nature Conservancy Functions]:
Baroness Match Baroness Match moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 189, line 8, transpose paragraphs 4 and 5 to after paragraph 20 of Schedule 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 189, line 29, after ("interest)") insert ("—

(a) in subsection (2) the words "in the national interest" shall be omitted and, after the words "any such land" there shall be inserted the words "(or of any adjacent land)"; and

(b).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 245, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 283. These amendments, which have been heavily foreshadowed, stem from assurances given to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in Committee.
These two amendments will broaden the existing powers of the NCC to enter into management agreements on SSSIs so as to include owners, lessees and occupiers of land adjacent to SSSIs. The effect will be to strengthen the ability of the NCC and its successor bodies to protect SSSIs from the effects of damaging activities on land adjacent to them, and will enable the NCC to influence the management of that land. This power is an important increment to the NCC's ability to safeguard the SSSI network and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue. We have a so accepted a further suggestion made by my noble friend to remove the existing requirement for the NCC to consider whether such agreements would be expedient in the national interest. Such a requirement is no longer appropriate in view of the new arrangements for territorial NCCs.
I should like to take this opportunity to return to the question of denotification of SSSIs raised in Committee by my noble friend. He is certainly expecting me to say something about that this evening. As the House will recall, the amendment tabled sought clarification of the power of the NCC and its successors to denotify SSSIs where, in the opinion of the council, the special interest of a site no longer exists. We are advised that the amendments made by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (Amendment) Act 1985 to. Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are consistent with the practice of denotification and, given the duty in Section 28(1) of the 1981 Act, this can only be done when the council is no longer of the opinion that the land remains of special interest. It is our view that the means of denotification already exist and should be carried out by the NCC informing the Secretary of State, the local planning authority and the owners and occupiers of the council's decision. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I like what the noble Lord said about adjacent land, as I am sure did the. noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. However, being of a congenitally suspicious turn of mind, I like much less the removal of the term "national interest". It is
998
not as though that has been replaced by any term reflecting English, Scottish or Welsh interest. It has been removed altogether. Can there be any justification for that?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that was the suggestion originally made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, much as I respect the noble Earl, that does not justify it. The Government should have a reason for doing that.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the reason for doing that is because those words are redundant since Section 15 already applies to all SSSIs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 190, line 5, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 246, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 248, 249, 250, 251 and 253. These are six drafting amendments to tidy up Schedule 9 to the Bill.
Five of them involve changing the word "inserted" to "substituted". That change is necessary because the provisions introduced by these amendments need to replace provisions already in Acts which are being amended rather than merely added to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 190, line 17, transpose paragraph 9 to after paragraph 20 of Schedule 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 248 to 251:
Page 190, line 34, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
Page 191, line 19, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
Page 191, line 43, after ("Council"") insert ("to the end").
Page 191, line 48, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 252 and 253:
Page 192, line 45, transpose paragraph 15 to after paragraph 20 of Schedule 6.
Page 193, line 11, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 127 (Grants and loans by the Councils):
The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Somerset moved Amendment No. 253A:
Page 130, line 37, after ("loan") insert ("or periodic payments").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 253B, 253C, 253E, 253F and 271B, which are concerned with similar points.
The debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on Amendment No. 235D covered much of the territory that I wanted to explore in these amendments. I am particularly grateful for the encouragement that the Minister has given to the

999
councils to make grants outside SSSIs for a period up to seven years. There is, however, one point that I should like to address a little further. I understand that it is at present the NCC's practice to make grants available for up to about 50 per cent. of the expenditure incurred. Will the Minister confirm that if the councils are now to have a serious commitment to long-term conservation projects they will be able to grant up to, say, 100 per cent. of the expenditure incurred where the circumstances merit that?
In tabling Amendment No. 253C I intended to give flexibility to the councils to provide nature conservation even where it may involve the landowner or the farmer in incurring losses of income in addition to or in place of expenditure. The Minister has mentioned that point already this evening, but I should like to return to it. Let us take the example that was mentioned earlier; namely, that of keeping a lower stocking density for sheep which may well be needed to reduce pressure on heather moorland. That also reduces the returns to the producers. If such initiatives are to be practical for the landowner or farmer, payments may be necessary to offset those losses. Surely that is positive conservation. It is positively conserving the heather moorland. Furthermore, I should like to make it clear that Clause 127 requires the authorisation of the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Treasury, so overall control of expenditure will continue to lie within the hands of the Government.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 271B, which seeks to give the Countryside Commission the same flexibility as the councils. It was suggested in Committee in July that the powers enjoyed by the Countryside Commission to provide environmental projects in the countryside through the national parks and the local authorities are sufficient to ensure the fulfilment of the commission's potential in that area. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, doubted that at the time and I doubt it too. I was therefore pleased to see within the White Paper on the environment the national countryside initiative to which the Minister has referred this evening. It appears that the Government have modified their earlier view and have a much more positive role in mind for the commission to involve itself more directly with farmers and landowners to manage and create landscapes felt to be valuable to the public. That appears to be similar to my suggestions in Committee on 4th July.
Since July, the Government have found that the Countryside Commission has powers to enter into a management agreement with farmers and landowners to promote its national countryside initiative. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether they provide for annual payments. As she has already said, those powers are contained in Section 40 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As I understand it, those powers are for experimental schemes. Will the Minister tell us what is to be the long-term future of the national countryside initiative if those powers are purely experimental?
There is one further point on which I require clarification. Do the Government propose to extend this initiative to Wales and Scotland, where I believe it would be just as useful? I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support this series of amendments because if farmers and landowners are to have regard for the countryside and to improve the environment they need to have the money to do it. As the noble Baroness will know, the income from agriculture is shrinking fast. Without income they cannot possibly take care of the countryside in the way expected of them by the people living in the country.
Straight grants for a one-off action are, of course, useful; but to keep up such actions, which is what is required, periodic payments are necessary, as proposed by the noble Duke. In other words, maintaining and improving the countryside requires a great deal of money and certainly with the present state of agriculture assistance is necessary if the desired results are to be obtained.
Lord Lytton: My Lords, at the risk of detaining the House a little longer I should like to add a few words in support of the amendments. I declare an interest. My wife and I are co-owners of 800 acres within the Exmoor National Park, and it is outstandingly beautiful country. I believe that it qualifies as a severely less-favoured area. We regard ourselves as stewards of this area for our lifetimes. We recognise that there is an overriding public interest element that applies in Exmoor and many other upland areas.
I feel that the Exmoor National Park and other similar authorities have a difficult job in trying to line up all the various interests. I certainly feel that there should be a facility for other authorities, perhaps through the medium of the National Park Authority but not necessarily duplicating its functions, to make grants. I believe that is the point made by the noble Duke. He is not asking for additional sums but suggesting that sums which would otherwise have been paid in grants can also be paid as periodic sums. That gives a great degree of flexibility.
Certainly the type of arrangement suggested in Amendment No. 271B would be very much along the lines of the kind of discussions that I have been conducting over many months with the Exmoor National Park Authority. It is a question of positive planning and not a series of negative controls. I am optimistic that there is a solution that marries up with the valid public interest aspects, the needs of nature conservation and the legitimate aspirations of freehold landowners. Therefore, I commend the spirit of these amendments to the Government.
Earl Peel: My Lords, in a sense this goes back, as the noble Duke said, to the answer given by my noble friend as regards my amendment. The noble Duke raises an interesting point. If the periodic grants are to be effective they will have to be equal or equal plus to the amount that the farmer would have received, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, suggested.

1001
That comes back to the question of whether they are, in fact, payments for profits forgone. If they are to be effective, and intended to be effective in the way that I think my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated, that would have to be the case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is first important to say that much of what I said in response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel certainly applies; to some of the points made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. However, I must also make one point clear because I believe there has been a misinterpretation of my references to the earlier amendment about negative and positive conservation. Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
Payment for doing nothing—reducing the number of heads of sheep or not planting a field—is negative action. But there are positive results for conservation. Therefore, it is a positive conservation measure though it may be a payment for inaction. I do not want anyone to feel I was speaking about payment for something which was very negative. As the noble Duke has pointed out, the result is a very positive one in conservation terms.
I take this question with some diffidence given that joining me on the Front Bench this evening is the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who knows a great deal about these matters. I wish to take two small points and then bring the argument together as I did earlier. The question was posed concerning the percentage of grants and whether one could consider taking them up to 100 per cent. I shall try to be as accommodating in principle as possible. I mentioned earlier that we would talk with our Treasury colleagues and give very serious consideration to bids put to us by the NCC. If the bids are sound then clearly they will receive serious consideration. We shall try to break down the mechanisms for meeting these concerns, again without commitment. The department is well seized of the point made by noble Lords.
A specific question was posed about Wales and Scotland They have not been neglected in our debates today. The countryside initiative is experimental. It is intended to apply to England at the first stage. If it is a scheme that works and is manageable in the terms that the Government wish, then clearly extensions to Wales and Scotland would be considered. In the first instance the intention is that it should apply in England.
I return to the point about dealing with the country as a whole and all the different schemes that operate. Substantially, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food operates schemes which take into account the notional profits forgone. In an overt way we have said quite categorically both in relation to other amendments and those now before the House that the notion of profits forgone cannot be extended to the immediate environments outside the SSSIs. Again, if one includes the MAFF schemes, the countryside initiative schemes and the environmentally sensitive schemes which are designated by MAFF, all of them
1002
add up, not entirely to what the noble Duke is seeking but a long way towards covering very large tracts of the country.
Another point was made about the application of funds. If there is no more money, that problem begins to eat into the priority concerns of the NCC. It has large acreages in the country of designated areas which must make first calls on resources. It is only beyond those calls that one can move out of those areas. One is always limited by resources. I hope that the noble Duke will realise that we are with him in spirit. But there has to be some limitation on resources. We have chosen to be as accommodating as possible in the application of grants. I covered the point of periodic grants when I spoke to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Peel. One can pay grants over a period. I believe that the period I mentioned was five to seven years.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the Minister has said and for her full reply to all the points that I raised. I am particularly glad that perhaps the Welsh and the Scots will be able to benefit from this initiative in due course. In view of what the Minister has said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 253B to 254 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [Transitional Provisions and Savings for Part VII].
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 199, line 48, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 256 to 258 and 261. In introducing these amendments I must proffer an apology to my noble friend Lord Balfour. I am sorry to have to report to the House that Amendments Nos. 255 and 261 are necessary to reverse amendments which my noble friend tabled in Committee and which were erroneously accepted by the Government. I can only suppose that we were so carried away with enthusiasm for everything that my noble friend suggested that we took too much for granted, went too far and accepted two amendments which we should not have accepted.
The position is that the word "Act" is the correct word to use as we are referring to all of Part VII and not just the schedule. I hope that my noble friend will accept my profound apology. The remaining three amendments are technical or drafting amendments to Schedule 11. I hope that those will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wondered about that when I read these amendments. At the time I almost put it as a question to the House whether "schedule" or "Act" was meant. I emphasised at that time that if it was to be "Act" it should at least mention Part VII. I have no real objections to Amendment No. 255, but, with its acceptance, the Bill will read:
"by virtue of the Part of this Act".

1003
Bearing in mind that in years to come this will be legislation that we shall all have to understand and obey, will my noble friend consider between now and Third Reading making the provision read:
"by virtue of Part VII of this Act"?
There will then be no doubt. That is the only comment I wish to make.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I certainly note what my noble friend says and I shall look carefully at it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 256 to 258:
Page 200, line 22, leave out from ("to") to end of line 23 and insert ("a special function of the new Councils)—").
Page 200, line 32, leave out from ("to") to ("a") in line 33 and insert ("a special function of the new Councils").
Page 200, line 36, after ("corresponding") insert ("special").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 255. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 201, line 4, at end insert (", other than a scheme provided by that Council under paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 260. These amendments concern the pension rights of NCC employees who have already retired or left the NCC's employment. They are saving provisions needed to preserve the existing NCC staff pension scheme, which will then become the responsibility of the Secretary of State under Clause 128(4). They are essential to protect the rights both of existing and future pensioners. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 201, line 29, at end insert:
("Pensions for Nature Conservancy Council staff
10A.—(1) The repeal by this Act of paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 shall not affect the operation on and after the appointed day of any scheme provided by the Nature Conservancy Council for the payment to or in respect of its officers of pensions, allowances or gratuities.
(2) Any such scheme shall have effect on and after the appointed day with the substitution for any reference to the Nature Conservancy Council of a reference to the Secretary of State.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 260ZA:
Page 201, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that not only do we have on the Front Bench a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but also the Minister responsible in this House for Welsh affairs. I am sure they will be interested in the amendment that I am about to put before the House. It seeks to delete sub-paragraph (2) of Schedule 11. We have already gone over this
1004
ground to some extent, but, with the greatest respect to the Government, it is daft to say that, where SSSIs or nature reserves cross borders, they should be separated, or, in other words, that if part of an SSSI is on the Welsh side it should be controlled by the Countryside Council for Wales, and, if it is in England, by the Nature Conservancy Council. I think that it would be much better if it were to be agreed that it should be managed jointly or even severally.
As currently drafted, Schedule ll to the Bill requires that each part of an SSSI or nature reserve that crosses boundaries should be treated as a distinct piece of land. There are five SSSIs which lie on the border between England and Scotland, including the Solway SSSI, which is of international importance. There are 11 SSSIs which straddle the boundary between England and Wales, including the river Wye, the Dee estuary and Fens and Whixall Mosses, which I gather the NCC is about to purchase as a national nature reserve. So, presumably, once it is bought by the NCC it will have to be split for management purposes.
The Bill will require each country council to treat its part of the SSSI as a separate SSSI—that, in itself, is pretty daft. With the squeeze on NCC's funding, we are likely to end up with landowners on one side benefiting from management agreements and those on the other side doing rather worse, perhaps where the land is environmentally benign.
The Minister will no doubt say that goodwill between the councils will prevail. I hope to goodness that it will. But each council will have its own priorities and different limits on its funding set by different Secretaries of State. Nature conservation and wildlife habitats do not recognise political boundaries. Therefore, it is absurd to include on the face of this Bill a political fence across a piece of land that forms a single biological continuum. I suggest that the removal of this subparagraph would ensure that land-owners on different sides of a border in relation to a single site are treated equally. Its removal would also help to nurture the goodwill between the country councils which the Minister assures us will prevail.
I live right on the borders between England and Wales; in fact, I live on the English side because I was quite determined to stay in England. I live right on Offa's Dyke. My water comes from Wales but in fact it is managed by the Severn Trent Water Authority. Welsh Water supplies Hereford, but Severn Trent supplies vast parts of North Wales. Our electricity comes from the Midlands Electricity Board and Manweb supplies parts of North Wales.
I do not think that people get too worked up about these divisions. Therefore, if in fact different parts of an SSSI or nature reserve go into Wales and England people will not be too worried if the SSSI is managed by one side or the other. I believe that this subparagraph ought to be removed. Let us say that they either manage it jointly or, alternatively, we could add the word "severally" to the next part of the schedule. This seems to me to be a matter of common sense. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Schedule 11 (2) to the Bill is directly related to the fundamental purpose of Part VII, which is to devolve the exercise of nature conservation functions to the respective countries of England, Scotland and Wales. The purpose of this section, specifically, is to ensure that those nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest which straddle the borders of England and Scotland, or England and Wales, are treated as two separate sites, one in each country. Subparagraph (3) goes on to specify how the two separate sites should be managed; for example, a cross-boundary site could be managed by the two councils concerned separately but with full consultation, or by some joint management regime if they considered that to be preferable. However, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to leave these sites unaltered—that is, as a single site. This would create not only practical problems—for example, over the management of the site—but legal ones as well. Which council would be legally responsible for the site, for the enforcement of any regulations covering the site—concerning nature reserve agreements, or potentially damaging operations? I am assured that the omission of this subparagraph would create a muddle, and I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I honestly believe that that is a totally nonsensical reply. I am sorry to say this, but I do not think that these matters will work out as the Government seem to believe they will. The majority of the farmers who live near me are living in England but they are mostly Welsh. However, they do not go around parading the fact that they want to be governed by the Welsh Office; they regard themselves as being in England.
If we are not careful, we shall build artificial barriers. I think that that is really stupid. I honestly believe that it would be much better if that subparagraph were to be removed from the schedule. However, I realise that I am not going to make any progress on the matter tonight. I plead with the Minister for Wales on the Front Bench to have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment and we may then perhaps get some common sense introduced into the issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 260A not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 202, line 9, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Public registers of land which may be contaminated]:
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 261A:
Page 138, line 23, at end insert:
("(5A) The Secretary of State shall, in making provisions under this section, satisfy himself that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to secure the effective operation of the requirements of this section, and may require
1006
any authority to submit to him such information as may be reasonable to enable him to fulfil his duty under this subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we leave Part VII. I cannot imagine that there are many noble Lords who will be sorry that this marathon debate has been brought to an end. We turn to what I consider to be an equally important subject, although I am sure that those noble Lords who think in terms of conservation organisations have no doubt made their arrangements to go home or are already on their way home.
We turn now to the issue of contaminated land. It is a matter of great importance for health and the safety and development of land and is also of considerable legal importance. I have a suspicion that the Government's intention in setting up registers of contaminated land is limited largely to the issue of what is necessary to fulfil the legal function as to what response is given when a search for development purposes is required. That is one of the objectives of the register of contaminated land, but it is far from being the only objective.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that registers of contaminated land are regarded as much more important than the Government are prepared to concede, and will involve substantially more local authority finance and staffing resources than have so far been recognised. When we think about the register of contaminated land we must ask ourselves: contamination by what? It could of course be chemical contamination—contamination by chemicals which might affect concrete foundations of buildings. It could be contamination which would affect crops or animals. It could be deep contamination of land which has been reclaimed after tipping of some kind which might affect deep-rooted trees, for example.
It is not enough to say that land is contaminated. One needs to know how it is contaminated and what use is proposed for the land if one is to make a sensible decision as to whether the contamination is relevant. That means that we must have a register based on a proper investigation of the nature of the contamination, and a proper understanding of the nature of the remedy required, which in turn must relate to the use to which the land is to be put. All that will involve the local authorities, which will have the responsibility for maintaining the register of contaminated land, in substantial expenditure, in having staff with considerable technical qualifications and probably with scientific equipment of some complexity. All that must be recognised in the resources made available to them.
I understand that consultation about contaminated land registers with the local authority associations is already taking place. We welcome that fact and appreciate it. If the consultation is to be effective, the Government must set if off on the right foot. They must give a better definition of what is meant by contamination. They must suggest what type of uniform approach should be adopted as to how the register is compiled. They must ensure that the local authority is not liable for any inadvertent omission

1007
from the register. They must suggest a way in which disclosure procedures will be adopted and how they will be limited. I understand that some thought has already been given to that point. That is necessary not just for the reasons that I have given but to avoid unnecessary blight on land which may be contaminated for some purposes but not for all purposes.
There are some London boroughs, for example, which are so contaminated that a large part of their land, which was used for industrial purposes, would figure on a register of contaminated land. If the register is not adequately prepared, compiled and kept up to date it will be a real deterrent to the development of such land which could be developed in some ways but perhaps not in all ways.
The best estimate I can obtain of the cost of setting up and maintaining registers of contaminated land is that the initial cost would be in the order of £7.5 million and thereafter it would be approximately £1 million per year. Those resources must be found from somewhere; at the moment they are not recognised, so far as I know, in the revenue support grant conditions or negotiations. If local authorities are to take on these significant and worthwhile additional tasks they will need the assurance, which will be available only if this amendment is agreed to, that the resources will be available. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment is one of a number which seek to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are given sufficient resources for specific functions created by this Bill. As always in such cases, I can only reply that the Government are committed to the measures in the Bill and that they are as concerned as everyone else to ensure that adequate resources are available to implement them.
On the specific subject of contaminated registers, the estimated cost for all English, Welsh and Scottish local authorities of setting up the registers of potentially contaminated land is £15 million. Annual costs of maintaining the registers are estimated at £3 million. These figures have been published in the Government's response to the House of Commons Select Committee's first report on contaminated land.
However, it needs to be noted that no timescale has been set for the establishment of those registers; the clause creating the duty of establishing registers is an enabling clause only. Consultation will of course take place and that will be followed by the preparation of regulations. The regulations are not expected to be in place for at least 12 months.
On the point about registers having wide importance and the need to know what contamination is present and so on, the register as proposed is based on former land use and will be desk study, not survey —the method set out in the Cheshire report published in July, 1990. Experience of this is being used as a base estimate of resources, and other issues are to be addressed in the consultations which are taking place with the local authorities.
1008
Like all other new burdens, the costs of establishing registers of potentially contaminated land will be taken into account in the local authority finance settlement. Authorities will have the resources necessary to fulfil this duty. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the Government's response to this amendment has confirmed our worst fears. I gave a figure of £7.5 million initially and £1 million a year as being the Department of the Environment's original estimates that were available to us. We are now told that the initial cost will be £15 million and the ongoing cost £3 million per year. If the department's estimates can vary so wildly and in the wrong direction, what evidence is there that it has been working the figures out correctly in the first place? I rather doubt that it has.
Much more serious is that we are also told that the register of contaminated land is supposed to be based entirely on what the Minister called "desk studies", I think, which are presumably the examination of paper records related to the existing use. That is simply not adequate. The result of such a cheap and inadequate approach to contaminated land registers will produce unnecessary blight and inadequate registers. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The original cost did not include Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, even if that is the case, and the figures I gave did not include Scotland—which I did not appreciate, and I am grateful for that information—it still does not explain a doubling of the cost of setting up the registers and a tripling of the cost of maintaining them on an ongoing basis. Scotland has, after all, only 10 per cent. of the population of the country, although it has a rather higher proportion of the land area.
The most important point is that it now appears that the registers of contaminated land will not be based on firsthand investigation. They will not be sensitive to different forms of future land use for which they should be intended. They will produce unnecessary blight and they will be significantly underfunded because the concept of registers of contaminated land is inadequate for the purpose.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not perfectly clear that if detailed surveys were to be undertaken on the sites of the many thousands of hectares of contaminated land—it is estimated in the White Paper that more than half of derelict land is probably contaminated —the costs would be far higher than anything my noble friend has mentioned? What is required is enough desk study information so that someone who expresses interest in the land concerned will have enough information to know whether it is then worth carrying out the much more expensive and detailed survey that would be needed before such a person could contemplate development. Is that not a sensible

1009
way to proceed rather than to undertake a massive, expensive nationwide survey of all contaminated land?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope I may follow up that point. I am sure that the desk study is the basis of the survey. In calculating the costs involved here, we have taken into account the fact that there will be a requirement for some follow-up work, as my noble friend has just pointed out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his suggestion, which is entirely sensible and in line with what I was about to say. Thanks to the noble Lord, we have made some progress. We now learn that the study will not simply be a paper study but will also include provision for investigation. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we would not want to investigate physically every single site of contaminated land. A s the noble Lord said, the cost would be grossly excessive. In many cases the contamination will be straightforward. However, we have to provide for a significant amount of more detailed study. If that is the direction the Government are moving in, I am pleased to hear it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I must reiterate the point that a more detailed study must be carried out by the developer who is interested in developing the land. I fail to see why that charge should fall on the public purse. The developer must decide what the contamination consists of and therefore how much he is prepared to pay for the land.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting point of view which may not find universal acceptance in the property industry. It certainly is not the view which the Government took, as I understood the Minister's reply. In all other cases local authority searches, after payment of a fee, have been undertaken by local authorities. I am interested in the noble Lord's suggestion but it is not reflected in other parts of planning law or local authority duties and responsibilities. We have heard an interesting range of replies in response to this amendment. I must go away and think about them, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 262:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of contamination
.—(1) It shall be the duty of any person holding an interest in any land that he knows or believes to be contaminated with noxious substances as a result of uses specified in regulations made under section 136 above to disclose the extent of his knowledge to any person to whom he transfers that interest before the transfer is made.
(2) Where a person suffers loss or damage by reason of any breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1) above the person on whom that duty was imposed is liable for that loss or damage except where it was due wholly to the fault of the person who suffered it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is unfortunately indisposed and has asked me to move this amendment in his absence. This
1010
is an important amendment and would assist us with the amendment we have just discussed. It deals with the declaration of knowledge of contaminated land.
At present, when contaminated land is sold there is no general obligation to reveal information to the purchaser about the state of the land. The rule of caveat emptor still applies. This amendment seeks to replace that rule with a duty to disclose contamination and to compile public registers. It implements paragraph 95 of the House of Commons Select Committee Report on contaminated land of 1990.
That report states:
"insofar as the rule of caveat emptor relates to contaminated land, its effect is to discourage sound environmental practice and environmental responsibility. Its abolition would be a natural corollary to the compilation of local authority registers. We recommend that the Government bring forward legislation to place upon vendors a duty to declare information in their possession about contamination present on site, however caused".
We are obviously not saying that if an owner does not know land is contaminated he is under a duty to disclose. However, if he knows or believes it is contaminated with noxious substances he is under such a duty.
The report highlights the particular case of the redevelopment of a depot which was supposedly a store for inert material but which had been used for disposal of old batteries. The land was therefore liberally contaminated with lead and sulphuric acid.
The report reveals that the conveyancing committee of the Law Commission described caveat emptor as "unjustifiably ramshackle"—it discourages openness and sound environmental practice. The amendment sets out to provide an alternative—the compilation of local authority registers and a duty to declare information on contaminated land before any transactions take place. We should be moving in that direction, and that is what the Select Committee in the other place recommends. I hope very much that the Government may be able to give some words of encouragement when they come to reply. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it has now become almost universal in the United States that before anybody buys industrial land, a factory or a company, it is an absolute condition of purchase that there shall be an environmental survey which shall show that there are no environmental hazards in the land. That is the purchaser's responsibility. It is a condition of sale. The vendor has to provide the necessary facilities so that the purchaser can satisfy himself that the land is clear. That is now happening in this country. As the potential risks become more widely known it is recognised that before one enters into a binding contract for buying land one has to satisfy oneself as to what it is one is getting.
I should be reluctant to accept that there should be an obligation on vendors such as that proposed. If the vendor fails to disclose something that subsequently comes to light he may well lose his sale. It is therefore in his own interests to disclose it, just as he would want

1011
to disclose a right of way, a restrictive covenant or anything else which is likely to affect the value of the land. To put a universal duty on everybody to disclose that they knew, or ought to have known or might have known is going too far. I should be opposed to extending the law further into the buying and selling of land as the amendment proposes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government believe that there is a general awareness of the problem of contamination and that this should lead purchasers and their solicitors to ask vendors about possible contamination as a matter of routine. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides sanctions against any vendor who fails to disclose information about contamination in response to a specific request.
The Government have taken steps towards ensuring that purchasers of potentially contaminated land will be well informed. Clause 136 of the Bill places a duty on local authorities to maintain public registers of land which may be contaminated.
The Government are now commissioning research on types and locations of contamination. This will help local authorities to compile their registers of potentially contaminated land, and it will also provide information to both vendors and purchasers on possible contamination of their land.
The amendment would reverse the long-established principle of caveat emptor, which places the burden of investigating contamination on the purchaser. The Law Commission Standing Committee on Conveyancing has recently reviewed the caveat emptor rule and published a report. It recommends that the existing rule should be retained, but that "the buyer should be well informed".
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who stated two important points. One is the responsibility of the purchaser to make sure that the question about contamination of land is posed and that a survey or research is undertaken in the course of the purchase. He also enabled me to highlight the fact that if the vendor is asked a direct question there is an obligation on the vendor to supply that information.
In view of those developments I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I quoted the Select Committee in my support. I also quoted the Law Commission. We quoted from different paragraphs of the report, but it did say that caveat emptor was unjustifiably ramshackle and that it discouraged openness.
The amendment asked only that any person who knew or believed that the land was contaminated had to declare it. He can be asked a direct question by a lawyer, and he may well be able to say that he does not believe that there is any contamination. The fact is that in this country we have built houses and factories on land which has proved to be contaminated and there have been disastrous results. Accordingly, people have suffered losses of vast sums of money. I should have thought that this was an area which we had to tighten up.
1012
I was rather interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about the situation in the United States. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, confirms that that is the case. I gather that he has been involved in his company with the purchase of land in the United States. It would be a good idea if we were to follow that practice. I hope that perhaps those words may stir up something. I think that we have to do rather more than we are doing at present. That certainly was the view of the Select Committee in the other place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 263:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
Penalties for offences of polluting controlled waters etc.
(".—(1) In section 107(6) of the Water Act 1989 (penalties for offences of polluting controlled waters or contravening consent conditions), in paragraph (a), for the words "the statutory maximum" there shall be substituted "£20,000".
(2) In sections 31(7) (a), 31A(2) (c) (i) and 32(7) (a) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (corresponding penalties for Scotland), for the words "the statutory maximum" there shall be substituted "£20,000".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments in my name will serve to give magistrates and, in Scotland, sheriffs the power to impose higher maximum penalties—£20,000 rather than £2,000 as at present—for causing water pollution. This will not only bring the maximum summary fines for water pollution offences into line with those for other pollution offences provided by the Bill; it will also greatly assist the National Rivers Authority and the river purification authorities in Scotland in taking swift and effective enforcement action against offenders. It will, I believe, act as a clear deterrent to the small minority which continues to show a wilful disregard for the water environment.
The amendments do not affect the ability of higher courts to impose still higher fines, without limit, where they are needed. Noble Lords may recall that a £1 million fine was secured by the NRA against Shell earlier this year in relation to oil pollution of the Mersey. Nor do they affect the ability of the courts to imprison offenders where they believe that such a penalty is appropriate.
Amendment No. 263 increases the maximum summary fines for offences committed under Section 107 of the Water Act 1989, with equivalent effect on the penalties for similar offences committed in Scotland under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Amendment No. 286 alters Clause 154 to bring these new penalties into force at the earliest possible date —that is, two months after enactment—in line with similar penalties provided by the Bill. Amendment No. 290 extends the Long Title to include the necessary amendments to the earlier Acts.
These amendments further demonstrate our commitment to securing real improvements in the water environment. They are brief and straightforward and I trust will be widely welcomed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 264:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("Pollution of water from diffuse sources
. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State within one year from the date of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and having consulted such persons likely to be affected as he considers appropriate, to make regulations to control the entry of nitrates and pesticides into water from diffuse sources.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment because two councillors in the south of England—Councillor Mrs Cathy Fraser of Eastleigh and Councillor David Chidgey of Winchester—who are very concerned with something that is happening in then part of the world, have brought the matter to our attention.
The amendment seeks to draw attention to the problems of pollution from diffuse sources. I mentioned to the chairman of the National Rivers Authority (I had a word with him outside the Chamber) that I intended to raise this matter. That authority has powers under the 1989 Water Act to take action in respect of pollution. It is generally thought that the powers are still inadequate, for example to prevent excessive discharge of farm effluent entering a river during a heavy rainstorm or by leaching through the soil. The chairman told me that the NRA is very concerned about this matter. They are certainly looking into it very seriously.
I think that what caught the attention of the people I mentioned was the appalling example of Mr Roger Daltrey's trout farm in Dorset on which earlier this year some half a million fish were killed by a suspected leak of 32,000 litres of liquid fertilizer into the River Iwerne. I gather that he had no source of compensation for that.
I raise this matter now to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the NRA has the power, to deal with these matters. Are there adequate resources for it to do so? Perhaps there is a need for a plan for the farming community to promote waste management plans subject to NRA approval. According to a press comment that I have seen, I suspect: that the NRA intends now to get tough on farmers as regards these types of pollution, particularly from farm effluent and silage.
The amendment calls for the Secretary of State to make regulations, after first having consultations, to control the entry of nitrates and pesticides into water. The first step with regard to such a problem is recognition of the need, and the provision of the mechanism to deal with it. This probing amendment provides a preliminary step.
Only recently the British Medical Association called for an agency to monitor pesticides. It asked for a new government agency to be set up to monitor people's exposure to pesticide residues in food, water and the environment. It stated:
"With the extensive use of pesticides it is likely that most of the population has low-level exposure to pesticides residues in tap water … More than 700 different chemical contaminants have been detected in drinking water".
Those people to whom I referred received the answer from their assistant director of environmental health
1014
in Eastleigh that the National Rivers Authority had power under the Water Act to take action in respect of pollution incidents but that its powers were inadequate even in cases where it seemed likely that some of the effluent would eventually enter a river by run off during heavy ran or by leaching. It is understood that the NRA will be discussing this in the near future with other bodies including the Ministry of Agriculture, ADAS and the Water Research Council. It is understood that the NRA will be seeking powers to require farmers to have waste management plans. Perhaps we may hear something about that in the reply.
I should like to place one matter on record in fairness to the chairman who might say that it is not so. The Hampshire authorities feel that Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is rather a large area for only six field officers to cover. One officer is responsible for the whole of the catchment areas of the Hamble and the Itchen. Those rivers and their tributaries are very important fishing areas. It is quite a large job for one man.
I raise the matter because I believe that it is of growing importance. Will the Government tell us their views on the issue and what they hope to do about it? I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may explain one of the problems in Scotland. We have no equivalent to the drainage legislation in England. A problem that may arise with regard to the nitrate issue is this. A farmer owns nice, flat agricultural land at a high level. Someone else owns a field below that level. The farmer's nitrates drain down through the second person's field into a stream. So far as I know, there is no protection for the second landowner between the higher farmland and the stream. We do not have such legislation in Scotland.
Will my noble friend take that matter up with Scottish Ministers? Will some provision be made so that the intervening person—who might own a woodland there—is not blamed for the nitrates going into the stream when he may not be directly involved?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, shares the Government's concern that there should be controls on diffuse pollution by nitrate and pesticides. Powers to control diffuse nitrate and pesticide pollution already exist in the Water Act 1989 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. We are using these powers to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord and believe that the amendment is for that reason unnecessary.
I understand that the noble Lord's amendment could have the unfortunate effect of limiting our flexibility in responding to the very problems that it is designed to combat by preventing the Government from taking advantage of advances in scientific understanding of the most appropriate ways of controlling sources of this pollution.

1015
The noble Lord asked me about farmers' waste management plans. There are pilot schemes for nitrate controls. The signs are that there has been a good take up of those schemes.
The noble Lord also asked about the NRA. We are satisfied that the NRA has wide powers to take action over pollution incidents. Not only can it prosecute those who pollute but under Section 155 of the Water Act 1989 the NRA has powers to carry out remedial work after spillage; that is, cleaning up and restocking with fish. It can recover costs, which can be considerable. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, we did not receive an answer to the Scottish problem. It may have to come another day. I am grateful for the answer. There is legislation on the statute book which should be able to deal with the problem. I suspect that it is much worse than we appreciate, and the NRA is most anxious. I shall not pursue the matter further. I am grateful for the response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 [Deposits of substances and articles in the sea, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
Clause 139 [Public registers relating to deposits in the sea and incineration at sea]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 265A:
Page 140, line 15, after ("above") insert:
(" () the occasions on which either of the Ministers has carried out any operation under section 10 above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and mentions Section 10. Noble Lords may be baffled by the fact that Section 10 is not mentioned in Clause 139, which relates to the earlier Act. We are dealing with the provision of registers on the sea dumping of chemical waste. Public registers already exist under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and an amendment was tabled in Committee to extend the scope of the registers.
Almost everything we proposed in that amendment was covered in a subsequent amendment tabled by the Government, and that is now Clause 139. However, the only proposal not covered by the government amendment was that the registers should describe any action taken by Ministers under Section 10 of the 1985 Act. That will allow Ministers to undertake operations to protect the marine environment from the consequences of unlicensed dumping or incineration of wastes. The amendment is designed to cover that point. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I have no problem with this proposal. Therefore, I am content to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord TordoffMy Lords, there is nothing to say save that I am sorry to have dragged the noble Baroness here at this late hour. I thank her profusely for the way she has accepted the amendment. I wish there were a simpler way of doing so than both of us having to stay here until this late hour.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 141 [Dog registration]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 265B:
Page 141, line 22, leave out from beginning to third ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 265C to 265G, 266A, 270A, 271ZA, 271ZB, 272B, 291 and 271A. I am grateful to the Government and to the Public Bill Office for tidying up and redrafting our amendment dealing with dog registration. These are drafting amendments although the Government have made clear ambiguities in the original amendment; for instance, the inclusion of a reasonable excuse defence and the extending of the consultation period for two years. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Government for their help in tidying up these amendments. I shall be very interested to hear the implications arising from their help. I trust and hope that they will accept this amendment which has universal backing throughout the country. Their help is appreciated and will assist the swift passage of the Bill through the other place.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have taken a keen interest in this matter. Much of what my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, have done has been of great help.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for warning me that he would be moving a number of amendments on the dog registration clause. On Thursday I was able to obtain a copy of the amendments. I support wholeheartedly Amendments Nos. 265B to 265D in subsection (1). There will be neither benefit nor harm to the environment. Amendments Nos. 265E and 265F are a vast improvement to the drafting.
However, Amendment No. 265G causes me some serious anxiety. It leaves the local authority with sole discretion as to how much the registration charges shall be and what exemptions, if any, shall be permitted without Parliament having any say in the matter. Most local authorities are pleading poverty; so I forecast a fee in the region of £35 or more.
I must point out that the word "shall" appears twice in line 33 of Amendment No. 266A in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley. I presume that the first "shall" is required. If that is the case, then I fully support the amendment.
Perhaps I may read subsection (2) assuming that my noble friend's amendment is accepted.
"Regulations under this section shall include provision for the regulations to be administered by local authorities as to the charging by them of registration fees of such amounts and subject to such exemptions as they may determine".

1017
That means that responsibility has been placed in the sole charge of the local authorities and that the Secretary of State has no say.
Amendment No. 270A is an improvement to subsection (4). However, is it the Government's intention that local authorities should be able to delegate their responsibilities as regards dogs to an outside firm such as Securicor?
Amendment No. 272B to Clause 151 is very strange. It appears to me to prevent either House of Parliament having anything to do with the clause. Is that the desire of the Government? In other words, as I read the legislation, if the new subsection (5) in Amendment No. 271ZA is accepted and the regulations are enforced, then that is it. They cannot be altered by Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am in some difficulty on the groupings of these amendments. My undersi.anding—I hope my noble friend Lord Stanley will agree although he did not mention it—is that he spoke to Amendments Nos. 265B to 265G, 266A, 270A, 271ZA, 271ZB, and 272B. He also tagged on, from another grouping, Amendments Nos. 271A and 291.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on all but the last two amendments I mentioned I welcome my noble friend's perception in bringing forward amendments to correct technical deficiencies in Clause 141. If my noble friend's amendments are put on to the statute book the scheme must be. workable and I am more than happy to accept them.
Amendments Nos. 271 A and 291 were also referred to. Amendment No. 271A is a minor drafting point which maintains consistency with other references in the Bill to islands and district councils. I understand that my noble friend tabled this amendment on his own initiative. However, we agree that there is a need for it. Amendment No. 291 amends the Long Title of the Bill to include provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs. I commend that amendment also.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I take note of the concern of my noble friend Lord Balfour on Amendment No.265G. I will certainly consider whether any further amendment is needed on Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendments Nos. 265C to 265G:
Page 141, line 23, leave out from ("by") to end of line and insert ("regulations").
Page 141, line 24, leave out ("a scheme for").
Page 141, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 27 and insert ("Regulations under this section shall include provision for the regulations").
Page 141, line 27, leave out ("fixing") and insert ("charging by them").
Page 141, line 28, leave out from ("fees") to end of line 30 and insert ("of such amounts and subject to such exemptions as they may determine").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 141, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (3A), (3B), (3C) and (3D)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment could be inserted in the Bill without affecting Amendment No. 266A. It only introduces the new subsections (3A), (3B), (3C) and (3D). I speak also to my Amendments Nos. 267 to 270. They have all been extracted from previous legislation which allowed for exemptions from requiring a dog licence. They make special provision for taking dogs into care and the boarding of animals.
It should be realised that if my amendments are rejected blind people, police officers, shepherds and gamekeepers who live in one local authority area and work in another area could be involved in double charges. The cost of training the special dogs that are described in my Amendments Nos. 267 to 269 will be considerably increased. As it is, if any of these dogs do not come up to standard they are usually put down. Just for one moment, think of the costs involved in training a dog for the blind. It will have to be registered from the day it is born yet it may not come up to the required standard. Moreover, the mortality among puppies is very high.
Amendment No. 270 is designed to exempt people from the individual dog licensing requirements for any animal that is taken into care or an animal boarding establishment. A blind person cannot take his dog abroad and bring it back into this country. I fear that if the kennels were in some other part of the country an extra licence would be required. I sincerely hope that the drafting of these amendments is correct. I have had nobody to help me. I argue that Amendments No. 266 and Nos. 267 to 270 in no way weaken the principles of this clause. However, if they are rejected Parliament will have no power to provide for any exemption and the clause will be a catch-all.
My Amendment No. 271 would prevent the local authorities from being able to delegate their responsibilities and would force them to have consultations with dog owners. I hope that will lead dog owners to be properly responsible for their dogs and to look after them to see that they are free from fleas, lice, ticks and other forms of mechanised dandruff, and are regularly wormed. The problem with the wide variety of internal parasites is that they can reproduce without a mate and can thrive in children or adults.
I am not too sure whether Amendment No. 271ZB tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley is good or bad. I cannot comment on that. Amendment No. 271 is, I think, correct and should be accepted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been accepted.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, if I have missed that point then noble Lords must forgive me. It is a little late. I had very much hoped that if my amendments were not accepted then at least they could be incorporated into the regulations. However, after carefully reading this clause along with most of the amendments that were moved before this one and

1019
accepted, I do not think that that is possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Stanley in their group of amendments have left the Secretary of State, through Parliament, to decide the range in the time and the amount of the registration fee. In other words, the fee can be limited to a maximum of, say, £50, and the licence could hold good for the life of the dog.
As a dog owner I must be grateful for that small concession. I hope that whoever is the Secretary of State will read what has been said on this clause today before proposing his draft regulations. I have no comment to make on Amendment No. 291. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, when I was Secretary of State for the Environment I sought to persuade my Cabinet colleagues that the time had come to deal with the nonsense of the dog licence. It cost three times as much to collect the fee as was brought in through revenue. The fee was widely evaded and resulted in thousands of hungry, neglected and often sick animals roaming the streets. In some parts of our cities they caused extreme distress to inhabitants because they were totally out of control. I have to say that I failed.
I do not think that I am breaking any secrets, but there was a moment in Cabinet when I tried to say that the Public Accounts Committee was snapping at the heels of my permanent secretary because each year the matter came up. Even that failed to persuade my colleagues. The policy, although accepted, never got into the programme. You can imagine my delight when I returned from a trip abroad to find that this Bill had undergone a major transformation and that the dog registration scheme was to be in it. I congratulate the Government because that is an enormous advance. I was delighted to see the amendment to improve the environment. I see this clause as being primarily to improve the welfare of dogs.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he has information that the Government have accepted this provision in toto and will back it in another place?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I certainly hope they will. No doubt another place will have its say, but I am delighted to see that when the Bill leaves this House it will contain this provision.
I intervene at this stage on one narrow point. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour—Amendment No. 267—seeks to exclude from registration a dog kept and used solely by a blind person for his guidance. I am on the council of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I can tell the House that the association is broadly in favour of registration; and it is in favour of registration for one very clear reason. One of the hazards that a blind person with a dog faces as he goes about the streets is the dog being molested by strays, and in particular, by untrained and uncontrolled strays. It can be extremely
1020
distressing for a blind person to find that his dog is being distracted from its very important task. The association favours registration. If that can help to control the problem of strays that will be entirely to the good.
As to whether guide dogs for the blind should be registered, the association is perfectly prepared to agree with whatever Parliament accepts. If there is a fee for guide dog owners it will be paid by the association. Set against the total cost of breeding and training the dog, training the guide dog owner and putting what is sometimes rather anonymously called a unit on the road, a cost which runs into some thousands of pounds for each unit, the cost of a licence is likely to be minimal. It will be borne by the association.
Therefore I cannot endorse the suggestion in my noble friend's amendment that guide dogs should be excluded from registration. To be effective a system of registration has to be as near universal as possible. I hope therefore that he may be prepared to reconsider or, if it is a question of regulations, as he suggested, that the regulations necessarily make that exemption.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says on dogs. The amendments are not about the merits or demerits of the scheme. Among my noble friend's comments he made specific reference to guide dogs and whether they should or should not be excluded.
Amendments Nos. 266 to 270 all relate to the question of making provision for exemptions from the registration or registration fee requirement in respect of particular categories of dogs. The amendments are unnecessary. For that reason Clause 141(2) already includes a provision for local authorities to determine exceptions. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will not wish to press the amendments. His concern is that there are powers somewhere to deal with the issue of exemptions.
In moving Amendment No. 271 the noble Earl appears to misunderstand the provision for local authorities to use agents such as animal welfare organisations in administering the registration scheme. This amendment would provide that a local authority could only enter into an agreement with an individual for the purpose of registering or identifying his dog. If the purpose of the amendment is to give local authorities flexibility in particular registration arrangements with particular owners, it would prevent them from entering into agreements with agents such as animal welfare organisations. Clause 141 would provide for local authorities to be able to enter into such agreements and we support this provision. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not feel it necessary to press the amendments.
Perhaps I may use this opportunity to apologise to the noble Earl for not answering the questions he raised on the previous group of amendments. He asked about charging by local authorities. I must tell him that provision will be made in the regulations for a maximum fee. As regards the point about working dog exemptions, we could cover the question of dogs

1021
living in one area and working in another but, again, this would have to be done under regulations. Having given those explanations, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am very happy with that answer and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 266A:
Page 141, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 33 And insert:
("Any person who without reasonable excuse

(a) fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him by regulations under this section to register a dog, or

(b) fails to comply with any requirement so imposed as respects identification of a dog,")..

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 267 to 270 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 270A:
Page 141, line 37, after ("enter") insert ("into").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 271ZA:
Page 141. line 39, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert:
("(5) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and the Secretary of State shall lay the first draft regulations before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 271ZB:
Page 141, line 46, at end insert ("of the City of London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 271A:
Page 141, line 47, leave out ("a District or Island Council") and insert ("an islands or district council").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143 [Financial assistance for environmental purposes]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 271AA:
Page 143, line 11, at end insert:
("(kk) the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres Limited.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 143 is totally different from previous clauses. It is concerned with government grants for environmental purposes. It contains a long list of organisations in respect of which the Secretary of State has authority to give grants for environmental purposes. The amendment proposes to add to that list the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres Limited, which is a registered charity that co-ordinates the provision of
1022
technical and environmental professional services in support of environmental improvements initiated by local communities.
The association has in the past—as, indeed, it is at present—been supported by the special grants programme. For the time being, that would allow it to be included in Clause 143, but the grant runs out at the end of the three-year period in March 1991 and the association fears that if it does not receive further grant from that scheme it will thereby be precluded by the terms of Clause 143 from receiving further grant from the Secretary of State.
The association has put the case for its inclusion in the list on the same basis as, for example, the Ground Work Trust which performs a very similar task. It is a worthwhile organisation which exists on a relatively small amount of public money. I hope that the Government feel that it is no different in character from the other organisations which are eligible for grant under this clause. I hasten to add that the amendment does not mean that the Secretary of State would have to give grant to the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres; it would simply make it possible. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Reay: My Lords, the amendment 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 Association of Community Technical Aid Centres.
As the noble Lord explained, the association already receives assistance from the Department of the Environment under the special grants programme, which is listed in this clause. It is involved in encouraging tenant participation on housing estates and other activities that support the department's current housing initiatives such as Estate Action. The association is also involved in general environmental improvement activities, especially in the inner city regeneration context.
The association carries out useful work. However, we do not think that it is necessary to mention it separately in this list of bodies since the payments to it are covered by the reference to the special grants programme. The Department of the Environment funds over 120 organisations under the special grants programme; there is no reason to single out this one.
With regard to what happens after three years, I understand that it is possible for grants to be continued after three years, but they are subject to review.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was aware, and the association is aware, that it could apply for continued funding under the special grants programme. Indeed, I believe that it is already preparing its application. It will of course be disappointed in the answer that has been given, but I am sure that in preparing its application for further funding it will be able to use the noble Lord's reply to make it clear that there is no other way than the

1023
special grants programme for it to obtain funding from the Department of the Environment. That may help its case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 271B not moved.]
Clause 151 [Regulations, orders and directions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 146, line 38, at end insert ("but this subsection does not apply to orders under section 71 above or paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with an amendment to Part III. I am not aware of the number. I beg to move,
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 272A not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 272B:
Page 146, line 41, at end insert ("but this subsection does not apply to regulations under section 141 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 146, line 46, leave out ("71(7)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 152 [Consequential and minor amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 274 and 275:
Page 147, line 5, after ("to") insert ("section 76 above, Schedule 11 to this Act and").
Page 147, line 5, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("Schedule 16").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I discussed the amendments with Amendment No. 259. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 147, line 5, at end insert:
("(2A) The repeal of section 124 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 shall not affect a compulsory purchase order made for the purposes of that section under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 before the coming into force of the repeal and such compulsory purchase order may be proceeded with and shall have effect as if the said section 124 had not been repealed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 107A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Consequential and Minor Amendments of Enactments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 277 and 278:
Page 215, line 5, leave out from ("following") to end of line 6 and insert ("paragraphs—

"(1) Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

(m) Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;".").

Page 217, line 26, leave out second ("and") and insert:
1024
("(aa) in subsection (2), paragraph (b) shall be omitted; and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 277 was discussed with Amendment No. 163 and Amendment No. 278 with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 219, line 7, at end insert:

("1982 c. 45.

Civic Government (scotland Act 1982.

Sections 124 and 125 and in section 126 sub-sections(1)and (3).")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 107A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 280, 281 and 282:
Page 219, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert:

("In section 7(2) paragraph (b) and the word "and" preceding it.")

Page 219, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert ("(6)").
Page 219, line 25, column 3, at end insert ("Section 35(6B).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 221, line 30, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section 15(2), the words "in the national interest".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 284 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 154 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 285 and 286:
Page 147, line 28. at end insert:
("section (Transitional provision relating to section 88);").
Page 147, line 34, at end insert:
("section (Penalties for offences of polluting controlled waters etc);").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 285 was spoken to with Amendment No. 198. Amendment No. 286 was spoken to with Amendment No. 263. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 287 and 288:
Page 147, line 43, leave out ("and 17") and insert ("6, 7, 8, 17, 21, 23 and 30(4) (aa)").
Page 147, line 44, at end insert ("but, in the case of paragraph 21, in so far only as that paragraph inserts a paragraph (m) into section 7(4) of the Act of 1984;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 were discussed with Amendment No. 163. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 288A not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 148, line 11, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(8)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 290:
Line 27, after ("land;") insert ("to amend section 107(6) of the Water Act 1989 and sections 31(7) (a), 31A(2) (c) (i) and 32(7) (a) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 291:
1026
Line 30, after ("ships") insert ("to make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very happy to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Caldey Island Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

North Yorkshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes past midnight.