Lords Sitting of 20 April 1994

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

London Docklands: Traffic Routes
Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are seeking to discourage the use of the new roads and tunnels in the London docklands area by traffic which is trying to reach the M.25 and avoid the heavily congested traditional routes through the East End of London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we are not seeking to discourage the use of these roads. Motorists are free to choose whichever route best suits their journeys. Indeed, a good many are already using the Docklands highways in preference to the A.13 trunk road.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does not my noble friend feel that either open government or the Citizen's Charter might suggest that the route along these wonderful new roads is shared a little more widely by being signposted? Is he aware that some of us have stumbled on the secret of how to use these roads, enjoy whizzing between the City of London and the M.25 on mile after mile of unused dual carriageway, and feel rather ashamed at being like members of the Politburo in Moscow in the days of the Soviet Union?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not whizzing too fast because there are some cameras strategically placed on those dual carriageways. Aside from that, I suggest that if he travels on part of that road during the rush hour he will find that it is not quite as lonely as he appears to imply. The Docklands highways were built as part of our continuing commitment to the regeneration of the Docklands. That remains their primary function. But it is undoubtedly true that one of the links in particular (that with the Limehouse Tunnel) is a well-used method of skirting some of the busier parts of the A.13.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as far as this matter is concerned, the absence of signposts is characteristic of this Government, in that they simply do not know their way and have no intention of producing any signposts?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that the Government, including myself, have a very clear idea of where we are going. Furthermore, I say to him that in this case signposting is a matter for the local highways authorities and not for the Government. I am quite sure that the local authorities also know where they are going; or perhaps they do not.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is true that trunk road signposting is a matter for local authorities? I would like to add my voice in support of having better signposting on that route. On the M.11 there is no signposting for quite a long stretch. I thought that I was very lucky to make it when I used that road for the first time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, signposting on trunk roads is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. The road which my noble friend is asking about is not a trunk road. The A.13 trunk road is signposted, but as we all know from our own experience, and that of others, motorists are very good at finding a quicker way to make their journeys, but then they find that many other motorists have also discovered that quicker way.

Palace of Westminster: Working Hours
2.41 p.m.
Lord Northbourneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the International Year of the Family to make the facilities and working hours of the Palace of Westminster more friendly to those who work in the House and also want to be good parents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, this House tries to accommodate the needs of its staff both by its own policies and by following good practices adopted by government departments. The House already operates paid and unpaid maternity leave, flexible working patterns and a child care voucher scheme.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. I feel that the Question goes a good deal wider. Does he accept that time enjoyed together within the family is a very important aspect of parenting and also important in consolidating the stability of parental relationships? Does he agree that Parliament should be setting a good example to other employers in facilitating parents spending time with their children between school and bedtime rather than doing exactly the opposite?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, the Leader of the House, has set up a group under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham. Its terms of reference are to consider the practices and procedures of the House in so far as they affect the sittings of the House. I understand that the group first met on 21st March and will report by July. We shall study its report very carefully.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, has the Westminster City Council social services department approached the Officers of this House, and will it perhaps approach our committee? Under the Children Act 1989 there is a duty to provide for all children up to the age of eight years whose parents are out at work.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend with any detail. Perhaps it would be helpful if I point out to her that we have a child care voucher system which is currently used by 17 members of the staff. It is a flexible system; the value of each voucher can be tailored to what an employer can afford. It is not as expensive as a crèche, so lower-paid workers can make use of it. It is available for under school-age children and for school-age children during the holidays. It is worth £6 a day, and it is taxable. One voucher is allowed per family. The House of Lords Finance and Staff Sub-Committee introduced the scheme in May 1993.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Question also includes those Members of your Lordships' House who sit in the Chamber, so I shall leave that part of it aside.
A noble Lord: Well, we work!
Baroness Nicol: Does the Minister agree that it would be greatly to the benefit of all who work in the House if noble Lords were to make their speeches a good deal shorter so that we could all go home at a reasonable hour?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a useful suggestion. Perhaps I might suggest that noble Lords opposite cut down the number of amendments that they table to Bills—particularly to mine tomorrow—so that we can all go home earlier.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that this Question has been asked literally times without number since the last war? If he will look into this and see how often the Question has been asked, he might discover whether there has been any variety in the Answers that can be given. I do not think that there is. Nobody ever seems able to do anything about it, and I do not suppose that they ever will.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should point out that another place has produced the Jopling Report. I understand that my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council continues to seek agreement on a balanced package of measures to put before another place. I know that he is concerned that whatever is proposed should be on an agreed basis and should take account of the needs of the Government, the Opposition and individual Back-Benchers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the 10 years or so in which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, I have been trying to get provision of a family room for the use of Members' spouses and their children? I have not yet achieved that; but are we any nearer to providing it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is not for me to answer on behalf of the Government. It is a matter for the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. I shall certainly draw those remarks to the attention of the Chairman of Committees.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the circumstances of another place and of your
188
Lordships' House are quite different, and that it would be wrong for us to have to accept what is considered to be right in another place? Is my noble friend also aware that Members of both Houses are better Members of both Houses to the extent that they are able to maintain contact with the world at large?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not have the experience of my noble friend, who was a Member of another place. He did the country a great favour when he became a Member of this House and relinquished his seat in another place for the Prime Minister. The group that is considering this matter in your Lordships' House will do so on a very different basis from the group in another place. We shall make our decision on how we feel that this House should operate in the future.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend is doubtless aware that one of the most helpful arrangements for families is the job-sharing scheme which the Government instituted some years ago. Can my noble friend tell the House how many members of staff avail themselves of the job-sharing scheme and, if he is able to do that, what the increase has been over the past five years?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, what I can tell my noble friend is that there are 314 staff, of whom 176 are women. The policy of the House is to try to accommodate particular demands by adjusting hours, allowing staff to work part-time and through job sharing. There are a number of examples of job sharing and of hours of work being adjusted to take account of individual needs in relation to child minding. I do not have the figures for which my noble friend asked; but if they are available, I shall write to her with them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while this House should, of course, be quite different from the other, perhaps I may ask this question. Does my noble friend remember that when the late Mr. Richard Crossman, in the 1960s, introduced morning sittings in the other place, it was unsuccessful because Members of the other place insisted on continuing debates until the media closed down, which was at about midnight, and the Government rightly felt that they could not gag them by applying the closure?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point which gives one more view of the debate that we shall have to have in your Lordships' House once the group's report has been received.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest—I do not really like doing this—as both my parents were Members of another place and were subsequently both Members of this House. Does my noble friend agree that I have not suffered unduly?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has not suffered unduly. What is more, it enabled him to become at one stage a distinguished Deputy Chief Whip in this House.

Health and Safety Law: Crown Immunity
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to remove Crown immunity from prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and regulations made under that Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans to change the current position, which is that Crown bodies are required to comply with health and safety legislation and HSE inspectors seek to ensure that the law is complied with and that Crown employers meet standards of good practice found elsewhere. The HSE is considering the implications of removing Crown immunity from prosecution under health and safety legislation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate that Answer, but is the Minister aware that there is plenty of evidence that some Crown bodies do not comply with the health and safety regulations until Crown immunity is removed from them; for example, the notorious Stanley Royd Hospital and others? Instead of workers being protected by health and safety regulations, management flouts the regulations and is protected by Crown immunity. That should be abolished by the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is our policy that Crown immunity should not lead to standards of health and safety in Crown premises lower than those applying elsewhere. Health and safety legislation already bites fully on the Crown and allows for inspection and enforcement through Crown notices. As I said, the HSE is currently examining the case for removing Crown immunity and the costs and benefits associated with such a removal, but I have to say that it is not one of its highest priorities.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I ask this question merely because I want the information, which I ought to know. How far does Crown immunity apply in the public service? Does it apply, for instance, to quangos and all health service institutions? How far down the ladder of service does it apply? Does it apply, for instance, to an employee of the Crown, however lowly, who flouts the health and safety regulations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer my noble and learned friend with the precision that he would like. However, I can say that quangos, health authorities and next step agencies such as the Benefits Agency of the DSS are also covered by Crown immunity. The important point to get over, as I made clear in my first supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is that it is our policy that Crown immunity should not lead to lower standards of health
190
and safety. There are provisions for Crown improvement notices and prohibition notices. There is also a provision for formally censoring Crown employers at a fairly senior level for non-compliance.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in view of the Minister' s recent remarks on this Question, will Her Majesty 's Government re-examine the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons with a view to implementing his health and safety regulations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, prisons are another matter, but I shall have a look at the question asked by the noble Lord, and I shall write to him or arrange for an appropriate colleague to write to him.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with regard to my noble and learned friend's question about quangos, is my noble friend aware that when, some 20 years ago, I was director of an industrial training board, which was unquestionably a quango, we did not have the protection of Crown immunity? I suspect that on the whole quangos do not have it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his assistance in this matter. I shall look to the precise line where Crown immunity is drawn. It might be helpful if I wrote to my noble friend or my noble and learned friend and placed a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us would take him to task for saying that the Government's policy does not lead to a lowering of standards? My noble friend Lord Ashley did well to refer to the Stanley Royd Hospital in West Yorkshire, where a number of elderly people died of food poisoning in the most appalling circumstances. That was related very much to the fact that immunity was enjoyed by that hospital. Some time ago at the Dispatch Box the Minister said that the protection of employees of the Palace of Westminster under the health and safety legislation, which is what the Question is about, was under serious—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, some time ago the Minister was questioned about employees in the Palace of Westminster. He gave an undertaking that the matter was under serious consideration. Is he now saying that the consideration is not so serious, because surely the people who work in the Palace are entitled to just as much protection as is afforded to people who work outside it? It is about time the Government met their requests.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Question is not about health and safety in the Palace, which is another matter, because it is not covered by Crown immunity but by the application of parliamentary privilege. As the noble Lord will remember, there was a Question about that some time ago, and another one two years earlier. When answering for the Government, my noble friend Lord

191
Ullswater gave a commitment that that immunity resulting from parliamentary privilege would be removed at the first suitable legislative opportunity.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the point I am making is that the Minister referred two years ago to the first suitable opportunity. It is not the earliest opportunity if we have to wait that long is it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there has not been an opportunity since then.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, would not a more accurate answer to the perceptive question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, be that many tens of thousands of workers are covered by Crown immunity and are therefore not protected fully by the health and safety regulations? If that is not a high priority for the Government, why is it that the Home Office Review Body has recommended lifting Crown immunity from fire precautions legislation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord did not listen to my first Answer. I was trying to make it clear that health and safety legislation bites fully on the Crown. It also allows for Crown inspection and enforcement procedures. There are also procedures, as I made clear, for formally censoring Crown employers at a fairly senior level. In other words, we have more or less everything except for prosecution. I then went on to say that the HSE is examining the costs and benefits of removing that immunity. There is little point in removing that immunity if it does not improve the position and merely imposes greater costs.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but I did listen to the first Answer. I found it unsatisfactory, because the Minister is neglecting and ignoring clear evidence of the bad effects of Crown immunity.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, that is something we are examining. One has to be clear that the benefits of removing Crown immunity are greater than the costs of retaining it. The important point is to have the best possible health and safety systems and practice. I am satisfied that this country has a pretty good health and safety record, but obviously, if the removal of Crown immunity could improve it without imposing greater costs, then that is the line that we would go down.

Organophosphate Exposure: NHS Treatment
2.57 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that patients who believe they are suffering from the effects of exposure to organophosphates are being properly treated by the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My
192
Lords, clinicians treat patients to the best of their ability, using their own clinical judgment. In the NHS we investigate any formal complaints brought to our attention, including any from patients who believe that they are suffering from exposure to organophosphates.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Does she recall that on 4th October last year I wrote in confidence to the Secretary of State for Health asking her to investigate the activities of the National Poisons Unit at Guy's Hospital? I quoted specifically the cases of Mrs. Annette Griffin and Mrs. Barbara Lawson. Both of those ladies were told by the National Poisons Unit that, yes, they were suffering from organophosphate poisoning. When it was discovered that they worked for a health authority, the director of the National Poisons Unit called a meeting of all the physicians responsible for those two ladies in Cheshire and withdrew from their files any reference to organophosphate poisoning. One of the ladies was twice pregnant while working for the health authority. She is worried about the health of her children. They can get no help whatsoever—
Noble Lords: Question!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have asked a question.
A noble Lord: Too long
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister please explain why I have had no full reply to my letter of 4th October?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of the letter that the noble Countess sent to the Secretary of State. She will remember that we met officials on 25th November to discuss her concerns on this issue. Since that time officials in the department have met the director of the National Poisons Unit, and discussed in particular her concerns about the questionnaire. I understand that it is now no longer used.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the gap between what patients believe and the reality is often very wide indeed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right; that is often the case. In this area we are in some difficulty because as far as I am aware there have been no cases where it has been conclusively proved that the symptoms can be attributable only to the proper use of OP sheep dips.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister but perhaps I may say to her noble friend that both cases were well documented and there were witnesses at the meetings. There is another case of a man in the Isle of Wight who was told by Guy's National Poisons Unit, "We cannot tell you at the moment whether you are suffering from organophosphate poisoning. We will tell you in two years". Is the Minister aware that the questionnaire about which I asked was described by a senior consultant psychiatrist in London as being designed to discredit patients? Will

193
the Minister ensure that help is given to discount any organic cause of illness before psychiatric reasons are given for it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was not aware of the particular comment that the noble Countess gave on that questionnaire. I am sure she will be relieved to know that it has now been withdrawn. With regard to patients who believe that they are suffering from exposure to organophosphates, it is up to GPs and clinicians working in hospitals to exercise their clinical judgment and to treat them as best they can. Where patients feel aggrieved we have a complaints procedure.

Industry and the Environment
3.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to industry's responsibilities towards the environment, and in particular to the role of technological advances in improving environmental practice and the quality of life; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I will allow for the traditional moment during which certain noble Lords who are not interested in the debate wish to leave the Chamber.
We have moved this Motion because, in our view, first, there is a growing realisation that the environmental problems of our country and the world are, and indeed should he, at the centre of debate about national and international business activity. Secondly, we believe that the free market, which for many years has been so beloved by noble Lords opposite, will by itself no longer be able to cope with those problems. There must be a much closer relationship between government and the corporate sector if those problems are to be resolved. Thirdly, we believe that there are opportunities for British business to exploit in what I might call the environmental sector which, if we are successful, will bring great benefits in terms of revenue to this country and to employment, and, by extension, to our quality of life. For those three reasons, our Motion appears on the Order Paper.
I hope that there is little argument about the first proposition. The days when we could consider industry in purely profit and loss terms, without also considering environmental side effects, are over. The experience of the environmental desert in Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism has had its effect. Furthermore, even if after that there are doubts about the political awareness of the environmental effects of uncontrolled industrial activity, any doubter needs only to look at the literature, both academic and governmental, that has developed during the past few years.
Any remaining doubters might then look at the European Community Green Paper, issued in the late 1980s, which was analysed and commented upon by your Lordships' Select Committee in a report published in March last year. The House has also seen reports on the implementation and enforcement of EC environmental legislation and on the fifth environmental action programme. Furthermore, and I hope finally for the
194
doubters, there have been any number of reports by other bodies, culminating in the recent government post-Rio White Papers and the "Marrakesh Declaration" that was issued last week by the signatories to the GATT Uruguay Round, which specifically emphasised the importance of further work on the impact of international trade on the environment, in particular on third world countries.
There is a further dimension. It is no longer possible to overlook the ever more critical role of the consuming public. And from this further questions arise, in particular about information that could and should be available to the consumer for consumer protection. It is not just a matter of 100,000 or so inhabitants of Worcester being deprived of drinking water by an apparent leakage of solvent from a chemical plant. Plainly, that is illegal without a special permit. What is of greater anxiety is that although discharges are monitored it is a criminal offence to disclose information from the records so obtained without the consent of the water company, making it illegal to pass on or publicise findings other than under the privilege of a court. Perhaps I may take one admittedly rather unpleasant example. The effect on rats of drinking sewage-contaminated water has been studied for eight years. However, the results were deemed "unsuitable for publication". More and more the consumer is demanding access to this kind of information and, as usual, the consumer is right.
The questions I wish to ask, and to which I wish to offer a response, are as follows. Are we doing enough to alert industry across the whole spectrum to its responsibilities towards the environment? Are we enforcing the higher standards of environmental practice that those heightened responsibilities entail?
In looking at those two questions, perhaps I may first look at some of the positive sides. It is not my purpose to claim that everything is gloomy. The responsible care initiative of the Chemical Industries Association has been widely commented upon with approval, as has the introduction of British Standard 7750 on environmental management systems. The CBI has established a cross-sectoral Environment Business Forum, which I believe to be a leader in its field. It is widely praised. Undoubtedly, those are matters for congratulation.
However, the Environment Business Forum of the CBI—just to take that example—for all its worthy aims has only 250 members out of 20,000 businesses in the United Kingdom employing more than 200 workers. Furthermore, some 95 per cent. of all businesses in the United Kingdom employ fewer than 50 people. As far as I know, there are no umbrella bodies for them in respect of environmental matters. The Federation of Small Businesses is silent on the matter. Therefore, it can hardly be said that within industry itself the voluntary campaign has got very far, however worthy—and I wish to stress that—it may be.
The problem is quite obvious. Company environmental action plans, or whatever one likes to call them, can be expensive. They can be expensive to set up and expensive to implement. Funds going to support them come out of profits and even dividends. It is all too easy for a company to plead that its aim is to maximise the

195
return to its shareholders—and that is the beginning and the end of it. Indeed, directors of companies of such a nature tend to go on, "We believe in a free market in which we are able to operate in whatever way we wish provided it is within the law. The City demands no less".
Here, of course, I come on to the more political matters. Let me make the statement quite plainly. It is our argument that companies are not free-standing entities operating in a kind of social vacuum but are part of society itself. If that sounds "corporatist"—a dirty word, as your Lordships will remember, during the 1980s—I am not ashamed of that in the least. It means that the Government must take the lead in persuading the corporate sector, in so far as the voluntary effort —and I emphasise that expression—is inadequate, to embark on the environmental action plans which society demands.
If that has to be enforced through a reporting mechanism on environmental practice built into the Companies Acts, then so be it. But if it comes to that, and I know not whether it will, I would add one note of caution. There is one area where we have to be particularly careful; that is, the small business sector. As our own European Communities Committee pointed out last year, small businesses need particular help. Any environmental legislation needs to be translated into a form which is easily understood by small businesses, and does not impose too heavy a burden on them.
At this point in the argument about the centrality of the environmental factor to the future of industry I would assert that it is possible, by close co-operation between government and industry—much closer co-operation than we have had under this Government —to solve what I would call the domestic problem. But we are a long way from solving the international problem. It may well be that the recently completed Uruguay Round (assuming that the treaty is ratified in all countries) however welcome it is in other respects could actually work towards damaging the environment. The new treaty could be used to challenge international environmental agreements such as the Montreal Protocol or the Rio conventions. Quite bluntly, that must not be allowed to happen.
Our party has put forward proposals for the GATT working party on trade and environment which would meet those concerns. We believe not only that that is a matter of urgency—the GATT working party should report within a year—but we believe also that the GATT treaty itself should allow for states to take action to protect their own or the common environment, and that such action can be applied to processes which damage the environment, as well as the end products.
I realise that up to now what I have said might be seen as somewhat on the negative side. Critics may say that I am asking for too much regulation: too much emphasis on the green and not enough on the necessity to create the growing wealth that we accept—and I accept it without compromise —is necessary to support a better environment. So I would like to turn now, if your Lordships will allow me, to the positive opportunities which high environmental standards offer
196
us; in other words, to the technological advances to which my Motion refers. In fact, as your Lordships will be aware, there are technologies in existence already which, if properly harnessed, could create thousands of jobs—simple ones like energy efficiency, the replacement of lead piping, or land restoration projects; very simple, easy technologies. But the more exciting technologies are still developing. Pollution abatement will, in the short and, indeed, the medium term, constitute the larger part of the environmental industry.
The global market for pollution abatement technologies is already worth some 200 billion dollars, and by the end of the decade it is variously estimated to be worth between 300 and 600 billion dollars. This, I need hardly say to your Lordships, is very big business indeed—and very lucrative.
Sadly, the record of the United Kingdom is in this, as in so many other things, rather depressing. We are, to put it in a nutshell, falling badly behind. In air pollution equipment, for instance, our exports in the early 1980s were eight times our imports; now we are net importers. In sewage handling equipment, 15 years ago we exported more than all other European countries; again, we are now net importers. In total market terms, for all pollution abatement equipment, 50 per cent. of the market is shared between Germany, the United States and Japan. The United Kingdom market share is negligible.
Whatever the short term about pollution abatement, the greatest opportunities in the future lie in the development of what are called "clean technologies". Let me give your Lordships the DTI definition of what is meant. It is:
"technologies which focus on reducing demand for raw materials and energy and on the prevention as distinct from the treatment of pollution and wastes".
That is a complicated definition. Let me give one example: the ozone-friendly fridge. Conventional fridges use CFCs as coolants and in the insulation. CFCs are to be phased out under the Montreal Protocol. The commercial opportunities for the manufacturer who develops and markets a fridge that does not rely on CFCs are quite obviously enormous. What has happened? The German Government stepped in and there are now two German companies making hydrocarbon fridges which are totally ozone-friendly and highly efficient—German companies, my Lords.
And this example is only one among many. In every sector where there is a polluter—motor car, aeroplane, domestic heating and so on—in every sector there is a similar story to tell. But, alas—and I have to say this to the Minister—it does appear that the United Kingdom is falling behind in almost every sector.
So my last question is: what could or should government be doing to rectify the situation? In answering that question I think we should first look at what industry itself wants. It is no good me, from this Dispatch Box, or any other noble Lord prescribing any remedy unless it is what is required by industry.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that compared with Germany, British industry is a deliberate polluter?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for asking me to clarify what I said. The answer is, no. I am not saying that we are more deliberately polluting than any other country or company in the world. What I am saying is that, in trying to develop industries which will clear up that pollution (technologies that will deal with the pollution) we are behind the others. That is the argument that I am advancing. If I may say so, it is an argument which is proved by the facts. Just to digress for a moment, because the noble Lord has provoked me into this, I think that we are quite good at services but I do not think we are very good at manufacturing—my noble friend says "anything"—pollution abatement equipment. I believe that we have a big problem.
What does industry want? Here I quote from a recent survey of the environmental technology industry carried out by Environmental Policy Consultants. It found that 68 per cent. of respondents thought that there was not enough government support for their sector and that only 7 per cent. thought that it was enough. But, of course, they would say that wouldn't they? What is much more surprising —and, in my mind, more interesting—is that when asked what were the main barriers to growth in their business, nearly half replied "lack of government incentives for investment", and a third cited weak legislation and enforcement. When asked what factors improved sales, the majority cited United Kingdom and European Community legislation.
The answer, therefore, is becoming clear. Higher regulatory standards can be, in the technical term, "technology forcing"; in other words, regulation produces the advances in environmental technologies to generate the wealth, the jobs and—dare I say it?—the quality of life that we are all looking for. As confirmation of what I am saying, I need to look no further than paragraph 51 of the report of your Lordships' European Communities Committee, to which I referred earlier, which says:
"Early adoption of strict environmental standards can give `first mover' advantages".
That early adoption of strict environmental standards is the responsibility of government—not random deregulation.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could produce some examples of where he thinks our environmental record is lacking in the United Kingdom. It would certainly be most helpful in order to speed the debate along.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am in no hurry because there is no time limit. However, if the noble Lord would like to read the report of his own—that is of our own—European Communities Committee he will see many examples from the evidence of where, in the view of the evidence submitted and of your Lordships' committee, we are falling behind. We are falling behind particularly in the aspect which I just mentioned where Japan and Germany were cited in that report as having applied strict regulatory standards which gave them
198
"first mover" status. They developed the technology. If the noble Lord would like to send for a copy of the report, he will be able to read that in black and white.
I believe that that proves the case. It is not a question of random deregulation that the Government are moving forward with. The responsibility of government is to regulate properly. The responsibility of industry is to follow-up with ingenuity and commercial acumen in precisely those markets which regulation generates. That is what we should be looking for, and that, I hope, is what we will get. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is quite right to raise this issue. I fully agree with his reasons for doing so. In his normal vigorous style, the noble Lord has stimulated what I am sure will be a most interesting debate. I am pleased that the noble Lord referred to the report of Sub-Committee B of the European committee because I have some connection with it. It was most unfortunate that, due to pressure of other parliamentary business, we did not have the occasion to debate it. However, we now have that opportunity. I should like to add to some of the comments made by the noble Lord on that report.
I should, first, remind the House that the report was drafted in response to a Commission document which I found to be very positive. It was a document which sought to demonstrate that industrial competitiveness and the protection of the environment could go together; in other words, that protecting the environment in industry was not necessarily harmful and that it could lead to positive results. We found that there was much substance in that contention, although in some aspects of environmental protection there were undoubtedly substantial costs which could not be compensated for.
The noble Lord referred to the "prime mover" situation which we emphasised a good deal. We found as the noble Lord indicated; namely, that in those countries—notably Germany and Japan—where at an early stage they applied strict environmental controls, that stimulated the response from industry to produce the machinery, the equipment and the processes to deal with the situation. In my own sector (the coal sector) the treatment of sulphur emissions was a case in point. Unfortunately, in this country we delayed considerably before we accepted the proposition that there were undue SO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, we did not subscribe to the view that special scrubbing processes should be adopted and developed, whereas in Germany they went into it straightaway. The equipment now used in Britain in that sector has very largely to be imported. That is an illustration of the way in which, in some instances, we have fallen behind.
I was impressed with the document which the DTI issued earlier this year entitled The European Environmental Industry—Succeeding in the Changing Global Markets. I found it to be a very practical document. It analyses the various sectors in the new environmental market and indicates where the leading exporters and competitors are and what might be done from this country. It is a helpful and practical approach to the issue.

199
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, we are extremely good on consultancy services. When preparing for this debate, I was surprised to learn that there are no fewer than 700 firms in this country which provide an environmental consultancy service. They are almost falling over one another. Fortunately, they do not concentrate only on British industry; some of them operate very successfully abroad. Therefore, we lead in that area.
Another area in which I believe we lead is in the treatment of water generally and of water effluents. The water companies are to be congratulated on the initiative that they have taken in that respect. However, those successes are relatively few. Much more needs to be done. I hope that it will be stimulated by the DTI document to which I referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the issue of the degree to which there should be regulation and the degree to which there should be voluntary action. That is an issue at which we looked carefully in the report. My opinion is that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 just about lays down as much regulation as we could reasonably cope with. Some would feel that it even goes too far. I remind your Lordships that it introduced three fundamental concepts: the concept of integrated pollution control; the concept of the duty of care, particularly in the disposal of waste; and the famous BATNEEC concept; that is, the need to adopt the best available technology not entailing excessive cost.
I think that those are all good concepts. The trouble with the last, however, is that it is capable of a wide interpretation. I am not surprised that at an early stage the Government had to issue guidelines on the subject. What is the best available technology not involving excessive cost? The concept of excessive cost is something which is very subjective. One company's excessive costs could be very different from those of another. I think that this imposes a particular role on the regulators, and on the people—in this case the pollution inspectors—who have to apply these regulations. Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not so much that there should be more regulatory legislation, but that we should make sure that the legislation is properly and effectively applied. I think that this is an area of importance not only here but also, almost more importantly, in some member countries of the Community where they are pretty lax in their application of the regulations.
I am a great believer in having legislation and regulation buttressed by voluntary action because voluntary action can take the whole issue much further and generate much more enthusiasm. The noble Lord referred to some aspects of this. He was right to refer to the responsible care initiative of the chemical industry. The Chemical Industries Association described this to us in our sub-committee and I was very impressed. There were two noticeable points of interest: first, that it started here but, secondly, that it has spread to a large number of countries and now 20 major countries have adopted the system. It is backed by codes on employees' safety; pollution protection; what is called "product
200
stewardship", which is a lifetime analysis of products; community awareness and emergency response. I am glad to say that the CIA—I would point out to avoid confusion that that is the Chemical Industries Association—has decided that this should be a condition of membership. Therefore it has taken pretty strong action and it should be congratulated on that, particularly as the action has been taken in a sector where the problem of pollution has been very noticeable.
The noble Lord referred to the CBI's initiative and I agree that there are not many companies yet who have adopted it, but it is all there and I know that the CBI is pressing ahead very hard. Again I think that the British Standards Institute is to be congratulated on the major standards which it has introduced in recent years, particularly the well known BS 5750 which deals with quality systems and which it has now followed up with the environmental management standard 7750 to which the noble Lord referred. I am glad to note that that standard is now to be incorporated as an international standard. That is an area, again, in which we have shown a successful initiative.
But apart from these general initiatives of a voluntary nature I have found that there is a large and growing number of companies who are taking their own initiatives. The concept of environmental management is spreading and I was struck in particular with what has been done by the National Westminster Bank. One does not normally associate a banking institution with environmental concern, but it has taken the matter seriously and it has worked hard to create an environmental awareness within its group. What has interested me particularly is that it has sought to influence its suppliers and its customers, particularly small firms.
The noble Lord referred to the problem of small firms. Small firms have a great difficulty in the first place in understanding the environmental legislation and then in actually carrying it out and surviving having done so; they need a great deal of help. We suggested in our report that environmental legislation should have special sections relating to small firms and that existing legislation should be explained in terms which could be reasonably applied to small firms. What I am glad to see in connection with the initiative by the National Westminster Bank is that it has put itself out to help its small firm customers in this area. I think that is much to be commended.
The noble Lord referred to some aspects of environmental improvement which can be entirely beneficial and I am personally involved in one; namely energy efficiency. I am associated with a company which is concerned with energy management and I can say that as a result of our operations in the past year we have reduced CO2 emissions to the tune of 85,000 tonnes. That is quite a lot of CO2 which is not going into the atmosphere. Your Lordships may be interested in specific cases because this is an area of environmental improvement which brings undoubted benefit—not a net cost, but a net benefit. I wish to refer to the case of a group of 50 hotels where the application of energy management principles has led to a saving in energy of

201
15 per cent., to an annual financial saving of £170,000 a year compared with what the group was spending before, and it has reduced the group's CO2 emissions by 2,500 tonnes per annum. That is something which is in every respect desirable.
I give another illustration of 25 blocks of flats, mainly in central London. The energy saving in this case was 29 per cent. and the financial saving was £400,000 per annum. The reduction in CO2 emissions was 5,000 tonnes per annum. I was very glad to see, in the third report of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment, that special emphasis was put on energy efficiency as contributing to the improved environment.
To sum up, I would like to make three points. First, I think there is plenty of evidence now to suggest that industry is well aware of its environmental responsibility. There have been notable voluntary initiatives which have been mentioned. Of course more needs to be done and the noble Lord was quite right there. Secondly, much environmental action can be of considerable benefit in terms of cost and efficiency. I gave the example of improved energy efficiency and there are others. Thirdly—this is where I think that we are probably weakest and I share the view of the noble Lord on this—we need to develop what has been described as "prime mover" initiatives. In other words, from now on we should take a lead in anticipating environmental developments rather than being drawn along, in some cases reluctantly, by them. I think that in this way we could not only improve environmental practice at home, but we could also improve our balance of payments, and above all we could assist emerging economies who need this kind of help and are unable to develop it themselves.
3.39 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for raising this important and timely subject. The Government published their Agenda 21 strategies about three months ago and more recently they have issued the annual report required for next month's meeting of the UN's Commission for Sustainable Development in New York where environment ministers from all over the world will be reviewing progress on a wide range of issues. These events and issues are not insignificant. They ultimately affect us all, as they will also ultimately affect future generations; hence the relevance of the noble Lord's carefully focused debate today.
Many of industry's most fundamental responsibilities to the environment are well recognised in the UK through such policy concepts as the three mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; namely, integrated pollution control, the duty of care and BATNEEC. There are also BPEO (the best practical environmental options), environmental assessments, eco-audit and management systems, and the development of British Standard 7750, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned. This basic framework of environmental responsibility is vital. That so much of it is already established is an achievement of policy and practice which is, justifiably, acknowledged by a wide range of interests.
202
Few would deny that much more remains to be done and that the decisions which lie ahead may well be difficult. However, if one looks at the progress of some of our neighbours and competitors one realises why many of them currently credit us with developing a commitment to the environment by industry which is coherent, sensible and largely cost-effective. I have had first-hand experience of that external assessment recently. Within the past few weeks I have been to a conference in Paris on waste management and attended a committee in Geneva studying the Agenda 21 issues. At both events impartial critics gave UK policy fairly good marks for quality and credibility.
That deserves to be pointed out, not so much for the benefit of my noble friend the Minister who, being a naturally modest man, I would hate to embarrass, but because if we can identify those ingredients which can produce coherent and credible policies, and promote those ingredients, we have a better chance of achieving a good deal more.
Undoubtedly one of the successes in this country, which we must continue to promote and which has attracted attention elsewhere, is the fundamental contribution made towards sustainable practices when industry and government develop their environmental responsibilities together as a team. It is through the co-ordination of their respective responsibilities and skills, and liaison on the assessment of problems, objectives and methods that sustainability can best be delivered. Environmental policies which are neither commercially viable nor operationally practical are unlikely to be sustainable. Equally unsustainable are policies which are driven purely by political sentiment rather than by the realities of economic and environmental cost-benefit analysis, life cycle analysis or a sound scientific base.
To take an example, the waste recycling policies of countries such as New Zealand, Germany and Canada illustrate how policies based on sentiment and assumption rather than on viability and analysis can produce both an economic mess and net environmental penalties which are sometimes worse than the very penalties that they were seeking to mitigate. In their headlong rush into prescriptive policies those governments failed to assess or consult on the complexities and practicalities involved. For example, they failed to assess the true cost of separating out and collecting plastics, given that they comprise just 8 per cent. by weight of municipal waste streams. They failed to appreciate that a plastic bottle represents the equivalent of just one seventh of a car mile in energy terms. That has significant implications for the environmental viability in terms of resource use and emissions of some recycling schemes given the transport and reprocessing costs involved. It may be better environmentally to landfill that plastic bottle than to recycle it. In pursuing those famous policies governments failed to check with industry whether there was even a market for what was being collected. That has produced a range of economic and environmental problems way beyond those countries' domestic market.
Turning to recycling in the UK, one will find a significantly different approach being pursued. Here the,

203
Government identified the need for action but then invited the relevant industrial sectors, in the shape of producer responsibility groups, to propose solutions. By asking industry to formulate its own analysis and choice of sustainable policies one effectively gives it considerable responsibility for delivering results. This is not a case of the Government seeking to avoid environmental responsibilities which should be their own. Government can and must identify problems and set standards. It is more a case of responsibility being shrewdly co-ordinated to reflect the inherent skills and abilities and incentives which are available in the market place.
In terms of the detail required for more sustainable industrial practices, for instance, it is industry which has an intimate understanding of the circumstances in which environmental improvements are sought. It is industry which has the greatest vested interest and the greatest experience of pursuing accurate analysis and cost-effective solutions. It is industry which has realised that environmental innovation can contribute to profit and survival. To paraphrase Frances Cairncross, it is industry's inventive energy which governments must seek to harness for the sake of the environment. The UK Government have been quicker than many to grasp those truths and to expand industry's responsibilities to the environment so that they include the analysis, formulation and delivery of appropriate policies.
There is one further aspect of this whole question which needs to be addressed. The general success of the commitment of industry to the environment may owe much to industry's involvement in and government devolvement of policy making. However, it also relies at critical junctures on governments' willingness to step in rather than to stand back. That is especially the case where necessary improvements in practice are temporarily or fundamentally unsustainable or unachievable if left to the private sector alone, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, put it, where the voluntary effort is inadequate.
Governments can and do—and this Government certainly do —sponsor research where appropriate. They can revise specification standards where appropriate. Governments can issue credits, tax allowances and loans on appropriate equipment. They can reduce sales tax on appropriate goods. Governments can lead by example and use their own considerable purchasing power to create the right markets for the right goods. In the UK, for instance, national and local government authorities purchase half the extracted aggregates every year. That is considerable purchasing power, which can be used for environmental gain. They are also major purchasers of paper, another industry which needs environmental improvements.
In addition, governments should publicise successful and innovatory techniques. The motor trade is an example. There is a very good new technique which few people know about. Those who do know about it are unlikely to broadcast it because it is commercially profitable. In this country alone millions of tonnes of waste motor oil are generated every year. It takes just one litre of that oil, if carelessly dumped, to pollute one
204
million litres of water. Yet too few people know that waste motor oil can be profitably recycled to produce fuel oil for power stations and furnaces. It also results in reduced sulphur dioxide emissions compared with the traditional heavier fuels.
With reference to the second aspect of the debate relating to technological advances, the active participation of government in promoting or enabling improved technologies to secure better practices can be essential. My noble friend's department has done fairly well. I welcome the new DTI project to encourage innovation in environmental performance which is to be launched this summer under the title The Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. It is designed to disseminate information on best practice in clean technologies.
I also welcome waste minimisation schemes such as the DTI's Aire and Calder project which has saved participating companies some £2 million in two years, at the same time reducing their water use and pollution. I believe that there is a similar Merseyside project called Project Catalyst for which similar savings are projected.
I especially welcome the philosophy behind the non-fossil fuel orders and their Scottish equivalent, the SRO. They enable young technologies which show potential in terms of environmentally sensitive energy generation to gain market access. Such enabling mechanisms can stimulate commercially promising and environmentally preferable technologies, helping them to become competitive and free-standing. They can be the trigger and incentive for substantial private sector investment in the UK market, both by our own industries and in terms of inward investment from overseas companies. That last point should not be underestimated. Attracting industrial expertise and investment from elsewhere can benefit both our environment and employment.
As a footnote to the non-fossil fuel order issue, it is always worth remembering that non-fossil fuel orders cover a wide range of technologies and generation sources. Your Lordships may have seen the recent publicity relating to the 25 million tyres which are scrapped in this country each year. We are now burning approximately one quarter of them to produce electricity.
We have also set up the world's first scheme for the generation of electricity from chicken litter. I believe that two projects exist. Poultry litter spread locally has caused environmental problems and there have been worries about nitrate in the water supplies, about methane, and about salmonella entering the food chain. Now, thanks to non-fossil fuel orders, that waste is being used not once, to generate electricity, but twice. After electricity generation the resulting ash, which at that stage is harmless, is sold to farmers. It is high in potash and phosphates. I believe that governments must inspire and guide with such information.
Could the Government be doing more? Yes, I believe that they probably could. There may always be technologies lurking in the private sector which need to get off the ground but are having difficulties. Perhaps the most notable of those "victims", as it were, relates to the technology and infrastructure developed in the

205
United Kingdom by British Gas for natural gas vehicles. I cannot understand why that technology has not received more help. The potential is there but the reality is not, because the level of excise duty levied on natural gas as a vehicle fuel is currently four times the levy set for petrol and diesel. That defies logic. Natural gas is one of the cleanest fossil fuels available. As a vehicle fuel it is virtually free of lead, sulphur, particulates and the hydrocarbons which cause pollution at street level. Its CO2 emissions are 30 per cent. lower, which is relevant to our international obligations. The CO levels are 70 per cent. lower than those of petrol vehicles. Yet despite the environmental advantages of natural gas as a fuel for vehicles, I understand that Treasury policy favours petrol and diesel. If the duty on gas as a vehicle fuel is reduced to the EC minimum—that is the level at which petrol and diesel are treated in this country—it could become more competitive and begin to develop its market potential. That is an exception, but it is an example of government policy hindering a technological advance which would otherwise improve the quality of our life.
In conclusion, I believe that across the board the UK has made good progress on these issues. Industry's responsibilities to the environment are well established in a strong framework of basic responsibilities. Those responsibilities have been expanded to improve access to policy formulation, analysis and the delivery of objectives set at a national level. Where that has occurred, it has worked well. I know from first hand experience that that response is admired by other countries. Therefore, Government must continue to encourage that involvement, and continue their own strategic involvement in specific areas. To date the issue has had a good record; long may that continue. At present we all benefit from a good start to the Agenda 21 process.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to develop this important subject at this point. I wish to develop two strands from his rather complex presentation. The first relates to the commitment of industry generally to address environmental problems associated with its own operations—and I include in that the agriculture and fishery industries, both of which have important impacts on the environment—and to keep us informed about what it is doing.
My second strand refers to research and development to which my noble friend referred, and the manufacture of the technology necessary to effect environmental improvements and to take British innovation abroad, not only to the industrial but also to the developing world.
Those of us with environmental interests receive a considerable number of documents drawing attention to efforts being made by various industries to meet environmental considerations during or after their operations. Yet in the CBI News published only this week, the director general finds it necessary to urge more businesses to publicise their performance. He states:
206
"Public reporting is absolutely essential to the credibility of any business, but some firms are thinking twice before committing themselves. It is therefore important that those which do operate a programme of environmental best practice gain the credit for it".
I commend that view. I go further. I suggest that the absence of a public declaration of such a programme can and will be construed as the absence of a positive attitude to environmental matters. It is important that credit is given where it is deserved.
What is needed is not a glossy brochure full of platitudes about general environmental worries—we receive some of those—but a genuine recognition of the problems which can be associated with the particular industry and an honest statement of any efforts made to mitigate or overcome their effects. In the present climate, where environmental considerations are much in the public eye, I believe that honesty is good business.
The second strand is the development of technology to avoid problems or to deal with them after they have arisen. My noble friend referred to the value of the market for environmental technology which he put at 200 billion dollars. It has been estimated that by the end of the decade that specific market will have grown to 600 billion dollars. That is serious money by arty standards.
In March 1991 the then Secretary of State for the Environment, a certain Mr. Heseltine, speaking at an RSA Better Environment Awards for Industry ceremony, stated:
"There are enormous opportunities for those British companies willing to attack markets at home and abroad. These markets are not just for clean-up or pollution abatement technology, they are also increasingly for clean technologies. The shift from 'end-of-pipe' techniques towards the use of fundamentally cleaner processes means that opportunities will fall to process designers and operators as well as to identifiable environmental technology sectors.
Reconciling economic growth with the protection of the environment will be one of the central challenges for the 21st century. It is not an exaggeration to say that the survival of civilisation depends on our success in meeting that challenge".
I believe that the Government have not moved away from supporting that statement by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, at least in words if not in deeds.
The United Kingdom has a proud record of innovative technology. I am not as pessimistic about it as my noble friend on the Front Bench. I believe that the expertise and enterprise still exist. Yet a recent survey, to which my noble friend referred, concludes that the British environment technology is not a world player. My noble friend referred to the survey and gave figures that 70 per cent. of the companies taking part in the survey earned less than 25 per cent. of their sales from exports. That is not a happy situation.
It is true that within the United Kingdom the driving force behind the investment by industry in environmental technology is the need for industry to meet UK and European legislation. That driving force in this country is weakened by the UK Government's failure to enforce environmental regulations. They make a great deal of noise about it in some circumstances; but when it comes to enforcement, we are very slow. I appreciate that in the Government's eyes there may be a conflict between the enforcement of regulations which would benefit the

207
innovative technology for clean-up and the existing industries which create the problems. But there is a huge market to be developed and it is of environmental benefit to us all. Yet the Government seem to lack the will or vision to create the right background for the market to develop.
I referred earlier to the report of Environmental Policy Consultants. The author of that report states:
"The new commercial goldmine for environmental technology manufacturers is in danger of being lost to foreign competitors unless the British Government strongly supports British companies by providing investment incentives, financial support for R&D, and by enforcing legislation properly".
That is absolutely true. My noble friend drew attention to the fact that it is in large measure the small businesses in this country which lead the field in the subject. It is small businesses which are most in need of government help and encouragement. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite of the old chestnut that so many small businesses fail because of the difficulties they have with cash flow and the need for the Government constantly to try to ensure that bills, including government department bills, are paid on time.
There is a rare opportunity here for the aims of industry and of the environmentalists to coincide. That does not happen often, and I hope that the Government will not miss this opportunity.
4.1 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, business is business. While it is true that the needs of the environment have been brought sharply into focus over the past decade, it remains accurate to say that the overwhelming majority of businessmen will do as much to preserve the environment as the law demands and yet as little as possible in that respect in order to preserve their profits. That is the harsh business reality. We all know it and we cannot wistfully wish it away.
What we can do, however, is to encourage a greater sense of responsibility for the environment among industry which will motivate action not just because the legislation demands it, but also because it is right. In that context, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for raising the matter in the debate this afternoon. Indeed, it follows upon the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, last month on sustainable development, as well as the recent establishment of the Select Committee on Sustainable Development, all of which show clearly that your Lordships' House attaches great importance to environmental matters.
Some noble Lords, I am aware, may take issue with my opening remarks and I happily acknowledge that there are exceptions. But in the main, precious few companies are prepared to invest more than they have to on environmental initiatives, particularly if less environmentally responsible firms in the same industry can save costs and gain a competitive edge on them. It is the harsh reality, particularly during the recent global recession.
The ideal state of affairs—which I regret some countries appear closer to reaching than Britain—would
208
be for instinctive environmental concerns to be shared by all companies in the market place. It is often understandable that some companies are wary of pursuing expensive environmental measures for fear of being left exposed and uncompetitive in their market sector. Such hesitation is not unreasonable.
There is, however, a marketing edge to be gained, often by companies showing their commitment to fulfilling their environmental responsibilities. But I repeat my assertion that business is business and, in general, companies cannot always be expected to demonstrate some kind of missionary zeal in protecting the environment when it conflicts with their prime responsibility of protecting their own market share. Here again, I share the concerns of many noble Lords who have already spoken about smaller companies needing more protection from being too heavily impeded by environmental legislation.
The chemical industry has made major inroads into cleaning up its tarnished public image, with initiatives such as the responsible care initiative already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, with many chemical companies struggling against overcapacity, poor demand growth, declining margins and tumbling profits, they are often stretched to invest more in furthering their commitment to fulfilling their environmental responsibilities.
Clearly, it is primarily the role of government to create a climate where it feels entirely natural for businesses—that is, all businesses—to take an active line on environmental matters. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 certainly took a step in the right direction, although some have expressed concern that the Act took a more remedial than preventive approach. However, it was a positive start.
On an international level, the Government contributed in a major way to the success of the Rio Summit when more than 800 billion US dollars was committed to environmental projects globally. Yet almost two years have passed and much of the heady euphoria which surrounded the Earth Summit seems to have evaporated. Other issues have seized the spotlight and disillusioned pressure groups have started to question whether anything was truly gained.
The progress has been slower in developing countries than in under-developed nations, largely because of the ever present conflict between expensive environmental measures and industry's natural urge to remain competitive. Perhaps this delicate balance will best be found by joint action between government and industry, with the Government creating the climate, both by introducing legislation and the use of economic instruments and initiatives and with industry en masse being receptive to broader concerns for the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already mentioned a number of voluntary environmental initiatives taken by several major companies.
There are other factors at work within the environmental cause. As a trustee of the Television Trust for the Environment, I am keenly aware that increasing public awareness through environmental

209
television programmes plays a crucial role in educating and influencing not just the public but also corporate opinions.
There is an ever increasing number of consultative agencies which advise companies in Britain on their environmental responsibilities. I understand that in 1986 there were fewer than 50 such agencies, and now there are well over 500.
Furthermore, certain initiatives pursued by the European Community are helping to stimulate a fresh approach in the market. Here I refer specifically to the Eco-labelling system as well as the Eco-audit legislation. All those have moved the debate in the right direction.
As environmental awareness and concern grow, an immense global market for environmental technologies and services has been created. Many noble Lords have already mentioned that it was worth well over 200 billion dollars worldwide in 1992 and it is due to grow substantially by the end of the decade. Happily, it seems that the United Kingdom is particularly well placed to take advantage of this growth. The environmental agency Ecotec was appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry to assess the export opportunities for United Kingdom suppliers of environmental goods and services. They found that this was an area where:
"the United Kingdom is very much in the black".
Exports in 1992 totalled more than £700 million. Nearly half those exports went to European Community countries and a useful 7 per cent. to East and South-East Asia. This is one of the growing markets in the sector. It is expected to grow from 2½ per cent. of the global sales at present to more than 10 per cent. by the year 2010. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has already mentioned, there is huge scope for there to be more growth in the export of environmental technology from Britain.
The United Kingdom's position in water and waste water treatment is particularly strong and the privatised water companies appear to have made substantial investments in such technology. There is, however, scope for more investment in air pollution control equipment, where an uncertain domestic market has disadvantaged United Kingdom companies. The approach to contaminated land remediation has been found to be technologically unsophisticated. Again, the lack of a proven track record has been a handicap to the prospects of British firms.
In the waste management field the Ecotec report says that the United Kingdom's strong dependence on landfill—I believe that 90 per cent. or more of all British waste is disposed of in landfills—and relatively lax environmental standards have reduced the scope for operators to develop innovative techniques. The United Kingdom is performing successfully in niche markets such as landfill gas. But it appears to be missing out in the growing market for integrated waste management services.
Noble Lords may be aware that the Labour Party, in criticising the Government's present policy of deregulation and the use of economic instruments, has suggested that progressive legislation at home can create a springboard for sales of environmental
210
technology abroad. There seems to be some evidence that this may be—and indeed is—the case. Several world leaders have emerged through tough domestic legislation. I refer to Germany, with its desulphurisation technology; the United States, with its catalytic converters; and Sweden with its incinerator emission abatement systems.
In conclusion, it is evident that the market—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He said that the Labour Party had put forward certain proposals, and he was quite right. Will he also accept that the idea that regulation can be the prime mover in developing technology is not simply a Labour Party idea; it is an idea that has been generated elsewhere, and in particular by your Lordships in Select Committee.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I certainly take the noble Lord's point. I agree that those initiatives have been issued not just by the Labour Party but also by your Lordships' Select Committees.
It is evident that the market in environmental technology is growing at a ferocious pace. The competition is great. But so are the rewards. Even in a world of environmental technology, business is business. We all know that. The challenge is to convince industry at large that business can still be business, but with a responsible concern for the environment.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, during the past few years none of us has escaped the effects of pollution caused by business. However, we are hesitant about the measures to be taken because of the need to earn our living. Therefore, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Williams for giving us the opportunity to debate this dilemma by calling our attention to industry's responsibilities towards the environment.
The Government have started to act by laying down standards with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the waste disposal regulations. As the previous speaker said, business is business. But there are pressures on business to go much further than that basic minimum. I should like to speak about how business is reacting to the pressure to accept more responsibility. I should also like to suggest what government can do to help business, and how, with care, that can help to make British industry more competitive.
Business can cope with the financial, marketing, economic, employment arid technical pressures. But pressure is felt by companies from various groups which have a direct interest in their environmental performance, and that is different. Those pressures do not come only from environmentalists. Investors wish to know what level of capital expenditure is needed to meet possible compliance criteria. They want to know what the actual or potential environmental liabilities may be for cleaning up waste or pollution. Bankers holding a business's land and buildings as security are anxious to find out whether pollution is diminishing the value of their security. The pollution could go back over 100 years. Local communities want to know the effect on their environment of site operations in regard to

211
effluent, waste disposal, transport, and air emissions. Customers want to know about the environmental impact of the products that they buy, because they in turn are under the same pressures. Employees want reassurance that the company for which they work is not exposing them to any health hazards and that the company itself has a good environmental record. Employees often form part of the concerned local community.
Business has responded to those pressures by voluntary action, which other noble Lords have described, and by introducing environmental policy statements and reports. It is now considered good practice to show responsibility by issuing an environmental report at the end of each year. My noble friend Lady Nicol quoted a recent appeal from the CBI which urged precisely that. KPMG Peat Marwick recently did a survey of the top FT 100 companies in the UK. That survey showed that 70 of those companies produced an environmental policy statement in 1993, compared with 42 in 1992. However, company environmental reporting is in its infancy so there is no agreed approach. Because of the growing voluntary and regulatory pressures, the level and nature of the environmental information being disclosed varies. In the survey only 12 companies gave bad news as well as good; though most were one-off references to some publicly known misdemeanour. However, the number of companies which both published an environmental policy and gave details of their plans for its implementation doubled.
Because company environmental reporting is a comparatively new concept, there must be a need for an agreed approach. Several groups have published their opinions on what environmental information should reveal and how this should be disclosed. At least one of the accounting bodies lists various criteria in judging which reports are good. The 100 Group of Finance Directors has published a statement of good practice. The CBI has set up a forum. Those different approaches make comparisons difficult. Naturally, businesses pick the style of reporting that shows them at their best.
Nevertheless, it would not pay any company to adopt a casual approach to this subject, since environmental reporting could become a necessity. That is definitely the long-term aspiration behind the European Union's Eco management and audit scheme, for which environmental reporting is a key requirement. In addition, one aspect of the Community's fifth action programme aims to get companies to reflect the full cost to society of the production and conservation of their goods and services. In the Netherlands the government are drafting a Bill that will require companies to publish detailed annual reports of their environmental impact and improvement plans. That will break new ground in Europe and could set the trend.
This area is where government leadership is required and looked for. In spite of the Government being in deregulation mode and in spite of their ambivalent attitude towards the European Union, perhaps the Minister can tell us what plans the Government have to regulate environmental audits and reporting. That is
212
important because those audits demonstrate that a company is engaged in a process of self-assessment and is alive to its responsibilities in the environmental debate.
A business's responsibilities to the environment also extend to the product that it makes. Here there is a difficult balance to achieve because although environmental considerations are gaining ground the ecological superiority of a product is not its most relevant selling point. Price and user satisfaction are more important. But environmental considerations are catching up. Ecological detergents are gaining ground over traditional ones. That is an aspect of competitiveness which seemed to have escaped the Department of Trade and Industry when it published its Factors Affecting Competitiveness in June 1993. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether the new paper, expected next month, will take that into consideration.
Rising environmental standards can lead to products becoming unacceptable and being replaced by imports. New profitable technologies must have a reduced environmental effect. Dr. Robert Wheelan, the chief executive of the Centre for the Exploitation of Science and Technology, put it rather well when he said:
"Solutions to future environmental issues must enable firms to operate green while remaining in the black".
Companies whose products fail to address the environment as a competitive issue will soon be in trouble with their financial backers, their insurance companies and their key customers and can suffer much adverse publicity.
Business must seek to make technological advances which are environmentally sound and combine those advances with remaining competitive. Legislation and government have an important role to play. First, there is the much discussed level playing field, which will define the lowest acceptable environmental standards and perhaps set targets to be achieved.
Secondly, legislation plays a role in creating a market. As my noble friend Lord Williams pointed out, perhaps the best known market created through environmental legislation is the waste disposal market. That is a hi-tech industry with huge potential and has provided important opportunities for the UK economy. We seem to have done quite well in that sector, partly because we have some stringent waste disposal regulations. The same effect can be seen in Germany, where stringent pollution abatement regulations apply. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, because of those regulations, flue gas desulphurisation has been refined and marketed by German companies, even though it was invented in the UK. The two British power stations with that technology had to buy their equipment from overseas.
Perhaps the greatest future opportunities lie in the prevention of pollution and waste as distinct from their treatment. Together with energy efficiency, that can dramatically improve a company's competitiveness. Other noble Lords have pointed out that, happily, it also coincides with the responsibility of business to the environment. That was clearly demonstrated by the Aire and Calder project. By applying both clean and lean technology to the 11 companies which discharged into

213
the Aire and Calder river basin, savings of £2.3 million were achieved from an initial outlay of £400,000. Further savings have been identified.
If industry spends less on waste and energy, there will be more for investment and employment. Therefore, there is a distinct relationship between competitiveness and clean and lean technologies. Quite rightly, the Government encourage waste minimisation, but unfortunately the recently announced joint DTI and Department of the Environment's environmental technology best practice programme, which helped to make the Aire and Calder project a success, will not provide further funds for projects of that kind. That is yet another example of that special type of government short-termism, whereby a good idea is started but the money is cut off before it is properly finished and the full benefit obtained.
The need for regulation is also recognised by the CBI, which calls for a clear and consistent regulatory framework—not a free for all. As my noble friend Lord Williams pointed out, a recent report from your Lordships' House concluded that:
"early adoption of strict environmental standards"
has given Germany and Japan a head start in the environmental market. Unless we are careful, those technologies will have to be imported, resulting in the diminution of our competitiveness owing to lack of regulation. That is why the DTI's plans are important.
The Government can help in other ways. They are a major purchaser and should deal only with contractors and suppliers with good environmental practice. They could also lay down mandatory limit standards on such matters as energy efficiency and waste. That does not mean that there are only high-tech requirements. It can mean achieving energy efficiency through low-tech businesses which can put thousands of or unemployed people to work.
The Motion of my noble friend Lord Williams speaks of technological advances improving the quality of life. I feel that people see that very much in terms of the impact of business on human health. Transport is central to that, particularly road transport. The first major UK environmental foresight project at the end of last year identified that very issue. It forecasted that concern about air pollution would generate a demand for new technical solutions to eliminate the emission of toxins into the air. That forecast looks accurate. Only today we have had a report on the bad effect of ground ozone on breathing. Recently it has been found that the number of children in our cities suffering from asthma has doubled. The cause of both problems was identified as being intimately linked to petrol and diesel fuel toxic emissions. That must lead to further regulation of motor vehicle fuels. There will have to be new planning for transport. Vehicle speeds may have to be reduced, to reduce both pollution and noise. There is little doubt that one of business's responsibilities to the environment is to minimise road transport because it is a hazard to human health and a cause of acid rain.
Concern about the quality of life is another pressure on business to develop environmentally sustainable technologies and products in the future. Incidentally, they are all matters dealt with by the Transport Research
214
Laboratory. The Minister will remember that those points were raised during the debate about the break up and privatisation of that laboratory at the very time when its work is becoming crucial to British industry. Perhaps that is another example of the Government's short-termism.
The responsibilities of business to the environment are expressed in their environmental audits and reports. They must be encouraged. Even though the Government are in deregulation mode, they must overcome that dogma and set about regulating the environmental standards and not be afraid to set them high. Experience has shown that it stimulates new industries and. technologies which can be sold to countries with less high standards. It also stimulates competitiveness.
It is the reduction of transport pollution which is important. The environment is a "quality of life" issue and pressure of public opinion is causing business to face up to its responsibilities. Perhaps nowhere was that more dramatically expressed than in the recent "Horizon" programme on BBC television about the worrying effects on human fertility of minute amounts of hormone-like chemicals which have recently appeared in our water. My noble friend Lady Nicol mentioned the survival of civilisation. That is absolutely true.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already offered to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for the opportunity that he has given us this afternoon to discuss industry's environmental responsibilities. It is a huge, important and topical subject and one on which it is not easy to speak cogently in the time which I thought had been allotted to the debate. I discovered that it had been made "timeless", as it were, too late to expand on the subject. It may be to your Lordships' advantage that I shall not be speaking for as long as I might have wanted. I hope to be more to the point, if less comprehensive.
I hope that what is said today will provide a useful if modest contribution by this House to the wider debate already taking place outside and indeed throughout. the world. I am a little surprised and saddened by the relatively small number of Members of your Lordships' House taking part in the debate. In my view it deserves a rather wider audience. We have heard much good sense. If I had to cite any contributions, I would say that I found a good deal with which I agree in what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, had to say.
I doubt whether there are many in industry today who seriously question the reality and importance of industry's environmental responsibilities. To the extent that there are any such people, the level of interest shown in the subject by society at large would disabuse them of their view. What is not always obvious is how best those responsibilities are to be discharged. I have a personal interest in the environmental debate as one brought up to be something of a naturalist and, indeed, with one hat on, as a farmer. I know that many people in this country regard the farming community as being in the vanguard of environmental depravity. I do not feel quite like that.

215
Clearly, I must remind your Lordships also of a particular interest in the subject arising from my chairmanship of British Petroleum, although of course, I do not venture to speak on BP's behalf. In my years on the board of BP I learnt much from its experience of approaching and managing environmental issues. I have no doubt that BP's experience is not untypical of that of many other companies, not only in the oil business but over a broad range of industries. It is on the basis of that experience that I believe there is no inherent conflict of interest in rewarding shareholders, serving customers and improving environmental standards. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned that a committee of this House came to much the same conclusion.
It is a mistake to suppose that somehow industry has a vested interest in doing the minimum necessary in the environmental field. On the contrary, good environmental practice is usually good business. I realise that any assertion made in this debate is open to challenge, and the point I have just made is no exception to that rule. Given sufficient time it will be possible to debate the issue in much greater depth than is possible this afternoon. Let me explain briefly, therefore, why I believe no fundamental conflict exists between commercial and environmental considerations—I say "briefly".
First, people who work in business breathe the same air and have the same concerns for their children as everyone else. The employees of Britain's companies have a selfish interest in ensuring that their firms do not behave irresponsibly. Secondly, cutting environmental corners to save money is a dangerous option. It can lead to greater expense later on and may well incur competitive disadvantage. Many companies now see environmental performance as a source of competitive strength rather than weakness. That point has already been made. Customers often demand higher standards. Finally, to put it bluntly, an environmental disaster is inevitably a public relations disaster as well. A company's reputation for honesty, integrity and responsibility can be gravely impaired if—through negligence, incompetence or neglect —a major environmental accident takes place. Disasters can happen in the best run companies. But there is no doubt that what in business jargon is sometimes known as a company's "licence to operate" is absolutely fundamental to its interests. Its importance cannot be exaggerated.
As I say, I realise that each of those assertions is open to debate. It is clearly possible to think of circumstances where firms deliberately hope to get away with poor standards. That is why there is an important role for some level of legal safeguards and penalties. But essentially I believe that my proposition is sound. Where the difficulty arises is in knowing what needs to be done and where the priorities lie. The subject we are discussing is immensely complex. In many respects the most necessary, obvious and easy environmental improvements have already been identified and implemented—at least in the OECD countries. Close to home one thinks of the effective cleaning up of the Thames and the elimination of the London fogs which
216
were killers. I recall, as will many other noble Lords, the 1953 fog which killed thousands of sufferers of bronchitis and allied lung diseases.
The debate now centres upon options which are much more costly and uncertain in their effects. I shall not spend too much time on costs. Clearly, a balance must be struck between what would be ideal and what society is willing to pay, either directly by way of higher prices for goods or indirectly through centrally incurred costs of government. We are all guilty in our own way of employing double standards. We deplore the noise made by aeroplanes but want to go on cheap foreign holidays. We complain about road congestion but like driving our cars. Customers are by no means always willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to greener products. However, profitable companies and prosperous countries spend more upon the environment than businesses and economies in decline. That is not a coincidence; it is a warning. A poor economy is often a dirty economy, as demonstrated by the state of affairs in the former Eastern bloc countries to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred. Anything which impairs the strength of an economy will, in the long term, tend to have a negative impact upon the environment as well.
A greater problem is not merely the cost of doing something but its effect. We have now reached the stage where it is easy to prescribe costly so-called solutions which are at best unnecessary and at worst harmful. They can also contradict one another. Perhaps I can take one example from the oil industry to illustrate the point. First, in order to reduce CO2 emissions from refineries —that is, from the actual manufacture of petroleum products—but principally because it made good economic sense anyway, the oil industry invested in energy conservation measures throughout the past decade. Between 1980 and 1990 an underlying 30 per cent. energy efficient improvement was achieved. That is a good example of what new technology can bring about.
However, there was another environmental demand to satisfy at the same time. While demanding lower CO2 emissions, society also demanded lighter and cleaner fuels. That meant that the self-same efficiency improvements were offset by increases in refinery fuel consumption. The net effect of both was that actual fuel consumption remained broadly constant at 5 to 6 per cent. of crude oil input; in other words, no net improvement in CO2 emissions after all. With regard to the future, an escalating requirement for cleaner and lighter fuels is likely to cause an increase in refinery fuel consumption, which means that CO2 emissions will also rise. That example vividly illustrates the dilemmas facing both industry and legislators when it comes to environmental policy.
There is no doubt that technology has a vital role to play in helping industry to improve its environmental performance. Changes become possible which would have been impossible before. But technology must be closely linked to the problem in hand and it does not absolve either business or legislators from the need to face up to certain basic questions. To cite but one example: what environmental damage will result from

217
an absence of action and how certain is the scientific evidence for that? That question is especially pertinent in the context of global warming. I make no claim to expertise in that area. But no observer of the debate can fail to notice the conflicting expressions of respectable scientific opinion upon the subject. Clearly, there are some who believe that it is not necessary to act precipitately in this area. What is certain is that large-scale action on this or any other subject will be extremely expensive to society, will inevitably divert resources from other desirable goals, and may leave future generations with other onerous problems. That is why it is so often right to give priority to those matters which are both scientifically and economically justified and which can produce a discernible benefit.
There is a legislative approach which I believe could enshrine this principle. First, we must identify the issue to be tackled. Secondly, we must identify the goal to be achieved. Thirdly, we must assess the method under consideration. Clear answers to all three of those points seem to me to be essential. They involve looking at the cost implications and benefits of each proposal as well as asking whether the proposal is capable of sensible implementation.
This is where technology is often a key factor. There is no point in prescribing a detailed policy if consumers or industry lack the means of changing or adapting their behaviour. Some regard must be paid to the availability and cost of competitive technology before introducing economic instruments whose purpose is to wean consumers from environmental practices which society judges to be harmful. But where the technology exists, it can be crucial. In the oil industry, for example, horizontal drilling, developed very recently, has meant that much less landspace is now taken up in drilling for oil. That is of enormous environmental importance in places like Dorset where Wytch Farm—by far the largest onshore field in the UK—lies and where it is now possible, although it was inconceivable only two or three years ago, to access pools of oil which lie under Poole Bay from sites which are completely hidden from view around Poole harbour.
In the chemicals industry, a simple and inexpensive modification to valve packings has contributed to a significant reduction in hydrocarbon emissions to the atmosphere. New technology for polyethylene production has reduced hydrocarbon emissions by 96 per cent. and solid waste by 70 per cent. And these measures have an additional factor in common. An enterprise which thrives, earning a sufficient return to update its plant and the technology employed within it and to invest in research and development, will have both the incentive and the wherewithal to improve its environmental performance.
I should add that environmental policy in business is increasingly the province of top management and is an important yardstick for assessing performance throughout organisations as a whole. The objective of effective environmental management is to reduce risk and to minimise the detrimental impact upon the environment from a company's operations. And that is now becoming in many companies one of the criteria by which management rewards are set each year.
218
In conclusion I repeat a warning I made earlier. It is possible for environmental policies to either conflict with, or even to undermine, each other. And while in many respects I acknowledge the effectiveness and indeed the necessity to society, of those organisations which campaign most vigorously for higher environmental standards, I feel that sometimes they harm their cause by not being as responsible as they could be with their use of statistics and, on occasion, by ignoring facts which may not fit the argument they wish to advance.
In that context, it is worth drawing attention to the balanced approach to environmental issues so effectively articulated recently by the European Round Table in its charter for Europe's industrial future. The charter emphasises the need for consultation, for clear priorities, for a rigorous analysis of costs and benefits, and for closer international co-operation. It makes the point that sustainable development is an objective which needs a businesslike approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has introduced a subject to which I hope your Lordships will return again. There is no doubt that industry's responsibilities in this area are great and increasing. But so is the potential for legislators to undermine its ability to discharge those responsibilities. That is what we in this House, and in another place, need to remember.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I begin by saying that I agree with every word spoken by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. That is not a usual situation, but I agree with him entirely today and thank him For introducing the subject. I agree with virtually everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I intend to stop complimenting people there because I found this debate to be faintly depressing not because the speeches were not thoughtful or well informed—because they were —but because, as I saw it, it seemed to me that the assumptions of the "environmentalists", as I might call them, seem to have been taken more or less for granted by most speakers so far with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, whom I thought was more sceptical about the environmentalists than others. I shall not press him on that.
That caused me to wonder what we are talking about and what we mean when we use the word the "environment". It is a very glib word which is used very frequently in the media and in this House to mean whatever people want it to mean. I had occasion to question a witness at a hearing some months ago (perhaps little less than a year ago) of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House. I said to the witness: "What do you actually mean by 'environment'? Do you mean perhaps 'nature'?" The witness said yes and that the environment was nature. In her view, nature was the environment and man the despoiler and that he betrayed nature and changed it. That is an extreme view which I do not believe would be taken by most speakers today; but it is a view on the environment. When most people use the word "environment", they are referring to something which is being done which is causing harm to the environment which means "nature". I do not accept that and I

219
sincerely hope that the Minister does not accept it either. He, being a well-informed Scotsman, will not believe anything so silly.
Perhaps I may put the matter at its bluntest: nature is the enemy. If you turn your back on nature, you are overgrown. The natural state of nature is the wilderness. There are environmentalists who are very keen on the wilderness. I remember a colleague on these Benches who is now a noted environmentalist. He used to talk constantly of the wilderness, and how good it was; and how we should keep, improve, enhance and expand the wetlands. That is an extraordinary idea. Nature is the enemy, and if we turn our backs on it we are overgrown.
The real state of nature is a place like Burma which consists almost entirely of jungle and lost cities. Noble Lords will remember the Israelites and how they spent 40 years in the wilderness. Noble Lords will also remember how unhappy they were and how, as soon as Moses died, they headed straight for the land of milk and honey. They got out of the wilderness as quickly as possible and headed for the land of milk and honey—that is to say, they headed for civilisation. They had had enough of nature and the environment in that sense and they headed for civilisation.
I see the hand of man in nature as the hand of the improver, as the word was used in Victorian times. Man's business is to improve nature and to make it livable. That is hard lines on certain wading birds, and so forth; but they have ways of their own for getting along. The environment that we see is almost entirely man-made. As was said earlier by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, it was largely made by farmers, architects, engineers and landscape gardners. It is not something that has happened; it was made. The hand of the improver lay upon it. It is important that we set on one side of the balance the worries of the environmentalists, with their sentimental attachment to the wetlands, with the more sensible notion of civilisation and improvement on the other side.
I think, for example, of Switzerland which is a country with an environment, if ever there was one. Switzerland's mountains are lovely as they stand, but think how much Switzerland has been improved by the bridges of Robert Maillart, which punctuate the ravines and valleys and give the environment a sense of purpose and reality, bringing them to civilisation. Think, too, of the great motorway there. I use the word "motorway" particularly because people in this country get very worried about motorways. That is not a double-plus good word. The word "motorway" brings out the worst in many people in this country. But those who are interested in motorways should go to Switzerland and stand at the Chateau de Chaillot which, as your Lordships may remember, so excited Byron. When one looks up from there, one sees a great big motorway. And there is nothing more beautiful on this earth—not even the M.6, and that is pretty good. Of course, I grant that mistakes have been made. The road which is being taken through Twyford Down should have gone through a tunnel, regardless of the cost. That was a silly mistake brought about, no doubt, by some accountant.
220
As most of your Lordships will have realised by now, I was not quite sure what the title of the debate meant, but when we talk about the impact of technology on the environment, I think of the seas around this island. It so happens that I spent last weekend at a symposium in Edinburgh to commemorate the centenary of the death of Robert Louis Stevenson, the author and writer. The symposium was not really about him, but about his family who were lighthouse builders. It struck me while thinking about this debate that Robert Louis Stevenson's grandfather, Robert Stevenson, built a pioneering lighthouse on the Bell Rock off Arbroath; and his uncle built a lighthouse at Skerryvore off the Western Isles. There is no doubt at all that those two lighthouses, which were improvements and the work of man, impacted upon the environment in a way that would be questioned today. I am sure that if those lighthouses were built today, there would be lengthy public inquiries. People would no doubt go out to Bell Rock or Skerryvore and chain themselves to those rocks. That would not seem such a good idea when the high tides rose above the level of the rocks.
The way in which that technology impacted on the environment was harsh. The nature of Bell Rock and of Skerryvore was changed totally. However, the lighthouses were wholly useful, and although some sea-birds no doubt took off for somewhere else, birds are mobile and can actually get about. That is why I have no doubt that if birds are chased out of Cardiff Bay, they will find some other mudflat not far away.
I should now like to say something briefly about one aspect of technology which impacts on the environment. I refer to the provision of golf courses. I mention that because the provision of golf courses in this country has been seriously attacked by environmentalists as though golf courses were harmful things. It so happens that I have a peculiar experience of golf courses because I was born and brought up in a place called Troon on the Ayrshire coast where everybody is born with a massive niblick in his mouth—and most of us keep it there. Troon is roughly a semicircular town. Its boundary on the west is the estuary of the Clyde. On the inland side, it is surrounded entirely by golf courses. It is ringed —it is besieged—by golf courses. I was 26 before I realised that that was not the countryside. I thought that the countryside consisted of golf courses because they have everything that the countryside demands. They have butterflies, bees, roses, sand, and gorse bushes. They have everything, yet the environmentalists think that they are an intrusion merely because they are man-made. In fact, they are usually an improvement on what was there before.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with which I very much agreed. He spoke about emissions from fossil fuels and said that a great deal of money has been spent on scrubbers, and things of that nature—and no doubt rightly so, except for one fact. It is not entirely certain that the major culprit in the production of acid rain is the power station. It might well be the motor car. It is possible that that money had to be spent on scrubbers at power stations in the sense that if there is a problem, we have to try to do something —even if it turns out to be the wrong thing which, in this

221
case, it might very well be. Who can tell? Can we be sure that global warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions? Is it caused by CO2 emissions, NOx or sunspots? Questions are asked, but have not as yet been answered.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about energy management. If I understood correctly what he was saying, I took him to mean energy audits, whereby one examines a building or factory, determines its thermal capacities and so on, and decides whether it is using fuel efficiently. I think that that is what the noble Lord was talking about. As I understand it, the Government are about to do something about that. I thought that I saw an announcement the other day that the Government were engaged in some exercise along the lines of an energy audit. If I am wrong, I have no doubt that the Minister will tell me; and, if I am right, I have no doubt that he will take the credit for it. At any rate, it is not before time. I first came across energy audits in Denver, Colorado, in 1976. It is taking us a little bit of time, but no doubt we shall get there in the end.
I come now to almost my last point. I refer to the question of replacing fossil fuels by technological improvements of one kind or another because of the alleged deficiency of fossil fuels as a result of their emissions. We are asked to consider windmills as an alternative. I think that I am right in saying that the Government have abandoned all other alternative types of energy production, such as wave energy and tidal barriers, leaving the windmill as the star in the ascendancy. Windmills are all right—I have nothing against them—but they do not produce much more than a teaspoonful of electricity. They are not big producers of electricity.
I remember telling the House long ago—I am not quite sure when it was but it was so long ago that I think that I was sitting on the Benches on the other side of the House; that shows how long ago it must have been—that at one time I was involved in the construction of Pembroke power station. It was an oil-fired power station with a capacity of 2,000 megawatts, which is quite a lot. That is about as big as they come. I pointed out to the House then that if Pembroke power station, or one like it, were to be replaced by windmills, each of which produces rather less than half a megawatt, at least 4,000 of them would be needed. I calculated then, although I have not checked this calculation and so it may or may not be correct, that what would be required would be a windmill 300 feet high with a wing span of 75 feet, every 100 metres around the coast from Cardiff to Liverpool. They need not be put in a straight line. They can be put in a block. The 4,000 could be in a block. There is only one problem there. If they are in a block, they get in one another's way, and more than 4,000 would be needed. If they were in a block, it would be a block of windmills at least half a mile square. We should think of that in environmental terms and visual terms.
I do not know how many noble Lords have seen the Altona Valley in California. About 4,000 windmills are spread around there. Their vanes go around very gently.
222
They do not produce any electricity, not even a teaspoonful. It is a great deal of intrusion on the countryside.
If we are thinking of a technological replacement for fossil fuels, there is really only one, and that is nuclear energy, which has been rather quiescent for a while. I have only one question to ask about it. I was under the impression—I may be mistaken—that in answer to a Question a week or 10 days ago the Minister announced that the terms of reference for the nuclear review had not yet been settled. Was I right? That surprised me, because the nuclear review was due out this year, and if the terms of reference have not been settled, it cannot have started unless it has been working away quietly in the dark without terms of reference. That of course is possible. Are the terms of reference likely to be agreed some time reasonably soon? I do not want to rush the Minister on this. If so, will he give us a hint as to when the nuclear review will produce some sort of recommendation?
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred to natural gas. I should like to remind the Minister of an opinion that I have expressed previously in the House. I believe that it is wholly wrong to use natural gas as a secondary fuel to produce electricity, no matter how cheap it might appear to be. My reason is a wholly technological one. Natural gas is one of the country's best primary fuels. If we use it to produce electricity, we throw away about a quarter or 30 per cent. of its thermal efficiency. That is waste, and that kind of waste is wholly wrong.
I want just to refer to one remark my noble friend made in his opening speech. He asked whether we were enforcing higher environmental standards. I think we probably are; but if one looks at the higher standards, especially those emanating from Brussels, one will find that they are too high. They should be questioned. I shall end by saying that rather too much is being made of the environment and not enough about its improvement.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I know that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and to the Labour Party for having introduced this debate. It is sad that we do not have more speakers, but that has at least meant that the level of speeches has been high and there has been no need to limit them, and that has on the whole been welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, said that he was unduly restricted by the fact that he had not learnt about that lack of restriction, but I must say that he made such a good speech in 16 minutes that I rather doubt that he would have made a better one in 32 minutes. I think that we have probably just about the right level.
I shall not rise to the many flies cast out by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, except just to say that a definition of the environment can be found in any dictionary. It is all that surrounds us; it is the natural environment and also the man-made environment. He may be right when he says that Burma is a country of jungle and lost cities, but he failed to mention that it has also produced one of the kindest, gentlest, nicest groups of people in the world. That is slightly more than one can necessarily say for South-West Scotland.
Lord Strathclyde: Oh!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, that is despite the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I do not believe that there would be serious competition between Burma and Glasgow over the gentleness of their inhabitants. There has been a slight tendency—only a slight one—to draw up categories during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said that business is business. He said that twice. The first time it was a platitude, but the second time it was inclined—I think he meant it to suggest—to suggest that it can too easily mean that a company's main objective is a satisfactory bottom line, expressed in pounds, shillings and pence. We all accept, I think, that that is an important object for a company, and that if a company does not produce that it will not continue to exist. But the debate is all about providing the right climate whereby companies can do that at the same time as they can pay attention to their surroundings; be idealistic; and at last look forward to the long term, because that is what we are talking about.
We are talking about the long-term existence of industry, our country and our surroundings—in one useful and well defined word, the "environment". What is needed is the creation of a climate in which firms with good products, good methodologies and good consciences can work for the long term. That is not as good in this country as it is in one or two others. The climate needs to be created by us as consumers as voters, and therefore by our government, whichever party it may be at the time, and by us as workers —by homo faber.
Good firms are good and there are quite a lot of them, but there are not nearly enough. They are in the minority, and not necessarily an increasing one. A recent Institute of Directors' survey which has already been referred to showed that the number of companies whose boards see no reason to discuss environmental matters has risen by a third in the past year, and that only a quarter of companies has a formal corporate environmental policy. We give full marks to those firms which are showing the way.
We give full marks to BT which, for the second year running, won the environmental reporting award organised by the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. Full marks too to the association. However, only ICI was given full marks by the judges of the competition. It made the only attempt at financial integration of the environmental report with its main report. That is tremendously important.
The global action plan was launched recently in this country, although it is thriving in other countries. Companies are encouraged to build up their resources to help groups of their employees to green their own lives in groups. An interesting development is the idea that we do not act only as companies and as individuals. Companies and individuals can interact in this respect because companies have the resources to help individuals to do what they want. That is a worthwhile initiative, and full marks to British Gas which has taken it on. It is the first company in this country to start such a scheme.
224
As regards the European stage, we must help our fellow governments and try to follow the example of the countries which are further ahead, as a result of which some are more profitable. We must also help our fellow European member countries which need help in matters such as the destruction of the wetlands at the mouth of the Acheloos River in Greece. At another time, I could return to the argument about wetlands with the noble Lord, Lord Howie. This is not the moment.
Globally speaking, we too have a part to play because it is platitudinous that we are rapidly becoming one world, one economy and almost one set of industries. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, commented that the Uruguay Round has given carte blanche—and in some ways a freedom—to companies to do things that we must limit. Trans-national corporations (TNCs) can now move their businesses into the areas where workforces are poorly paid, inadequately protected by the law from exploitation and preferably where the government prize employment above the protection of their citizens. As a result, firms—especially chemical firms such as Du Pont and Bayer—are relocating to Shanghai, and the Mexican side of the Mexican-US border has become a dumping ground of horrific proportions. It is true that in the long term we need a well-educated and well-trained workforce, but, as Keynes remarked, in the long term we are all of us dead and—it may be added—the people in those workforces rather sooner than the rest of us.
If the international trading system is to play a positive role in improving human welfare—and it can—it cannot be administered through deregulated markets which are dominated by formidably powerful TNCs. The international community must take responsibility for imposing binding regulations on the trade and investment activities of the TNCs, which otherwise are exercising power without responsibility. That has been, your Lordships will remember, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in approaching the subject of the environment, I shall take a broader view than most Peers. The environment is not just the physical or the natural; it includes the economic and the social—
Lord Williams of Elvel: The quality of life.
Lord Peston: My Lords, yes. It is not only rural; it is also urban. One of the issues that most concerns me and other noble Lords is that many parts of our towns are no longer attractive places to live in. However, they could be so again.
The classical economic view is that firms create environmental costs—that is, they impose costs on others as regards dirt, noise, polluted water and so forth —but they do not take that into account. Therefore, the activities concerned are carried on on too large a scale, and perhaps they should not be carried on at all. At the same time, other firms benefit. While some firms create dirt other firms, such as the sellers of soaps and detergents, become more profitable. The fact that our water is less than drinkable enables some firms, such as the sellers of bottled water, to become more profitable. The fact that our environment is filled with noise is

225
advantageous to the sellers of earplugs and double-glazing. In other words, the economics of this is by no means simple.
To some extent—but only to some extent—the market works, as was said in a notable speech by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. When it comes to the recycling of waste products, the market deals with the matter because it is profitable. However, the noble Earl alluded to cases where recycling does not take place satisfactorily because it is not profitable.
In approaching these matters, economists consider that there are two ways. The first is legislation to prevent the so-called detrimental spillovers. The second is the polluter-pays principle. I speak for myself in saying that, in theory, the latter is the better approach. But frequently the costs of administering such a principle suggest that the legislative route may be cheaper and more effective.
In that connection, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the voluntary principle. I do not wish to decry decent voluntary action. Other noble Lords have spoken about the issue, but my position is closer to that of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. I do not think that we can rely on the voluntary principle unless it is backed up, as it is in practice, by threat of legislation, which is why many firms behave themselves. I do not mind that, but we should not be naive about these matters.
Also in this connection, the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, referred to the fact that we have cleaner air and, in the case of the River Thames, cleaner water. He mentioned the London fogs. I remember that I had to walk home from school in fogs so thick that I had to hold on to the walls and the railings of the houses—and I was rather terrified—in order to make sure that I got home. However, the improvements to which the noble Lord referred have not arisen as a result of voluntary actions. They have arisen from legislative actions; that is, the Clean Air Act and similar Acts. Therefore, I do not believe that we should set our face against legislation.
It is also my view that the environments of our great city and others have improved as a result of such legislation. However, I have not noticed that the UK economy has been ruined by such improvements or that businesses have not been able to flourish because they cannot pump vast amounts of dirty smoke into the environment. In other words, the notion that such legislation is ruinous for business does not stand up.
I said that I take a broader view of the environment, and therefore I wish to mention a particular aspect of the social environment that other noble Lords have not mentioned. I refer to crime. If one places crime in the economics context, it is interesting to note that it leads to a greater demand for security services and devices and is profitable for the insurance industry. As a result, insurance costs increase. It is also interesting to note that all of that is entered into GDP, a theme to which I shall return. Therefore, in a sense, if we want to see economic growth, as measured, the more crime the better. But I hope that we are all agreed that it would be much more efficient and sensible to try to control crime in the first place rather than to rely on the free market offsets of criminal activity. If, as I believe, unemployment creates
226
opportunities and an environment for crime—the Government reject that—then again, it would be sensible to do something about unemployment rather than worry about the profitability of the security industry.
I suggest to those of your Lordships who are not impressed by the empirical evidence of the relationship between unemployment and crime that common sense should be used. The adage that the devil finds work for idle hands to do seems to me to be overwhelmingly correct in that context and I still find it astonishing that the Government are unable to accept such a proposition.
I turn now to a related matter. Of course, Keynes and the Keynesians referred jocularly to a possible full employment policy in which some part of the labour force dug holes and the other part filled them up. A more sophisticated Keynesian view, a gloss on that, was that a third group put money into some of the holes before they were filled up which would act as an incentive to dig the holes a second time, which would create even more employment.
That flight of fancy has now become a reality. If one looks at our motorways or streets in our towns and. the behaviour of heavy goods vehicles, what are they doing? They are creating the Keynesian scenario. They are creating a great many holes in our roads and streets which our construction workforce then fills up, albeit with some time delay.
Because of the time delay—and I sometimes wonder whether that is government policy too—great damage is done to motor vehicles and that creates a demand for repair services. I say that to show your Lordships not only the complexities but also the interesting aspects of the economics of the environment.
I am guiding your Lordships towards the paradox that in a sense, the more some firms damage the environment, the more the activities of other firms are demanded to offset that. Therefore, it is equally true that to prevent and discourage firms from damaging the environment, creates employment problems for certain other firms.
One aspect of that concerns the way in which we measure our gross domestic product. Once we take into account environmental harm, it is apparent that we exaggerate the scale of our welfare gain as measured by our gross domestic product. I have seen a quite conservative estimate which is still rather horrifying. The best work is always done in the United States and that suggests that if you take an economy with an underlying, long-term rate of growth of 2.5 per cent. per annum, which is something like ours, at least a half percentage point of that—that is, one fifth—really should not be there because it accounts for environmental damage, rather than anything else. In other words, the way in which we measure our GDP does not reflect fully what is happening to the quality of life.
I do not believe that we need high powered economists to tell us that. We merely have to go out into our streets and look at what has happened to the physical environment of one big city in the past 15 years. It is certainly true that in ordinary measured real terms, our

227
standard of living has increased. But it is difficult to convince oneself that the quality of life has also increased, at least pari passu.
I reiterate the point which was made strongly by my noble friend Lord Williams and also by other noble Lords. I do not doubt that in the short term, in the endeavour to improve the environment as it is connected with industry, we are imposing costs on firms. If we prevent firms from behaving in the way in which they choose, that must add to their costs and that will be a problem for them. But I believe—and this is the point made by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others—that those costs are extremely short term and that pressurising firms in that way will yield considerable long-term profits.
Many examples have been put forward but there are two obvious examples which appeal to me, as someone who lives in this city. The private sector, as a result of pressures from the public, has done an enormous amount of work to make aircraft engines quieter. That has been a boon to us all and it has also been profitable. That is the point that my noble friend makes. The same point applies to reducing exhaust pollution from motor vehicles. Again, that improves the environment in which we live and if you are in at the right time, an innovator, it is immensely profitable.
I am sorry to be doing my usual economist, "on the one hand this, and on the other hand that", but there is an interesting technical point on the environment and free trade. If our competitors ignore environmental costs and we take them into account, they will have what we might call an unfair competitive advantage. We may complain about that. I know that President Clinton has made a point about poor working practices biasing the system against American industry with its good working practices. Essentially, the developing countries would have an advantage, but the cost would be a poorer quality of life.
However, were we to retaliate against them and say that we shall break the GATT agreement on that account, they would almost certainly produce the riposte that when Great Britain was the workshop of the world and we dominated world markets, we did not worry about our own environment. In fact, we were busily destroying the environment of Victorian England willy-nilly. Therefore, those countries may take the view that they are now in the same position and are not going to be told by us about what is fair and unfair competition.
I now take an even broader view. In my judgment, this country needs most of all—the big idea—a commitment to a return to full employment. It was the great boon of the post-war era. It was what we owed to our soldiers who fought: those who returned would return to jobs and not to the dole. The betrayal of the 1980s and 1990s has been the abandonment of that gain, partly on the grounds that it is no longer feasible. But, as has been apparent from today's debate, there is work to be done and in the context of today's debate, it is obvious where it must be done: in improving the environment. But since the benefits are mostly public benefits, much of the finance for environmental
228
improvement must come from taxation—and I say that in terms—and it must come from public sector borrowing. In return, we receive efficiency benefits because a better environment helps industry; we receive employment benefits, as I have just outlined; and we receive consumer benefits because we can enjoy our private lives better in cleaner and safer surroundings. The purpose of the debate was to draw attention to all that and to emphasise that it can be done.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I have enjoyed listening to some good speeches and to some speeches that were good in parts. There was an excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, which I very much enjoyed. He brought his technical expertise to bear, and I am grateful that he took part.
We heard the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, at some length. Having got the environmentalists in his sight, he continued with the accountants. Whether or not he was being kind about golfers, I am still not sure. The noble lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was correct in not rising to some of the flies cast by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, should not perhaps reflect on what he said about the people of the south west of Scotland and his portrayal of them in a far bleaker light than what he called the fun-loving people of Burma. It is my belief that Burma is run by the most frightful and bloody dictatorship, and that could certainly not be a description of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord as regards the Government of Burma. I meant no great insult to the people of Glasgow. In fact, Glasgow is my favourite city in the United Kingdom. I absolutely love it. It is, indeed, most splendid. I merely think that its people on the whole are not as gentle as the run-of-the-mill Burmese. That is all.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad to have given the noble Lord an opportunity to correct his remarks. In his winding-up speech on behalf of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he felt that the quality of life had not improved. At least, that is what I thought he said. Yet, he himself gave us the example of when he came back from school and had to do so in the fog, whereas today it is almost impossible to find the kind of fogs that existed in his childhood. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Minister is most flattering. I went to school 40 or more years ago. I referred to the quality of life not improving during the past 10 years. I know that I look young, but I did not leave school 10 years ago.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I still believe that, in the course of the past 10 years, the quality of life and of the environment has much improved. I can only assume that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, lives in a local authority which is controlled by the Labour Party rather than the Conservative Party. In the environment in

229
which we work, one has only to walk around the Palace of Westminster to see the massive improvement to the built environment with the cleanliness not only of the buildings but also of the streets.
I was delighted to hear the welcome of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the DTI's recent document. I hope that we can make it more publicly available to other noble Lords. The debate has also been blessed by the fact that we have not involved ourselves too much in the difficult detail of environmentalist language—for example, BEPEO, BATNEEC, Agenda 21, and so on. I felt that, generally, we had our feet very firmly on the ground. Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said. However, there is still a substantial gulf between our fundamental beliefs.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should hope so!
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is glad about that; so am I. However much the noble Lord wishes to convince industry that he and his friends in the Labour Party are now industry friendly and however warm the embrace and welcoming the smile, he cannot hide his gut reaction, his natural instinct to legislate and to regulate; hence the noble Lord's comments on the Government's initiative on deregulation. Of course, deregulation is all about removing unnecessary burdens on business, not the very necessary protections for consumers. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He is quite right as regards what I said about deregulation. However, does the Minister recognise that the deregulation Bill as it stands deals with regulations, 79 per cent. of which have been introduced by his Government since 1979?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords; that is exactly the point. There is a temptation for governments to legislate far too hastily. That is why, when the Bill comes before the House, I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues in the Labour Party will support it.
There is the contention that the noble Lord had—at least, I think he had—that led me to believe that any old legislation was good enough because it would or it might possibly raise standards and that, in the long term, would be to the benefit of industry. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, understood very well what the noble Lord was saying when he said that regulations should be carefully thought through.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, was, at least in its early stages, rather disappointing. He seemed very much to express the belief that business is business and nothing else. He said that strong legislation works and gave examples of where he thought that that was the case. However, in Germany, which has introduced draconian laws on recycling, the policy has not been a success. It has simply led to the exporting of waste products around the world and a reduced price for those markets. It has not been of benefit to anyone. Nevertheless, I welcome the
230
noble Lord's call for industry sectors to act collectively. Indeed, it is often an excellent way of minimising the costs on individual companies.
Perhaps I may now look at the Government's responsibilities. There is nothing new in the idea that government have a role in protecting the environment. The 19th-century political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, saw the protection by government of,
"the inheritance of the human race "—
that is, the earth, its forests and waters—as essential to a "civilised society". The idea has worn well: his very phrase, "this common inheritance", was used as the title for our 1990 White Paper on the United Kingdom's environmental strategy.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure that the environment is protected. They must ensure that minimum environmental standards are maintained. They must act internationally with other governments to tackle trans-boundary pollution and global environmental issues; and they must take responsibility for maintaining our environmental legacy to future generations, for ensuring that economic development is sustainable. The principle that the polluter must pay for environmental damage has been widely accepted both in the UK and internationally. However, the cost of environmental damage is often poorly reflected in the: price of goods and services. Therefore, government must act to compensate for that market failure.
The reasons for government action are not hard to find. Much more difficult is choosing how to act—how to achieve the balance between regulation and voluntary action. This Government are not one to rule by decree and diktat. The dire environmental record of the former communist bloc, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggests that that was no better for the environment than it was for anything else.
Regulation is only one way of achieving environmental objectives. Although sometimes necessary, it is the last resort: we much prefer to use the more flexible market-based mechanisms and to encourage voluntary action where we can. Government have a duty to ensure that environmental legislation is proportional to the problem and that it is based on good science. That applies equally to European Community legislation.
Perhaps I may turn now to the background; the effects of technological change and the impact of industry on our quality of life. From the earliest times, technological advances have had an important impact on man's quality of life, usually to improve it. Let us consider, for example, the immense benefits in the past hundred years of mains water and drainage, high-yield crop varieties and refrigeration. Over the past few years, however, environmental concerns have raised doubts about the sustainability of economic growth in the developed world. It became clear that human activity was affecting the environment on a global scale in possibly irreversible ways.
However, more recently there has been a most encouraging recognition that continuing growth can be compatible with improving the environment. The goal of sustainable development has become widely accepted. That marks a new departure but one which is most welcome. Government and industry have been

231
working closely together on a number of environmental initiatives in recent years. First, for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will know, more than 1,600 organisations have joined the "Making a Corporate Commitment" campaign since its launch in October 1991. Each has pledged top management support to improving energy efficiency. Secondly, there is the Climate Change Programme which was launched this January. It is based on the partnership approach. Thirdly, there is Groundwork, an environmental movement which works in partnership with companies, local authorities, community and voluntary groups, and schools on environmental regeneration. Finally, there is the Producer Responsibility Initiative which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. It was launched in July last year with a challenge from the DTI and the DoE to encourage manufacturers to take a share of the responsibility for what happens to their products at the end of their lives.
Last year we ran a solvents roadshow which visited all the regions of the Engineering Employers' Federation. Such examples are encouraging. But what exactly are industry's responsibilities towards the environment? Beyond obeying the law, I can see several areas of responsibility which different kinds of company management subscribe to. First, responsibilities to owners or shareholders. This is the most basic level. Every commercial business has to make a profit before it can even think of doing anything else. I hope that there is no disagreement in the House about that.
I must, however, disagree with some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The managements of British companies are interested in more than just the shareholders. They have responsibilities to their wider stakeholders; their customers, employees, bankers and insurers, and the wider communities which surround their operations. That brings me back to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for statutory rather than voluntary solutions. However, I welcome his recognition that our small firms sector must be nurtured. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, welcomed the NatWest initiative. I, too, welcome it. I am not at all convinced, however, by the case made by some for special status to be accorded small firms. I believe that good regulation should be applied across the board for all companies to stick to.
I wish to refer briefly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and his contention that business is business. I agree with that, but business is far more than just making money. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for the first five minutes, made an excellent speech. However, when he entered upon the statutory role, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I did not find the speech so interesting. I agree with the noble Lord that companies have an interest in voluntarily protecting the environment. I agree too with the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, that there is no conflict between rewarding shareholders and protecting the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, talked about the exemplary companies such as British Telecom and British Gas. There are many more. Many companies feel a wider moral responsibility,
232
reflecting the concerns of their management. Whereas perhaps 100 years ago a benevolent company might have built model workers' dwellings and temperance halls, today they consider how to use their position to address some environmental problems.
Some firms think of environmental improvements as a luxury —that is a pity—only to be addressed by a third group. Other firms have made a real commitment to the environment and have integrated environmental concerns into all aspects of their operations. There are many dozens, indeed hundreds, of examples of companies, large and small, that have specialised in bringing technology to bear to improve their environmental performance. Of course, addressing the concerns of wider stakeholders is good for business because firms and industries with a poor environmental reputation find it harder to set up on new sites or to attract good staff. Commercial customers are becoming increasingly concerned with the environmental credentials of their suppliers. Increasingly, insurers and investors are demanding higher environmental standards and consumers sway the market. For instance, it was consumer attitudes that made CFC-free aerosols a success. In other words, industry's responsibilities for the environment are now part of its responsibilities for itself.
This has been a constructive and stimulating debate. The demand for environmental improvements shows in the growth of environmental technology business ranging from water treatment, waste and energy management and contaminated land remediation to environmental monitoring. The environmental technology business was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The noble Baroness said that the market was currently worth 200 billion dollars and within the next 20 years would reach around 600 billion dollars. If anyone still believes there is an inherent contradiction between environmental improvement and economic growth, those figures will surely convince them otherwise.
I disagree strongly with the view that United Kingdom industry is not doing well in this regard. For instance, it was Johnson Matthey who developed and supplied catalytic converters for petrol engine cars during the 1970s and 1980s, long before legislation made controls mandatory. The company gained a lead when converters were required in the US, Japan, and most recently in Europe. JM is now the world's largest producer of automotive catalysts, supplying among others Japanese car manufacturers in east and south-east Asia. It gained a Queen's Award for Environmental Achievement in 1993. Our recent study entitled The United Kingdom Environment and Technology: Succeeding in a Changing Market shows that overall the UK environmental industry enjoys a trade surplus of 350 million dollars.
I turn briefly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. There seems to be some confusion about the tax on gas, which I gather is half that on leaded petrol. However, perhaps that is an issue I can look at later in detail and then write to my noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope I may interrupt the noble Lord, as I meant to raise the point too. The point was so intriguing that one felt it could not possibly be right. When the Minister asks the Treasury what it thinks it is up to, will he let the rest of us know as well because this is an extremely important point?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to do so. I can shed some light on the matter. I understand that the tax on unleaded petrol is 25p per litre and on gas 15p per litre. I gather, however, that it may take more gas to make a car run for a similar number of miles, and that is where my noble friend may get his figure. I shall have to look further at the matter because I do not pretend to be an expert.
The DTI and the Department of the Environment recognise the need to work closely together to get all sorts of messages across to business, and we are doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, talked about the ingenuity of business and my noble friend Lord Lindsay talked about the inventive energy of industry, although I think he referred to Frances Cairncross when he said that. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that enterprise still exists. I agree with all such statements. We have a vibrant, keen economy and clever people who are looking at environmental solutions to the problems that surround us, and are doing so successfully. I conclude with a quotation from my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who told the Conservative Party conference in 1988:
"No generation has a freehold on the earth. All we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease".
Those words deserve repeating, as awareness of all our environmental responsibilities spreads. There is tremendous scope for government and industry to act in partnership to create a cleaner and sustainably managed environment for our descendants.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he consider the proposition that the working environment of your Lordships' Chamber still leaves a great deal to be desired and that he might look into that to the benefit of us all?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that there is a committee empowered by your Lordships to look at precisely those kinds of problems.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he refer, however briefly, to the nuclear review?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have dealt with that several tunes at Question Time. There is to be a review but the terms of reference have not yet been worked out. It will be done as soon as possible.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think in many ways it has been a useful and encouraging debate and I am grateful to the Minister for his response in certain parts, as he said about other speeches.
234
It is a matter of regret that noble Lords were prepared to spend two days airing their opinions on which shops should open on Sunday but seem, judging from the list of speakers today, to be largely unconcerned about whether or not the planet blows up. It is a matter of regret, which I should like to record. However, that is not in my control or, indeed, in the control of the noble, Lord opposite or of the Government Chief Whip, or our own Whips on our side of the House. It is a question of the House deciding which debates noble Lords favour and which they do not.
I am sorry that the Minister lost interest—to use his own words—in the speech of my noble friend Lord Haskel when he came to talk about regulation. As my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out, pretty well all improvements in the environment since the last century, and indeed in the last century, have been brought about as a result of legislation. And legislation, I am afraid, means regulation. So I hope very much that those words, which the noble Lord the Minister may have used inadvertently, will not return to haunt him.
The Minister quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I had no idea that he was a Thatcherite in such an extensive manner. I now know where he stands. He is quite right in saying that he and I disagree fundamentally on certain aspects of politics, indeed probably on most aspects of politics.
I am grateful to all who have participated in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Treasure Bill [H.L.]
5.51 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 (Vesting of treasure in Crown):
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("(1)") to ("in") in line 8 and insert ("Treasure found in any place after the commencement of this section vests, subject to subsection (1A)—

(a) if the place is a place for which there is a franchisee,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, for the most part it will be for the convenience of the House if we group by clauses the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and myself and discuss them together.
Before we proceed any further I should like to pay tribute to the parliamentary draftsman. Noble Lords will notice that there are a considerable number of amendments. Broadly speaking, the earlier draft included what we proposed, but that has now been put into much better words. I want to stress the debt of gratitude that we owe to the draftsman.
I shall speak to the first group of amendments under Clause 1 together. They are largely drafting amendments or amendments dealing with necessary technical details. The broad effect of Clause 1 remains as it was: treasure trove is abolished and a new, enlarged concept of treasure is introduced, the scope of which is defined in Clause 2, and provision is made for the vesting of treasure in the Crown and in franchisees as appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are purely drafting amendments. Amendment No. 2 moves the provision protecting certain parties' rights from Clause 2 to Clause 1. It fits more appropriately as a restriction on the rights of the Crown and franchisees. This is the provision which ensures that treasure does not vest in the Crown if someone can show that he or she was its owner before it was lost or hidden or is the successor in title to that owner.
Amendment No. 5 substitutes the new rights in treasure for old rights in treasure trove, provides that treasure, like treasure trove, is to be treated as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown; and makes certain technical changes to the definition of franchisees, most notably by making specific mention of the Duke of Cornwall. This is necessary for purely historical reasons concerned with the origins of the Duchy's right to treasure trove. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps at this point it would be helpful if I were to say a brief word about the Government's general position on the Bill.
Your Lordships will recall that we felt unable to support the Bill at Second Reading but made clear at Committee stage that we would reconsider our position in the light of the strong support which the Bill received from all sides of the House and the amendments moved at Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which in our view made considerable improvements to the Bill as introduced.
We have now reconsidered the Bill in the light of today's amendments. As will be clear from the Marshalled List, we have concluded that the Bill, with certain further changes, deserves the Government's support. I am delighted that we have been able to reach that conclusion. It is a tribute to the determination and persistence of the noble Earl and his colleagues that we have co-operated so well together. I should also like to join him in his kind remarks about the parliamentary draftsman and officials, who have worked extremely hard and of whom we are very appreciative.
The Bill as it now stands, and as we propose that it should be amended, I believe offers the best possibility of significant improvements in the present law of treasure trove. However, I should make clear, as I am sure noble Lords will understand, that the Government's support is not a guarantee that the Bill will be enacted. At this stage in the Session the time available for Private Members' business in another place is very limited. This Bill will have to take its chance there with other business. Nevertheless, I hope that by the end of the evening we shall have a Bill which will command wide support and will therefore have good prospects of a successful passage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
("(1A) The following interests and rights in or over any object to which subsection (1) applies shall have priority, so far as they have not been abandoned, over the interest that vests under that subsection, that is to say—

(a) the interests and rights subsisting immediately before that object was hidden, lost or otherwise left in the place
236
where it was found or, if it was disturbed or removed before being found, in the place where it was before being disturbed or removed, and

(b) any interest or right deriving from any of those interests or rights.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("property") and insert ("treasure").
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("property") and insert ("treasure").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14 leave out from first ("the") to end of line 15 and insert ("treasure was lost, was buried in a grave or was abandoned.
(3A) Property vesting in the Crown under this section shall be treated as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown to which section 1 of the Civil List Act 1952 applies (surrender of hereditary revenues to the Exchequer) and may be transferred to any person, or otherwise disposed of, in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State.
(3B) Neither the Crown nor the franchisee for any place shall have any interest or right in or over any treasure trove found after the commencement of this section except in accordance with this section.
(3C) References in this section to the franchisee for any place are references, as the case may require—

(a) to any person who immediately before the commencement of this section was, in relation to that place, the franchisee of the Crown in right of treasure trove; or

(b) to any person who (apart from this Act) would for the time being be entitled, as successor in title, to the rights as franchisee in right of treasure trove of the person mentioned in paragraph (a);

and for the purposes of this subsection it is as a franchisee in right of treasure trove that the Duke of Cornwall is to be treated as having enjoyed all the rights to treasure trove belonging, immediately before the commencement of this section, to the Duchy of Cornwall.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Property which is treasure for the purposes of section 1]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 13: Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 23 and insert:
("The objects which, if found after the commencement of section 1, are treasure for the purposes of this Act are the following—

(a) any coin which is at least 300 years old when found and is part of the same find as one or more other coins any of which is at least 300 years old at that time,

(b) any object (not being a coin) which is at least 200 years old when found and has a metallic content at least 5 per cent. by weight of which is precious metal,").

Page 1, line 24, leave out ("(or may reasonably be assumed to be)").
Page 1, line 26, leave out from ("found") to end of line 11 on page 2 and insert:

("(d) any object not within paragraphs (a) to (c) which would have been treated as treasure trove if found before the commencement of section 1, and

(e) any artefact not within paragraphs (a) to (d) which is part of the same find as treasure within any of those paragraphs or as any object which would be treasure within any of those paragraphs if the object had been found at the same time as the artefact.

(1 A) For the purposes of this section where an object is found by any person, that object is part of the same find as another object—

(a) if it is found together in the same place with the other object, or

(b) if it had previously been hidden, lost or otherwise left together in the same place with the other object.

237
(1B) In any proceedings in which the question arises whether any object found after the commencement of section 1 is or was treasure—

(a) any coin or other object that could reasonably be taken to be, or to be more than, a certain age shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to be at least that old; and

(b) objects found in circumstances which may reasonably be taken to indicate that they have been together in the same place at any time before being found shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have been hidden, lost or otherwise left together in the same place.

(1C) An object is not treasure for the purposes of this Act if it is comprised in any wreck (within the meaning of Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894).").
Page 2, line 14, leave out first ("or").
Page 2, line 16, after ("order") insert ("made by statutory instrument").
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("section 1") and insert ("this Act").
Page 2, line 22, at end insert:

(""artefact" includes a coin and any part of an artefact; "coin" includes any metal token which was used, or was intended to be used, as or instead of money or which may reasonably be assumed to have been so used, or to have been intended for such use; and").

Page 2, line 23, leave out from ("both)") to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I propose to move Amendment No. 6 and the other amendments to Clause 2—Amendments Nos. 7 to 13—en bloc.
First, I should like to say how much I welcome the statement just made by my noble friend the Minister that the Bill will soon be in a form in which it can receive the support of the Government. That is a successful and significant step forward.
I should also like to pay tribute to the work which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has put into the Bill. We realise that it is his wisdom and persistence which has brought the Bill to this point. All of us in the House very much applaud his enterprise in that respect.
The clause is important because it defines the scope of the new concept of treasure. The main features of the definition in the unamended Bill are retained, but with one or two significant modifications.
First, one of the principal aims of the Bill is to secure the reporting and vesting of all objects which are comprised in the same archaeological find, the same archaeological context, not just those objects which contain precious metal. For instance, the pottery container which contains a hoard of coins may be of great archaeological significance and should be part of the find. The provision is retained, but the draftsman has now expressed it in terms of coins which are "part of the same find" rather than "part of a series". It is perhaps a minor clarification.
Secondly, there are some significant changes in the way in which coins are treated. Under the Bill's original proposals, any coin, no matter how new, would have been treasure if it were found with other coins or other treasure provided that the coins contained at least 0.5 per cent. of gold or silver. But that would have presented a problem for finders. It is not easy to ascertain the precise percentage composition of finds without scientific analysis. There would also have been a risk that museums would be swamped by relatively modern coins. The proposal now is to remove the requirement for any precious metal content in coins, but instead to introduce a requirement that those coins must be at least 300 years old to qualify as treasure. In that way
238
important finds of coins, including significant hoards, of bronze coins, for instance—Roman bronze coins or whatever —will be treasure and will require reporting.
Amendment No. 8 does a number of significant things. First, it provides that any object which would have previously been treasure trove but does not fall into the categories as defined in earlier parts, will nevertheless qualify as treasure. The most common instance of that might be single gold coins found in isolation, such as the Celtic gold stater, or something of that kind.
Secondly, the amendment sets out to clarify the position of objects which are part of the same find by providing that, where a number of objects are found over a period of time, they shall all fall within the definition of treasure including those which would not have qualified as treasure but for the earlier or subsequent finds of precious materials. Those points are set out in the new Section (1A) in the proposed amendment.
Finally, Amendment No. 8 provides in new Section (1B) that finds shall be presumed to be as old as they appear to be unless there is evidence to the contrary. At first sight that might seem an arcane point. However, the issue is essentially one of burden of proof. If the finds appear to be old, they will be accepted as old unless someone can demonstrate a case to the contrary. I hope that noble Lords will agree that in practical terms that is appropriate.
In relation to burden of proof, new Section (1B) (b) refers to,
"objects found in circumstances which may reasonably be taken to indicate that they have been together in the same place".
In such a case they will be deemed to constitute a find. In other words, once again the burden of proof is that if they appear to have been lost together or buried together, they will be deemed a single find for the purposes of the Bill.
One other point about Amendment No. 8 deserves mention. Paragraph (d) of the original Bill provided that any object found with treasure should itself be classified as treasure. Amendment No. 8 substitutes for the word "object" the word "artefact". That will obviously include the full range of man-made objects such as pottery or ornaments, or, for instance, cut gemstones; but it will not include natural objects. Nor will it include human remains. There is a view that it would be inappropriate to include those within the scope of treasure.
There may yet be one or two areas for concern. Under the amendment, uncut gemstones or pearls, for instance, or finds of unmodified amber would not be classified as treasure. I have a fleeting concern on that point. But noble Lords will note that the Secretary of State's power to extend the definition of treasure by order in subsection (5) of the clause is not restricted. Therefore small matters relating to finds of pearls, amber, or uncut precious stones, could be dealt with in that way.
The other amendments to the clause are either technical or self-explanatory. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I wish to draw attention to one point. At paragraph (b), Amendment No. 6 refers to 200 years. I must confess that I am not entirely happy with the period of 200 years. The year 1794 is such a short time ago—it is almost within memory! If one refers back, let us say, 300 years to 1694 one has a quite different class of objects.
I mention that at this point so that between now and Third Reading we may consider whether to change the figure from 200 to 300.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the noble Earl for this reason. If we compare paragraphs (a) and (b) in Amendment No. 6, there are advantages in applying the same criterion to the type of objects which we find under each of those paragraphs. I hope that between now and Third Reading my noble friend Lady Trumpington will be so kind as to consider the advantage of consistency.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we shall have a jolly good look at the issue and, if necessary, bring it back at Third Reading.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Extension of jurisdiction of coroners]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 14:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
Jurisdiction of coroners
(".—(1) The jurisdiction of coroners which is referred to in section 30 of the Coroners Act 1988 (treasure trove)—

(a) shall be exercisable for the purposes of this Act in relation to any objects appearing to be treasure to which section 1 applies; but

(b) shall cease, in relation to anything found after the commencement of that section, to be exercisable for the purposes of the law relating to treasure trove;

and that Act and anything saved by virtue of section 36(5) of that Act (saving for existing law and practice etc.) shall have effect accordingly.
(2) An inquest held by virtue of this section shall be held without a jury.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. In the Bill as it stands, Clauses 3 and 6 deal in slightly different ways with the jurisdiction in relation to treasure which coroners will have when the Bill is passed. From the point of view of drafting and presentation, it is obviously desirable that the provision should be in one clause rather than two—that is, the new Clause 3. It enables us to get rid of the original Clause 6.
The effect is to ensure that coroners have jurisdiction to conduct inquests—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive my intervening. Does he speak to Amendment No. 29 as well as to Amendment No. 14?
Lord Renton: My Lords, yes. Amendment No. 29 gets rid of Clause 6. I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Perhaps I may state this again. The combined effect, and the result of the new clause, will be to ensure that coroners have jurisdiction to conduct inquests into treasure, and that they do so without juries. We discussed the matter briefly at Committee stage. There
240
is no reason for me to go into it again. It is agreed by both sides of the House. The amendments would make no change in the role envisaged for coroners.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Duty of finder of treasure to notify coroner]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2 line 28, leave out from ("(1)") to ("to") in line 40 and insert:
("A person who has found any object in any place and believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that the object is treasure shall notify the find to the coroner for the district in which the find was made or, where the office of coroner for that district is vacant, to the person acting as coroner for that district.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), notification for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be given before the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day after the making of the find or (if later) with the day on which the person who has made the find first believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that the object is treasure.
(3) Any person who fails without reasonable excuse").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 4 imposes a duty on the finder to notify the coroner of his or her find. Breach of that duty is a criminal offence. The duty to report is retained in the amendment, but it is expressed rather differently from the previous wording.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but am I right in thinking that the noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 15 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the answer is yes. The duty to report is retained in this amendment, though in somewhat different terms from those that we had earlier. First, the period within which notification should be given is reduced to 14 days as against four weeks. Secondly, the requirement for a "wilful failure" to report is replaced by a defence of "reasonable excuse". This is a broader concept which recognises that an offence might be committed, for example, by sheer negligence as well as by deliberate wilfulness or dishonesty. We believe that it is an improvement in the expression of the duty.
Some noble Lords may feel that to allow 14 days for reporting finds is over-generous and may result in the loss of important archaeological evidence. We have thought about that a great deal, but what is at issue here is a criminal offence. For that we must have a definite objective time limit. To say "as soon as is practicable" in the Bill would be too imprecise. But the code of practice issued by the Secretary of State in Clause 9 can, of course, stress the need for early reporting and make clear that it will be taken into account in assessing rewards to finders. I believe that the last sentence is of the greatest importance. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 16:
Line 3, after ("shall") insert ("as soon as is reasonably practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are intended to supplement Amendment No. 15 which I fully support. The noble Earl has amply outlined the need for an offence of that kind. However,

241
my Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 arise from a real anxiety relating to the purposes of the Bill. Those purposes were well referred to in a speech at Committee stage or Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who emphasised the importance of retaining for the nation not only the objects found but information about them which contributes an essential part of the fabric of our nation's history.
I believe that some archaeologists and others will ask themselves in relation to the Bill: "Is there a risk that we are simply creating a treasure hunter's charter? Are we risking encouraging treasure hunting? Are we risking encouraging treasure hunters and landowners to enter into agreements and then to proceed to conduct treasure hunts and excavate objects and artefacts and remove them from their archaeological contexts?" There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent them doing so unless they do it on scheduled ancient monuments or land which is otherwise protected.
It is important and highly desirable that, when treasure or valuable artefacts are found, they should then be excavated by competent persons who have experience of archaeological excavations. In practice, they would come from museums or archaeological units. My anxiety with Amendment No. 15 is that at the moment if a treasure hunter finds some elements of treasure, there is no obligation on him to report it immediately. The thrust of my Amendment No. 16, is that the finder should report the find as soon as is reasonably practicable. I have in mind the case of the recent Hoxne discovery where the finder, who was operating at the request of the landowner, was not treasure hunting but was using a metal detector; unexpectedly he found gold coins and other valuable objects. He did not proceed further to excavate them in quantity, as he might have done, but through the landowner and the police he reported the matter so that the local museum or archaeological unit was able to conduct an excavation. Those remarkable finds were found in exactly the manner in which they had been packed in Roman times and an enormous amount of information was recovered.
Happily, because it was reported in the appropriate way, it was declared treasure trove and the original finder, the man with the metal detector, working with the consent of the landowner, received the reward of £1.75 million. I believe that by a private arrangement which he entered into with the landowner, he divided it with the landowner.
That is exactly the way in which the system should work, but it would have been most unfortunate if the finder had continued to dig up the whole hoard himself and then reported it to the coroner and handed it over. The same objects would have been recovered, but the information would not have been recovered. One of the most interesting discoveries of recent years would simply have been another important assemblage of gold and other precious objects. Thus there is great desirability that such finds should be reported at once and that the museum or archaeological unit, on behalf of the coroner, should then conduct the excavation.
So Amendment No. 16 has the intention of putting on the face of the Bill the requirement of prompt
242
notification, not merely notification within a space of 14 days. One could well imagine that the finder might stop at nightfall and go back the next morning to dig up more until the whole find had been dug out and then report the matter to the coroner. As the Bill will stand with the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, the finder would be just as well off under the law in doing that as if he reported it more rapidly.
I understand that the code of conduct referred to later in relation to rewards can make clear that it is desirable that people should report finds at once. I understand that the matter can be dealt with under the code of conduct which we shall hear about at a later stage. However, I personally much prefer that under Amendment No. 16 there should be an obligation on the face of the Bill for very prompt notification.
The same point is dealt with in Amendment No. 17. There has to be some assurance for the finder that if he leaves part of the gold and silver and other treasure in the ground and notifies the coroner, he will not be financially worse off through notifying promptly. In the case of the Hoxne find, I am happy to say that the finder received the entire value of the find. But there have been other cases, which we need not go into on this occasion, when the finder has received an award or reward for what he personally found, but the finds subsequently made by the museum—in some cases the British Museum—have not been subject to reward to the original finder.
It is important that finders are given the incentive to report the find at once. That is the purpose of my Amendment No. 17:
"A finder who promptly notifies the coroner … shall … be considered as the finder of all the objects".
I fear that there is then an imperfection in my amendment which makes me feel that it should perhaps not be moved on this occasion but should be moved at Third Reading. I think that I should delete the words,
"recovered which together constitute that treasure, including those objects".
With the deletion of those words, the amendment would read:
"A finder who promptly notifies the coroner … shall … be considered as a finder of all the objects subsequently excavated or otherwise recovered from the findspot by or at the direction of the coroner".
The amendment would then make perfect sense. The reason it does not make sense now is that if some other metal detectorist got into the action between one stage and the next there would be some obscurity. However, we need not go into that more technical point.
I have spoken long enough about these amendments; but they are of significance. Amendment No. 16, as it stands, would be an appropriate amendment to the Bill; although I feel now that it would not be appropriate for me to move Amendment No. 17 in the light of the imperfection that has been pointed out to me.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may first address myself to Amendment No. 15 in order to confirm that the Government fully recognise the importance of early reporting of finds. Clearly there are circumstances in which important archaeological evidence can be lost if reporting is delayed for anything like as much as 14 days. We certainly intend to deal with

243
that issue in the code of practice that will be published under Clause 9. I envisage that one of the important messages that we shall want to get across in the code is the need for full and prompt reporting by finders, and the Secretary of State's intention to take the circumstances of reporting into account in determining the rewards to finders.
I now turn to Amendment No. 16, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. This amendment and the next one raise very important points. From the archaeological point of view it is very important that finds are reported promptly. As has already been mentioned, the 14 days which the Bill allows for reporting may in some circumstances seem excessively generous. It is undoubtedly true that a great deal of archaeological damage could be done if finders set about excavating a site on their own initiative for 14 days after making an initial find without reporting it.
However, we need to make a distinction here. Clause 4 lays down the test for a criminal offence for which there will be quite severe penalties, including the possibility of imprisonment. For that purpose it is essential that the Bill sets out a clear and objective test of what constitutes an offence. The 14-day requirement meets that test. A general requirement in the legislation to report as soon as is practicable is not acceptable for the purposes of defining the nature of the offence. One can easily imagine the arguments that could arise as to the practicability of reporting. As I have said, Clause 4 is concerned only with defining the criminal offence.
When one moves to the issue of rewards to finders, we accept that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to take into account the circumstances of the find and of its reporting in deciding on any reward to the finder. That is, however, a matter for the code of practice rather than the Bill. The Government will consult widely on the contents of the code of practice. Certainly the present intention is that the circumstances of reporting and any evidence of deliberate delay would be a factor which the Secretary of State would take into account in determining the amount of a reward.
Amendment No. 17 tabled by my noble friend Lord Renfrew also raises a very interesting point. I can see that establishing the initial finder's claim to everything that is subsequently found on the site could be a useful way of discouraging inexperienced finders from excavations which destroyed important evidence. I can also see that that could conceivably be a way of discouraging looters, who often descend on a site when word gets round that a find has been made. Arguably their interest would be excluded by this amendment.
However, the circumstances and sequences of finds are very various. In some cases the whole find is identified by the initial finder. In others the initial find leads to a professional excavation which is undertaken by a museum or archaeological unit. In the latter case my noble friend's amendment could have quite serious financial implications for museums if it required them to pay a reward even for material which they themselves excavated after the initial find. Again, this is an interesting point. It is certainly one which should be the subject of consultation during the process of drawing up
244
the Secretary of State's code of practice. But it is not one on which I believe it would be sensible to lay down an absolutely hard and fast rule in the legislation. That is unlikely to take account of the great variety of circumstances that may be encountered. As I said in response to my noble friend's first amendment, it is the code of practice rather than the Bill which will set out the considerations that the Secretary of State will take into account in determining rewards. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Renfrew will feel able to withdraw both his amendments.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, as I indicated to the House, I feel that Amendment No. 17 should be withdrawn. I withdraw Amendment No. 16 with greater reluctance. I have not been entirely swayed by the arguments of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. But in view of her generally very constructive approach to the Bill I would not wish to move an amendment with which she disagreed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 16, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert:
("(4) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, a reasonable excuse for a failure to give a notification within the period mentioned in subsection (2) shall not be a defence where there is a time after the end of that period in relation to which that person cannot show that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to give the notification.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 18 is fairly clear. It reads fairly simply. It provides that even where the two-week period for reporting finds has expired, a finder continues to have a duty to report a find as soon as any reasonable excuse which he may have had for not reporting the find during the specified two weeks is no longer valid. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I share the views that were expressed by the noble Earl and by my noble friend Lord Renfrew earlier on about our admiration of the draftsman, especially over what was achieved in such a short time. But this is the one amendment among so many about which I have a doubt purely from the drafting point of view.
One reason for my doubt arises from the fact that the amendment contains a double negative. I also feel that it could be a bit more clearly worded. We must remember that there will be tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who will have to try to understand this new and very important departure in the law. I ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington if she will ask the draftsman to look again at Amendment No. 18 purely from the point of view of the drafting. I do not complain of the substance.
I have to concede that the draftsman had to bear in mind that in the earlier amendments the expression "wilfully", which was in the Bill as a result of an amendment at Committee stage, has been replaced by the words "without reasonable excuse". Amendment

245
No. 18 attempts to apply one of the effects of that new phrase. All the same, I think that with further thought he might be able to draft it in such a way that the ordinary citizen could understand it a bit more easily.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I regard myself as a very ordinary citizen, and I understand what the amendment says. With no promises, I suggest to the noble Earl who moved this amendment that perhaps we could have another look at it and bring it back at Third Reading, if necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duty of coroner to notify occupier of find of treasure]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause:
Procedure for inquests into treasure
(".—(1) A coroner who is proposing to conduct an inquest by virtue of section (Jurisdiction of coroners) in relation to any find ("a treasure inquest") shall notify his proposal to the British Museum or the National Museum of Wales, according to whether his district is in England or in Wales.
(2) Before proceeding with any treasure inquest a coroner shall take all such reasonable steps as appear to him to be appropriate —

(a) for ascertaining the name and address of the person who at the time of the find was the occupier of the land where the find was made,

(b) for notifying that person about the inquest; and

(c) for securing that that person is afforded an opportunity of examining witnesses at the inquest.

(3) It shall be the duty of a coroner—

(a) before or in the course of a treasure inquest, to take reasonable steps to obtain, from any person notified about the inquest under subsection (2), the particulars available to that person of the names and addresses of other interested persons; and

(b) to take all such reasonable steps as appear to the coroner to be appropriate—

(i) for notifying the interested persons whose names and addresses he has obtained about the inquest, and

(ii) for securing that every interested person notified is afforded an opportunity of examining witnesses at the inquest.

(4) The references in subsection (3), in relation to a treasure inquest, to interested persons are references to every person who—

(a) occupied or had an interest in the land where the find was made at the time when it was made or has had such an interest at any time since the making of the find; and

(b) appears to the coroner to be likely, by reason of his occupation or interest, to be concerned with the matters to be dealt with at the inquest.

(5) A coroner shall not conclude the proceedings at a treasure inquest until he has complied with subsection (3).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble friend Lady Trumpington I should like to move Amendment No. 19, which substitutes the new Clause 5 for the original Clause 5. The clause concerns the procedures which are followed by coroners in conducting inquests into treasure and there are a number of significant differences.
First, the new clause introduces a new provision requiring the coroner to notify the British Museum or the National Museum of Wales of any find. That is a significant step. Those museums can be relied upon to notify local museums, where appropriate, and steps can
246
be taken to ensure that proper professional advice—historical or archaeological advice—is available to the coroner.
Secondly, the new clause, like the old one, requires the coroner to take all reasonable steps to identify the occupier of the land where any find was made and to notify that person; and now also to give him or her the opportunity to examine witnesses at the inquest. That is a further element.
Thirdly, the new clause requires the coroner, and no longer the occupier, to establish from whom the occupier holds the land—the freeholder or the head leaseholder—and then to give that person the same rights at the inquest as the occupier. In that way we cart ensure that the occupier and the person from whom he holds the land are aware of the find and are able to participate in the inquest.
Noble Lords will see that in the interests of ensuring that landlords are informed of finds on their land, the amendment places the duty of notification on the coroner rather than on the occupier. One interesting effect of that is that, if an occupier were to refuse to co-operate with the coroner and refuse to make details of his landlord available, he would be guilty of contempt of court. I hope that that will be seen as a significant strengthening of the Bill's provision in respect of landowners' interests, which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was very keen to emphasise at the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved, as amendments to Amendment No. 19, Amendments Nos. 20 to 28:
Line 8, leave out ("such").
Line 8, leave out ("as appear to him to be appropriate").
Line 9, leave out ("for ascertaining") and insert ("to ascertain").
Line 12, leave out ("for notifying") and insert ("to notify").
Line 13, leave out ("for securing") and insert ("to secure").
Line 20, leave out ("all such").
Line 20, leave out ("as appear to the coroner to be appropriate").
Line 22, leave out ("for notifying") and insert ("to notify").
Line 24, leave out ("for securing") and insert ("to secure").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to these amendments which are amendments to the new Clause 5. I should like to point out at the outset that we very much appreciate that a considerable effort has been made in drafting the amendment dealing with the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Lytton at Committee stage. Unfortunately, my noble friend is not able to be present today but the amendments to it stand in both our names. I should also like to say that our amendments have the support of the Country Landowners' Association, whose 50,000 members are often at the sharp end of controversies over finds of what in the future will be defined as "treasure".
As my noble friend said in Committee, the landowners are often left to deal with the consequences of significant finds at the site. They may have to take on the site responsibilities and management at a later date. They have another locus as well in that the find may well belong to the landowner as he or she may have an opportunity to prove title at an inquest. Those legitimate rights must be recognised in the Bill; otherwise we face

247
a damaging free-for-all, which in the long run cannot be in the interests of archaeological research and certainly does not respect the rights of those who own the land on which finders may be prospecting.
Therefore, I welcome the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which requires the coroner of an inquest to obtain from the occupier the name and address of the landowner and to take steps to notify that landowner of the inquest and to give him or her a chance to participate in the inquest, including the opportunity of proving title to the find.
But here I find the wording of the amendment a little woolly and subjective. The requirement in new Clause 5(2) and 5(3) (b) to,
"take all such reasonable steps as appear to him to be appropriate"
cannot be tested and so do not place an effective requirement in practice on the coroner to try to contact the landowner. Perhaps the words have been put in because of the Government's fears about putting additional demands on coroners, but I believe that the Bill is in danger of becoming misleading by introducing a requirement that is not truly a requirement at all. The Government might have said, "Okay, we agree in principle that coroners should inform the landowner but we are not prepared to take steps to ensure that it happens in practice". But perhaps I am doing the Government a disservice and what they want is in fact what I want. I suggest that what I propose in this series of amendments would be what we are both looking for.
I do not seek in any way to alter the basic meaning of the provision. I seek only to make clear that this is what we all want. Therefore, I hope that the amendments tabled in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Lytton will find favour with both the promoters of the Bill and the Government. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I believe that these amendments would strengthen the clause and remove anxieties. As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, intimated, we are probably all of the same mind. On that basis, I personally believe that we should accept them.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I believe, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, that we are all of one mind on this matter. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, are well taken. It is the intention that landowners as well as occupiers should be represented at the inquest. If these amendments make that clearer, I am sure that they will be acceptable. I personally support them.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 20 to 28, as amendments to Amendment No. 19, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Inquests]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 29:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I suspected that this would happen when I moved Amendment No. 14. Accordingly, I simply beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Suspected treasure]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. This clause is unnecessary. Under the Bill as originally drafted it overlapped in any event with Clause 2. The effect of Clause 7 would have been to deem non-treasure to be treasure until the contrary was established at an inquest.
However, our intention was to invalidate any transaction taking place before a find had been formally declared treasure by an inquest. That can be achieved under the existing law. Under existing law the police can prosecute someone for stealing an object which was treasure, even if it had not at the time of the theft been declared treasure at an inquest. That has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal. To that extent, therefore, Clause 7 is not only unnecessary but rather misleading. Obviously, what we need to do is to make use of the existing law. We do not want to have double law-making. In that connection, one should mention that Amendment No. 8 will be very helpful and help to achieve simplification still further.
Another effect of Clause 7 would have been to introduce the possibility that finders could be guilty of stealing objects which turned out not to be treasure and were therefore probably finders' property in any case. But it is agreed that that would be unacceptable.
Finally, I should like to mention the link between this clause and market overt. To the extent that the clause was aimed at invalidating transactions under market overt, it will become unnecessary in any event because of the market overt Bill which was agreed by your Lordships and is now about to be considered by another place. But I return to the amendment, which is to leave out Clause 7. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I can intervene briefly to say that I completely endorse the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton regarding the seriousness with which theft of treasure should be regarded and the importance of recognising that under the existing law it is a criminal offence, even at the stage before a find has been formally identified as treasure at an inquest. That, and the risk of prosecution where transactions take place before an inquest, are again matters on which we intend to give guidance in the Secretary of State's code of practice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Ex gratia awards]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 31:
Leave out Clause 8 and insert the following new clause:
Rewards
(".—(1) Where there is a proposal for treasure that has vested in the Crown under section 1 to be transferred from the Crown to any museum, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to determine, in such manner as he thinks fit—

249

(a) the market value of the treasure to which the proposal relates;

(b) whether he requires an amount by way of reward to be paid by the museum before effect can be given to the proposal; and

(c) the amount of any such reward, the person or persons to whom it is to be payable and, if it is to be payable to more than one person, the manner in which it should be shared between them.

(2) The total amount determined under this section to be payable by way of reward in respect of any treasure shall not exceed the amount determined to be the market value of the treasure.
(3) The persons who shall be eligible to receive a reward determined under this section, or a share of such a reward, are—

(a) the finder and any other persons involved in finding the treasure,

(b) the occupier at the time of the find of the land where the treasure was found, and

(c) the persons who had interests in that land at that time or have had such interests at any time since the making of the find.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in making any determination under this section with respect to any matter, to have regard to any provision about that matter in the code of practice for the time being in force under section 9.
(5) This section applies in relation to treasure that has vested in the franchisee for any place as it applies in relation to treasure that has vested in the Crown, but only if the franchisee has asked the Secretary of State to make a determination under subsection (1) with respect to that treasure.
(6) A determination under this section shall not confer any right enforceable against a museum or the Secretary of State to the payment of the whole or any part of any reward.
(7) In this section "franchisee" has the same meaning as in section 1.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an important new clause because it deals with the subject of rewards and is so slanted—if I may use that word—that it encourages people to behave properly when they find anything.
The original Clause 8 simply provided discretion for the Secretary of State to make ex gratia awards to finders, owners or occupiers, taking account of all the circumstances. The effect of the new clause is to provide the Secretary of State with more comprehensive and explicit powers. Where a museum may wish to acquire treasure, the Secretary of State is given a duty to determine its market value. There is, of course, already in existence a committee of experts, known as the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee, which advises the Secretary of State on valuations. The Secretary of State must also determine whether any reward should be paid by the museum, and if so, the size and destination of any reward. The new clause, importantly, provides that in no circumstances may the reward exceed the market value of the treasure.
Subsection (3) provides that finders, occupiers and others with an interest in the land where the find was made are all eligible to receive some or part of the reward. "Eligible" is a valuable word. It does not say that they will receive it; but it opens the door very wide. Subsection (4) provides that in deciding on the payment of any reward the Secretary of State must have regard to his code of practice —we shall come to that on Clause 9.
Subsection (3) may cause noble Lords some concern if it gives the impression that rewards will normally be shared between finders, occupiers and owners. That is not our intention. Subsection (3) simply defines the
250
legal extent of eligibility for a reward—as did the previous Clause 8. Policy on the payment of rewards will be set out in the Secretary of State's code of practice. We would expect that where finders behave properly and report finds promptly, they will continue to receive the full value of their finds, as they do now. I beg to move.
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 31, Amendment No. 32:
Line 17, at end insert ("other than a trespasser").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lytton, is an amendment to Amendment No. 31, moved by my noble friend Lord Perth, and provides that trespassers shall not be entitled to rewards. No doubt it will be argued that finders who are trespassers will not be inclined to report finds if they think they may be denied a reward. However, we must bear in mind two basic principles.
First, it is surely not the place of government or this House to be engaged in the production of legislation which actively and consciously rewards persons for unlawful behaviour. That is a primrose path. Secondly —here I wish to engage the pragmatism of the promoters of the Bill —my amendment will not so much discourage declarations as encourage prospective finders to seek permission of owners to enter on to land to look for archaeological finds. That surely is the behaviour that we are seeking to encourage. It will also help to establish the provenance of finds and fix their archaeological context.
I acknowledge that in the new Clause 8 my noble friend Lord Perth and the Government for the first time recognise the legitimate interests of the occupier and the landowner, for which we are extremely grateful. I shall therefore be interested to hear the Minister's response as to how the Government justify payment of rewards to those who trespass or, indeed, the return of artefacts to finders rather than to landowners or occupiers when they are not wanted by museums. At the least I hope that the Minister will include in her reply a detailed indication of how the Government's code of practice is intended to deal with trespassers when determining rewards and how they should be shared out.
It will be helpful if the Government: can confirm their intention that the code of practice to be published will make clear that there should be specific and strong reasons why a trespasser should receive a reward. To be honest, I cannot envisage justification for a reward being made to a finder when trespassing. But if the Government believe that such reward is justified, I should like to hear that the code of practice will set out the circumstances which merit such a reward and any circumstances where rewards will not be paid to trespassers. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, in regard to the two amendments I commend to your Lords hi ps Amendment No. 31, which sets out a clear procedure by which the Secretary of State will take various matters into account. He will establish the market value of the treasure; whether it requires any amount to be paid by

251
the museum; whether the museum is to retain the treasure once it is established as such, and the apportionment of the reward to be paid.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, acknowledged, there is a modification to the existing situation in relation to treasure trove. Now, not only the finder and those involved in finding the treasure but also the occupier and other persons with interests in the land —essentially the owners —may be taken into consideration when rewards are being established. But the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, was asking for some justification for the payment of rewards to persons who find treasure when they have no entitlement to be on the piece of land where they find it.
I remind your Lordships, though I am sure everyone is well aware, that such is indeed the circumstance with the present working of treasure trove. It is not in any sense or manner a new concept which is being introduced into the Bill; the existing concept will continue to apply. That is an important point which your Lordships may wish to take into account.
The overriding interest—the heritage interest—is that finds should be reported. That is the crucial point. As I said earlier this evening, it is preferable that finds be reported rapidly so that proper investigations can be made of the context of those finds. Unless one gives to the finder—whether or not that finder is a trespasser —an incentive, that finder is unlikely to report the find. It is therefore imperative that the Secretary of State recommends or rules that the finder receives some sort of reward.
It is to be regretted when individuals trespass on land. I would have been happy for the Bill to contain those provisions which earlier drafts contained, including an offence of aggravated trespass which would impose more severe penalties on trespassers who trespass for the purpose of seeking treasure. But the remedy which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, is seeking will come in the code of practice where it is to be expected that in some circumstances at any rate trespassers who are wilfully trespassing against the wishes of the occupier or landowner are likely to receive a diminished award. I have no doubt that the code of practice will take note of that. But other speakers at an earlier stage pointed out that it is possible to be a trespasser without even being aware of it if you are following a path which then peters out and you go off the line of the path. It is imperative that the Secretary of State should be able to exercise his judgment in these matters.
I quite understand that it is vexatious to landowners when persons who trespass may qualify for a reward, or part of one, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, will realise that, first, this provision is in keeping with the way the present treasure trove arrangements operate and, secondly, that the need to encourage finders to report is the overriding interest in this matter. So I oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, as my name is set down against the amendment—and I am very glad to be here this afternoon—I have been given an unexpected opportunity to cover one or two points. With great
252
respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I cannot accept that the existing concept under treasure trove is correct. As we are setting about amending it because it manifestly operates poorly in other respects, it is only right and proper that we should remedy it in the manner proposed in Amendment No. 32.
I do not believe that there can be any excuses for wrong doing. I find it very difficult, as I have said earlier in the passage of this Bill, to accept that it is possible to be an unknowing participant with a metal detector. I shall leave the point at that. People know very well what is allowed and what is not. We have rehearsed this ground already and I cannot accept that particular point.
My next point relates to common courtesy, and linked with that is the broader interest of public morals which I certainly do not believe should be eroded. I do not believe it to be acceptable that such an erosion should be enshrined in legislation—not one jot or iota. Beyond that I feel that the nation's interest is served by a common endeavour. Unless the interests of all relevant parties are taken into account then the chances are that the model which we are seeking to create in legislation will fail in one or more respects. I believe that legitimate access to land as distinct from that which is not legitimate, needs to be sorted out. I would like to see that done on the face of the Bill. I am not happy to leave the matter for a code of practice at a later date.
We must have some indication from the Minister as to what is intended in that respect. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Walpole will decide what he is going to do about these matters, but whatever he decides, some time before the end of our deliberations on this Bill these matters have to be sorted out in this House. I support Amendment No. 32. I would also like to congratulate in particular my noble friend Lord Perth on the amended Clause 8 which considerably improves matters.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall be very brief. We on this side of the House would like to support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. We understand the feelings of indignation about trespass which have been present historically. The matter is better dealt with in its own right. I am sure that the real priority is as stated—that is to say, that we should encourage the reporting of what is found. There is a delicate balance of what is called "eligibilities" in this Bill. This clause gets as close as is practical to achieving that. The code of practice will be very important. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment knowing that we have all listened with great sympathy to the basic principle behind what he says. I hope that he will join us on this matter.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole. I believe that the noble Earl produced a red herring at one stage when he spoke about an unwitting trespasser with a metal detector. There is nothing at all in the Bill about metal detectors. We are talking about a possible, unwitting trespasser who comes across treasure trove. We know that there have been cases of people just kicking into something and finding artefacts. We are not necessarily talking about people with metal

253
detectors. There is obviously a major problem here and one which should be settled in the course of the advice which is given rather than on the face of the Bill. If satisfactory assurances are given on that we should not agree to this amendment, but should rely on the commitments of the Secretary of State.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to seek clarification of Amendment No. 31. I refer in particular to subsection (1) (b) which refers to rewards payable by the museum. Noble Lords may wonder why I should be interested in such things. For 35 years I have lived in the deep south of the county of Wiltshire which is an exciting archaeological area. More especially, I have been happily associated with the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum for almost as long as I have lived in the area.
As regards that institution I have been cast in the role not of archaeologist or scholar, but of fund raiser. When I saw this amendment I began to wonder—and this is the point on which I seek clarification—whether whoever shall have authority in these matters will withhold artefacts or treasure which have been offered to a museum on the grounds that a reward cannot be paid by the museum because of a lack of funds. I hope that I make sense. It is not clear to me from where this money is to come. If it is not to come from the museum will that prevent the museum from receiving the treasure or the artefacts which are the subject of this clause?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 31, I confirm that we are broadly in agreement with the noble Earl on the question of rewards to finders. As I made clear at Committee stage, we recognise the importance of encouraging the reporting of finds. We need to ensure that adequate incentives to finders are preserved under any new arrangements. We also want to discourage wrong behaviour. While there may be circumstances in which some reward to occupiers and owners will be appropriate, we certainly want the legislation to provide for that possibility.
As I have said, we are fully aware of the importance of retaining the incentive to finders to report and surrender treasure to the Crown. It is our present view that in the normal case where finders operate within the law with the full knowledge and agreement of occupiers or owners of land, and report their finds fully and promptly, they should continue to receive rewards reflecting the full market value of their finds.
I am not sure whether I have answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. If I have not, perhaps I shall be able to do so in the latter part of my speech. Indeed, I now believe that the answer is that the reward must come from the museum. It is possible that a museum will not have the resources to buy a find and that it will have to be returned to the finder or landowner. I hope that that answers the point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, explained, the amendment in his name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, Amendment No. 32, would have the effect of placing an absolute bar on the payment of any reward to a trespasser. Again, I have to say that I do not think this is appropriate for the Bill. The policy to be adopted by
254
the Secretary of State on the payment of rewards is a matter for the code of practice rather than the formal provisions of the Bill. I have no wish to belittle the importance of trespass as an issue to be taken into account, but I do not think it is safe to say that trespass alone and in itself should in all circumstances constitute an absolute bar to the payment of any reward.
This is exactly the sort of issue on which there needs to be further consultation with all interested parties. The Secretary of State intends to undertake such consultation before drawing up his code of practice. That will provide the opportunity for the interests which the noble Lord and the noble Earl represent to stress the importance they attach to the issue of trespass in this context and make specific proposals for its treatment in the code of practice. I am sure it can be said with absolute certainty that the code will need to stress the importance that the Secretary of State attaches to proper and legal behaviour on the part of finders.
Perhaps I may also advise the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the Bill goes much further than previous legislation in recognising all interests, including those of landowners, which were not previously recognised at all. On the basis of what I and my noble friends have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that considered reply. I shall certainly consider it carefully. I was particularly heartened that she felt that it would be proper to give further consideration to the matter when drawing up the code of practice. Obviously, I reserve my right to return to the issue at a later stage but, for the time being, with permission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 32, as an amendment to Amendment No. 31, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 31 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Government guidance about treasure]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("may publish") and insert ("shall prepare, keep under review and from time to time revise").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the original Clause 9 provided for the publication of guidance on treasure. Amendments Nos. 34, 36, 38 and 39 considerably strengthen that provision. First, they impose on the Secretary of State a duty to produce a code of practice. The previous provision was discretionary. He will have to keep the code under review and, as appropriate, revise it.
Secondly, Amendment No. 35 sets out more clearly that the code must lay down principles and practice for both offering finds to museums, and determining rewards. I touched on the latter issue in speaking to new Clause 8.
Finally, Amendment No. 39 provides that the Secretary of State must consult interested persons before preparing or revising the code of practice. Such consultation would certainly include the major interests such as the National Council of Metal Detectorists and

255
the Country Landowners' Association as well as the archaeological community. The code will not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—in other words, the code will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Secretary of State will, of course, be under a duty to publish his code and to have regard to it in determining rewards. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a useful strengthening of the provision for guidance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert:
("(1A) The code shall set out the principles and practice which the Secretary of State is proposing to follow—

(a) when he considers whether or not treasure should be offered to a museum or to the finder or to any other person; and

(b) when he makes a determination under section (Rewards).").

Page 3, line 32, leave out ("Any such") and insert ("The").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 32, after ("who") insert ("search for or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 39 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 4 and insert:
("(2A) Before preparing the code or revising it the Secretary of State shall consult such of the persons appearing to him to be interested in the matters to which the code is to relate as he thinks appropriate.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the code and of any proposed revision of the code before Parliament; and neither the code nor any revision of the code shall come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2C) The Secretary of State shall publish the code in force under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of all persons interested.
(2D) Where the Secretary of State considers that the code should make different provision for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland, or should otherwise make different provision for treasure found in different areas, he may if he thinks fit prepare the code as two or more separate codes each applying to a particular area; and, if he does, the requirements of this section shall apply separately in relation to each code.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Application of Act to Northern Ireland
(".—(1) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland—

(a) in section (Jurisdiction of coroners) (1)—

(i) for the words "section 30 of the Coroners Act 1988" there shall be substituted the words "section 33 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959";

(ii) the words from "and anything" to "practice etc.)") shall be omitted;

(b) in section (Procedure for inquests into treasure) (1), for the words from "British Museum" to the end there shall be substituted the words "Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland".
(2) Accordingly, in section 33 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (inquest on treasure trove), for "treasure trove" there shall be substituted "treasure".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 is a new clause. The Bill, as it stands, applies only to England and Wales, but the combined effect of Amendments Nos. 42 and 45 would be to apply it to Northern Ireland. The method of doing so is rather technical, but I should explain the background of which I have been advised.
The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has long been the agent of the Treasury in administering treasure trove in Northern Ireland. Since the most recent agency agreement between the two was drawn up in 1977, nine treasure trove inquests have been held in Ulster. Once the Bill is enacted, the role of the Treasury and its agency agreement with the DoE (Northern Ireland) will lapse and it will be replaced by one between the DoE (Northern Ireland) and the Department of National Heritage. This is purely an internal governmental matter—a way of sorting out administration. The substance of the current practice in Northern Ireland will not be changed.
It is pleasant to note that there is already a requirement in Northern Ireland to report treasure trove within 14 days, which is in line with the provisions of the Bill. The wider arrangements which have long existed in Northern Ireland for the reporting of non-treasure trove finds will not be affected in any way. It is surely an agreeable thought that not only will the Bill, if the amendment is accepted, apply to Northern Ireland, but the present law and practice there will be embodied in this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Consequential amendments
(".—(1) The following amendments shall have effect in relation to any object found after the commencement of section 1.
(2) In section 54(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (saving for rights in relation to treasure trove) for "in relation to treasure trove" there shall be substituted "under the Treasure Act 1994".
(3) In section 12(8) of the Historic Monuments Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (finding of archaeological objects)—

(a) for the words "treasure trove", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted "any treasure within the meaning of the Treasure Act 1994"; and

(b) for those words, in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted "such treasure".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment to tidy up, as it were, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act in terms of its only reference to treasure trove. That comes in Section 54(3) which states:
"Nothing in this section shall affect any right of the Crown in relation to treasure trove".
The new clause simply brings that wording into line with the provisions of the Bill and makes a comparable modification in relation to the Historic Monuments Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.
It is perhaps of interest to point out, if I may, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that even under the present provisions relating to scheduled ancient monuments, if

257
a finder finds treasure or, as at present, treasure trove, on such a monument, that finder is indeed the finder, and is the person who is currently eligible for reward. While I take the point made by the noble Earl that it is in many ways inimical that a trespasser receive reward, it is even more inimical that someone who is treasure hunting on a scheduled ancient monument should receive reward. Yet there is an overriding principle that it is important that finders be encouraged to report their finds. But perhaps I go a little beyond the scope of this minor consequential amendment which I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Commencement]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("force") to end of line 5 and insert ("on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes and for different provisions.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment changes the provision for the coming into force of the Bill. The Bill, as introduced, provided that the Bill as a whole came into force after three months. This new provision will give the Secretary of State power to fix a date, and, if necessary, to fix different dates for different parts of the Bill. That I understand is necessary to ensure that the Bill's extension of the concept of treasure does not come into force until a code of practice on payment of rewards has been approved by Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is our view that it is inappropriate for the main provisions of the Bill in particular the vesting in the Crown of treasure falling within the extended definition in Clause 2, to come into force until a code of practice has been published and approved under Clause 9. It is essential that the principles upon which rewards and compensation will be paid are in place, following debate in Parliament, before any occupier or owner of land faces the possibility that finds which might previously have been his—that is, finds not previously falling within the definition of "treasure trove"—are claimed by the Crown. Otherwise, there is clearly a possibility that the Bill's provisions would be regarded as expropriation, and as such might be regarded as an infringement of the European Convention on human rights.
That does mean that, even if the Bill is enacted this Session, it is likely to be some months before it is brought fully into force. It is our intention to bring Clause 9 into force as soon as possible and then to produce the code. We will aim to do that as quickly as possible; and I would certainly hope that it is a process which can be completed by the end of the year. But, as I have said, it is our view that this is a delay which is unavoidable: it would simply not be possible to extend the definition of "treasure" on the basis of the present payment of rewards to finders, without infringing the interests of other parties.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 45:
258
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("extends to England and Wales only") and insert ("does not extend to Scotland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 46:
Leave out ("and to amend the law relating to treasure trove").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment to reflect the fact that the Bill now substitutes the new concept of treasure for the old concept of treasure trove rather than merely amending the latter. I have almost come to the end of my remarks, but I wish to say two things. I rejoice in hearing the noble Baroness express the hope that the Bill might become law by the end of the year. I hope that that is fulfilled. It is splendid news.
I am not sure that this is in order, but I am going to do it. I wish to thank all those who have taken part in the debate on the Bill and the officials who have made it possible for us to reach this stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [General purposes and powers]:
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. The purpose behind the two amendments—I shall call them one from now on—is to try to redress what I regard as an imbalance that will exist if the Bill reaches the statute book. Under the 1949 Act, national park authorities have a statutory duty to promote the conservation of the countryside for public enjoyment. That duty will be carried through into the Bill. However the national parks have no duty so far as concerns the promotion of the socio-economic well-being of the parks or those who live and work in the parks. What they do have however under Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 is a duty to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas. But a duty to have due regard is not the same as having a duty to promote. So all that I am seeking to do is to achieve a level playing field.
The need for the change is brought about by the fact that under the Bill all national parks will of course be freestanding. They will no longer be just an arm of a county council. They are and, of course will be, the planning authority. There will be a new duty imposed upon them to produce a structure plan. That structure plan will have considerable and far reaching implications for the indigenous populations and businesses within the park areas.
I am aware that the question of socio-economic well-being has been raised before and is discussed in Professor Edwards's report. The Government's original argument was that the concept of promoting

259
socio-economic interests was not appropriate, because the national park authorities could not deliver. But the Bill is all about making national park authorities stronger and independent. As I have said, they are the planning authority, and they will be responsible for the structure plans. As such, they are not merely well-placed to promote such interests, their actions are bound to influence local interests. For that reason, I do not believe that the amendment is outside the Bill's scope. The new powers have been created for the national park authorities, and the amendment is necessary to redress the balance. The duty to promote should develop through the national parks themselves or through their co-operation with the other enabling agencies. That point was accepted in the Edwards Report. The difference is that this amendment will make it a statutory duty and not simply a policy objective, as recommended by Professor Edwards.
The statutory duty should not clash with the duty of the parks to promote conservation, and nor would I want it to. I believe that we should look to the parks to balance such demands. I accept that that is not always easy but they will be in a unique position to do so. I wonder who else can if they cannot. But, inevitably, extra powers mean extra responsibilities.
I also wish to point out that the amendment will not give the park authorities the duty to promote agriculture and forestry. I say that because under Section 37 of the 1968 Act those two enterprises are linked with the economic and social interests of rural areas. There would, of course, still be a duty for the authorities to have due regard to them but in this amendment the duty to promote rests solely with economic and social interests. There remains the need to bridge the gap between the park authorities and those who live and work within. There is a need for closer understanding.
My noble friend's Bill can achieve that essential objective if the duties to promote are seen to be shared in an even-handed way between the duty to look after and promote the countryside and to enhance public enjoyment. However, it must incorporate the well-being of those who live and work within. The amendment seeks simply to do that. It seeks to give confidence to the inhabitants of the parks that their authority will have a statutory responsibility to promote their well-being in an even-handed way, together with the well-being of the countryside and the visitors to the park. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for moving the amendment. The problem is that the Bill does not address, and it was not designed to address, the conclusions of the Edwards Report on what national parks should be about. It was designed for a limited purpose. For that reason, if the noble Earl wishes to debate what national parks are about and what they are meant to do we can go on all night. However, if he is saying simply that he would like to insert a particular responsibility on national park authorities as in this amendment, without going across the whole range, I personally would not agree with the amendment. There
260
is a debate to be taken at a future stage about the purposes of national parks and what they are about but it is not in the context of this Bill.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment for presentational reasons. I have much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, it is common ground to us all that unless the inhabitants of the park believe that the existence of the national park is for the benefit of everyone but themselves they will regard it as their enemy and will not co-operate. It is important that the inhabitants should believe that there is an even-handedness. Whether the parks exist for conservation reasons, tourism and so forth, there should be a provision in the Bill indicating that there is also an interest in the people who live in them. Therefore, it is for a psychological reason that I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I first wish to declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. In that capacity, I declare a certain unease at the thrust of the noble Earl's amendment. I take his point that to have due regard to something is a direction in the legislation not to overlook it. It is a gentle reminder to keep an eye on that something and not to forget or ignore it. But the duty to promote is far more peremptory and pro-active. It is a transitive, infinitive verb in the active voice, and it feels like it too.
I wish to be numbered among those who believe that this Bill is not the best place for providing for the purposes and duties of the authorities. After all, the Government have promised to bring forward legislation and I cannot help feeling that that would be the appropriate time and vehicle for the debate to take place. The National Parks Review Panel looked carefully and in considerable detail at the subject of national parks' statutory purposes and the socio-economic duty. After much consultation it found that:
"The time has come for our own national park authorities to be given a clearer role to support the social and economic welfare of the local populations but only in such a way that the environmental quality of the parks is sustained and, where possible, enhanced".
The panel devised a means of achieving that by establishing a role for national park authorities as enablers, supporting the executive agencies. That is the right action at the present time. The noble Earl's amendment seems to imply that the national park authorities should be given some stern tasks to accomplish because Satan still finds mischief for idle hands. I assure the noble Earl that the national park authorities will have plenty to occupy them and that we should debate exactly what their duties should be in a context difference from this Bill. I hope that he may be persuaded not to press his amendment.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, anyone who lives, farms and works in a national park will be grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment. It reflects the anxiety which was raised in Committee by the reply given by my noble friend Lord Arran to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The amendment was eventually carried by the Committee. The matter that

261
causes anxiety are the words used by my noble friend in reply in col. 1232 of Hansard of 31st March. He stated that, as regards giving advice to the committees on the representation and the interests that they should bear in mind, he could only give clear guidance which would in no way be binding. That is the reason why the amendment should be put into the Bill at this stage.
[t is a terrible fact that today people who live and work in the countryside are finding themselves less and less in sympathy with so many of the countryside bodies. People are anxious about the attitude of English Nature, which appears to be becoming more averse to the presence of grazing animals anywhere on land with which it is involved. I realise that English Nature has a particular narrow scientific base but it is rapidly becoming out of sympathy with those who live and work in the countryside. Almost the same can be said of the Countryside Commission. After all, we know that its real interest is to promote and to protect the landscape and various recreational interests. It is a sad fact but the time has come when the people who live and work in the national parks should be given the proper protection for their economic and farming interests, which the amendment would provide. I have much pleasure in supporting it.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I believe that it would be unwise to proceed with the amendment proposed because this Bill has a very narrow focus. It seems to me that the amendment takes the matter much wider than the aims which the Bill is designed to achieve.
Clearly we are concerned that the Bill shall proceed to enactment at an early date and it has an enormous amount to commend it. The Minister indicated at an earlier stage that the Government had very much in mind the introduction of a Bill dealing with many other matters which require to be dealt with in the context of national parks. One of the items which clearly requires to be dealt with is the purpose and duty of those running the national parks, including the points mentioned by the noble Earl when he moved the amendment, for which I feel great sympathy. However, I do not believe that it is a good idea to seek to include this provision at this stage. That will not assist the early passage of the Bill which I, and I am sure everybody else, is anxious to achieve. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I recognise the seriousness of my noble friend in introducing this new issue to the debate at this late stage. But I am extremely reluctant to make detailed comments on it because this is simply not the right moment at which to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we shall be here all night if we continue with this debate. It is true that the topic needs discussing, but as other noble Lords on all sides of the House have said, and as has been stated clearly on Second Reading, the Bill has a single simple purpose which we all wish to carry forward.
On Second Reading, the Minister made clear that at the right moment, those larger issues will be debated. We cannot possibly pick out one of many issues and, as
262
the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, spend the rest of the evening discussing it. I do not believe that this is the right place for such an amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is right. There is some sympathy with the feelings behind the amendment and, indeed, if I lived in the national parks, I should feel comfortable with the amendment. But it depends on what is meant by some of the terms. On these Benches, we feel that this is a simple Bill with a simple purpose and that this is not the right place for the amendment.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment. When I had an avuncular and recent interest in the Countryside Commission and national parks, one thing which worried me day after day was the question of trying to keep a balance between local and national interests I reached the conclusion that something was needed and those feelings were relayed to the Edwards review—the National Parks Review Panel—which spent an enormous amount of time considering that issue. It concluded that the appropriate role of park authorities is to support others in fostering the social and economic role of the park communities in ways which are compatible with the purposes for which National Parks are designated.
I have been persuaded that that is the way forward. I have been persuaded also that this is not the place at which to consider the amendment in view of the fact that the Government are to allow us time later to discuss issues relating to the Bill. Surely that is the time to get our teeth into the various details.
There has been an enormous amount of outside criticism about the inability of some parks to maintain a balance. To some extent, that has been a fair criticism. However, in the past five or six years there has been an anxious attempt by the national park authorities to put their house in order on that matter. They have an extremely difficult job because they have to balance issues on an almost daily basis. Therefore, I put that forward in their favour. I recognise that there is a need to bring about a better machinery for maintaining that balance.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, virtually all the points that I should like to have made have been made much more eloquently by other noble Lords. However, I should like to add my support to the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I believe that it is vitally important that the point should be flagged in the context of the Bill; I would have added my name to the amendment, but I did not do so because I had not expected to be here.
One particular point referred to was the way in which the Bill attaches the structure plan role to national park authorities. Planning is a crucial lever in promoting the social and economic well-being of an area. I felt that the job would be done on a piecemeal basis, if those planning powers were divorced from that concomitant duty to deal with the social and economic well-being of the area; in other words, the point was at risk of being left out of account altogether.

263
I am glad that there has been a debate on that matter. The powers and duties must be built in parallel and not piecemeal. The Bill alters the situation with regard to the structure plan role and it is right that the other roles which follow from that should be taken into account also. However, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it is not appropriate to amend the Bill.
In particular, I relate to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent; namely, that it is seen that there is a slightly other-worldly approach with all the agencies really saying to those who live and work in national parks, "This is how you are going to do things". It may well be that that is appropriate in the national interest. I must declare an interest because I am a farmer in a national park, although I do not live there. I believe that there must be a greater movement towards taking into account the interests of those who have had national park designation laid over their interests. If they feel that they are part of that and part of the national park process, their interests must be taken into account. It cannot be left that preservation of the landscape and the interests of a wider and often distant general public as regards park recreation take joint first place, with everything else coming a very poor third. Therefore, I support the principle behind Amendment No. 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I have listened very carefully indeed to the arguments put forward for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel and to the other arguments which your Lordships have put forward this evening on the amendment. Indeed, it has raised much debate and discussion.
The relationship between the purposes for which the parks were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the social and economic needs of the people who live and work in them was extensively discussed by the National Parks Review Panel, which heard a wide range of views.
As they go about the business of managing their areas, the national park authorities will clearly have to recognise the importance of the needs and interests of the people who live and work in the parks. Each new authority will be required to prepare a management plan in which it will set out its proposals for the administration of its area. These plans will be subject to wide public consultation and will therefore provide one opportunity for local people to make their views known. We also intend to advise the new authorities that they should set up formal arrangements for ensuring that the views of local people are heard.
But the new authorities must not forget the purposes for which the parks were designated. The review panel heard evidence from some people who felt that the national parks should have a third purpose, to promote the economic and social interests of their local communities, which would be the effect of my noble friend's amendment, while others felt that the inclusion of such a strongly worded duty would divert from the main purposes of the national parks and confuse the role
264
of the new authorities with that of the local authorities and those agencies, such as the Rural Development Commission and the Welsh agencies, which are already taking action to further the economic and social development of rural areas.
After carefully considering all the views put to it, the panel decided that it was not appropriate to add a third purpose, but instead recommended that the National Park authorities should support the appropriate agencies in fostering the social and economic well-being of the communities within the parks. I have to say that I am very sympathetic to the reasons underlying the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel; but I do not believe that it is a matter for the Bill; indeed, other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have indicated as much.
The Bill is simply concerned with the establishment of independent authorities for each of the 10 National Parks in England and Wales. Under the Countryside Act 1968, local authorities are already required to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas. Under Clause 2(2) of the Bill, the new National Park authorities will also be bound by the same duty.
As I made clear when we debated the Bill at Second Reading, it is the Government's intention to introduce further legislation to update National Park purposes and to clarify the National Park authorities' duty to take full account of the economic and social needs of local communities. It is a matter which merits wider debate and discussion and so I believe it is not appropriate for the matter to be dealt with as part of the Bill at this stage.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions on this important topic. As I said on Second Reading, my Bill has only one objective—that is, to set up new authorities to run all the National Parks. I made it quite clear at that early stage that it does not affect the National Park statutory purposes and associated duty. I do not believe that my Private Member's Bill is the right place to resolve those other matters.
The Government have made clear their intention to legislate on the subject. My noble friend Lord Arran made clear during Second Reading that, in reconsidering and updating the National Park purposes, the Government would be guided by the spirit of the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel. The House has also been reminded of what those recommendations were. The panel considered the question in detail. Apart from recommending redefining the National Park purposes, it said, on the question of the duty, that National Park authorities should play a supportive role which would be,
"compatible with the purposes for which National Parks are designated".
I consider the purposes, the duty and the relationship between them to be inextricably linked.
Naturally, such a complex and important matter merits a full and wide ranging debate within the context of a government Bill. I do not believe that it is appropriate to use this Private Member's Bill as a Trojan Horse to import that debate.

265
There are other important matters on which the National Parks Review Panel also called for legislation. I refer to issues such as: a duty on Ministers or other government departments to further National Park purposes; a statutory development test for National Parks; rights of way legislation; and of course new National Parks. I am sure that there are many noble Lords who would think that they are equally important to discuss, but now is not the time to do so and they are not affected by my Bill.
What is important and timely, especially in the light of local government review, is the need to establish new National Park authorities to run the National Parks. I trust that my noble friend Lord Peel will agree that it would be wise to wait for government legislation to address his anxieties. I hope therefore that he will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I hear what speakers have said; namely, that now is not the appropriate time to move such an amendment. However, I also noted that I received quite a degree of positive support. But, perhaps more importantly, I think almost every noble Lord who spoke actually sympathised with the point that I am trying to make. We have at least had the opportunity of flagging what is the real problem. It is one which will have to be discussed in great detail if the Bill becomes law and if the recommendations contained in the report of Professor Edwards are to be a second stage to my noble friend's Bill.
I cannot get away from the simple fact that having a policy objective, an enabling system—which, I believe, is basically what was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Barber—by which the parks work with other authorities to look after the interests of those who live and work there, is not the same thing as having a power to look after them; that is, a power to promote their interests. They are two very different concepts.
I shall withdraw the amendment, but I just wanted to make that point. When we discuss the matter again, I hope that that will be very much in the forefront of the thinking of noble Lords. There is a big rift between many—but not all—park authorities and those who live and work therein. I trust that we shall be able to address that very real problem soon so that the National Parks will have the confidence of the people who live and work in them. As I said, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Derwent Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Parish Council Forum
Each National Park Authority shall establish a Parish Council Forum or equivalent body on which shall be represented by one member each parish council whose boundaries fall wholly or partly within the boundaries of the National Park.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the above is intended to be primarily a probing amendment. It
266
returns to a point which I —and, indeed, other noble Lords—raised in Committee about the importance of involving local people. I believe that it is common ground that if park authorities are to function properly they need the co-operation of the people who live in the park.
It therefore seems to me essential that the parish councils, which really are the only councils in close touch with grass roots opinion at the village level, be properly consulted and listened to. In the North Yorks Park, at least, that has not always happened in the past. I should point out that involvement of the parishes in some way would be wholly in line with the Government's overall policy on local government which envisages that parish councils be given art enhanced role.
It is difficult for direct representation by parish councils on the park authorities. That is not something which I am seeking. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to give strong guidance to park authorities that they should set up a special mechanism for obtaining the views of parish councils—both individually and collectively via a parish council forum for each park on which all parish councils would be represented; indeed, my noble friend Lord Norrie said in Committee that he had some sympathy with that point. I hope that guidance would also indicate that they should not only consult the parish councils but they should also give weight to parish views.
I should like to commend the wording used by the Local Government Commission for England in its report entitled, Report to Local People on the future of Local Government for the area North of the Humber. I believe that the commission has given similar advice in other parts of the country. Although the commission is concerned only with the relationship between county and district councils on the one hand and parish councils on the other, it seems to me that its suggestions are also apposite to the relations between park authorities—which, after all, are a part of local government—and parish councils. I quote the key sentences from the commission's report:
"Since parish and town councils are an important reflection of people's sense of identity with their community, the Commission recommends that their role be enhanced … The Commission agrees with many of its respondents that a clear consultative framework should be established between local authorities and parish and town councils. This framework, or 'local charter', should ensure that parish and town councils have rights to the following:
1. a clear statement of those matters affecting the local community upon which they will be consulted; the range of matters for consultation should be widely drawn;
2. sufficient information from local authorities about local matters on which their views have been requested;
3. the right to a written explanation from a local authority if it decides, as it legitimately may, not to agree with the views of the parish or town council;
4. regular meetings between representatives of the local authority and the parish and town councils to discuss matters of common interest".
It seems to me that this formula, or something like it, might be included in the guidance by the Secretary of State to a park authority as to the way in which the latter should conduct its relationship both with individual parishes and with its parish council forum. Finally, I would hope that if the Secretary of State is prepared to

267
give such guidance he would do so in rather a formal manner. In this particular case I have been persuaded that it would be wrong for the Bill to provide for the Secretary of State to give legally binding directions to park authorities about parish councils because the whole essence of the Bill is to give power to the park authorities and not to central government. On the other hand I would hope that ministerial guidance, while short of direction, would in this instance take the form of a formal and fairly strongly worded circular.
As I said at the outset, this is intended as a probing amendment in the hope that my noble friend the Minister—who I am sure, from what he has already said, is as anxious to involve local people in the workings of the parks as are all noble Lords—will be able to give the House some fairly firm indications of the nature and form of the guidance he has it in mind to give to the parks about the establishment of a parish council forum for each park and about the involvement of parishes generally. I beg to move.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have no quarrel or particular negative concern with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, but he is of course speaking for England only. He clearly had no idea, in putting down the amendment, that in Wales we do not have parish councils. We do not have an established Church. We have parochial church councils which deal exclusively with matters concerning churches and we have community councils. If one was going to do proper justice to the Principality of Wales, obviously one would have to refer to the community councils which would be our equivalent. I do not wish to pursue the matter further but it is essential to indicate that this Anglicised view of the Bill should not be sustained. Happily, this is only a probing amendment and therefore I shall not continue with the argument but I am certain that everyone in the House will have recognised that we could not possibly let it go through as it stands. On a purely practical line, I would suggest that if one is going to have only one person from a parish council, one must certainly make provision for alternates but that is a matter of detail.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady White in her contention that in Wales we do not understand what parish councils are. We have community councils. The problem with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is not just that, although that is problem enough. It is that a community council in Wales, if I may speak for a moment for Wales, has not got a particular constitution which the parish council in England has, and we have difficulties with community councils which may or may not represent the people they pretend to represent. That may be true of parish councils in England. I have no experience of that.
If I may speak for a moment of the Welsh problem, to have one member of each community council—which I take to be the equivalent body of that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in his amendment —whose area is in some way in a national park, represented we know not how and speaking for we
268
know not what interest within some national park authority in some way which we know not, does not seem in the Welsh context to make much sense. Nevertheless, having said all that, I appreciate the thrust of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, which I believe I supported at the Committee stage; that is, that the national park authorities have to be very sensitive to the needs and requirements of the local people in the area. But even as a probing amendment I am bound to say that I consider it rather defective.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I hope I may get away from Wales for a moment because I absolutely accept the objections which have been put forward about that. I, too, am grateful that this is a probing amendment. I am far from sure that it is right to put such a proposal on the face of the Bill. However, I join with the noble Lord who proposed the amendment in saying that we in this party would certainly think it of immense importance that we try to involve people at the very lowest tier of local government, to get their views and consent and to allow their initiatives to be examined, however worthy the objectives of the national parks. I think I have already shown that I fully support that. I also strongly support the need for consultation and carrying along, and listening to, the people who live on the ground in the areas and the bodies to which they elect their representatives. I hope that the Government will take aboard most of what I say.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, from the government viewpoint let me say straightaway that we are very aware of the importance of the role which parish and community councils play in the affairs of the national parks. We are also aware of the need for the new authorities to make sure that proper arrangements are in place to ensure that the parish and community councils have the opportunity to make their input into the affairs of the new authorities. Certainly, I am happy to assure my noble friend Lord Derwent that we intend to issue guidance in due course in the form of a departmental circular to the new authorities to the effect that they should make formal provision to ensure that the parish and community councils are given the fullest opportunity to make their views known. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Welsh Office will issue its own guidance in its own particular form.
There are already examples where effective consultations have been set up by the existing authorities. For example, the formal channels which Dartmoor has set up and the parish council forum in the Peak park offer models on which other parks should be encouraged to build. I can also reassure my noble friend Lord Derwent that parish and community councils will continue to be statutory consultees on development control matters. So dialogue with individual councils will continue to be important.
There is a further means—I would particularly point this out to my noble friend—by which the parish and community councils make a contribution to the affairs of the parks. The Secretary of State, in making his appointments, welcomes nominations from a wide range of interests. At present, however, he receives very

269
few names with a parish and community council background, and parish and community councils will, I am sure, want to consider how best they can ensure that candidates with an interest in those matters are put before the Secretary of State.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Derwent for bringing this important matter of the interests of parish, town and community councils before the House this evening. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for reminding the House that in Wales it will be the community councils within the three parks which will be voicing their opinions.
I stated at Second Reading that I am supportive of such councils having an effective voice to which the national park authorities will be attuned. It will be helpful to establish a parish or community council forum in each national park.
As my noble friend Lord Arran said, the requirement for the establishment of an equivalent body will be set out in the Government guidance. This implements the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel which said that there should be,
"regular forums to explain the implications of policy developments and to hear the aspirations and problems of park communities".
Naturally that challenge will need to be looked at on a park-by-park basis. The same formula will not work across the map of national parks. For instance, the Yorkshire Dales park has 83 parishes within its boundaries; the Peak District has 114; and the Snowdonia National Park has 55 community councils. Noble Lords will appreciate the scale of the task.
I note the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Derwent about local responsiveness under the new national park authorities. As I made clear on Second Reading, this Bill provides benefits for local responsiveness. For instance, every local authority with an area which falls within the boundaries of a park—and that includes district councils where they continue to exist after local government review —will be represented on the new authorities. In the case of most of the proposals for unitary authorities, their area will be smaller than the current counties and their boundaries are more likely to be drawn closely around the national park areas.
The Minister has also made it clear that his guidance will say that local authority members should, where possible, come from wards within the park or live in the park area. I feel that the Bill provides for a greater level of local responsiveness and that forging better links with parish and community councils is all part of the picture.
I hope that those factors will reassure my noble friend Lord Derwent that his anxieties will be met and that he will therefore withdraw his amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, as I said this is intended as a probing amendment. First, I should like to apologise to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The last thing that I want to do is to start a war between national parks—one in North Yorkshire and some in Wales. I apologise for the oversight.
I am grateful for what I thought were quite categoric assurances by the Minister and by my noble friend Lord
270
Norrie that everyone is conscious of the problem and is sympathetic to what lies behind it. I look forward to seeing the guidance which my noble friend the Minister will issue in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [National Park authorities]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
("(3) The number of members appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (a) above shall, as far as is practicable, be twice that appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (b) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 standing in my name.
This amendment arises out of a discussion that we had in Committee on this Bill when the noble Lord the Minister indicated, in accepting an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who also accepted that amendment, that he might look at the amendment that I had put down, which was not dissimilar but somewhat stronger than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
I have tabled this amendment again. with one slight variation—"as far as is practicable"—simply because it would appear sensible that, if we are to enshrine in this Bill and this Act, if it ever gets that far, the principle of two thirds/one third, there should be some let out if local authority appointed members die and you cannot immediately fill the place, or if Secretary of State appointees die and you cannot immediately fill the place, and at least the words "as far as is practicable" should be inserted into the provision.
I believe that this is in the spirit of Edwards and, indeed, in the present spirit. If it is right at the moment, and if Edwards thought that it was right at the time, I see no reason why it should not be right now. I know that the noble Earl has accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I am not going to press this to a Division. I should just like to know, after the noble Earl's comments in Committee when he said that he would look at this, what the Government's position is. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am a little uneasy with my noble friend's amendment. I feel that it is important to keep the Bill as it is on the subject of membership. The formula, which is now clear, has the majority of members from local authorities and it has found widespread support. I would be very unwilling to change it at this stage.
The process of local government review makes uncertain the circumstances in which national park authorities will exist. It is important not to remove any possibility of discretion, within limits, on the subject of membership.
In England the outcome of local government review is far from clear. We could have a national park covered by one unitary authority. In Wales we know what the Government intend. In Snowdonia the national park authority will be covered by two unitary authorities. In the Brecon Beacons there will be several. But in the case of the Pembrokeshire coast the entire area will be covered by one unitary authority.

271
The situation in which a national park is covered by one authority has not worked well in the past. The concern is that what may happen is that a single local authority may dominate national park business with the dominant political party operating as a single bloc. Up to now, as we discussed at an earlier stage, party politics do not, on the whole, enter into national park arrangements, but this particular arrangement would invite problems.
We can offer an example. From February 1952 to July 1964 the Dartmoor National Park drew its local authority members solely from Devon County Council. The park was not at its most effective during that time. As we heard at Second Reading from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, it was during that period that the county promoted Swincombe reservoir on Dartmoor. The Countryside Commission comparison of actions taken by national park authorities between 1954 and 1970 shows that the county gave a low priority to the national park authority and resisted even the most basic expenditure at that time.
It does not seem in the best interests of national parks to equip them for the future with their administrative framework having an in-built potential problem which already has a historical precedent.
I hope that my noble friend will not feel that he needs to press the amendment. In fact, he has said that he will not do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will not feel disposed to accept it, because I believe that it would be unfortunate to do so at this time. It is possible that by the time the promised legislation comes from the Government we shall know better what the arrangements in the national parks will be and we can discuss the matter at that time.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. If a situation arises such as she described in which discretion is needed there is surely merit in a system which allows the Secretary of State to be able to return to Parliament on a matter of changed circumstances under clear procedures set out in the Bill without having to find time for primary legislation.
If the exact proportions of membership are set out on the face of the Bill I believe that I am right in thinking that primary legislation would be needed to amend it. As we all know, time to amend primary legislation is always in short supply. Therefore I support the Bill as it stands with the proportions of membership set out in the government guidance. That provides the right mechanism to cope with any changing circumstances.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I thought that we had got the matter about right with the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, which we accepted at Committee stage: that there should always be a majority of local authority members.
This amendment goes further. I do not wish to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. She put her finger on the crucial point. I intervene simply because, if I understood him aright, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, thought his amendment was in tune with the Edwards Report. I do not think that it is. Surely
272
the whole thrust of the Edwards Report was the importance of the plurality of voices. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, the danger is that we might lose that factor in certain circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will resist the amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lord Chorley. I agree with all the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. There is a real danger that if the amendment were to be accepted, some national parks might be dominated by one unitary authority and other interests which ought to be represented would not be represented. It is right that the Secretary of State should retain discretion.
Like my noble friend, Lord Chorley, I, too, think that what was done at Committee stage in accepting the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was right, and as far as we should go. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was quite right. I undertook to consider the amendment which required that two-thirds of the members of the new authorities should be appointed by the constituent local authorities and one-third by the Secretary of State.
We have given the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, very careful consideration. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Derwent which was agreed at Committee sets out beyond any possible doubt that there will always be a clear majority of local authority members on each national park authority. In addition, I have made it clear that it is our intention that not only should the local authority members be in the majority, they should make up two-thirds of the total membership of the national park authorities, and the Secretary of State members the remaining one-third.
During Committee, I explained to your Lordships that it is our intention that the current balance of representation between local authorities and Secretary of State members will be maintained so that two-thirds of the total will be appointed by the local authorities and one-third by the Secretary of State. That remains our intention. I hope that that will allay the concerns or anxieties that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may have.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has given us an important matter to scrutinise. I believe that the Bill as it stands is right. I shall explain why.
I have made clear throughout the debate my preference for using the 1949 formula on the face of the Bill and for setting the exact membership proportions in the circular. Thanks to the most helpful amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, the Bill makes it abundantly clear that there will always be a local authority majority. It also sets an upper limit for the local authority members. Since Committee stage, in my consultations I found widespread satisfaction with the clear signals that that gives. I believe it is right that the Bill itself sets exact parameters but not exact

273
proportions. Those proportions should be established in the circular and in the orders setting up the individual parks.
The Minister has been most clear in his statement: he intends to set the membership at two-thirds of local authority appointed members and one-third Secretary of State appointed members. That I fully support.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that it would not be desirable to take away from the face of the Bill discretion that national parks legislation has always offered. As the Bill stands, it retains the possibility to look again under changed circumstances at the detailed membership numbers. We currently face the prospect of changed circumstances with the review of local government, the outcome of which is still unknown. We face the prospect of single-tier local authorities. Under such a regime it is less obvious how national park authorities will achieve the mix of local strategic and national interests which have always been the hallmark of national park membership. I say that without in any way questioning the importance of getting right and enhancing the local responsiveness to my Bill.
In England the outcome of local government review is far from clear. In Wales it is proposed that Snowdonia National Park will be covered by two unitary authorities; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, the Brecon Beacons by several authorities; and the Pembrokeshire coast by one authority. It is unknown what the effects of the changes will be on the national parks. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested that a prescriptive formula could deny options in those circumstances.
It would be helpful if I were to remind the House that the Bill is drafted in such a way that national park authorities could never be quangos. The new authorities will rest firmly within the local government sector, will have a local authority majority, and local authority procedures will apply. In addition, I pointed out that the chairman and deputy chairman will be elected from among the authority membership and not appointed by the Secretary of State—a benefit which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, assisted in making clear at Committee stage. All those factors give clear signals about the nature of the new authorities.
It is also important to remember that the Secretary of State has a duty to consult local authorities in drawing up orders for individual parks.
I hope that on reflection the House will join me in supporting the Bill as it stands. The parliamentary draftsman probably has got it right. I should resist deviation from the wording of sub-paragraph (3) of Schedule 1. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, at Second Reading, I said that so far as my Party was concerned from our Front Bench the Bill had support. However, in Committee, I said, as I believe all noble Lords will recognise, that certain of my honourable friends in another place who represented Welsh constituents had strong feelings about the representation of local
274
authority appointees and Secretary of State appointees, given (if I may introduce a slightly controversial note) the nature of the present incumbent at the Welsh Office.
At Second Reading I undertook that my right honourable and honourable friends on the Front Bench in another place would support the Bill. I gave that undertaking on authority. However, I was told by my colleagues in another place that this matter was of considerable interest. I am anxious that the Bill should go forward. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—I do not refer to the Government —has not recognised that, since I do not propose to press the matter, there is now a danger (I put it no higher) that some of my honourable friends in another place will decide that they cannot support this specific measure. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, knows what I am talking about; he raised the matter. If that is what 'your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, wish to see, that is what you wish to see.
If my amendment had been accepted, I think that I could have guaranteed that at least the Front Bench on the Welsh side in another place would support the Bill. As it is, I am afraid that I cannot offer any such guarantee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 18, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
("(3) It shall be the duty of a National Park authority, in relation to any committee or sub-committee to which this sub-paragraph applies, to secure—

(a) that the membership of the committee or sub-committee consists of or includes both local authority members of the authority and at least one member appointed to the authority by the Secretary of State;

(b) that the division of members of the authority who are members of the committee or sub-committee between—

(i) local authority members, and

(ii) members appointed to the authority by the Secretary of Stale,

is (as nearly as possible using whole numbers) in the same proportions as required by virtue of paragraph 1(2) above in the case of the authority itself; and

(c) that the quorum of the committee or sub-committee includes at least one local authority member of the authority and at least one member appointed to the authority by the Secretary of State.

(3A) Sub-paragraph (3) above applies in the case of any National Park authority to the following committees and sub-committees, except those appointed under section 102(4) or (4A) of the 1972 Act (advisory committees), that is to say—

(a) any committee or sub-committee of the authority;

(b) any joint committee on which the authority is represented; and

(c) any sub-committee of such a joint committee.

(3B) The proceedings of a committee or sub-committee to which sub-paragraph (3) above applies shall not be invalidated by any failure of a National Park authority to perform its duty under that sub-paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should first explain that this amendment is simply a technical expansion of the amendment brought forward by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in Committee. I am advised that his amendment was not as tightly worded as it might have been, in particular the word "balance" was open to interpretation. In other words it was not clear whether the membership of committees and sub-committees of the new authorities should comprise a simple majority of local authority members or whether the membership should reflect a combination of the

275
actual proportion of local authority and Secretary of State members. The amendment gave no indication on the minimum representation of both types of interest —that is to say, local authority and Secretary of State.
In Committee I also said that I was sympathetic to the principle behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, which is that all committees and sub-committees of national park authorities should reflect the proportion of the two types of members on the authority. My amendment also makes it clear that there must be, at the minimum, at least one of each type of member for a particular meeting to have a quorum.
At Committee stage I had envisaged that those requirements would be clear, through the Government's guidance. But my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made it clear that he was not content with that reassurance. I have now been advised by the Government that by adopting this wording it is possible that the provision will be made on the face of the Bill, as your Lordships wish. The technical expansion does not affect the intentions of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, but I am advised that it puts them on a much sounder and legal footing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we appreciate the need to reflect both national and local interests in all aspects of the work of the national park authorities. For
276
that reason, I explained to noble Lords during Committee that it is our intention to advise the national park authorities that the composition of their committees and sub-committees should reflect the balance between local authority and Secretary of State members on the authority itself.
During Committee, noble Lords agreed to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, which requires the committees and sub-committees of the national park authorities to reflect the two-thirds/ one-third balance of local authority and Secretary of State membership of the authority. I believe that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie develops the intention underlying the amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell which was agreed to at Committee and provides a more workable alternative because it is drafted in precise terms. On that basis, we support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with an amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty three minutes past eight o'clock.