Lords Sitting of 31 March 1994

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
British Railways Act.

Wines and Beers: Personal Imports
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that the European Commission is proposing to permit wines and beers to be imported into the United Kingdom for their own use by United Kingdom residents who order these commodities by post and do not need to visit the country from which they are imported; what is the anticipated loss of revenue to the United Kingdom; and what action they propose to take in the matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I have seen reports which suggest the provisions my noble friend outlines. However, United Kingdom law provides that private individuals must travel with their personal imports of alcoholic drinks and tobacco in order to be eligible to relief from United Kingdom excise duty and VAT. On 2nd March 1994 the EC commissioner responsible for taxes stated at a press conference that the Commission's interpretation of Directive 92/12 was the same as that of the British Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend telling the House that the position remains that you have to go and collect your goods rather than order them on the telephone?
Lord Henley: My Lords, put very simply, yes.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, while one can have not the slightest sympathy with the Government for the difficulties that they face as a result of these developments, which were entirely their own responsibility and about which they had been warned again and again, does my noble friend agree that what really matters is the damage that is being done to the industry in this country? What do the Government propose to do about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that any damage is being done to the producers of alcoholic drinks and tobaccos in this country. They are not
1198
affected. It is possible that some retailers are being affected. Their loss of revenue as a result of additional cross-border shopping could be as much as £200 million. I think that I quoted a figure of £170 million last time I dealt with this question. That is certainly less than the anticipated loss of £250 million. I have to say that, despite that slightly lower figure, revenue receipts during 1993 were in fact higher than in previous years. That seems to support the view that the much greater losses that were feared from increased cross-border shopping have not been suffered.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take it that the Answer to the actual Question is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wanted to have confirmed: that there is no problem in relation to the specific case of importing by post. Can the Minister confirm that? Will he also agree that once there is a single market the term "free trade" implies that people will try to shop where it is cheapest? There is no way round that. That is the consequence of the single market. It is also the consequence of having different excise duties in different countries. You cannot get rid of the laws of economics simply by saying that you do not like them.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in relation to the second part of his question, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. There is nothing that I could disagree with. As regards the first part of his question, he is right. There was a misinterpretation by some people in Brussels of Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12. However, it seems pretty clear from the article, which states:
"As regards products acquired by private individuals for their own use and transported by them",
that mail order shopping would not entitle people to the same reliefs and that goods must be transported by the people concerned.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be some muted satisfaction that we have recognised the problem being faced by retailers in off-licences in the south of England? However, in regard to the remark about having to like the law that you have, I thought that God made government so that government would make laws that you like in order to avoid the kind of antagonism and damage which the present law is causing to retailers.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that we have the laws that we like. I am aware that, as my noble friend puts it, some retailers, particularly in the south east, have suffered a degree of financial loss as a result of increased cross-border shopping. But one can overestimate the degree of that loss. As I said, revenue receipts during 1993 were higher than in previous years, which seems to suggest that the losses are not as great as all that, and that much cross-border shopping represents new consumption.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that this may be one of the instances where the single market is not all that it is claimed to be and that there are certain disadvantages inherent in it which are already acknowledged by massive exemptions in the case of the common agricultural policy? Will the noble

1199
Lord give an undertaking that the Government will investigate the whole issue? For some of us the loss of £200 million of revenue is a matter of some significance, as indeed the noble Lord has repeatedly said in other spheres of economic activity.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I fail to see quite how the CAP comes within the scope of this Question.
I accept that £200 million is a significant figure. We anticipated the figure to be somewhat higher at £250 million. However, to harmonise all excise duties, for example with the French—they would be the main beneficiaries of any cross-border shopping—would cost some £3 billion to £4 billion. I think that even the noble Lord would accept that that loss would be much greater. As I made clear on a previous occasion, the Chancellor will continue to assess excise rates according to his own judgment on various issues relating to the economy, social factors and health.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that where someone travels overseas and brings back various bottles or other dutiable goods, real supervision is exercised to make sure that that person does not then resell them in this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, I can give the assurance that products brought back should be for personal consumption. I also assure the House that Customs have set up various teams of excise verification officers who will investigate importations. Customs are certainly not complacent and will continue to act vigorously to protect both United Kingdom revenue and United Kingdom trade.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, is there not something slightly inconsistent in the replies that my noble friend has been giving? If there is a loss of revenue of £200 million, does that not indicate a sizeable diversion of trade? Is not that diversion of trade to the detriment of industry in this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that there was a loss, but overall revenue had increased. The total harmonisation of excise duties would cost some £3 billion to £4 billion, as I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.

Grant-Maintained Schools: Management
11.15 a.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What evaluation they have made of the overall management skills and experience of head teachers and governing bodies of grant-maintained schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, in determining a school's application for grant-maintained status, my right honourable friend takes account of advice from Her Majesty's inspectors, including an assessment of the quality of management provided by the head teacher and governors. Once grant maintained, the management
1200
of the school continues to be regularly scrutinised as part of the Office for Standards in Education's inspection system.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may take one example. Does the Minister agree that proper management of property assets is a vital responsibility for governors and head teachers? Has she seen the analysis by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which demonstrates that 86 per cent. of grant-maintained schools plan significant building work within the next two years and that more than 50 per cent. of the schools require serious repair work? Is the noble Baroness aware that the institution has stated that governors and head teachers,
"rarely have the … skills or training to enable them to carry out this task efficiently and effectively".
What will the Government do about that serious situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all the evidence is that grant-maintained schools are managing that aspect of their affairs rather better than many of the local authorities, and indeed the local authority maintained schools. They obtain more value for money; and they order their priorities in a more efficient and effective way. There is no evidence whatever—unless the noble Lord is prepared to produce the evidence—of a single school mismanaging its affairs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that she is not concerned that people will eventually be unwilling to accept the responsibilities, both legal and moral, that are now associated with being a governor of a school? I must declare a degree of interest, having just given up being a school governor. I found the additional responsibilities very great. Does the noble Baroness have any doubt about whether there will be enough people to satisfy those requirements in future?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The role of a governor now is an important one. Governors have responsibilities which are rather greater than the rubber-stamping responsibilities of the past. However, it is a matter that we keep under constant surveillance. The issue is not a problem to the extent that we need to take special measures. We know that when a grant-maintained school is looking for a new governor it is anxious to ensure that the expertise that it requires is covered by the range of people whom it recruits to the governing body.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that in running a school the role of head teacher is absolutely crucial. Teacher education does not include management training. Indeed, it does not include training on how to be a head teacher. Can we have the assurance that the Department for Education understands the great responsibility to ensure that courses in management training are run directly by the department, by universities or by some other professional institution?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the role of the head teacher is absolutely crucial in any school whether it is

1201
grant maintained or local authority maintained. Management training goes on. It is provided for through the grant for education support and training funds. At this moment we are speaking with the teacher unions about what more can be done to address the important issue of management training for teachers, in particular for head teachers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will this concentration on management not dilute the attention of the headmaster from his main job which is to look after the pupils and their education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there needs to be a proper understanding of what management means. The head of an establishment who manages should make sure that the teaching at the establishment is undertaken by teachers who are fit for the purpose and that the learning is as effective as it can be. The head must also look after personnel and campus issues. It is not just about money; it is about making sure that the school is managed from the classroom right through to looking after pay and rations.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister explain how the inspectors evaluate the management skills and experience of governing bodies?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when an application for grant-maintained status comes before us, the Ofsted inspectors will look at the school. They will bring forward a report and if they believe that the school is not fit to manage its own affairs that will form part of their advice to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness may wish to write to Professor Sutherland asking exactly how that is carried out, but the inspection is very thorough. Once a school is grant maintained, it is subject to all the other rigours of the system: visiting and re-visiting by the inspectorate every four years, auditing of the accounts, and public accountability to the governors and parents and to the wider community. The inspectorate is responsible at the end of the day to the funding agency for schools and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Baroness David: My Lords, if the governors are found wanting, can they be sacked?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it depends on why they are found wanting. The range can be from a breach of the law right through merely to being an indifferent governor. I have sat on a number of governing bodies where the governors have been jolly indifferent and other governing bodies where governors have been highly political. That is not a good way of being governor of a school. The role of the governor is to be as supportive as possible, to make it a good school.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister asked for the evidence. Has she read the report of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors? It wrote to 677 schools. Will the Minister realise that there is widespread anxiety about the degree to which schools are being distracted—as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie,
1202
said—from the task of teaching children by trying to run the schools as mini-businesses, very often with a total absence of the proper skills required?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when the noble Lord brings forward detailed evidence for what he says, I shall come to the Dispatch Box and respond to it. Over 70 per cent. of the schools employ more teachers, and over half the grant-maintained schools have improved their pupil-teacher ratios, as have 84 per cent. of primary schools. Seventy per cent. of secondary schools offer more subjects in the curriculum; and 92 per cent. of secondary and 94 per cent. of primary schools report more in-service training. Many schools have been able dramatically to increase their expenditure on books and equipment and all are increasing their amount of community involvement. That is a very good record for our grant-maintained schools.
Lord Judd: My Lords, has the Minister read the, report or not?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the schools could not have gained that list of achievements that I have just read out.
Lord Judd: Has the Minister read it?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, I have. I am simply saying that the noble Lord will have to do more than read words on a page. He must come forward with detailed evidence to support the schools which are failing in their duties to provide education. What I have just given is real evidence of real schools providing better and more education for the children in their charge.

Belfast International Airport: Security
11.22 a.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the recent Heathrow airport mortar attacks, they believe private policing will still be appropriate for Belfast International Airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, Belfast International Airport has operated under the threat of mortar attacks since the 1970s and the airport constabulary, under the direct control of a commercial management, has played an important role in co-operation with the RUC and the military in securing the airport. A detailed review of security at Belfast International Airport has just been completed and government security advisers are content with the proposed arrangements for policing following privatisation.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Will she agree that the post-Easter truce by the IRA, although clearly welcome in itself, should not lead us to relax in any way our expectations of what we require in the form of security? Will she further agree that, as we saw at Heathrow,

1203
airports almost by definition, because of their long perimeters and the heavy traffic involved, are soft targets? Therefore, will the Minister in any way reconsider the answer that she gave to me on 31st January at col. 1165 of Hansard that:
"airport security, once it is in private hands … will not be affected"?
Specifically, in any crisis situation such as we saw at Heathrow, who will be in charge and to whom will they be accountable?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in the House agrees with the noble Lord that any day without violence in the Province is good. Every day without violence is what we want. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that the administration of policing has proved effective over the past years. The same people will carry that out and if there is any lapse in security, the aviation security Act allows the RUC immediately to take over. Outside the perimeter, as is the case outside the perimeter of any airport, it is the police and security forces who will look after the peace and protection of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Aldergrove is set in a different environment from Heathrow. Those who work there live out in the community; there is a military presence on one side with military aircraft, both RAF and Army helicopters. Who controls the security of that side of the airfield? Is there a division between the two? Does the Minister accept that, given the different environment, those who work in security at the airfield go home into the community where their lives are at risk? They need advice on how to look after themselves in that different environment. Above all, will the Minister advise me either orally or by letter as to the following? It is all very well to say that private police forces are responsible to private operators of the airfield, but Special Branch information will not be able to be given to them. Therefore, how can the private police forces do their job properly in that kind of environment?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the people who will be operating the security of the airport after privatisation are those who have done such a brilliant job in the past 20 years. I agree wholeheartedly that the policing of any area in Northern Ireland is a stressful occupation and that counselling for those people is important. But we are not changing the people. Perhaps I may also reassure the noble Lord that there will be no question of subcontracting.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, following the question put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, how can it be right to pass responsibility to a private company when Special Branch information cannot be made available to it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the overall responsibility for policing throughout Northern Ireland is the RUC's. If the RUC is unhappy, it will draw the matter to the Government's attention.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, acknowledging that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and several units of the Army seem to work well in Belfast, does the Minister agree, as my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees said, that the last thing we want to do is to upset the magnificent police force we have throughout the entire country? If there is to be any vesting of airport safety in the hands of private police, will the Minister please make certain that it will in no way upset the discipline of and superb service given by our permanent police force?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that the proposed arrangements have been entirely agreed to by the RUC.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether or not a value-for-money audit has been done, comparing the costs of providing security within Belfast airport by private policing and by the RUC? If so, which is the cheaper? If not, why not?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am not aware of a value-for-money audit in that area. I shall check and write to the noble Lord. However, when it comes to security in Northern Ireland, cheapness is not at the top of the list of priorities.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a private security contractor at the City airport recently lost the contract for not properly observing security procedures? Given that precedent, I urge the noble Baroness to treat the issue of private policing of an extremely sensitive place with at least the seriousness of another review. It is of the greatest possible importance to people living in Northern Ireland, and indeed to the House as a whole.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I appreciate fully the concern of everyone about the security of the airport in Northern Ireland, and security in the Province as a whole. I should have thought that it was an advantage, lapses in security having been found, that the contract was taken away. It should reassure the noble Lord that these matters are monitored constantly. In the past year we have had reviews to look at this issue. I assure the House that those who carry out the reviews will also be affected should security lapse. We have confidence in the reports that we have received.

Miss Sue Hagan and Miss Sally Croft
11.30 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider on humanitarian grounds their decision to extradite Sue Hagan and Sally Croft to the United States.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the decision to order the surrender of Miss Hagan and Miss Croft was taken by the Secretary of State only after the most careful consideration of the representations which were made on their behalf. Miss

1205
Hagan and Miss Croft exercised their right to challenge the decision by way of an application for judicial review.
The Divisional Court dismissed their application on 15th December 1993. They then petitioned for leave to appeal to your Lordships' House against the decision of the Divisional Court. Their petition was refused on 21st March. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the proper procedures have been fully complied with.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. It may well be that the proper procedures have been applied. However, is the noble Earl aware of the widening and deepening concern regarding the action of the Home Secretary in allowing those two ladies to be deported? Does the Minister agree that it is the case that they have not lived in America for eight years; that they are domiciled over here; and that they are both gainfully employed? Is he further aware that I have before me an extensive letter that was written to the Home Secretary on behalf of the two ladies by one of the most esteemed legal authorities in the land—namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman? The letter ends as follows:
"These factors, individually as well as collectively, constitute a very real risk of miscarriage of justice if the ladies are brought to trial in Oregon—or indeed elsewhere in the USA.
I would submit that you would be putting these two accused to an unacceptable risk of injustice if you were to allow their extradition. It is not safe to take the risk".
How can Home Secretaries dismiss the views of someone like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman?
In view of the lengthy and detailed discussions on this subject, which I believe are needed to convince the public, on the concept that we should deliver two ladies to American marshals to be handcuffed, I have put down an Unstarred Question—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dean of Beswick: —for debate as soon as we return after the Easter Recess. Will the Minister ask the Home Secretary to delay the deportation, which I understand is to take place next week, until after we have had a chance—
A noble Lord: Misuse of parliamentary time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: —in this House to learn more about what is taking place in this unfortunate instance?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. This case occurred some eight or nine years ago. But offences are not time-barred from prosecution in the United States. He referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary did consider the noble and learned Lord's views.
There is a practice for dealing with extradition cases. When a country asks for extradition the procedures for committal are the same as normal committal proceedings in English domestic cases. They take place at Bow Street under a stipendiary magistrate, who has to consider the evidence to see whether there is a prima
1206
facie case. He did so. The test is then, on the evidence before the magistrate, whether, had the alleged offence been committed in the United Kingdom, a Crown Court could convict. If the magistrate is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the accused, he has to commit them to custody. He did so. The Home Secretary cannot intervene for up to 15 days in order to allow the fugitives to apply for habeas corpus. They did apply for it. That is heard by the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. That happened in this case. If the decision is right, the court would dismiss the application for habeas corpus. It did so. The fugitive can then ask for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. They did so. If the Queen's Bench refuses leave to appeal, the applicant can petition the House of Lords directly. They did so; and the House of Lords refused the application.
Then, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has the unfettered discretion, under the extradition Act, to decide what to do. Under those circumstances he decided to extradite the individuals. They can then apply for judicial review on that decision. They did so; and the decision was made against them. I really do think that the processes of the law have been fully used and that it would be wrong that parliamentary debate should seek to overturn the full processes of the law.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as the alleged offences were said to have been committed in the United States, that is a country with which Britain has an extradition treaty; that all possible judicial procedures that are available in this country have been taken; and it would therefore be quite wrong and a bad precedent for the matter to be further delayed by discussion in this House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. The full processes have been gone through, and my right honourable friend is satisfied that the legal processes have been correct. That is why he agreed to the extradition.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister is of course quite right. The legal processes have been gone through. But at the end of the day it is a matter for the discretion of the Home Secretary as to whether or not he extradites. One of the matters that he has to consider is the question of delay. Another is the question of oppression. A third matter is the question of a possible miscarriage of justice.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen the letter of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Seaman. Perhaps I may quote one sentence from it:
"I have to say that I think the delay (whatever be the reason or the excuses now put forward) has been intolerable, oppressive, and must enhance the doubts as to the credibility of whatever evidence the prosecution may seek to adduce".
Will the Minister agree that those are powerful arguments which ought to be considered? If the two ladies are to be shot across the Atlantic very quickly, this House will not have an opportunity to consider the matter. In all conscience I believe that to ask for time for the House to look at this matter to see whether or not the

1207
Home Secretary has exercised his discretion properly is not an unreasonable request. I hope that the Minister will think about it seriously.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says that nine years is a very long while, and the next moment he says that the House has not had time enough to debate the matter. The fact is that nine years is a long time, and the noble Lord is quite correct when he says that my right honourable friend has discretion. He does have discretion and he has exercised that discretion—
Lord Richard: The matter has been sub judice.
Earl Ferrers: My right honourable friend has absorbed the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. He has also absorbed the view arrived at by the legal processes. I really do not believe that it is right that a debate in Parliament should override the processes of the law.
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, 30 minutes has elapsed. I think that we need to move on.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
11.38 a.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Norrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment of National Park authorities]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
Perhaps I may say one or two words of introduction about this amendment. The Committee will be aware that in the case of Pepper v. Hart the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House accepted that it was possible to construe statute having regard to statements made by Ministers and recorded in the Official Report.
The Committee will be aware therefore that a number of the amendments that I intend to move are designed to elicit replies—either from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, or the Minister—which will be written into the Official Report. I should like to put the Minister on notice that that is the main thrust of most of major amendments that I shall move.
Amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment along the lines that I have just described. This House has had occasion to pass legislation which has not been commenced. I think of a particular debate on criminal injuries matters which in fact disturbed noble Lords.
1208
When a Bill which gives the Secretary of State permission to act but does not make that action mandatory is passed and enacted, we need some assurance from the Government that they will activate the legislation and that it will not lie gathering dust on a shelf until the Government think of something better. If we are to spend time in Committee on this Bill, we need an assurance from the Minister—I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, cannot give such an assurance and that it must come from the Government because it is a power to be given to the Secretary of State —that the legislation will be commenced and the Secretary of State will exercise his discretionary powers under Clause 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): I can assure both the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the Committee that it is certainly the Government's firm intention that each of the national parks in England and Wales set up under the 1949 Act will be managed by a national park authority. There will be a number of factors to be taken into account in setting the timetable for the establishment of each national park authority. The wording of the Bill makes clear that the Secretary of State may proceed at his discretion to a timetable appropriate for each park.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance. Unless he contradicts me, I understand that it means that the Act —if this Bill becomes an Act—will be put into force by the Secretary of State on a timetable that could be flexible. I take it that the noble Earl is in agreement with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kimball: I oppose the Question that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill because I want to convey to the Committee how much I regret the way in which this very important Bill has been handled by the Government. This 16-clause Bill with five schedules comes forward as a Private Member's Bill. I in no way doubt the brilliance of my noble friend Lord Norrie either as a parliamentary draftsman or a parliamentarian. However, he himself admitted at Second Reading that the Bill came off the Government's shelf. So we are faced with a government Bill coming forward as a Private Member's Bill.
That has happened in many cases, and in certain circumstances I do not object to it. But I do not understand why the Bill was not offered in another place to any person who was successful in the ballot. After all, if it went forward as a government Bill, having been given to one of the first six people who drew a place in the Private Member's Bill ballot in the other place, there would be a full day's debate on Second Reading, one would have a position in standing committee and the Bill could be properly considered. I have checked with Members of the other place and seen three out of the first six listed and this Bill was not on offer at the time for

1209
a Private Member's Bill in the other place. There is all the difference in the world between giving a Bill to someone who has won the right to a Second Reading, Committee and Report stage in Private Member's Bill time and trying to ensure that a Bill of this size should proceed under standing orders in another place on Standing Order No. 58.
In fact, the Bill could perhaps succeed in that way; but it would have had to come forward to this Chamber in November. Why was the Bill not brought forward in this Chamber in November and given to a Member of this Chamber to introduce? As the Order Paper of another place operated, it so happened that the first Private Member's Bill—the Bill drawn first in the ballot —did not get a Second Reading. At that time, had this Bill completed its stages in this Chamber by Christmas or just after Christmas, it could have gone straight into Committee in another place. So an opportunity was missed. I do not know whether it was due to the fact that the Bill was not properly read or was still in one of its many redrafted forms.
There is no precedent whatsoever for government time to be given to a Private Member's Bill. That has always been upheld by the Conservative Party in this Chamber. With one exception, we have never had a Conservative Government give time to a Private Member's Bill. Some Members will remember that in 1956, to honour a pledge given at the general election, the Silverman Bill on homicide was given government time on the understanding that it obtained a Second Reading in the other place, as it did.
There is no chance today of this Bill becoming law. I feel that it is very wrong of noble Lords to employ the argument that the Bill is essential because of the shake-up that is happening in local government. Those of us who attended the debate yesterday must be beginning to feel that with any luck to a large extent we shall achieve the status quo in local government—so there is the demand that because of a change in local government and the move to unitary authorities this Bill must be on the statute book. Anyhow, I am always suspicious that any Bill brought forward as a matter or urgency must be allowed because of something else. One has only to look at other occasions, such as the dangerous dogs legislation. It gets us into trouble if we legislate in a hurry.
I am well aware that to bring forward a Bill along these lines was a manifesto commitment. History is littered with mistakes that have been made by implementing manifesto commitments without the full political consequences being understood. I do not wish to delay the proceedings any longer. I merely wish quite clearly to fire a warning shot across any government bows. To misuse a Private Bill procedure in this way is quite unacceptable. I hope that the Committee will back me in that view.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for his contribution. I am sure that his intentions are less drastic than would be the result of agreement to his opposition to this clause. Leaving out
1210
Clause 1 would tear out the heart from the Bill. It was the overwhelming opinion of this Chamber to give the Bill a Second Reading.
As I mentioned at that time, I am truly sorry that we are not discussing a government Bill on national parks. In his Second Reading speech, the Minister made it clear that the Government regretted that it had not been possible to find time for this measure. I also made clear at Second Reading that I took on the Bill because of the importance of securing the administration of national parks on a common basis in the light of changes arising out of the ongoing view of local government. The timetable for local government changes in Wales is known and makes this Bill particularly timely.
Earl Peel: My noble friend Lord Kimball raised some important and rather worrying points. There is no doubt that he is a great expert in parliamentary procedures, both in another place and in this Chamber. Pursuing what he said, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he believes that the Bill has a chance of becoming law and going through another place. That is fundamental to what we are now doing.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: On these Benches we are thoroughly in favour of what is in the Bill. But I confess that I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, knows. I do not feel that this matter has been handled in the right way. I am far from clear that the threat that is being uttered— that if we do not pass this Bill all disaster will happen and the national parks will suddenly disappear down a crevice— is so. I echo the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that this is something which your Lordships' House should take to heart and that we should never again be landed in a situation like this.
Having said that, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the Minister for at least negotiating two limited days for Committee so that we will have an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in this place. I hope that it will eventually become law but it is not a happy way for that to happen.
Baroness Nicol: I have the greatest sympathy with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. I too have been dismayed by the hurdles which the Bill must jump before it can become law. But I hope that he will not add to them by pressing us to a Division today. Our only hope is to take the Bill through this House as quickly as possible.
Lord Crickhowell: I too would like to add to what has been said regarding the desirability, if possible, of taking the Bill through this House. I confess that even after a good many years in the other place I do not have my noble friend's knowledge of procedural matters. Until I began to look into the possible progress of the Bill I had failed to appreciate how difficult it is for a Private Bill starting in this place to proceed successfully through the other place. It was only when began looking at the rules that I discovered that there is no provision for such a procedure unless the Bill is voted through without debate in the other place.

1211
Members of this Committee should be aware that, unless the Bill goes through in a form that does not require change, and unless Members in another place are prepared to allow it to go through virtually without debate, its chances of success are extremely slim. Having said that, I hope that we shall allow the Bill to go through this House and send it to another place, but I share the pessimism of those who believe that our chances of eventual success are not very great.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may say a few words as a former Secretary of State for Wales. We in Wales are particularly concerned about the Bill. It is probable—though one can never tell in this life—that our local government changes will take place before those which were discussed recently in your Lordships' House. It is therefore even more important for the three Welsh parks that this legislation be enacted now. It is difficult to take a Private Member's Bill through the other place; but 40 years ago I did it and had the required over 100 people voting who had to be there.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I can add from the Government's point of view that my noble friend Lord Norrie is quite right. At Second Reading I said that we regret that the pressures on the parliamentary timetable have not allowed us to bring forward legislation in the current Session to put into effect our proposal for the national parks. We were therefore delighted when my noble friend announced his promotion of the Bill to establish a common administration for the parks. It was generally agreed by all your Lordships in Second Reading that he did an excellent job in bringing the Bill through to your Lordships' House.
With regard to what happens in another place, that is entirely for them to decide. In our 1992 policy statement we accepted the principal recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel. We recognise that the Bill fulfils only part of the commitment we made in response to the panel. However, we believe it to be the most important and urgent part. It remains firmly our intention to introduce further legislation to meet the rest of our commitments as soon as there is suitable opportunity to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister is being rather disingenuous on the subject. The fact is that it is a government Bill; it was drafted by parliamentary draftsmen on government instructions. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, picked it up— that is fine— but if the Government really want the Bill then they should give it time. There is no problem in another place; if the Government pick up the Bill and make it a government Bill, then it will be given time.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Powers to make orders]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 12, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 13 and insert ("and no such statutory instrument shall come into force until a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 is again a probing amendment designed to bring the Committee's attention to the report of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers which reported on the National Parks Bill before the Committee today.
The scrutiny committee accepted that there was nothing in relation to the matter of delegated powers on which it wished to comment. Nevertheless, the committee accepted that the term "supplemental" used in Clause 11(3) is used in the sense indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when we were discussing the Local Government (Wales) Bill. It accepted that the definition given by the Lord Advocate on that occasion, which followed the definition given by Lord Dilhorne in the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, would apply in all cases where "supplemental" was used in that context.
The point is that if the meaning became wider than that, then we would wish to see affirmative procedure followed. Affirmative procedure, which the amendment calls for, would bring orders under Clauses 1 and 4 arguably into the ambit of the Hybrid Instruments Committee and that would be quite a different ball game. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to give an assurance that the definition given by the Lord Advocate during the Report stage of the Local Government (Wales) Bill still holds in relation to this Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: At Second Reading I set out how we proposed to use the powers of the Bill. I hope that the Committee is reassured by the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers which concluded that,
"as the Bill's provisions will have effect only within or for the purposes of National Parks, and are very narrowly prescribed, it is not unreasonable for these powers to be subject to the negative procedure".
Such orders are well precedented for orders of the kind provided for in the Bill. The Committee also reported that the National Parks Bill contains no other delegated powers on which it wished to comment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl did not respond totally to my question. The delegated powers scrutiny committee accepted that the term "supplemental",
"is used in the sense indicated by the Lord Advocate when the House considered the Committee's comments on what was originally Clause 52 of the Local Government Wales Bill".
Will the expression "supplemental" in Clause 11(3) of this Bill follow the definition given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at that time?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, we accept that which was proposed and said by the Lord Advocate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
Noon
Schedule 1 [National Park authorities]:
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 14, line 10, at end insert ("and half of the members so appointed shall be persons genuinely representing the interests of local people.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of moving the amendment is to probe even further the question of the Secretary of State's appointees. Many people feel that they must genuinely represent local interests. In making his appointees, the Secretary of State has to consult the countryside bodies. Genuine concern is now felt by people in the national parks about the activities of some of the countryside bodies. In particular the press handouts that accompanied the publication of the Bill from the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association must cause concern to people living in the national parks.
A Mr. Rodney Legg, the chairman of the Open Spaces Society, was jumping on the bandwagon and is quite obviously keen to see representatives of that society appointed to the governing bodies of the national parks. I am certain that he is quite open when he sees the appointment of people from the Open Spaces Society as a way of achieving his avowed and published aim of curtailing agriculture in the national parks. He went on to say at the same time that in his opinion farming was no longer compatible with landscape conservation. That must cause concern to people who live in the national parks. Many people in the countryside are concerned about the whole question of representation from the Ramblers Association. We have in the press handout which accompanied the Bill the remarks of the Ramblers Association that the 1949 Act only did half the job and that it did not produce authorities strong enough to protect the fragile landscape.
One other matter is causing concern. I am extremely grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, is in her place today. Outside Westminster it is not generally known what a tremendous understanding she has of all the traditional pursuits of the countryside and what a tremendous part she played in the 1960s in helping to preserve it. But grave concern has been caused by her remarks during the Second Reading debate (at col. 335 of the Official Report) that this was an opportunity to curtail unsuitable recreational activities in the parks. I know that the noble Baroness is in no way against any of the interests that I used to represent. I hope that this will give her an opportunity to clarify what she meant.
On the whole question of these appointees, I hope the Committee realises that underlying the concern there is still the feeling that there is a difference between both sides of the House. When the original national parks were discussed there was always a feeling on the other side of the House that they should be owned by the public and run as though the state was the landlord. That is why the whole question of the appointees by the Secretary of State becomes so important. Your Lordships should also take note of the debate on the amalgamation of English Nature and the Countryside Commission which is to follow this one. One wonders why the national parks cannot be run by the new body,
1214
a point made by my noble friend Lord Peel. We really should consider that point rather than the question of the appointees.
I do not intend to press the amendment, I should just like to take this opportunity to express to the Committee the concern that is felt by many interests in the national parks, particularly arising from some remarks during the Second Reading debate. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not wish to spend long on the noble Lord's amendment except to say that I think he is being slightly unfair to my noble friend Lady Castle about her remarks at Second Reading. I have a form of words in Amendment No. 13, to which we shall come shortly, which I think is preferable to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for mentioning, in the context of Amendment No. 3, the important role of local people in the national park authorities. As he will be aware, the Bill provides for a majority of local authority members on the national park authorities. The Minister helped to clarify the point by saying that, whatever the outcome of the local government review, he will issue guidance: to the effect that local authorities should, wherever possible, appoint members who live in or represent wards in the parks. That goes further than the Edwards Report recommendation that district council members must, wherever possible, represent wards within the parks.
My noble friend will also be aware of the role of the Secretary of State's appointees. The Edwards Report: said that they should have interests and expertise in the full range of national park responsibilities. The report. went on to state that it would be desirable for at least. some of the Secretary of State's appointees to live locally. In practice, that is precisely what happens. They are, in the main, local people with special interests and expertise to offer. I include people like landowners, farmers and parish councillors, all of whom fall into that category.
The Minister will take the decision on who should be appointed to serve on the national park authorities as the Secretary of State's appointees, having consulted widely and been advised by the Countryside Commission and by the Countryside Council for Wales. The views of the chairman of the Open Spaces Society on the prospects for farming have no relevance to this Bill. It may be of interest to my noble friend that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, told me that when she referred in her Second Reading speech to inappropriate leisure pursuits she was talking about tourists developments, such as timeshare complexes, cable cars and tropical paradise domes, which had been proposed for some of the national parks. It is the hallmark of the Bill that it has been welcomed by a very broad church. I see that as a credit to the extensive consultation carried out by the Edwards panel and the sound judgment contained in the published report.
Lord Elton: I apologise for joining in a debate on a Bill in which I have not before taken part, but perhaps my noble friend can explain something to me which arises from what he has just said. I understood him to

1215
say that there was provision in the Bill which would result in there being a majority of local or local authority members. As I read the Bill, it leaves the numbers in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State except that he may not appoint more than two-thirds from the local authorities. Therefore, I take it that my noble friend's assertion rests upon an undertaking given by the Government through my noble friend on the Front Bench. If my noble friend Lord Kimball is right in saying that there is a difference of basic policy between the two parties which represent most of the opinion in this House and in another place, it follows that that undertaking is only good for as long as a party of the present colour is in government. I rise merely to ask my noble friend whether he has taken on board that there is nothing in statute to ensure that there shall be a majority or indeed a very significant number of local authority members on this body.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is running a little ahead of us. There is a later amendment on the Marshalled List to probe that matter.
Lord Derwent: Before my noble friend on the Front Bench answers, perhaps I may give my general support to my noble friend Lord Kimball from a quite different angle. As we go to unitary government, it will be quite difficult for local people to feel that they are being adequately democratically represented by local authority representatives. For example, in North Yorkshire we will perhaps have unitary government covering a huge area. Many parishes may feel that there is no one on the national park authority to represent their views. Someone may sit for an area which, while it may be in the park, may not be within 60 or 70 miles. In fact, the new North Yorkshire county council is recommended to be 100 miles across. It is therefore important that local people should feel not only that local councillors have their interests at heart but that the Minister's representatives also have their interests at heart.
Earl Peel: It may be helpful if I were to speak to Amendment No. 11 which stands in my name in view of the fact that my noble friend Lord Kimball has raised the whole question of local representation. It was a point which was stressed time and again during the course of Second Reading speeches. One of the difficulties is that we do not as yet know how local government is going to be formed. That is one of the major problems when dealing with a Bill of this nature.
However, as has been said, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that there will be proper, genuine local representation. I gave an example in my Second Reading speech of the case of North Yorkshire, to which my noble friend made reference. A county councillor from York, for example, does not represent the interests of the park members, even of the Yorkshire Dales national park or the North York Moors national park. That is what my amendment seeks to redress. It is of course a probing amendment at this stage. I am anxious to establish from my noble friend to what extent we shall have to find genuine local representation on the national park committees.
1216
It is not simply a question of representation; it is understanding the way in which the national parks work. Local industries and the farming community feel in many cases—I am sorry to have to say this again— that they are isolated. They do not feel that their interests are being properly looked after. I believe that unless we can get on the face of the Bill—or at the very least through confirmed orders from the Government and through my noble friend on the Front Bench—that there is really going to be local representation, the divide which exists in so many parks at the moment will continue and much of the good which might have come about from my noble friend's Bill will be lost.
I ask my noble friend to what extent he can guarantee that in the Bill there will be genuine local representation. By "local" I mean representing the wards within the park. I suspect that my amendment may be technically incorrect. I suppose that if one had a single authority it might not be possible mathematically for two-thirds of the members of the national park committee—in other words, the locally represented members—to be actually representing wards in the national park. I have not sat down and done my sums, but I suspect that that is probably the case. As I say, this is a probing amendment to try to ensure that my noble friend can give the kind of assurances to which I have referred.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the amendment applies only to the appointees of the Secretary of State. I believe that we shall discuss exactly where the local authority members should come from. Certainly, at the time when I was responsible for appointing members to three national parks, I always made a point of making sure that a significant number of them came from within the national parks and were local people. It is highly desirable that that should be so.
I can say in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that I would have had support for that action from the Countryside Commission at the time. I believe that it is a very desirable policy to follow and I hope that it will be followed.
I have only one point to make. I make it only because it was raised by my noble friend Lord Kimball who appeared to criticise what the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, said at Second Reading. I warmly endorse what she said, particularly as she made it perfectly clear what she was thinking when she referred to theme parks. I made much the same point and expressed anxieties raised by the Edwards committee itself very forcefully as regards undesirable things happening in national parks. I have a particular concern about the growing practice of noisy motorcycles charging uncontrolled across the mountains around my home and other vehicle access to parts of the park where that is wholly unsuitable. Far from criticising the noble Baroness, she deserves praise for raising what seems to me an extremely important issue.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Since the noble Earl, Lord Peel, quite rightly, spoke to his Amendment No. 11, it may be appropriate if I speak to my Amendment No. 13

1217
which covers the same ground. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, we are dealing with Secretary of State appointees. If the Committee agrees, I would prefer to leave local authority appointees to the subsequent amendment.
As regards Secretary of State appointees, I believe that we need a great deal of clarification of how that is going to happen, how he will go about appointing members of a national park authority and in what respect and in what sense they will be representative of local people in one version and local interests in another.
My Amendment No. 13 attempts to clarify the issue by inviting the Secretary of State to appoint members from a list drawn up by the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council for Wales—whichever is the relevant authority for the purpose. In drawing up a list the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council for Wales,
"shall have regard to the interests of the local area".
That expression is wider than the one used by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, in his amendment and certainly wider than the expression used by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in his amendment. I prefer it because I regard the interests of the local area as being not necessarily confined to people. It may include industry and agriculture; it includes all kinds of things which are combined in the interests of the local area. I believe that the Committee will recognise that. I urge the Government to adopt the formula which I put forward in Amendment No. 13.
The amendment may be defective in drafting and I should be perfectly happy with an alternative suggestion along the same lines. I have a certain sympathy with the thrust of the argument which says that we must ensure that the Secretary of State appointees have a genuine interest in the local area of the national park authority to which they are appointed.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The situation is getting a little complicated as regards the grouping of the amendments. Perhaps it would have been better if we had had a debate on all the membership amendments. However, since the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has spoken to his amendment, there is one point I wish to make. I believe I am right in saying that he is talking about elected members from local authorities. The difficulty about any limitation to people who live in the park is that one does not necessarily get any representation from the leading group on the local council. That would make for a very unfortunate situation. One requirement of local authority representatives is that they speak with the authority of representatives of the local authority. Members of minority parties on the council will not speak for that authority. But that could happen if membership is limited to people who live in the park. I do not believe that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, would be a good idea. I am nevertheless sympathetic to the idea that there should be strong representation of the people who live in the park.
Earl Peel: Is the noble Lord referring to his Amendment No. 10? I suspect that it covers that particular point.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Yes, it would.
Earl Peel: Perhaps I may refer to that. I do not quite understand what the noble Lord is saying. It seems to me that the party which he represents is very keen on local democracy. It seems to me that he has gone against that policy.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I have quite a complex speech to deliver on that point and I do not believe that this is the moment to do it. I was picking up the single point of the representation of wards in the national park.
Earl Peel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Returning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whereas I can see that there may be considerable ease in a list being drawn up directly by the Countryside Commission from the members whom it has vetted, it seems to me that that is a little restrictive. In fact, would not the Government be precluded from seeing other names that might go forward of people who would be totally suitable for appointment to serve on the. national park committees? I think that it would be a mistake if the appointments were restricted to names that had been recommended entirely by the Countryside Commission.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Earl, Lord. Arran, responds to the general debate, perhaps I may pick up on that last point. I was drawing on the experience of your Lordships in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill where, after a lot of cross-party discussion and a good deal of slippage in the timetable, a formula was arranged not dissimilar to the formula that I am suggesting.
Earl Peel: If I may reply to that, I was drawing on my experience of the national parks.
The Earl of Arran: I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that we seem to have gone all over the place on some of these amendments. It might be a good idea if we were to return to basics and to Amendment No. 3, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Kimball. Although we were tempted off route to consider Amendments Nos. 11 and 13, I shall respond to the general points that have been made about membership.
On Amendment No. 3, the Secretary of State's members are appointed to represent the wider national interests for which the parks are designated and, therefore, we intend to continue to make sure that the authorities continue to represent a reasonable mix of interests. In fact, the Secretary of State has observed the desirability of appointing local people and some 50 per cent. of his members currently live in the park on the authority of which they serve.
As regards the possibility of unitary authorities, we shall certainly need to look at the membership of the national park authorities after the local government reorganisation, but we shall strive to ensure that local people are fully represented.
Since my noble friend Lord Peel has spoken to his amendment, I think it only proper that I say something about it. Although we have some sympathy with the intention underlying my noble friend's amendment, we fear that such a provision could prove unworkable.

1219
There may not be sufficient local authority members to meet the criteria. We believe that it would be unwise unnecessarily to constrain the local authorities as to whom they may appoint. However, my noble friend may be reassured that we intend to advise the local authorities that they should, wherever possible, consider appointing members who live in or represent wards in the parks. We would certainly encourage all those with an interest in the parks to make nominations for Secretary of State appointees. We want to continue to encourage the widest range of organisations to put forward names. We shall continue to seek the views of the countryside agencies before offers of appointment are made.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Arran for his clarification of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peel on Amendment No. 11. I trust that my noble friend will find that helpful.
Earl Peel: I am grateful to my noble friend. When the time is appropriate, I shall of course not move my amendment.
Lord Kimball: In view of the undertaking that we have just received, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 be twice that appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (b) above.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, which stands in my name, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 5, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, Schedule 1, as drafted, is rather curious. It was my understanding from the Second Reading debate that the Government wished to see a two-thirds/one-third split between local authority appointees and Secretary of State appointees. That would follow practice and the recommendation of Edwards, but if that is what the Government want, why does not the Bill say that? That is what I cannot quite understand. There seems no reason at all why the Government should not state exactly what they mean in Schedule 1(1), which is what I have set out in my amendment:
"The number of members appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (a) above shall be twice that appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (b) above".
That seems a perfectly simple formula which would guarantee that local authority appointees would comprise two-thirds of the members of a national park authority and that Secretary of State appointees would comprise one-third. If for some obscure parliamentary drafting reason my recommendation is not acceptable, the least that I can expect from the Minister is an assurance of the most categorical nature that that is the Government's intention and that the Government will stick to the intention that they will announce. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I am unable to call Amendment No. 5.
Lord Derwent: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I comment on my Amendment No. 5 which is an alternative to Amendment No. 4 and stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Personally, I would be entirely satisfied with Amendment No. 4. However, I consider that it is absolutely essential that either one or the other amendment is passed and appears on the face of the Bill.
It is common ground that it is everybody's intention that the park authority should normally consist of one-third nominated members and two-thirds elected members. As drafted, the Bill makes it clear that at least one-third must be nominated, but it is not absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that there is any maximum percentage of nominated members. As the Bill reads at present, 80 per cent. could be nominated. Even if some other legislation implies this—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would call it a "parliamentary draftsman's wheeze"—I think it is very important that it should be absolutely clear. My amendment is therefore intended to make it clear on the face of the Bill that there must always be at least a majority of elected members. That is complementary to the formula that is used in the relevant Acts of 1949 and 1972. We need to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the authority is not going to be a quango—to use the jargon —and that it is part of local government.
The only reason that I have used a more flexible formula in my Amendment No. 5 is that my mathematics worked out that there would always have to be between 50 and 66⅔ members elected. That is purely because I suspect that something as rigid as the one-third/two-thirds formula will mean that we may find ourselves dealing with fractions of a member. Provided that there is a majority, I would be content. If my noble friend feels that Amendment No. 4 does not cause a problem, I would be equally happy with that.
The Earl of Arran: The new authorities must be accountable locally but with a proper balance between the local and national interests which the parks combine. It is our intention that the current balance of representation between local authority 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. The provisions of the Bill in this respect do no more than replicate the existing legislation.
Lord Norrie: In commenting on Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for raising these matters. The subject of membership was well debated on Second Reading and, as I made clear then, the Bill is based for the most part on the existing legislation and consolidates and rationalises best practice. The wording of line 11 of Schedule 1 replicates the formula that is laid down in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which has applied to all national parks over the years. That

1221
formula, which is consistent with the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel, has been widely supported during my consultations.
My Private Member's Bill does not have the effect of changing existing legislation on this matter. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to accept Amendment No. 4 and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will withdraw it on the understanding that the existing formula works and that the Minister has made clear his intention to apply the formula as now.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Derwent for tabling his amendment. It complements rather than changes the 1949 formula. When the original wording of national park membership was drafted back in 1949 there was none of the current concern about quangos. By making it clear in the Bill that there will be a majority of local authority members, I feel that any current concerns that these national park authorities may be quangos will be laid to rest. As I made clear on Second Reading, the new authorities lie clearly within the local government sector. In accepting the amendment, I hope to send a clear signal of reassurance.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: I apologise for returning to the point that I raised earlier. It remains the fact, as far as I can see that on the face of the Bill—I am happy to be corrected—there is no requirement that there should be a majority of local authority members. My noble friend rests his proposal to leave things as they are on the basis that they have worked well since 1949; but society has changed, and so has its view of the countryside. We have already heard of one reputable public body that thinks that agricultural activity should cease in national parks which were created by 2,000 years of agriculture.
There is a genuine change of opinion in this country. A large number of people now believe that the countryside, as a whole, belongs to the people: that people, in the majority, live in urban areas, and that the countryside exists as an amenity for them. I live in an urban area. 1 like to think of the countryside as an amenity for my use, but I recognise that it is an amenity which exists only because of those who live in the countryside, use it and make their living from it.
If there is a prospect that, at some time, there may be circumstances in which the political opinion of the Government might be that the countryside as a whole belongs to the majority of people who do not live in it, it is necessary to put into the statute a protection against that development so that the decision to change policy could be carried out only by an overt political act; that is, a primary piece of legislation to change what we are now putting into the Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not regard this as a probing amendment ad infinitum. I hope that at some stage your Lordships will take a decision on it, even if it is not at this stage.
The Earl of Swinton: I find myself very much in sympathy with this argument. It seems to me strange, when the Bill is brought in to reform the way our national parks are run and to implement the recommendations of the Edwards's panel, to say, "Oh well, this was in the previous Act, and therefore it must
1222
stand for eternity". What on earth is the point of trying to change an Act if we say, "You have got to leave it in, because that is what was in the last one"?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported either my amendment or that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I did not say that the amendment was a probing amendment, because it is not a probing amendment. I have to say, as I said, as it were, informally to the Council for National Parks, that this is a matter of great concern to a number of my colleagues in another place, especially those who live in and represent Welsh constituencies.
I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to what I am saying, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has pointed out, it would be extremely regrettable were the Bill to be held up in another place. This is an amendment of considerable importance, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, pointed out, I cannot for the life of me think why, just because something occurs in a 1949 Act, we should automatically accept it as being proper for a Bill in 1994. That does not seem to me to make any logical sense at all. If the Minister gives me the assurance that he will look at the matter closely and come back with something similar on Report, I should be prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 5 on the face of the Bill. That is quite satisfactory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand that the Minister is not prepared to accept either my Amendment No. 4 or Amendment No. 5.
The Earl of Arran: Just before the noble Lord continues, perhaps I may say that we can accept Amendment No. 5, and we are prepared to look again at Amendment No. 4 before Report.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Derwent Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 13, leave out from ("be") to ("is") and insert ("less than the number of local authority members so specified but shall be such that the number of local authority members").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No 6:
Page 14, line 17, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected").
The noble Lord said: We come now to local authority members and their method of appointment or election. Again, I understand that the expression "appointment" is used in the 1949 Act. This is a probing amendment. Perhaps the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, can explain why the word "appointment" is used rather than "election", because it would seem that "election" is the better word.
I believe that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that I am speaking also to

1223
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 which follow the same point and which, indeed, are consequential. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The Government do not prescribe the way in which local authorities appoint their members to other bodies. That should include the appointment of local authority members to the national park authorities. The term "appoint" is drawn from the existing Lake District and Peak Park orders and is consistent with other local authority legislation. In any event, all questions which come before a local authority must be decided by a simple majority of those present and voting. That would include the appointment of members to a national park authority.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for raising this point. The term "appointment" is drawn from the existing Lake District and Peak Park orders and is consistent with other local authority legislation. The rule is: councils appoint; people elect. Local authority members have elections to appoint members to public bodies such as national park authorities on behalf of their authorities. A resolution is passed at a full meeting of the county council, and there is an opportunity for council members to vote against a proposed member, if they so wish. So "appoint" is what is meant.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord for saying more or less the same thing. I shall not pursue this point at this stage. I shall read carefully what has been said and consult some of my colleagues to see what will happen on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 11.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 14, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Lord said: It is not my intention to take up much time on this important Bill, but I must take this opportunity to point out the grave defects of a growing habit of limiting the powers of councils for what appear to the limiters to be the best possible motives.
The party of which I am a member feels passionately about the need to give local government the maximum powers possible. Although we should be happier if local councils were elected fairly and that a vote of 47 per cent. in Richmond did not result in our party having 93 per cent. of the seats, nevertheless we accept that local councils should exercise as many devolved powers as possible, however elected.
I am not saying that in this respect I differ from the proposer of the Bill. The amendment would give councillors, and therefore local electors, more power and enable them to do their job more effectively. Plainly, the ability to nominate whom they like to
1224
represent them on these bodies is an additional power. It enables them to do their job more efficiently because they can choose the person best able to do the job.
Perhaps I may spell out more clearly the process which is gone through when representatives are chosen by councils. I know that a number of Members are more expert than I am on this matter. I mentioned the process in some of the discussions which led up to Second Reading. I was accused by one Peer, whom I greatly respect, of cynicism in the reasoning behind the amendment. There is no cynicism in reciting the facts. Local councils allocate jobs among their members. They have to; there are too many important jobs to be done to rely on volunteers. The process is carried out essentially through party mechanisms, and there is nothing to regret in that. A local council without party mechanisms is run by its officers, which is no form of democracy.
In well run, civilised, democratic councils each group has a fair crack of the whip. But in some councils that is not so and power is monopolised by the ruling party. In both cases, however, bodies such as the national parks board may come off badly.
The job of representing the council on a national parks board is important. Everyone in this Chamber is agreed on that. However, it is not in the slightest degree cynical to suggest that, in terms of political power, as seen at council level, it is not high ranking. The top jobs in allocation go to the high-spending committees. They are not those which give only one vote on a rather diffuse body.
It may be the case—and I am sure that it sometimes is—that the job of representation on a national parks board is given to a member of the dominant party, thus giving him the necessary political clout. The person to whom the job goes is among the most able and interested in national parks. However, much more often, the job goes to a minority party, thus carrying no clout when matters come to the crunch, to someone whose burden is being eased because of age, or to someone who is being introduced to council work. In the first case the person is being given something to interest him or her and in the second case, something to learn on. That is not cynical; it is what happens. To deny that the system works that way, and that given the important work of local authorities it is right to work that way, is to fly in the face of evidence and common sense.
It is argued that my amendment is non-democratic. I do not believe for one second that that holds water. The council will be quick to control any representative who does not represent what it, and therefore by definition its electorate, want. That is the purpose of having local government representatives on the boards.
We have already examined the possibility of having members limited to those who live in the parks. I have considerable sympathy with that. One of the troubles with that suggestion is that such people will lack political clout and will not necessarily carry their councils with them, which will cause immense trouble. My amendment would make it possible to have people who live in the parks, even where the representative of the dominant group on the council is not there represented.

1225
Though well meaning, the arrangement in the Bill represents the worst of all possible worlds. It takes the widely held but, I believe, arrogant view that the powers of the council should be limited. Presumably that is because it cannot be trusted to use them properly. It is ineffectual because it will not necessarily produce the best member with the most interest in the national parks and the best possible capability for representing them. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: I understand what the noble Lord is trying to do. However, we must have spoken to different people because I understand that the political issues to which he referred arise only rarely on national parks bodies. On the whole, party politics are left out. I discount that part of his argument, therefore, and return to what is in the Bill.
The power to precept on local authorities makes it essential that the parks authority members should understand the workings and the strains on local authority finances. I suspect that that is not possible in the noble Lord's scheme. It is best achieved by a duplication of membership; representatives should be members of the local authorities as well as members of the local parks.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the proposal in the Bill received strong support from the local authorities, which were all consulted, and from many other organisations which would not wish us to depart from this provision. That would be dangerous and we might lose a good deal of support in so doing. I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment.
Lord Finsberg: In one of his earlier incarnations the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, lived in my former constituency and the London Borough of Camden, of which I had the honour to be the only Conservative leader. The noble Lord is not being accurate in what he says. The council had a firm view, which was shared by the Labour Party when it took over. I am talking about the principle, and not the point, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. We on the council used to say, "Here is the size of the political groups. We will allocate X number to the majority party and X number to the minority party". Appointments were shared out and therefore, had there been a national park there or a consultative committee for Hampstead Heath, it could well have gone to the minority party. There would have been no question of political clout. Once a council had appointed its representative, during my 25 years service I never found anyone repudiating what that representative had said or done on the committee to which he or she was appointed. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was correct in saying that the amendment would remove an important item from the Bill and I believe that it is misconceived.
Earl Peel: I agree with my noble friend that the amendment is dangerous. I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because it is clear that we want the most capable people to sit on the national park authorities. But life is not like that and we have
1226
discussed at length the need for local representation. No doubt the amendment would detract from that amendment.
The noble Lord mentioned two qualifications for suitable members: that they should be "able" and "interested". Unfortunately, as regards the word "able", we do not have the power to control that in many people who represent any form of government in this country. However, I believe that the requirement to be "interested" will exist. No one will stand for a local authority within the national park unless he or she has a genuine interest in the area and in the people who live there. At the end of the day, it is quite conceivable that the member representing that particular ward in the national park will be approached to sit on the authority and will say, "I do not particularly wish to do so". In that case, somebody else may take his place. I am worried about the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Derwent: I also have some doubts about this amendment but I use it to probe the thinking of my noble friend Lord Norrie and the Minister as to how it is intended to achieve democratic accountability.
My understanding of democracy is that if I do not like what the local council does I can vote against it at the next election. The problem is that the odds are on the fact that no elected member will represent the part of the national park in which I live.
Therefore, that reduces the public feeling of accountability because the Bill refers only to the principal councils; that is, there is no reference at all to parish councils. I understand that it is impossible for every parish council to be represented on the national park authorities. I have been told that it is the intention of the Minister—and no doubt he will confirm this or otherwise—to make sure that parish councils, which are at the grass roots of these matters, will be consulted. However, I have not been told how binding that guidance will be. Guidance may have quasi statutory strength, which can give rise to a judicial review if it is ignored, or it may be a chatty letter saying, "I hope that you will consult the parishes".
Certainly in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park, which is the only one to which I can speak through personal knowledge, there is a general feeling that although there is long-standing guidance that the park should take note of the views of the parishes. in practice it does not. Sometimes letters are not even answered or, if they are, they are often answered on a pro-forma basis. It is important that from the beginning people should feel not that some county councillor from 100 miles away, who may or may not have authority or may or may not be politically inclined, is the only person to whom they have redress. He may not even have been to that area of the country. I should be obliged if the Minister could give some guidance on that matter.
Lord Crickhowell: I too am extremely doubtful about the amendment. I look back to my experience in my old constituency in Pembrokeshire, which formed part of the very large county of Dyfed. Relationships have never been particularly good between the different parts of that new, large, artificially-created county. Under the noble Lord's proposal it may be that the

1227
dominant political party would choose someone from, for example, Llanelli, to sit on the national park committee for the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.
It seems to me highly desirable that whoever sits on the committee for that national park should come from the county of Pembrokeshire, even if he does not live within the park itself; and in that case he may well not do because the park forms a very narrow strip around the county. I can think of nothing more likely to lead to hostility by the electorate than if it was thought that planning decisions and matters affecting it were being taken by people who came from 50, 60 or 70 miles away. That point has already been made by my noble friend.
Whatever the general merits of the noble Lord's proposition, I believe that it would be extremely undesirable to open up the possibility that the local authority members sitting on the national park committees did not represent the interests of the people who live in or very close to the park itself.
The Earl of Arran: I have listened carefully to the many points raised on this amendment. We strongly believe that local accountability is best served by the Bill's provision that local authority members of the new authorities must themselves be elected members of their appointing authorities. We really cannot see that the interests of the people who live and work in the parks will be better served by any alternative.
Lord Norrie: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Derwent that I would support the creation of a parish council forum in each of the parks.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his observations. In preparing the Bill we have carried out consultation with a wide range of interested parties, including the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the Farmers' Union of Wales. There has been warm support for the proposed increase in local responsiveness and accountability.
The provision in the Bill that the members of the national park authorities should be elected members of their appointed councils has found widespread favour and is generally considered to be an advantage of the Bill. The opportunity remains for the Secretary of State to nominate candidates who are particularly valuable and who have relevant skills and expertise in that sphere.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for paying the attention that they have to the amendment. I thought that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about knowledge of finance and so on was extremely worthwhile; and I had not yet reached that.
I thought that many of the other points made did not tackle the problem. The Government merely said, "We think it is better because we think it is better". The suggestion that party politics does not enter at all into the matter seems to ignore the very real difference in
1228
philosophies which there are between the parties in their approach to matters, even those which have general consensus.
I believe that it is important to have someone who represents the electors in the sense that he represents what the electors have elected for their area. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, seemed to be talking about local authorities within the parks whereas for some of the time we are dealing with authorities which straddle the boundaries of the parks. That is a different matter altogether.
We have already been talking about the special interest groups. There will be a growing clash in this country between those who represent environmental interests and those who represent ecological interests. They are not the same. Very often it is generally and wrongly considered that they are the same. When moving towards a sustainable society there will be times when the needs of that sustainable society will have to take preference over what we should like to see in our environment.
Perhaps I may give the Committee an example, although I hope it will not arise in the national parks. We may need wind farms because we shall need renewable energy in the country as a whole. However, wind farms can be a frightful eyesore and we should not want them to appear in a national park. Debates on such issues will arise frequently in the next 10 or 20 years. We should recognise that and realise that it is extremely important for local authority representatives to represent the whole of their area.
I sympathise with the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, but I should point out to him that if my amendment were accepted it would then be possible to incorporate another amendment to provide that the people appointed should live in the park. That would have none of the disadvantages of appointing an elected member who may be of a minority party. That would make it possible to ensure that one of the members lived in the park and—I pick up another argument that was made—lived in the right part of the park. However, I see that I shall get nowhere with the amendment at this stage and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
1 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 15, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert:
("(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint members of the National Park authority from a list drawn up by the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Commission for Wales, according to whether the relevant Park is in England or in Wales.
(1A) In drawing up the list under sub-paragraph (1) above the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Commission for Wales shall have regard to the interests of the local area.").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed the issue involved here, but I wish to raise one further point. I should like to persuade the noble Earl that we need more clarification as regards the way the Secretary of State appoints members of a national park authority. If the noble Earl will take on board what I have said, I am prepared to leave the matter at present because I believe that we may return to the issue at a later stage. If the

1229
noble Earl has anything further to say about the interests of the local area, other than what he said earlier, I shall be glad to hear it.I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the views that we hold on this issue. We want to encourage the widest range of organisations to put forward names and we shall continue to seek the views of the countryside agencies before offers of appointment are made. I should add that the terms under which the Secretary of State will appoint his members will include regulatory provisions similar to those which will govern local authority members. For example, if a member appointed by the Secretary of State regularly fails to attend meetings or if he becomes an employee of a national park authority, the Secretary of State may wish to consider his continued membership of the authority in those circumstances.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. As I said, I suspect that we may wish to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I shall read carefully what the noble Earl said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15, line 27, leave out ("appoint") and insert ("elect").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, it may he for the convenience of Members of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. I must apologise for the late tabling of Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 which, as Members of the Committee will see, have been starred. That was simply because I had missed certain consequential amendments which would be necessary if Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 were accepted.
Under the amendments, we are dealing with the method by which a national park authority appoints a chairman and a deputy chairman. My view, as expressed in the amendments, is that the proper procedure is that the chairman and deputy chairman of a national park authority should be elected by the members. It is not the same issue as the one we discussed earlier about appointing versus electing local authority appointees; it is a question of the national park authority itself appointing a chairman and deputy chairman. I believe that the proper way to do so is by a straightforward election within the authority. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for tabling the amendments. Election is the intention, and I accept the clarification.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for his remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 15, line 30 leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 15, line 31, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected").
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("re-appointment") and insert ("re-election").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 17, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: The point about the amendment is simply that here we have a Private Member's Bill incurring public expenditure. In fact, the Bill will need a privilege amendment from this Chamber stating that it involves a charge on public funds because of the payment to the members. When it goes to another place, the privilege amendment is removed and it has to have a Speaker's certificate as a money Bill.
There has been far too much abuse of the Private Member's Bill procedure of having to secure a privilege amendment in this Chamber and a Speaker's certificate in another place. It was not until 1958, on a small Bill which allowed the farmer's own labour to count for grant when improvements were being carried out, that we started using Private Member's Bills to incur government expenditure. I believe that we should look most carefully at that point and state clearly that, except in very exceptional circumstances, it is unacceptable to use a Private Member's Bill to incur public expenditure. Any government wanting to save money may well like to adopt that principle. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: My noble friend Lord Kimball appears to be firing a warning shot across the bows as regards procedures. I have been advised that the inclusion of the provision does not take the Bill outside the competence of this Chamber. Moreover, it certainly does not affect the Secretary of State's criteria for appointment.
During my extensive consultations on the Bill, it has been greeted as an advantage by a range of interests too wide to mention that the Secretary of State appointees will receive attendance allowance on a common basis with local authority members. That is recognised as providing further encouragement for high calibre candidates and for more young working people to offer to serve on the national park authorities. I should perhaps make clear that the sum involved is tiny and also remind Members of the Committee that the annual expenditure is approved by the Government. I trust that my noble friend Lord Kimball does not seek to remove that widely supported benefit from the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have one simple question for the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. Is it intended that the Secretary of State appointees should be paid by the national park authority which, in turn, will receive its funds through a levy from the local authorities and that, therefore, no expenditure of public money will be involved? If that is the case, I am a little worried about the revenue support grant which, after all, goes to local authorities to support their expenditure.
Lord Norrie: Yes. I can confirm that the payment will be met by the national park authorities.
Earl Peel: I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Kimball. However, if we are to have Secretary of State elected members on the authorities, it is only right that they should have the same advantages and be treated in the same way as elected members. I should add that, as an appointed member to the council of English Nature, I receive remuneration for my participation for which I am extremely grateful. Therefore, I would not wish to see anyone appointed to a national park committee not receive the same benefits.
I have one further point to make which relates to a provision in the Bill which I very much welcome. It is the fact that non-elected members on national park authorities will now have the opportunity to be voted within the committee as either chairman or deputy chairman. I believe that to be an important point. I know that I have said a great deal about local representation but, once you have a committee, it is important that you have the best member to chair it. I believe that that goes some way towards addressing the points that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made earlier about the calibre of people on a national park committee. I sympathise with my noble friend, but I rather disagree with him on this point.
Lord Kimball: In view of the discussion that we have had on the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 17, line 50, at end insert:
("( ) Any committee or sub-committee shall as far as is reasonably possible reflect the balance of the membership of the authority between the members appointed by the local authorities and the members appointed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: We have spent much time today discussing the importance of balance on the authorities. But Members of the Committee will be aware that a great deal of the work of national park authorities is carried out by committees. It seems to me equally important that we should secure a balance on those committees.
We have also spent a great deal of time emphasising the important point that many people should come from the locality. I happen to be a strong advocate of that view. However, it is equally important that the wider national interests represented by the Secretary of State appointments should also be represented effectively on sub-committees, and especially planning committees.
There are many noble Lords in this place who know what actually goes on in the real world. I suspect that there are others besides myself who could point to examples of cases where, for example, the members of a small planning sub-committee have gathered to decide whether or not a new bungalow should be erected in a particular place and where, strange to relate, all the members are local authority representatives, perhaps chums, working together. One wants to make certain not only that undesirable things do not happen but that they are seen not to happen, and also that the system is seen to be fair.
In my view, it is important that on any sub-committee there should be appropriate representation of the Secretary of State's appointees as well as the local authority appointees. My amendment works both ways.
1232
I seek to ensure that on all committees and sub-committees there is an appropriate balance and that both the local interest and the wider interest are properly represented. It seems to me that that is a necessary safeguard to write into the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: I should very much like to support my noble friend's amendment. As he rightly said, this is another way of ensuring proper local representation. These committees and sub-committees are very important. They often deal with what one might describe as the mundane part of life—the issues which really affect local people and the way they conduct their lives. In order for those committees to be effective they have to include people who have great knowledge and understanding of the area concerned. My noble friend is absolutely right in this. I support him wholeheartedly.
The Earl of Arran: We do not prescribe the composition of local authority committees and sub-committees. Nevertheless, we appreciate the need to reflect both national and local interests in all aspects of the authorities' work. Therefore, we intend to advise them that the composition of their committees and sub-committees should reflect overall a balance between local authorities and Secretary of State members of the authority itself.
Lord Derwent: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether that advice will be binding on them or it is just a pious hope.
The Earl of Arran: I made clear that it will not be binding. It is our intention to advise authorities that that should be the case.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for raising this point. It seems sensible that the balance of local authority members and Secretary of State appointees that pertains on the full authority should be reflected in these committees and sub-committees. Therefore, it would be helpful if that clarification appeared in the government circular. That being so, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful for anything that appears in the government circular. However, government circulars are not legislation. I cannot see why we cannot have a clause of this kind in the Bill. It does not seem to me to cause any problem. It is an important safeguard.
A great deal of the work of national park authorities is carried out by committees. If everything that has been said earlier in these debates is valid, then it would apply equally well to these committees.
I am very reluctant to withdraw the amendment. There will, however, be an opportunity at another time. Unless a convincing reason can be given for not having such a provision, and none has been given, I shall press the amendment.
1.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 30.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kenyon, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Barber of Tewkesbury, L

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lytton, E.

Carter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carver, L.

Mishcon, L.

Chorley, L.

Peel, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Slim, V.

Crickhowell, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Denham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Derwent, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Elton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Goschen, V.

Addison, V. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Annaly, L.

Merrivale, L.

Arran, E.

Mersey, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mountevans, L.

Balfour, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Seear, B.

Courtown, E.

St. Davids, V.

Crathorne, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Effingham, E.

Trumpington, B.

Flather, B.

Ullswater, V.

Foot, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.22. p.m.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Supplemental and incidental powers of authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 33, line 30, at end insert:
("The Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)
In section 34 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (compulsory purchase of land in England and Wales), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) This section shall not apply to land which is within a National Park.".").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I hope that I shall be told that the provision is not necessary. Section 34 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 allows the operator compulsorily to purchase land in England and Wales for the purposes of his operations. That seems to be undesirable in a national park. I do not want national parks covered in telegraph poles. I hope
1234
very much that either the provision is covered in the existing legislation or that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will accept my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The Telecommunications Act 1984 makes provision for the compulsory purchase of land, though the circumstances for which that has been used are extremely rare. Such powers can be exercised only with the consent of the Director General of Telecommunications and where authorised by the Secretary of State. In considering whether or not to authorise the use of the powers, the Secretary of State would give proper weight to all relevant factors, including any statutory designation applying to the area in which the compulsory purchase would take place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. That is the response I wanted: that the Secretary of State would take into account the fact that they were national parks and subject to a slightly different regime from the normal procedures for compulsory purchase of land in England and Wales. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Countryside Commission and English Nature
1.25 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why they are contemplating the merger of the Countryside Commission and English Nature.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are three reasons why I am glad to have the chance to ask the Government this Question. First, I shall seek to show that the functions of English Nature and the Countryside Commission are of crucial importance to the future of rural England and therefore to this nation. Secondly, I suspect that most of us are somewhat unclear as to exactly how or why the subject of the merger of those two bodies has arisen at this moment. I know that my noble friend who will reply is anxious to enlighten us. Thirdly, the debate gives the House the chance to put to the Government some of the points that they may wish—I am tempted to say they ought—to take into account in arriving at any decision.
I am so glad, although not in the least surprised, that so many noble Lords are present on this last day of term. I am certain that the Government recognise that this subject, as much as any that I can think of, is not only a special source of concern in your Lordships' House but one of which noble Lords have considerable and deep experience.
Perhaps I may start by drawing attention to how remarkably little we have been told about how the matter has arisen. In a Written Answer in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said on 27th January this year,
"I therefore propose, as part of the process of ensuring the Rio commitments will be fully and effectively implemented, to give

1235
early consideration to bringing together [in one body] the institutional arrangements for the delivery of nature and landscape conservation and the public's appreciation and enjoyment of the countryside in England". —[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/94; col. 342.]
We are all aware that English Nature has been in existence for less than four years, having been created in 1990 by the Environmental Protection Act from part of the Nature Conservancy Council which had been formed in 1949. The reason for that initial change was that the old NCC—I emphasise the "old NCC"—had, by its behaviour at that time, made itself unacceptable to the Scots. It had therefore been nationalised and for consequential, but political, reasons similar arrangements were made in Wales. The Countryside Commission in England also dates back to 1949. It lost its responsibility for Wales in the 1990 reorganisation. It never had a responsibility for Scotland.
The two organisations are roughly the same size, with a budget this year of £44 million for the Countryside Commission and £38 million for English Nature. But for reasons that I shall explain, the staffs are very different. The Countryside Commission employs some 300 people and English Nature some 700.
We have been told that last month a study group into the merger was set up by the DoE with representatives of both bodies. That is to report to the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, Mr. Robert Atkins, by the end of June and then to the Secretary of State for the Environment by the end of July. I gather that some administrative action which would facilitate a merger has already been taken. For example, the appointment of the chairman of the Countryside Commission expires next month, and has been renewed for only one year until next April.
My understanding is that the reason for this somewhat breathless timetable is that the Secretary of State would like legislative proposals to be with parliamentary draftsmen by the end of July for legislation to be put forward in the Queen's Speech this autumn. Despite this apparent pre-emption of the conclusions, I hope that your Lordships will agree that there are two important, though in a sense administrative, questions to be asked before we come to the merits of the proposal. First, is this a study as to whether there should be a merger, or is it only a study as to how a merger should be carried out?
Secondly, may we have a clear assurance from the Minister that the full text of the report of the working group, together with the evidence which is submitted to it, will be published? I understand that the group has already received 200 responses, which perhaps indicates the perceived and the actual importance of the issue. I should say that one of the responses is from CPRE, of which I am currently the chairman.
Some of us have seen a number of the responses and my own impression so far is that they certainly do not support the Government's initiative in the matter. I am not asking for publication merely because I am as enthusiastic an advocate of open government as I know is the Secretary of State for the Environment; but I ask for it so that Parliament will be able to consider any legislative proposals which may emerge from the
1236
evidence. It will presumably be much more cost effective in that scarce factor, parliamentary time, for Parliament not to have to start to gather the evidence for itself. I am sure that the Government's business managers do not need me to suggest that such legislation could be controversial and not at all on party lines.
Before I put forward a few of the policy considerations, perhaps I may suggest one framework within which the Government's proposal could be considered. I am thinking of the fundamental function of quangos. I believe that, apart from hiving off administrative operations—and in that the quango has in general been succeeded by the agency—the main benefit of a quango is to enable Ministers to tap sources of outside advice on policy issues for which they would otherwise have to rely on their civil servants. For that to be effective, they have to find individuals who have the experience, the interest, the wisdom and perhaps above all the time to serve. In most cases, any remuneration offered is very nominal, and service on a quango remains an important element of public service from busy people who can and do improve the quality of government.
In many cases, time is a crucial constraint. I therefore believe that it is desirable for the function and purpose of any quango to be focused as precisely as possible so as to keep to a manageable volume the paper to be read and to provide adequate time for meetings to discuss the items on the agenda. It is also important that all members of the governing body of any quango have adequate breadth of experience. That means, in my opinion, ideally—and I speak from personal experience as a member of the Countryside Commission for 12 years until 1992 and of the Rural Development Commission for eight years until last year —the membership of the governing body should be in the range of eight to 12 members. At present, both the bodies come within that sort of range, the Countryside Commission has currently eight commissioners and the Council of English Nature, 14.
If the remit of a quango is too wide, the membership will either not cover it fully or there will be too many members. In either case, I believe that there will be a reduction in the value of advice which Ministers receive or an undue reliance on the staffs who may, quite unintentionally, usurp the role of appointed members. Staffs are appointed for their expertise and professionalism, and certainly the staffs of the bodies on which I served were of the highest quality. But they are not appointed to act as quasi civil servants advising Ministers. Large tools are not necessarily sharper or more cost-effective than small tools.
Nor is it desirable for quangos to be given a remit which conceals fundamental, avoidable and perfectly healthy conflicts which, in a democracy, should be resolved at the political level of government. To take an example from outside the precise field we are debating, it is not for the Department of Transport to expect to resolve all environmental conflicts which may arise in the planning of a new road. Nor even is it for the Secretary of State for Transport to do so on his own. It

1237
is for the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment to do it jointly, and if necessary, the Cabinet itself.
To take a more homely example, bats in churches, it is the duty of English Nature to protect and promote the welfare of bats. It is for English Heritage to watch over the fabric of our historic churches. To me, that would be a reason not to merge those two bodies. Indeed, I am told that in certain parts of Devon the bats have won and the worshippers no longer go to the churches because they smell so bad.
It is for the Countryside Commission to promote the quiet enjoyment of the countryside. It may in this be under two conflicting pressures: the legitimate desire of English Nature to restrict public access in certain cases and the role of the Sports Council to encourage leisure activities which may be noisy and intrusive.
Of course, we can all sympathise with the attraction—superficial though it is—especially from the point of view of the consumer, of saying that one quango is better than two. We are all aware that farmers and land managers are often bewildered by the multiplicity of sources from which they can get advice and financial assistance. To simplify is one of the arguments put forward for unitary authorities in local government. But it is not an overriding one, as I feel the debate in your Lordships' House yesterday perhaps demonstrated.
I turn briefly to some specific implications of this proposed marriage. First, we should take account of the differences in style and temperament of the partners. It is well known that English Nature, is well respected for its rigorous science base and discipline. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who is the chairman of English Nature, is a most distinguished scientist. It is extremely lucky to have him. My noble friend, I know, much regrets that he is not able to be with us today, but he is, I understand, at this moment on his way to Borneo where he is launching his new book on tropical rain forests. I was almost brought up with him. His father was my godfather; he is a close neighbour and one of my oldest friends. I have never had any doubt of our intellectual relativities, as one of my early memories—I think I was nine years old —was being admonished by my grandmother for reading some disreputable comic. She said: "Really, Mark, Gathorne reads The Times".
Unlike the Countryside Commission, English Nature has considerable executive responsibilities in directly managing land for nature conservation, much of it in the form of national nature reserves. That, of course, totally legitimately explains why its staff is double that of the Countryside Commission.
The Countryside Commission is a more entrepreneurial organisation; indeed it is sometimes almost piratical in nature. It has seldom been reticent in proposing radical new solutions in its statutory role as the Government's watchdog over England's rural beauty. This has on occasion caused friction, for example, with the Ministry of Agriculture, as Mr. Gummer may well remember, which has occasionally seen its own sovereignty threatened. But I believe and hope that Mr. Gummer would be the first to pay tribute to its role in inventing, through the Halvergate Marshes experiment
1238
in Norfolk in the early 1980s when the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, was at the start of his outstanding decade as chairman of the commission, what has subsequently evolved into the highly successful system of environmentally sensitive areas. ESAs have now spread through the European Union and I believe are a much more positive way of diverting CAP funds to environmental benefit than is the bureaucratic horror of the set-aside system.
Finally, my Lords, I must refer to a matter which is emerging to a distressing degree: the costs in staff morale, management time, distraction from the real jobs in hand and, on the basis of any reorganisation I have seen, the probable net added cost of tinkering with organisations which are doing as good a job as they can at the moment. I do not believe, as some have suggested, that the merger was Treasury inspired. But we can be sure that the Treasury will demand its pound of flesh if there is any question of additional costs from the transition. That cost could only be paid for at the expense of the English countryside.
In this respect I must refer, with their agreement, to the views of two noble Lords who particularly regret they are not able to be here today. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, with the experience of a former chairman of the National Trust, fears that English Nature will dominate if there is a merger and believes that the Countryside Commission's role will suffer. He would like the study to be postponed for at least two years. My noble friend, Lord Buxton, a founder member of the Countryside Commission and twice a member of the NCC, fears that the Government may be rushing headlong into yet another reorganisation without heeding the danger that to seek to combine two such very different bodies could reduce the effectiveness of both.
I believe that on all sides of both Houses of Parliament there is a determination that Britain should do its bit to further the aims of Rio. Both here and overseas we have much experience to offer and much success. The countryside has survived here a great deal better than it has in many other countries in Europe. I do not believe that organisational fiddling is a valuable contribution to Rio objectives when the forests of the Amazon are burning.
There are already many urgent pieces of environmental legislation which have been subjected to detailed scrutiny and on which there is wide agreement—but for which, sadly, there is all too little parliamentary time. We have just been discussing such an instance in the National Parks Bill of my noble friend Lord Norrie. It would be sad indeed if a great deal of that scarce time had to be devoted to ill-considered, rushed and perhaps quite unnecessary legislation to force into wedlock two bodies which can and do coexist in productive and mutual respect and which, as Mr. Gummer himself said, on the very day he announced his desire to merge them,
"have provided a first class service to the nation within their separate areas of responsibility".
My Lords, the burden of proof rests with the Government. We await eagerly the views of my noble friend the Minister.
1.43 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Science and Technology Committee, of which I was at that time a member, reported on the break up of the old Nature Conservancy Council four years ago in 1990. In its report it said:
"Amalgamation of the Countryside Commission and the NCC in England would be logical. Consultation should be undertaken before any action [is taken] in the context of the promised White Paper on the Environment".
As I said, that was in 1990.
The Government's response to the recommendation was that,
"the substantial differences in circumstances in England, compared to those in Scotland and Wales, and the consequently different problems and pressures affecting the English countryside and nature conservation in England, justify a different solution. In the Government's view, the interests of preserving the English countryside and promoting its enjoyment for recreation, and the conservation of our natural heritage would be best served by retaining two separate organisations each with its distinct remit".
We are justified in asking, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has just asked, what has changed the Government's view. At the time that report came out I was in favour of the amalgamation. It seemed logical in the terms of the issues that we were looking at. But four years have passed. For the last three of those years, the two organisations have gone their separate ways, set up their organisation and developed their own approach to their responsibilities.
It has been a difficult time for the staff. They are only just coming to terms with the situation and beginning to make a real contribution in some cases. I have to say that both bodies have kept their responsibilities well. But it has been a trying time for the staff. Before we set out on yet another upheaval, we really need to know why we are doing it.
I am very concerned at the small amount of time that has been allowed for consultation. The proposals were issued on 14th February, and responses were required by 28th March. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, gave us the Government's programme thereafter. I agree with the noble Lord that it looks very much as if we are being asked to find reasons why the Government should do what they have already decided to do, and that this has not been a real consultation.
We must look at how the combined agencies have worked in Wales and Scotland; that is not irrelevant. There are allegations of imbalance between landscape and amenity and nature conservation. Evidence to prove or disprove that source of anxiety must be sought. I have to admit that most of the evidence is anecdotal. That is a job for the Government. They must come forward with evidence as to how the combined organisations have worked and whether therefore we should follow that road. On the face of it there is no proven advantage in merger to either of the interests involved. And in some cases it has worked to the detriment of both.
It would seem that the merger has worked in Wales slightly better than it has in Scotland—largely because of the personalities involved. But that is not a healthy basis for an organisation. It should be able to function irrespective of the personalities of the leaders.
1240
I can give noble Lords some reasons why we should not agree at this time to merger. We await the creation of the new environmental agency which will have a profound effect on the whole aspect of environmental care in the country. We have still to decide what action will be necessary to implement agreements made at the Earth Summit. A committee of your Lordships' House has just started work on that very subject. And we still await the outcome of the forest review—if we are ever to be given that.
If the Government are determined to go ahead with the merger, it is absolutely essential that they should not simply spatchcock together the two existing organisations. It would be far better to start a new body with a new remit. It probably sounds brutal to my friends in both organisations, but it seems important that the new body should have a new chairman, and a new chief executive who is not necessarily internal but chosen in open competition. To install any of the present incumbents, however excellent, would be to create a suspicion of bias among those who are fearful of it. Staff, as well as those outside, would look upon those appointments with some interest and would hope that this line will not be followed.
How will the international arena be affected by the proposed merger? The statutory agencies have not yet regained the status of the old Nature Conservancy Council, which was held in high esteem and spoke with authority on international matters for the whole of Great Britain. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee fulfils that role as best it can. It has had some success. But it is sadly hampered by its dependence on the goodwill of the country agencies, which, I have to say, is in some cases strictly limited. If the Government go ahead with the merger, it would perhaps provide a final opportunity to strengthen the role of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. That would be absolutely essential in this scenario, so that it could fulfil the role of cross-border and international adviser to government direct, instead of having to filter all its activities through disparate and sometimes unhelpful channels. It would also be useful for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to have the responsibility for auditing the state of nature conservation in the United Kingdom for national and international purposes and to set specific targets where necessary for individual threatened species and habitats. If the merger goes ahead it will be even more essential that the role of the JNCC is more clearly defined and strengthened.
Let me say a final word on behalf of the Countryside Commission. The work that it has done on access to the countryside and on conservation—it is often overlooked that the Countryside Commission has a strong conservation role which it takes very seriously—is so valuable that the Government should think many times before it allows that commission to be overrun (if that is the right word) by the superior numbers which would come into the organisation from the conservation side.
I am a staunch conservationist, as many noble Lords will know. However, I am also very concerned that access to the countryside should be maintained. The more crowded the countryside becomes, the more important it is that we take seriously that particular

1241
aspect of the work of the Countryside Commission. I beg the Government not to make up their mind on the basis of such a hasty consultation but to consult much more widely if need be and delay another year. What is the hurry? If they feel that they have to go ahead with this measure, surely they can take more advice than they have received in the past six weeks.
1.52 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, with many speakers to follow me I shall be brief. However, I shall not flinch from covering one or two of the points which my personal friends, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, have made.
The onlooker is supposed to see most of the game. However, in the rather curious matter of the proposed merging of these two bodies, it is extraordinarily difficult—I say that quite sincerely—for those who have no direct practical acquaintance with those public agencies to be able to gauge all the essential elements in coming to conclusions. Without that knowledge, one tends to be in the same situation as most of us have been at various staff colleges in our time—for myself Sunningdale and Ashridge —where theoretical planning exercises are conducted with large amounts of white paper and many blackboards.
That is why I congratulate most warmly the Secretary of State for the Environment on establishing a steering group composed of officials who have a current day-to-day working understanding of the two agencies. It will do a proper job of assessing the pros and cons and, in my confident view, will arrive inescapably at the point where it is clear that a merger is far too costly, far too disruptive and far too counter-productive. It will report accordingly to its political masters that it is a clear non-runner with scarcely a tittle of hard evidence to support the proposition—a duck lying dead in the water, perhaps even a duck, belly upward in the water.
The group will listen to many and disparate voices, a large number of which will be on the side of a merger. How could it be otherwise? Interested public opinion will see good housekeeping merit in any reduction in the quango list. So will all those who are hostile to non-selected bodies. Many farmers and landowners may well be influenced by the endearing prospect of filling up one aid form instead of two —although a letter I received this morning from the National Farmers Union suggests that it is beginning to see some problems arising from the merger, which I think it embraced rather warmly early on. Some environmentalists will see, perhaps a little myopically, strength stemming from a large, centralised organisation. That group saddens me, for I have been privileged to work with many of them in the fields of farmland conservation and birds over the past 30 years. I believe that those people cling to what they see as the indivisibility of wildlife, landscape and countryside, without appreciating that administratively things have been changing rapidly.
I should like to offer three pregnant elements for review. My personal friend the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has covered one or two. The first is an analysis of the validity of the arguments presented to support merger. The second concerns the differing
1242
recruitment, working practices, management styles and overall cultures of the two organisations. Thirdly, there is the debit side of the balance sheet consequent upon joining together.
First, it seems to be argued by those in favour that a single body would assist the delivery of wildlife, landscape, access and recreation objectives, and in particular the sustainable development strategy and biodiversity action plan incubated at the 1992 Rio conference. I and many others have turned ourselves into something akin to blinded well camels in reading all the material available without being able to identify any clear association between merging and delivering more effectively the Rio and other policies. If Rio is a main trigger for coming together, as I believe it is alleged to be, surely we need a clearer, better and more overt link before condemning those two bodies to appalling upheaval.
The Scottish and Welsh experience has been prayed in aid, as we have heard. It is worthwhile making the point that the situation in Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, pointed out, was a rather odd one at the time when all this was happening. I hope that when the assessors receive the consultants' report in due time they will remember that England was and is different. The Government said so. It is worth spelling out precisely what was more recently clearly stated in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in response to a point that I raised in the countryside debate on 16th June, some nine months ago. It is worth dwelling on what was said:
"The Government explained in their White Paper This Common Inheritance that the greater size and complexity of agencies in England would make an effective merger more difficult to achieve than in Scotland and Wales. Moreover, the more sparsely populated areas of Scotland and Wales lend themselves more readily to an integrated approach. In England the relatively intense pressures make it more appropriate, for the time being at least, to retain separate organisations, collaborating with each other where necessary.—[Official Report, 16/6/93; col. 1653.]
So what has changed in those nine months—not only in the character of the argument but, as we have heard, in the ability to find parliamentary time?
I have also looked so far as I can at Scotland and Wales. I know very little about Scotland but quite a little about Wales. I find it very difficult to find anyone deeply involved in the day-to-day operation who can show, prove and believe that a more efficient policy delivery in these new clothes has taken place.
The second element is the differing styles, practices and cultures of the commission and English Nature. I repeat the point that it is rather difficult for those people who have not been involved to understand the quite separate character of the two agencies. It is easy to dismiss summarily such differences as being of small account. But English Nature has a narrowish, science-based remit and recruitment—it is important to emphasise recruitment—with over 60 per cent. of its funding tied to sites and species.
The commission's staff is recruited from much wider fields. It is more freewheeling and is ideas and partnership driven. It has cut corners to promote a stream of innovative ideas in recent years. It gets into trouble for doing so. But it has delivered. It has also had

1243
a strong emphasis on gearing by funding schemes with partner participation. Such strong individual cultures do not blend readily. Moreover, is it conceivable—the point has already been made, but I make it again deliberately—that with English Nature's 700-strong staff against the commission's 200 staff, the latter's objectives, with the best will in the world on everyone's part, can be delivered with the same thrust in a combined group? I must ask whether funds will not inevitably be sucked into the more demanding statutory needs of English Nature sites.
I am advised that in the commercial and industrial worlds, and indeed in government too, there is a trend towards splitting up rather than joining together. There are apparently two new hideous terms—"down sizing" and "empowerment"—of which ICI/Zeneca, the splintered British Rail privatisation proposals and the concentrating into core functions of commercial groups are everyday examples. What are the arguments, in those circumstances, to consider shepherding 1,000 plus public servants into one large agency? And assuming, for the purposes of argument, that the marriage takes place, where do we go from there? What other body would it be appropriate to place on the takeover transfer list? Or, indeed, should the question be asked as to whether, instead of a minor review of the two, a major review over a wider field is what should be taking place?
The third element is the debit side of the balance sheet to set against whatever economies and efficiencies can be proved. Will the upheavals really be justified? The price is considerable—years of resources having to be used in essential non-productive massaging of a cobbled together body into a working machine; demoralised staff; and staff movements on a wide and costly scale. There will be total upheaval at the top. Presumably a chairman will be sought who has a wide spectrum of interest, and senior staff posts will need to be advertised. All of that will be necessary for a new body. And all the while there will be profound dislocation and disturbance to the existing flows of policy delivery now being competently undertaken.
I am nearing the conclusion of what I wish to say but I have two further brief points. At the time of the break-up of NCC and the creation of English Nature, the commission at one stage referred to the "converging" of the policies of the two bodies. It was used during my stewardship and it is a word for which I must take responsibility. But it is an incorrect word. The commission did not envisage an eventual single identity but was noting at the time an improved liaison and understanding in certain policy fields which led to the current good, distinct and complementary working relationships.
The second point is an old one. In 1949 we may well have made a mistake when we established separate systems for nature conservation and countryside management and recreation. Forty-five years on, with each system having strongly developed its own style, it is surely and manifestly too late to make a costly and disruptive change.
2.2 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this may be the last day of term, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, but he certainly made sure that some of the boys and girls at any rate will not be running away to pack their bags too early, and we wait with bated breath for what my noble friend the Minister will say at the end of the debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for introducing this important subject in his usual way, with an extremely masterful speech of his own.
Unlike some noble Lords who may be speaking today, I am not totally averse to the idea of the review being carried out, but I welcome most strongly the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford that the results must be made public. We must be allowed to see what has been said and how the Government arrived at their conclusions. The basis of why there should be a review is that the general public is totally unaware of the difference between the two organisations. When I was first appointed as a countryside commissioner, several people—I am not talking about the great urban masses who obviously would have little interest in what either the Countryside Commission or English Nature were doing, but some of my friends and acquaintances who were farmers and landowners—said to me "You are one of those so-and-so's" (I shall not use their adjective) "who are putting SSSIs on everyone". When I said that I was not they were totally bemused. At the end of my time on the Countryside Commission I said that, far from being one of those, I was one of the goodies who offered all the choices available under countryside stewardship.
There is no public awareness of what the two bodies do. But as my noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, said, they are both unlike each other in so many ways. My noble friend went into great detail on that. But the two biggest examples of the differences in the way they work are the numbers of staff employed by each agency and the Countryside Commission is characterised in the way that it uses experimental powers for deliberate siting, new approaches to policy and practice and what my noble friend calls its entrepreneurial attitude. I do not believe that anybody could honestly say that English Nature was entrepreneurial. Indeed, it is not right that in its remit it should be. I am not in any way criticising English Nature or boosting the Countryside Commission; they both do excellent jobs in their own specific ways. But one of the outstanding examples of success of the Countryside Commission, as I have already mentioned, is that of countryside stewardship. One hopes that a new body, if there is to be one, will continue to be run in that way.
I am sure that it is essential for any new body to be a totally new body and not a sort of coming together in some unholy mishmash of the two existing organisations—a point made strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. That would be a disaster. The new organisation must have as its remit both consideration and enhancement of the natural and cultural aspects of the countryside and, equally important, enjoyment of

1245
the countryside through informal, open-air recreation. Neither of those important aims must take place at the expense of the other. It must be a joint effort.
That will not be easy—in fact, it will be extremely difficult and it will also be expensive. I hope that the Government, if they do go down that road, will take those facts on board. If it becomes a merger rather than the selling up of a new body, it could provide a nice cheap easy way out for the Government. But that would be disastrous. It would give me enormous encouragement if, when my noble friend replies to the debate, he can give an assurance that this is not a Treasuryled exercise; that it is not a means of trying to save money for the Government. That assurance would come as some consolation, at least to me.
Therefore, in a way I look forward to the result of the review; I certainly look forward to what my noble friend will say. But I warn him that if he goes down the path of some new environmental agency, difficulties and costs will lie ahead.
2.7 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, the proposal that the Countryside Commission and English Nature should be merged is of considerable importance to the National Trust. I speak, as your Lordships will probably know, as chairman of that organisation. We have close and excellent relations with both organisations. We compare notes regularly at all levels and look to them for advice and I like to think that they find our experience useful. We are, after all, in the same business.
We are the biggest land managers in the country. For example, two years ago we signed a formal statement of intent with English Nature which recognises our joint interests. Furthermore, we protect and manage 356 SSSIs in England covering 113,000 acres. We are probably the biggest recipients of grants from each organisation. I recall how supportive they both were and, for that matter also, particularly the Department of the Environment in one of our major recent acquisitions. I refer to Orford Ness. That was a case of a very successful and close partnership over a long period.
In view of the significance to the National Trust of these proposals we decided to consult our committee members who have detailed experience in this field. We received 19 responses. One was strongly in favour; seven accepted the proposals in principle but with specific and significant reservations which I shall come to; and five were downright hostile.
Our first and overwhelming concern is that unless great care is taken—this point has been made by every speaker so far —a crude merger would effectively be a takeover by English Nature. I say that with not the slightest disrespect for English Nature but because, as has been said by so many speakers already, it has more than twice as many staff; and staff totally different in background. Moreover, I am told that this disparity is likely to increase significantly in the future. We have a real concern that the Countryside Commission would be swamped. There is a further factor in that the pressures emanating from Brussels directives and from the Rio
1246
Declarations give rise currently perhaps to a tendency to emphasise the scientific aspects of nature conservation at the expense of the wider countryside interests.
It would be only fair to remark at this point that English Nature itself has changed significantly under the guidance of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I am sorry that he is promoting a book in Borneo but I suspect that he is doing it on behalf of one of my other former interests, the Royal Geographical Society. So I think he has an excuse. English Nature operates in a much more "user friendly" way than it did only a few years ago. It certainly has a greater understanding of the importance of access and the needs of the wider community. For example, it is beginning to take a serious interest in educational matters. All that is for the good. However, we should like to have from the Government a much better idea of how this proposal fits into their overall strategy for the environment: and the countryside. One might ask, rhetorically, how does the Rural Development Commission fit into this scheme of things? After all it too is centrally concerned with the rural economy. Then there is the National Rivers Authority, the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture and so on. What is the Government's thinking? What is the scheme of things? Why now? Those points have already been made, and I make them too. The recent White Papers do not help me in this regard.
It has argued by some—the point has been made by previous speakers in order, as it were, to dismiss it—that there could be important economies of scale. It is riot obvious what those are. In my experience these "bigger is better" proposals often end in tears. They result in diseconomies and in more overheads—as in Parkinson's Law —rather than greater economies. The reorganisation of local government in the 1970s is surely a classic warning. Nor should the costs and disruption of merger be ignored.
Then, too, the point is widely made that the two organisations are very different in character. Failure to take into account the nature of these differences and how they arise would almost certainly lead to a less effective delivery of countryside services in a merged organisation. I believe that there are two main strands. For example, English Nature has a rather sharply defined remit. By contrast, the Countryside Commission's remit is broader, more flexible and, in its words, seeks,
"a sustainable, multi-purpose countryside—beautiful, environmentally healthy, diverse, accessible and thriving".
It is concerned with land use and husbandry but also with amenity—access, footpaths and bridleways.
Then, perhaps reflecting the legislative history, English Nature functions on the basis of statutory duties exercised through objective scientific criteria. This gives English Nature its sharp focus, but rather narrower outlook; its preponderant interest in designated areas. In contrast, the Countryside Commission operates much more by the selective exercise of powers. I believe that we would all agree that its great strength has been its initiatives and that point has already been made. Reference has been made to the countryside stewardship scheme which has been of tremendous value to us in the

1247
National Trust. Neither should we forget that it was under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Barber that the Countryside Commission launched the idea of environmentally sensitive areas which are now being so successfully carried forward by the Ministry of Agriculture. Be that as it may, the difference between statutory duties and permissive powers has a significant effect on how each organisation functions.
It will therefore be particularly important that the respective strengths and characteristics of each organisation are fully reflected in a merged organisation. That will not be easy. As we all know, the greatest difficulty in reorganisation or in any merger is dealing with differences of character and culture.
In that connection I have one further point which is against the argument that a single voice for the countryside would be a more effective voice. I believe that "the single voice" argument is simplistic and that there is virtue in a plurality of voices. My reason is that the triple objectives of sustainable farming, of nature conservation, and of access, are frequently in conflict. We have a great deal of experience of that in the National Trust. On the wider stage, I believe it is healthy; that it is in the public interest, in resolving this conflict, that it is not internalised. Finding the right balance is not easy—we know about that in the trust only too well—and the respective interests of each wing need to be debated and subjected to the political process. I say "political" with a small "p".
I should perhaps add in parenthesis that both organisations in the past few years have shown an ability and a willingness to work closely together and to launch together major initiatives. The Rural Action Programme is a good example. This is a healthy development but it does not follow from that that the merger of two utterly different bodies is desirable.
I have dealt with some half-dozen of the many points that have emerged from our own consultation. I should like to make one further suggestion—and I would be very surprised if the working group is not already following this up. It is a point which has been touched on by previous speakers. There have been three comparable mergers in recent years, albeit of much smaller entities. We should learn from their experiences. The first is SNH, but since I have no personal knowledge of how that is progressing I say no more about it. The second is the Countryside Council for Wales. I believe it is working well although getting to that desirable state turned out to be a much bigger challenge than originally envisaged. As I said, it is a much smaller organisation. I also note that in the Welsh case both the chairman and the chief executive came from outside and both were exceptionally able and experienced people.
The third example is Northern Ireland, which has not been mentioned so far. I am told on good authority that there have been problems there arising from the sort of issues that I have mentioned.
I have gone on quite long enough and I fear that I have been somewhat negative. I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the report of the working group should be published. That remark
1248
was endorsed by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. That is quite essential if the Government are going to have any credibility at all.
I conclude by setting down what I believe to be the four necessary conditions for a successful merger. The first condition is one of principle. The benefits of a merger will only be secure if the basis is that of a merger of equals. Let me be more explicit. I see the essential basis of a merger as being, as it were, a tripod of three equal legs which reflect the three main objectives of the two organisations: of sustainable husbandry and the preservation of landscape values; of nature conservation and biodiversity; and of the needs of amenity, of access, of footpaths, bridleways and recreation. Those are the three limbs on the tripod. The mandate must reflect that tripod.
Also, if it is to be securely based a further three conditions will need to be satisfied. First, in respect of each leg there should be equal emphasis on both duties and powers. Secondly, the internal structure of the new organisation must be so established that it reflects the parity and importance of each leg. Thirdly, the success of the new organisation in its formative years will depend crucially on who is appointed as chairman and who as chief executive. They will need to be strong, experienced, and independent.
In reflecting on this it seems to me that there may be lessons to learn from the way in which the Government have recently tackled the relationship between the research councils. Here, too, there were powerful voices calling for a single research council. In the event, it was concluded that the right solution was to retain the separate councils but—and this is the relevant point—with a new post, the Director General of the Research Councils, created on top of them. The most effective solution in this case might be a director general for the countryside who would oversee and ensure proper co-ordination of the work; not just of English Nature and the Countryside Commission but also of the relevant activities of the Rural Development Commission, the NRA, the Forestry Commission and MAFF. In most respects it would seem to resolve most of the problems I have been discussing, and it would be a positive step towards Rio.
Your Lordships will see that we are far from enthusiastic about the new proposals. The present arrangements, as far as we are concerned, are working well. No doubt they can be improved—there is always room for improvement—but to us it seems to be a case of, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
2.20 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I start by echoing other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Marlesford for instigating this timely debate. I take the opportunity also to thank my noble friend the Minister for considering the proposal. Again, it is timely that he does so. It is also right that he is giving plenty of time and opportunity for the debate which is so essential. It is probably fair to say that we do not want to see a repeat of what happened when we had the split of English Nature and the various countryside agencies the last time that we had a major piece of legislation on this matter. Although it was

1249
legislation of which I was very much in favour, nevertheless I do not think that it was conducted in quite the way that it should have been. I hope that if we are to have change this time there will be full opportunity for debate and consultation.
I should first declare an interest. I have the honour to be on the council of English Nature. In addition, I have benefited considerably in my capacity as a landowner both from the work of English Nature through the SSSI designations, of which I am very much in favour, and through the countryside stewardship scheme. Therefore, I can say both from a practical point of view and from what I have observed elsewhere that both organisations deserve considerable congratulations on what they have achieved.
I take issue with my noble friend Lord Swinton on one point. He accused English Nature of lacking entrepreneurial flair. I cannot remember his exact words, but that is what he implied. Under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, English Nature has adopted a very determined and entrepreneurial way of doing things. I give as one example the wildlife enhancement scheme. That has gone a long way towards redressing the difficulties of profits foregone, about which I know many of your Lordships were not very happy. It is an imaginative, entrepreneurial scheme which will, I think, save English Nature and the Government a great deal of money, as well as being very positive and helpful in terms of nature conservation.
The nature conservation resource and the countryside in general have undoubtedly benefited from the operations of both organisations. There is no question or doubt—I know that everyone is only too well aware of this—hut that the rural landscapes, the communities which live therein and, indeed, the wildlife which benefits from that management will face ever-increasing challenges and that changes will continue. "1947 and all that" is now irrelevant. It is part of the past. I cannot see agriculture being able to retain its existing profile both in terms of land utilisation and employment. It is clear that we need to have in place structures and mechanisms able to cope with the problems, of which there will be many, and with the opportunities, which I believe will be considerable.
I believe firmly that English Nature and the Countryside Commission will have increasingly important roles to play. Equally, I appreciate that I am perhaps in a minority so far in the debate in believing that they will be much more effective and acceptable if they are harnessed together—but harnessed together in a powerful and expansive agency with a new and effective brief, one that is designed to cope with the enhancement of the landscape, nature conservation, public appreciation and public enjoyment.
I have said many times in the House, as well as outside, that I believe that there are too many agencies trying to delivery many of the same objectives in the countryside. That often leads to confusion for those on the receiving end and a waste of resources by those who are trying to deliver Having said that, my enthusiasm for a single agency is not based purely on the concept of trying to save money. Far from it! It is based on the need
1250
for a wider and more holistic approach. Indeed, I acknowledge fully that there is likely to have to be an increase in funding—certainly in the early stages—to ensure an effective transition, if indeed that transition takes place.
I acknowledge also that it could be some time before any financial savings in real terms are to be found. I believe that that will happen, but I add that caveat, because I believe that it is an important one. I have often heard the idea of a merger being described as a takeover—a takeover of the Countryside Commission by English Nature. I should not want to see that. If it is to happen, it would have to be a genuine partnership.
Clearly, the scientific research arm of English Nature is highly specialist and will remain essential, not just as a means of delivering an effective nature conservation strategy, but in monitoring ecological change. From that, we must not lose sight of the fact that English Nature has learnt a great deal about managing land and people in the same way that the Countryside Commission does. So I would not want your Lordships to think that we are an isolated white-coated body of scientists with no practical experience of the countryside. Nothing could be further Cairn the truth. But if one considers the other objectives of both organisations, it is difficult to see why they could not realistically be run as one. For example, if one looks at the items listed in the Countryside Commission's budget for 1993–94 one sees that there are grants at £30 million; the countryside stewardship scheme at £7.5 million; and rights of way, groundwork, conservation action, task force, trees and so on. All those are countryside enhancement projects which could easily be merged into English Nature's wider brief.
The Countryside Commission says:
"Our programmes and policies are designed to secure a sustainable, multi-purpose countryside and help people enjoy it and understand the threats to it".
The point surely is that we need to understand that threat to habitats and wildlife besides—not in isolation! They are all an integral part of our national heritage.
I wrote to the chairman of SNH, Magnus Magnusson, merely to discover how things were going in Scotland. One of the points he made was:
"We think we have demonstrated that the Remits of the two Agencies are totally compatible. There is a profound relationship between habitats and landscape—habitats in good health mean a landscape in good health".
Furthermore, I question whether the Government's admirable objectives on sustainability and biodiversity are really achievable without a joint agency. And, of course, another advantage of a merger would be that sustainable development could be incorporated into the new statutory objectives of such an agency. I am sure that your Lordships would welcome that.
Perhaps I may touch on the controversial problem of access, which has been raised by a number of noble Lords. Some people believe that access will be sacrificed at the expense of other objectives. I believe that there is a real danger of ill-prepared access initiatives leading to a degradation of nature conservation unless great care is taken. I equally believe that access decisions cannot be suitably made unless proper environmental assessment is made, based on

1251
thorough research, with an appreciation of the welfare of those who live and work in the areas concerned. That can be done effectively only by pooling the considerable experiences of both agencies.
I quote again from the letter I received from Mr. Magnusson. Specifically as regards access, he stated:
"These tensions exist"—
There is no denying that—
"but the fact that both aspects are represented within SNH by statute has led to well-informed and constructive discussion within the organisation—particularly as they relate to specific circumstances at the local level".
That is a most important point.
"This is integration at work and is infinitely preferable to having two agencies taking different stances".
I could not agree more.
Finally, I have one real concern which I know has been identified and which I would wish to see firmly safeguarded if the merger takes place. I refer to the wider countryside. Imperative though the designation of specialist sites is, I believe it essential that they are not given greater priority at the expense of the wider countryside. Any new brief would have to safeguard against that.
I do not suggest for one moment that a merger would be easy. I fully appreciate that much work would be involved in developing a new structure and training procedure, which would be imperative. I take on board also the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about the disruption that has already occurred in English Nature. I have seen that at first hand and I take the opportunity of paying tribute to the people who have experienced it. They have come out of it so well and effectively but I realise that there could be a problem. I believe that it is a problem worth having because there will be overriding long-term benefits to the countryside. Great skill and patience will be required. However, having seen at close hand the ability to cope that has been shown I have no doubt that the scheme will work well and I urge my right honourable friend the Minister to give it every opportunity.
2.33 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, my interest in this Question stems not from my extensive experience of the difficulties of amalgamating different regiments but from my chairmanship of the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee. Four years ago it reported on the effect on its science base of the Government's proposal to split up the Nature Conservancy Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has referred to that report. Those proposals in their original form were not only ill thought out but had not been thought out at all. They were substantially modified while we were studying the matter and in the light of our report. Most of our recommendations were accepted.
Two important recommendations were not accepted: first, that the Countryside Commission and English Nature, as the rump of the Nature Conservancy Council left in England was called, should be merged; and secondly, that the remit of the joint committee which was set up to co-ordinate the three separate country
1252
agencies should extend to countryside and landscape conservation, as well as to nature conservation, which would bring England into line with Scotland and Wales.
The report argued that there are compelling arguments for bringing nature conservation close together with countryside conservation; that is, the responsibilities which the Countryside Commission exercises under the countryside Acts. Although I admit that the two interests are sometimes opposed, they are closely interrelated, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has just mentioned. They need much of the same data, scientific base and expertise, and they tend to concentrate attention on the same landscapes.
Nature conservation has been moving on from interest in individual flora and fauna or narrow habitats to a more synoptic interest in groups of species, wider ecosystems and the relationship between wildlife and the whole environment. The principle of sustainable development is to be preferred, in the long term, to a form of nature conservation based on fossilising simple sites and defending them against all-comers, which could be described as an attempt to halt evolution.
Our report considered that the separation between nature conservation and countryside conservation is out-dated, as the Government themselves recognised, by merging them in Scotland and Wales in order—to use their own words at the time:
"to allow a more comprehensive approach to pursuing the special inheritances of wildlife and natural beauty in those two countries".
It was totally illogical to amalgamate the two in Scotland and Wales and to perpetuate the division in England. We rejected not only the argument raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, but also the main argument produced by the Government at the time that the greater urbanisation of England made it inappropriate. We recognised that it would not be a simple matter and that it should not be initiated until English Nature had had time to settle down. That it has certainly now done under the leadership of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
It appears that those who oppose a merger do so from opposite but similar anxieties. We have heard the arguments this afternoon. One side fears that the interests of landowners, farmers and recreational bodies will dilute the purity of the scientifically based attempt to conserve every form of animal, vegetable and mineral element of nature: there are those who believe that the mergers in Scotland and Wales have had that result. The other side fears the opposite: that the demands of the nature conservationists will impose excessive restrictions on the use of, or access to, land for other purposes, particularly by a proliferation of the demand to establish new or larger sites of special scientific interest and similar areas, like RAMSAR sites. That was the complaint that largely provoked, certainly with regard to Scotland, the split up of the old Nature Conservancy Council.
Some people believe that you get the right answers to controversial problems by a process of confrontation—the principle of the market place. I accept that that may be so in some areas. However, I am convinced that in this field, co-operation and co-ordination is a better

1253
way of supporting the important principle of sustainable development. Therefore, I support the proposal in principle to merge English Nature with the Countryside Commission and I hope that that will be the outcome of the Government's study.
On the other hand, I am entirely sympathetic with the view put forward that we must not just shove together the two organisations as they are today but we must create a new organisation which is seen to be different. Perhaps I may quote the Army's experience in that regard. We should never repeat what happened in the 1920s when we created regiments by preserving the old ones. When the 15th and 19th Hussars were amalgamated in 1922, it was said that the officers of the two regiments dined at opposite ends of the mess table for the next 10 years. Since then, we have been more sensible and have given new regiments new names.
That moves me on to the next question of the effect of that on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is a curious organisation that is really a servant of the separate countryside agencies. If you are to bring about a merger or a new organisation which incorporates conservation, it seems to me to be both inevitable and right that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee should be given wider interests and a wider remit—and not so much wider powers—to consider matters regarding countryside conservation. Perhaps a development in some way of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, regarding a director general could somehow be connected with the JNCC.
However, what must not happen is that the Government should see it as an opportunity to reduce the resources that they devote to countryside and nature conservation, and particularly those devoted to the maintenance of a United Kingdom-wide scientific base, especially in research and in the development and maintenance of data banks. The latter depend very heavily on the voluntary work of non-governmental organisations, most of which are organised on a UK-wide basis and not split up, for political reasons, on a country basis. Unlike what happened in the previous split up of the Nature Conservancy Council, I hope that those organisations are more fully consulted on the matter than just being requested to send in their views with only a month's notice which, I understand, is the situation at present. When the noble Earl replies, I hope that he will assure the House that it is not the Government's intention to regard such a merger—if it takes place—as merely an economy exercise.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I have had many opportunities to see the work of the Countryside Commission at first hand through my work as a Vice President of the Council for National Parks and through my presidency of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV).
I am fully aware of the importance of the eight national parks in England, including the Broads: they give protection to our finest countryside and offer pleasure to millions—there are 77 million visits to them each year. The commission helps ensure that the interests of national parks are properly represented in
1254
wider government policy; for example, in planning policy guidance. The commission has specific statutory duties to advise the Secretary of State on appointments to national park committees. It advises on the funding needs of the parks and it reviews new areas for designation.
Two specific recent successes of the commission in relation to national parks are: first, the setting up of the Broads Authority under its own tailor-made legislation in 1988; and, secondly, the setting up of the independent Edwards panel in 1989, which led to the widely supported report, Fit for the Future, and the, possibility of legislation on which we have been able to make progress today.
More generally, the commission has played a vital role over the years in giving priority to landscape and recreation issues. The qualities of the natural beauty of the landscape and enjoyment have benefited through the commission ensuring that they are given proper weight in countryside debates and policy decisions. The fact that tensions can exist between nature conservation on the one hand and landscape and recreation on the other, is not necessarily a bad thing. The fact that there have been two bodies responsible for those different areas has meant that not only have such tensions been publicly aired, but also that they have been given equal status. That has been of benefit to the countryside as a whole.
As to the possibility of a merger, I am not opposed in principle, but I am reserving judgment on the current proposals until it can be demonstrated that they would deliver real benefits. It is of crucial importance that the remit of any new body is based on an holistic approach to the countryside, which includes maintaining and enhancing scenic beauty, enjoyment, wildlife, land-forms, natural systems, the cultural heritage, national parks and the marine environment.
The successful partnership approach of the Countryside Commission should continue and be built on by any new body. That approach has enabled a wide variety of organisations to become involved in countryside matters and to bring their own resources with them, greatly increasing the effectiveness and value for money of the Countryside Commission.
The innovative and experimental powers of the commission must be maintained. The new body should be able to promote, encourage and implement as well as to regulate and advise. Where appropriate, certain schemes or functions should be delegated to other bodies to manage, such as the national park authorities.
The issue of funding is vital to the future of any new body. Funding should at least match the sum of the existing provisions, and the full transition costs should be met separately.
I am concerned that some of the public debate which involves the Countryside Commission and English Nature each expressing its own distinctive view might become internalised. It will be essential for the policies and strategies of any new body to be the subject of full consultation.
If a merger proceeds, the need for primary legislation will give the Government the opportunity—which they should take—to legislate for other countryside measures for which they have a commitment, including national

1255
parks and hedgerows. The opportunity could also be taken to transfer responsibility for the national park supplementary grant from the Department of the Environment to the new body.
All mergers are disruptive. This merger could threaten the existing programmes of both the Countryside Commission and English Nature. There will have to be convincing evidence that the benefits to both organisations outweigh the costs.
Finally, I am anxious to see a new organisation retain the Countryside Commission's strong commitment to involving and working in partnership with volunteers and voluntary groups. Volunteers are needed more than ever if we are to look after the environment with the skill and sensitivity that it needs.
Overall, the commission supported 127,000 volunteer days of practical conservation work by the BTCV and more than 100 other voluntary organisations directly, and a further 1,500 affiliated groups indirectly. That work included habitats being both protected and improved, footpaths repaired both in wild country and closer to home, and trees planted. I am proud to say that the BTCV has planted its two millionth tree since the storms of 1987.
The value of the work done extends far beyond the results on the ground, in two ways. First, it lies in the opportunity it gives to 60,000 volunteers in the BTCV alone to do something themselves to improve the environment for us and for wildlife. The Government have recognised in the sustainable development strategy and the biodiversity action plan the crucial role voluntary action has to play.
Secondly, support from the commission to voluntary bodies, which amounted to £1.8 million last year, is often used to draw in commercial sponsorship. Esso has supported BTCV and the commission in the community footpaths award scheme. Its support enables local groups to buy tools and materials that they could not otherwise obtain, and encourages local groups to take on such ambitious schemes as clearing and improving the entire footpath network of one parish. One hundred groups entered for an award last year. It was won by the Friends of Sefton Coast, who will be given the £1,000 prize in May.
Nuclear Electric has sponsored a school's award scheme in the Mersey and Red Rose Community Forest Area in partnership with BTCV and the Commission.
I stress that many of the projects supported benefit wildlife. The commission is already able, and does, include projects which benefit habitats and wildlife as well as projects which promote access to the countryside or create or improve landscape features in its work.
Proposals for a new organisation to take over from the Countryside Commission and English Nature must meet all those criteria to command support.
2.48 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, we must all be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for raising this Question at this time when it is clearly very much on our minds.
1256
One finds out very quickly in this House how enormously difficult it is for desirable pieces of legislation to be included in the legislative programme. That is particularly so in the environmental field. We know that measures have been promised by the Government in relation to common land, hedgerows, the implementation of the Habitats and Species Directive, the national parks (for example, to set up a national park in the New Forest), and so on. It seems on the face of it odd, to bring forth a proposal which would clearly require legislation when so much is stuck in the pipeline. In that context I should like to make a suggestion. It is that perhaps the Government might like to consider discussing environmental legislative priorities with the non-governmental organisations. They could easily do that through the Wildlife and Countryside Link. That would be welcomed. They could then find out the priorities of the conservation organisations.
So far as I know, no one is pressing for the merger. That is not to say that it may not be a good thing. We have two excellent bodies operating, as we have been told, in very different ways. I am greatly impressed by the work of both. The Countryside Commission seems to me to have had a series of imaginative initiatives under the direction of my noble friend Lord Barber and now Sir John Johnson. It was they who first thought up and devised the concept of environmentally sensitive areas, which has been one of the great success stories in the environmental field. I welcome what they are doing about the national forest, community forests, countryside stewardship and improving rights of way.
Under the very capable chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, English Nature has made its mark and shown enormous vigour and determination in dealing with special sites and species, especially endangered species, and in giving advice to the Government. It is working increasingly in the wider countryside. There may well be a case for merging the functions in a new body. Indeed, that case was put effectively by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. Four years ago I was a co-opted member of the committee chaired by my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver which recommended that the Countryside Commission and what has become English Nature should be merged. There is an increasing overlap between the functions of the two bodies. I am glad to say that they are now working closely together.
However, circumstances are now rather different from four years ago. As has been pointed out by a number of speakers, there is a considerable downside to carrying out such a merger. For a period of several years there is enormous disruption. I have had a good deal to do with the National Rivers Authority in Wales. I am impressed by the immense amount of time that officers in the NRA and those of us associated in an advisory capacity with it have to spend considering the future merger which is to bring about the environment agency. That time has to be taken from looking after the rivers. That disruption occurs before a merger takes place. Obviously after a merger there is a lengthy period of settling down. It involves a real cost.

1257
It is unsettling for staff to have a merger hanging over them which may affect their employment and distracts them from their proper responsibilities. That is an important factor.
The experience of the merger in Scotland and Wales has been referred to. I note that when the present proposal was announced, the noble Earl said in answer to a Written Question on 31st January that:
"The Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage have rapidly established themselves as effective deliverers of these aspects of our environmental policies". — [Official Report, 31.1.94; WA 87.]
To some extent that is true, but I do not think that we can yet say whether or not putting together the two functions in Scotland and Wales has been a good thing. The jury is still out on that and there are widespread doubts among non-governmental organisations as to whether there has been added value, as one might say, in putting the two functions together. Nor can one say that every aspect of the two organisations is working smoothly. I live in Wales and on the whole the Countryside Council for Wales is doing an excellent job. It has made a promising start.
However, to give one example, the Ramblers organisation claims that the creation of Scottish Natural Heritage has been a "disaster" for public access to the Scottish countryside. It states:
"SNH has obstructed the progress that was being made by the Countryside Commission for Scotland towards better legislation and other action to improve footpaths and freedom of access in Scotland".
I do not know whether that claim is justified, but it suggests that we should not take it as read that the experience in Scotland and Wales has been wholly satisfactory.
I understand that the Government have set up a consultancy to consider the experience in the two countries. Wildlife and Countryside Link, of which I have the honour to be chairman, had a meeting with officials of the Department of the Environment on 22nd March. At that meeting they told us that the Government had commissioned consultants,
"to assess the lessons to be learnt from the experience of SNH and CCW".
They said that the report would be sent to the agencies before a decision would be made on whether to publish it. I think that it is important that in due course it should be published so that your Lordships and others can study it and see what lessons can be drawn from it.
There is sometimes a genuine conflict between access and conservation, and we discussed that in the report of my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver. It is an open question whether it is best that the problem should be resolved within one agency or two.
Some speakers have referred to the implications of the proposed merger for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I think that is important. The remit of the JNCC at present does not cover access or landscape evaluation, although those are within the responsibilities of the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage and would clearly be within the scope of the responsibilities of any merged organisation in England.
I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that that aspect ought to be considered and we
1258
should consider the implications. At the moment we are faced with something of a torrent of mergers and reorganisations. The Forestry Commission is being examined and there are the plans for the environment agency. English Nature itself is in the throes of a substantial reorganisation which is to come into effect next month. All that distracts staff from their real role.
Despite the Government's claim in their original announcement that the merger would be part of the process of ensuring that the Rio commitments would be fully and effectively implemented, it is not altogether easy to see what the merger in itself has to do with the Rio commitments. In fact I think rather the reverse is the case. There is a risk that the merger may delay implementation of the agreements made at the Earth Summit in Rio. It may also delay implementation of the important habitats and species directive.
I believe that if we are to have a reorganisation it should be a wider one. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Barber. It should embrace the. role of the JNCC and its relationship with the country agencies. From all that I hear, the arrangement for it to be funded by the country agencies through a ring-fenced arrangement is not working all that well. I have tended all along to believe that the JNCC should have its own budget to enable it to concentrate on its key role of ensuring common standards throughout the United Kingdom, dealing with international problems, and taking a strategic overview of nature conservation and in due course, I would hope, countryside matters in the United Kingdom.
So far as the views of the non-governmental agencies are concerned, on the whole those which are concerned with the countryside are strongly opposed to the suggested merger. The wildlife bodies are more cautious. They have less objection, but on the other hand they think that the proposals may be premature. Those bodies that deal with the countryside tend to perceive the proposal as, in effect, the abolition of the Countryside Commission and the tacking on of its responsibilities to English Nature. That is something that they would very strongly oppose. They are also worried about the weakening of work on public rights of way.
Although I would not object to a merger at some stage, I believe that there is a strong case for delaying any plans for reorganisation. I was encouraged to learn from the meeting that we had with the DoE that any decision not to go ahead with a merger would not preclude setting up new working relationships between English Nature and the Countryside Commission. That may be desirable. Anything that we can do to get the two bodies to work even more closely together would be a good thing.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has looked at this matter very carefully. Its view is that the review should be postponed pending the outcome of the review of the forestry industry; the implementation of agreements made at the Rio Earth Summit; the implementation of the European habitats and species directive; the creation of a new environment agency; and a full review of the functions and remit of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I am inclined to think

1259
that that is the right way to approach the matter. I hope that the Government will consider that view very carefully.
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marlesford has put a powerful case for "leaving well alone". Noble Lords on all sides who have spoken so far are agreed that if matters are not to be left alone, then the merger should be very, very carefully put together.
The Countryside Commission and English Nature are two quite complementary bodies. Their objectives have been developed separately. Unless some useful means of any merger could be agreed between them, it would be a mistake if any such change were to be imposed upon them. Two heads are better than one. Certainly, no shotgun marriage should be arranged, especially if the Treasury is holding the shotgun.
Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to use this debate as a vehicle for a slightly sectional interest which no doubt they will immediately understand. It has of course to do with organic farming. In return, I promise to be short.
ESAs are a fundamental part of the objectives of both those great organisations. I should like to refer to the opportunities that are available to organic farmers, which are far from wild farming, in environmentally sensitive areas. They provide additional conservation for wildlife and plant species. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, may confirm, the RSPB has recently conducted a review of organic farms where bird life has been shown to be in a much better state, with more birds per yard and hedge, etc. In addition, the ESAs have £63 million via the Government's Organic Aid Scheme for use in various ways. I understand that organic farmers who are in those areas will be eligible for ESA support in addition to the support which they can receive from the Organic Aid Scheme itself, which is only £1 million.
I should like to use the opportunity to ask both the Countryside Commission and English Nature whether they can do something to support those organic farms which are within their territories. Perhaps they will take a lead from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, whose National Trust organisation has done a great deal to help. Mr. Young, the rural affairs adviser of the National Trust, has just mentioned in the National Trust brochure that the trust has now five tenant farmers currently practising organic farming with Soil Association approval. That is an advance. It may be a small one but we are grateful for it. I should be very glad if other organisations were to follow suit.
Farmers have always been careful of the land which they hold in trust for future generations of their countrymen. Some, perhaps, have been more careful than others. The former are largely beginning to support environmental subsidies to replace the products used in land treatment by the intensive farmer.
The Royal Agricultural Society is in favour of developing a twin-track approach in which there would be a continuation of intensive farming in such areas
1260
where it is necessary to produce food for the nation, and a second-track approach in more marginal lands where less intensive farming methods are more environmentally acceptable. Those should receive alternative and additional support.
The bells are tolling for the CAP. There can be no doubt about that. The ridiculous farce of set-aside can only point to that fact. There is a farmer who received £63,000 this year for setting aside his whole farm. His total return was £63,000 over 357 acres. Such conditions cannot continue. The logical result of the demise of the CAP is that there shall be some return to the original farming methods which were in hand some 50 to 60 years ago and which were purely organic. Those farm systems will need to be developed. The whole farm system is promoted by the Soil Association and accepted by the Royal Agricultural Society as well as other people. It involves the principle of directly paying farmers for the pursuit of integrated agriculture and environmental objectives, and. is now widely accepted by them. However, the exact mechanisms for achieving that system and their practical implementation have not yet been developed. We must do it in co-operation with the Countryside Commission, English Nature and other bodies, as well as MAFF.
The successful implementation of that approach will depend first on whether we can develop management agreement prescriptions which will result in the achievement of the objective of further CAP reform; and, secondly, on whether those schemes can be successfully operated in practice. The existing whole farm management system points the way. It is the organic community which is leading the field in that direction, and I commend their efforts to your Lordships' attention.
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity of discussing this matter this afternoon and thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for giving us the opportunity to do so. We are of course dealing with agencies which protect nature and the countryside for its own sake, and it is important to keep sight of that. In that context, I must declare an interest at first hand. I farm within the Exmoor National Park, and 20 per cent. of the farm is within a countryside stewardship scheme and 17.5 per cent.—I am not sure if the figure is significant —is part of a huge North Exmoor site of special scientific interest which dates from 1992.
My views are essentially my own. I am not speaking on behalf of any other person or body. But there are three themes to be considered within the countryside —the protection of species, habitats and landscapes; provision of public enjoyment and recreation (within which must be included the principle of private amenity and enjoyment for those who live and work in the countryside); and the production of food and fibre.
English Nature falls very much into the first category. With respect to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I must say that my relationships with that body have not been particularly happy ones. Starting from a valid scientific base, the approach to designation appears to be an extremely blunt instrument. So far it has resulted in

1261
what I can only describe as a fair measure of scientific absolutism dressed up as administrative expediency. It appears to me to be ring-fenced in its own narrow terms of reference. So far as I can see all that has been created without any effective right of challenge or independent appeal and English Nature effectively sits as judge and jury in its own court. Its powers have significantly affected the land users. In my case I think particularly of five acres of improved pasture that was included, despite my protestations, within a site of special scientific interest. But there was no obligation to reimburse me for the costs that were passed on to me in that initial designation and discussion process, nor does there appear to be any obligation to take account of the management and economic activities at that stage in place which created great uncertainty and caused me significant cost in terms of time if for no other reason.
There is a sense of unease among landowners that they are being told what they can do on a property for which they have custody for their lives, by people with theoretical skills and, I am afraid to say, all too often with little practical knowledge beyond the laboratory and field survey conditions. Therefore the process, as exemplified by my own case, does lasting damage to relationships—and I cannot be any more kindly than that. It certainly affects the willingness to make net inward investment towards environmental goals for the future. But those views are my own. However, I fear that my experiences are far from unique. Sustainable husbandry requires commitment and involvement from the steward of the land, and if that commitment is alienated then nothing goes forward.
By comparison, the Countryside Commission is something of a hybrid. Again I am involved with that organisation. Apart from the designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty and other similar areas considered important for protection —I should also take slight issue on that in that they are also designated on a non-recourse basis—it has taken a new step forward in leading from the front through the voluntary principle. It set out to create a market for environmental land management and it makes possible activities that would be totally uneconomic, either directly or through local authorities.
In my case the commission has shown great flexibility. That is possibly because its staff are drawn from land use and management backgrounds and I cannot speak too highly of the people that I come across on the ground. There is an encouragement for the provision of public access on a proper economic footing that does not prejudice for the long term landowners' interests. It has demonstrated to me a pragmatism in its approach to the competing interests of nature conservation, access and local socio-economic circumstances. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that stewardship is an outstanding role model. Therefore, my vote goes to the Countryside Commission on the basis of 10 out of 10 for effort.
Unfortunately, we have a plethora of many different designations at all levels in the countryside. It seems that everyone from Whitehall to the village hall wants to get an iron in this conservation fire. This has produced a great deal of uncertainty and I am concerned about
1262
that. When the Minister comes to reply I wonder whether he would have regard to the comments made earlier this week by his right honourable friend the. Secretary of State for Wales. I shall paraphrase what he said. He was referring to a review of environmental restrictions in Wales. He said that to some people green policies meant an impenetrable habitat of jargon, designations and regulations. I go on to quote from the Independent of 29th March:
"For them, he said, 'success is measured by the number of SSSIs established, the number of European Special Areas, the work under the various directives and the memos written on biodiversity'".
To that I say "Hear, hear", as I feel very strongly that that is what is happening here.
Any review needs to knock sense into a situation which leads to disagreements between different bodies and leaves landowners bemused and not a little angry that public money is being used to finance some sort of bureaucratic muddle in the name of conservation. That has to cease. Any new body must be in control of that all the way through from top to bottom. But it is not for me to say whether a merger would be a good thing. As others have said, it cannot be done in haste or without a great deal of consultation, both external and internal. Scientific analysis and advice must remain an identifiably separate and core role in the question of nature conservation, whether or not it is part of a larger entity. We do not need scientists to play at being land managers—it is outside their brief.
If it is seen as appropriate to consolidate the role of countryside protection and management we need a new organisation altogether, not just a merger of two existing ones. I relate to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, had to say about that. I would go further arid say that. I am convinced that the rebaking of the cake using the same ingredients will result in us having much of what we have had so far without any chance of moving forward. If farmers and landowners are expected to deliver environmental goods they have to be treated as partners and not as rural serfs to be lorded over. Partnership involves sharing costs and risks, creating markets and looking at new opportunities. It has to produce real income to pay real bills and not be reliant on a moral imposition of a charitable donation. We are talking about genuine financial investment. Neither body focuses on that particularly clearly. I very much relate to the principles of co-operation and co-ordination mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. We are in a man-managed environment on an island with 52 million people. The countryside and nature conservation interests do not exist in some vacuous state. They have been created because it was economically sensible and feasible for them to occur.
Any new authority, whether a merged one or a revitalised version of the two separate authorities, must look primarily to the voluntary principle with compulsion as a last resort. We need to integrate management and conservation as an overall policy objective, even if there is a subdivision lower down. There needs to be adequate funding for research and development and works on the ground. There needs to be proper provision of information and advice. We need to distinguish between those who are required to

1263
commit capital resources and those who simply want to stand on the touch line and tell the rest of us what to do. It is an important decision.
The strategy that is to be developed needs to be durable for the long term so that things done today—and on which people place reliance—are not turned on their heads after a few years. The agencies concerned must be free of what might be called "the short-term political fix". They must have flexibility and staying power in the long term. When all is said and done, none of us owns the countryside anymore than we own or control nature herself. It is question of investment, long-term commitment and the acceptance of risk and responsibility. All of these matters need to be considered clearly and fully before any final decision is made.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest as a member of the Countryside Commission. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the proposition that, so far as is possible, both landscape and the flora and fauna that it contains must be preserved for the benefit of future generations. The Question that we have rightly been considering this afternoon is whether this aim will better be served by one organisation or by two.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Peel, a member of the council of English Nature. I myself have been immensely heartened to hear today of the importance that noble Lords place on the work that the Countryside Commission does. The commission has welcomed the study initiated by Her Majesty's Government and, of course, it is right that we should look at this issue following their reports on sustainability and biodiversity.
To me, the three vital points are these. The countryside conservation and recreation responsibilities of the commission are important and must not be lost or diluted in any way in the legislation setting up a new organisation. The commission's programmes of work on community forests, areas of outstanding natural beauty, recreation and rights of way and countryside management, give good value for money and we look for them to be continued at at least their present level. The commission's style of working in partnership with local authorities and voluntary groups, and its ability to experiment with new ideas, have served the countryside well and should be retained in any new organisation. I hope to hear my noble friend Lord Arran sharing these concerns.
I should like to conclude with a word of foreboding that has been expressed more than once in this afternoon's debate. If the new body is to be capable of doing the two jobs that it has to do properly, it will not save the Treasury a great deal of money. If the new body is to save the Treasury a great deal of money, it will not be capable of doing properly the two jobs that it has to do.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I speak briefly in the gap because I am sorry to say that I failed to get my name down by six o'clock which I should have done yesterday. I join those voices which are extremely suspicious of the Government's motives in bringing forward the proposed merger at this moment. I know that many of us said four years ago, "Why should these two bodies be merged in Scotland and in Wales and not in England?". But quite a lot has happened in those four years and the motives of the Government in bringing forward the idea at this time seem very strange.
I am afraid that it is rather typical of this Government that they rush ahead into legislation without sufficient consultation. The Bills they bring forward have to be amended very considerably and often a year later there is another Bill to put right what was done in the last one which did not turn out to be correct. Again, here, the consultation period is very short indeed—about six weeks. That seems to me totally inadequate. I would not be at all surprised if the staff of both organisations are very worried about whether proper consideration will be given before legislation is brought forward by, as I understand, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, early in the next Session. I thank him very much for asking the Question today.
Why embark on this exercise when the promises of legislation which the Government have made already on hedgerows, national parks and common land to implement effectively the UK's obligations under the habitats' directive have not been kept? One distrusts the Government's protestations about their attitude to conservation when no action has been taken on so many issues. The Secretary of State said that the merger would be part of the process of ensuring that the 1992 Rio commitments are fully and effectively implemented. I do not think that that is necessarily so. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to that.
Let English Nature get on with its proper task and prevent further damage to hedgerows, flower rich meadows, moorlands and other important wildlife habitats. The Government's own survey showed 78,000 miles of hedgerows removed in six years and a reduction of 14 per cent. in plant varieties in semi-improved grassland. Let English Nature concentrate on what it is supremely good at—its scientific work and conservation—where it has given proof of its ability.
I would like to praise the regional officers of English Nature. I have met a good many of them and they have seemed to me always extremely dedicated and of very high quality. I hope that if English Nature has to cut back on any of its spends, it will not cut back on its regional officers.
The Countryside Commission is doing an extremely good job. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, described some of the things which it is doing extremely well: rights of way, national trails and so on, and getting the local authorities to way-mark the trails. A great deal has been done. I am not at all surprised that the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society are very

1265
enthusiastic that such work should continue. I understand their fears that a merger might possibly impede some of it.
I would like to say a word that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, did not say in his praise of the Countryside Commission—and that is its work for environmental education. It is doing a lot here, and that is absolutely admirable. It is giving grants of £300,000 a year to educational projects. Its support begins very early on in school playgrounds with assistance to the Learning Through Landscapes Trust. Each of the 12 community forests has an objective: providing opportunities for environmental education.
My plea to the Government at the moment is to leave well alone. Let each body go on with its individual and separate work which both are doing extremely well in the aftermath of difficult circumstances—I think particularly of English Nature following the break-up of the NCC which was extremely controversial. It had a difficult time. I add to the praise for the work being done by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. But my plea is to avoid unnecessary disturbance now and what I should have thought would inevitably be extra cost.
Many organisations involved with the countryside have expressed fears about what may happen. The Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society, the CPRE, the RSNC and the RSPB, all in their different ways and their different interests, are very anxious about what may happen. So I beg the Government to take their time and listen to what has been said today.
Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady David, sits down, I wonder whether I could intervene. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that English Nature was involved with, I think she said, the restoration and management of hedgerows in the wider countryside. This is one of the real problems that English Nature faces. It is statutorily bound to the designated SSSIs arid the national nature reserves. One of the reasons I am so keen on a merger is that it would allow English Nature to be involved in the wider countryside in a way that it is not at the moment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I certainly stand corrected and apologise for my ignorance.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this important debate is the welcome response of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to a suggestion by Mr. Gummer that somehow the merger of these two bodies might contribute to,
"taking forward the environmental commitments entered into at 1992 Rio Conference".
My admiration for Mr. Gummer grows daily—not by leaps and bounds, but it does at least grow which is more than I can say for my admiration of all of Her Majesty's Ministers.
Yesterday I had the most unusual treat of hearing a Minister give a very funny, seemingly spontaneous and certainly committed, speech at a prizegiving. The Minister was Mr. Gurnmer, and the occasion was the giving of environmental awards at the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants —an admirable
1266
occasion, and a first class speech. True I thought that he was plain wrong in two of the most fundamental things that he said, just as I think that he is wrong on this initiative, but it was clear that his heart is in the right place. What he should perhaps be arranging is his priorities, because this initiative seems to be part of a reaction—whether ministerial or bureaucratic I cannot quite tell—that when confronted by a challenge one rearranges the furniture.
It is true that if one is on the Titanic there is very little else one can do except rearrange the furniture or possibly sing "Nearer my God to thee", but we hope that we are not on the Titanic. In which case, we have a job to do in saving the planet for itself and for human beings, and we should not be engaging in time and energy-wasting exercises.
Surely there are a number of things which must be higher on the Government's list than disturbing two admirable institutions, and upsetting both their work and their staff, in order to decide what needs to he done to mend something which shows no signs of being broken.
Legislation on national parks, treasure trove, hedgerows—noble Lord after noble Lord has gone through the list—to which the Government are committed awaits action and often has to be taken on, as we have seen this afternoon, by Private Members who are much to be commended for doing the rather thankless job that they have taken on, and which is something that the Government should be doing. That kind of legislation is often, as we have heard, subjected to the crippling, and sometimes fatal, difficulties standing in the way of Private Members' legislation, while the Government on the one hand bring us appalling Bills, which we rightly emasculate, and, on the other, fiddles with the furniture, as in the matter we are examining today. It will not do.
I do not wish to go to the heart of the matter of what kind of countryside we should like to see if there were to be a merger. These are two very different bodies. My heart and mind are split between them. l believe in the standards of the Countryside Commission and my emotions are with it, but my belief is that it is English Nature which has the most difficult and most important task to do at the moment in dealing with the environmental commitments entered into at the 1992 Rio conference. It is interesting that hardly any speaker has referred to that reason.
On the contrary, what the Government should be doing in this field, instead of rearranging the furniture, is to give English Nature a specific responsibility to set targets for the recovery of threatened species and declining habitats, and a specific duty to evaluate (preferably annually) the state of the natural environment. I was interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said about English Nature's frustration at being unable to deal with hedgerows in the general countryside.
It has been argued decisively by at least one body that the proposed review should be postponed for at least two years. If it is to go forward, and especially if the Government have not made up their mind as to what the review is to decide, there is a strong case for that. But

1267
there is an even stronger case for dropping the case tomorrow—a day universally recognised as one of repentance. That would be a most suitable day to do so.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I cannot promise a joke of that dimension. I too owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for bringing forward today's debate. It is crucial to the future of rural England. Most noble Lords have opposed the proposed merger between these two quite disparate bodies. In principle, one might feel inclined to support any streamlining and consolidation of public institutions which can be achieved, perhaps with some reduction in administrative costs. These bodies might achieve a stronger public image and greater clarification. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, there is a lack of public knowledge about their respective roles.
Both bodies are concerned with conservation, the preservation of species and the landscape of England. As a combined authority, they might have greater influence in relation to other pressure groups, such as the roads lobby. As we know, large swathes of our countryside are being covered with tarmac and concrete. Separately they are comparatively weak bodies.
As a combined organisation, they might also provide a better central focus for national information about the environment and our countryside. For example, although English Nature is responsible for the designation and protection of SSSIs, curiously there is no central collation of information either about those which have been damaged or those which are threatened by the current roads programme. Such a deficiency of centralised information might be provided by a larger, more powerful organisation.
Although there are possible, apparently logical reasons for combining these two bodies, there are considerable reservations about the proposed review and the possible consequences. As my noble friend Lady Nicol said, little time has been given for consultation about a wide-ranging suggestion. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, there appears to have been a breathless rush for no apparent reason in order to push through a review with only six weeks for consultation. Among others, the noble Lords, Lords Barber and Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lady Nicol said that English Nature has only recently been established. Another upheaval and disruption hanging over the heads of both bodies can lead only to interruption in their valuable work in conservation and landscape.
There are further reservations that the suggestion might be an excuse for economies of scale in staff. English Nature employs 700 staff, many of whom are scientists involved in field work in the countryside. They are different from the 273 staff of the Countryside Commission, who are involved in a more entrepreneurial and innovative way, and who work in partnership with other bodies rather than in field work themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, pointed out that the organisations have different cultures. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to the scheme as a possible
1268
takeover. The consequences might be that English Nature will become dominant, as the Secretary of State suggested, and therefore his commitment to species conservation, the Rio Summit and so forth would dominate within the new organisation. If that were so, considerable conflict would be created with the current responsibilities of the Countryside Commission. It has a responsibility more generally for the beauty of the landscape and access in particular by the public.
That is the area in respect of which we have received most lobbying. There is a fear that the maintenance of public rights of way, footpaths, public access and recreation in the countryside might be jeopardised if the concerns of English Nature for wildlife enhancement, species recovery and the protection of nearly 4,000 SSSIs should become the dominant focus of the new body.
Other noble Lords have referred to problems in Scotland within the newly combined bodies. Of course, they are denied by Magnus Magnusson. There was also a reference to problems in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that after such a short time, the jury must still be out as regards their effectiveness and efficiency and whether the combined bodies are able to deliver their very different responsibilities.
Quite clearly, the tensions between such disparate responsibilities of the two bodies could become increasingly acute. We have very high levels of unemployment in this country and probably for ever more we shall have large numbers of people who are unemployed or in part-time employment. That will create an increasing demand for leisure pursuits in the countryside. We also have commitments made in Rio to biodiversity and, under the habitat directive, we are committed to preserving the species that we have in this country. I believe that the disputes and tensions between the separate commitments and responsibilities will increase.
It is extremely important that those tensions and debates should be aired in the open, as they would be between two separate bodies. If there is a combined body, the problems, debates and tensions will not be aired in public and may well become muffled within the single organisation.
There are ways in which the two bodies currently work together on joint programmes. I hope that that relationship may be enhanced in the future on such matters as hedgerows, where the Countryside Commission clearly has a wider brief than English Nature, but the more hedgerows and things like beetle banks that we have, the more we shall enhance the preservation of species within our countryside. That is true also as regards the management of environmentally sensitive areas. It is extremely important that the two organisations work together closely from the two opposite ends of their responsibilities and in considering, for example, a common strategy for the use of set-aside land.
I cannot understand why the possible merger has been announced at this stage in advance of the creation of the environment agency, and while the future of the

1269
Forestry Commission is still in the balance. I understand that the report about the Forestry Commission is now with Ministers so that we can hope to see it soon.
We need a comprehensive and integrated strategy in relation to our countryside and the preservation of the species in it and as regards providing access and leisure pursuits for the public. A strategic approach to those problems cannot be achieved by the precipitate amalgamation of two such disparate bodies with their very different responsibilities. As my noble friend Lady Nicol, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others have said, if we feel that we should have a single strategic body, it is far better that it should be a new body with a new remit. It should include responsibilities for, for example, forests and for the far too weak Joint Nature Conservation Committee which at present does not appear to be able to carry out the remit under the 1990 reorganisation.
There is currently a queue of environmental legislation waiting for time in the parliamentary timetable; for example, the creation of the environment agency, and directives on hedgerows, habitats and species and common land. I ask the Minister in what order it is proposed that such legislation should come before Parliament. In order to have sensible discussion on those matters, we must realise that each of the measures is in some way dependent on another.
The future of English Nature and the Countryside Commission should be reviewed, together with the role of those other organisations and pieces of legislation, after the paving Bill establishing the environment agency has been published in the autumn. Now is not the time for a review or discussion about those important subjects.
3.44 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Marlesford for giving your Lordships' House, as many noble Lords have said, a timely opportunity to debate this matter. This afternoon's debate has provided the Government with advice and insights which will prove of significant help in considering the future of the Countryside Commission and English Nature.
I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be much relieved to know that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, believes that his heart is in the right place. However, I doubt that he will repent of the possibility of a merger.
The announcement made in another place at the end of January by my right honourable friend of a study into bringing together English Nature and the Countryside Commission can surely have come as a surprise to but a few. Our 1990 environment White Paper This Common Inheritance, in commenting on the creation of unified countryside and wildlife bodies for Scotland and Wales, made it clear that the position in England would be kept under review.
The Government noted at that time the force of some of the arguments for merger in England, particularly the closeness of the interrelationship between nature and countryside conservation; the need for common data
1270
and expertise; and the tendency for both bodies to concentrate their attention on similar issues. But, at the same time, we acknowledged the greater size and complexity of the English agencies and decided that it was not the right time to proceed with a merger.
A committee of your Lordships' House, under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, looked into such matters in 1990.I noted with interest its conclusions on the strength of the case for merging the agencies in England. I also noted with interest the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, on his evidence presented to that committee. He seemed to suggest that he had expressed himself unwisely. However, I believe that the points then made were apposite: they acknowledged the converging agenda with the then Nature Conservancy Council, but emphasised the vital need to respect the different traditions of the two bodies and the practical problems to be resolved if they were to be brought together. The Government fully accept that need; indeed, it is a telling point made by several speakers in today's debate.
However, I believe that those issues have moved on some way since our 1990 decision. My right honourable friend's announcement rightly stressed the importance of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The Government launched the UK's Sustainable Development Strategy and Biodiversity Action Plan on 25th January as a demonstration of our commitment to carry forward effectively the very wide responsibilities that we accepted at Rio. A central theme of those responsibilities is an all-embracing approach to our environmental policies. We must manage our natural resources in a way which takes account of all the demands imposed upon them, and makes the best choices not only for today but for coming generations.
Reconciling economic development and environmental protection is central to the principles of sustainability, as is the need to ensure that decisions throughout society are taken with proper regard to their environmental impact. Both the Countryside Commission and English Nature have recently issued their own statements on sustainability which illustrate the significance of those matters for the way in which their work is developing.
A convergence in the activities and approaches of the Countryside Commission and English Nature has been increasingly evident in recent years. Both are concerned with the importance of the wider countryside, rather than solely concentrating on those special areas for which they have responsibility. There are already a number of programmes in which both bodies are involved and many areas where they co-operate. No longer can the stereotype be sustained that nature conservation is the preserve of scientists wishing to deny the public access to their work, nor that recreation in the countryside is an entirely benign activity with no impact on the environment. Much has changed. There is a realisation that the benefits of nature conservation have to be demonstrated publicly and English Nature sees the educational approach as an important part of its

1271
role. The Countryside Commission meanwhile recognises the importance of conservation of species and habitats as an integral part of the landscape it seeks to nurture.
The Countryside Commission and English Nature represent two pioneering traditions in countryside and nature conservation going back over 40 years. Each has evolved and adapted to the challenges of five decades, but each has increasingly focused on the central issue of how threats to the natural heritage can be countered when the forces of economic development and growing prosperity seem so great. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding dedication and expertise which both bodies still so amply demonstrate today, and indeed, the dedication of those noble Lords here today who have also served on those bodies.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government have absolutely no intention of losing those qualities or seeing them watered down. Rather, we look to enhance the achievements of the two agencies through the mutual benefits of bringing together their individual traditions and experience. It is essential that we preserve the very best of both. Our premise, however, is that an increasing identity of purpose could be better delivered by a single organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, emphasised the vital need for a new body to rest on a tripod of key purposes: landscape, nature conservation, public access and enjoyment. I would entirely agree with that approach. The Government are not looking to lose or down play anything which is central to the remit of both bodies.
I particularly want to stress that the Government's mind is not made up. Whether to merge or not, not how, that is the question. That is the point that I want to make to my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I do not underestimate the potential difficulties of bringing together bodies which have forged their own identities, loyalties and methods of working over more than 40 years. Of course there will be problems to be surmounted if a merger does proceed, but we shall be keen to ensure that impetus is not lost from the real work of nature and countryside conservation.
I have recently visited both Peterborough and Cheltenham to meet council members and commissioners and I am only too aware of the understandable concern that has been expressed about this proposal. Some may believe that nature conservation interests could be diluted by a merger, others that it could lead to a submergence of the role of the Countryside Commission. We appreciate those concerns, but we strongly feel that they can be overcome. There is, for example, a significant difference in the number of staff in the two bodies. That point was made by many noble Lords this afternoon. But the divergence is not reflected in the grant in aid they receive. Nor does it recognise the different traditions of working which the two bodies have established. The suggestion that the interests of English Nature would dominate in any merger is over-simplistic. The study we are conducting is looking at all aspects of the remits of the two current bodies, and indeed beyond them.
1272
We are determined that any new body will not represent a simple bolting together—a point which was expressed very strongly by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver—but will be a new organisation in its own right with a forward looking remit, responsible for carrying forward all the responsibilities currently discharged by the Countryside Commission and English Nature which may be laid to it. The Government will naturally be concerned to see that any new body is led by a chairman and governing body capable of giving the leadership required in all aspects of the work. That was a point which was made with great care by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
Of course I am aware that by the nature of things there is bound to be concern for the future among the staffs of both sides. Indeed, nearly all noble Lords mentioned that this afternoon. My right honourable friend issued a statement when the announcement of the study was made confirming that resolving staffing concerns is a high priority for the study and promising a full opportunity for the staff to be consulted. That is already under way. Although detailed arrangements can only be made by those eventually charged with delivering the objectives of any new body, we have indicated that we will expect every effort to be made in the event of merger to employ the existing staff of English Nature and the Countryside Commission.
A number of your Lordships, including my noble friends Lord Peel, Lord Norrie, Lord Clanwilliam, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, have sought assurances on funding this afternoon. I am happy to give them that assurance, at least so far as concerns our intentions.
I also wish to stress that there is no secret cost-cutting agenda behind the exercise. This is a government proposal that is not driven by Her Majesty's Treasury. My noble friend Lord Swinton can take relief in that as also can my noble friend Lord Denham. The exercise is being carried out precisely because of the high priority that the Government attach to their environmental policies and the effectiveness with which those are delivered. Beyond that, as your Lordships will recognise, funding for the programmes of any new body must be subject to the same rules and procedures for public spending as are those of the two current bodies.
Some noble Lords have suggested that we should go wider and include within the scope of the study other bodies. I recognise the strength of those arguments but I do not believe that it would be sensible to widen substantially the remit of the body we are now considering. The Countryside Commission and English Nature have a core concern with the countryside and its natural heritage. We would nevertheless expect any new body to co-operate as fully as do the existing bodies with all those who share this concern.
The steering group which is undertaking the detailed work for the study is composed not only of officials from my department but also the chief executives and senior staff members from the Countryside Commission and English Nature. I am glad that both bodies have welcomed the study from the start, and are giving their full co-operation in the search for the right answers to our questions. The official level group is reporting to my

1273
right honourable friend through my right honourable friend the Minister for Environment and the Countryside who is keeping in close touch with the chairmen of English Nature and the Countryside Commission, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and Sir John Johnson. Every effort is therefore being maintained to accommodate the views of the two bodies as the study progresses.
The Government are keen to take all views into account in the study. My department has sent consultation packages to more than 600 organisations and individuals with an interest in environment and the countryside. We are also taking a special interest in what we can learn from experience in Scotland and Wales. I can say to my noble friend Lord Marlesford, that we intend to place responses to the consultation exercise in the Library of your Lordships' House; and in announcing any decision I would expect my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make full reference to the works of the steering group and its consultations.
I recognise that some may say that six months is too short a time to settle these matters. But we believe that we must also ensure that a period of uncertainty is kept to a minimum—a factor upon which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady David, will dwell. I wish to give an assurance that we shall seek to resolve these matters at the earliest opportunity.
My noble friend Lord Peel raised the question of access, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol, and Lady Hilton. But access to the countryside is one of the most popular forms of recreation. This Government have always acknowledged that importance. However, they have also emphasised the importance of managed access if conservation interests are to be protected. The two existing bodies have already signed an agreement on access. There must be at least a presumption that embodying that agreement in a unified body would make it even more effective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised the issue of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. We are already receiving a number of representations on the matter and will need to look carefully at the position of the JNCC in the context of any merged body.
My noble friend Lord Norrie quite rightly raised the question of volunteers and the contribution that they make to countryside work. Both the Countryside
1274
Commission and English Nature currently fund voluntary bodies and any merged body would need to continue and strengthen that relationship.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, emphasised the need to ensure that the views of the numerous non-governmental organisations with an interest are taken on board and we acknowledge their important role. Officials have already met representatives of Wildlife and Countryside Link, as the noble Lord indicated, to hear their preliminary views.
I think that this has been a most positive and constructive debate. Your Lordships have raised a number of important issues and I can guarantee that we shall take close account of all that has been said this afternoon. Indeed, we want to hear from all those who are stakeholders in the activities of the Countryside Commission and English Nature so that we can be sure to make the right decisions.
Many fears have been expressed about merging these two bodies. I can well understand them. But I want to conclude by emphasising the opportunities which the Government see in the merged body. This is not an exercise driven by the urge to save money, nor to lose any of the valuable heritage which both bodies can bring to a merger. Instead, we believe that it is the chance to go forward with a new body, combining the best of both its predecessors, but adding a new and forward-looking remit to take us into the next century.
Lord Moran: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether I am right in understanding from what he said that the report of the consultants who are looking into Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales will be published in due course?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is something we shall have to take into account nearer the time. However, if and when it happens, naturally I shall inform your Lordships and that will take place.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before I move to adjourn the House, I hope that I am not out of order if on behalf of us all I wish a very Happy Easter to all the people who work here and perhaps I may include in those good wishes all noble Lords. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at two minutes past four o'clock until Monday, 11th April next.