Lords Sitting of 2 February 1995

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Unemployment
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of long-term unemployed at the latest available date.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the latest available figures show that in October 1994 there were 956,475 claimants who had been unemployed for more than one year. That is a fall of 11 per cent. compared with 12 months earlier.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is it not incredible that after 16 years of Conservative government almost 1 million people have been out of work for more than 12 months? Indeed, many of those people have been out of work for more than two years. The number is three times that when the Government came into power. As long-term unemployment is a significant economic indicator, is it not obvious that the measures which the Government have in place are inadequate to meet a terrible problem?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that long-term unemployment—indeed, all unemployment—is a scourge. We wish to see it reduced. However, in the real world we must address the problem with the mechanisms that we believe will bring about that reduction. We believe that the appropriate way to tackle the problem of long-term unemployment is to introduce structural changes into the labour market; in particular, to introduce flexibility and to set up a system which encourages people to take on labour and to create jobs. We must parallel that general thrust and focus our efforts on helping the unemployed to try to gain work. During this financial year it is the target of the employment service to put more than 500,000 long-term unemployed people into work, and it is currently on target to do that.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does an increase in interest rates help the Government to meet their target?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is essential that inflation is kept under control in order to provide the necessary pre-condition for job creation. If, as part of the fight against inflation, it is necessary to put up interest rates by 0.5 per cent. that is a painful but nonetheless necessary step that we must take and have taken.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a recent study by Bristol University which shows that most unemployed people in older age groups are in the older industrial districts, which have suffered most as a result of manufacturing decline? Is it a
1582
fact that such individuals are least likely to benefit from the so-called flexibility of employment to which the Minister has drawn attention?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are aware of the problems to which the noble Baroness refers. However, it is relevant to note that the amount of long-term unemployment in this country is substantially less than the average throughout the European Union. It follows, therefore, that the measures that we are introducing address the problems.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, says that after 16 years of Conservative government the unemployment figure is terrible. Is it true that all Labour governments have ended up with unemployment higher than when they started? Is it also true that the unemployment figure is reducing by approximately 1,000 per day? Furthermore, what are the prospects for my own area of Cleveland, where unemployment has always been high?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is right; no Labour government have ever left office with unemployment at a level lower than when they took office. Unemployment is falling in all sectors right across the country and at a rate of 1,000 per day. The new Samsung developments are to take place in Cleveland, my noble friend's area. It is anticipated that they will directly provide 5,000 new jobs.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the real world of the unhappy unemployed is miserable? Are the Government prepared to consider that unemployment can differ from region to region and that possibly public works can be embarked upon that will be to everyone's advantage and will provide employment? Unemployed people would much prefer to earn wages and salaries rather than collect unemployment benefit.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we realise that unemployment has appalling human consequences. However, we do not believe that indiscriminate public works are the answer to the problem. They will merely postpone and subsequently exacerbate the problem we are trying to tackle.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will my noble friend hazard a guess as to the rate of unemployment if we joined up to the social chapter, on which the party opposite is so keen?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not in a position to quantify the increase. However, I can say without equivocation that we believe that the number of unemployed would be substantially higher.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the Minister says that every Labour government have left office with a higher rate of

1583
unemployment than when they started. Will he complement that answer by saying that that is also true of Conservative governments in the post-war period?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord has a greater knowledge than I of some aspects of the achievements of Conservative governments in the post-war period. I am not in a position to dispute his point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the country in western Europe with probably the most consistent record in this field—Switzerland—has the lowest level of government intervention in its economy and, indeed, probably the lowest level of government in western Europe?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not in a position to substantiate my noble friend's claim, but I have no doubt that he is right.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a question on the new jobseeker's application form asks, "What is the lowest amount for which you are prepared to work?"? Is that an essential part of the strategy of getting the unemployed back to work and what weight will be given to the answer?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as regards the changes proposed in the Jobseekers Bill, it is intended to focus on getting those out of work back into work. People must be reasonably available for work and an unwillingness to do anything other than that which is the most highly paid does not meet that test.

Turkey: Customs Union Negotiations
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will insist on the following pre-conditions for negotiations with Turkey concerning a customs union with the European Union:

(i) the release of imprisoned MPs;

(ii) full protection for journalists and active members of political parties against murder;

(iii) the ending of the torture of detainees;

(iv) permission for education and news media in the Kurdish language.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it would not be right to make such preconditions. However, the Turkish Government are well aware of the importance which we and our European partners attach to the improvement in human rights in Turkey. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is raising this issue with his Turkish counterpart today.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to hear what the noble Lord said about the Secretary of State. But do the Government agree that Turkey is in serious breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights? Furthermore, it has turned down offers of help from the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe with a view to
1584
improving human rights. Is it not time and most desirable that both the European Union and NATO should use the leverage available to them to secure those improvements?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is right to draw attention to human rights abuses in Turkey, which are of concern to the Government. Whether or not those are in breach of the convention is obviously a matter for the European Commission and the Court of Human Rights.
I understand that the OSCE parliamentary assembly has offered to send a mission to Turkey. We understand that the Turks wish to accept a mission and we support that. As a general proposition, the Government are concerned about the situation in Turkey. With the European Union, NATO and our European friends and allies, we are drawing our anxieties to the attention of the Turkish Government.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Foreign Secretary be taking up in the discussions with the Turks that he is holding today the destruction of more than 1,500 villages in Turkish Kurdistan and the forcible displacement of 2 million people from their homes by the Turkish armed forces in that region? Does not the Minister believe that the human rights commission, which is now beginning its deliberations in Geneva, should be invited to appoint a special rapporteur on Turkey who could investigate the connection between the war of the Turkish state against the Kurdish people and the assassinations, disappearances, unlawful detentions and persecution of every Kurdish activist in the country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are aware of the scale of the destruction and the terrorism that has been taking place in south-east Turkey. That is at the core of our anxieties about human rights abuse that is taking place in Turkey. We are anxious to put pressure on the Turkish Government, in particular to encourage those who are in favour of internal constitutional reforms in Turkey, which will bring about the kind of changes which we all desire to see. But as part of that process, we are most anxious to ensure that we do not push matters so far that those who hold those opinions lose their positions of power.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report on the 1,600 missing persons from Cyprus who were taken by the Turkish military authorities? In the discussions on human rights and the relationship between the EU and Turkey, will my right honourable friend raise that matter in order to secure a definite answer from the Turkish Government about the fate of those missing persons?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of those matters, but I shall have to write to the noble Baroness with a precise answer to her question.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is there not another obstacle to Turkey joining the ranks of, as it were, normal nations which is even more powerful than any that has yet been mentioned; that is, the continued occupation of Northern Cyprus against UN security resolution after resolution and against the opinion of the whole world? That is an occupation which is not recognised by any country.

1585
Should not the rectification of that injustice figure high on any list which is put to the Turkish Government by the Secretary of State?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that that matter is high on the Government's agenda. We are working hard to support the United Nations Secretary General's efforts to bring about a solution to the Cyprus problem. That is one of the matters which will, we hope, be raised today with the Turkish Foreign Minister.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State is seeing the Turkish Foreign Minister? Secondly, will he be applying his time and arguments specifically to the Kurds and the circumstances in which they are denied both the right to speak and use their own language? That restriction would be absolutely intolerable for a Welshman in the United Kingdom.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting the Turkish Foreign Minister today, together with representatives from the French, Italian and German Governments. They are discussing Turkey's relationship with the West. With regard to the use of the Kurdish language, Turkey's position is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. While the Turkish Government have not subscribed to that convention we urge them to do so. In turn, that would mean that the matters about which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, complains should come to an end.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what position the Government take on the Turkish Government's recent request for a substantial loan from the Council of Europe to build so-called collective villages for Kurdish refugees whose homes have been destroyed deliberately by the Turkish Army? In the circumstances, would it not be right to reject that cynical request? Will the Minister tell the House whether his right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be discussing that with the Turkish Foreign Minister today?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the request to which the noble Baroness refers has been made relatively recently to the social fund of the Council of Europe. I expect that my right honourable friend will be asking his Turkish counterpart for background information about that proposal so that he can decide on its merits.

Finance Bill: Schedule 17
3.17 p.m.
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider Schedule 17 to the Finance Bill, given that the new proposals contained in that schedule to levy taxation on the non-existent income on interest-free loans will have a considerable impact on the many charities which benefit from such loans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, as drafted at present that provision could impose a tax
1586
liability on a person who lends money to a charitable trust. I can announce, however, that my right honourable friends will be bringing forward an amendment at Committee stage in another place to take loans to charities outside the new charge.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's reply. I am glad that he has responded to the pressure which the Labour Party brought to bear in relation to the matter. Will he confirm also that Schedule 17, as currently drafted, would result in a parent who offers an interest-free loan to his children to purchase a house being taxed on the non-existent income? Is that part of the schedule also to be reconsidered?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can confirm that we are making the change announced. It was not as a result of pressure from the noble Lord or from the party opposite. I notice that he had about four attempts to get his Question right with the final draft of the Question appearing on the Order Paper only this morning. The noble Lord is wrong on the point he made. This applies only to loans to trusts and does not apply to a loan that someone makes to another individual, whether interest free or not.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I attempted to help the noble Lord by ensuring that he received counsel's briefing before the Question was tabled. I should have thought that he would have understood it and would therefore discover that Section 660C does indeed apply to loans between persons, such as loans from parents to children.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the advice I received from counsel, Mr. Robert Venables. I have read and studied it, as have legal advisers in the Treasury. I have the most enormous respect for such an eminent lawyer, but on that point he is wrong, as is the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, many happy returns of the day. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that he should be congratulated on the extremely sensible answer that he has given, which reflects great credit on the Government's financial administration.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. I shall certainly pass them on to my right honourable friends in the Treasury. I echo also the kind remarks my noble friend made as regards the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it hardly lies in his or the Government's mouth to criticise corrections to Questions that are tabled in the interests of the House as a whole? Would it not be better if the Government paid far closer attention to the accuracy of their replies and the information contained in them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, even Homer nods, as they say. The important thing is that we have got it right, or we intend to get it right by means of an amendment. Just as we got it wrong in making the

1587
error in advance, I was pointing out to the House that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, took three attempts to get his Question right.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his Answer? It is most important. Did the noble Lord actually say that if any noble Lord—or, indeed, anyone else—lent a sum of money to one of his children at zero interest, no tax would be payable? Can the Minister confirm in simple terms that the answer to the question is: no tax will be payable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no tax would be payable on notional interest in such a case. Schedule 17 deals with the case of loans, interest free or at a lower rate of interest than the commercial rate, to a trust and not to an individual.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, while we welcome the fact that charities are to be exempt, can the Minister indicate whether the increased tax that is intended in the schedule to the Finance Bill would apply to interest free loans made to organisations which are not charitable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the measure is not designed to increase tax. Our original thought was that it would probably have more or less no effect whatever; in fact, it might raise a certain amount of tax. It is merely to implement the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to simplify the income tax benefit to settlor rules. For tax purposes, those rules treat the income of trusts and other settlements as the settlors in certain circumstances.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would the Minister care to check the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Peston? If the sum of money loaned was a substantial one, would it still not be liable to tax of any kind?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am trying to make clear the fact that the notional interest would not be taxed under the provisions about which we are talking. They purely relate to transfers to trusts; they do not relate to transfers to individuals.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if I may say so, the Minister is being at his most peevish this afternoon in relation to the drafting of my noble friend's Question. Will the noble Lord confirm that the Clerk of the Parliaments has informed the Government that the reason that there were different drafts of the Question was that, unfortunately, the Clerks got it wrong when it was first tabled and it was thereafter put right?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can neither confirm nor deny that.
Lord Richard: Ask your Chief Whip!
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was in no way being peevish; indeed, I believe that I was having a bit of
1588
innocent fun at the expense of the noble Lord opposite. There is no need for the noble Lord to get on his high horse about it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, I am on my high horse because a little bit of fun is absolutely splendid if the facts upon which it is based are absolutely right. Will the Minister confirm the facts with his noble friend the Chief Whip who, I am told, knows the position, which is indeed as I have stated?
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am most grateful for the good wishes expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. However, will the noble Lord confirm another pernicious aspect of Schedule 17, namely, that settlements on non-existent income made prior to the passage of the legislation into law will attract taxation? In other words, taxation will be levied retrospectively on settlements made prior to the Bill being enacted. Is that not an unfortunate principle?
Lord Henley: My Lords, to suggest that it is retrospective is absolute nonsense. No one setting up a trust is entitled to expect that the income tax treatment of that trust will stay the same throughout its existence. Indeed, the noble Lord can ask any of his colleagues who have been Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chief Secretary, or whatever. They will confirm that that has always been the case.

The Post Office: Competitiveness
3.24 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to provide the Post Office with the necessary level of commercial freedom to meet increasing domestic and international competition.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, commercial freedom and proper constraint over the use of public money are not easily compatible objectives, but we are engaged in widening the opportunities for Post Office Counters and are helping to automate its services.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Nevertheless, will he agree that the Post Office is now in a somewhat anomalous position of having not only to pay profit tax like everyone else but also to hand over to the Treasury more than what is left in addition? In that situation, how can the Post Office have sufficient funds to invest in order to face up to the competition which everyone agrees it has both domestically and internationally? In that connection, will the Minister indicate what the Government are doing to give further consideration to the points for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office under public ownership as set out on page 15 of the Green Paper which was issued last June?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Post Office has always paid money to the Government. Indeed, the

1589
Post Office has invested £1.7 billion in real terms over the past five years; it has paid Her Majesty's Government £475 million in the past five years; and it made a profit of £98 million before tax in real terms during the same period. Post Office Counters is taking on extra business. For example, it is taking on aspects like travel insurance; people can now pay their gas bills over the counter; it is selling National Lottery tickets; and, indeed, one can even buy fishing licences. However, I agree with the noble Lord in that it is very difficult to get full commercial competitiveness and full commercial investment if one is constrained by being a public company.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, now that his Government's majority is growing daily more secure, does the noble Earl agree that he should advise the President of the Board of Trade to have another go at a proper privatisation and not continue to muck about with halfway houses which are unsatisfactory in every possible way?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government's majority is totally secure—
Lord Mellish: In this House.
Earl Ferrers: My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is not "mucking about", as the noble Lord put it so gracefully; indeed, he is quite determined. The preferred option is the one which my right honourable friend has always suggested and which he has gone for. However, if Parliament in its wisdom does not think that that is an appropriate result, we have to do the best that we can in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not the Minister perceive that there is something slightly contradictory in the Government's stance? For example, is it not a fact that they have said that it would be unfair to privatise because it would offer advantages to the Post Office over private competitors? But did not that argument occur to them when they wrote off literally billions of pounds when privatising a certain number of other industries? Did they not secure unfair advantages?
Further, as regards the answer that he has just given, does the Minister not realise that encouraging Post Office shops to engage in all those additional trading activities will surely provide some competition with the private sector? Even when it comes to the PFT, does not the Minister see that projects in which the Post Office might be involved would give it the sort of so-called "unfair competition" competitive advantage? Why are the Government immersed in such pure ideology when other governments are enabling their publicly-owned post offices to have precisely those advantages?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I observed the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench thinking like mad and I wondered what curious supplementary question he was going to ask. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the reason why the Post Office cannot receive the investment that it requires is due to the fact that
1590
it is still in the public domain. You cannot give to a public company the reward of not being able to go bankrupt but yet all the advantages of competition. That is the reason why we wish to see the Post Office privatised.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why was it put forward as an option in the Green Paper then?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, curiously enough there were three options and the preferred option was not one of those.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, in reference to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the competitive edge of the Post Office, is it not a fact that the Post Office has decided not to have any commemorative stamps, sets or first editions to commemorate the end of World War II? Surely that would not only be profitable and, with some market vision, useful to the Post Office, but also the nation would expect it. Can the noble Earl explain that to me?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Viscount would like to put down a Question about stamps, I should be delighted to answer it, but I think it is rather far removed from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is the noble Earl aware that Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and other Far Eastern countries, while retaining postal services under public ownership, have nevertheless enabled them to borrow money externally, to enter into partnerships and to operate commercially? If all those countries can do it, why cannot we find an answer to the problem?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, for the simple reason that the Treasury and the Government cannot be expected to give a commercial operation unlimited backing to prevent it from going bankrupt. That is not fair competition for those who have to compete with it without such security.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order 49, the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L,

Alexander of Tunis, E,

Dilhome, V,

Gisborough, L,

Hanworth, L,

Haskel, L,

Lloyd of Berwick, L,

Mallalieu, B,

1591

Meston, L,

Steyn, L,

Strabolgi, L,

Wigoder, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman; and
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 42,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 43 to 84,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 85 to 93,

Schedule 3, Clauses 94 to 96,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 97 to 100,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clause 101.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES in the Chair.]
Clause 58 [Purposes of National Parks]:
[Amendment No. 252A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Cranbrookmoved Amendment No. 252B:
Page 64, line 25, after ("wildlife") insert (", natural features").
The noble Earl said: We move this afternoon into Part III of this Bill dealing with the national parks. My amendment applies to Clause 58 which deals with the purposes of the national parks. As the Committee may know, I am chairman of the statutory nature conservation body for England and therefore the
1592
Committee would expect me to be interested to ensure that that body plays the fullest possible part that it can in future arrangements for the national parks.
In considering the purposes of the national parks under this Bill, the Committee will recall that the report of the National Parks Review Panel—known as the Edwards Report, after its chairman—recommended a redefinition of the first purpose of national parks as,
"to protect, maintain and enhance the scenic beauty, natural systems and the land forms, and the wildlife and cultural heritage of the area".
I have therefore welcomed in these restated purposes, as they appear in the Bill now, the special reference to wildlife. But this is not all that was recommended by the Edwards Committee. Moreover, I feel that reference to wildlife alone, without specific coverage of the geological and physiographical features—that is to say, the natural systems and land forms in Edwards' parlance—may mean that these are not clearly in the minds of some people, particularly those concerned with the future direction of the national parks.
I should remind the Committee that the nature conservation resource of England, in terms of SSSIs, comprises some 71 per cent. biological SSSIs—one could call them wildlife SSSIs—and 21 per cent. concerned with the earth sciences; and one could call them the natural systems and land form SSSIs. About 8 per cent. of our SSSIs are mixed. Overall, about 16 per cent. of the SSSIs lie within national parks, varying from almost 30 per cent. in Dartmoor down to 4 per cent. in the North York Moors at present.
The national parks are therefore very important in terms of the SSSIs that they contain. Some 16 per cent. of the total area of English SSSIs lie within the national parks, with the proportion of earth science SSSIs and biological SSSIs roughly as I have stated. In addition, in the earth sciences, there is a system which is well known and recognised by English Nature, known as the RIGS; that is, the regionally important geological sites. These are non-SSSI land form and natural features sites. In Exmoor there are 69 such sites and in the Lake District there are 81 such sites. I give those areas as two examples. Therefore, it is clear that in the future management of the national parks it will be important that these particular natural features and land forms will have to be considered. The significance of the natural feature resource in these parks is educational, for cultural and aesthetic purposes, and for other purposes which are not covered by the statutory position of SSSIs and therefore will lie clearly within the ambit of the parks and ought to be stated in purposes of the parks.
The kind of management decisions that will be needed are to protect these sites—both the statutory sites and the non-statutory sites—so as not to destroy or damage the natural features which have maintained their integrity and which are irreplaceable. Drumlins might be an example of that. They are the curious land forms that originate as a result of glacial activity. It will also be important, in terms of management, not to obscure features that have been exposed by human activities. Quite a number of these important sites can be in quarries or in pits and other exposures.

1593
It is important in park management that these sites should be enhanced in terms of the first purpose, so as to enable the educational, cultural and aesthetic objectives to be realised. This, again, is a function of park management and is not within the SSSI process. My amendment therefore proposes that the wording in Clause 58(1) (a) should state:
"conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife, natural features and cultural heritage".
I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook very warmly. In some national parks there are, for example, limestone outcrops of great interest where there would be a temptation to indulge in quarrying. We have to be careful that we do not disturb the natural features in such circumstances. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will be able to give a favourable reply.
Viscount Ullswater: I am grateful to my noble friend for informing the Committee of the background to his amendment. However, I hope to persuade him that it will not be necessary.
The Bill fulfils our central commitment to establish independent authorities for the 10 national parks in England and Wales. It also updates park purposes which will enable the new authorities to take a more integrated approach to the management of their areas. Those measures will enable the national park authorities more effectively to protect the qualities for which the national parks have been designated.
However, the qualities of the parks are comprised of so many elements that to attempt to enshrine them all in legislation could result in an inordinately long list of properties. However, I can assure my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that we regard the characteristic natural features of the parks as an integral part of their natural beauty, for which they have been designated as special areas. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I am rather suspicious of the amendment. One has to remember, particularly in relation to quarrying, that not only do people go to look at a national park but people want to work there. I believe that there is an expression that poverty is no better because it comes thatched. There are many aspects such as quarries which need to be opened up in order to bring employment, and that should not be prevented by a total ban.
The Earl of Cranbrook: In answer to the noble Lord who has just spoken, quarrying can proceed very effectively under the right controls, even on special sites.
In terms of the answer given by my noble friend the Minister, the issue is whether there is a clear public understanding that natural features, as I defined them—and I hope that I explained their importance—are included in "natural beauty". They are an important and scientific element of what needs to be managed and enhanced as a nature conservation resource.
1594
I hope that my noble friend will come forward at some stage with a form of words which will separate and clearly identify the natural features as I defined them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Norriemoved Amendment No. 253:
Page 64, line 28, leave out ("understanding and enjoyment") and insert ("quiet enjoyment and understanding").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 253 I have the full support of the 45 environmental and amenity organisations which make up the Council for National Parks, the national park authorities, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and many other environmental bodies.
National parks cover 10 per cent. of the land area of England and Wales. As was apparent during the passage of my Private Member's Bill, their value to the nation is recognised across all political parties. They are not and never have been a party political issue. They are part of the national heritage of us all and are therefore worthy of the right legislative package based on the recommendations of the widely respected National Parks Review Panel.
First, I wish to make it clear beyond doubt that Clause 58 and my amendment to it are concerned with the kind of recreation which the national parks have a statutory agreement to promote. My amendment does not set out to give national parks a purpose to ban any particular recreational activity. The debate is about promoting, not banning.
Secondly, I wish to emphasise that both the clause and the amendment are concerned with enjoyment and recreation. They do not impinge upon farming, forestry, quarrying and other land management operations. Having clarified those points I shall explain what my amendment seeks to achieve and why it is necessary.
When the recreational purpose of national parks was originally drafted in 1949 it was intended that the parks would promote quiet pursuits. At that stage no one could envisage the growth in noisy and intrusive motorised recreational activities. No Minister imagined the emergence of the jet ski or the towed inflatable crocodile on to the waters of our parks.
The attitude at the time when the national parks were created is set out in the Dower Report, which stated:
"Those who come to National Parks should be such as to wish to … take their recreation, active or passive, in ways that do not impair the beauty or quietude, nor spoil the enjoyment of them by others".

1595
In 1990 the National Parks Review Panel, whose recommendations enjoy a wide level of support inside and outside Parliament, recommended new legislation to clarify the 1949 wording, which was "to promote public enjoyment". The report said:
"We see National Parks as places for quiet enjoyment. Walking and sightseeing are still the most popular activities, but more organised or active forms of recreation are on the increase. Many activities are to be welcomed, but not all will be consistent with National Park purposes".
In response to the panel's report the Government made a clear commitment to introduce legislation which would:
"refer expressly to quiet enjoyment and understanding".
Clause 58 as presently drafted fails to live up to that promise. The amendment fulfils the promise, no more, no less. The Bill gives the national parks a duty to promote all kinds of enjoyment by the public of the parks' special qualities. It is not sufficiently precise on the type of activities which national parks should promote. Those include opportunities for spiritual refreshment and renewal, activities which do not intrude on the quiet enjoyment of others, and those that depend on muscle power, not motor power.
Clause 59 does not offer a framework for dealing with the incompatibilities between various recreational pursuits. It deals only with the conflict between conservation and recreation and not the conflict between different types of recreation.
By making it clear that national parks should be involved in promoting quiet enjoyment, the amendment sets the correct framework. It would not remove either rights of way or rights of navigation for motorised vehicles and craft. I respect such rights. However, it provides a clear context for management in circumstances where conflict between recreations may arise. Such potential conflicts should, as now, be decided on a case-by-case basis through well-established consultative and accountable procedures such as the use of by-laws, traffic regulation orders or development and management policies where appropriate.
Is "quiet" the appropriate word? It is the word which has been used in the national park context since at least 1945. The question has been asked whether that word can be used in national park legislation because "quiet enjoyment of property" is used in landlord and tenant legislation. I have been given legal advice that it is not at all unusual for phrases or words to have various meanings in the context of different legislation. "Quiet enjoyment" can be given a meaning in this Bill just as the phrase "natural beauty", which at first appears difficult to define, has an acquired meaning in national park and countryside legislation. Indeed, the draftsman has deemed it appropriate to use it in this Bill.
While speaking of definitions, I wish to make it abundantly clear that there is no intention that a statutory purpose to promote quiet enjoyment should adversely affect traditional field sports. That is certainly
1596
not my intention in moving the amendment. I look to the Government to provide a definition of quiet enjoyment which gives that assurance.
Can all those matters be left to the circular guidance? I am advised not. Guidance could not establish such a fundamental principle if it is not set out in the legislation. I suggest that the draft guidance runs into many difficulties in explaining enjoyment of special qualities precisely because the framework provided by the legislation is inadequate. There are, therefore, many problems for guidance on the subject of enjoyment. I believe that my noble friend Lord Addison proposes to address the point.
The intention underlying Amendment No. 253 is to provide an adequate framework. I am sure that the Government are as anxious as I am not to see national parks involved in promoting activities which damage the enjoyment of the majority of the many visitors to the parks as well as potentially damaging the parks themselves. The present drafting leaves open that possibility.
Making it clear that the national parks have a statutory purpose to promote "quiet enjoyment and understanding" will be immensely popular. My postbag supports that. In this way, the special qualities of national parks can be retained for all to enjoy in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the noble Lord's Amendment No. 253. As I said at Second Reading, "quiet enjoyment" was a proposal from the Edwards Report, Fit for the future. The noble Lord referred to it. Whatever the Committee may think about the title of the report, nevertheless it was the report of a panel of distinguished members under the chairmanship of Professor Edwards which reported to the Countryside Commission, for forwarding to the Government.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to the first purpose. The second purpose included a recommendation that national park authorities should continue to play a role in promoting quiet enjoyment, not merely facilitating it. The Government accepted that recommendation of the Edwards Panel. They stated that they would produce legislation in the course of time to meet it. As the noble Viscount knows, I always like to help the Government. Therefore the amendment is designed to assist the Government to meet their own commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred to the drafting of the amendment. Since I have been privileged to be a spokesman for the Opposition Front Bench I have always taken the view that it is not the job of the Opposition, or Back Benchers in this Chamber, to draft amendments which could fit into a Bill without criticism. What we seek to establish here is a principle; and I emphasise that it is a principle.
There are several possibilities. The Government could accept the principle. Indeed, they are committed to the principle that national park authorities should be enjoined to promote quiet enjoyment. If the Government, as I hope they will, accept that principle, the noble Viscount may say, "We accept the principle.

1597
We cannot accept the drafting because of complications, but we shall bring back some provision from the Government at the next stage of the Bill".
There is this second possibility. The Government may say, "We do not accept the principle. We have changed our mind and we advise the Committee not to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie". From that derives two further possibilities: first, that the Committee accepts the opinion of the Government, in which case the matter is left where it is until the next stage; or, secondly, that the Committee accepts the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, despite the advice of the Government.
I understand that there is an established principle of jurisprudence in landlord and tenant legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has taken advice. I agree with him that that is not necessarily relevant to the discussion that the Committee is having today. Nevertheless, if the Committee, under my third hypothesis, rejects the advice of government—if it is the advice of government to reject the amendment—and passes it, the situation is then up to the Government. The Committee having given an opinion, all I can say is that, if the Government agree that they will not reverse that opinion in another place, I give the commitment of my party to join with the Government to seek to develop some formula and jurisprudence which are appropriate and which may fit in with the legislation. I have no particular difficulty provided that the principle is accepted.
It is the principle that we discuss today in Committee. I very much hope that Members of the Committee will have listened carefully to the points that the noble Lord put forward. I shall not reiterate them because I agree with them all. I hope that if Members of the Committee have to make up their minds on the point, they will bear in mind that a distinguished panel made that recommendation, that the Government accepted the recommendation and that the Government accepted that they would bring forward legislation to implement the recommendation of the Edwards Panel on quiet enjoyment. I do not care about the wording. Whatever the wording, I should like the Committee to accept the principle and we can talk about the wording afterwards.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: I support the amendment. A spiritual issue is involved. That is why I intervene in the debate. The issue is not spiritual in a narrow sense, but in the fullest sense of humans being both body, mind and spirit. There is need for that wholesomeness to be supported. Many people live in so much quietness that their one desire is to go away on holiday and have noise. There are some who live in noise and cannot do without it. But many people—young people and others—are forced into the noise, bustle and stress of human life at all levels of society, not just in the business world of the City. They long for peace and quiet. Not everyone can disappear to a remote island in the Pacific. My ideal of a holiday is to get away from everyone and not to have to speak to anyone apart from my wife. But that is simply because I deal with people all the time. There are others who want the opposite.
1598
There are increasing numbers of places where one can achieve noise, excitement, loudness and music. But there are not many places left where one can be quiet; and that quietness is a very real need of the human spirit. Whoever we are—we do not have to believe in God—we need that quietness, that aspect of wholesomeness as human beings.
How do we protect those places? We have so many people pouring into national parks; and that is wonderful. Many people go from my diocese. I am thankful to live where I do within easy reach of Snowdonia, the Lake District and, even better, the Peak District—it is undiscovered by southerners, and we do not want southerners to discover it because that will spoil it! There are wonderful places to which we can go, even today, just to be quiet, stand in the midst of it all and drink it in. That part of the human spirit has often been very productive; think of Judeo-Christian history and what happened to Abraham, to Moses, right the way down through history, to people in the quiet. Our Lord Himself kept retreating to the quiet. Those are places of productivity for the human spirit.
I wish to plead for support for the amendment. It is important that we preserve the national parks from those who wish to fill them with noise and banging, and so on. Let us fight for the national parks to be places where the human spirit can be restored and maintained. It was, I believe, the historian George Macaulay Trevelyan who presented the case for national parks in 1938. He said that they should be,
"walking grounds and regions where young and old can enjoy the sight of unspoiled nature … it is not a question of physical exercise only, it is also a question of spiritual exercise and enjoyment. It is a question of spiritual values".
That was the case for the national parks. It is still the case for the national parks and the amendment helps that case to be fulfilled.
4 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: The amendment is extremely seductive, particularly in the way in which it has been supported. However, in practice it would prohibit a wide range of activities in the national parks, some of which are essential and some of which are popular—for example, forestry. It would also probably prohibit clay pigeon shooting, which makes a lot of noise but in a small area.
The other danger about the amendment is that by stopping people making a noise—like the rather unpleasant habits of motorcycling, the riding of trail bikes and model aircraft flying—and not giving them space, they take their own and operate everywhere. Such activities are much better confined to spoiling small areas rather than large ones. The amendment would work towards stopping that and therefore do more harm than good. The law on nuisance already gives adequate redress against excessive noise and therefore the amendment is neither desirable nor necessary; and it could be dangerous.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I had not intended to speak on the amendment because there are others on which I wish to speak later. However, I have been a little provoked by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. I

1599
hardly need to repeat it, but all my life I have lived in and around Snowdonia, which is my main home. I have done so as a matter of choice and was lucky to do so. I am therefore able to speak from both sides in the debate. Having to work in London and Cardiff, as well as other capitals when I can reach them, I am always able to return to Snowdonia, which I value. I value it because of the environment there as well as the culture which the local population has maintained over the centuries.
I can say on behalf of the residents of Snowdonia—and I cannot speak for all the other parts—that we would warmly welcome a commitment to the "quiet enjoyment" set out in the amendment in some form, as suggested by the Opposition. I emphasise that those of us who live and work in the park do so from choice. Activities such as forestry, the driving of tractors by farmers and motorcycles, where necessary, by young farmers, are all natural activities within the environment of the park.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, mentioned model aircraft. Good heavens! When I lived outside Dolgellau, I was continually buzzed by the RAF. That is hardly quiet enjoyment. I wish that the Government would look at the activities of the Ministry of Defence in national parks. Only recently in the Caernarfon area on the fringe of the Snowdonia National Park, I was again overflown by the RAF. Clearly they have caught up with me, I cannot disappear anywhere without the RAF dive-bombing me.
It is a serious point that if we are talking about quiet enjoyment of the parks it means the opportunity for people who live and work there to continue their normal lives and open their doors—as we always have done—to other people who share their objectives. However, there are certain objectives that we do not wish to share.
Today the Welsh Office sent out a note on the issue to local authorities, the national parks and the transitional committees in Wales. It states that while the Government accept,
"that there may be places within the national parks where certain activities are inappropriate, the Government does not accept that, as a matter of principle, particular activities should be excluded from the parks".
I believe that certain activities should be excluded from the parks and that the incessant use of the parks for low-flying practice is one such activity. Others like the motorboats, jet-skis and noisy forms of water sports should be excluded from national parks. I have on a number of occasions campaigned to try to achieve that. Therefore, to have "quiet enjoyment" or its equivalent placed in the legislation would strengthen the position of the park authorities, the boards and the authorities in the future and would also be welcomed by the local population within the parks. They wish to carry out their normal economic activity in the quiet and normal way in which we carry out our activities in the national parks.
The Earl of Onslow: There was recently a group of bell-ringers who were accused of making too much noise and were prevented from ringing the bells. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Elton for that point, he has just reminded me that I pinched it from him, but it is too good not to be used.
1600
It is fair to say that we are talking about motorcycles going cross-country through the national parks with a lot of noise, model aeroplanes and high-speed boats. I suspect that none of your Lordships carry out any of those activities. Their attraction is to the young. We must be extremely careful in saying that the young should not have those relatively harmless sports. It is perfectly fair to suggest that they should be rationed, controlled and not allowed everywhere, but we must strike a balance.
If we insert the words "quiet enjoyment", I do not believe that that will enable us to strike a balance. Surely there is a little bit of Lake Bala or Lake Windermere where someone can play on a water-ski without disturbing everyone.
Lord Elis-Thomas: No.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe that there is. Surely there is a small part somewhere where people may be allowed to go cross-country.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Will the noble Lord accept that what he is talking about has nothing at all to do with the amendment? The amendment has nothing to do with forbidding anything.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not accept that at all, because it is exactly what we are talking about: promoting quiet enjoyment. Of course that is right, but what we must not do is to exclude some activities, from bell-ringing to motorcycling, which in a small way should be allowed, provided they do not impinge on others. I plead for tolerance from middle age and old age to youth.
Lord Moran: I support the amendment which has been comprehensively and capably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The amendment is quite right. Its purpose was defined clearly by the Edwards Committee when it said that:
"Noisy and intrusive recreational activities should be permitted only on sites where they cause no undue annoyance to other park users and no lasting environmental damage to the fabric of the park itself'.
I believe that that is right. The committee defined "noisy and intrusive activities" as,
"motorcycle scrambling, … four-wheel drive vehicles away from highways … trail bikes, powerboats and microlight aircraft".
I am sorry that the Sports Council should have seen fit to oppose the amendment. I take very much the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that young people must be able to pursue these noisy activities, but they should pursue them in the right place. I have long suggested to the Sports Council that, for example, it ought to buy some hills which are not of conservation importance and arrange for motorcycle scrambling to take place there rather than scattered throughout the national parks and other parts of the countryside which are precious, and particularly so at present. That is where they should turn their energies.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I hope that the Government will examine the amendment and if necessary amend the drafting. One point concerns me. I realise that the amendment is not supposed to affect

1601
traditional country sports. I fear, however, that if accepted as it stands, it would be interpreted by some national park authorities as giving them the green light to stop, let us say, hunting and shooting, which undoubtedly make a noise. That would be a great pity. Perhaps the government lawyers and the parliamentary draftsman should be invited to see whether the principle of quiet enjoyment, which is very important, can be preserved while avoiding the risk to traditional country sports.
Lord Milverton: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. There is a place for the principle behind the amendment. As previous speakers have said, if the Government cannot accept it, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams suggested, I hope that they will say, "Yes, we will look to see how we can improve it." As the right reverend Prelate said, there is an important need for people to have a place where they can go to enjoy quiet, spiritual refreshment and not be disturbed by excessive noise. Whatever some people may say, there are many who appreciate the fact that they can enjoy the beauty of nature and creation and find refreshment, not just physically and mentally, but spiritually too. There is a place for the amendment. I do not believe that we are being unkind to those who want to go roaring about on motorbikes and the like. If anything, often those people need to give a bit of thought to others.
Lord Dubs: I support the amendment and the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Those of us who enjoy the national parks—I very much enjoy the Lake District—are frequently afflicted by low-flying aircraft which fly beneath us in the valleys. They hunt in pairs and make an incredible amount of noise. I appreciate the enormous skill of the pilots but I have mixed feelings about whether it is admiration of their skill or annoyance at the noise which influences me most. Frankly, after a day of walking on the fells and being "attacked" repeatedly by low-flying aircraft one wishes that they would stop. I appreciate that the pilots have to learn somewhere. I do not suggest that they should be banned from these areas altogether. I wish, however, that the frequency of flights could be moderated. It does not have to happen all day, on week days, day after day. Any noble Lords who walk in the Lake District in August will be aware of what I am talking about. Can the Government reduce the activities of low-flying aircraft? If the amendment is passed, perhaps the Crown will be bound by it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: I do not think that there is any question that it is desirable—the Committee is agreed that it is desirable—that one should be able to get deep peace and quiet in the national parks. Two questions arise. The first is: should that peace and quiet be available throughout the national parks to the exclusion of any other activity, or should other activities be compressed or restrained within particular areas? I am very much in sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Gisborough said, and also with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I still call him my noble friend in spite of his
1602
self-declared theft of my lines. The second question is whether the amendment as tabled would have the effect that the Committee wishes in achieving either of those aims.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that we should discount the effects of the drafting. I accept that government are better at drafting than are Members. One must look at the drafting as an indication of what is intended; one must listen to the mover. Both my noble friend Lord Norrie and, in an intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose name is to the amendment but who has not yet spoken to it, have emphasised that the amendment would not ban anything. Yet most of the debate has been about banning low-flying aircraft, chain-saws and motor-boats. There is a confusion somewhere; the Committee is discussing something that does not appear on the Marshalled List. Therefore there must be a defect, either in what is described or in the actual effect of the amendment.
I suggest that we need not only to listen to what is intended by the amendment, but also to what could be achieved by it as it stands. It strikes in a paragraph of the Bill and affects what the authorities can promote. It changes the order of the words and it adds the word "quiet", which is so attractive and seductive. Either that involves prohibiting noisy enjoyment or it has no effect. Therefore the answer to my first question is that it is right that noisy activities should, where possible, be restrained within particular areas. The answer to my second question is that the amendment would not have that effect.
Lord Gisborough: I return to the matter of low-flying aircraft. I hope that the Government will not succumb to the argument that they should not fly over national parks. None of us likes the noise caused by low-flying aircraft although I must say that it is quite fun to take part in that activity oneself. It is a shattering noise. But, if we want an efficient air force, we have to accept it. The alternative is to have them fly over populated areas. I wonder how many people would prefer that.
Lord Ackner: I had been anticipating that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would raise this point and would do much better than I could. It seems to me that the amendment will require the definition of what is meant by "quiet" in relation to the word "enjoyment". One achieves nothing by having "quiet" on its own. In fact, one achieves a possible complication because it is a term of art in landlord and tenant work, as it is in vendor and purchaser work. "Quiet enjoyment" is a reference by implication. It is implied in all those relationships that there is an obligation—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I am not sure whether he was here when I supported the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in his moving the amendment. I addressed myself to the point of the drafting. I accepted that there was a problem with the expression "quiet enjoyment" in the context of landlord and tenant legislation. The point I was making—I hope that the noble and learned Lord was

1603
here and understood it—was that we are asking the Government to accept a principle. The drafting can come later.
Lord Ackner: Indeed, I was here from the very outset of the debate. I would not have dreamt of intervening if that had not been the case. So I both heard and, I believe, understood what the noble Lord said. I made a note of his three points. It is on his first point that I seek to address the Committee; namely, that one should seek to establish the principle. I submit that you do not establish any principle until you define what you mean by "quiet". The landlord and tenant aspect is important because it is a term of art which relates only to physical interference. It has no acoustic connotation at all. There has to be a physical interference. Most students, for obvious reasons, can recollect the case of the landlord who, after letting property, built a staircase, either intentionally or unintentionally, which passed the bedroom window of the tenant. That was held not to be a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment because it did not involve a physical interference. Is the principle to be that there is an obligation to make no noise, or only the noise which would be the subject matter of a successful action in nuisance—in which case one does not need the clause? Or is it to be specific activities—in which case I submit that the specific activities ought to be defined and stated, so that one knows exactly what one is dealing with?
Having listened carefully to the debate, I believe that the principle in question is essentially: Do you prohibit specific activities because their noise, where they destroy quiet, is so intrusive and unacceptable that it should be specified and prescribed?
Lord Renton: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for intervening. He saved me from inflicting upon the Committee a legal opinion on the matter. Perhaps I may just add a postscript to what he said. If in one statute words are used which have previously been used in a statute, those words are considered to have the same meaning as they had in the previous statute, unless the latest statute makes it clear that they have a different meaning.
Therefore, it would be most inappropriate to use the words "quiet enjoyment" without any kind of qualification. One should bear in mind that those words—I hope that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will be able to confirm it—have not been used in any previous legislation with the purpose of protecting the public at large from activities of other members of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, says, "Don't worry about the words; let's just go for the principle". But we are only at the Committee stage in the first of the two Houses of Parliament which will have to consider with great care this lengthy and detailed Bill. I should have thought that at this Committee stage, leaving aside the detail, and bearing in mind the amazing consensus that there has been so far on both sides of the Chamber, we should let the Government have our views as to the practicalities of the matter.
1604
As I have dared to say that, perhaps I may now make a confession. Some years ago—I must say that it was 30 years ago—I went water skiing on Windermere. I do not know whether it is still allowed. But I enjoyed it very much, just as I have enjoyed water skiing elsewhere. Water skiing does not create the disturbance that some very noisy motor boats do. It does not create anything like the disturbance that some horrible motor cycles do; and, if I may dare add another sort of noise which I think should be put into the minds of the Government (I hope that all Members of the Committee will agree) there are some terrible pop concerts. We cannot stop them being held in some places; but I hope that they will not be held in national parks.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie. I would not dream of tangling with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, other than to say that I thought his description of his problem with the words "quiet enjoyment" was wholly conclusive. I found myself persuaded.
We are faced with the general objective of trying to achieve a regime of what might be called people being able to enjoy peace and quiet in the national parks. But there is a difficulty in finding language to encourage that without making it impossible for other, perfectly legitimate pursuits to be followed in ways that do not intrude unreasonably on the enjoyment of that quiet by others. That is what we are after.
It may be that my noble friend's amendment does not achieve that aim. But certainly I would welcome some indication from my noble friend on the Front Bench that he sympathises with that general objective.
I should like to put to him two specific points. Some Members of the Committee may remember a debate a year or two ago on a proposal to implement an agreement about rights of way that had been reached between, on the one hand, the Ramblers' Association and, on the other side, the NFU and the Country Landowners' Association. There had been a long effort of conciliation between the two, chaired by a Member of another place (I believe that it was Mr. Alan Haselhurst) and an agreement was reached in the end which could be couched in regulations—or it may have been in a Private Member's Bill. I should have looked the matter up and I apologise to the Committee for not having done so.
On that occasion I remember thoroughly supporting the objective and said that the next matter to which I hoped the same process could be applied was finding a reconciliation between people who want to do noisy things in quiet places and those who do not. I particularly mentioned activities such as motorcycles and moto-cross and I may have mentioned micro-lights. When my noble friend comes to reply, I wonder whether he can shed any light on whether there has been any follow-up of what at the time seemed to me and to some other Members of this Chamber to have been a very valuable initiative.
My second point is a practical point. It is a question. A number of Members referred to the disturbance which may be caused in the course of military training.

1605
Reference was made to low-flying aircraft. The military have access to substantial areas of national parks. For some time the Government have had a report, which they commissioned and which was prepared by the United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development (UKCEED). The noble Lord, Lord Barber and I are both on the council of that body. If there is an interest to declare, I declare it. I can assure the Committee that it is not financial.
That report was prepared for UKCEED by an extremely able environmentalist, Dr. Susan Owens of Cambridge University. It was an immensely thorough examination of the use of defence lands, particularly in national parks. It seems to me—I may be wrong—that that report has disappeared without trace. I understand that it was delivered to the departments concerned and I wonder whether something of it could possibly be resurrected. Not necessarily this afternoon, but at some stage, perhaps we could have from the Government an indication as to how far they are prepared to respond to the recommendations in that report.
Those seem to me to be practical steps which might be taken to achieve my noble friend's objective of reconciling the different uses. At the heart of it, which is what we want to see—I was enormously impressed by the observations of the right reverend Prelate on this matter—is the spiritual element. There is a spiritual element in all this. People go to the countryside for recreation. What, in fact, does that word "recreation" mean? People go to the countryside to recharge their batteries, as it were, not just physically and mentally but also spiritually. I feel that that is what the Committee is grasping for.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some comfort and not, as it were, just slam the door on this issue. We are looking for something here. Perhaps we have not defined carefully enough what it is and perhaps those words are not right; but that is what we are after. I hope that my noble friend will be able to help us.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley: We should listen with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said. We are after some sort of lead from the Government that somehow they will incorporate the spirit of the amendment into the legislation. I am sure also that we shall want to take note of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton said.
I put my name to the amendment in my capacity as chairman of the National Trust. After all, many of our members go to the national parks for just what we have been talking about, and the National Trust has huge land holdings in all the national parks. Around 100 million visits are made to the parks every year and it is vital that the legislation makes clear the recreational opportunities that the parks offer. Many visitors go to the parks to sit down and simply enjoy themselves. Three-quarters of the visitors are active and go for walks. The rest follow a wide range of sports on land,
1606
water and even in the air, of which the quietest is now what is called "para-penting"—something I would like to have done in my day.
The Edwards Panel said,
"the prime resource is still the landscape, with enjoyment derived from looking at the splendours of the scenery from the roads, paths and rivers".
What the overwhelming majority of visitors have in common—here I follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon—is that they often come from urban areas to visit the parks for spiritual refreshment, renewal and relaxation. They expect the parks to afford them opportunities for "quiet enjoyment", however we incorporate it into the legislation; after all, that was the original purpose of the designation. Those opportunities would be diminished for the overwhelming majority of visitors if the parks were about promoting opportunities for enjoyment of any kind of activity. It may be that we shall need to define them; I do not know. But we are trying to find a consensus somehow to incorporate the spirit of quietness into the legislation.
Noisy activities are increasing in the parks. Legislation must set up an enduring, logical, statutory framework that will stand the test of time, especially when it comes to changes in recreational technology—"recreational technology" sounds awful—which we cannot foresee today. The Government must take a long view. They must set the parks, with their new authorities, on the course of promoting enjoyment and understanding that will not interfere with the original intentions of those who worked so hard to set them up in the first place. I agree that ministerial guidance is not enough and we must have something in legislation.
Lord Marlesford: National parks have been with us for just under half a century and much has changed in that time. The Edwards Committee identified some of the changes and some of the problems that flowed from them. One of the problems that it identified was the increasing noise. It was to deal with that problem that it made its recommendation which the Government accepted and used in their 1992 response when they undertook to introduce legislation to refer expressly to "quiet enjoyment and understanding".
Of course I accept from the noble and learned Lord and others that the wording of the amendment is inappropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, those of us who support the intention behind the amendment are in no sense wedded to the wording. But we must have something in the new statute which deals with this new and increasing problem. It is a major problem which, if left unchecked and undealt with, could greatly damage that which the national parks have contributed and should increasingly contribute to the welfare of the people of this country and indeed of visitors from overseas who use the national parks.
All I ask my noble friend the Minister is to say that the Government are sympathetic to the intention; that they will introduce some wording on Report which will be more appropriate to fulfil that intention. It would only

1607
be if such an undertaking did not come from my noble friend that I would feel inclined to try at least to get this inadequate wording into the Bill at the appropriate stage.
Lord Greenway: We have been up in the sky—if one can call low-flying aircraft "up in the sky". We have been above the clouds in my noble and learned friend's discourse on the word "quiet". But perhaps I may bring the Committee back down to sea level. In view of my interest in the Bill to date, it would be strange if I did not say something on behalf of the boating interests, because certain forms of noisy boating have been referred to—though in a lifetime's experience of boating I have yet to come across a "towed inflated crocodile". Perhaps that is a pleasure which awaits me in later life.
It goes without saying that the boating interests—I include all of them, not just the powerboaters—are extremely worried by the amendment. The concept of promoting "quiet enjoyment" appears at first to be uncontroversial. But if it is included in the legislation, there is a fear that it may be interpreted in a way that goes far beyond what was intended. Perhaps I might give the Committee one or two examples.
At the recent Windermere public inquiry, which has already been mentioned, the promoters of the 10 miles an hour speed limit, which was intended to ban water-skiing, powerboat racing and powerboat record attempts, canvassed in the greatest detail and at great length the concept of "quiet enjoyment" as a reason for prohibiting those activities. In fact in the end it was all that was left of their case once they had failed to justify their allegations of wash, noise and conflict due to powerboats. To pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, those activities, by and large, take place in a fairly small area and in the case of Windermere, the national park there is extremely large.
My second example relates to certain bodies that are campaigning to urge the Government that in the context of "quiet enjoyment" all motorised water-based recreational activities are inappropriate in national parks and new activities of that kind should not be allowed; by inference, and as demonstrated at Windermere, existing use should also be terminated. That would effectively remove powered craft from all national parks. There is little doubt that the CNP would then seek to achieve the same clearances from other areas such as the Norfolk Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty and the heritage coastal areas. Arising out of that, if the activities were to be banned, would be a backlash in relation to jobs. For example, if powerboating was banned in the Windermere area, certain interests estimate that up to 400 local jobs may be lost; and even the national parks council thought that 160 jobs would be lost.
Finally, the term "quiet enjoyment" is capable of redefinition to cover activities and levels of noise that no reasonable person could consider noisy. A recent discussion document by the Countryside Council for Wales states,
"(under some circumstances) dinghy racing"—
I repeat "dinghy racing"—
1608
"will intrude to an unacceptable degree upon wildlife and the quiet enjoyment of the seaside by the public".
If an apparently responsible body such as the CCW is led to characterise dinghy racing as a noisy watersport, virtually every active form of recreation could be similarly described. Those things sound terrific alarm bells among the boating fraternity, and the Government should be extremely cautious when dealing with the amendment. I am firmly opposed to it and I hope that the Government will look at it most carefully.
Noble Lords: Minister!
Viscount Ullswater: I am in the hands of the Committee, as always. It may be proper that I should say a few words at this time. It would not prevent other Members of the Committee from joining in the debate after I sit down.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Norrie and the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Chorley, who spoke to the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who asked me whether the Government had carefully looked at the words in the Edwards Report, that we looked very carefully at the proposed wording for the second purpose and the arguments put forward in support of it before arriving at the form of words which appears in Clause 58(1) of the Bill.
We indicated in the summary of action proposed in our 1992 policy statement on the future of the national parks that the second national park purpose should refer to "quiet enjoyment". However, the statement also recognised that the parks should provide a wide range of experiences for the visitor and that there are activities which are in conflict with the concept of quiet enjoyment. It also made clear that co-operation is the best means of encouraging sensitive uses of the parks while recognising that those experiences which are unique to them—and which are largely related to the quiet enjoyment of these areas—should be protected and fostered. So, while our policy statement reflected the importance of the term "quiet enjoyment", it also recognised that the issue was not as clear-cut as might at first glance be supposed. Since then, we have also found that there are difficulties in using that specific term, which a number of noble Lords acknowledged when we debated the issue at Second Reading and have identified this afternoon.
I sympathise with those noble Lords who fear that the enjoyment of the parks' special qualities by the many may be put at risk by the recreational pursuits of the few. The Government are also as opposed as any here to intrusions into the parks which may result from the insensitive and inappropriate use of the countryside. However, I am uneasy as to the possible consequences of this amendment. Do those who desire the addition of this adjective do so according to its common English usage? I am far from clear that they do. If they see only a narrow application, how is it to be so limited?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, identified some of the problems of using the word "quiet" without some form of qualification. The riding of motorbikes or driving of vehicles over open country or on footpaths is already illegal. So perhaps the noble Lords desire to ban the riding of motorbikes anywhere in the parks,

1609
including on public roads. Or do they wish it extended to other "noisy" but more traditional sports? Or perhaps agricultural and forestry operations are to be silenced. Of course, the noble Lords who promote the amendment deny such wide-ranging intent, but I share the fear of my noble friend Lord Gisborough and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that by their amendment they run the risk of hitting too many inadvertent targets.
My noble friend Lord Elton shares my concern about the alternative view that the effect of the amendment would be to leave the park authorities free to choose to promote "quiet" activities but to do so without detriment to other, by implication "noisy", activities. I am not convinced that that interpretation of the amendment will be shared by all or will be practically useful to the national park authorities.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the wish—I would agree with the intention of my noble friend Lord Norrie—for the second national park purpose to reflect the value of the parks as providing places where we can get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that we need spaces in our lives to get away from such hustle and bustle. The Government entirely share that expectation. Our draft circular, which I have placed in the Library of the House and which is available in the Printed Paper Office, emphasises that the special qualities of the parks are to be determined within the context of their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, with particular emphasis on opportunities for savouring the wide open spaces and the wilderness and the tranquillity which are to be found in the parks, particularly in the more remote or less heavily visited areas.
However, we do not, as a matter of principle, accept that particular recreational activities should be automatically excluded from every part of every park. Many of the people who visit the parks reasonably expect to use the opportunities they offer to undertake a wide range of recreational pursuits. Bowness and Castleton are as much a part of the parks as the wild and remote places that we cherish. In formulating policies, the national park authorities must work towards striking a balance between the legitimate demand to use all the opportunities the parks afford for open-air recreation and those who wish to enjoy only their beauty and tranquillity.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, tried to say that this is a matter of principle. I do not necessarily agree with him that it is a matter of principle. In most instances, it should be possible, by encouraging co-operation and through careful planning and positive management, to accommodate both those who wish to enjoy and appreciate the parks as quiet places and those who wish to use the opportunities they afford for more active pursuits. Nevertheless, we accept that some recreational activities for which a place will be sought in the parks could cause unacceptable damage or disturbance to their natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage, which in turn may also affect other people's understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities. For that reason, while we believe that every effort should be made to find a solution through negotiation and mediation—and
1610
perhaps even tolerance, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said—in those exceptional cases where that proves impossible, we now propose to place in statute the principle that the first purpose—of conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage—must take precedence.
I believe that this approach will prove far more effective than any blanket ban, which will be difficult to enforce and impossible to define. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie: I am very conscious that we have been debating the amendment for more than an hour and I am grateful to the Committee for listening for such a long period of time. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Chorley, for their assistance and support. What we are all concerned with is the kind of recreational opportunities which the national parks are there to promote. I stress that the clause and amendment are concerned with recreation and not other activities such as forestry and military training. We put it to the Committee that it would be inviting disaster in days of increasing technological forms of enjoyment to leave open the definition of "enjoyment". The problem exists now and the pressures can only increase. Therefore, it is essential to put "quiet enjoyment" on the face of the Bill and we look to the guidance to expand its implementation.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for the opportunities which he has given me to discuss this issue with him and for his reply today, but I am not persuaded that the expression "special qualities" indicates sufficiently clearly what type of recreations national parks should have the purpose of promoting. The guidance only aggravates matters by suggesting that any type of recreation should be promoted in popular parts of the parks. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made clear, it is the principle of quiet enjoyment that we wish to establish with this amendment. I agree wholeheartedly with him. We wish to provide a talisman to guide those involved in promoting enjoyment of the parks.
It is my firm belief, based on sound advice, that "quiet enjoyment" acquires a legal meaning in the context of national parks and the countryside. In the light of support from all sides of the Committee for the amendment—
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend concludes, I wonder whether he will allow me to intervene. I can well understand anyone wanting to establish a principle. However, I would ask him to bear in mind that we will be amending a Bill. Surely it is a bad way to establish a Bill to amend it in such a way, as has been shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to be wrong

1611
in law. If we are going to establish a principle by some innocent amendment, by all means let us do so, but not by one which gives rise to a patent legal difficulty.
Lord Norrie: It is a question of principle. I feel that we have between now and the time when the Bill goes down to another place to get this right. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 253) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskel, L.

Addington, L.

Healey, L.

Addison, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Hollick, L.

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hooson, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Avebury, L.

Hunt, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Bath, M.

Jacques, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Bridges, L.

Kennet, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kintore, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Chester, Bp.

Mallalieu, B.

Chorley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Methuen, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milverton, L.

Denham, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond, L.

Moran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Dubs, L.

Munster, E.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nelson, E.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ezra, L.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Northbourne, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Foot, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rankeillour, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

[Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

1612

Sandford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Seear, B.

Tope, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Serota, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shannon, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walpole, L.

Stallard, L.

White, B.

Stedman, B.

Wigoder, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tenby, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ackner, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ailsa, M.

Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Leigh, L.

Annaly, L.

Lindsay, E.

Astor, V.

Liverpool, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lytton, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Burnham, L.

Chancellor.]

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cadman, L.

May, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mills, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dement, L.

Peel, E.

Digby, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pike, B.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Feversham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gage, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Gray, L.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harlech, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmsworth, L

Swinfen, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgame, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vinson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Inchyra, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, B.

Jenkin of Roiling, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
Earl Peelmoved Amendment No. 254:
Page 64, line 30, at end insert ("; and
(c) of promoting the economic and social well-being of local communities within those areas.").
The noble Earl said: Although Amendment No. 260 is grouped with this amendment, I am intending to speak only to Amendment No. 254 and not Amendment No. 260 at this stage. I begin by saying how much I welcome in Clause 59 of the Bill the fact that a National Park authority,
"shall have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park".
However, from my experience of having lived and managed land in a park for the past 25 years and taking into account the two purposes of the national parks—that is to say,
"conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage",
and promoting opportunities for public enjoyment—I do not consider that simply to "have regard to" in this matter goes far enough.
I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and frustration among many people living and working within the national parks who feel that their interests are at times ignored and often sacrificed unnecessarily for other interests. There is a feeling that the local presence is not accepted as being as important as that of the visitors who come to the park and then leave and whose contribution to the very heart and soul of the national parks is comparatively negligible. Those who form part of the national park communities are undoubtedly an essential ingredient of what the parks are all about. I believe that their interests should be treated on a basis that is at least equal to the way in which we treat the interests of those who visit the parks. Having said that, it is right that all interests in the park should adhere to what has become known as the "Sandford principle" —that is, to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of those areas, as specifically mentioned in the Bill. Given the right incentives, who better to do that than those who live and work in those areas?
I am sure that Members of the Committee are aware—although I suspect that many are not—that by far and away the majority of land in the national parks in England and Wales is privately owned. The national parks in this country are not similar to those in the United States. Therefore, it is essential that the local communities who live and work in the parks have confidence in the authority. It is a partnership—and a partnership clearly has to work both ways.
Under the Bill, the park authorities have considerable new powers, including new planning powers and the powers, subject to instruction from the Secretary of State, to produce a structure plan. Those powers are bound to have a considerable bearing on local interests
1614
and economic well-being. It therefore seems essential that the local communities should have every right to be treated equally with those other interests which the park authorities exist to promote.
I know that it is argued that there are other agencies and, indeed, government departments already promoting local interests. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does a lot of work on the farming side through various incentive schemes which undoubtedly help the local farming community. That is in addition to the subsidies which many farmers receive. There is also the Rural Development Commission which is under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, who has asked me to apologise for the fact that he is not able to be present in Committee today. He has told me that he very much supports the amendment.
I believe that it can be argued equally that there are agencies and government departments promoting the interests of conservation and public enjoyment. On the conservation front, there is English Nature, with its new obligations towards the habitat directive, as well as the existing SSSIs and the grants that are available. There are also the environmentally sensitive areas—the ESAs—which, with MAFF, have done so much to enhance the well-being of local habitats and, indeed, to support the local community and farmers. On the public enjoyment front, there are the Countryside Commission and the tourist boards. Where do we draw the line? To say that one particular aspect of national park duties is promoted by various different agencies and that another is not is simply not the case. They are all supported in different ways.
Of course, it is right to give the public an opportunity to share the beauty of the parks. Of course, it is essential that the beauty of the parks is conserved for everyone. But I believe that the third leg of the stool is equally important—I refer to the well-being and the skills of the local community. I also appreciate that many feel that the resources that are available to the national parks are simply not sufficient to enable them to carry out that duty. But it could also be argued that the money that is available to the national parks does not go very far as regards conservation issues and that other agencies have promoted conservation to a far greater extent than the national parks. So it is not just a simple question of resources. It is a question of attitude of mind as much as anything else. It is a matter of giving the local people confidence that the national parks are looking after their interests as much as other interests. I believe that the national parks must both think local and act local, and I believe that my amendment would achieve that. I beg to move.
Lord Derwent: I have an amendment in this grouping, Amendment No. 255ZB, which does not go as far as the amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel in that it does not seek to add a third purpose for the parks. I have total sympathy with the thinking behind my noble friend's amendment. Indeed, if that amendment is accepted by the Committee, there will be no need for mine, and I would support my noble friend.

1615
However, I have some anxieties about Amendment No. 254. The national parks do not have the budgets, the staff or the expertise to enable them to take on the responsibility for,
"promoting the economic and social well-being of local communities".
The responsibility to achieve that lies firmly with central and local government. Being suspicious, I fear that if local councils are encouraged to believe that the responsibility lies with the park authorities, they will tend to ignore their own responsibilities and will pass the buck to the parks, which in turn will have neither the cash nor the resources to do the job.
On the other hand, I think that the parks' obligation as expressed in Clause 59(1), which reads:
"A National Park authority, in pursuing … the purposes … shall have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities",
is too weak. It means little more than that the park authorities should try, if possible, not to damage the interests of the local communities. I think most park authorities would like to be free to be more helpful than that. That is why I have chosen the word "foster" which implies that the park authorities should try to be helpful to the communities in pursuing their two primary purposes. I too have been approached by the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, who said that in the event of the Committee not accepting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel, he and the Rural Development Commission would be in favour of what I think is a compromise suggestion.
I accept that the intention behind my amendment is covered in the draft guidance which the Minister has been good enough to have ready for today's debate. Paragraph 9 refers to the parks working with and for their local communities. That is excellent, but at present the Bill does not go as far as the guidance. I think it should.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The two amendments in the group which stand in my name enable us to look further at the opportunity of co-ordinating the various purposes of national parks by adding the purpose of having regard to the social and economic well-being of the local population and placing that as a clear objective, but within the context of sustainable development. The second amendment adds the sustainable development concept to the present wording in the Bill, which refers to having regard to the social and economic well-being.
We have agreed to place upon the environment agency generally the obligation of operating within the terms of sustainable development. Yet, when we look at this section of Part III, there is no reference to that. Many Members of the Committee believe that the concept of sustainable development is not itself a sustainable concept. However, as regards the objectives of national park policy, it is the most appropriate concept that we could find.
It could be argued that the original 1949 legislation always placed contradictory purposes upon the national park authorities and the national park populations in that there was the obligation to conservation and the
1616
obligation to recreation or amenity, and those could be seen to be conflicting. It can be argued—and no doubt it will be argued by the Government—that the placing of a third obligation in the purposes adds to that conflict. But if all the objectives are viewed within the overall framework of a policy of sustainable development it can all hang together; all can become coherent purposes.
If we cannot apply sustainable development as a philosophy and a practice in national parks where can we apply it? I believe that the Government should set out clearly what is the interrelation between the economic objectives and the conservation objectives. That is not clear in the Welsh Office draft letter or in the draft circular for England. I shall not go into the reasons why Wales has a draft letter and England has a draft circular, but that appears to be the case. In my view, the Government should state in the letter and in the circular: "Within national parks, here is the area for us to develop the philosophy and practice of sustainable development".
We have the issues of habitat conservation, the conservation of flora and fauna, landscape conservation and the maintenance of cultural heritage. We also have the need to maintain the stability of the local population by creating and maintaining employment. Without those there is not a sustainable population in agriculture, tourism, forestry, other extractive activities, the service industries, the public sector and administration. There is not a population which can sustain the level of activity required to enable national parks to meet the objectives of conservation and recreation.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will look seriously at introducing the concept on the face of the Bill. Having had one defeat today, I suspect that he will not accede to any of the amendments. However, will he look at the matter again in the context of the draft circular and the draft letter? That is all I ask him to do today. The development agencies operating within the parks—in the case of Snowdonia it is the Development Board for Rural Wales and the WDA—the local authorities operating the various EC leader and other programmes that are part of the present economic support structure within the parks will then be seen to be working together with the park authority with the same objectives.
I know that the Minister will say that Clause 59 places an obligation on the other public agencies to carry out or to have regard to national park functions. However, I should like to see the national parks becoming the lead agencies for promoting sustainable development within their areas. They should bring together the possibilities of environmentally friendly tourism, the need for habitat conservation and the need for that level of economic job creation which maintains the local population.
I shall conclude by citing an example that applies to my former parliamentary constituency. At the soon-to-be decommissioned nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd in the heart of the Snowdonia National Park we have experienced the loss of 600 jobs of people directly employed in the power station. That is a case, if ever there was one, where all the public authorities should be co-operating but within national park objectives. None of us who is concerned about the

1617
long-term economic future of that area would argue for another power station. We would argue for a sustainable longer-term cycle of employment. That can be achieved by ensuring integration between the activities of the park and the economic development agencies.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Vinson: I support the principle behind both amendments. I must declare that for 10 years I was chairman of the Rural Development Commission and I live in a national park. The amendments are important because the day-to-day life of the national park must go on and the national park officers must live, mix and work with the local residents. If the Bill is framed so that the whole emphasis is to give recreation and pleasure to outcomers, and if it does not sufficiently emphasise the livelihoods and importance of those who live within the parks, a tension will be developed between the national park officers and the local village and farm people. The introduction into the Bill of a stronger element—that it is the wish and desire of the national park authority to promote or to foster, which is a good word, the livelihoods of people who live and work in the park—would do immense good. The whole operation of the park administration would work better and good will would be created. Through that will be created the kind of atmosphere that effuses into the area of the park and makes the enjoyment of those who come for whatever purposes doubly so.
I hope that the Government will not dismiss the essential purpose behind the two amendments. I hope that they will consider taking them away and building at least the word "foster" into the aims and purposes of the new national park authority. In that way they will clearly illustrate that they have at heart the good will and livelihoods of those who work there.
Lord Redesdale: I speak mainly in support of Amendment No. 254ZA, in particular in respect of the word "communities". I live within Northumberland National Park, which does not appear to receive many of the benefits of tourism that go to other national parks. However, there appear to be many restrictions on living within the national park.
The communities have a responsibility to uphold the objectives of the national parks and it is important that they should not feel totally constrained by the rules applying to the national parks. It is a little harsh to be seen to be living in a form of rural museum. I support Amendment No. 254ZA in particular because it includes the phrase "sustainable development". It is possible sympathetically to develop economic interests in national parks. However, grants should be available for such activities. Those available to national parks, in particular in Northumbria, are small.
We must look at the economic and social well-being of communities. Living near the Otterburn training area, I have noticed that a large amount of ill will is shown towards the national park. Indeed, it culminated in a petition to remove the national park from the training area because it was considered that it was not interested in the major area of employment. That caused a great deal of hostility towards the national park. Those living
1618
within the national parks believe that they are for the enjoyment of other people, which increases the restraints. I thoroughly support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: It is interesting that national parks are in areas which nobody previously wanted to develop. They have not been ruined like Surrey, Middlesex or Liverpool. National parks are basically wild places. They are wild because there has been no great possibility of enormous economic development in them.
People say rightly that national parks are special. They can be kept viable only by a combination of grants, subsidies and so on. There are hill grants for farmers and grants for rebuilding the walls on the Crimea Pass. That is quite right. Therefore, we are looking at the need to preserve a great wild garden in England for the benefit of everybody. It seems important that, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, they should not be preserved as museums. We must try to encourage rural crafts—stonemasons and so on—and small businesses in which perhaps only one or two jobs are created. That will cause more traffic problems but surely we want more than mere museums supported by grants from the agricultural community. We must do something. How it is to be done I do not know. I believe that the word "foster" goes some way towards achieving what is needed.
Baroness Nicol: I do not dissent from anything said about the need to keep healthy communities in national parks. I am sure that my noble friends who support some of the amendments share that view. Where I disagree with the amendments is in relation to the attempt to make them part of the purposes of national parks. National parks were designated because of their natural beauty and their potential for outdoor recreation. But the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggests that the promotion of social and economic well-being was part of the reason for selecting the areas in the first place. That is not the case.
The purposes are different from the role of the national parks authorities; we shall deal with that in our discussions on Clause 59. All those Members of the Committee who say that they wish to see the development of the economic strength of communities will find an opportunity to achieve that in Clause 59. I feel the same about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. To try to include sustainable development in the purposes of the national parks will blur the issue and will make their task more difficult.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that changing the words "socio-economic duty" to "foster" is not acceptable. I consider that the Government have got it right on this occasion. It is not the role of national park authorities to double up on the work carried out by other agencies. It would cause resentment and confusion if they tried to do so.
The word "foster" puts the park authorities in the role of lead agencies. That is not their duty. The words "have regard to" reflect accurately the intention that they should work in partnership with others. I strongly support the view of the noble Earl that partnership is an

1619
important word. The national park authorities must, and I am sure will, work in partnership with local communities. For those reasons, I do not support any of the amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support the amendment. If the social well-being of the local community is not a major plank in the clause, in the end there will be no national parks. I do not agree with the noble Baroness. There will then be no purpose for them at all. I am afraid that we are not getting on very well in relation to this Bill. I hope that my noble friend, even if he does not accept the detail of the amendment, will accept the principle and the importance of the local community.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I am troubled not by the sentiments underlying the amendments, with which I agree wholeheartedly, regarding the need to look to matters of sustainable development and the need to look to economic and social matters. I am concerned about the blurring of responsibility which may occur for the best of reasons. As the noble Baroness said, there are other agencies, which include local authorities. I fear that it would make the carrying out of the duties of other agencies more difficult if those authorities were to take over some of their powers.
Lord Norrie: I have a problem as regards accepting Amendments Nos. 254, 260 and 254ZA. Giving the national parks a third purpose was a question which the National Parks Review Panel looked at in detail. It did not gain the panel's support. While recognising,
"the economic and social well-being of the park community is important for the effective conservation and enjoyment of the parks",
it did not conclude that the parks should therefore have a third socio-economic purpose. In their response to the National Parks Review Panel, the Government did not agree either.
Conservation and the promotion of quiet enjoyment are the purposes of designation and I mean by that the reasons why the national parks were set up in the first place. The socio-economic duty is part of the role of national parks authorities. The Bill clearly defines a distinction between the national parks' purposes and the socio-economic duty. I believe that Amendment No. 255A clarifies the fact that that duty should be carried out in ways which are compatible with or further those purposes. I believe the Bill has got it absolutely right. If national parks were designated with a socio-economic purpose, they would no longer be unique and the national parks authorities would be doubling up, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, on the work done by bodies like the Rural Development Commission, the Welsh Development Agency and local authorities. Therefore, the Bill strikes the right relationship between national park purposes and the socio-economic duty.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Norrie knows that I share his enthusiasm for national parks. However, I ask him and other noble Lords to bear in mind that if we wish national parks to be well preserved that will need the co-operation of the people who live in them
1620
and who have to make their living in them. They do not wish their opportunities to be frozen. As several of my noble friends said, there must be encouragement of rural crafts. I go further. There must be encouragement of rural industries, especially those that are ancillary to agriculture, forestry—we cannot prevent sawmills and should not wish to do so—horticulture and packing stations for horticulture, which are increasing. They need not be vast affairs: we must not discourage them.
Fisheries require industrial and ancillary development sometimes but not on a large scale. I would be very much opposed to cement factories or power stations other than hydro-electric power stations coming into national parks. As hydro-electricity develops, and I hope it may develop further, national parks are a natural place for such power stations which are not intrusive. Having said that, I am totally against the use of the words "sustainable development". It is much too wide an expression. I agree with those noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Norrie, who are worried lest sustainable development becomes an excuse for changing our national parks adversely.
I owe an apology to my noble friend Lord Peel. I said that I wanted to support his amendment; in principle, I do. I gather that it is really a probing amendment. The difficulty I have is that it seems to overlap with the terms of new Section 11A which it is proposed to add to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The main aims are set out in that section. In those circumstances, I am not sure that we also need to have them stated earlier in the Bill in the way suggested by my noble friend. However, as I am referring to the re-enacting with the amendment to Section 11 of the 1949 Act, I should say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Derwent in that I believe that his word "foster" would be appropriate.
However, we must be careful with such matters. We do not wish national parks either to lose their character through overdevelopment, whether it is housing, factories or whatever, or to fail in their purpose by depriving local people of the opportunity of living a normal life.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: I should like to express my support for Amendment No. 254 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I supported the noble Earl previously when we dealt with the matter in the context of the National Parks Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I feel no less strongly about it now. As has been mentioned, if economic purposes are not relevant to the conduct of national park infrastructure in terms of its socio-economics, it is very unlikely that the necessary new investment will be made or properly channelled.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, referred to the lack of resources available to national parks to take on a further function of the nature proposed. My experience is that there is very little in the way of resources even for things like access provision or the management of areas designated by national park authorities under Section 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, both of which affect me as a farmer on Exmoor. We need to reach a point where we have an integrated

1621
approach to recreation, conservation and socio-economics. That is why I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that we need the third leg of this particular stool, without which the whole thing risks falling over.
Under the Bill's proposals, national park authorities will have extensive new powers. It is possible that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, overlooked the economic importance of the use of planning powers. I see that she is shaking her head, so obviously she has considered the point. However, if one authority has planning powers but it is for another authority that does not have those powers to promote the social and economic well-being, there is a discontinuity between the two functions. My concern is that that does not lead us to an integrated approach.
During the proceedings on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, with which we dealt last year in this Chamber, I was particularly heartened—as I am sure was the noble Earl, Lord Peel—by the Minister's response. He used words along the lines that, of course, national parks would have to have regard to social and economic well-being. It seems to me that we have before us the opportunity to put such a provision in the Bill. If we are talking about all-purpose national park authorities but one of the essential bits is missing, it seems to me that we shall not achieve what is needed by way of the Bill.
If there is a defect in the amendment moved by the noble Earl it is that of similarity with new Section 11A under Clause 59 of the Bill which refers to the,
"social well-being of local communities within the National Park".
I believe that Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968— I am speaking from memory—refers to the social and economic well-being of rural areas. I am especially concerned that we get back to that concept of areas. I hesitate to speculate, but if we attach too much importance to communities, it may well be in the Exmoor context that the community of Dulverton or Exford is more important than that of Brendon simply because of the number of houses. What about the community of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, at Lillycombe Farm where his agricultural operation is carried out? It employs a number of people, both directly and indirectly.
Finally, I have noted in the past that my own national park authority at Exmoor has stated on the face of its consultation draft local plan that economic progress, economic development and economic responsibilities are not part of its purpose. It then goes on deal with a whole raft of considerations which make it clear that it feels that it is no part of that planning process. I am very worried about that. If the Minister does not accept the amendment moved by the noble Earl, I should like some reassurance from him that such important matters will be taken into account. In the meantime, as I said, I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: I basically agree most with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who said that she thought the Government had more or less got the matter right. I believe that economic development and well-being are absolutely crucial to national parks. It is a question of
1622
how they should be achieved. I am not wholly happy that that has always been achieved. Perhaps I may take two broad examples of where it has been very successfully achieved. When the national park officer was Mr. Michael Dower, the Peak District National Park did achieve some remarkably good economical development which was wholly undamaging to the purposes of the park. Moreover, Dartmoor National Park, when under the administration of Mr. Ian Mercer, also worked very well. However, there have been other parks—perhaps including those which my noble friend Lord Peel has experience of—where the latter has not been wholly true.
I do not favour the amendment moved by my noble friend because I believe that it would take away certain abilities. The key of the success in the Peak District and in Dartmoor was the ability of the national park officer, supported and guided by his committee or whatever, to work with the other organisations such as the Rural Development Commission, tourist boards and so on. That is probably the right way to do it. But if I had to choose between the two, I would actually prefer the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Derwent. I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel would go much too far, in that it proposes putting in such a provision as a fundamental leg in the stool for the national parks to depend upon.
Viscount Ullswater: I fully agree with the view expressed by many noble Lords, especially by my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Renton, that the well-being of local communities is vital for the continued success of the national parks as living, working landscapes. I believe that that underlies the thrust of Amendments Nos. 254 and 260 (although my noble friend did not speak to the latter) tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel.
The duty that we have introduced in Clause 59 with respect to the economic and social needs of local communities underlines the importance which we attach to the issue. My noble friend is trying to put the provision in as a purpose of the park. However, as I have indicated, we believe that the duty should be in Clause 59. That duty will ensure that the new authorities will have to take into account the economic and social well-being of their local communities as they carry out their functions and duties in pursuit of park purposes. I believe that that is the correct balance between the purposes and the duties of the new authorities in respect of the economic and social well being of local communities.
Further, the new duty will ensure that the park authorities have to be seen to be taáking those responsibilities seriously. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked whether Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 will apply to national park authorities. I am advised that it does so.
Amendments Nos. 254ZA and 255B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, raise the issue of sustainable development. I do not think there is any question either about the Government's full hearted commitment to sustainable development as the cornerstone of our policies to reconcile the needs of

1623
economic development with those of environmental protection. The sustainable development strategy we published last January set out in detail the Government's plans and programmes to respond to the principles of the Rio Earth Summit. The lengthy debates during the first two day of Committee on the contribution the environment agency is to make to achieving sustainable development reaffirm this commitment. Sustainable development is an important issue not just for the parks but also for the rest of the countryside. The national parks are in a strong position to influence the way in which we care for our countryside and I have no doubt they will continue to be models for the sustainable management of the wider countryside and help to further our understanding and appreciation of the means by which development and conservation can be better balanced.
Lord Renton: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I have been trying to follow him. Is he saying that the general policy of sustainable development shall apply also in the national park, or that the national parks are a modification of it?
Viscount Ullswater: I am indicating that, in the way that national parks undertake their duties for their purposes, they will be having regard to sustainable development. It is important, I think, to go back to the first words that I used; that we fully agree that the well-being of the local communities is vital. It is in order to ensure the well-being of local communities that it is important to consider sustainable development.
I understand, of course, the thoughts behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Derwent, echoed by my noble friend Lord Vinson, but we do not believe that national park authorities should themselves assume the role of promoting economic and social development. Amendment No. 255ZB does not help a great deal in this respect. The Oxford Dictionary defines "to foster"
as,
"to promote the growth or development of".
I appreciate my noble friend's wish to seek a slightly more active role for the new authorities, but there are already agencies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, which are properly charged with the specific task of promoting economic and social development in rural areas. There is the Rural Development Commission in England. My noble friend Lord Vinson was its distinguished chairman for many years. There is the Welsh Development Agency and the Rural Development Board for Wales. The national park authorities will be expected to work in the closest co-operation with them. This is made clear in the draft circular which we issued on 31st January.
Among these amendments is Amendment No. 254A, in my name, which is of a minor and technical nature. The purpose of this amendment is to secure that the reference to the national park purposes in Section 6(4) (g) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is construed in accordance with Clause 58(4) of the Bill. I shall move that amendment in due course.
1624
I would therefore ask my noble friend to consider very carefully what I have said, and I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend sits down, I hope he can answer a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who I felt said that, unless this provision was in this particular part of the Bill, the planning authority would not be able to take account of the matters raised by my noble friend. I do not know whether I interpreted the noble Earl right.
Viscount Ullswater: The national park authorities will of course be involved in all forms of strategic planning. They will be one of the authorities which will be taken into account when strategic plans are put forward to my right honourable friend. Therefore they will have devolved upon them many of the duties that other authorities have.
Lord Derwent: Before my noble friend sits down, it would help me greatly in deciding in due course what to do with my amendment if he would tell me what he considers "shall have regard to" means. Two national park officers have told me that they are quite unclear what it means. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and I think the Minister, have said that it means national park authorities have to work closely in co-operation with others. I think that is quite an exaggerated definition of the words "have regard to". While I am not necessarily wedded to the word "foster", one park officer said to me he thought it meant no more than that they should not work against the local communities. As my noble friend has been kind enough to give me one definition from the Oxford Dictionary, it would be helpful to have the definition of the term that is in the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: That may be rather more difficult. However, the term is used because it is a widely used term in legislation. Therefore it is the proper term to use in legislation. I have indicated that I believe my noble friend's term is wrong because it has the connotation of promotion. I sought to explain that I did not believe that the park authorities should have that duty. I felt there were other authorities —commissions, or whatever they are—who would have that duty. But they would need to keep in mind the concept of the economic and social well-being of the local communities when they are promoting the purposes in Clause 58.
Lord Vinson: Before my noble friend sits down, it may not be possible for him now to clarify the point, but there is real concern that, unless it is built more strongly into this Bill that there should be regard to foster, let us say, sustainable employment within the national parks, then the new national park authorities will effectively block, or could effectively block, all, even modest, forms of sensible development by saying that it is not really their duty and that their overriding consideration, if there is any conflict—as we read later on in the Bill—is to give,
"greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty".

1625
The instructions are so contradictory that we want a clear indication from the Minister—if not now, certainly subsequently at Report stage of the Bill—that they will not (unless the Bill is modified) have the power to block sensible, job enhancing and job sustaining activity.
Viscount Ullswater: I think perhaps the best thing I can do to answer my noble friend is to quote from the draft guidance which has been issued, which states, as regards the national parks:
"The qualities for which they have been designated are as much the product of man's hand as of nature. It is in the interests of the conservation of those qualities that the National Park authorities have a duty to work with and for their local communities".
These will be instructions to the national park authorities. I believe that that encapsulates what we mean by the promotion of the social and economic well-being of the local communities.
Lord Vinson: I am sorry to press this point, but is a local farmer a community? It could be easily argued that he is not and that a community is a local village or a greater habitation. Therefore the park authorities could ignore the very proper and often perfectly correct application that he might make because they say they have a wider remit only to look at communities in the generality and not as regards individuals when it is a matter of farming families.
Viscount Ullswater: I am not sure that I should prolong this conversation with my noble friend but I believe that the farmer that he mentions has just as much of a role to play as regards the quality of the landscape in a national park. It would be important that the national park authorities should understand that.
Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions on this amendment. My noble friend Lord Onslow described how the parks were formed and said they were designated because they were wild places unlike, he said, Liverpool. He has obviously never been to the Kop on a Saturday night when Manchester United are playing.
My noble friend Lord Derwent, when speaking to his amendment, was mildly critical of my amendment. He said that his national park officer had said to him that the national parks were concerned about my amendment because they did not have the staff and resources to deal with the socio-economic duties which the amendment would place on them. As I said earlier, it is fair to say that they have not achieved a great deal with the money available to them in relation to conservation. In fact, habitat loss inside the parks has been as great as it has outside the parks. Therefore, I do not accept that particular argument.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made an interesting and serious point. She said that social well-being was not the reason for the original designation of the parks. The parks were designated principally because of what they are. Who created them? It is the people living and working in the parks, not the national park authorities. That is why I feel so strongly that the people living and working in the parks should be treated on equal terms with visitors. That is fundamental.
1626
My noble friend Lord Norrie said that if socio-economic duties were placed on the parks they would not be unique. I believe that I am right in saying that other authorities do not have a duty to promote conservation and public enjoyment. That illustrates that the national parks are unique because specific duties are placed on national park authorities. I see no reason why placing such an additional duty on them would undermine the principal purposes behind the designation of national parks.
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I believe that there has been sufficient support for the amendment for us to consider the matter again at a later stage, whether that is in the form of an amendment as strong as mine or in the form suggested by my noble friend Lord Derwent. It is for us to get together. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider our approach very seriously in view of the undoubted support we have enjoyed from all sides of the Chamber. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 254Z4 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 254A:
Page 64, line 37, after ("6(3)") insert ("and (4) (g)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 255 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Norriemoved Amendment No. 255ZA:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Major Development Test
.—(I) Subject to the provisions of this section, major developments shall not be permitted within the National Parks.
(2) Proposals for major developments in National Parks shall be permitted only if, following rigorous public examination, it is demonstrated that they satisfy the following conditions—

(i) that the proposal is absolutely necessary in the national interest, which includes the furtherance of National Park purposes; and

(ii) that the proposal cannot practically be accommodated in an alternative location outside the National Parks.

(3) In determining whether a proposal is absolutely necessary in the national interest full regard shall be had to—

(i) the prospects of meeting the demand which gives rise to the need for the proposal by means other than the proposal; and

(ii) the prospects and means of reducing the demand which gives rise to the need for the proposal.

(4) Any proposal satisfying the conditions set out in subsection (2) above shall only be permitted subject to conditions which mitigate so far as is practicable any adverse environmental effects including a requirement to restore satisfactorily the site, in accordance with a scheme that shall form part of the proposal, when the need for the development ceases.
(5) For the purposes of this section "major development" shall include all development deemed to have potentially significant environmental effects, including such development controlled by the Planning, Highways, Electricity, Land Drainage and Water Acts.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 255ZA seeks to fulfil one of the main recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel by introducing a test for major development proposals in national parks into

1627
legislation. It also seeks to implement through legislation the Government's promise that national park designation confers,
"the highest status of protection as far as landscape and scenic beauty are concerned".
I have already mentioned that national parks include some of our most beautiful landscapes and are immensely popular. The importance of national parks is recognised across all the political parties. They are part of our national heritage and therefore worthy of enduring protection. Development in them must therefore be such that those natural assets can be passed on to future generations without the natural beauty of the landscapes being eroded.
At present the national park clauses in the Bill are concerned with improving the operations and administration of the parks from the inside; but those clauses lack any measures which would protect the parks from the outside.
What is at stake in promoting Amendment No. 255ZA is the protection of our finest countryside from major development pressures. The amendment has the support of all the voluntary sector environmental and amenity organisations with an interest in national parks. It has the support of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, who is chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales also support the inclusion of a test as crucial to this legislation.
In its 1992 policy on national parks the Government said that,
"there is no need to wait for further legislation to enhance the planning protection to be afforded to National Parks".
At the time that included a test for major development proposals in national parks in planning policy guidance note 7, which makes it clear that major development shall not take place in the parks "save in exceptional circumstances".
Now that an opportunity has arisen, that test must be included in the legislation, because planning policy guidance does not cover all forms of development, including energy and roads; nor does it provide an adequate procedural framework for protecting the parks. The courts have found that planning policy guidance notes have a limited legal effect. There is, therefore, a marked distinction to be drawn between the status of government policies as contained in planning policy guidance notes and the status of law as contained in statute. Experience has shown that planning policy guidance does not deliver the level of protection recommended by the National Parks Review Panel and promised by the Government.
The test set out in Amendment No. 255ZA seeks to implement key principles identified by the National Parks Review Panel. The panel said the test should ensure that,
"before any major development is accepted in a National Park, every avenue for meeting the need outside the Park has been thoroughly explored—or that the need is met in other ways, for example through conservation in the case of water and energy. Proven national need, and lack of alternative sites, must mean just. that".
1628
The amendment seeks to measure the national interest in the need for a major development against the national interest in national parks. It seeks to establish whether the development can be located outside the national parks. It also seeks to establish whether the development is absolutely necessary. It asks whether the need can be met in another way: is there scope for the demand for the product or service to be reduced? Once all other criteria are met it sets a high standard for any development that passes the test.
I see the test set out in the amendment as a much clearer guide to developers, planning authorities and the Secretary of State. It would enable developers to make early strategic decisions about options, thus saving them time and effort. Planning authorities and inspectors would have much clearer criteria by which to judge applications.
The legislation must set out an enduring framework for major development procedure relating to national parks. Sustainable development is a long-term set of objectives, and national park protection must also be taken into consideration in the long term. Legislation is the right place for the test. I believe that the amendment constitutes the right test. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in his amendment. Again, as I said at Second Reading, we are dealing with matters of principle. The noble Lord and I have had discussions about the drafting of the amendment. There may be some difficulties, which no doubt the Government will clear up if they accept the amendment. However, the principle is correct.
The principle is simple. Planning guidance in the planning policy guidance notes which we receive from time to time from the Department of the Environment is not adequate to protect the national parks from major developments of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred. PPGs can be altered at ministerial whim. There is no provision in parliamentary procedure, other than putting down Unstarred Questions or Motions to resolve in this Chamber, which allow us to debate fully planning policy guidance issued by the Department of the Environment to the planning authorities in England and Wales. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that in the case of national parks—it is quite special—we cannot rely on policy planning guidance issued from time to time, and amended by Ministers from time to time, to protect the parks from major developments. I believe that the Government should accept the principle enshrined in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Having said that, I again reiterate that I am not entirely convinced that, as drafted, the amendment could be placed in the Bill. However, I am sure that the Committee will recognise the force of the argument that I and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, put forward at Second Reading, and the argument that the noble Lord put forward when moving the amendment.
I can only rely on the Government's good sense. I very much hope that they will look at the amendment with good sense and accept the principle. I hope that at Report stage they may return with a provision which

1629
will satisfy us all and meet the requirements of the noble Lord and of the organisations he cited which have supported him.
6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: It is widely accepted that the provisions in the Bill form part of a movement that is spreading throughout the world, which should be supported. To a certain extent such provisions should work in concert.
The recently published report of the World Conservation Union, Parks for Life, addressed the question of major development, a subject which the amendment tackles. Signatories to the Caracas declaration, which included the UK, asserted that,
"the world community must adopt new and equitable styles of development, based on the care and sustainable use of the environment, and the safeguarding of global life-supporting systems".
Parks for Life also stated that it was vital that protected areas, including national parks, should be subject to protection by national legislation. It called for planning laws to be established which,
"ensure that the requirements of protected areas management are taken into account in all development planning procedures".
That point reinforces the argument that the place for the major development test is in primary legislation and not in planning policy guidance.
The World Conservation Union Action Plan for Protected Areas in Europe details the kind of test that should be applied, and that includes the assessment of need and alternative, as put forward by the amendment. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Chorley: This is the second amendment to which I have put my name. In some ways I believe that it is more important than the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and others, with which we were successful.
The Government's position, oft repeated, is that in the national parks,
"major development should not take place save in exceptional circumstances and that any such proposals should be subject to most rigorous examination".
That is fine. However, when the Edwards Panel looked into whether that objective was being achieved, it concluded that it was not. The Edwards Report recommended putting the test into primary legislation. However, that policy objective is not being achieved through the planning policy guidance system. If the Committee will bear with me, I wish to cite a few examples. There are many examples of planning policy guidance failure in the national parks. What we need, therefore, is primary legislation and a clear process to establish whether the criteria would be fulfilled.
In the case of developers, there are several major developments currently proposed for national parks where the argument applies. The proposal to extend Swinden Quarry in the Yorkshire Dales, already a most damaging eyesore, is for the extraction of a low-grade mineral for which there is no proven national need and with many alternative sources of supply outside national parks. The public inquiry starts in May.
1630
There are two proposals for major energy developments which fall outside planning policy guidance. Northern Electric is soon to submit its application for a major pylon development across the North York Moors to supply Whitby. As I understand it, there has been no rigorous publication of alternatives. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. I am told that it has been proposed that it should be used as a nuclear waste repository without a planning application or the drawing up of an environmental statement which would include the case for need and an alternative. A more cost effective and constructive procedure set out in primary legislation would benefit strategic planning in all those cases.
There is the case, also in Wales, of the Welsh Office's proposals regarding the A.5 road at the point where it enters the same national park, the Padog bends. Those will be familiar to some noble Lords. I shall not go into all the aspects of the matter, but if ever there were a major development which appears on the face of it to be unnecessary it must be that.
Then there are decisions which have already been made which have not led to the highest status of landscape protection being afforded to national parks through the planning policy guidance system. On Dartmoor, the national park authority approved lifting special conditions at Meldon Quarry which restricted production to nationally necessary rail ballast. Now it can produce aggregates for which many alternatives exist. The Secretary of State did not call the permission in. The Peak District National Park Authority gave permission to extend Goddards Quarry last year. The output is aggregates used mainly for road building. Again, the permission was not called in.
A clear test set out in primary legislation, with clear criteria, would strengthen the effective delivery of the Government's intention to afford national parks the highest level of protection.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I support my noble friend Lord Chorley and the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The amendment goes to the very heart of planning procedures as they apply to national parks. I wish to draw attention to the importance of the latter part of the new clause which defines major developments. I referred earlier to the case of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. When the station was proposed and built—it was the only inland nuclear power station of that magnox generation in the United Kingdom—few people objected on environmental grounds. Yet, clearly, to anyone who cares about the objectives of national parks legislation, such a development should never have taken place. Similar hydroelectric developments and reservoir developments could be pointed to in other national parks as well as Snowdonia.
Smaller scale developments such as a number of proposals for hydroelectric developments which would interfere with the flow of rivers and with the fish habitat have been proposed. I wish to thank in particular the National Rivers Authority for its activity in that area in ensuring in its surveys that river flows will be protected.

1631
It is important in this context that we turn to road development. Clearly, if there is to be an about turn in government policy on road development, then surely it should occur immediately so far as concerns national parks. My noble friend has already referred to the case of the A.5. The Welsh Office has already taken some action in re-signing and seeking to divert major traffic along the A.55. It is crucial that there should be no extension or widening of the A.5 except where there are severe, dangerous bends at which limited engineering works might be justified for safety reasons. Beyond that there should be no further development.
What is important about the clause is that it enables the major development test to be placed upon all developments within the national parks. It will enable the environmental statements that are produced for planning inquiries dealing with major developments to use the test, wherever the issues are considered. It will enable the test to stand up as an objective criterion against which any major development can be measured. That surely is what national parks are all about. If we have created a specialist, protected piece of landscape, environment and community, we need to ensure that it follows that, with the national value—"national" in this context meaning both Welsh national and English national—national parks can be interfered with only if such interference is absolutely necessary in the national interest. Therefore, if we are to take our own legislation and designation seriously, the whole Committee should support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: It seems odd. We have just spoken at considerable length and with much feeling about this. The Government do not like the idea of fostering small and reasonable economic development in the national parks, the small businesses in ones and twos. They are not prepared—
Viscount Ullswater: If I gave that impression, it was the wrong impression. What I said was that there was a difference between the role of the National Parks Authority to promote and other agencies which are tasked to promote such developments.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry if I received the wrong impression, and of course I accept what my noble friend says. But that does not detract from my second point. Large-scale development in national parks should practically at all costs be resisted.
I accept that there are occasions—I quote the Okehampton bypass as one—where there is a major difficulty. The Committee may remember that the Okehampton bypass went through the top end of the Dartmoor National Park. It raised hackles considerably in your Lordships' House. The argument was that for it to pass through the part of the national park planned would do less environmental harm than if it went through the rather nice piece of countryside on the other side which was extremely beautiful. There was a terrible dilemma basically between three pieces of environmental damage: first, going through a national park, secondly, ruining the countryside and, thirdly, doing nothing and ruining Okehampton. It was a terrible
1632
problem for the Government, who eventually decided, in my view rightly, to take part of the national park. I know that others did not feel that that was right.
It seems to me that unless there are careful rules, we should not have any major development in the national parks. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that if one looks across the Roman Road to Aber, there is a terrible and ghastly line of pylons on the wonderful skyline below Cader Idris and Carnedd Llewelyn. They should never have been put there and somehow that kind of thing must be avoided.
Lord Elton: I had not intended to intervene, but I was the Minister who wound up the debate on whether the Okehampton bypass should go through the national park. All kinds of recollections have been stirred by my noble friend. The first is that the road was invisible from almost the whole of the national park. As he rightly said, it would have been widely visible on the other side of Okehampton.
However, here we have a case where, as my noble friend said, Parliament kept a close eye on development under provisions which are already on the statute book. It came to what I believe we are agreed was the right conclusion.
The proposal here is that the provisions should be changed. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said and his list of decisions which had not been called in. I shall read that with interest tomorrow in Hansard. As I recall the provisions on the statute book, with a national park it is already necessary to consider the national interest and whether it can be accommodated outside the national park. There is already a requirement to consider future demand and whether it can be met by other means. I do not recall there being a requirement for a search for a means of reducing the demand. That is new. There is a requirement, where there is a temporary activity, for consideration of restoration in the application.
I regard subsection (5) as the most delphic and interesting. It concerns the interaction between what is proposed in this provision and what exists in other legislation such as the planning, highways, electricity, land drainage and water Acts. There we would need detailed guidance as to the extent to which this provision would take precedence over those provisions.
I share all the anxieties of everyone who has spoken about major developments in the national parks. I am anxious to know whether this change in the legislation is necessary or right to achieve what Members of the Committee want.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Moran: I strongly support those Members of the Committee who spoke in favour of the amendment, which is of crucial importance. In essence, major developments in national parks should not only be looked at very carefully indeed but allowed only in exceptional circumstances where there is a national need and no alternative.

1633
I noticed that the Edwards Panel pointed out that the Government's White Paper on the environment, This Common Inheritance, stated:
"Major industrial or commercial development will not normally be permitted in national parks; only where there are proven national needs and a lack of alternative sites can any exception be justified".
That is absolutely right and it seems to be in accordance with the whole drift of the amendment. The Edwards Panel also identified the areas that were of concern, such as mining and quarrying, trunk roads (which have been mentioned) nuclear generation, pumped storage schemes, transmission lines, hydro-electric projects, wind farms, reservoirs and the leisure developments such as holiday villages, marinas and conference centres which it considered were inappropriate in national parks. This is a very important amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
The Earl of Lytton: I relate very much to all that has been said by previous speakers. My only concern is with subsection (5) which states that,
"'major development' shall include all development deemed to have potentially significant environmental effects".
As I read that, it could apply to absolutely anything. An extension on a house could have significant environmental effects, as well as power stations, wind farms and other building works. So it is not just a question of defining what the term "all development" is, when all speakers have mentioned not "all development" but certain specific types of development.
Secondly, we need to address the matter of what is or is not significant in any given instance. That has already been alluded to. In our previous day's discussion in Committee I mentioned on an earlier amendment the matter of reciprocity. When national parks were designated for the undoubted value of the landscape and for nature conservation purposes, they were designated by putting a red line on the plan which included a job lot of all kinds of things that were satisfactory, as well as, I dare say, quite a few that were unsatisfactory. The unsatisfactory ones may nevertheless have been legitimate businesses of long standing which were entitled to the anticipation of organic growth over time, as with other activities. I cannot accept that if planning has to take into account what is new—for instance a fresh proposal on a greenfield site—then, by the same token, it must also take into account what is there already, what is pre-existing, what is a legitimate use. That follows on from the amendment moved earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. There must be reciprocity of consideration on both sides of the equation.
I draw the attention of the Committee to another factor; namely, that development in town and country planning terms includes not only construction and engineering works but also material changes of use. So when Members of the Committee refer to conference centres, I wonder whether they are including changes of use within the curtilage of existing buildings or whether they are talking about new construction on greenfield sites. There is a fundamental difference between the two. As someone who has close links with a national park, I thoroughly endorse the concept of protecting the area from intrusive developments, but I fear that the amendment goes much too far. It goes well beyond the
1634
questions of drafting to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred. The amendment is fundamental in the degree to which it sweeps up an awful lot of small fry which should not be part and parcel of an amendment dealing with major development.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wonder if my noble friend can make absolutely clear in his reply the extent to which the amendment would produce a substantial change to the law as it stands. I wish also to put a question to my noble friend Lord Norrie who moved the amendment. It may be a rather nitpicking point, but I wonder what exactly is meant by,
"the demand which gives rise to the need".
Would it be different if it were put the other way round—namely, "the need which gives rise to the demand"—or, better still, would it not be better to leave out either "need" or "demand" and just include one of them? It seems to me that it would mean the same.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the amendment. In doing so, it is important to point out that we need to take a long-term view about the pressures from major developments in the national parks. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, gave several references to issues that have arisen where the policy of the national parks has not been completely upheld in the past. From my own experience I can certainly underline what the noble Lord said in respect of the Swinden quarry in the Yorkshire Dales, which is not only an eyesore now but, if considerably extended, will be an even greater eyesore and nuisance to the local community in the future—not only to the community in the immediate vicinity but to the community in the park where the lorries transporting the extracts go by at regular intervals.
The same could be said about another development which took place recently in the Yorkshire Dales where permission was given to open up a new quarry not subjected to the kind of test outlined in the amendment. So there is continual development within the national parks. It is important that we take the long-term view.
The National Parks Review Panel stated that it is likely that pressures for major development will continue and may intensify. I believe that too. Therefore we need the rigour included in the proposed test to prevent such an intensification. The test sets out clearly what issues will prevent or permit continued development in the national parks.
Lord Marlesford: The principle behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie is of very great importance. I support it strongly. None of us is wedded to the words of his amendment, or even to the phrases in it. But those of us who support it believe that it is crucial. The Bill is a very considerable step forward in terms of the internal management and protection of parks. But it does almost nothing to defend parks from arguably much greater and more serious external threats. As so many Members of the Committee have spoken in this debate, I shall make just one point. I believe that the national parks are such a precious asset that they deserve special and different protection. Although it is not a complete analogy, there is some similarity with the special protection which Parliament has given to

1635
property owned by the National Trust in allowing it to be declared inalienable. The parks are so important that we would be failing very much if we did not take special measures at this crucial moment of opportunity to protect them from major development in the future.
Earl Peel: I too support the amendment in principle. I would have thought that the conditions for permitting such a development, which would have to be shown, would give the park authorities every opportunity of rejecting it. The other point that has been made relates to the question of major development. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to subsection (5) and the catch-all phrase therein. I believe that it is too wide. I find that quite worrying. At the end of the day, I am not sure how a "major development" can be determined. Clearly, there are words here that need to be looked at very carefully. But in principle I am certain that if we are to have national parks, developments of the sort that gave rise to this amendment must be resisted.
Viscount Ullswater: The Government's policy is that major development should not take place in national parks, save in exceptional circumstances. Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on the natural beauty of the parks, applications must be subject to the most rigorous examination including a demonstration that they are in the public interest. Those words are a paraphrase of an extract from PPG7.
We will continue firmly to uphold the test expressed in planning policy guidance note 7. I have to tell my noble friend Lord Norrie that we have an objection in principle to putting this and other important planning policies in statute. We consider that it would be both unnecessary and undesirable. I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that this is perhaps a matter of principle.
Clause 63 of the Bill makes a national park authority the sole local planning authority for the area of the park for all purposes, including mineral planning. The new national park authorities will acquire both structure and local plan functions, including waste plan functions, for the area of their parks. As such, the national park authorities will play a full part in all levels of the planning system, and the policies which apply to the parks will be relevant to all those levels.
As well as those national policies which apply to all planning authorities and the specific policies which apply to the national parks, regional planning guidance provides the necessary framework for the preparation of structure plans. That is produced by the Secretary of State only after widespread public consultation and the eliciting of advice from local planning authorities, which will of course include the national park authorities.
The Government's planning policies are material considerations which local planning authorities must take into account in preparing their development plans. The statutory plan preparation procedures provide full opportunities for the involvement of statutory agencies like the Countryside Commission; for public
1636
consultation; and, if necessary, for intervention by the Secretary of State. By virtue of Section 54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
As a statement of the Government's national planning policy, PPG7 will also be a material consideration when deciding planning applications. Local planning authorities are therefore expected to have regard to planning policy guidance notes in the exercise of all their planning functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, quoted a number of areas which he said were subject to consideration by local planning authorities. I reiterate that they have before them the guidance of PPG7 and the local structure plan. They should take their decisions—
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but does he agree with my point that the policy planning guidance notes from the Department of the Environment are changeable from time to time? They are not set in concrete. They are not even discussed in Parliament. Is it not the case that, whether or not they are subject to PPG7, the PPG7 can change?
Viscount Ullswater: I was going to come on to that point and would agree with the noble Lord. Let me go on to explain why I think it right that planning policy guidance should be non-statutory in that sense. I was indicating to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the local planning authority had to have the words of PPG7 ringing in their ears when they made those decisions. In addition, the Secretary of State will have regard to them when dealing with planning appeals and called-in cases.
The noble Lord also expressed his concern about major developments which are controlled not under town and country planning legislation but under other legislation, such as the Electricity Acts. Those responsible for taking such decisions—including the President of the Board of Trade in the case of development to which consent is given under electricity Acts—are well aware of the tests for major development in national parks and take government policy on these matters fully into account when considering any proposals.
Amendment No. 255ZA in the name of my noble friend Lord Norrie, and the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Chorley, is therefore unnecessary because the system of setting out the Government's planning policies in planning policy guidance notes works well and is underpinned by strong and effective legislation.
Furthermore, Amendment No. 255ZA is undesirable, because legislation on national park planning would devalue "non-statutory" planning policies set out in guidance notes. Take green belts for example, which are a cornerstone of planning in this country. Should we have a statutory planning policy for national parks but not for green belts?

1637
Where would the process stop? Putting selected planning policies on a statutory basis and keeping them up to date would consume a great deal of parliamentary time. Even the modest changes that we recently introduced to strengthen green belt policy could be accomplished only through legislation.
What would statutory planning policies achieve? This comes back to what my noble friend Lord Peyton said. What would they achieve if they were put on the face of the statute book? Planning decisions involve judgment. Putting a planning test in statute does not make it any less likely that some people may disagree with the judgment reached in a particular case. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Chorley, for their support and indeed for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Peyton. I agree wholeheartedly that national parks face an uncertain future without a test for major development proposals included in legislation. The test in legislation will be more robust than planning policy guidance and provide more comprehensive coverage. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, bear witness to how necessary that test is.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for his reply. However, it is vital to give a clear signal across all sectors of the planning system that national parks are special places and indeed are some of the critical natural assets that the Government's sustainable development strategy identifies.
I have made clear that setting out the tests by which major development proposals will be judged in planning policy guidance is simply not sufficient to guarantee the long-term protection of the parks. Because of the level of support for this amendment, for which I am grateful, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 255ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 91.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Addison, V.

[Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bath, M.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blackstone, B.

Healey, L.

Chorley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

Judd, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kintore, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Falkland, V.

Liverpool, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Lockwood, B.

Feversham, L.

Longford, E.

Foot, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

1638

Mar and Kellie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

McNair, L.

Rochester, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Milverton, L.

Rodney, L.

Monkswell, L.

Seear, B.

Moran, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stedman, B.

Munster, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nathan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Onslow, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lawrence, L.

Astor, V.

Leigh,L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Cadman, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lytton, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colwyn, L.

Melville, V.

Courtown, E.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mills, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mottistone, L.

Derwent, L.

Murton of Lindifarne, L.

Digby, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Geddes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rennell, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Granard, E.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harlech, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Torrington, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Vinson, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.42 p.m.
Clause 59 [Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated]:
Lord Derwenthad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 255ZB:
Page 65, line 21, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("foster").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 255ZB, which seeks to make the national park authorities foster,
"the economic and social well-being of local communities".
I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who supported this compromise amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister did not feel able to support me, but we may not be so far apart. I am seeking to include in the Bill what is already in the guidance; that is, that the parks should work for all and with the local communities. I shall therefore return to the matter at Report stage having sought to find acceptable compromise wording in the meantime.
(Amendment No. 255ZB not moved.]
Viscount Addisonmoved Amendment No. 255A:
Page 65, line 23, at end insert ("in ways that are compatible with, or which further, the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5 of this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 255A, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks. The amendment seeks to clarify the socio-economic duty of national park authorities so that it is carried out in ways that are compatible with or further the national park purposes. The amendment follows the wording recommended by the National Parks Review Panel which was concerned that its socio-economic duty was fulfilled,
"in such a way that the environmental quality of the Park is sustained and, where possible, enhanced".
The amendment is, in shorthand, to make sure that development in the national parks is sustainable.
As presently drafted my feeling is that the clause contains an ambiguity and the amendment is intended to remove any trace of doubt about the relationship between the national park purposes and that duty. It says that a national park authority, in pursuing the purposes of conservation and recreation, shall have regard to the social and economic well-being of the park communities.
There is anxiety that that could mean, for instance, that in designating a local nature reserve the park authority must have regard to the local communities' social and economic interests. I hope that that is not the intention. Instead, my hope is that the Government intend Clause 59 to echo the National Parks Review Panel's view that,
"while the local economy is fundamental to the future of the parks, support for the economic activity should be seen as a means of achieving national park purposes rather than an end in itself".
The panel attributed a supportive role to the national park authorities, helping bodies whose work already is to foster the social and economic interests of local
1640
communities. Those bodies include the Rural Development Commission, the Welsh Development Agency and local authorities. I therefore seek clarification to remove any ambiguity from Clause 59. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I rise to support the amendment, to which I added my name. The national park purposes, redefined in the legislation, are the reasons for designating national parks in the first place. As I said on an earlier amendment, there is a difference between the reasons for designation and the role of the national park authorities. Clause 59 is a helpful clarification of the roles of the authorities, but I share the anxiety of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that it is not as precise as the National Parks Review Panel intended.
The panel said that giving the national park authorities a role in support of the appropriate agencies, which already have a socio-economic mission, would,
"provide a unique opportunity to bring together the aspirations of the local communities with the pursuance of park purposes, and to minimise the conflict between them".
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is in favour of that wording. The kind of work the panel identified for the national park authorities was supporting the creation and maintenance of suitable employment opportunities, particularly where those opportunities contributed to the park purposes. It also said that the authorities could do more to assist the local authorities and others to provide low-cost homes for residents on low incomes—I saw a useful example of that in the North Yorks park, which did an excellent job in that regard—principally by the use of their planning powers. We have already seen other examples in addition to those in the North Yorks park. Therefore clarification of the role of the authorities as set out in Clause 59 is necessary.
Viscount Ullswater: As I informed the Committee during our discussion on Amendments Nos. 254, 254ZA, 254A, 255ZB, 255ZB and 260, we believe that the well-being of local communities is vital for the continued success of the national parks as living, working landscapes. The duty which we introduced in Clause 59 with respect to the economic and social needs of local communities underlines the importance which we attach to that issue. That duty will ensure that the new authorities take into account the economic and social well-being of their local communities as they carry out their functions and duties in pursuit of park purposes.
The establishment and functions of national park authorities will have effect for the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas and promoting the understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities by the public. It will not be possible for the national park authorities to set aside those purposes as they consider the wellbeing of their local communities. Therefore, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Addison: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her support. It is most

1641
important that the kind of development that takes place in the national parks is seen to be sustainable. The national parks cover 10 per cent. of the land area of England and Wales and provide a unique opportunity to act as test beds for environmentally friendly practices, enabling them to make an essential contribution to sustainable development. That is in the interests of the park communities, as it will sustain their vitality for future generations and it will protect the parks for the nation.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for his reply. He has most helpfully clarified the Government's intention that the socio-economic duty should be carried out in such a way that it is compatible with or furthers the national park purposes.
Lord Vinson: The words "sustainable" and "sustainability" concern me in one context. The noble Viscount has made an appropriate reference to the fact that it is everyone's wish to sustain communities. But at the end of the day one sustains communities by sustaining their jobs. The words "help sustain employment", if written into the amendment, would give heart to the expression that those promoting the Bill really do want to have some concern for communities. As it stands, this could be yet another mechanism for tightening the screw on any form of employment activity that went for planning permission.
Lord Elton: I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily. However, I do not see the word "sustainable" in the amendment and I am slightly mystified by the last exchange. It seems to me that the words in the amendment are almost tautological in view of what is on the face of the Bill already and are merely saying, if one reads the Bill as it would then be, that an authority,
"in pursuing in relation to the National Park the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5 … shall have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park in ways that are compatible with, or which further, the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5".
In other words, when it is doing something, it must do it. I think it is enough to say it once, is it not?
Viscount Addison: I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I was trying to point out that the duties were a cornerstone recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel and support the case that a third socio-economic purpose for national parks is not what was intended. I am concerned to see the legislation quite clear on this point. We may need to return to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 255B not moved.]
Lord Norriemoved Amendment No. 256:
Page 65, line 26, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("further").
The noble Lord said: I made it clear at Second Reading that the subsection of Clause 59 which gives the duty to all public bodies in relation to national park purposes was to be welcomed. The fact that this duty covers all public bodies, with the wide definition given in the same clause, is certainly a step forward. The
1642
National Parks Review Panel, however, recommended that the duty should be to "further" national park purposes rather than simply to "have regard to" the purposes.
The Government had said that they were considering this legislation. I quote from the Government's 1992 policy statement on national parks:
"To place a duty on all government departments to further, as far as reasonably practicable, national park purposes in carrying out their functions in the parks".
Yet what has emerged is somewhat weaker than that. The National Parks Review Panel report concluded that a duty of this nature was necessary because experience showed that sectoral policies within government had sometimes,
"worked against the purposes of national parks".
They have rarely worked positively to help to achieve those purposes. A duty to further the purposes would provide a positive incentive to public bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I regret to have to say that I consider that there is evidence that government departments do not feel bound by the implication of the national park designation. The amendment would provide the incentive needed to ensure that national interest in national parks was given the consideration that government policy promises when other national interests are being weighed in the balance. A duty to "have regard to" was not what Edwards recommended and does not go far enough in giving the clear signal required. I support the amendment.
Viscount Addison: I support the amendment. The Government stated in their response to the National Parks Review Panel in 1992 that they afforded national parks the highest status of landscape protection. Therefore, it would seem consistent jf a duty were placed on all public bodies to further the national park purposes so far as their activities affect the park. The national park clauses in the Bill make it clear that the national park purposes are of overriding importance in the operation of the parks. It would therefore be consistent in the context of the Bill as well as with government policy on national parks that furthering the national park purposes should be an integral consideration in the activities of public bodies. That will enhance the level of protection afforded to national parks and ensure that the national responsibility for them is taken seriously by all public bodies.
Lord Wise: Section 2 of the Countryside Act 1968 already gives a duty to Ministers, government departments and public bodies to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. However, as has been stated, the National Parks Review Panel was quite clear that this obligation was not strong enough to enable all public bodies to pursue the national park purposes wherever they have power to do so.
It is possible that my noble friend the Minister is concerned that not all government departments would be able to further national park purposes because of the inherent conflict of their activities with the purposes.

1643
But the panel recognised that the duty would need to be interpreted with due regard to the primary objectives of the department concerned. However, the panel was confident that reconciliation could be achieved in some ways. For instance, if government departments were to have a duty to further national park purposes, that would influence at an early stage the environmental assessment process when considering options for a major project—a road or other development. This might encourage the consideration of traffic management schemes or water or energy conservation as alternatives to major new construction projects in national parks. The duty to further would also provide a positive incentive to public bodies to engage in environmentally friendly practices in a national park. That would enhance the role of national parks as test beds for environmentally sustainable practices which would have relevance to the wider countryside. Surely national parks are a national responsibility. I consider a duty on all public bodies to further national park purposes is both desirable and achievable. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: The Bill introduces a new duty on public bodies which will require them to take into account national park purposes where their actions may affect the parks. In coming to decisions, we shall expect them to demonstrate that they have done so. What divides the Government from my noble friends is whether the words should be "have regard to" or "further". But this is a new duty placed on public bodies. I understand the importance which is placed upon national park purposes and the wish among some noble Lords that they should override any other activity which may have to take place in the parks. Nevertheless, I do not believe that Amendment No. 256 introduced by my noble friend Lord Norrie could be applied in practice. There are agencies which are required to undertake activities in the parks in order to provide services to park communities such as the supply of electricity or clean water.
The administration of a modern state is subject to many pressures, and decisions very frequently involve finding the best balance among differing, and sometimes downright conflicting, interests. Against that background, we consider that a duty to have regard to national park purposes is appropriate to the kind of balancing exercise which is so often needed. Indeed, the law requires that a wide range of decisions are taken having regard to all material considerations affecting them. Facilities such as new roads, housing and schools may be needed from time to time in or near national parks, as anywhere else, and real difficulties could arise if the authorities concerned were to be required to further the park purposes when taking decisions respecting them. We shall of course expect public bodies making relevant decisions to demonstrate that in coming to those decisions they have taken park purposes properly into account. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: It is clear that achieving the most positive attitude towards the national parks purposes
1644
from public bodies is vitally important. I believe that a duty to further that would provide the incentive. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for his reply. I appreciate that there may be many difficulties in applying that duty across all the categories of public bodies. But I am confident that a formula can be worked out at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at eight o'clock exactly.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Private Member's Bill is to ensure that, with a few necessary exceptions, information as to what occurs during family mediation cannot subsequently be brought as evidence in civil cases in a court of law. The Bill originated with the Scottish Law Commission. It applies to Scotland only. South of the Border your Lordships may know that case law giving a large measure of protection to mediation is already in place.
I now turn to the background to the Bill. Noble Lords are well aware that in this country increasing numbers of couples decide to split up and have somehow to settle the arrangements for their financial affairs, their house, their possessions and, above all, their children. In Scotland in 1993 there were no less than 12,700 divorces involving nearly 10,000 children, with 2,000 or more under five years of age. Fifty per cent. of those children lose touch completely with one parent after two or three years. There would have been others, of course, besides those who separated without divorcing or indeed without ever having been married at all.
Whatever one's views of this trend, it is only too clear that for the couples concerned splitting up can be extremely painful, traumatic and often a bitter process: for the children it causes very special problems and anguish. It is also frequently extremely costly in court time and in lawyers' fees.
Through the years it has emerged that divorcing or separating couples can be greatly helped in coming to mutually acceptable arrangements if they, and possibly their children, can meet in a neutral place with an impartial third person who has the knowledge and skills to provide information to assist in looking at the practical options and, if possible, getting at least some agreement.
During the past decade a network of affiliated local voluntary organisations has developed family mediation services across Scotland. They work under the umbrella body known as Family Mediation Scotland which,

1645
among other functions, sets standards and trains and accredits people to act as mediators. Funding comes from the Scottish Office, from some local authorities, from a variety of trusts and from other sources.
Mediation is used increasingly. Last year 3,644 families contacted Family Mediation Scotland and the organisation hopes to move to a situation where services are available to all who require them. In addition, the Law Society of Scotland has its own separate system for training and accrediting solicitor mediators.
Family mediation is not a formal part of the legal system, but it is now widely recognised as an extremely useful tool. To make use of it is mainly voluntary. Couples may be put in touch with the service through a citizens advice bureau, their solicitor, a social worker, a general practitioner or perhaps a friend, or they may simply make contact themselves. The process usually involves some two or three sessions of two hours' duration each.
Since the introduction five years ago of a new rule of court, if parties are still in dispute when their case comes to the sheriff court, the sheriff can insist that they go to mediation for an information session. Should they then decide that mediation is what they want, they go ahead with it: if it is not, the case is simply returned to court. In the Court of Session the judge must obtain both parties' consent before referring them to the mediation service.
Here we come to the need for this Bill and how it came about. For family mediation to be effective those participating must be able to talk frankly and without fear that what they say may later be used in evidence against them. At the present time, while mediators regard the information revealed to them as confidential, it is not clear in Scots law that they or their clients can subsequently refuse to disclose such information were they requested to do so in court. Mediators have been cited to appear on a number of occasions, but so far the matter has not in fact been put to the test.
In 1990, because of the increasing importance of mediation and of the awkward dubiety in the law, Family Mediation Scotland asked the Scottish Law Commission to look at the problem. The commission did so. In 1991 it published Discussion Paper No. 92, entitled Confidentiality in Family Mediation. That was followed in 1992 by its report No. 136 entitled Report of Evidence: Protection of Family Mediation. That report took the view that to await adequate clarification through Scots case law might take some time. The matter was urgent and legislation was the preferable route. A suggested draft Bill was appended to the report.
In early 1994 Family Mediation Scotland invited me to carry the Bill forward. The Scottish Courts Administration Department and the Scottish Office have been asked to have a look at and give drafting help on the Bill. As a result, the original draft has been re-ordered and the Bill's scope slightly widened to match the developing nature of mediation as now practised in Scotland. I am most grateful for that assistance, and hope that when my noble and learned friend the Minister replies he may be able to confirm that the Government are now willing to give the Bill their full support.
1646
Turning to the Bill—I hope that noble Lords will forgive my non-lawyer's powers of explanation—your Lordships will see that Clause 1 is the key clause. Subsection (1) provides that, with the exceptions which are defined in Clause 2, no information as to what occurs in family mediation is admissible in civil court proceedings.
Subsection (2) defines what is the family mediation to which the Bill applies. It does that by setting out the various categories of people who mediate, and the qualifications required of the person who conducts the mediation. The first category of those who mediate is defined at paragraph (a) as "two or more individuals" who are considering matters relating to a child in whom they have an interest. The following paragraphs cover spouses or former spouses, parties to a purported marriage, co-habitants or former co-habitants, as they consider matters arising from their splitting up. Paragraph (e) makes provision for the Secretary of State to add to those categories by regulation should the need arise.
Subsection (2) ends by defining the person who conducts the mediation as,
"a person accredited … to an organisation … approved … by the Lord President of the Court of Session".
Subsection (3) relates to the granting of that approval. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) clarify the terms used earlier in the clause.
Clause 2(1) sets out the exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility. The need for paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is self-evident. In, say, a divorce case, the court and the solicitors concerned will need to know whether there has been an agreement during mediation and, if there is an agreement, what it is. Likewise, when the content of an agreement is challenged in court, it will probably be necessary to discuss the various points which are the subject of the challenge. If the participants other than the mediator agree that information can be brought before the court, clearly it should be admissible and it would be inappropriate if the mediator could block such a wish. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) allow for those various circumstances.
Paragraph (d) continues the exceptions by listing the civil proceedings at which family mediation information would be admissible. Sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) relate to proceedings concerning children where the children's interests could clearly be damaged if mediation information was not forthcoming. Sub-paragraph (v) concerns proceedings alleging violence by a participant during mediation. Should one of the parties wish to sue, clearly evidence would be required. Sub-paragraph (vi) is there in case the mediator is sued or wishes to sue—an unlikely circumstance, but possible.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 establish who are to be regarded as participants for the purpose of the clause. Following the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, the participants can include the child where matters concerning that child are the subject of mediation and, provided he or she has sufficient understanding of the issues, that child can be under 16, which is the age of legal capacity.

1647
Subsection (4) gives flexibility to add to the list of persons to be regarded as participants by means of regulations. Again, that is only prudent in order to take account of future requirements.
Clause 3 contains the short title, provides for the negative resolution procedure and limits the Bill to Scotland. Subsection (3) states that the Bill comes into force two months after it becomes an Act and that it shall apply only to court proceedings commencing on or after that date.
I have a question to ask my noble and learned friend the Minister. I believe that Family Mediation Scotland has given him notice of this. Family Mediation Scotland is concerned that, where long drawn out civil proceedings have begun some time before the Bill takes effect but, for whatever reason, mediation relating to those proceedings takes place after the Bill's commencement date and then the proceedings continue, that mediation will not be protected. Would it perhaps be better if it was the first mediation after the commencement that was protected rather than the first proceedings? I should be most grateful if my noble and learned friend could give me and the House a view on that point.
I have heard from the Scottish Law Commission that it is happy with the general thrust of the Bill, although it may wish to pursue one or two points in Committee. The lawyer mediators have written only today with one or two of their concerns which I shall look at with those who advise me. It may be necessary to deal with those in Committee. I look forward very much to hearing what subsequent speakers have to say and particularly to the Government's comments. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
7.16 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on introducing this useful Bill. I should declare an interest. I am a step-parent of 21 years standing. I am also a one-time supervisor of matrimonial supervision orders.
The Bill seeks to establish in Scots law the concept that whatever is said during the difficult discussions within professionally conducted family mediation should not be admissible as evidence, and rather that the court should be informed of the decisions achieved or, indeed, not achieved.
A decade ago it was recognised that there was a need for a properly constituted mediation service to enable parents to explore the possibilities and resolve the difficulties that they were facing in planning for the upbringing of their children within the context of their failed relationship—be it a marriage, co-habitation or other style of relationship. It is the result of changing social trends that the traditional remedy of "She will live in the family home and bring up the kids and he will live elsewhere, pay maintenance and have access" is no longer the only expectation which is valid. Changes in
1648
the expectations of both men and women with regard to family roles presents us with more difficulties in family breakdown and in planning for the aftermath. In fact, it will be an aftermath, unless there is a serious effort made to reconcile the differences of expectation about how the children will be cared for and by whom. To put it in a nutshell, social workers often have to say to warring ex-partners, "You may no longer be married, but you are parents forever".
Any idea that there can be winners and losers in such decisions is unhelpful in the extreme. I suggest that unless there is a mutually acceptable and workable series of agreements made and implemented, the child—indeed, the whole family—will be the loser. That is especially true if the parents split up when the children are very young. They will then have to be active but separated parents for very many years ahead. The child will generally suffer socially and economically if the parenting is not sorted out mutually.
Similarly, there are decisions to be made about access to the children for grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins. That is not to mention access to children for incoming step-parents and new step-relations. The latter arrangements seem to be very tricky.
I wish also to establish the fact that parents who cannot agree about their children's future life in separation put the court in a difficult position when seeking a judicial solution to their family organisation. They will not achieve the best arrangement for their family's future because they will not jointly own the decision and the plan behind it. It will be a life of living with imposed court judgments rather than mutually agreed decisions.
The provision of family meditation is already supplying a better solution to those problems. A trained mediator will try to enable the parents to address all the issues, leaving none put off because it is too difficult. The provision of family mediation is thinly scattered over the nine regions and three islands councils of Scotland on a voluntary-sector basis. As we move to 32 unitary authorities—and I shall not propose that we have 32 family mediation services—the proven activity should remain in the voluntary sector and be funded properly to enable a more geographically comprehensive service to be achieved soon.
I suspect that the list of exceptions in Clause 2 will come into force quite often. Social work departments, voluntary agencies and adoption agencies are likely to be part of the family breakdown scenario, especially as other problems such as truancy, vandalism and poor relationships may be rearing their heads within the malfunctioning family set-up. Parents entering family mediation and its inadmissible evidence zone will need to understand the possibilities of exception. That is relevant in particular to parents who do not achieve mutual arrangements and then pursue vindictive campaigns against each other.
In conclusion, it is in the best interests of the children that whatever is said in the undoubtedly raw, fraught and no-holds-barred mediation sessions, it should not be used in court in evidence. It is far more important that the court be informed about the decisions reached by the

1649
parents than that the court has to make the decisions for them. I believe that the Bill will improve the chances of a better outcome for families which are separating.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise for not having my name on the printed list. However, as my noble friend and neighbour will know, at this time in the week it is normal that, except when there are important measures such as that introduced tonight, some of us living in the far reaches of Angus head north. I apologise to my noble friend and to your Lordships for intervening but I make no apology for attempting to give my noble friend some assistance in this important and complicated Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, drew attention to Clause 2(d) (iii) (vi). It is important that in proceedings of this kind one should take care to shield the children. Naturally, the proceedings will be somewhat delicate but, where children are concerned, the measures spelt out by my noble friend—and supported by the noble Earl, who has expertise in this area—are of great importance.
I have no personal evidence of family mediation because the doors of marriage, let alone divorce and the activities set out in the Bill, have not yet opened to me. I hope that your Lordships will forgive my intervention but I believe that the Bill is important and that it will be of considerable assistance to the people of Scotland. I support it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was of interest. He underlined the fact that this is an important Bill for families in Scotland. Without being pompous, perhaps I may say that this is a sad Bill because it is necessary to control the communings between parents, partners and children in the breakdown of marriages throughout Scotland. Some people are lucky and their marriages are sustained and for one reason or another some people are unlucky in that their marriage falls apart, but the victims of all these marriage processes, whether they succeed or fail, are the children. I hope that the Bill is welcomed on all sides of the House as being the best that we can achieve by legislation to exercise a civilising influence over what are usually acrimonious proceedings.
Unfortunately, the Bill does not face up to the problem of representation of the child. That may be a matter for debate at a later stage. It refers to the child being old enough to understand what is happening. However, those of us who have worked in divorce courts—and I am sure that the Minister has been involved in many divorce cases in the Court of Session in Edinburgh—know that, although in one sense children may understand what is happening, they cannot agree to it. They are the innocent victims of the traumatic failure of the relationship between their parents.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing the Bill. No one in your Lordships' House would reject it as being unnecessary in trying to guide the relationship between husbands and wives. Clause 1 deals with who
1650
is to be a mediator. A mediator must be accredited by the Lord President of the Court of Session, because the ultimate decision as to what happens to a marriage, the children and the payments that will be made on their behalf will be regulated by the courts. It is proper that there should be a regulating officer, and at present he is the Lord President of the Court of Session.
As a result of representations made to me, I understand the inference to be that the lawyers will grab the goodies, so to speak. Of course, that will not happen. The Law Society of Scotland does not envisage only lawyers being mediators. There is a great wealth of experience throughout the country. There are many retired people—for instance, doctors, psychologists and so forth—who I am sure will have a great input into the process.
The problem with Clause 2 is difficult because it deals with written and oral agreements. I am sure that the noble Baroness has received representations about the weakness of the wording of the clause. In allowing an oral agreement to be founded upon merely opens the door to another argy-bargy about who said what during the mediation proceedings. Perhaps oral agreements should be omitted and the only agreement that can be founded upon arising out of mediation proceedings should be a written agreement. It should be a written agreement to which the parties agree in the presence of the mediator, which is included in another clause of the Bill, or after taking legal advice.
Several questions arise now which may arise also in Committee. The most important is the question of funding. I know that the Minister is recognised as a caring Minister. Through his influence within the Scottish Office he has helped many voluntary organisations. But, as the rate of breakdown of marriages increases, there will be a commensurate increase in the work of the mediator. Therefore, I wonder where the funding is to come from.
We are facing a reorganisation of local government in Scotland and we know that there is the economy of scale in areas like Strathclyde, Lothian and Grampian. But once there is a breakdown into the smaller areas in Scotland, the question will arise as to where the funding will come from if the Scottish Office reaches its budget limit and says, "There is no more. It is up to the local authorities to fund it". That is one matter which concerns me.
The second matter is the legal aid implications. Is a partner, husband or wife who goes before the mediator to be granted legal aid in order to be represented by a lawyer? If so, on what basis? I know that at present that perhaps impinges on the concept of voluntary work being done by mediators. That is all right up to a point but we may reach the stage at which the voluntary sector cannot cope with that work. We shall have to look at the question of whether legal aid will be available. I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to answer immediately but in due course perhaps he will given an indication as to whether the legal aid scheme will cover mediation as envisaged by the Bill.
I return to what is perhaps the most important matter. In many ways, the parent does not matter. As the noble Baroness said, the most important person is the child.

1651
What is missing from the Bill is the provision of representation for the child. I note that the noble Baroness shakes her head but I have read the Bill and have seen what is in it. For a child to be involved in conflict between two partners or parents is, not to put too fine a point on it, a hellish experience. I do not apologise for using that expression. It is a hellish experience. Those of us who have worked in the divorce courts have seen children torn between parent and parent. They may understand what is happening but what will be the nature of the consent of a child who is torn between two parents? Understanding is all very well; consent is a different concept altogether.
It may be that in Committee we should move amendments to make it mandatory for a child involved in mediation proceedings to be represented at those proceedings so that the child's interests are preserved properly. We must ensure that the child is not left on the sidelines while the parents battle it out and reach an agreement which suits them but which may very well not suit the child at the end of the day.
The noble Baroness has introduced a valuable Bill. On this side of the House, we see the Bill as a welcome addition to the armoury to be used for civilising inter-personal relationships in Scotland.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy on introducing the Bill before your Lordships this evening. At the outset I am pleased to be able to indicate on behalf of the Government their agreement that the Bill should proceed unopposed through this House. We accept the principle of the Bill and subject only to any amendments of a minor or technical nature which may prove necessary or which may occur to your Lordships we hope that it will reach the statute book in early course.
I am grateful also to the two noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches for the warm welcome which they have accorded the Bill. It is undoubtedly an important measure. I repeat the compliment which my noble friend Lady Carnegy extended to Family Mediation (Scotland) for the keen interest it has taken in this matter and the skilful and professional fashion in which it has advanced the argument for the Bill.
My noble friend has put forward such a lucid and concise explanation of the background to the Bill that I need not rehearse that. As she rightly indicates, the Bill implements a report of the Scottish Law Commission. It was asked, on reference, to consider whether a rule of law might be introduced to prevent evidence of mediation being available in subsequent court proceedings, thereby preserving the confidentiality of those proceedings.
In considering that, the Law Commission took the view that there would need to be a provision for identifying those mediators whose activities would be protected. That is why the Bill provides for approval of mediation organisations by the Lord President of the Court of Session. In turn, those mediators will have their mediation protected by the inadmissibility rule.
1652
The approval of mediation organisations by the Lord President of the Court of Session is appropriate. He has responsibility for regulating matters pertaining to procedures in the courts in Scotland and his approval of mediation organisations is provided in the Bill for the purpose of providing that the evidence of mediators will not generally be admissible. I should make clear that the approval of a mediation organisation by the Lord President does not confer any other form of approbation or recommendation. In practical terms the Bill will enable the Lord President to approve organisations which are concerned with family mediation. It will then be for such organisations to ensure that their individual family mediators are properly accredited to the organisation so that their mediation activities can obtain the protection granted by the Bill. That relatively light level of control is in keeping with the limited scope of the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill makes clear that, in general, what takes place during mediation will not be admissible as evidence in subsequent civil proceedings. Thus all the participants in the mediation process will be able to speak in confidence, knowing that what they say cannot be used against them.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked a number of questions about the extension of legal aid and the representation of children. At the core of mediation is the idea that a large number of matters in the unfortunate circumstances which the noble Lord vividly described, where one wishes to try to seek a resolution, can be dealt with without resort to the formality of the law or the formality of representation which may be appropriate within the court room. One hopes that by preserving that confidentiality, there will be an opportunity to excuse children from the ordeal of having their affairs taken openly through the courts, which may be extremely disturbing for them.
I should perhaps emphasise that this Bill, which applies to Scotland only, is not intended nor has it the effect of extending mediation into any new areas. Nor does it require mediation to take place other than in the situations where it might take place now. I recognise that there will always be situations where mediation is not suitable, and I wish to make clear that the Bill in no way seeks to create any obligation on people to seek mediation. It should not be seen as any indicator as to what my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may wish to propose in relation to rules of evidence or accreditation procedures in England and Wales.
A few detailed points were put forward in the course of the debate. Perhaps I may deal briefly with two of them. Before doing so, I should say that my noble friend Lady Carnegy had the kindness to indicate to me prior to the debate that she had some anxieties about Clause 2(2) (b) and what is the definition of a child in terms of being a participant. If we are to have a Committee stage, I recognise that that is a point we shall have to consider.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. I recognise that proof of an oral agreement may be more difficult; nevertheless the Scottish Law Commission recommended that we should allow for that to be an exception to the inadmissibility

1653
rule. I understand that it may be a little untidy in certain circumstances, but I believe that it is an important part of Clause 2 and that it should remain so. However, the noble Lord may wish to return to the matter if we have a Report stage.
The principal point upon which my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour invited me to give a direct response concerned the provision relating to commencement, which is to be found in Clause 3(3). Put shortly, the question is whether the Bill's provisions should protect mediation which takes place after the legislation comes into force. I can confirm that I received a letter from Family Mediation (Scotland) on that very point to which I replied yesterday. I understand that my noble friend may not yet have had the opportunity of reading that reply. I hope that it will answer her concerns. The suggestion made by Family Mediation (Scotland) may not, in fact, achieve the desired result. However, it will be for the organisation and for my noble friend to consider whether an amendment should be proposed.
In our considered view, the Bill as it stands gives adequate protection, albeit that there may be a slight risk that mediation commenced before the Bill is enforced may not be protected in civil proceedings which have already commenced by the time the legislation comes into force. However, I should like to tell my noble friend that I am open to persuasion on that issue. In this particular instance, I believe that the answer might be to ensure that the Bill's provisions apply where proof—that is, the trial in court —has not yet taken place at the date of the legislation coming into force. However, before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, doubtless my noble friend and those who advise her will wish to reflect further on that aspect.
With those few words I conclude by saying again that I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for introducing the Bill. I invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether he will consider looking at the question of the status of the child within European law and under the European Convention of Human Rights before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings? As I see it, the child is really neglected in the legislation. I shall not take the matter further at this point, but I hope that the Minister, with the resources at his disposal, will be able to provide an answer as to whether the Bill (where the parents of the child determine what is going to happen to the child) is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any risk of that. However, there is a Bill beginning its passage in the other place—namely, the Children (Scotland) Bill—which may take some time. If this Bill completes all its stages through both Houses of Parliament, it may then be necessary to ensure that there is appropriate cross-referencing between this measure and the one being considered in another place.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a question for my noble and learned friend the Minister.
1654
Am I right in understanding—it is impertinent of me to suggest it, bearing in mind the great knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay—that where the child is mentioned in the Bill that will also include the representative of the child? Is that correct? I believe I understood from one source or another that reference to the child means the child or his representative.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is important to understand what is to be determined for the limited exceptions in Clause 2. In other words, what needs to be determined is whether or not the child has given his or her agreement. The provision to which my noble friend needs to have regard is subsection (3) which would indicate:
"Notwithstanding anything in the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991"
a child under that age,
"shall have legal capacity to agree that information should be admitted",
provided that it is clear that the child is,
"capable of understanding the nature and significance of the matters to which the information relates".
I can certainly think of many circumstances where such a child, if such an agreement was required, would have had to have the advantage of legal advice.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate. First, I must say that I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for saying for the first time that the Government are willing to support the Bill through its various stages in Parliament. That is, indeed, good news and is most helpful. Likewise, it is very good news to receive support for the Bill as a whole from the Benches opposite. I am greatly encouraged by that and I am sure that Family Mediation Scotland will be similarly encouraged.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, made a most interesting short speech with, if I may say so, all his professional knowledge. He said that he has a little personal knowledge as well, but his professional knowledge came through very clearly. The noble Earl gave us very interesting, detailed examples of the need for family mediation which brought the Bill to life in a very illuminating way.
The noble Earl made the point that participants will need to be aware of the exceptions to the inadmissibility rule before they start mediating. I am sure that that must be a very important rule for mediators. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for making that point. The noble Earl made an additional point which he is very well placed to make because he lives in Clackmannanshire. He said that the reorganisation of local government in Scotland would probably mean considerable reorganisation of Family Mediation Scotland and its affiliated services. I believe that the organisation is well aware of that fact. I do not quite know how those concerned will make it work, but it is good that the noble Earl made the point because it is most relevant to the Bill.

1655
My noble friend Lord Lye11 gave me his usual enthusiastic encouragement. I am sure that he is right to say that the Bill is important not only to the people in Angus but also throughout Scotland. I am most grateful to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made a number of points, some of which, as he knows, it would be very much easier for a lawyer to understand; indeed, my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench answered some of them. I shall read the Hansard report of what the noble Lord said with great care. It was extremely interesting. I shall understand some of it better when I have discussed the matter with my advisers.
The concern of the solicitor-lawyers who have written to me, and to whom the noble Lord has doubtless spoken, about whether the agreements contained in the Bill should be only written agreements is a matter that I shall discuss with him. I have not as yet had a chance to do so. I shall also discuss it with Family Mediation Scotland and with the Law Society. They are interesting points but I rather think that they have already been thought of and that there are arguments which may come to light of which I am not yet aware.
The question of funding is an interesting one. At present, lawyer-mediators are paid. I believe that the noble Lord indicated the difference in that Family Mediation Scotland mediators are mostly voluntary. Lawyer-mediators can be quite expensive. Indeed, as I understand it, they are paid quite a large sum per hour. Doubtless that is a matter which will arise in the context of the Bill once it becomes law, as I hope it will. Obviously it is not possible at the moment for my noble and learned friend to answer such questions. It is interesting to read the Green Paper that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has issued, which is now under discussion, and see what he is saying about that. I take it that in Scotland we shall not necessarily do the same thing, but the arguments are certainly applicable to both sides of the Border.
The question of the child, the child's representative and the relationship to the children's Bill which is now in another place are matters we shall follow with interest. However, it is good to know that the Bill can be brought into line with the children's Bill at later stages of that Bill so that if the legislative circumstances change, that will not be a problem. There is plenty of time for that. We have the whole parliamentary year to do it.
My noble and learned friend filled in some additional interesting background from the point of view of the Government with all the facilities at his disposal. I shall read that with much interest. His reply on the commencement date interested me. His letter has not yet reached Family Mediation Scotland either. Therefore, I think I can be forgiven for not having really examined what he told me about a little earlier verbally. I shall again read that with care and discuss it with my advisers.
I am extremely grateful to everyone who has joined in this debate. I think it bodes well for the future of the Bill. I hope my own contribution will not confuse anyone who understands the law better than I do. I am
1656
trying hard to grasp not only the legal points but also the social points. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made some social points with which I heartily agree. I would not say that the parents do not matter. I think that that is an unfortunate thing to say because everyone matters. We must not think so much about children—we have to think a lot about children at the moment—that we forget the parents. Quite a lot of mediation will not be about children: it will be about other things to do with the break-up of a marriage. That is of importance to everyone. I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken. I hope the Bill will have a fair passage in Committee and beyond.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 59.
Viscount Addisonmoved Amendment No. 257:
Page 65, line 27, leave out ("if it appears that there is a") and insert ("where the relevant National Park Authority deems there to be an irreconcilable").
The noble Viscount said: Subsection (2) of Clause 59 is intended to implement what is known as the "Sandford principle". The Sandford Report of 1974 stated that where there is irreconcilable conflict between the two national park purposes of conservation and recreation the former should be given priority over the latter. In 1991 the National Parks Review Panel endorsed that recommendation, saying that it should be reflected in legislation.
As drafted, subsection 59(2) is not sufficiently precise to fulfil the recommendations of the Sandford and Edwards Reports. The amendment attempts to address two of the drafting problems.
The clause as drafted states that if it appears that there is a conflict between the two purposes conservation shall be given greater weight. That is too vague and begs the question, if it appears to whom? Therefore, the first part of the amendment attempts to clarify the position by giving the role of arbiter to the national park authority as the most appropriate executive body.
The clause also omits the concept of irreconcilability. That appears to be a fundamental change of policy from the current position and is not what Sandford or Edwards intended.
Much concern was expressed at Second Reading that every incentive should be given to explore all means of reconciling conflict before having to invoke the principle. That could be through careful planning of recreational facilities and providing adequate resources for management, as Edwards recommended. The amendment therefore includes the idea of irreconcilable conflict to ensure that this is a last resort which does not replace reconciliation by other means first.

1657
Government guidance is likely to include some clarification of what is intended in the clause. However, including in the guidance the concept of reconciliation through management would not be consistent with the clause as drafted. The present drafting of the clause changes the balance of policy and there is a danger that one test could exist in primary legislation and another in the guidance. Therefore, the legislation must include the idea of irreconcilability to provide the right policy context for the guidance. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: While I fully understand the principles behind the amendment, I believe that, as it is drafted, it would undermine what has become known as the "Sandford principle" —namely that conservation should take precedence when there is a conflict.
What concerns me particularly is the fact that when there is doubt about the interests of conservation being undermined it must be right that we should adopt the precautionary approach. If the amendment were accepted I believe that that would be lost, because the judgment would lie solely with the park authorities. That is too subjective.
I also question how a decision could be challenged. I can foresee a situation, for example, where English Nature may see conflict between visitor pressure and its duties to ensure the well-being of special areas of conservation under the new EU habitats directive. It is possible that the parks could come forward with a formula which they believe would reconcile the problem and could proceed with it. If that happened, the parks could be in direct conflict not only with the statutory obligations imposed upon English Nature but also with the obligations of the Government themselves under the habitats directive. Therefore, I believe that other interests and bodies should have a say. The decision should not rest solely with the parks as arbitrators in the matter, because too much is at stake.
I believe that what the Government have set out in the Bill is sufficient and right. For those reasons, I am worried by the amendment.
Lord Greenway: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 258, in my name, which is grouped with the noble Viscount's amendment.
As we all know, the "Sandford principle" has been accepted as a reasonable approach to the management of national parks and equivalent areas. It has been generally accepted by the recreational interests since it becomes relevant only when there is an acute conflict.
As the noble Viscount who moved the initial amendment said, subsection (2) appears in many ways to take the "Sandford principle" several stages further than the committee could ever have thought necessary or desirable. It provides that, if it appears that there is a conflict between the national park purposes, the authority shall attach primacy to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. In other words, the Bill does not require the authority to seek to resolve conflict, however minor; it simply requires the authority to rule in favour of the first purpose at the first allegation of any conflict.
1658
I believe that that is a distortion of the purposes for which the national parks exist. I urge that consideration be given to modifying the clause. I do not mind how that is done—whether it is through acceptance of my amendment, the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount or that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. However, I believe that we should require that the relevant authorities first seek all reasonable means of reconciling conflict, as I believe was clearly intended by the Sandford Committee, before being required to judge in favour of the first purpose. I support the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I may have misunderstood the thrust of the noble Earl's objection to the amendment, but it seemed to me that he said the opposite of what he should have said.
As presently drafted, the clause seems to imply that the best solution in a honeypot situation would be to ban visitors from sensitive areas. However, our amendment—Amendment No. 257—suggests that that would not be in the best interests of the people who want to visit the parks. We would soon lose the support of the public if we did that. It seems to me, therefore, that it is important that the clause makes it quite clear that any conflict which is to be dealt with must be irreconcilable. The words:
"if it appears that there is a conflict",
are much too vague. That is why we suggest that the clause should be strengthened.
In the case of honeypot sites there are many options for resolving conflicts. The national park authorities are experts in that. They know exactly what they are doing and have had plenty of experience. The amendment provides a two-phased system of protection. I support the amendment.
Lord Norrie: Because 100 million visits are made to national parks every year it is inevitable that some of the recreational activities which go on in the parks may damage the fabric of the parks themselves. Whereas the earlier amendment to introduce the idea of quiet enjoyment into national park purposes attempted to address the problem where one enjoyment comes into conflict with another, this clause addresses the problem where recreation itself comes into conflict with conservation.
Clarification in the clause that greater weight should be given to conservation where the conflict is "irreconcilable" is most important. National park authorities, as the practitioners on the ground, are most experienced in trying to resolve various forms of conflict and must be enabled to explore every route before resorting to invoking the principle that conservation has greater weight. For example, in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, outdoor activity centres, the National Trust and the National Park Authority have signed up to an "outdoor charter" to pre-empt the conflicts occurring. Problems potentially include disturbance to birds from climbing, soil erosion from mountain biking, and so on. It is that kind of management approach involving the various interest groups in national parks that ensures a better level of co-operation and, in the long run, provides the greatest potential for protecting the park. That is precisely the

1659
kind of management approach that the draft guidance issued by the Government recommends as part of the exhaustive means of reconciling conflict to be used before applying that principle. The draft guidance also states that the Sandford principle has been policy for over 20 years—that has already been stated—and is now, to quote the guidance, "enshrined" in Clause 59 of the Bill.
However, it is clear from the other speakers, including my noble friend Lord Addison and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that the Sandford principle is not enshrined in Clause 59. The guidance does not follow on logically from Clause 59 as drafted. Amendment No. 257 would fulfil the intention that Clause 59 was equivalent to the Sandford principle and the guidance would therefore follow on consistently from Clause 59, amended in this way.
Earl Peel: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I am very much in favour of applying the Sandford principle. What concerns me about the amendment is that the national park authority would be judge and jury. It is essential that other interested parties should be allowed to voice their opinion. If that were the case, then the national parks would not be put in such a position. They would have to consult more if there were conflict between conservation interests and, say, visitor pressure. If it is left entirely to the parks, then a great deal of expertise will be by-passed which could be detrimental to the conservation wellbeing of the national parks. That is simply the point that I sought to make.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is clear that there is a problem which has to be addressed. My noble friend Lord Howell is not able to move his amendments this evening. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I may make it clear that I speak to Amendments Nos. 257, 257A, 258 and 258ZZA. My noble friend Lord Howell is not able to attend partly because he attended the 80th birthday dinner of Sir Stanley Matthews last night; and although it is not necessarily cause and effect, he is not able to be with us this evening.
There is a difficulty which the amendment addresses. I hope that the Government will take account of the difficulty. My noble friend's amendments attempt to resolve the difficulty. I am not fully in support of Amendment No. 258ZZA; nevertheless, he wished me at least to speak to it and to apologise to the Committee that he was unable to be here; so that is what I do.
If there is a conflict between purposes, clearly there has to be some mechanism by which it is resolved. That is the purpose of the amendment. I look forward to hearing what the noble Viscount will say.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I understand the problem that the amendments seek to address in their various ways. I have considerable sympathy with the intention underlying them. It has been our long-standing policy to accept the Sandford principle that in those rare cases where there are irreconcilable conflicts between the first
1660
and second national park purposes the first purpose takes priority. We now propose that that should be enshrined in legislation.
It is, however, also my firm view that every opportunity should be taken for negotiation and mediation before the Sandford principle is applied. As the draft circular makes clear, we expect the number of instances where the principle bites to be kept to a minimum and that all reasonable steps will be taken to reconcile the different viewpoints. We believe that careful planning and positive management, as my noble friend Lord Addison said, can often facilitate greater use of the parks, which respects their special qualities and which reduces the potential conflicts. Nevertheless, we accept that the parks' twin purposes may occasionally come into conflict despite every effort being made to reconcile them. In those exceptional cases where reconciliation proves impossible, the conservation of the parks' special qualities must take precedence. This principle, now enshrined in Section 59 has been policy for over 20 years, and we believe that it continues to stand the parks in good stead. We expect this principle to apply to all those relevant authorities who may need to consider park purposes in their activities.
I do not believe the amendments will help this process, although I understand and sympathise with the intention that they do so. In particular, I fear they may encourage very lengthy and long drawn out discussions so that the relevant bodies can, if they should be required to do so, "prove" that negotiations have truly broken down and reached a point where the different viewpoints can never be reconciled.
Having said that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Addison: The clause as printed changes the Sandford principle and therefore the need remains for more precision as to what is meant. Instead of "irreconcilable" perhaps I may suggest the words "conflict that cannot be reconciled through management".
However, in view of my noble friend's helpful comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 257A not moved.]
Lord Greenwayhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 258:
Page 65, line 28, leave out ("a") and insert ("an irreconcilable").
The noble Lord said: I go along with what the noble Viscount said. Perhaps we can consider the issue again. However, I believe that the clause as drafted leaves something to be desired.
[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 258ZZA not moved.]
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258ZA:
Page 66, line 9, after second ("council") insert ("district council").

1661
The noble Viscount said: This is of a minor and technical nature. The purpose of the amendment is to add a reference to district councils in Wales in order to complete the definition of local authority in relation to Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258ZB:
Page 66, line 13, after ("Park") insert ("reconstituted").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 258ZB, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 258B to 258F, 262A, 362A, 362B, 366A, 366B, 397A, 397B, 399E, 399F and 403A. The amendments are all of a minor and technical nature. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 258E and 258F is to delete the references to the 1949 Act national park purposes elsewhere in legislation and insert the revised park purposes provided for in Clause 58 of the Bill.
Another group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 362A, 362B, 366A and 366B, ensures that the term "National Park authority" in legislation covers both the existing and the new national park authorities to be established under Clause 60. Amendments Nos. 258B, 258C and 258D make clear the fact that the appointment of a local authority appointed member of a national park authority may be terminated in order to maintain the political balance of the appointing authority in accordance with Sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Amendment No. 262A is a point of clarification which makes explicit that the Broads Authority is the relevant authority as respects land within the Broads for the purposes of Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Amendments Nos. 258ZB, 397A, 397B, 399E, 399F and 403A are miscellaneous and deal with various matters such as insertions and repeals which were inadvertently omitted from the Bill when it was first printed. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I wish to declare my complete support for all the amendments and also to take advantage of the opportunity to ask the Minister when he proposes, or whether the Government propose, to allow for further amendment on the conversion from shadow boards to shadow national park authorities in Wales without a change of legal status. The Minister is aware that we are in a different situation in Wales. Under other legislation the existing structure for local government is already in place. I should like an assurance at some stage of the Bill that the intention is that an amendment will be proposed to the Bill to allow the conversion to take place without a change of legal status and to allow preparatory work in respect of the establishment of the boards to count as if it were carried out in preparation for the national park authorities themselves.
Viscount Ullswater: I am advised that an amendment will be produced at Report stage.
1662
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Establishment of National Park authorities]:
Lord Williams of Elvelmoved Amendment No. 258ZC:
Page 67, line 12, at end insert:
("() In respect of any area with special characteristics similar but not identical to those set out in section 5(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Secretary of State may, on the advice of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council of Wales, and with the agreement of every local authority for that area and of any other persons appearing with him to be interested, by Order establish a special authority, to which the provisions of this Part and Schedules 7 to 10 to this Act shall apply with such variations as may be agreed by those authorities.").
The noble Lord said: I recognise that the text of the amendment may be defective. In the fourth line the word "and" should probably read "or". I am not speaking particularly to the text of the amendment but to it in principle, and the amendment is probing rather than definitive.
The Committee will be aware that there are certain areas of England and Wales, not least the New Forest, which do not easily fall into national parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act by definition. All kinds of problems are involved and my amendment is an attempt to offer the Government an opportunity to extend the legislation on national parks in a fairly interesting way; that is, in the sense that if the New Forest cannot become a national park for various reasons, then there is a possibility through the mechanism in my amendment that the New Forest and other areas might be designated by the appropriate mechanism described in the amendment as something similar to a national park without the problems involved in being a national park. For example, in the New Forest that has caused a great many problems, as it has with the Broads in Norfolk. As I understand it, we have not yet found a way round the problems of how to designate an area like the New Forest as a national park. The amendment is an attempt—I accept that it is only an attempt—to try to offer the Government a way of doing that. I hope that the noble Viscount will take it in that spirit and give the amendment a favourable wind. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I support the amendment and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for providing an opportunity for us to air the issue. It was most disappointing when, after a wide consultation in which there was overwhelming support for national park equivalent status for the New Forest, the Government did not fulfil their commitments. Affording the area such status would bring many benefits, including national funding for the conservation and enjoyment of the forest.
The National Parks Review Panel favoured enabling the future designation of new members of the national park family where areas were considered as possessing the qualities and characteristics which made them worthy of designation. The Government's 1990 White Paper, This Common Inheritance, stated that they would consider,

1663
"designating new national parks in suitable areas where landscape conservation and recreation opportunities can be combined, either under the 1949 Act, or by creating further tailor-made bodies like the Broads Authority".
The amendment would enable the Government to fulfil that commitment.
Baroness Nicol: The National Parks Review Panel put forward a strong case for giving the New Forest equivalent national park status. I believe it realised that the forest could not fit into the normal pattern of national parks. However, I remind the Committee that the Broads Authority, which had its own tailor-made Act to make it into roughly an equivalent to a national park, has been very successful in protecting the Broads, while promoting enjoyment, including navigation rights.
The New Forest would also require a tailor-made body because it has very complicated management arrangements. I hope that the Government will not be put off by that. It was disappointing that when they published their plan for the New Forest last year no mention was made of giving it the status which I believe is necessary. I remind the Committee that so far as I am aware there is no national park in southern England at all except in Devon.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. There is already a procedure set out in legislation for designating areas which meet the criteria for special status and protection and putting in place the necessary administrative arrangements for the management of those areas.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is trying to do in his amendment by having a mechanism to approve areas or set aside areas which would not be designated as national parks. A procedure exists which has resulted in 10 per cent. of the area of England and Wales being designated as national parks with special administrative arrangements to ensure their care and protection. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 sets out the procedures to be followed for designating those areas. It gives responsibility to the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales for preparing orders designating areas as national parks which are then put to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Before placing an order before the Secretary of State, the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council for Wales carries out an extensive consultation exercise through which the views of all the local authorities with land in the area proposed for designation are sought, as well as the views of any other persons and organisations which have an interest. Confirmation by the Secretary of State brings with it the appropriate administrative arrangements which we are discussing today.
As far as the New Forest is concerned, our policy statement issued in July 1994 made it clear that the New Forest should be subject to the same planning policies as the national parks. We took the view that it was not necessary to give statutory status to the New Forest Committee, as adequate mechanisms were in place for the management of the area.
1664
I am not persuaded of the benefits of Amendment 258ZC, nor indeed do I think it would be workable, since it would require the agreement of everybody who had an interest in the matter before the procedures for an order establishing an authority could be put in train. Even for the national parks, which we all agree are special areas, that might be a little difficult.
With reference to the final words of the proposed new provision, I cannot forbear to point out that they sit ill with the noble Lord's express concern about Henry VIII clauses appearing elsewhere in the Bill. Variations of an Act by means of formal agreement—
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Viscount now say specifically why the Government do not intend to designate the New Forest as a national park? I understood (and I believe that my understanding is right) that the Government have all sorts of reasons—which the noble Viscount tried, slightly ineffectually, to explain—why it cannot be a national park. All the instruments are in place, but the noble Viscount says that my amendment is irrelevant. If the procedures are in place, will the Government now designate the New Forest as a national park—and if not, why not?
Viscount Ullswater: I have indicated what is the Government's view about the New Forest. I also indicated the arrangements that are available for the Countryside Commission to recommend other areas for new national parks. We consider that to be sufficient for the purpose, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very disappointed by the noble Viscount's reply. I always understood that there was some arcane reason why the New Forest should not be designated as a national park. Now the noble Viscount tells me that there is no reason at all, and that it is simply a question of going through the normal procedures. Why then have the Government not met their commitment to designate the New Forest as a national park? If there is a procedural problem, then my amendment is in order and is relevant. There may well be other cases like this. If the noble Viscount is saying that my amendment is superfluous and unnecessary because the procedures are already there, then I put my question again to the noble Viscount: why do the Government not designate the New Forest as a national park?
Viscount Ullswater: At the risk of boring the Committee, I shall repeat what I said. Our policy statement issued in July 1994 made it clear that the New Forest should be subject to the same planning policies as the national parks. We took the view that it was not necessary to give statutory status to the New Forest Committee as adequate mechanisms were in place for the management of the area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I see that I shall not get any further with this point. We shall have to return to it at a later stage. I do not understand the noble Viscount's argument. Either the New Forest is to be a national park or it is not to be a national park. We will certainly look

1665
at what the noble Viscount has said, for what it is worth, and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Committee will be aware that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House has reported on this Bill. In paragraph 9 on page 2 of that report, the committee draws attention to Clauses 60 and 63, and indeed to Clause 70. We are dealing here with Clause 60. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee remarks:
"The House may, however"—
having considered the powers under Clause 60—
"wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in these cases because the scope of the power is not clearly defined in the bill or explained in the memorandum".
Perhaps I should explain to the Committee that the memorandum was that which was produced by the Department of the Environment to that committee. My purpose in putting down notice of my intention to oppose the Motion that Clause 60 stand part is simply to elicit from the Government their response to that committee's report.
Viscount Ullswater: The establishment of independent national park authorities was the principal recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel, and one which we accepted wholeheartedly in our 1992 policy statement on the future of the national parks. When, in the last Session, my noble friend Lord Norrie introduced his Bill to establish independent national park authorities, it received overwhelming support from both sides of this House. Independent status will have a number of advantages for the national park authorities, including a greater clarity of vision and self-confidence, a higher profile, freedom to manage their own affairs and a more undivided commitment to national park objectives.
We consider that to enable the Secretary of State to provide for the establishment of national park authorities by order is the most practicable, if not the only practicable, way of proceeding. It is unlikely that all the national park authorities for the existing national parks will be established at exactly the same time. The timing is likely to be influenced by the timing of any changes in the local government structure affecting any park under Part II of the Local Government Act 1994 or under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
The circumstances of each park, and of its existing planning board or committee, will need individual consideration to identify the provisions required in connection with the winding up of the existing body. Thus we believe that, in order to facilitate a smooth transition from existing to new authorities, powers to make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision are essential.
The provisions in Clause 60 will have effect only within or for the purposes of national parks, and are very narrowly prescribed. The powers which Clause 70 provides for the making of orders under Clause 60, may
1666
only be used for incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional purposes in connection with the primary power being used. That limitation is reiterated in the case of subsection (4) of Clause 70, which enables the making of Henry VIII provisions, as the committee pointed out in relation to the National Parks Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Norrie in the last Session.
"Supplemental" is used in the sense indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when the House considered the committee's comments on what was originally Clause 52 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill (debated on 28th February 1994 and reported at cols. 892 to 895). That is to say, the powers contained in Clause 52 could be used only for matters arising in consequence of local government reorganisation or, in this instance, primarily the establishment of national park authorities under Clause 60 and the winding up of the existing boards and committees.
As has also been pointed out, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will be able to exercise its usual jurisdiction to question vires, on that or any other point. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraw his opposition to this clause.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If Clause 60, as reported on by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee is defective in parliamentary terms, in the sense that the House may wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in these cases because the scope of the power is not clearly defined in the Bill nor explained in the memorandum—and I believe that that is the case—would the Government accept that the affirmative procedure on orders under Clause 60 is the correct one? If the Government say, "Well, designation of national parks is subject to negative procedure", why—with reference to our previous debate—do not they simply issue an order now saying that the New Forest is a national park?
Viscount Ullswater: I tried to explain that Clause 70, which talks about Clause 60 (in Parts II and III) is only a very narrow definition for the supplemental provisions. I was trying to argue that in our opinion they were suitable for the negative procedure.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Lord Annaly Lord Annaly moved Amendment No. 258ZD:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion for defence use
Land within any National Park which forms part of a Ministry of Defence landholding and is used for training for the defence of the realm shall not form part of the area of a National Park for the purposes of this or any other enactment.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak both as a former soldier and a long-standing visitor to national parks. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who put his name to the amendment, regrets that he is unable to be present tonight to speak in support of the amendment.
The MoD land holdings collectively represent 3 per cent. of the total acreage of national parks and in only three out of the nine national parks where the MoD

1667
owns land for training is the acreage of any significant proportion: that is in Northumberland, where it is 22 per cent.; Dartmoor, where it is 15 per cent.; and the Pembrokeshire coast, where it is 5 per cent.
In the past three years the situation has arisen in which the highly vocal and influential environmental lobby has intensified its questioning of the Army's primary right to train on MoD land, particularly in Northumberland, where the military training area at Otterburn was established in 1911, some 40-odd years before national parks were created. The national park authorities, which are deeply involved with the environmentalists, gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee in March last year. They said that they were strongly opposed to any "intensification" of military training within national parks, even though they acknowledged that the Army's needs were increasing because of the withdrawal of units from Germany under Options for Change. The national park authorities praised the MoD for its:
"commendable record in protecting and enhancing the nature conservancy value of their training areas, some of which are now of national importance".
But at the same time they recorded that they looked forward to the eventual removal of military training, which they regarded as "incompatible" with the objects and purposes of national parks.
Those statements, which were repeated in the Northumberland National Park's formal plans published in March 1994, aroused concern in the local community, whose economy benefits by £6 million a year from the Army's presence. After three generations of living and working in harmony with the military, whose activities are compatible with upland farming, local people were further incensed at reports that the park authority was to oppose developments to enable the Army to fire its new general purpose field gun, the AS90, on the Otterburn ranges, which are among the most important in the United Kingdom.
Against that background, I believe that if the amendment is not agreed, the national park authority may deny the Army its primary right to train on MoD land. I know that the Committee is well aware, in these uncertain times and this era of sophisticated and technical weaponry, that it is essential that our much reduced Army is properly trained and has the use of appropriate training areas.
My noble friend Lord Vivian, who is unable to be present to speak in support owing to a prior engagement, believes that such areas are essential to the Army today. He strongly supports the amendment. The hardening of attitude and relations between Russia and the West—Russia has over 2 million armed men—and the Fundamentalist Movement covering the whole of southern Europe in a crescent shape signify very real threats to the United Kingdom, if not now then perhaps one day in the future.
Given the opportunity through a Bill to sort out anomalies and conflicts between national park authorities and defence interests, it makes no sense to re-tie the knot that places the Army's real estate within the jurisdiction of a body which says that its purposes
1668
are incompatible with those of military training and which uses its terms of reference under DoE policies to support its case. Freeing the MoD to work instead with accountable elected bodies over planning matters would leave national park authorities collectively with 97 per cent. of the total area that they presently supervise and without major conflicts of interest.
Some of the best conserved areas are those which have been used for military training. The public would continue to have the maximum possible access within the bounds of safety.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He has a very serious case to make. But we wish to get on. With the greatest respect, I wonder whether he could perhaps cut down his remarks.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: There are some of us who want to hear the noble Lord.
Lord Annaly: I have about five more lines to utter, if I am allowed the time to say them. No good reason exists why the military training areas such as Otterburn, with their excellent record for conservation and maximum possible public access, should not continue to afford enjoyment to the public without national park designation placed upon them. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Vinson: I rise to support this amendment. I hope that I shall not be too verbose or take up more time than others on the opposite side may have taken up hitherto this evening. It is a probing amendment. It is designed to bring out some of the inherent and inevitable conflicts of interest that have arisen and that will continue to arise between those who wish to see no activity at all other than recreation in the national parks and those who, I believe more realistically, accept that these huge land areas, while being properly earmarked for recreation, also must have other important purposes.
One of the reasons why parts of those areas are so beautiful is that they have been largely undisturbed due to the fact that they belong to the Ministry of Defence. The national parks in this country are different from any overseas. Because of our limited land mass, of necessity our remoter areas have to serve at least two purposes. That raises a paradox. Those Army training grounds to which the public on many occasions has full access amount to only some 3 per cent. of the existing national parks. Yet the Committee will be aware of the virulent campaign mounted by a number of organisations to have the Army removed from them altogether. One wonders whether those who take this attitude ever stop to consider that their potential enjoyment of these areas has only been made possible by the ability of these islands to defend themselves in the past.
Interestingly enough, the presence of the Army is indeed welcomed by the vast majority of those who live and work in the park. The Committee will know of the rally for the national parks led by Mr. Chris Bonnington which, complete with television cameras, stormed the Otterburn ranges to demonstrate that the Army should go. Not surprisingly, in response virtually all the small

1669
farmers in the area and their families turned out to support the purpose of the training ground. Mr. Bonnington's demonstration was a complete fiasco and wholly counterproductive for the purposes that he was trying to promote. The presence of the Army is not universally unpopular and indeed its purposes are well understood.
All that begs the wider issue as to whether in future the national parks authority should effectively dictate the nation's defence training policy. This is the heart of the issue. The judgment of the proposed new national parks authority will inevitably be subjective. To date its attitude has clearly demonstrated that it is unhappy living with the Army.
The amendment puts forward a simple solution that would be to remove the Army's training grounds from the area of the proposed national parks so that sensible, strategic decisions on training would be left in the hands of the people at the Ministry of Defence, who are the best qualified to take them. Incidentally, it also overcomes the problem of "quiet enjoyment" and the worries that that gives rise to.
The Army must train somewhere and withdrawal from German training grounds inevitably means that it must concentrate greater activity at home. The campaign mounted by the Council for the National Parks, whose ethos and philosophy will largely drive the thinking of the new national parks authority, illustrates that that potential authority may not be the most suitable body for taking balanced decisions in this matter. Currently the anticipated composition of the authority is heavily weighted with pressure groups and underweighted in respect of those who live and work in the national parks and those who apparently have the wider national interests at heart—people who concede that both necessary defence training and recreation must and should share a common interest in the land use of our national parks on this small island. Therefore, either the composition of the new controlling authority should reflect that point or the training areas used for the defence of the realm should be regarded as outwith the curtilage of the national parks.
I might add that I live in a Northumberland national park area. I chose to go there because of the quiet enjoyment and because I was fortunate enough to be able to choose to lift up mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh our strength. For all the nuisance and noise that the Army training produces in the area, I recognise that Britain's defence requirements are paramount. We should bear that in mind the whole time we are considering this issue.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I was tempted to make a short speech. After his intervention I was tempted to imitate Gladstone and go on to his lengths. However, I shall spare the Committee that torture.
I intervene only to say that five or six years ago I was then chairman of the commons and open spaces society, which has since sacked me because it did not agree with much of what I said. However, I was invited to Salisbury Plain by General Kitson to see the area where the Army trains. It was fascinating. Basically, it was the
1670
only bit of Salisbury Plain left which was real tumuli, with mixed old grasses—really like the old heathland. The rest was barley and wheat, sucking in EC agricultural subsidies. It is perfectly reasonable therefore to state that the Army has been extremely good in looking after the fauna and flora of its ranges and training areas.
Since the collapse of communism the world is probably a more dangerous place than it was before. It would be extremely irresponsible not to allow our soldiers and marines to have a proper place to train; that is, a proper and well-guarded place to train. I believe that we can trust them, as in the past, to look after the landscape and the flora and fauna of their training grounds satisfactorily.
Lord Redesdale: Behind the amendment is growing controversy over the Otterburn training area. I must declare an interest. I am a landowner next to the training area. Perhaps I can recount how the training area came into the hands of the Army in the first place. My great-grandfather sold it to the Army after a day of shooting with Churchill. The day was so poor that he turned to Churchill and said, "Well, if it is this bad we might as well turn it into an artillery range". That is what happened: it has been an artillery range ever since.
However, I must speak against the amendment. The arguments put forward would make sense if the Army were about to occupy the land. It has been there for 40 years. I do not believe that it has ever felt constrained by the fact that the area is national park. It would be ridiculous, considering that the aim of the Bill is to put high protection on the land, to remove it from one of the most beautiful areas of Northumberland. However, I should like to speak about the Otterburn training area.
I trained both on the Otterburn training area and in the Brecon Beacons in my capacity as an officer in the TA. I have almost frozen to death in both places. They are beautiful locations and the Army has played a wonderful role in their conservation. However, the present state of agitation is due to the new artillery system, the AS90. I believe that we should carry on training and using those weapons systems. However, I am slightly concerned, having received a Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, which informs me in quite bland terms that people outside the national parks will be exposed to impulse noise of no more than 130 decibels. Considering a pneumatic drill puts out only 90 decibels I felt that that was rather harsh.
There is a great deal of anxiety about the AS90. It is an issue that will come back. One of the great strengths of the national park is that it can question what the Army is doing. To put in the new artillery system the Army will have to build a large number of roads in one of the most unspoilt areas of Northumberland. It is unspoilt because the Army used it in the first place. I do not believe that that should be justification to allow it to put in any roads it likes. It must go through the normal channels. The area is a national park. I believe that the Army and the national park can cohabit very happily indeed.

1671
Going back to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, if I were a cynical person I would say that there was a degree of —to use rather unparliamentary language—"stirring". When the AS90 is about to come into the training area of Northumberland, suddenly there is a mood among the local population that the national park is trying to remove the Army from the military area. That is not the case. The national park is trying to limit the effect the Army will have on the training area.
Lord Vinson: Is the noble Lord aware that a campaign was mounted to remove the Army from the Northumberland national park? That is my essential point, along with the noble Lord, Lord Annaly. My second point is that at the end of the day the best judges of the defence requirements of this country are not those who are likely to compose the new national parks authority but those in the Ministry of Defence who are there for that appropriate purpose.
Lord Redesdale: I agree with the noble Lord. The national parks put forward the view that military use of the training area was incompatible with national parks. That does not mean that they want to remove the Army from the training area. That is not their aim.
The military are only landholders. They hold the national park as a training area. If they reach the point where they no longer need it, it can be returned to the national park and used for other uses. There is no reason to suggest that because the Army do necessary work and the national parks are the only areas for training they should not be subject to the same planning laws as other landowners who live within the national park. I reject the amendment. However, I think that the argument over the AS90 will be with us for some time.
9 p.m.
Lord Lyell: In view of the quite justified indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I rise to speak in one of my only interventions on the Bill. I support strongly what was said by my noble friends Lord Annaly and Lord Vinson. Your Lordships will be appreciative of the fact that the Ministry of Defence takes a fairly harsh line with its employees in looking after all the training areas. I have some experience of the training areas, though not the Pembrokeshire one. I spent a month on Dartmoor doing what your Lordships may feel was crazy—desert training when there was three times the normal rainfall. That was 36 years ago. However, even then we were under considerable pressure not to make more mess than was necessary. We took great care of the roads. I know that that already happens in both the Redesdale and the Otterburn training areas.
As to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the AS90, I do not believe that that gun will be fired from 200 yards each side of the A.68 main road and the habitations along that road. I shall be interested to hear
1672
from my noble friend the objections to the training and other issues which I believe are met by both the MoD and by the views of the national parks.
Lord Redesdale: One of the proposed training areas is within a quarter of a mile of the A.68 and of habitations.
Baroness Nicol: We should remember that much of the land owned or occupied by the Ministry of Defence was secured long before national parks were designated. It was included within national park boundaries in the full knowledge that it was being used for military training. The national park areas were chosen because they were tracts of country which possessed natural beauty and because they afforded opportunities for open-air recreation regardless of ownership or use. Is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, trying to suggest that something has changed in that?
I hope that this amendment will be rejected. For the many reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about planning and so on, I believe that there are better ways of finding a solution than by taking this land out of the national parks. I have not looked at the maps with this in mind but if these tracts of land were to be taken out of national parks the integrity of the whole area would be destroyed so far as management is concerned. I am sure that there is a much better way of proceeding. There have been conflicts before over such matters. I am sure that this one, too, can be resolved.
Lord Vinson: Perhaps I may expand on the point I made earlier. This is a teasing amendment as much as anything. If the national park and its chairman and principal officers are not prepared to make some gesture that they will continue to live happily with the Army, which most of us would believe they should, we put forward the suggestion that the only way out of this dilemma is to remove the areas occupied by the Army from the national parks. That is the last thing that any of us wants to see but it is put forward to try to get some gesture of good will from those who speak for the new national park authorities. We hope that they will work closely with the Army and recognise that this country has real defence necessities.
Lord Norrie: I find myself in a rather precarious position because I served as an officer in the same regiment as the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, so I can understand his sentiments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. However, tonight I am wearing a different hat. I have to oppose the amendment which suggests that military training should be taken out of the national parks. The Government are committed to affording national parks the highest status of landscape protection. They are not selective in that commitment. The commitment relates to the land in all national parks, whatever the land use. The integrity of national parks has been given the highest importance ever since the parks were first designated. As has already been said, the Ministry of Defence owns or leases land in many of the national parks. In the Dartmoor, Northumberland and Pembrokeshire coast parks it owns or leases 16 per cent. of the total area. The removal from those parks of land which is used for military training would seriously

1673
erode their natural beauty, integrity and the opportunities that they offer for enjoyment by the public.
The Ministry of Defence prides itself on its conservation record and it views itself as a good custodian of the national heritage that is contained within the boundaries of the national parks. It works closely with the park authorities to try to strike a balance between the national interest in national parks and the national interest in the defence of the realm. It has signed a declaration of commitment to national parks. In view of the Government's commitments to national parks, the drafting of the amendment seems to be completely against their intentions.
Lord Marlesford: I was relieved when my noble friend Lord Vinson told us that we need not take his proposal too seriously. This is really the kind of debate that one would expect after the third glass of port after dinner. The only serious point one should make is that it is perfectly reasonable for the Ministry of Defence to have to justify its continued use or extended use of the national parks as and when it requires to do so, just as it has to justify its use of public money to the Treasury. It is a perfectly healthy and sensible debate which has come to a serious and sensible conclusion. I do not doubt that there will be relatively happy co-existence between the two for many years to come. I doubt whether UDI is really the answer.
Viscount Ullswater: I know that concern has been expressed regarding military training in national parks. However, I believe that we are in danger of exaggerating both the scale of the issue and the degree to which it cannot be reconciled.
Military use of national parks accounts for only some 3 per cent. of the parks' total area of more than 3 million acres. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Vinson said, the facilities for military training provided by the parks are vital for our defence needs. Those cannot be dispensed with and could not easily be replicated elsewhere, which is the tone of what my noble friend Lord Norrie indicated. In any case, defence uses are an important contributor to the economy of some of the parks. In addition, MoD's record on conservation is good and public access is encouraged wherever possible, as I believe my noble friend Lord Onslow told the Committee.
I do not wish to comment on the military use of Otterburn in the Northumberland National Park. No formal proposals have yet been put forward and the MoD will in any event follow the planning procedures in putting forward its proposals. Furthermore, I reassure my noble friends Lord Annaly and Lord Vinson that the national park authorities have shown a pragmatic acceptance of the reality of the continuing military presence and the need to reconcile national security with the conservation of the parks' environment. In particular, they have pursued both nationally and individually the goal of improved dialogue and better liaison with the Ministry of Defence. I point to MoD's 1987 Declaration of Commitment to the national parks and the longstanding and active local liaison arrangements on Dartmoor in that respect.
1674
I recognise that the defence estate must on occasions lie uneasily within the national parks. However, I do not accept that any conflicts produced are either so severe or so irreconcilable as to warrant the approach proposed by my noble friend's amendment. Therefore, I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Annaly: I thank my noble friends Lord Vinson and Lord Onslow for their support and everyone else who has made a contribution to this short debate. It has aired the subject. I am not going to press the amendment. There is concern but if, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, people are sensible and see that there are two points of view, that is to be welcomed. There is some relevance to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel which we shall come to shortly as regards what comprises the national parks authorities and local representation thereon. Provided that happens I see that there will be some sense on the national parks authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [National Park authorities]:
[Amendment No. 258A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Derwentmoved Amendment No. 258AA:
Page 138, line 37, at end insert:
(" () Principal councils shall have regard to the desirability of appointing to the National Park Authority councillors representing wards within the Park").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 258EA and 258EB which are also in my name. They are all concerned with trying to overcome what I call the "democratic deficit" which will exist because the national park authorities will not be directly elected by the voters who live in the park. There is no perfect way of doing that, but I believe that between them these three amendments will do much to make residents, of which I am one, feel that they have a real chance to influence a body which is going to affect their daily lives.
Difficulties arise because it is in practice going to be very difficult to ensure that the local authority members on the park authority represent the interests of people living in the park. Many of the councils which will be appointing members have the bulk of their population, and therefore the majority of their councillors, in areas outside the park. Even where that is not so, the need to take account of political balance may mean that councillors have to be appointed to the park authority who have very little interest in the concerns of the inhabitants. By way of demonstration of the problem which already exists, I understand that in Northumberland at present only one member of the present park authority lives within the 400 square miles of the park.
My Amendment No. 258AA recognises that for purely mathematical and practical reasons it would not be possible to insist that local authority members must represent wards within the park. I recognise that Paragraph 20 of the draft guidance specifically encourages the appointment of councillors who live in or represent wards in the park. However, it seems to me

1675
that this is not a provision which governments will wish to vary from time to time and therefore it should be on the face of the Bill.
My Amendment No. 258EA recognises the fact that many councillors who do represent wards in the park will not be on the park authority. When park authorities are, as at present, nominally committees of county councils, it is quite easy for the full council to be informed. But now that park authorities are to be independent bodies it may be desirable to impose on them a duty to give an account of their stewardship to the principal councils. I do not have in mind that they should compile a special report. Under Paragraph 26 of the Minister's draft guidance they will already be preparing an annual report to the Secretary of State which can and should be made available to all members of the relevant councils. What I believe is required is a mechanism for formal discussion of this report with the principal councils.
My Amendment No. 258EB, which is the most important of the three, seeks to give a role on the face of the Bill to parish councils in England and community councils in Wales. I am not sure of the position in Wales, but in England the parish councils in most cases will be the only elected bodies whose areas lie wholly within national park boundaries and therefore the only people whose first priority will be the people who live, work and own land in the park. The matter is dealt with in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the draft guidance and I am grateful to the Minister for going a long way to meet the concerns expressed by your Lordships during the debates on the Norrie Bill.
However, parish councils appear in the guidance only as one of a list of bodies to be consulted. I think that that gets the emphasis wrong. I repeat that parish councils are the only democratically elected bodies lying wholly within the parks. They are part of democratic local government and there should be a formal mechanism for consulting them. They are therefore in a different category from the other bodies that have been mentioned.
The reason for wanting the amendment is that at present there is no mention of parish councils or community councils in the Bill as drafted. I believe that if ministerial guidance is to be effective, it should be tied to something in the Bill. Government policy is in favour of an enhanced role for parish councils and community councils in local government. That is what I hope to see in national parks.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the anxieties of park residents that they will have no adequate way of making their voices heard and feel able to accept all these amendments. All the ground covered is already in the guidance, but as these are not objectives that will vary from time to time and as it is not, therefore, desirable for the guidance to be amended from time to time, I feel that they should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Feversham: I am grateful for the fact that these amendments have been tabled because they give us a
1676
chance to examine matters of detail which are not at present in the Bill but which it is intended should be dealt with by ministerial directives. As has been said, we have the comfort of the draft directions which were circulated by the department earlier this week. However, I start from the premise that there is far too much legislative detail resolved by ministerial directive—a view which I suspect is widely shared in this House and in another place by all who are not members of the Executive.
I agree in principle with Amendment No. 258AA. There may be a difficulty, however, in that where something is desirable and where,
"Principal councils shall have regard to the desirability",
it may be better for that to be left to ministerial directive. Amendments Nos. 258EA and 258EB, on the other hand, actually legislate, stating that national parks "shall" do this or that. If this or that "shall" be done, in my view that ought to be incorporated in the Bill.
I have no quarrel with Amendment No. 258EA, but I propose to concentrate my support on Amendment No. 258EB. I shall make no bones about it. Parish councillors feel, have felt for some time and will, I have little doubt, go on feeling that they ought to have a seat at the table of their national park committee. The argument against that has always been that the parish councils in any given national park would never agree on a single representative to promote their multitudinous views. That is Premier Division claptrap. Parish councils find such representatives for all kinds of regional bodies without any difficulty whatsoever.
That battle was fought and lost last year during the passage of the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I should add that we did not fight very hard owing not only to the fragility of Private Member's legislation and our great love for the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and his dog Nat, but also to the fact that we have even greater love for our national parks and an overriding desire to rescue them from that mess of potage otherwise known as "local government reorganisation". What was gained then, however, was a recognition by the Government and all involved that something should be done to improve the lines of communication between local councils and the national parks. There seems to be a consensus on that. Why not incorporate it into the Bill?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: We on these Benches are sympathetic to the amendments because they involve a greater degree of democracy. Clause 59 lays a duty on the councils to pay attention to the national parks and their objectives. That is absolutely right, but there is room as a result for a reciprocal arrangement whereby the national park should have considerable care for local democracy and should have as much leeway as possible under the national objectives. For that reason we would definitely support Amendments Nos. 258EA and 258EB. I am not certain that Amendment No. 258AA is quite right, but its sentiments are absolutely right. I hope that the Government will see their way to meet those particular points.
Viscount Ullswater: I am aware that there is considerable interest in the manner in which local

1677
authorities appoint members to the national park authorities, which is reflected in Amendment No. 258AA, moved by my noble friend Lord Derwent. There is a great deal of concern that the local authorities should appoint members who are in touch with the people who live and work in the parks and not include among their appointees those who may live some distance away or who appear to have little interest in park affairs—although they will, of course, represent charge payers contributing to the parks' costs.
I also am firmly of the view that it is in the best interests of local people that local authorities appoint members to the new authorities who represent wards in the parks. However, there may be appointments for which such a requirement would prove impossible. The relevant member may not wish to serve. There may be other members of the local authority with relevant experience. And there are the political balance provisions to be observed, which we believe is a general principle that should govern all local authority appointments.
Therefore, we have included guidance on the matter in the draft circular, which emphasises the importance that we attach to local authorities appointing as their members people who live in the parks or those who represent wards which lie wholly or partly in the parks. Therefore, we have gone a long way towards satisfying the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment No. 258EA would require the national parks to give annual accounts of their stewardship of the parks to the principal councils in the parks. However, under Schedule 7, paragraph 15 of the Bill, the national park authorities will be required to produce reports, as are all local authorities, under Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972. That Act allows the Secretary of State to determine the frequency of their reports and, as our draft circular makes clear, these reports will be annual.
Regular and comprehensive reports are important as a basis for the continuing dialogue between the national park authorities and their local communities. They are also a means by which the national park authority can publicise its achievements. The national park authorities will be required to produce annual reports of their stewardship of the parks in which they will be expected to include consideration of matters which are of interest to their constituent local authorities, parish councils and other bodies operating within the park.
Amendment No. 258EB emphasises the importance of parish and community councils in the parks. We attach special importance to giving parish councils the fullest opportunity to comment on and contribute to park policies. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the views of local people and communities in the parks are heard. As we have stated in our draft circular, the national park authorities will be expected to make formal arrangements, where they do not already exist, to ensure that local people, including local voluntary groups and recognised user interests of the parks, have a proper and regular opportunity to make known their views. As the draft circular makes clear, we attach
1678
special importance to giving parish councils the fullest opportunity to comment on and contribute to park policies.
I hope that my reply reassures and meets the concerns of my noble friend and I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Derwent: I am grateful to the Minister for some of the comments that he made because we are in agreement with each other. Perhaps he will answer the question that I asked on Amendment No. 258EB. My problem is that parish councils are not mentioned in this part of the Bill, nor are community councils. A reference to them in the Bill would greatly strengthen the permanence of the guidance. It was only when I tried to amend the Bill that I discovered that I had to insert a new clause because parish councils did not appear.
I shall not press the matter at this hour of night. However, perhaps between now and the Report stage the Minister will consider whether there is any objection—indeed, any great advantage—in putting on the face of the Bill a provision in similar terms to Amendment No. 258EB to which the guidance can refer.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall look carefully at what my noble friend said and has now repeated. I give no guarantee that I shall return with any form of amendment but I should like to make certain that what I believe to be the proper way of dealing with the matter—namely, by using the draft guidance—is the best way forward. However, I shall look carefully at what my noble friend said.
Lord Derwent: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258B:
Page 138, line 40, after second ("authority") insert ("(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258C:
Page 138, line 42, at end insert ("but
(b) his appointment may, before any such cessation, be terminated for the purposes of, and in accordance with, sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258D:
Page 138, line 43, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(5) (a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Amendment No. 258DA is an amendment to Schedule 7 and not to Clause 7, as stated on the Marshalled List.
The Earl of Cranbrookmoved Amendment No. 258DA:
Page 139, line 10, after ("Commission") insert ("and the Nature Conservancy Council for England").
The noble Earl said: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees for making that point, which I had been going to make. This grouping brings together amendments which have a common

1679
theme but which nevertheless are separate, in so far as one amends the schedule and the others amend Clause 62.
We are legislating for the national parks of the future. During the course of our debates today I have been struck by how much the pressure and the sentiments in relation to national parks have been driven by considerations of the national parks of the present. I have been struck by how much my noble friend Lord Norrie and those speaking for the Council of National Parks consider that recreation, access and landscape are the prime purposes of parks.
Those matters are extremely important and have been so, but we are now considering legislation and rules that will govern our parks in the future. As we agreed at the beginning of our discussions today in Committee, they will have as their primary purpose the conservation of natural beauty, which my noble friend has assured me includes also natural landscape and land form elements, and wildlife. Therefore, we are legislating for the governance of national parks in which those matters are of equal and paramount importance alongside the traditional values for which national parks have been so important. That is the sentiment behind this set of amendments.
It seems to me extremely important indeed that those who form the national park authorities and those who are appointed to them by the Secretary of State should include among them those who have genuine experience of nature conservation.
Members of the Committee will recall that at the beginning of the past calendar year, the Secretary of State for the Environment required the Nature Conservancy Council for England, English Nature and the Countryside Commission to look at the possibility of merger. One of the products of that inquiry was to make it clear that there are serious differences in the terms of reference, the remit and the approach which English Nature and the Countryside Commission take; and that really the areas of their expertise and the undoubted skill of their staff, commissioners or council members differ quite considerably. That was the conclusion of the merger inquiry.
It is clear that the two bodies have different competences. So far as concerns statutory bodies, the competence for nature conservation, which will be of paramount importance in the national parks of the future, abides with the statutory nature conservation body, whereas the competence and the skills for other issues—such as landscape preservation and access—lie with the Countryside Commission. They are equals in their skills but they are separate. Those skills are not necessarily shared either by the staff or by council or commission members.
The Secretary of State has urged us to work more closely together, and, indeed, we shall do so. However, close working is best achieved by equal working; in other words, by parity and not by subservience. Therefore, it seems to me to be sensible to suggest that when the Secretary of State considers his list of appointees he should be obliged to consult both the
1680
statutory nature conservation body as well as the statutory landscape and access body. In effect, that is what my first amendment proposes.
I am aware that we have the capacity and opportunity to put names forward. However, I have inquired and discovered, as far as I can ascertain, that never has the Nature Conservancy Council or English Nature been consulted on nominations to park authorities. I believe that it would be sensible to ensure that such consultation takes place. Nominations should be sought from the two bodies on an equal basis where the skills and expertise are so separate. That is the point of my first amendment.
My second pair of amendments arises from the same basic point: 140,000 hectares of national park land is SSSI and, as I said earlier this afternoon, 16 per cent. of national park surface is SSSI. In addition, there are very many regionally important geological sites, as I also emphasised earlier, and many other important sites of nature conservation. Given the new primary purpose for the parks, there is no doubt that skills and expertise in management of that national nature conservation resource will be tremendously important in preparing plans for the management of the park. Therefore, my second amendments effectively suggest that, when such plans are prepared, English Nature should have a statutory position alongside the Countryside Commission as a consultee.
The situation in Wales is different because it has a combined body. Where national parks are concerned, the Countryside Council for Wales will be able to give that combined advice and expertise, drawing on the combined skills of the staff. One of the great successes of the Countryside Council for Wales has been the fact that it has managed to integrate nature conservation with landscape conservation, access and other issues throughout the organisation in a skilful and appropriate manner. Indeed, the council shares the skills and the staff share the skills.
When we come to consider the English situation, it is clear to me that English Nature and the Countryside Commission together equal the Countryside Council for Wales. Therefore, in order to ensure that the English national parks receive expertise of the same quality as the Welsh ones will receive in both those cases I believe that my amendments are appropriate. As I said, they deal with two different aspects but that is what links them together. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley: I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I do so because in the National Trust we work very closely with all the organisations set out in the schedule under discussion. However, we also work very closely with English Nature. We are most conscious of the increasing importance of nature conservation in the management of national parks; for example, in matters to do with habitat restoration and so on. In the National Trust we did not want to encourage not merging the Countryside Commission and English Nature, so it seems to me that the proper pari passu treatment now is to draw English Nature into the consultative process,

1681
as has been so ably expressed by the noble Earl. I hope that the Government will treat this amendment with sympathy.
Earl Peel: I, too, wish to support my noble friend. It strikes me that this is a sensible and helpful amendment. I am sure that the Government will argue about where one draws the line as regards consultees. However, as my noble friend so eloquently said, we are talking about one of the main advisers to the Government on conservation purposes and, as he has quite rightly said, that is a primary purpose within this Bill as regards the national park authorities. The experience of English Nature within SSSIs is quite clear. Its obligations as regards the European habitat designations —for example, SPAs, SACs and so on—are such that it will be an integral part of the whole national park scene. I think to eliminate it from the consultee process would be a retrograde step. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has suggested.
Viscount Ullswater: The national park authorities will be expected to work in particularly close co-operation with the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. These bodies have an association with the parks as the successor bodies to the National Parks Commission which goes back to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. They were given statutory duties in respect of the national park boundary designation and variation procedures set out in the 1949 Act which are unchanged by this Bill.
Amendment No. 258DA moved by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook deals with the Secretary of State's appointments to the new authorities. The Secretary of State's members on the national park authorities are appointed to represent the wider national interests for which the parks are designated. We appreciate that there is a great deal of interest in the Secretary of State's appointments to the new authorities and we seek and encourage nominations from a wide range of organisations with an interest in the parks. English Nature is, of course, one of those bodies from which we would welcome nominations. We will take active steps to ensure that it is invited to do so.
There is no evidence that the Secretary of State's interests are not well served by the advice the Countryside Commission offers, nor is there any evidence that nature conservation interests are not well represented among his appointees. Some 30 per cent. of the current appointees to the English national park boards and committees have nature conservation interests.
The practical difficulties of two organisations seeking information about the potential candidates for appointment and the burden that that could place on the nominees have also to be taken into consideration. English Nature and the Countryside Commission are themselves developing closer links and partnerships. Perhaps my noble friend's aspirations could best be met through this arrangement, whereby the Countryside Commission would feel free to consult English Nature where it felt that there was an advantage in doing so.
1682
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook also expressed his firm view that English Nature should also be given special recognition with respect to the management plans of the new authorities. However, the particular skills and expertise which English Nature brings to the parks is already formally recognised. In October 1993, the national park authorities, the Broads Authority, English Nature and the two countryside agencies signed an agreement which specifically recognised the importance of the very close working arrangements between the park authorities and English Nature. This applies not only to the preparation and revision of management plans but also to every aspect of the parks' work which has implications for wildlife.
I also would like to draw my noble friend's attention to the draft circular, and more particularly to paragraph 13 of that draft circular. I have no doubt that there will continue to be close working when the new authorities replace the existing boards and committees and so I do not believe there is anything to be gained by the proposed amendment.
The national park authorities will, I am sure, take seriously their responsibilities to consult widely and seek the views of interested agencies and organisations. They will build on the foundations which the existing national park boards and committees have laid in this respect. They will no doubt pay particular attention to their consultation arrangements in the light of the revised national park purposes. I do not believe that my noble friend's amendment is needed to ensure that the new authorities will exercise their responsibilities properly.
I hope that that reassures my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: With respect, I felt that it was symptomatic that my noble friend the Minister also harked back to 1949 and the perfectly satisfactory arrangements which have worked hitherto. He referred to the agreement. It is not a statutory agreement but it is one which has been negotiated. It illustrates the way in which English Nature likes to work. We have negotiated similar agreements with a number of bodies such as the National Trust, the Forestry Commission and so on. They are a very useful way of working. However, they do not give me the same confidence as would the statutory emplacement of English Nature within the Bill in the way I have requested.
I shall take the matter away with some regret and have another look at it. I may write to the Minister again and try to persuade him that what I propose will achieve the objectives. He says that he has no doubts. I too have no doubts. However, I would have greater reassurance if there were statutory backing to achieve the same objectives for which the Minister has declared his own aspirations. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1683
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 [General purposes and powers]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258E:
Page 67, line 19 leave out from first ("of") to end of line 20 and insert ("conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities, of National Parks).").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 258ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 62 [National Park Management Plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 258EX to 258EZ not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 258EA and 258EB not moved.]
Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Planning authority functions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258F:
Page 73, line 26, leave out ("61(1) of the Environment Act 1995."") and insert ("5(1) of the 1949 Act (purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities, of National Parks)."").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 258ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 259:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Maps
.—(1) Each National Park Authority shall include in its definitive map as required by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended, information distinguishing as accessible or otherwise particular features represented in that map.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State may, after such consultation as he sees fit, by regulations prescribe—

(a) as features, the accessibility or otherwise of which shall be recorded in a definitive map, particular rights of way and facilities or structures making provision for particular purposes;

(b) characteristics the presence of which in relation to such features shall be deemed to render those features accessible to people in spite of any motor or sensory disability;

(c) the colour in which any features so deemed to be accessible shall be recorded in the definitive map.

(3) Each National Park Authority shall make available all information recorded for the time being in its definitive map in the form prescribed under subsection (2) above to the Ordnance Survey for publication and shall provide that information also to the Copyright Libraries.").
The noble Baroness said: I was encouraged to table the amendment because it seemed to me that at a time when the Government were introducing both the
1684
Environment Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill in the same Session a new clause such as the one I suggest was unlikely to provoke outright opposition from the Government and they might even be encouraged to accept the principle behind it.
The purpose of the amendment is to secure that Ordnance Survey maps derived from the statutory definitive maps of the national parks will in future show as accessible or otherwise features which will be important to visitors to the parks who have either motor or sensory disabilities.
If acceptable to the Government, my proposed new clause would allow access to the heritage of our national parks by an enlarged population of several million people. The Office of Population, Census and Surveys suggest that some 6.2 million adults in the United Kingdom have material disabilities. All those people, and more, could have better access if the information they require is presented in the form of a single series of Ordnance Survey maps for any customer—the able bodied and the disabled alike.
I understand that there is at present a legal requirement on national park authorities and committees to prepare and keep under revision the definitive maps of their areas showing, in particular, the rights of way within their boundaries. Thus, my suggestion would not require any new expenditure on the provision of access but merely a record of the extent of access already provided.
The amendment would extend the knowledge of that provision and widen considerably the field of its potential users—those 6.2 million adults to whom I referred. In return, they would represent recruits to the market for services within the national parks. The provision of access and the necessary publicity about it could reap a return in economic as well as in social terms.
There would be little or no cost to Ordnance Survey in providing material to a widened market for its leisure series, and it would not require any new series. For over two centuries Ordnance Survey has developed the language of cartographic symbols and how to apply them. My proposal would involve no change in that area. Acceptance of the principle underlying the amendment would continue and enlarge the theme of access to the countryside. It would also continue the theme of integration of able-bodied and disabled persons in society—something with which I have had active involvement for many years through my association with PHAB, and TRIPSCOPE, which provides all necessary information for the disabled on travel throughout the United Kingdom and abroad. I believe that what I suggest would bring a positive economic return both to the Ordnance Survey and to local trade.
I envisage the consultations referred to in subsection (2) of my amendment as being about successive stages in a positive process of delivering something newly beneficial to people with disabilities and implying at the same time a corresponding extension of potential markets.
The DoE, I am sure, would have the good sense to consult at national and at local level with organisations representing disabled persons, while the national parks

1685
would consult local and locally represented organisations with like interests. The All-Party Disablement Group and RADAR could be consulted, but the clause does not limit those whom the Secretary of State might involve in discussions.
After consultations, the regulations to be made would relate to the national parks' definitive maps identifying the physical features of the environment including rights of way, facilities and structures. The regulations would also specify in relation to each category so identified physical characteristics, the presence of which is to be regarded as providing accessibility—such facilities as reserved parking spaces, telephones with handsets and dials at wheelchair height, or equipped for users of hearing aids, counters at information centres on a level with wheelchair users, graphic explanations at viewpoints at a height which people can see from a wheelchair, and descriptions of visible features that might be available on tape or cast in Braille.
The final subsection of my amendment is in relation to the derivation of the OS maps from the national parks authorities' definitive maps where the regulations would specify a distinctive colour in which the existing conventional symbols for such features are printed where they are so identified as being accessible.
I know that the Minister will give careful consideration to the points I have raised. It is only a probing amendment at this stage. I accept that the noble Viscount may have to tell me that my drafting is defective. However, I hope that he will be willing to accept the thinking behind the proposed clause and that perhaps during the passage of the Bill he will consult with me and others concerned as to how best to achieve the purpose of the clause. If, after all that, the noble Viscount sees fit to bring forward an amendment of his own, I should be only too happy. I beg to move
Viscount Ullswater: Responsibility for producing definitive maps rests with the highway authorities, including those maps which encompass the national parks. The purpose of the maps and statements is to record the public rights found to exist and any legal limitations or conditions which affect public use of the way. This may include features such as stiles and gates but it will not include surfacing, for example. Authorities have duties under other legislation to keep rights of way free from obstruction and appropriately maintained. While it is important that information on access for disabled people should be readily available—the national park authorities will be ideally placed to provide such advice—it is not appropriate in the context of the definitive map and statement. I am confident, however, that the national park authorities will be keen to develop policies which enable all people to appreciate the special qualities of their areas.
The noble Baroness spoke about the Ordnance Survey and the importance of showing on its maps information which helps disabled people to enjoy the countryside. Ordnance Survey decides which information it is appropriate to show on its popular maps, which are the 1:50,000 scale Landranger and the 1:25,000 scale Pathfinder maps. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with the overall benefit to Ordnance Survey's
1686
customers and the readability of maps the main criteria for inclusion. The noble Baroness will understand that there are limits to what may be shown on small-scale, general purpose maps if those maps are to remain readable.
Additional information is held by Ordnance Survey in its national topographic database. In principle this could incorporate information about access to the countryside for the disabled if this were available from a comprehensive and reliable source and users could obtain print-outs from the database tailored to meet their specific purposes in the form of large-scale maps.
I think I have indicated that this is not the most appropriate approach for the purpose which the noble Baroness quite rightly has in mind for people with disabilities. I hope that after what I have said she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. He has given me far more information than I had previously. I was encouraged to put down the amendment because of the leisure maps produced by the Ordnance Survey which contain a tremendous amount of information. It seems to me that they could easily be adapted to show where certain things are available for the disabled.
I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in his reply. I shall read what he said and perhaps consult as to how we can achieve what I seek in some other way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous statutory functions of authorities]:
Lord Derwentmoved Amendment No. 259A:
Page 150, line 41, at beginning insert:
("Public rights of way
.—(1) In a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority, the authority shall be the highway authority for any public right of way for which the Minister is not the highway authority; and references in the Highways Act 1980 to highway authorities shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "public rights of way" means any highway which is a right of way to which Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies (as defined in section 66 of that Act) or which is a way shown as a road used as a public path in a definitive map and statement prepared under that Part of that Act.
(3) Section 42 of the Highways Act 1980 (power of district councils to maintain certain highways) shall not apply to any highway for which a National Park authority is, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the highway authority.").
The noble Lord said: In addressing Amendment No. 259A in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Wise and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 259B and 259C. These are substantive amendments. I apologise that they are taken so late at night and I say right from the start that they are supported by the Association of National Parks, the Council for National Parks, the Country Landowners' Association, the Ramblers Association, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Association of County Councils.

1687
The purpose of my amendments is to transfer responsibilities for management of rights of way, mapping of rights of way and traffic regulation orders—which perhaps I may refer to as TROs—within the parks to national park authorities. In the case of TROs, for reasons that I shall come to later, these powers would duplicate those of existing traffic authorities.
At the outset, I want to make clear what the amendments do not do. They do not in any way seek to change the rights of way network or argue for more or less access. They are solely concerned with mapping and management. They do not affect trunk roads, for which the Secretary of State is the highways authority. In using the term "public rights of way" it is also intended to exclude metalled roads, which are the proper concern of existing highway authorities.
Next, I stress that Amendment No. 259A does not represent anything very revolutionary. It merely reflects what I always understood to be government policy. The National Parks Review Panel recommended that,
"All National Park Authorities should have the full range of powers … to keep the definition maps under review, to make orders altering … rights of way, and to maintain the rights of way network".
In their response to Professor Edwards' report, the Government laid stress on their view that the national parks should be responsible for running the rights of way network. This amendment would achieve that.
My proposal merely recognises that there are certain parts of the highways network where it is logical for the parks to be responsible. Effectively they would become the highways authorities for those roads, paths and lanes which most laymen refer to as the public rights of way network, although in law they are highways.
I should like to deal next with some of the objections that might be raised. The first might be that it would be confusing to have different highway authorities operating in a particular area. That is not so. Section 42 of the Highways Act specifically acknowledges that there are circumstances where different highway authorities would be permissible. That section provides that district councils have a right to take over maintenance of footpaths, bridleways and urban roads; if they do so, they in effect become the highway authority. Incidentally, subsection (3) of this amendment would prevent district councils exercising these powers in respect of footpaths and bridleways in the park if rights of way management is given to national park authorities.
Secondly, it might be said that in practice everything has worked very well until now and that it would be wrong further to overburden an already long Bill. I accept that in practice many highway authorities have delegated the management of rights of way to park committees. The trouble is that others have not and have declined to do so. For example, in the North Yorkshire National Park, North Yorkshire County Council has delegated its powers. Cleveland has not. In all, there are four national parks where similar problems arise. That means that at an arbitrary and invisible point on the map, maintenance of a footpath suddenly shifts from the park to a county council. That cannot be right. Furthermore, in most national parks the work on the
1688
definitive map, which was referred to in relation to the last amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has not been transferred to national park authorities at all.
I must stress that in the Bill it is firmly laid down that it is one of the two purposes of the national park authorities to promote enjoyment of the national parks. It is hard to see how the park authorities can fulfil that purpose if they do not have responsibility for or control of the rights of way network in their areas.
Finally, it might be argued that instead of this amendment it would be adequate for the Secretary of State to direct all highway authorities to delegate to national park authorities their powers under agency agreements. As I have already mentioned, many do. But this is unsatisfactory. First, I am not clear that the Secretary of State has powers to give such a direction. Secondly, it is unsatisfactory to leave a residual democratic responsibility with a delegating authority. It must be better to grant powers to national park authorities as of right rather than to insist that powers be delegated to them by someone else who remains responsible to the voters.
The time for a change is now. It would not be efficient to have the new national park authorities try to negotiate new schemes of delegation for rights of way powers with the new local authorities being set up under local government reorganisation. In any case, as I said, such authorities have no obligation to delegate anyway. If these amendments are passed, such negotiations would no longer be necessary.
I should like to turn to Amendments Nos. 259B and 259C. In a sense they are consequential, but they are both important in their own right. Amendment No. 259B lays firmly on the park authority both the responsibility and the authority to complete the mapping of the rights of way network in its area. Subsection (2)—this provision is obviously desirable—enables the park authority to prepare a single modified map and statement for the whole of a park. At present, each highway authority is responsible for its own area of the park and the work is being carried out in a piecemeal fashion. It is clearly preferable that one body should survey a park as a whole.
Furthermore, I stress that experience on the ground shows that it is much more efficient to have one body responsible for both the mapping and the practical work. Park officers tell me that real difficulties arise when, before a park can carry out physical work, they have constantly to refer to a county council, which may be slow in responding, to sort out problems about the definitive map.
Amendment No. 259C would give a national park authority the same power to restrict the use of footpaths, bridleways or by-ways open to all traffic that is currently enjoyed by all highway authorities. It would have such powers only in respect of the rights of way for which it was responsible.
At present, when a park authority wishes to start procedures for a TRO to be imposed—for example, to stop the use by motorised traffic of unsuitable lanes or by-ways—in practice it has to persuade the county council or other highway authority to initiate action. It

1689
is not surprising that county surveyors, who have other priorities, need considerable persuasion to undertake the work involved. After all, it is not the primary purpose of the county surveyor to promote enjoyment of a national park.
It is relevant to say to the Minister quite seriously that on many occasions when Ministers have been asked to take action to control the use by, say, four-wheel drive vehicles, of by-ways which are suitable only for pedestrians or horses, they have consistently (and correctly) replied that highway authorities already have sufficient powers through the mechanism of imposing TROs. Indeed, they have deplored—I have heard them do it—the reluctance of highway authorities to use those powers. The problem in a national park has been that the bodies with the powers have not been particularly interested, whereas the park authorities, who fully understand the need to protect the enjoyment of the park, have not had the powers to do anything about it. Amendment No. 259C would rectify that situation.
In short, the amendments put clearly into the remit of the national park authorities the responsibility for three activities: to survey and record what the rights of way network consists of; to maintain and manage the network; and to take the responsibility for initiating limitations on the use of the network through the Traffic Regulations Order procedures. I believe that on the grounds of logic, timeliness and efficiency, the Bill is the right place to introduce these amendments. I hope that they will commend themselves both to the Minister and to the Committee.
I understand that departments other than the Minister's are involved in these matters and that he may not be in a position to agree with them tonight. However, after having listened to the debate this evening, perhaps he could take them away for further consultation in Whitehall, with the intention of coming back to the subject at Report stage. That might be for the convenience of Members. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount Addison: I speak in support of Amendments Nos. 259A, 259B and 259C. Every year, 1 million visits are made to the national parks and many of those visitors enjoy the parks by using the rights of way network—walking, cycling and horse riding are the most popular activities in the parks, and all make use of the rights of way.
As my noble friend Lord Derwent so ably pointed out, national parks are designated for the promotion of public enjoyment. It is therefore logical and consistent that the national park authorities, which have few statutory responsibilities, should have responsibility for rights of way as the National Parks Review Panel recommended. In making that recommendation the panel was not arguing for a major change to the present pattern of routes; rather it argued for an effective accessible network.
In recommending that national park authorities be given responsibility for rights of way matters, the panel said that the authorities, with their ranger and warden services, are much better placed to deal with problems of path-routeing and maintenance than are the highway
1690
authorities. It recommended that the authorities should be responsible for the definitive map, as Amendment No. 259B sets out.
Giving responsibility for different parts of the rights of way network to the most appropriate body is not without precedent, as my noble friend Lord Derwent pointed out. Clearly, transferring responsibility from one authority to another will also involve transferring the necessary resources. But that is not an increased cost and the simple matter of transfer should not present problems for the Government. In short, giving the new national park authorities responsibility for rights of way is logical and will remove a tier of unnecessary bureaucracy.
The Earl of Onslow: Earlier in the evening we had a debate on "quiet enjoyment", on which the Committee accepted an amendment against the advice of my noble friend Lord Ullswater. What struck me forcefully listening to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Derwent was the lack of interest shown by local authority and county surveyors, or other people who make the requisite traffic orders, in stopping cross-country motorcycles or four-wheel drives, which are not only the great disturbers of the peace of footpaths, but are also worse than horses in churning them up.
If we are keen to go down the "quiet enjoyment" route, which we obviously are, this seems to me to be an eminently sensible way of reinforcing it. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that we should pass into law an Act which allows the regulation of a footpath to stop halfway up a mountain because of some obscure county boundary and a difference in traffic authority. It must be logical to do what my noble friend suggests, and I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Wise: The rights of way network in the national parks is, as the National Parks Review Panel argued,
"the most important single recreational resource".
The network totals over 12,000 miles in the 10 original national parks plus the Broads. Thus it is necessary that, because of its scale and importance, the rights of way network has the most effective administration possible, and the amendments of my noble friend Lord Derwent seek to ensure that that happens in the way the panel recommended.
One of the central management challenges in the national parks is maintaining the rights of way network as visitor pressure increases, particularly on the more popular routes, including some of the long distance trails. That task takes up a large proportion of the resources of the national park authorities, which are best placed to address that challenge. It is therefore surprising that four national park authorities—the Brecon Beacons, the Peak District, the North Yorkshire Moors and Snowdonia—do not have the full range of responsibilities for public rights of way over all or parts of their areas.
The amendments seek to provide a consistent legislative logic across all the national parks, providing users of the rights of way network and others with an

1691
interest in it with a more direct means of contact and a better level of accountability once the national park authorities are freestanding.
Where national park authorities have had responsibility, they have demonstrated their fitness for the task and some now have more than two decades of experience of successfully managing rights of way. It is now time, especially in the light of local government reorganisation in England and Wales, to give all national park authorities responsibility for rights of way, as these amendments provide.
The level of support for the amendments embraces a wide spectrum of organisations. My noble friend Lord Derwent listed many of them. The Country Landowners' Association briefing states:
"The effectiveness of using national park resources to do this job has already been demonstrated".
There must be confidence that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport will now co-operate closely to implement this most logical set of amendments.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Derwent is right in what he suggests in Amendments Nos. 259B and 259C. However, I have some doubt as to whether Amendment No. 259A is really necessary. In paragraph 11 of the ninth schedule we find that the previous law under the Highways Act 1980,
"shall have effect as if references … to a local authority or council included references to a National Park authority and as if the relevant Park were the authority's area".
I may be wrong about that, but that is how it seems to read.
Lord Derwent: I myself queried that. These powers do not govern either the mapping or the maintenance and management of the paths. They deal only with such matters as stopping them up and so on.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged to my noble friend. That brings me onto my next point, on which I speak with some experience. Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, before any footpath or other right of way could be acknowledged in law as a right of way for the public, there had to be a judicial inquiry in front of the Quarter Sessions. Those proceedings were highly controversial. I never heard such hard swearing between old people of the same generation as one would find sometimes in those cases. There would be one old man who said that he had always been allowed to go there and pick blackberries or gather bird-nests. Another old man would say that he had tried to do so but had always been turned away. One generally found that there was some personal reason for the antagonism between the old people. The court sometimes had a very difficult decision to take. I speak from experience because I was retained by one of the East Anglian county councils in such cases under that Act. Has my noble friend Lord Ullswater any information on whether many cases are still likely to arise within the national parks in which the public right of way was disputed. If there are such cases, we must be quite sure that there will remain, after the Bill is
1692
passed into law, the opportunity for the people, old or young, to express their views on whether there is or is not a traditional right of way.
Having said all that, it is important that the various matters to which my noble friend Lord Derwent referred, once it is established that there is a right of way, should be carefully defined as a responsibility of the national park authority for each national park. Therefore, whether or not these amendments are vital, we deserve to have some clarification from my noble friend.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I would like very strongly and briefly to support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Derwent. It is absolutely crucial that the national parks should have the role referred to. It should be an integral part of the reform in order to allow them in their new form to do their job properly, particularly as regards general access and enjoyment of the parks—whether or not "quiet enjoyment" is concerned. I believe that if the Bill were to become an Act without that provision it would be very defective and a great opportunity would have been missed. I hope that my noble friend will support it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in particular Amendment No. 259C. As I have explained on a previous occasion to the Committee, I have some experience of common land and the problems associated with enforcing rights of way on it. I believe that it is the same problem which exists as regards national parks.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Derwent, that the national park authority should have authority. Nevertheless, there needs to be a clear definition of what is a footpath and what is a bridleway. In Amendment No. 259C there is reference to the road traffic regulations. In my experience bridleways are ways on which a horse can be ridden and not a motor-powered vehicle driven. I shall be grateful for the comments of the noble Viscount on this point. It is all very well to say that a bridleway which passes my house in Wales is only a bridleway and cannot be used by motor cars, motor cycles or four-wheeled vehicles but only by horses or horse-drawn vehicles. But it is very difficult to put that obligation on a national park authority when the definition of the bridleway is not observed by other local authorities.
I support these amendments, but I see certain difficulties in enforcing the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has raised in Amendment No. 259C as regards road traffic regulations on rights of way.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may deal at the outset with the question of my noble friend Lord Renton. He asked me whether there were any cases in national parks where public rights of way are disputed. Without notice I cannot answer my noble friend. I shall write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
I recognise the support that my noble friend Lord Derwent has secured for the amendments. I have every sympathy with what he is trying to achieve. In our policy statement Fit for the Future we recognise the

1693
importance of the rights of way network to national parks as elements in securing the promotion of the parks' enjoyment. It is acknowledged that visitors to the parks will expect properly maintained and signposted footpaths and bridleways as a touchstone of park authorities' commitment to their objectives. To achieve that we have also indicated that where highway authorities have not delegated rights of way management responsibilities to national park authorities we would invite them to do so. That remains our policy, and as part of the process for establishing the new authorities we shall be writing to each relevant highway authority asking it to consider positively its relationship to the new—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene at this stage, but the Minister mentioned the policy statement Fit for the Future. I take it that that is a different statement from the Edwards Panel statement which is also entitled Fit for the Future. Am I correct?
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that I am talking about the same statement.
To achieve this, we also indicated that, where highway authorities had not delegated rights of way management responsibilities to national park authorities, we would invite them to do so. That remains our policy, and as part of the process for establishing the new authorities, we shall be writing to each relevant highway authority asking it to consider positively its relationship to the new national park authorities and to enter into agency agreements to delegate rights of way work where that has not already been done. Those agreements will enable the national park authorities to continue to protect and promote recreational rights of way in a way which can be tailored to meet particular circumstances of the park.
We have, however, no plans for the time being to redistribute statutory responsibilities for the rights of way network to national park authorities, nor do we have any plans to give them the same powers as a traffic authority. Also, we do not consider it appropriate to amend the provisions regarding the preparation of definitive maps on a piecemeal basis.
Our reasons are that we believe the integrity of the highway network and its management should be maintained and that this should be through the mechanism of a common highway authority. The management of traffic at all levels needs to be considered comprehensively. Highway authorities and national park authorities will need to work together in close co-operation to ensure that this is so. We believe that this will be better achieved through the current institutional arrangements.
We recognise that there could be advantage in having more explicit traffic management policies, prepared by the highway authorities after close consultation with the national park authorities. Existing provisions, such as traffic regulation orders, offer considerable scope for imaginative schemes.
Noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who has indicated the problems, will be aware that the boundary between those highways marked on the definitive map as byways and a range of unclassified
1694
county roads without metalled surfaces is hazy. Furthermore, that boundary varies between areas and is subject to changes from time to time. Separate responsibilities between highway authorities and national park authorities may create confusion. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: What happens if, when he has sent the invitation marked RSVP to the local authority, the local authority regrets very much that it is unable to attend the dinner party? What happens then?
Viscount Ullswater: I am afraid that I did not get the gist of my noble friend's remarks.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend said that he would invite local authorities to enter into traffic management agreements. If, seeing RSVP on the bottom of the invitation, they regret that they are unable to attend and do not co-operate, what happens then?
Viscount Ullswater: The whole point was that we would expect them to co-operate. We would ask them to do so. But we do not feel it right to take a power to make them do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not quite understand what the Minister is getting at. If a national park authority is to be a planning authority and if it is to be, in a sense, the authority that looks after the environment in its own area of the national park, it must surely have the same powers as a traffic authority to keep open the byways and bridleways. It must also have the power—it should have the power—to establish within its own park the relevant bridleways, byways and footpaths; otherwise it cannot protect the environment—
Lord Renton: I wonder whether I may suggest what I hope is a constructive way out of this. Surely a highway authority which has the responsibility for maintaining road surfaces and road signs should, even within a national park, continue to have that responsibility. I should have thought that the same would apply to highway authorities which are responsible for minor roads.
As regards rights of way such as bridlepaths and footpaths, is it not sensible that the national park authority, which is responsible for ensuring the preservation of all the other land within the national park, should have that responsibility? In other words, there would be a division of the public responsibilities involved.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made an interesting and serious point with which I agree. Certainly, the national park authority must have responsibility for establishing what are the county roads, the bridleways, the rights of way and so forth. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right in saying that the national park authority should not have the responsibility for maintaining an asphalted road, a county road or whatever it might be.
I speak from experience in Wales. As regards many of the Welsh national parks, we do not know where the bridleways are. I do not live in a national park but I can

1695
tell the Committee that the bridleway which passes my house is not on the ordnance survey. However, old records show that there is a bridleway. I believe that the same is true in the Brecon Beacons national park.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it need not necessarily be the national park authority which has the duty of maintaining such roads. However, the authority must have an obligation and a duty to establish exactly within its area what are the bridleways and paths in order that we can be certain about it.
Lord Derwent: I am advised that the roads about which we are speaking exclude metalled roads of the kind referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Williams, and trunk roads. The Minister said that he recognised my success in drumming up support. Most of the organisations I listed earlier took the initiative in telephoning me to say that they had noticed that I had tabled the amendment and wished me to know that I had their full support. I draw attention to the fact that the list included the Association of Local Councils, which would be giving up the role, in addition to the national park officers, the Association of National Parks and so forth, which will be taking on the role.
All speakers have supported my position. Prior to the debate I went to some trouble to try to find an organisation connected with the issue which was not in favour. I wanted to hear the arguments against. The first voice that I have heard speak against the proposal is that of my noble friend the Minister. It is 10.28 p.m.; it would not be appropriate to divide the Committee tonight. However, I hope that the Minister will recognise that the support of a wide range of organisations outside the Committee, plus the heavy support I have received in the Committee, suggests that if on Report he is unable to return to the House having given further consideration to the matter—and I have taken his answer to mean no—it is almost inevitable that we shall have to test the opinion of the House.
The Minister talks about asking the authorities to delegate powers. But that is precisely what the Government have been doing since the Edwards Report. The fact is that many of them have simply refused to do so. There is no reason whatever to believe that another ministerial circular will encourage the authorities to change their minds. I hope that the Minister will at least throw out a crumb of comfort, indicating that without commitment he will take the matter away to his department and think again before the Report stage.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, which he indicated he would do because of the lateness of the hour, I should like to tell him and the Committee that I recognise the feeling in the House and I have listened to what has been said. Therefore, without commitment, I should like to go away and think again about this issue. Perhaps between now and Report, my noble friend and I could discuss the matter to see whether there is a way forward.
Lord Derwent: I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1696
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 259B to 260 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 69 agreed to.
Lord Elis-Thomasmoved Amendment No. 260A:
Before Clause 70, insert the following new clause:
("Management of National Parks and other sites
The functions of the control and management of each National Park authority, set out in section 61 above, or those of National Nature Reserves or Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, shall be carried out in each case wholly by the relevant conservation agency, namely the National Park authority, or English Nature, Scottish National Heritage, or the Countryside Council for Wales, except where specific management agreements have been or will be negotiated with owners or occupiers of such designated areas under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 or under section 132 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure the continued effective management of national parks, national nature reserves and SSSIs by the relevant conservation agencies or authorities in the public sector except where there are specific negotiated agreements with owners or occupiers.
The reason for tabling the amendment will be well known to Members of the Committee and to all of us who are concerned within the environment movement generally about the proposals, which have received substantial press coverage—and I refer to them as proposals—that certain nature reserves and conservation activities might have been transferred from the current Management to other forms of management at the behest of the right honourable John Redwood, the Secretary of State for Wales.
I shall not speak at any length on this because I shall give the Minister the opportunity to put the Government's side of the case, and I look forward with interest to hearing that. It seems to me that an interesting scenario has emerged whereby the present Secretary of State for Wales has revived proposals which were floated by a previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the late Lord Ridley, and that those proposals were then put upon—and I say it in those terms—the Countryside Council for Wales. The way in which those proposals were pursued was to curtail severely the public expenditure allocation of that council for the next financial year. The cut of £3.7 million in the budget of the council has been referred to already in this Chamber both at Question Time and also in our earlier debates on the Environment Bill.
Nothing has been said to me from the government Front Bench in this Chamber or, so far as I have seen from the record, in the other place to put our minds at rest. Indeed, it was not the intention of the Secretary of State, as it was reported in the press the weekend before last, to pursue objectives which would have transferred the management of those valuable sites from the public to the private sector, or at least to other forms of management which might have included forms of contractorisation.

1697
I am well aware that the Secretary of State appeared at a press conference on 31st January. I quote from a Hysbysiad l'r Wasg, Y Swyddfa Gymreig, and because of the hour, I quote the English version. It states:
""I want everyone to be clear about my objectives and my priorities,' said Mr. Redwood. '1 have no plans for privatising nature reserves, nor any wish to halt the valuable work of the Countryside Council for Wales'".
The press release continues:
"I want it to concentrate on improving the management of protected areas".
What does the Secretary of State mean by talking about the improved management "of protected areas"? Many of us who have lived, walked and loved such areas for a quarter of a century regard them as being extremely well managed by the national park authorities, by the owners and by the lessors of those sites. Indeed, that applies also to the scientific expertise of the Countryside Council and its predecessor authority the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales, which, as I have said before, was effectively directed by a colleague of mine who is now in the private sector, Dr. Tom Pritchard. In that connection, I declare an interest as someone who is a director of a private environmental consultancy who would perhaps benefit were the Secretary of State to carry out his proposal.
Therefore, I am speaking in favour of the principle and, in a sense, against my own interest in saying that those valuable sites should be maintained in perpetuity within public sector management and control. It is possible that there are ways in which the public sector management of those sites can be made more effective as the Secretary of State implies, but it is important for us to know how that would happen. In other words, whether it would mean transfers of functions between existing conservation bodies, between park authorities and other public sector bodies; or, indeed, whether it might involve the further activity of the National Trust, the North Wales Wildlife Trust or of any such bodies. It must not mean that those sites are transferred out of public control and management. In my view, that could only be detrimental.
As we have already heard in this Chamber this evening, the Countryside Council is highly regarded both in Wales and internationally within the conservation field because of the way that it has managed to integrate the activities of conservation and countryside management. The key to that lies in being able to call upon the public sector management skills—the scientific skills, the wardenship skills, and the access-control skills. All of them are available in that organisation. In the way that it is able to oversee the management of such sites, it has made a unique contribution to conservation policies.
Therefore, I hope that we shall receive reassurances from the Government Bench this evening and that, if necessary, the Department of the Environment will convey the message from this Chamber to the Secretary of State for Wales. I know that the Government may say that it is quite right for Wales to have different policies
1698
if it so desires. Of course, we all believe that; but the policies in Wales must not be worse than the policies in England. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas has raised a most important point. Perhaps I may declare my own interest, yet again, as President of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. I believe that we need a clear answer from the Government on the matters raised by the noble Lord. It is said in the Welsh press that the Secretary of State for Wales is about to dismember the Countryside Council for Wales. It is said that there is a serious personality conflict between the Secretary of State and the chairman of that body; and it is said that, certainly, the budget for CCW has been reduced. Moreover, I believe that I am right to mention what the Secretary of State for Wales said; namely, that many of the things that the Countryside Council for Wales does at present could be done in the private sector.
We need a clear statement from the Government. I suggest that the Government should make a clear statement this evening on exactly what are the Government's intentions over CCW; and, indeed, on the other matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred.
Viscount Ullswater: I am afraid to say that when I read the amendment I had to scratch my head quite hard in an attempt to understand what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. The functions and duties of the national park authorities are clearly set out in Clause 61. We do not think that the noble Lord's amendment adds to it in any way. As I read it, the effect of the amendment—and I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said—would be to place a duty on the nature conservation bodies, as mentioned in the wording, to manage land within national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest not subject to a specific management agreement under Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968. This would be contrary to the voluntary principle which underpins all government policy for the conservation of wildlife habitat, which is based on co-operation of the landowners and reflects government policy not to extend bureaucracy unnecessarily. Provisions for voluntary management agreements are in place. There are long stops, including compulsory purchase to protect nationally and internationally important sites, but the voluntary principle is the keystone to holding up the Government's habitat conservation policies.
From the press, certainly, I understand that the intentions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales were misrepresented. Within the overall requirements to maintain the management of nature reserves and SSSIs, it may be possible for a greater number to be managed by elected local authorities, as I believe many are already. I understand that the noble Lord is concerned about the deterioration of some of these sites, but I believe that this measure would be a very bureaucratic way of addressing that concern. As I said, it is very much

1699
against the voluntary principle which I sought to press upon the noble Lord. In that case I hope he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful for the partial reassurance that we have had from the Government this evening. I would, however, request that the Minister look again at my remarks and those of the official spokesman for the Labour Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this matter, because there has been concern that there were proposals to transfer activity away from the Countryside Council, possibly to the private sector, and that this would involve the transfer of the management of specific sites. The voluntary principle is certainly one which I approve as part of the conservation activity. What I do not approve of is a commercial principle in this whole area. If the Minister is telling us this evening that it is not the intention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to transfer any conservation sites within Wales to any form of commercial management, that would be a satisfactory reassurance.
I am not entirely reassured by the proposal about transfer to local authorities for the simple reason that we are at the moment in the middle of a local government reorganisation. It may well be that local authorities may be able to take on additional responsibilities at some date, but no function currently carried out or site supervised or any activity grant aided by the Countryside Council for Wales should be handed over to any other body, public or private, unless that organisation is able to carry out the work more effectively; or to manage it more effectively, or is able to take on the responsibility and has sufficient staff to do so. It seems to me that that is not the case now with local authorities.
We have just been debating the position of access through bridleways and footpaths, and the network of access—precisely an issue where local authorities in many areas have not been able to carry out their responsibilities. As vice-president of the Ramblers in Wales I am well aware of the deficiencies in that whole area. How can we possibly think, and how can the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales think, that a transfer of conservation, and habitat conservation particularly, at this moment to other bodies, particularly local authorities, can be more effective? I believe there is a real danger that the Countryside Council for Wales may not be able to carry out its statutory duties in habitat conservation under European and UK legislation if the cuts proposed by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales are implemented. I ask him to send the message to his colleagues, as strongly as possible, that that must not happen.
We shall want to return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill. However, on the basis of the partial assurances we have received this evening and the messages we are trying to send from this Chamber to the other department concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1700
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 70 [Powers to make orders]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 261:
Page 75, line 12, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 13 and insert ("and no order contained in any such instrument shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was put down following the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I shall move the amendment, but only in order to ask the Minister to confirm that the answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, during the debate on the Motion that Clause 60 should stand part of the Bill also applies to Clause 63, which was also the subject of the committee's comments.
The Minister spoke of the powers meaning "incidental, supplemental" and other provisions. Clause 70(3) states that the powers will "include" powers to make such provisions. It seemed to me as I listened to the Minister that he may not have taken account of the word "include", which suggests to me that there are other powers in addition to those which are listed. I shall understand if the Minister finds it difficult to respond to that particular point at this hour. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I can understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the light of the report of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers, which advised that this Chamber may wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in relation to the powers under Clauses 60 and 63. I hope that I can satisfy the Committee that those clauses are inherently sufficiently restrictive to make the negative procedure acceptable. I shall do so by reference to points which enabled the committee to conclude when it considered the same provisions in the National Parks Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Norrie, 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 those powers to be subject to the negative resolution procedure".
We consider that to enable the Secretary of State to provide for the establishment of national park authorities by order is the most practicable way of proceeding, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It is unlikely that all the national park authorities will be established at the same time. Therefore, as the timing may differ the circumstances of each park will need individual consideration to identify the provisions required in connection with the winding up of the existing body. Thus, we believe that in order to facilitate a smooth transition from the existing authorities to new authorities, powers to make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions are essential.
The provisions in Clauses 60 and 63 will have effect only within or for the purposes of national parks and are very narrowly prescribed. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be aware that we accepted the positive resolution procedure under Amendment No. 241A, but

1701
the situation under Clause 70 is quite different from that under the new Section 78H of the Environmental Protection Act. That new section gives the Secretary of State the power to increase by order the maximum level of fine payable under subsection (1) of that section, and we have accepted that that should be subject to the positive resolution procedure. However, the purpose of Clause 70 is quite different. It provides for those incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional purposes to be used only in connection with the primary power.
I believe that most of the words that I said regarding Clause 60 apply equally here. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will allow Clause 70 to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I accept that. I am not sure whether the Minister wishes to deal with the question that I raised on the term "include". With regard to the hour of the night—it is now 10 minutes to 11—I shall be happy to take up the matter after today's Committee stage.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1702
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 262 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 73 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to National Parks]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 262A:
Page 157, line 40, leave out from ("inserted") to end of line 41 and insert (""(and, as respects land within the Broads, any reference in this section to the relevant authority is accordingly a reference to the Broads Authority)."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.