Environment Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 09 March 1995 vol 562 cc400-64

3.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report. —(Viscount Ullswater.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 59 [Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated] :

Lord Vinson moved Amendment No. 180:

Page 65, line 23, leave out from ("have") to end of line 25 and insert ("a duty to work with and sustain local communities within the National Park and to have regard to their economic and social well being.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to give to the House the apologies of my noble friend Lord Derwent, who has been called abroad unavoidably.

I believe that this new amendment, which appears to have wide support, brings together the threads of a major concern raised at the Committee stage; namely, that the Bill as currently framed gives insufficient weight to the duty of care that we believe the national park authority ought to have for the interests of those who live and work in the park, without whose co-operation the daily management of our national parks would be virtually impossible.

There are two main constituents to the national park. First, there is the visiting public and, secondly, those who are visited—those who actually live and work there and on whom, certainly in the case of upland farmers, the national park depends for its overall appearance and attractiveness. Out of season and in inclement weather it is those people who populate the national park and sustain both its economic and environmental fabric. Many of us believe that the Bill must make more central and positive the recognition of their importance and purpose. We fear that unless that is done, little will prevent a divergence of attitudes developing between them the park wardens and the general public, which will be greatly to the detriment of the good working relationships that are needed.

The full impact of public access falls on the residents of the park. They are the people who repeatedly have to deal with the daily problems of the park, such as gates being left open, livestock escaping, picking up litter that has been discarded, lost ramblers wanting to use their telephone and their lavatories and drivers whose cars are stuck and need to use a tractor for recovery. Often they find that it is a pleasure to help such people; but on occasion they meet with downright rudeness. They are the unpaid custodians of the park. Their good will is essential.

Let us imagine an upland farmer talking to a park warden today. As things stand he could easily and rightly say to that warden, "You don't care a damn about me and my lot. You never do anything for us. So why should I do anything for you?" How much better if, on the other hand, the warden could reply, "On the contrary, my authority cares deeply about your welfare and you know that we shall do everything we can within reason to sustain you." If, as a consequence of the new section, he can truthfully reply that the interests of those who live and work in the park really do concern him, how much more likely is it that a constructive and agreeable working relationship will be built up between the administrators and the administrated, the visitors and the visited, to the benefit of all? Surely that is the kind of practical working relationship that we should wish to foster if we wish to see the national park arrangements working out satisfactorily on the ground.

I understand that, not surprisingly, the Association of National Parks, with the chairmen and chief officers of the parks, favour this amendment, as it will facilitate its work if the inhabitants feel that they are on the same side. Clearly they recognise its difficult but important task of balancing interests.

At Committee stage, in an amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Derwent, it was proposed that the parks should foster economic and social well-being. However, we recognise that "foster" is perhaps too proactive a word. We feel that the revised wording of this amendment accurately reflects what is needed. In so doing, it does no more than take the wording from the new guidance to the national parks: to work for and with local communities".

But it introduces those words nearer the heart of the Bill, which will give them a greater degree of force—certainly far greater force than being left in the guidelines per se, where they could easily be overlooked.

Noble Lords will notice, however, that the wording of the amendment has been carefully chosen. The word "for" has been deleted and "sustain" has been substituted for it. The word "sustain" has been chosen because it carries no economic commitment but only a moral one. In no way do we seek—nor indeed would it be proper—for the national parks to be obliged to give economic support. But this new clause gives that authority an obligation. It is not an overriding obligation, but an obligation to work with and sustain local communities within the park and to have regard to their economic and social well-being. What is proposed in no way overrides the clear remit of the authority to manage the parks with the environment as its paramount consideration but it gives that authority a duty of care—a duty to care—for the inhabitants of the park, the unpaid custodians, the unpaid wardens, to preserve it and maintain it. Without their co-operation the parks would be virtually unworkable.

This amendment remains subordinate to the main clauses of the Bill. It has the support of the officers of the Association of National Parks and I believe that its general thrust will be acceptable to the Government. I hope the House will find in its favour. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I do not think anyone would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that the well-being of local communities in the parks is a matter of concern. But the question posed by this amendment is: what is the role of the national park authorities; and how should that be reflected on the face of the Bill, if indeed it should be reflected on the face of the Bill at all? In other words, should there be a third purpose?

The Bill as drafted strikes the right balance between the statutory purposes of the parks, which are conservation and recreation, and the social and economic responsibilities of the park authorities. The drafting as it stands reflects the recommendation of the Edwards Report and provides the right legal framework for the guidance that may follow which may indeed refer in rather more detail to what the national parks should be doing. It is in that circular that all the constructive recommendations which Edwards made on working in partnership with local communities are best set out in detail. Those should not be on the face of the Bill. To try to insert this kind of detail into the Bill would distract from and would rather muddy the primary legislative framework which describes the vital relationship between park purposes—why the parks are designated at all—and the importance of having regard to the social and economic matters in pursuing those purposes.

It is our belief that the local communities within the parks are best served by the national park authorities doing what they are empowered to do under the Bill and by the local authorities, which are, after all, representative of local communities, providing the help, sustenance, economic development and so on. The two should not trespass one on the other. The national park authorities should not be burdened with any more than is in the Bill at the moment. Although I understand that the noble Lord's amendment is moved with the purest, best and right motives, I have to say that we shall not be supporting him if he decides to press it to a vote.

Lord Renton

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vinson has moved a very important amendment. The words "shall have regard to" are interpreted in various ways, not only by the courts but by those responsible for "having regard" where Parliament has said that they shall do so. Sometimes it is regarded in a purely negative way. In other words, "we shall not do anything to upset". But the amendment has the virtue of making the obligation positive. I believe it is an obligation that should be positive.

Of course, the national park authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, has the primary duty of conservation within the national park but we have to remember that activities go on which must be allowed to flourish. In most national parks there is forestry; fanning; the tourist trade; transport, including the maintenance of roads, footpaths and bridges. The people living in the national park—generally there are several thousand of them—have to have their village shops and the ordinary services that people need in their every-day lives. There must be schools for the young people. With the growth of local craftsmanship we must make sure that such activities are given the chance to flourish. They will not interfere with the conservation duty on any scale. Very often in national parks there are important and quite large buildings, ancient and otherwise, which have to be maintained. There must be people capable of maintaining them. We really must ensure that all these other activities flourish in a national park so that the national park as a whole can be successful and serve the public as we all wish.

The Government have wisely anticipated that there could occasionally be a conflict between the activities of the national park authority and other bodies. That is dealt with in subsection (2) of new Section 11A which is to go into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. We need not worry about what will happen if there is a conflict because that is taken care of in subsection (2) with the help of the definitions of the bodies concerned in subsections (3) and (4). Therefore, I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his fears about the way in which the amendment would work. The placing of a really positive duty upon the national park authority in the way my noble friend has suggested and the way I have ventured to suggest also can only lead to a strengthening of what we all have in mind.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I support the amendment. There seems to be an idea that one can just stop everything in the countryside and have no progress and no change. It does not work like that. For example, a moor may revert from heather to grass for various reasons. Farming methods change, which again brings a change of need, and so on. One has to have progress in the uplands just as much as in the downlands. At the moment there is an enormous assumption against planning permits for anything in the way of industry. There are many places where quarries can be opened up to the great advantage in terms of work of the people in the area. They would not be visible because they are dug into the ground. They do a lot of good for the local economy. Control could come in to ensure that such developments were not visible, that the architecture was appropriate and the siting was such that they were not intrusive.

The Earl of Lytton

My Lords, I very much support the amendment. As always, I declare my interest as a farmer in a national park. I take the point made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that it is not satisfactory to leave this matter wholly to guidelines. We know from experience that the provisions of Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 have not been strong enough. The formula of words there was, to have due regard to", the social and economic needs of rural areas. But over time that has effectively meant that those very interests have been sidelined.

Several national park authorities seem to believe that they have no direct responsibility for social and economic activity in their area and that they should act as an enabling authority to facilitate the Rural Development Commission and others to deal with that. But we are dealing with a new situation where national park authorities will have planning and development control powers and will determine housing and other policies, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, so eloquently put it. In due course, they may indeed become highway authorities if amendments to that effect are agreed to. No other authority has those kinds of powers and they are at the heart of implementing any sort of social and economic momentum and keeping it going. Therefore, I do not believe it is satisfactory that we should have a process which my children would recognise as "pass the parcel". The effect is that the parcel never stops anywhere and nobody takes responsibility for these matters at all.

I hope that that is a partial answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He appeared to advocate split responsibilities. I am not sure that I can accept that idea in national parks. I am interested in integrated responsibilities. I thought that we were getting close to the concept of multi-purpose authorities for national parks. As I see it, the amendment does no more than integrate social and economic factors with all the other duties, but it does not pre-empt those other duties and neither does it give any kind of priority. It makes sure that this particular duty is stated overtly in legislation and the reason for that is because in the past it has been sidelined.

The amendment refers to "local communities" and that picks up a thread which appears elsewhere in the Bill. I would like to be sure that the Government mean that all composite parts of local communities are included in that description, which includes individual land managers, and that their interests are given not pre-emptive but due weight. The Minister gave an indication that that might be so in an answer he gave earlier to his noble friend Lord Onslow in debates on this Bill, but he answered in rather negative terms. I should like to encourage the Minister to make the same comment but in more positive terms if he will be kind enough to reply to that point.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, I support this extremely good and important amendment for those who live in the national parks. I farm myself, but I do not have the misfortune, if that is the word, to farm in a national park. I know that if I did I would be much happier with the terms of this amendment than simply being told that the national park authority will have due regard for my needs as a farmer. As my noble friend Lord Vinson said, I should like to have my interests looked after by the national parks and work together in a positive way rather than feel that I am being sidelined and being duly regarded; but not as manager of the land as I would be as a farmer in a national park. It is very important that the individuals there who look after the landscape work positively and closely with the authorities. I support the amendment most strongly.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, as I said in Committee on a similar amendment—and though the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, believes that the word "foster" was stronger—I cannot see the difference between "foster" and "sustain". It seems to me to have the same implication.

However, I feel that on this occasion the Government have got it right. I hope the Minister will resist this amendment. The amendment would imply a positive economic role for the park authorities and that was rejected by the Minister at Committee stage. It would not be in accordance with the recommendations of the Edwards Report on which so much of this legislation is based and to which the Government have given their complete support and approval in the past.

Park authorities are well aware of the importance of working in partnership with local communities and they have a very good record of doing so. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was concerned about planning opportunities which might come to park authorities under the new Bill. They have had planning functions before and in the Peak District in particular that has worked extremely well.

The Bill as it stands makes the relationship clear between the parks and the other agencies which have the duty and the means to sustain local communities. The park authorities cannot and should not blur the lines of responsibility. I believe that great disquiet and resentment may be caused within those other agencies if this amendment is passed.

The first duty of the national parks which is not mentioned in the amendment—I may have felt more kindly towards it if it had—is to further national park purposes. That must not be lost sight of. But all park authorities know that the economic and social well-being of local communities is essential to the well-being of the parks. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, implied that landowners and fanners were not members of the community. I would be the last to suggest that that was so. I hope that they are members of their local communities.

The knowledge that they have to work with the local communities is part of the consideration which national parks give to every decision. I hope the Minister will reject this amendment because it appears to me as the thin edge of a very sharp wedge which could be driven in further at a later stage of the Bill. I should like to see this amendment rejected.

3.45 p.m.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that the social and economic well being of communities in the parks is important. Indeed, it is essential to the achievement of national park purposes and I wish to make that clear at the outset. However, I am not persuaded that this amendment is the right way forward. The Edwards Review Panel dedicated much of its thinking to the role of national park authorities in relation to the economic and social well-being of local communities. It is interesting to note that many panel members apparently set out in the belief hat national park authorities should be given a third socio-economic purpose. However, following their exhaustive fact-finding tour, consultations and deliberations, they came to a different conclusion which merits very careful scrutiny. They concluded that, National Park Authorities should be able to assist the appropriate agencies in fostering the social and economic well-being of the communities in the National Parks in ways which are compatible with National Park purposes". I believe that the Government have correctly interpreted the recommendations of the Edwards Review Panel in drafting Clause 59(1) of the Bill. The Countryside Commission, the Council for National Parks and the CPRE support that view.

The new duty to have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities in the Bill as drafted means that park authorities will be statutorily required to take full account of the socio-economic needs of local communities. The guidance already makes it clear that they should work closely with park communities to achieve that. The addition of a duty to sustain local communities is at first seductive, but I suggest that, on closer inspection, that presents many difficulties and is unnecessary. I shall expand on that in three respects.

First, let us take the relation with other bodies. As both the Edwards Report and the Government's policy statement on national parks made clear, there are numerous other bodies working in the parks whose prime role is to sustain local communities. These bodies include local authorities, the Rural Development Commission and the Welsh Development Agency. Rather than giving yet another body a duty to sustain local communities, I prefer the approach suggested by the clause as drafted and by the Edwards Report. That is that national park authorities should, mandated by their new socio-economic duty, work in partnership with those other agencies with prime responsibility for sustaining local communities.

I fear that the amendment could result in a confusion of roles, duplication of effort and a blurring of the distinction between a national park authority and a local authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we should not forget that local communities in the parks are served by local authorities as well as by national park authorities. There is a danger of suggesting that national park authorities should almost completely take over their role.

Secondly, there is the matter of resources. Fulfilling a duty to sustain local communities would, I suggest, have resource implications. I am concerned that such a duty would place expectations on national park authorities that they would not have the resources to deliver because the relevant funding is channelled to other bodies. Surely the crucial point is that Clause 59 should be strengthened so that the public bodies which are given funding to sustain local communities use those funds in ways that are sympathetic to park purposes.

Thirdly, there is the potential for conflict with park purposes. To what end, and in what way, the park communities should be sustained is not adequately qualified in the amendment. It does not capture the Edwards Report's intention that activity by the park authorities in this sphere should be such that, the environmental quality of the parks is sustained and, where possible, enhanced". It is important to remember that often, in matters relating to sustaining local communities, park authorities are rightly in the position of needing to respond to the suggestions of others rather than initiating projects themselves. There may be instances where the objective of sustaining local communities gives rise to projects that conflict to some degree with national park purposes. A "have regard to" duty avoids any conflict of interest arising. Balancing is required, yet the proposed duty of the national park authorities does not specify that the requirement to sustain local communities should be in ways compatible with or furthering national park purposes.

Although it is a real brain-teaser, I put it to the House that sustaining local communities while in pursuit of national park purposes is not the same as sustaining local communities in ways compatible with or furthering national park purposes. That point was recognised by the Edwards Review Panel which included both those cross-references to "national park purposes" in its recommendations on work with local communities.

I hope that the Government will look carefully at the advice from the Countryside Commission in its Report stage briefing on the matter. The commission supports the Bill as drafted and expresses the wish that the guidance emphasise that, the National Park Authorities will be expected to work positively with local communities to foster these forms of economic and social development that contribute to the achievement of National Park purposes by supporting the agencies responsible for social and economic development".

Lord Shuttleworth

My Lords, I support the amendment most comprehensively moved by my noble friend Lord Vinson. In doing so, I must declare my interest as chairman of the Rural Development Commission, which has already been mentioned twice in this short debate.

I do not think that it has been emphasised enough that local support and commitment is important in the national parks both in terms of the environment and for national park purposes generally. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that too often we hear grumbles from national park residents and businessmen that the park authorities seem more interested in the landscape and the visitors than in the inhabitants and their livelihoods. As we have heard, the Association of National Parks Officers is anxious to see the original wording strengthened, which is what the amendment would achieve.

The amendment offers a real opportunity to address the concerns of those who live and work in the parks. That is really important for park purposes. The amendment makes it abundantly clear that the national park authorities must undertake their work with, and not in spite of, local people.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, as a result of listening to the arguments which have been deployed I feel that I must register my support for the amendment. I had not intended to intervene at this stage, but I feel that it is important to put on record the view of the Snowdonia park authority that there should be an integrated third socio-economic objective within the activities of the national parks and that that is not in conflict with the activity of the local authorities or of the other development agencies.

The use of the word "sustain" in the amendment brings me to another favoured concept of your Lordships—sustainable development. It seems to me that the amendment as drafted is precisely in line with government and, indeed, international thinking on the whole issue of sustainable development in that it is an attempt to link the sustainability of local communities and their economic and social well-being with the broad conservation objectives of the park authorities. Noble Lords have argued that there is a conflict in that. Of course there is a conflict, but the whole point of sustainable development strategy and of placing an obligation on the park authorities to have a clear duty to sustain local communities is to resolve those conflicts within a lead agency.

Where there is a unitary authority, as is the case in Snowdonia and as certainly will be the case following the reorganisation of local government—I am a resident of that covering Sir Gaemarfon A Meirionnydd—it will be almost coterminous with the national park boundaries. Therefore, it seems to me that to give that park authority a duty to sustain local communities enables it to work more effectively with other agencies. Indeed, given that the Welsh Office in particular is reducing the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales in mid-Wales, the southern part of the Snowdonia park; that the Welsh Development Agency is under pressure; and that other local European initiatives, such as the Leader programme, are active in economic development and diversification in the area, the park authority could become the agency that brings together those activities in a coherent national park plan. Under the Bill, the authorities will have to have such plans—but they already have them. It seems to me, therefore, that having a cross-reference of powers is positive rather than negative.

Other noble Lords have touched on the issue of park residents being able to identify with the park authority. As I have said previously on national park issues, I have lived in and around Snowdonia for most of my life and despite the activity of the warden service and the way in which the park authority has promoted the local community, there is still the feeling that the park does not belong to those of us who live and work there. The placing of the duty on the park authorities will help to change that perception. It will help to create a more progressive relationship between park authorities and local residents. If we do not do that, there is the danger that people will say once again, "Here we have a designated area which is designated contrary to the wishes of the population of that area".

Involving the population more actively and helping them to identify with the park authorities is a positive development. It is absolutely in line with current conservation thinking. You cannot conserve any community with outsiders working against the interests of those who live in that community. I know that there are people in certain parts of the national park movement generally who feel that local residents cannot be trusted with looking after their environment. I believe that people who think that should be involved in re-educating the local community rather than in denying that local community the opportunity of economic regeneration within a mode of sustainable development.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I support the amendment because the one thing we should never allow the national parks to become is a sort of Disneyland where tourists from Manchester and Liverpool are taken around in lorries to see twee walls and Welsh farmers trotting out their sheep solely for the benefit of those tourists. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, suggested, that is the quickest way to ruin a national park. A national park must be a living and growing entity in which the people living in it are seriously interested in looking after it themselves and in having a decent living and a decent way of life in it. That is why I support the amendment.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I agree with the need to keep national park communities healthy. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I believe that the best way to do that is suggested in the clause as drafted. It accurately reflects the National Parks Review Panel's recommendations. As my noble friend Lord Addison said, the panel put a lot of effort into them.

The Minister helpfully clarified in Committee that the new duty with respect to the economic and social needs of local communities will ensure that the park authorities have to be seen to be taking those responsibilities seriously. I am sure that the new authorities will want to do that. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary because the new duty already provides the framework to implement all the recommendations of the Edwards Report.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Vinson. I have listened carefully to all the points that have been made in support of the amendment, but for me the clinching point was raised after I made some inquiries at Committee stage. The people who live and work in these national parks are part of what national parks should be. The people living and working in them perceived, fairly or perhaps unfairly, that the balance was either neutral or swinging ever so slightly towards the more twee aspects of the national park, as foreseen by my noble friend Lord Onslow. The amendment may push the balance back.

There is not much difference in the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, let alone by my noble friend Lord Nome. But it is the perception by the people living and working in the national park, who support the life in the national parks, of the duties of the national park authority that is important, and that is why I support the amendment.

Lord Chorley

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I did not intend to intervene in this discussion; and, like him, I do not know whether I have seen a light on the road to somewhere in North Wales.

This is a question of a balance. There is a fine division between the two sides of the argument. I was particularly struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as always, and those of my noble friend Lord Lytton when he referred to integration.

The landscapes of our national parks are entirely man-made, even in the uplands where the farmers keep the sheep. As I stated previously, they are like lawn-mowers. Therefore, care should be taken by our national parks, as opposed to what happens in some other countries, of the health of the local communities and therefore the economics of the area. Our national parks are not just about tourism. Tourism would go away if we wrecked the national parks. On balance, I come down on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson—I do not know whether it is the side of the angels.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, I strongly support the sentiments and intentions behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Vinson. Park authorities should work with and sustain local communities within the national parks and have regard to their economic and social well-being. I could hardly say otherwise, having had the honour of serving for eight years on the Royal Development Commission, six years under my noble friend Lord Vinson and six years under my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth. I also had the opportunity of serving for 12 years on the Countryside Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who, sadly, is not with us today. I am now chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

Having stated my strong belief that there should be the appropriate economic development which my noble friend would like to see in national parks, I should like to point out that the objective of creating national parks in 1949 was that they should remain as national parks. That is why we have national parks of which we can be so proud today.

The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the means of looking after the parks. The communities within them must be looked after; that is an indivisible part of the remit. My noble friend Lord Vinson and I took part, over 10 years ago, in a study on the need to look after the economic and social welfare of the uplands of this country. Therefore I am very well aware of the needs. However, the words in the Bill as drafted by the Government, that regard should be given to the economic and social well-being of communities within the national parks, are the right ones, because, whatever else they are, national park authorities are not, were never intended to be and I believe should not become development agencies in any form.

The Rural Development Commission has that specific role, and I hope it will continue for many years. If we muddle the role for which the national park authorities were set up, if we take their eye off the ball of ensuring that the national parks survive for at least another 50 years, there is a risk of undesirable development.

I do not trust local authorities in regard to development of sensitive areas. The reason why I am such a tremendous supporter of the noble Lord's National Trust is Operation Neptune. Half of the local authorities with precious coastlines would sell them for caravan sites at a stroke because they would be receiving all of the so-called economic benefits; and they would be lost for ever.

The national parks are so precious that the primary remit of the national park authority must be to ensure their survival. I have seen in the Peak District and in Dartmoor that one can have sensible economic development as well, and I believe that that situation will be cherished by the Bill.

Lord Annaly

My Lords, the arguments have been stated very well from all sides of the House, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, it is a question of balance. As a regular visitor to the national parks, which I love, I know many people who live in them and are custodians of them. The national parks were created in 1949 partly because they are in remote parts of the countryside where not many people live, and they are very beautiful. They would not amount to very much if a thriving community did not live in them. I do not think that the public would find much sustenance if there were only a few people living there, making a living out of them.

The balance, however it is achieved, is absolutely vital. I do not think that the amendment, which I support, does anything but try to achieve a better balance than at present.

Can the Minister confirm that the word "communities" in its legal sense embraces individuals and individual households such as those of upland farmers and others who live in the national parks?

Baroness Lockwood

My Lords, this is a very seductive amendment and the arguments that have been put forward in favour of it have also been very seductive.

None of us would disagree with the need to sustain local communities within the national parks. However, as the noble lord, Lord Marlesford, stated, the national parks were created in 1949 for an entirely different purpose. They were not created as development agencies to develop rural communities. It is essential that our rural communities are developed and that we should have the appropriate machinery for doing so; however, the national park machinery is not what is required.

The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his very seductive speech, talked about local people not being able to identify with the national parks authorities and that it was essential for the community to be able to do so. However, the national parks were not only created for the local communities; they were created for the nation, and the local communities are part of the parks. It is our duty as a Parliament to ensure that the local communities are well looked after but it should not be through the machinery of the Bill.

I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will adhere to the wording in the Bill.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, as I have said previously to my noble friend Lord Vinson, we are all in agreement that the well-being of local communities is vital for the continued success of the national parks as living, working landscapes. My noble friend spoke warmly of the unpaid custodians and wardens. However, I accept that them is a feeling that the interests of local communities, and the contribution they make to the continued success of the parks, are not always given sufficient weight in the park authorities' deliberations. That that may be the case is a matter of regret.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Annaly expressed their concern that the term "local communities" does not include farmers and managers in the parks who may not live in small towns, villages or hamlets in the parks. I am happy to assure noble Lords that we regard those people as very much a part of the park community, and that their specific interests are those to which the national park authorities will need to pay close attention, as they will for those who live within their settlements.

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 that issue. It 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. Furthermore, the new duty will ensure that the park authorities have to be seen to be taking those responsibilities seriously.

Lord Renton

My Lords, it is good of my noble friend to give way because this point is important. The words "shall have regard to", which are the words upon which he relies to fulfil the purpose which he is now describing, are somewhat ambiguous. At times they have been interpreted to mean a very specific duty, but at other times they have been regarded, as I said, in a purely negative way. How does my noble friend anticipate that those words will be interpreted and applied?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, if my noble friend will contain himself for a moment, I shall go on to explain what I believe to be the right balance.

We do not believe that national park authorities should themselves assume the role of promoting economic and social development. A number of noble Lords have acknowledged that point this afternoon. In fact, I do not believe that anyone said that they should have that role. We all recognise that there are already agencies which are properly charged with the specific task of promoting economic and social development in rural areas—the Rural Development Commission in England (I am glad that we heard from my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth today); the Welsh Development Agency; and the Development Board for Rural Wales—and the national park authorities will be expected to work in the closest co-operation with them. That is made clear in the draft guidance which we issued shortly before the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was right to indicate that the draft guidance gives us the opportunity to develop that.

I acknowledge that, in tabling Amendment No. 180, my noble friends Lord Derwent and Lord Vinson, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, do not wish to place the national park authorities in competition with those other agencies. What I believe they and other noble Lords are seeking is to reflect on the face of the Bill a means of encouraging a positive attitude—my noble friend Lord Renton called it making positive the obligation of "having regard to"; I think those were his sentiments, even if they were not his words—among the national park authorities towards their local communities.

My noble friend Lord Vinson indicated also that the Association of National Parks Officers supported his views. That is an important consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made an interesting point—that somehow sustainable development created a tension and that in some way the amendment would help to relieve the tension. I agree that sustainable development does impose a tension and that we should be working positively to resolve the matter.

If that is the intention of the amendment, I support it strongly. I recognise that the amendment draws on words in the draft guidance, but I should like the opportunity to look more closely at an appropriate wording for an amended Clause 59 which will achieve that purpose. I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Vinson to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I undertake further to consider the issue and to bring back an amendment on Third Reading.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Vinson

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the wide support that the amendment has received and for the sensible and balanced comments that have come from all sides of the House. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Marlesford was not in his seat when I moved the amendment as he would then have realised that we are trying to forge a sense of common purpose between the individuals on the ground—the individual park officers—and the people who live and work there. Only through engendering a sense of common purpose will we achieve the right atmosphere in the national parks and will the whole project really work. That being said, and with the positive assurance given by my noble friend the Minister, while at the same time reserving my position, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 181:

Page 65, line 28, after ("to") insert ("and, wherever practicable, further").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment addresses an issue of great importance. It is relevant to the debate on park communities that we have just had. Our national parks are not depopulated areas of state-owned land run single-handedly by national park departments of central government. As we have discussed, they are lived-in and worked-in communities. The land is in many hands, from tens of thousands of private individuals to a host of public bodies and utility companies. What happens in a park is influenced greatly by the activities and policies of many public bodies, with their various land management policies, development proposals, service charges and grants to the public.

The way in which those public bodies conduct themselves in the parks is therefore vital to making our lived-in and worked-in model of national parks work. That is why one of the most important recommendations in the Edwards Report was that public bodies should have a duty to further national park purposes in the exercise of their duties as they affect national parks.

In their response to the Edwards Report, the Government agreed to consider that point. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister agreed that public bodies should be expected to demonstrate that they have taken park purposes properly into account. However, he was concerned for the legitimate reason that it might not always be possible for them to further park purposes. The wording of the new amendment recognises that concern by using the words, "wherever practicable, further". I move this new amendment in the hope that the Government will find the new form of words helpful. I beg to move.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I put my name to the amendment, which has the support of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. It would provide the necessary positive incentive to encourage public bodies to engage in environmentally friendly practices. If we cannot achieve such an approach in national parks, where the Government are committed to the highest status of the protection of landscape and scenic beauty, where on earth can we achieve it?

I wish to refer briefly to the guidance on this matter because it is most relevant. I am worried that the guidance makes only the briefest reference to this subsection of Clause 59 and to the role of public bodies. The guidance does not treat the new duty as an important opportunity to ensure that national park purposes are afforded greater weight in all areas of public life. That was, after all, seen as a national responsibility by the National Parks Review Panel. Nor does the draft circular expand upon how the various public bodies should interpret their responsibilities. That reinforces my fear that the role of public bodies in national parks will not be given the priority it deserves by the clause as drafted.

The amendment gives the necessary boost to the idea that national parks are a shared responsibility; that is to say, by government departments and all public bodies. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will find that we can overcome the concerns expressed in Committee and will agree to give the suggested wording careful consideration.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, the Government in their strategy document on sustainable development, This Common Inheritance, reaffirm their commitment to national parks, calling them, the jewel in the countryside's crown". They also promised to, ensure that their special needs and priorities are reflected in policies affecting agriculture, forestry, transport, industry and minerals". It appears therefore to make perfect sense that public bodies should be required wherever they can to further national park purposes in their work. Many public bodies carry out activities in the parks; for example, the Forestry Commission owns and therefore works directly on 10.7 per cent. of all national park land. It also offers grants and issues licences to other forestry operators. Water companies own 5.1 per cent. of the parks. They are also responsible for managing the demand for water, which in turn determines the need for new infrastructure.

Therefore, what those public bodies do in national parks could have an important bearing on the special qualities of the parks. I welcome the amendment, which would give a positive incentive to all public bodies in relation to national park purposes. I hope that the Government will find it acceptable.

Lord Wise

My Lords, I too support my noble friends' amendment. In Committee, I mentioned the fact that the National Parks Review Panel was quite clear that a "have regard to" duty in this context would not provide the incentive necessary for public bodies to pursue their activities in ways that are entirely sympathetic to park purposes.

I also suggested in Committee that the Minister might be concerned that not all government departments would be able to further the park purposes because of the conflict inherent in their activities. I believe that this amendment strikes the right balance.

The Edwards Report stated: experience over the years shows that government departments have tended to regard National Park designation as a hindrance or an obstacle to their ends: certainly there has not been consistent evidence that they feel bound by the implications of designation". The report continues: As a result, sectoral policies have sometimes worked against the purposes of National Parks and they have rarely worked positively to help achieve these purposes". The report therefore specifically recommended a duty that was stronger than the "have regard to" duty of the Countryside Act. The amendment seeks to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will heed the advice of the National Parks Review Panel and agree to look again at the clause. It requires co-operation throughout Whitehall but if we cannot achieve this for the national parks what hope have we of giving greater priority to the environment in any aspect of public life?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, during the Committee stage, my noble friends Lord Nome, Lord Wise and Lord Addison, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, moved an amendment (No. 256) which was very similar to the one before us today, only on that occasion the resulting duty on relevant bodies would have been simply "to further" national park purposes rather than to have regard to and "wherever practicable, further" national park purposes.

In Committee, I explained to your Lordships the practical difficulties in attempting to apply such an amendment because of the numerous agencies operating within the parks whose activities cannot be overridden; for example the supply of electricity or clean water to park communities.

While I understand that this amendment is intended to overcome that objection, I believe that the insertion of the proviso "wherever practicable" does not ease matters. What is meant by the term "practicable"? At which point is an authority expected to decide that it is not practicable to further national park purposes but instead to have regard to park purposes as it goes about its business in the parks? I therefore believe that the term is so vague that its application would bring no tangible benefits but would instead confuse and thereby inhibit the effective implementation of the duty.

I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Addison to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I wish to explore further with him how many public bodies which have an influence on our parks can be encouraged to play a more positive role. In Committee, the amendment received much support from all sides of the House and I hope that the Minister will give the matter further consideration. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 182:

Page 65, line 30, after ("purposes") insert ("that cannot be reconciled through management").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the "Sandford principle". The principle originates from the Sandford Report of 1974, which stated that, where there is an "irreconcilable conflict" between the two national parks purposes of conservation and recreation, conservation be given priority.

There appears to be overwhelming support for the intention that the Sandford principle should be enshrined in legislation. The Minister made it clear in his helpful reply to an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in Committee that it is most certainly the Government's intention to achieve this. Indeed, the Minister made a most spirited defence of it, for which I am most grateful.

The question before us is, therefore: does subsection (2) of Clause 59 implement the Sandford principle in legislation? My concern is that as currently drafted, it does not. The crucial difference is that the Sandford principle includes the word "irreconcilable"; this means that reconciliation should be attempted before giving priority to conservation. By contrast, the clause as presently drafted simply states that where there appears to be a conflict conservation shall be given more weight. I suggest that the omission of any reference to the need to attempt reconciliation significantly alters the meaning.

I have studied the Minister's response to this issue in Committee very carefully and I am also most grateful to him for meeting my noble friend Lord Addison and myself to discuss the point. We understand that there may potentially be difficulties in using the word "irreconcilable" in legislation. Our hope is that the Government will be able to find an alternative form of words. These should capture the agreed intention that reconciliation through management should be attempted before giving conservation priority.

It is in that spirit that I move this amendment and I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help. I beg to move.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, the amendment avoids using the word "irreconcilable". It uses instead the expression "that cannot be reconciled through management", which was the suggestion that I made in Committee following the Minister's speech. In this way, we hope to make explicit the desire for management options to be explored. In contrast to the amendment tabled in Committee, this amendment no longer requires the park authority to deem that there is an irreconcilable conflict. We believe that by so doing we have met the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Peel and referred to by the Minister that proving that a conflict is irreconcilable and may lead to such protracted debate that conservation may never be given priority.

We believe that our new amendment strikes the right balance. It has the support of the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales, and the Council for National Parks. It endeavours to fulfil one of the important recommendations of the Edwards Report. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment or on Third Reading bring forward his own within the same spirit.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I too support the amendment, which has evolved from the amendment moved in Committee. I hope that the Minister will not apply to this amendment the formula that he applied to the previous amendment; that the Committee version was too strong but that today's version is too weak. The present form of words should be acceptable to the Minister.

I suggest that it is helpful for us all to remember that the Sandford principle is not "conservation has priority over recreation"; it is that, "where those two purposes cannot be reconciled conservation should come first".

The guidance in the circular makes it clear that the true Sandford principle is what the Government desire. I share the concern that at present, the legislation captures only part of the Sandford principle, thereby changing its meaning. The guidance and the legislation are at odds with each other. I hope that this is a drafting point and not a disagreement about objectives, and I hope also that the Minister will agree to change the legislation accordingly.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I warmly support the amendment and I agree with everything that has been said. I may have been the first to raise the question on Second Reading. Since that time, I am delighted to see that it has gathered support from all sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the amendment. It is important that the Sandford principle should be enshrined in the Bill.

Lord Vinson

My Lords, I support the amendment because it is in general sympathy with a matter which I raised earlier, in the sense that, as I read it, its intention is that any differences should be reconciled on the ground in a sensible one-to-one manner before being blown up into a major conflict between the two parties.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, in Committee, I explained that the Sandford principle, now enshrined in Clause 59, has been policy for over 20 years and that we believe that it continues o stand the parks in good stead. I am not aware that the application of the principle, set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 7, has caused any great difficulties or undue concern among those who have to live with its consequences.

I believe that every opportunity should be taken for negotiation and mediation before the Sandford principle is applied. Managing the parks, and accommodating the many different interests which are reflected in them, is an ongoing process. I appreciate the wish of some of your Lordships that the principle should not come into play too soon—that was the spirit of the intervention made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—in the process of accommodation; but neither should it come in so late in the day that all the participants have exhausted themselves in seeking to find an accommodation where none is to be found.

If Amendment No. 182, introduced by my noble friend Lord Nome, were to be accepted, how would the parties involved demonstrate that an issue cannot be reconciled with a little bit more management? If only they had had another meeting, a further discussion, an extra site visit, perhaps they might have reached an accommodation. Who decides when the point has been reached when a particular issue cannot be reconciled through management? Although I understand and sympathise with the intention underlying this amendment, I fear that it could lead to the premature abandonment of the negotiating process and I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by his arguments. I still believe that the clause as drafted represents a significant change to the Sandford principle but I shall study carefully the Minister's words and seek to return to the matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 183:

After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:

National Park authorities in Wales

(" .—(1) Where a National Park planning board has been constituted for the area of any particular existing National Park in Wales, the Secretary of State may exercise his power under section 60 above to establish a National Park authority in relation to that National Park by making an order under that section designating for the body corporate constituted as that board a date earlier than 31st March 1997 on which that body—

1. (a) shall cease to be a National Park planning board, and
2. (b) shall be constituted the National Park authority in relation to that National Park,

without affecting its corporate status (and an order made under or by virtue of that section may make provision re-naming that body accordingly).

(2) Any order under—

1. (a) paragraph 3A of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act (special planning boards), or
2. (b) section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (joint planning boards),

relating to the body corporate constituted as the National Park planning board in question shall have effect on and after the designated date for that body as an order under section 60 above relating to that body in its capacity as the National Park authority in relation to the National Park in question.

(3) For the purposes of any order establishing a National Park authority under section 60 above by virtue of subsection (I) above, or any order which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, has effect as an order under that section—

1. (a) the requirements of paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 7 to this Act with respect to consultation with councils for principal areas shall, by virtue of the establishment of the National Park planning board, be deemed to have been complied with as respects any provision of the order;
2. (b) in the case of any member of the National Park planning board immediately before the designated date who was holding that office by virtue of his appointment as such by the Secretary of State under and in accordance with paragraph II of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act (which requires prior consultation), the appointment shall, on and after the designated date, have effect for the remainder of the period for which it was made as an appointment as a member of the National Park authority made by the Secretary of State in accordance with paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 7 to this Act;
3. (c) in the case of any other member of the National Park planning board immediately before the designated date who is on that date a member of a principal council for an area which includes the whole or any part of the National Park in question, his appointment as a member of that board shall, on and after the designated date, have effect for the remainder of the period for which it was made as an appointment as a local authority member of the National Park authority made in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Schedule; and
4. (d) any other requirement, whether statutory or otherwise, which must be complied with in connection with the establishment of a National Park authority shall be deemed to have been complied with by virtue of the establishment of the National Park planning board;

and, except as provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) above, no person who is a member of the National Park planning board immediately before the designated date shall, by virtue of the order, become a member of the National Park authority.

(4) The functions of a National Park planning board shall include the duty to take such steps as it considers necessary to enable it (that is to say, the body corporate constituted as that board) on being constituted the National Park authority in relation to the National Park in question by an order made by virtue of subsection (I) above, to perform its functions as a National Park authority on and after the designated date; and the functions conferred on such a board by this subsection—

1. (a) shall be exercisable before (as well as on or after) 1st April 1996; and
2. (b) are in addition to any other functions which are exercisable by such a board before that date by virtue of paragraph 13 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

(5) The functions of a principal council for an area which includes the whole or any part of the area of a National Park planning board shall include the duty to take such steps as it considers necessary to enable the body corporate constituted as that board, on being constituted the National Park authority in relation to the National Park in question by an order made by virtue of subsection (1) above, to perform those functions which would, apart from the order, be exercisable by a principal council but which will become functions of that body, as the National Park authority, on the designated date.

(6) Where the Secretary of State—

1. (a) has taken any steps with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, the establishment of a National Park planning board for the area of an existing National Park in Wales ("the proposed board"), but
2. (b) decides not to proceed with the establishment of the proposed board and to establish instead a National Park authority in relation to that National Park ("the proposed authority"), and
3. (c) the proposed authority is, or is to be, established before 31st March 1997,

the doing of anything by or in relation to the Secretary of State (other than the making by the Secretary of State of an instrument of a legislative character) with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, establishing the proposed board shall be treated, as respects the proposed authority, as the doing of any corresponding or reasonably similar thing falling to be done for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, the establishment of that authority.

(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6) above, in any case falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection—

1. (a) any consultation with a principal council after 15th December 1994 by the Secretary of State as respects the proposed board (whether or not required by or under any enactment) shall be deemed, as respects the proposed authority, to have been carried out for the purposes of the consultation with councils for principal areas required by paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 7 to this Act;
2. (b) anything done by or in relation to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the consultation required by paragraph 11 of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act (appointment of members by Secretary of State) preparatory to the appointment of a person as a member of the proposed board shall be deemed, as respects the proposed authority, to have been done for the purposes of the consultation required by paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 7 to this Act preparatory to the appointment of that person as a member of that authority;
3. (c) anything done by or in relation to the Secretary of State (other than the making by the Secretary of State of an instrument of a legislative character) for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, any other requirement, whether statutory or otherwise, of a consultative or procedural nature—
1. (i) which relates to a National Park planning board, and
2. (ii) for which there is a corresponding or reasonably similar requirement which relates to a National Park authority,

shall be treated, as respects the proposed authority, as done for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, that other corresponding or reasonably similar requirement.

(8) Section 54 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (powers to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision) shall have effect as if this Part were contained in that Act, except that subsection (2) (e) of that section shall have effect as if this Part were contained in an Act passed in the same Session as that Act.

(9) In this section—

"the designated date", in the case of any body corporate constituted as a National Park planning board which becomes, or is to become, a National Park authority by virtue of this section, means the date designated by virtue of subsection (I) above in the order relating to that body; "existing National Park" means a National Park in respect of which there was in force on 15th ecember 1994 an order under section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (designation of areas as National Parks); "National Park planning board" means—

1. (a) a special planning board constituted by order under paragraph 3A of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act to discharge, as respects the area of a National Park in Wales, the functions to which Part I of that Schedule applies, or
2. (b) a joint planning board constituted by order under subsection (1B) of section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a united district comprising the area of a National Park in Wales.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 183, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 192, 193, 194, 206, 221, 268 and 289A in my name.

The amendments introduce the conversion power in respect of the national parks in Wales which I confirmed in Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would be introduced at this stage of the Bill.

The establishing of national park authorities in Wales will take place in the context of the comprehensive reorganisation of local government at 1st April 1996, under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, which will itself require the establishment of new national park bodies. For that reason, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales included in the 1994 Act provisions for the establishment of planning boards for the Welsh national parks. Consultation about the establishment of those boards has already started. My right honourable friend has, however, confirmed that, if this Bill is successful, national park authorities will be established to keep the Welsh parks in line with those in England.

My right honourable friend proposes to establish national park authorities in Wales during the autumn of 1995 to enable them to prepare for taking up their responsibilities in the following April. However, depending on the timing of Royal Assent for this Bill, it may be necessary first to establish planning boards and to convert them to national park authorities before 1st April 1996. In practice, it is likely that conversion will be effected some months before that date in order to enable a levy to be issued to the new constituent local authorities. The amendments allow that conversion to take place without affecting the corporate status of the bodies concerned.

The planning boards are in many ways similar to the national park authorities which we are now discussing. The amendments allow the work now being carried out for their preparation to count as though it was being done in preparation for the establishment of national park authorities. That will be so whether my right honourable friend is able to proceed directly with establishing a national park authority or whether he has to establish a planning board first and to convert it at a later date to a national park authority.

The amendments are limited to the three existing national parks in Wales and are further limited to cases where a national park authority is established for those parks prior to 31st March 1997. They will avoid the duplication of work and unnecessary upheaval for the parks themselves.

The amendments vest certain order making powers in my right honourable friend to facilitate the conversion arrangements outlined in these amendments. I have written to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, in his role as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee on Delegated Legislation, explaining fully the powers sought and the reasons for them. I beg to move.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I welcome these amendments and I welcome the fact that they mean that the procedure can take place in a timely and orderly manner. I wish the new Welsh national parks well in their collaboration with local authorities and in pursuit of the objective of sustainable development. But I would say that, wouldn't I?

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, as a matter of clarification, Amendment No. 183 uses the expression: The Secretary of State may exercise". Does the Secretary of State have any discretion not to exercise his power? I hear what the noble Viscount says about what the Secretary of State proposes to do but does he have discretion not to do it if he so chooses? It seems to me that he has. Would it not be better to have "shall" rather than "may"?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, because we are working on a parallel track it may not be necessary to use the power. That is why the word "may" is used rather than "shall".

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7 [National Park authorities]:

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 184:

Page 139, line 37, at end insert ("; and, in appointing local authority members of a National Park authority, a principal council shall have regard to the desirability of appointing members of the council who represent wards, or (in Wales) electoral divisions, situated wholly or partly within the relevant Park").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 184 gives effect to the intention of Amendment No. 258AA in the name of my noble friend Lord Derwent on the subject of membership, which he moved in Committee. At that time, I offered to look carefully at what my noble friend had said. Having given the matter further consideration, we have decided that it would be appropriate for there to be provision on the face of the Bill for local authorities to have regard to the desirability of appointing members to the national park authorities who represent wards in England, and electoral divisions in Wales, in the parks, which I believe will be in the best interests of the people who live in the parks.

Amendment No. 188 is of a minor and technical nature, to add the shorthand, marginal description of the provisions in question; namely, Sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

Amendment No. 191 gives effect to the intention of Amendment No. 258EB of my noble friend, Lord Derwent on liaison with parish and community councils which he moved during Committee stage. At that time I offered to look carefully at what my noble friend said and, having given the matter further consideration, we are persuaded by my noble friend's argument that it would be appropriate to include on the face of the Bill provision to give parish and community councils the fullest opportunity to comment on and contribute to park policies. This amendment reflects the special importance which we attach to ensuring that the views of local people in the parks are heard.

Amendments Nos. 196, 197 and 198 give effect to the intention of Amendments Nos. 258EX, 258EY and 258EZ which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook moved in Committee. Having given further consideration to the issue, we are persuaded by my noble friend's argument that the Nature Conservancy Council for England should be added to the list of bodies which the national park authorities must notify when proposing to publish, adopt or review their national park management plans.

My noble friend also moved Amendment No. 252B to amend the first national park purpose to include a reference to natural features. At the time I assured him 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. However, to remove any possible doubt, Amendment No. 209 alters the definition of "natural beauty" in Section 114(2) of the 1949 Act, which includes natural features, flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, to make it refer on its face to conservation as well as preservation. That will match, and govern, the wording of the first of the revised national park purposes. I understand that my noble friend welcomes the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Feversham

My Lords, I should very much like to welcome the amendments, especially those which, as the Minister said, were prompted by the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in Committee. In particular, I welcome Amendment No. 191 which relates to a duty for national parks to consider and inform parish councils within the national parks. My welcome will come as no surprise to noble Lords because I am president of the National Association of Local Councils.

The amendments are especially welcome because although the Minister agreed in Committee to take them away and consider them, I thought that he did so with considerable reluctance. However, perhaps I am being a little unfair. I am absolutely delighted that he has brought forward such amendments. On these issues at least, the Minister smells of new mown hay if not even of roses. I hope that the noble Viscount does not find that too disconcerting.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the amendments, especially Amendment No.184, are certainly the product of a fairly lengthy discussion that we had in Committee. There is just one point I should like to raise with the Minister. Let us suppose, for example, that the local authorities which are part of the national park authority have a particular party in control. Let us further suppose that the members of the council who represent wards or electoral divisions in Wales and who are to be appointed to the national park authority belong to the minority party in the council. Would that not create the rather odd situation of a council controlled by one party but obliged to appoint members of the opposition to the national parks authority?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, Amendment No. 188 strives to overcome the problem of political balance as regards membership. I understand that it may be difficult always to comply with the requirements of Amendment No. 184. However, it is an attempt, perhaps a duty, to ensure that councils have regard to the desirability of appointing; I put it no higher than that. I believe that Amendment No. 188 attaches the concept of political balance. I should add how pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, also welcomes the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 185:

Page 139, line 39, leave out ("in respect") and insert ("by virtue").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 190, 208, 258 and 314 tabled in my name. They are all technical amendments seeking to clarify various provisions in the Bill.

Amendment No. 185 is a technical amendment to clarify that a local authority appointee to a national park authority holds appointment by virtue of being a member of a principal council with land in the appropriate national park. Amendment No. 190 is a consequential amendment to paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 7 to the Bill as a result of Amendment No. 185,

Amendment No. 208 puts it beyond doubt that the Secretaries of State for Wales and for England can operate the order-making powers within Part III of the Bill differently within the two countries. The matter was also referred to in the memorandum that I sent to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham.

Amendment No. 258 is a technical amendment to Clause 105(3) of the Bill making clear that the repeal of paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 10 to the Bill will only come into force in accordance with paragraph 22(7). Paragraph 22(1) is a transitional provision defining relevant authority with regard to Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Amendment No. 314 is also a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 188:

Page 139, line 45, at end insert ("(political balance)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 189 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 190, 191 and 192:

Page 140, line 3, leave out ("in respect") and insert ("by virtue").

Page 144, line 29, at end insert:

("Liaison with parish and community councils

A National Park authority shall make arrangements—

1. (a) in the case of a National Park in England, with each parish council the area of which is comprised wholly or partly within the Park, or

1. (b) in the case of a National Park in Wales, with each community council the area of which is so comprised,

for the purpose of informing and consulting that council about the authority's discharge of its functions.").

Page 145, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("means—

1. (a) the order under section 60 of this Act establishing that authority;
2. (b) any order under that section relating to that authority; or
3. (c) any order made in relation to that authority in exercise of the power to amend an order under that section.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

Clause 61 [General purposes and powers]:

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 193 and 194:

Page 67, line 28, after ("period") insert ("(if any)").

Page 67, line 33, at end insert:

("() In the application of subsection (3) above in the case of a National Park authority established in relation to a National Park in Wales, the reference to any existing authority for that Park shall have effect as respects consultation carried out during so much of that period as falls before 1st April 1996 as including a reference to any principal council whose area is wholly or partly comprised in that Park.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Supplemental and incidental powers of authorities]:

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 195:

Page 149, line 16, after ("a") insert ("new").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 199, 200, 204, 210 to 220, 222, 223 and 294 to 312. When speaking to Amendment No. 183, I explained the interaction between the national park provisions in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and those in Part III of the Bill and the circumstances in which either planning boards or national park authorities will be established for the national parks in Wales. The 1994 Act contained various provisions relating to national parks which it is necessary to amend to reflect the provisions of the Bill. Other amendments are required to the Bill to reflect the particular circumstances of Wales, irrespective of whether national park authorities or planning boards are established. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 62 [National Park Management Plans] :

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 196, 197 and 198:

Page 68, line 43, leave out ("or") and insert ("and the Nature Conservancy Council for England or to").

Page 68, line 45, leave out ("such principal council and to that Commission or Council;") and insert ("body to which notice of the proposal is required to be given by paragraph (a) above;").

Page 69, line 1, leave out ("principal council or by that Commission or Council") and insert ("body").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 64 [Planning authority functions under National Parks legislation etc.] :

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 199 and 200:

Page 71, line 7, after ("authority") insert ("(or, in relation to Wales, a local planning authority)").

Page 72, line 10, after ("Park") insert ("in England").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 199 and 200.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous statutory functions of authorities] :

Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 201:

Page 151, line 40, at end 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 (I) above, the highway authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 201 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 202 and 203. These amendments were ably moved by my noble friend Lord Derwent in Committee and I do not propose to attempt to repeat the detail of his arguments now. I simply begin by reminding the House that the effect of these proposed amendments would be to make national park authorities responsible for the management of the public rights of way network within the national parks. Each national park authority would be responsible for the maintenance of these public rights of way, for tackling any problems on them, and for keeping the definitive map of public rights of way in its area up to date.

The amendments would also give the authority a power to make traffic regulation orders to control use of those rights of way; for example, to restrict or perhaps prohibit, as the case may be, the use of four-wheel drive vehicles on byways, or the use of mountain bikes on footpaths. These amendments received the overwhelming support of the House in Committee and they are also widely supported by an impressive number of outside organisations ranging from the Country Landowners' Association to the Association of County Councils and the Ramblers' Association.

In its 1992 policy statement on national parks, the Government said that they expect, national park authorities to be leaders in the field of rights of way",

thereby endorsing a key recommendation in the Edwards Report. The 11,000 miles of rights of way in the national parks are arguably the single most important resource that the parks possess to enable the millions of visitors to enjoy their special qualities. They are vital for the achievement of the parks' recreational purposes.

However, the Government's laudable expectation cannot and will not he met unless national park authorities are given the tools for the job. The authorities do not have the tools at present. The Bill as presently drafted fails to supply them. The amendments seek to remedy that deficiency.

I wish to comment on four concerns raised in Committee by my noble friend the Minister. I am firmly of the belief that these can all be fully addressed. First, my noble friend noted that the amendments would result in a division of responsibility, which is most certainly true. However, I should like to point out that that responsibility is, of course, already split. The Secretary of State is the highway authority for trunk roads. For example, therefore, in the Lake District the A590 and the A66 roads are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, not Cumbria County Council. In addition, Section 42 of the Highways Act 1980 gives district councils the power to claim the right to maintain footpaths, bridleways and urban roads. In the Lake District, Allerdale, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland district councils could all choose to take the maintenance of footpaths and bridleways away from Cumbria County Council and prevent any agreement being made between the county council and the Lake District National Park. Surely the question is whether a particular division of responsibility is logical. I suggest the division proposed by these amendments would be so, and would greatly increase effectiveness.

Secondly, I wish to address potential problems of defining byways. A byway is a particular type of carriageway: one which has escaped being covered with tarmac, and thus today is used mainly by walkers and riders of horses and pedal cycles, including mountain bikes. Because, in law, byways are a sub-group of carriageways, and because there is as yet no definitive list of those carriageways which are byways, there are inevitably some whose status is not immediately clear. It must be noted, however, that these problems of definition have not stopped Parliament from legislating to give different treatment to byways on several occasions since 1981, most recently in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There has been recognition on those occasions that separate treatment for byways is justified, and the same applies now.

Thirdly, Amendment No. 202 includes a provision that a national park authority with responsibility for the definitive map would have power to merge the various definitive maps it inherited from the existing authorities and produce a single new map for the whole of the park area. The Minister questioned the appropriateness of including in Amendment No. 202 such a provision for a national park authority. I suggest that this provision is needed in the interests of efficient working. For example, staff in the Yorkshire Dales National Park currently have to work with three different maps which use three different combinations of scale and notation. The national park would like to have a single map for the whole area using the same modern scale throughout.

Fourthly, I turn to the benefits of giving the park authorities the power to make traffic regulation orders, which would be a useful tool for management purposes and would be available to control the use of rights of way where necessary. The amendment has been deliberately worded so that a residual power is retained by the main traffic authority—be it the county council or unitary authority—in case there is a need, which could be an urgent one, to make an order to regulate use both of a road and an adjacent right of way. I hope I have reassured the Minister with these replies.

Your Lordships may recall from the Committee stage debate that at present some parks have some right of way powers delegated to them, but that is not the case with all powers or all parks. In those national parks where the national park authority is a county council committee, in any arrangement whereby rights of way work is carried out by the park authority it is currently a matter of internal delegation rather than formal agreement. That situation will inevitably change with the creation of independent national park authorities. Formal agreements will have to be entered into, and highway authorities may be less willing to do so. This could apply particularly where the highway authority has itself been affected by local government reorganisation. This will be true of all the Welsh national parks and may also be the case in many English parks, depending on the final outcome of local government reorganisation in England.

In the debate at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Onslow asked the Minister what would happen if a highway authority's response to the invitation to enter into an agency agreement with a national park authority were to be, "no". My noble friend the Minister has since, in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Derwent, made the position crystal clear. If the highway authority chooses not to enter into an agreement, that is the end of the matter. The Secretary of State has no powers of direction. I put it to noble Lords that these amendments are both timely and necessary. I hope my noble friend the Minister can look favourably upon them. I beg to move.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, I should like to give my wholehearted support to Amendments Nos. 201, 202 and 203. What is at issue, as my noble friend Lord Wise said, is whether national park authorities are given the powers to manage the most important recreational resource in their areas: the rights of way.

I regret to have to say that I simply do not believe that the delegation approach being advocated in the guidance will work. My doubts are based on the fact that ever since 1976, when a circular in response to the Sandford Report was published, the Government have been asking that, National Park Authorities should be enabled to exercise all the functions relating to footpaths and bridleways now vested in highway authorities". That has been widely ignored.

Since, in the future, highway authorities will be asked to delegate not to their own park sub-committees but to independent park authorities, they are even less likely to delegate voluntarily. Furthermore, because of local government reorganisation a number of highway authorities will be brand new local authorities. They are not likely to accord priority to giving away powers they have just received. I therefore believe that the difficulties referred to by my noble friend Lord Derwent in Committee will get worse.

Recreational public rights of way are fundamental to the execution of one of the two statutory purposes of national parks, yet responsibility for them remains with bodies with whom the recreational part of the rights of way network is less fundamental. Indeed, national park officers question whether they will be able to carry out their statutory purposes effectively if they have no control of the public rights of way network.

Control of the public rights of way network is necessary not only to ensure that the network can be used by pedestrians or riders, but also to allow proper management of the park resources as a whole. For example, a park might wish to spend money on particular paths in order to encourage movement away from an over-used "honey pot" area.

I illustrate my support for the amendments by referring to a couple of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Wise. On the matter of divided responsibility, it is my understanding that in the Peak District the national park authority has to deal not only with seven highway authorities but also with district councils which have agency agreements with some of those authorities. For example, Derbyshire County Council has an agency agreement with Derbyshire Dales District Council for the removal of obstructions from public paths, and a separate and different agency agreement with High Peak Borough Council, this time for the maintenance of the surface of public paths. This seems a very confusing state of affairs which would benefit immensely from the national park authority receiving responsibility for the management of the rights of way network.

My noble friend Lord Wise spoke of the appropriateness of merging definitive maps. Your Lordships may be interested to note that the Welsh Office appears recently to have accepted that it needs to make provision, as part of local government reorganisation in Wales, for the new councils which are being created to be able to merge the maps they will inherit. Therefore, the principle that there is merit in creating new unified maps for new authorities is clearly established.

Surely, the primary responsibility for management of different rights of way ought to lie with the agency with responsibilities to the particular users. Thus motorways are of national importance and are the responsibility of government. Other metalled roads are of more local or regional importance and are the responsibility of local highway authorities. Footpaths and bridleways are of either recreational or very local importance and in national parks should be the responsibility of those charged with promoting recreation, namely, the national park authorities. I support the amendments.

5 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, we too support the amendments. The case for them has been made out by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the objections of the Minister have been accommodated.

The noble Lord, Lord Wise, mentioned that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, spoke of his wish to issue invitations to authorities to delegate their rights of way responsibilities to the national park authorities. In the usual helpful way in which he injects little barbs into debates, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, cast the noble Viscount in the role of Hotspur as one who would call up spirits from the vasty deep and ask the very difficult question: But will they come when you do call for them? The noble Viscount has admitted that they will not necessarily come when he calls them. Therefore, there is a genuine reason for writing this provision on to the face of the Bill.

Lord Feversham

My Lords, I support the amendments. The case for them has been made very well. It is an important group of amendments. After all, national parks are responsible for encouraging people to walk in the countryside. How can they do that effectively unless they control the public rights of way across which all those people will travel?

I have some input to make, from a parish council point of view. When people redraw or look again at definitive maps of rights of way they always have to turn to the parish councils to find out where they run. If people want to alter rights of way they nearly always have to ask the advice of parish councils on how that can best be done.

I am extremely suspicious of any legislation which advises local authorities of the advantage of delegating their powers to somebody else. That is wishful thinking. These amendments are extremely important. I support them wholeheartedly.

Lord Moran

My Lords, I should like to express my strong support for the amendments. The case for them has been made thoroughly by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. If we are setting up independent authorities to run the national parks it is essential that they should be able to control rights of way in particular. If they cannot do that, they cannot run the national parks effectively. I hope very much that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendments.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I recognise the support which my noble friend Lord Wise has again secured for Amendments Nos. 201, 202 and 203. I have every sympathy with what he is trying to achieve.

I recognise the importance of the rights of way network to national parks as elements in securing the promotion of enjoyment of the parks, as the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, said. We are all agreed on that. Where we differ is on the best means of achieving that objective.

I appreciate the strength of feeling among your Lordships that the Government should look again at their policy that the integrity of the highway network and its management should be maintained and that that should be through the mechanism of a common highway authority. Clearly, highway authorities and national park authorities will need to work together in close co-operation to ensure that the network is well maintained, available for use and appropriately publicised.

However, footpaths and bridleways are public highways in the same way as public carriageways, and it does not make sense to fragment legal responsibilities in this way. It is therefore not our policy that national park authorities should be given formal responsibility for the rights of way network in their areas. Highway authorities and national park authorities will have to work in close partnership so as to determine which parts of the network are best dealt with by the highway authority and which by the national park authority. Therefore, we intend to continue to invite highway authorities to enter into agency agreements with the national park authorities so that the new authorities will have day-to-day responsibility for the management of rights of way in their areas. As I indicated in Committee, we will write 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 it has not already done so.

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 the particular circumstances of the park. In approaching the issue in this way, rather than through statutory procedures which are the subject of Amendment Nos. 201, 202 and 203 the national park authorities will be able to contribute fully to the day-to-day maintenance and improvement of rights of way in their areas. Many of them do so already.

I believe that that relationship reflects the most appropriate manner to resource this important function. The new authorities will be confident that the constituent county councils, with their more substantial resources, will be standing behind them when unforeseen circumstances arise which require the rapid injection of large sums of money. For example, this may be because a bridge needs urgent repair to make it safe, or that a large section of footpath needs urgent treatment to prevent it falling into a river. Such expenditure, arising at short notice and requiring urgent action, could well be large in terms of the national park authorities' own budgets but small in terms of the resources which are available to the highway authorities. Thus the highway authorities will be better placed to absorb any such expenditure.

In addition, our proposed arrangements will enable the national park authorities and the highway authorities to come to sensible agreements on dealing with those rights of way which would under the statutory scheme in the amendments fall to the national park authorities but where, on practical grounds, there is general agreement that they should remain with the highway authority. I have in mind tarmacadamed or surfaced footpaths in small towns in the parks for which it is sensible that responsibility should rest with the highway authorities rather than with the national park authorities, even under agency agreements.

Some national parks have significant urban areas, and it makes little sense for the national park authorities to be statutorily responsible for the maintenance of connecting and linking footpaths in towns. Nor does it make sense that they should be statutorily responsible for byways which, under Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980, have to be maintained to a suitable standard having regard to the use traditionally made of them. In many cases, this will make the national park authority responsible for rights of way with significant motorised use, the maintenance of which must be integrated with the wider highway network. These activities would unnecessarily deplete the resources of the national park authorities. We are also clearly some way from defining precisely the routes which meet the definition of byway open to all traffic. To require highway authorities and national park authorities to define these immediately would deflect resources from other important areas of work.

Also, we do not consider it appropriate to amend the provisions regarding the preparation of definitive maps on a piecemeal basis. This is a specialised area of work in which the highway authorities already have considerable expertise. I believe that there would be significant diseconomies of scale if each national park authority has to take this role on in its own area.

We have, therefore, 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. With that comprehensive explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Wise

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. I also thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation in reply. I was a little disappointed from time to time, but I can understand the point of his arguments. I wish to discuss them with my noble friend Lord Derwent to see what he thinks when he has read my noble friend's reply. I reserve the right to return at Third Reading, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 204:

Page 152, line 21, after ("council") insert ("or county borough council").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 204 with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 67 [National Park authorities to be levying bodies]:

5.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 205:

Page 74, line 16, at end insert:

("() Before determining the total expenditure to be incurred by it in any financial year, a National Park Authority shall consult with every council by whom the local authority members of that authority fall to be appointed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lady Hilton and myself. Clause 67 provides for the new national park authorities to issue annual levies to the local authorities who appoint members to them. The total of the levies, as I understand it, is to equal the difference between the authority's total budgeted revenue expenditure for the year and the income it expects to receive from other sources—mainly the national parks supplementary grant from the Department of the Environment or possibly the Welsh Office.

In theory, the local authority representatives have a two-thirds representation on the national park authority and they will be able to control its budget and therefore ensure that the levy will be kept at a level which the funding local authorities (which, after all, have to provide the money) find acceptable. However, if there are several funding local authorities, it is possible that a majority of the national park authority members might approve a budget which a minority of the funding local authority found unacceptable. As I was mentioning when the noble Viscount moved the government amendment about representation from local authorities on national park authorities, it is particularly likely to be the case if representatives from funding local authorities on national park authorities belong to minority parties in their own local authorities. They may do so simply because they happen to represent wards which fall within the national park. So there could be a conflict between the national park authority and the local authorities which are the source of the funds.

The proposed amendment would require the national park authority to consult formally with the funding authorities before settling its own budget. That happens in most cases at the moment, and would do no more than existing best practice requires, whereby a national park authority with multiple funding local authorities holds an annual consultative meeting to which it invites representatives of all those authorities before settling its own budget. That happens in best practice at the moment. Because of the new nature of the national park authorities and because of the problem introduced by the amendment which the Government put forward, I believe it is right that a consultative process of that nature should be built into the Bill. I beg to move.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, we place great emphasis on the importance of the new authorities having regular contacts with their constituent local authorities in matters which impinge on their responsibilities and working closely with them. I would expect that, in financial affairs, as in other issues in which they have an interest, the national park authorities will consult fully with their constituent local authorities.

I believe that it will be particularly important for the NPA5 to be in close consultation with the constituent local authorities as their financial plans are developed. Our guidance will be very clear on this issue. I am also confident that the local authority members on the new authorities will make sure that there is full consultation and the interests of their constituent local authorities are properly represented and fully considered and that due weight is given to them,

I appreciate the sentiment behind the noble Lord's amendment, but perhaps with my reassurance he will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Viscount has answered the point which I made. It is that members from funding local authorities who are on national park authorities could, as a result of the Government's amendment, be of a minority party within the funding local authority. There could therefore be a conflict between those who are members of a national park authority and those who are not members of a national park authority but control the council concerned and are responsible for setting the council tax rate.

I do not feel that the reply is other than disappointing. I understand that the noble Viscount expects close co-operation between the national park authorities and funding local authorities. He says it is important and it will be in the guidance. All that is fine, but we seek a cast-iron assurance that it will actually happen. It is a matter of worry that the national park authority could set a budget, when the national park authority itself is composed of people who do not control the budget of the local authority which funds it. That is the point that I was trying to stress. I do not think that the noble Viscount has given me an encouraging reply and I am sorry for that because there is a real problem. I shall have to examine the matter, consult with advisers and decide what to do. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 70 [Powers to make Orders]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 206:

Page 75, line 15, after ("instrument") insert ("; and, except in the case of a statutory instrument made by virtue of section (National Park authorities in Wales)above which only—

1. (a) designates a date,
2. (b) renames a body,
3. (c) makes provision under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 7 to this Act for excluding a council from the councils by whom the local authority members of a National Park authority are to be appointed, or
4. (d) makes provision under section 60(2) above any such statutory instrument shall be").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 183. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 207:

Page 75, line 17, leave out ("include") and insert ("comprise").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks clarification of the terminology used in subsection (3) of Clause 70. Clause 70 refers to all the powers that the Secretary of State has under this part of the Bill. Subsection (3) states that the powers in question, shall, in each case, include",

and then lists certain powers: to make …incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision",

within the discretion of the Secretary of State.

At the last stage I queried the use of the term "include" and asked what was not actually set out in the subsection on the face of the Bill, since my understanding of the word "include" is that there must be something that is not spelt out. I therefore propose in this amendment that the term "include" be changed to "comprise" to make it quite clear that there is no other power. I did so, having heard from the Minister; I thank him for his letter containing reassurance that the word "include" does not carry with it any more powers than those that are listed. I was glad to have his reassurance, and I do not doubt that reassurance. However, I feel that the word "comprise" would be very much clearer in the context. I beg to move.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, the effect of subsection (3) of Clause 70, read together with subsection (1), is that the enabling powers to make orders which are contained in the earlier provisions of Part III of the Bill (of which Clause 60 is perhaps the most important) include power to make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision, as mentioned. The same result could have been arrived at by putting in Clause 60 itself a provision saying that "an order under this section may include" the further provision in question, and then repeating the formula for Clause 63, but that would have been unnecessarily repetitive and clumsy.

I believe that the word "comprise" contains within it the terms: "include, contain; extend to, encompass; consist of, be made up of'. Therefore to change "include" to "comprise" in accordance with the amendment would either keep the meaning of the provision as it is, if one were to select the definition "include, contain; extend to, encompass", or make the provision nonsensical, if one were to select "consist of, be made up of".

I therefore ask the noble Baroness to consider perhaps that the words on the face of the Bill are correct, and to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, before the Minister sits down (he almost has done) I wonder whether he can at any rate repeat the reassurance that he gave me in writing that the word "include" does not carry any more powers than those that are listed, Did I miss that point in his reply?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am happy to give that reassurance.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I thank the Minister. I would quite enjoy continuing to discuss semantics, but perhaps it would tax further the patience of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 208:

Page 76, line 16, after first ("different") insert ("areas or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 185. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to National Parks]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 209:

Page 154, line 16, at end insert:

("() In section 114(2) of that Act (construction of references to the preservation of the natural beauty of an area) after the word "preservation"—

1. (a) in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words ", or the conservation,", and
2. (b) in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the conservation".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Schedule 10, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 209 with Amendment No. 184. In addition, he spoke to Amendments Nos. 210 to 220 with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 210 to 220:

Page 156, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert:

("() In section 184 of the 1972 Act (functions under countryside legislation) in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), for the words "subsections (6) to (8) below" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (7) and (8) below".

() In subsection (4) of that section—").

Page 157, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 19.

Page 157, leave out lines 22 to 26.

Page 157, line 46, leave out ("after "situated" there shall be inserted "and") and insert ("the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (ii) shall be omitted and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted ("and

(iii)") .

Page 157, line 48, after ("land") insert (", or any part of the land,").

Page 158, line 19, leave out from ("Wales"") to end of line 26.

Page 160, line 18, leave out paragraph 30 and insert:

(".—(1) Paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 (definition of "relevant planning authority" for the purposes of consents under that Act) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In this paragraph "the 1994 amendment" means the omission of the words "and Wales" in paragraph (a) of the said paragraph 2(6) by paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

(3) If the 1994 amendment comes into force after this paragraph, then—

1. (a) in paragraph (a) of the said paragraph 2(6), for the words "England and Wales" there shall be substituted the words "land in England and Wales which is not in a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority";
2. (b) after that paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(aa) in relation to land in England and Wales which is in a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority, means that National Park authority; and"; and

(c) the 1994 amendment shall have effect in relation to the said paragraph (a) as amended by paragraph (a) above, and on the coming into force of the 1994 amendment the words "and Wales" shall also be omitted from the paragraph (aa) inserted by paragraph (b) above.

(4) If the 1994 amendment comes into force before this paragraph, then—

1. (a) in paragraph (a) of the said paragraph 2(6), for the word "England" there shall be substituted the words "land in England which is not in a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority"; and

1. (b) after that paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(aa) in relation to land in England which is in a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority, means that National Park authority; and".

(5) If the 1994 amendment comes into force on the same day as this paragraph, the 1994 amendment shall be deemed to have come into force immediately before this paragraph (and sub-paragraph (4) above shall have effect accordingly).

(6) The paragraph (aa) inserted by paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 shall be re-numbered "(ab)".").

Page 160, leave out lines 29 to 31 and insert:

(" .—(1) In section 21(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (interpretation of Part I) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (m) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be added "and

(n) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(1 B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990."

(2) In section 39(1) of that Act (application of Part IV), after paragraph (h) there shall be inserted—

"(hh) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;".

(3) In section 67(3) of that Act (local authorities for the purposes of Part V) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (o) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—

"(oo) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(IB) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and".

(4) In section 152(2) of that Act (relevant authorities for the purposes of imposing certain charges) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (1) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be added "and

(m) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990."

(5) In paragraph 2(1) (b) of Schedule I to that Act (bodies to which appointments are made taking account of political balance) for "paragraphs (k) and (m)" there shall be substituted "paragraphs (k), (m) and (n)".").

Page 164, line 4, at end insert:

("The Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14)

In section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (definition of "special items") in subsection (5) (expenses of a billing authority not to be special expenses if they are expenses of meeting a levy from a National Park planning board) paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be omitted and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "or

(c) a National Park authority in relation to a National Park in Wales."").

Page 164, line 4, at end insert:

("The Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (c. 25)

In section 1(10) of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (certain bodies on which powers are conferred by the Act), at the end there shall be added—

"(h) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(IB) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.".

Page 164, line 9, at end insert:

("The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (c. 19)

In Schedule 6 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (minor and consequential amendments relating to planning) in paragraph 2, for the words "paragraphs 3 to 14" there shall be substituted the words "paragraphs 13 and 14".

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 74 [Interpretation of Part III]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 221:

Page 77, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("or constituted by an order under paragraph 3A of that Schedule or section 2(IB) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 221 with Amendment No. 183. In addition, he spoke to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 222 and 223:

Page 77, line 32, leave out ("or").

Page 77, line 33, at end insert (", any joint authority established under section 34 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 or the Residuary Body for Wales established by section 39 of that Act").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bancroft moved Amendment No. 224:

Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause:

("Joint planning arrangements for sustainable development

After section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there shall be inserted—

"Joint planning arrangements for sustainable development.

2A.—(I) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section, where the Secretary of State at any time considers it expedient so to do in respect of any relevant area, he shall direct the local planning authorities for that area to integrate the principles of sustainable development into their strategic planning functions and to establish and maintain joint arrangements for the discharge of those functions.

(2) Before deciding whether to issue a direction under subsection (1) of this section in respect of any area, the Secretary of State shall consult with every local planning authority and with persons or bodies representative of business. industry and other relevant interests within that area.

(3) Without prejudice to his powers so to do at any other time, the Secretary of State shall, in every area in respect of which he makes an order under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992, forthwith consult with the persons mentioned in subsection (2) of this section for the whole of that area.

(4) If in the light of any consultation under subsection (3) of this section it appears to him expedient so to do in respect of all or part of the area, the Secretary of State shall issue a direction under subsection (1) of this section which shall come into force on the same day as the relevant order under the Local Government Act 1992.

(5) In this section—

"relevant area" means any non-metropolitan area in respect of which an order is made under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992 replacing the two principal tiers of local government with two or more single tier authorities, or any part of any such area; and "strategic planning functions" means the functions of a local planning authority in relation to the structure plan or unitary plan, to the winning and working of minerals and ancillary operations specified in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule I to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to the disposal, treatment, storage or processing of refuse or waste materials.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in my name and those of other noble Lords, I acknowledge straight away that this is not a planning Bill. But the town and country planning system is one of the most important instruments available to promote sustainable development, and sustainable development is at the heart of this Bill. Its Long Title is broad, and it therefore seems proper to use this opportunity to prevent a possible weakening of the planning system's capacity to deliver sustainable development in certain areas. This weakening may well result from the reorganisation of the bodies that are chiefly responsible for planning decisions; namely, the local authorities.

Orders have been recently approved by this House, as we all know, and in another place to abolish the Avon, Cleveland and Humberside county councils and to vest their powers in new and considerably smaller unitary authorities. An order has also been approved to create a new unitary authority for York within the area that is presently administered by North Yorkshire County Council. Orders designed to change the local government structure in some other counties—albeit generally only in certain districts of those counties—are likely to be put before your Lordships in due course. The recent announcement by the Secretary of State has, I am bound to say, increased and prolonged the uncertainty about the ultimate extent of this process.

All the orders approved so far provide for the new authorities jointly to inherit the respective county structure plans. But thereafter this and other county planning functions—notably those in respect of minerals and waste—are to be discharged by the new unitary authorities with no provision whatsoever to secure joint working.

These are all subjects which require to be tackled strategically over wide areas. That is self-evident in the case of structure planning. But in addition, a small authority naturally tends to resist mineral and waste developments on principle in its own area. But it will not be able to defend those decisions on appeal or on call-in by reference to a broader, coherent balance between economic and environmental factors.

In Cleveland there is relatively little scope for mineral extraction. But there is an intense concentration of industries producing wastes, quite often of types needing particularly careful treatment. Elsewhere, mineral extraction will generally be equally, or even more, important.

There are existing powers to set up joint planning authorities, but none of these fits the present case. Section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a joint county planning authority to be set up for more than one county, or a joint district planning authority for more than one district. But it does not enable a joint authority to be set up to exercise county planning powers within a single former county.

Earlier this week, on Monday 6th March, at col. 107 of Hansard, the noble Viscount the Minister kindly reminded me of Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992 when I glancingly raised an analogous point on the Humberside and North Yorkshire orders. But in my respectful submission, Section 21 of the 1992 Act will not meet the case. This section contains default powers to set up a joint authority within a recognised area but only if it is found that the constituent authorities are failing to do so.

In reality, failure will not manifest itself until the authorities have been trying for some time to make the planning system work, according to their own lights, and bad decisions have been taken and implemented. That will be too late.

The new clause would empower the Secretary of State to direct the new authorities to set up joint arrangements to carry out these vitally important planning functions in any area where two or more single tier authorities take over the functions at present exercised by a county council. The use of his powers of direction would, one hopes, be a matter of last resort; for it would grieve me deeply to see yet more powers migrate from the localities to the north tower of the Marsham Street toast rack. I remember it well, although it is nearly a quarter of a century since I first moved in there with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.

Many authorities will gladly collaborate over joint arrangements. To assume that all authorities will be so disposed may be a hallucination—pigs might fly. But the mere existence of that power would act as a deterrent to non-collaboration. The process is a simple one. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to exercise the power of direction if it appeared expedient after consultation with the local authorities and other interests —business, industry and organisations with an interest in the local environment and economy. That could happen at any time, but in particular the clause would require him to go through that consultation process whenever he made an order reorganising the local authorities in any area and have any necessary new joint planning arrangements in place from the start.

I repeat, it is always preferable that local authorities, as responsible, accountable bodies, should be allowed to settle their own affairs. But equally in a matter as important as the present one, a last resort should be available in time to prevent serious and perhaps irreparable damage. Existing powers do not provide for that but the new clause does. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I should like briefly to say how delighted I am to support the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. In that dreadful building in Marsham Street he contributed, with his considerable intelligence, something in sharp contrast to the building which housed him. I would share to the full the grief that he would feel at the departure of any more powers from the localities concerned to Marsham Street. I hope that it will not happen. The new clause, to which I have put my name, is intended more to explore the mind of the Government than to confer yet more powers upon the Secretary of State.

I have three questions which I should like to put to my noble friend. First, how does the Secretary of State propose to use the powers that he already has to promote sustainable development? Secondly, what role does he see for the local authorities in that same task?

I ask my third question against the background of a certain bewilderment. It may be that other noble Lords are absolutely clear, since the developments last week, about what the Government have in mind for the future of the local government commission and the proposals which emanate from it. For myself, I must confess to a certain confusion of mind. Therefore, I particularly ask my noble friend what view he takes of the capacity of small unitary local authorities to take a full part in strategic planning and sustainable development. There will be repercussions from what has happened in authorities such as Avon and Cleveland or, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, mentioned, a larger authority, such as York, where there have been very considerable changes. How will either the small size of an authority or the extent of change which is visited upon an authority affect its capacity to play an effective role in strategic planning?

My underlying fear is that the Secretary of State or his successor will feel a terrible temptation to say that the local authorities do not have the capacity to do such things and therefore that he (or his successor) will take over their duty more and more. I have some very great fears on that score. For that reason, I am pleased to support the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I shall be particularly interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about it. I hope that he will be able to allay the anxieties which the noble Lord expressed and which I share.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I too support the amendment for all the reasons that have been expressed—I shall not repeat them—and for an additional reason. When the GLC was abolished, it was your Lordships' concern for strategic planning in London that led to the constitution of an advisory committee—admittedly it was advisory—to deal with planning across the whole of London. I chaired that body for the first eight years of its existence. Having been forced into an association, which probably the boroughs would have reached, eventually a great deal of time was saved and some very good work was done and continues to be done. Noble Lords showed their concern for strategic planning at that time and I hope that they will do so now.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, I too want briefly to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. In this country, we have been arguing about the level at which planning decisions should be made for at least a quarter of a century and certainly since the 1972 reforms. At that time, many noble Lords felt that the move of planning responsibilities from counties to districts had certain risks. Certainly I believe that planning should be done at the lowest possible level. In certain cases, for example, where district councils operate on the "parish council up" base, it works extremely well.

Having said that, it is becoming more and more necessary that there should be a true strategic dimension to the kind of planning that we want. From my point of view, I see it as absolutely crucial in terms of sustainable development and the protection of the countryside. I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, would enable strategic planning to be done at as local a level as might be appropriate and not raised back to Marsham Street, or whatever successor it might have. I strongly support the amendment.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, let no one doubt the strength of the Government's commitment to sustainable development. The sustainable development strategy which we published last year sets it at the centre of our thinking. The strategy made clear our intention to work towards ensuring that development and growth are sustainable, and to continue to develop policies consistent with the concept of sustainable development.

We are at one with the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, over the importance of the planning system's contribution to sustainable development. The sum total of decisions in the planning system, as elsewhere, should not deny future generations the best of today's environment. This should be expressed through the policies adopted in development plans.

We have taken significant steps to embody sustainable development in the planning system. Where there are issues which apply across regions or parts of regions and need to be considered on a scale wider than the area of a single authority, regional planning guidance sets broad strategic policies for land use and development. It provides for the implementation of policies for sustainable development across regions. That is the answer to the first question of my noble friend Lord Peyton. The primary function of regional guidance is to provide the necessary framework for the preparation of structure plans in which county councils set out key strategic policies as a framework for local planning by district councils.

Our planning policy guidance requires local authorities to take sustainable development into account in preparing their development plans. By law, local authorities must have regard to national policies such as this, and to environmental, social and economic considerations, in formulating their development plan policies, including their involvement in Local Agenda 21. That is the answer to my noble friend's second question.

Our guidance also requires local authorities to conduct environmental appraisals of their development plans. A systematic environmental appraisal is the most effective way to demonstrate how a plan takes account of the environment in its widest sense and how it works towards the Government's goal of ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. We have published a good practice guide to assist local authorities in this task of environmental appraisal. We will supplement it with a guide to good practice in applying the principles of sustainable development through the planning system.

On the matter of joint arrangements for strategic planning, we consider that the existing statutory provisions are more closely aligned with the general thrust of planning practice and procedures in this country than those of the noble Lord. The essence of our practice is that local authorities should have considerable discretion and responsibility in the exercise of their planning functions within the general boundaries of national policies. We have endeavoured to reflect this in our approach to joint working.

Current legislation makes each local planning authority wholly responsible for the exercise of its development plan functions within its own administrative area. Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables an authority to carry out any of its functions jointly with other authorities. There are provisions in the planning legislation to facilitate this without removing the individual authority's discretionary role to decide planning matters for its area. We are satisfied that where joint working on strategic planning is desirable, it can be achieved through voluntary arrangements based on these existing provisions. Clearly, however, there may be occasions when such voluntary arrangements fail, Although, given the long experience of local authorities in planning matters, and the fact that they have a tradition of liaison on, for example, regional planning, we expect such failures to be few.

The only difference between this concept and the concept of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, is that the noble Lord anticipates failure of voluntary arrangements even before a local government order is made. His amendment indicates that the Secretary of State should direct and that the direction should come into force on the same day as the relevant order, so the noble Lord is already anticipating failure. That is not the way the Government think.

However, as I indicated—the noble Lord was good enough to remind the House—when we were talking about the North Yorkshire and Humberside borders, should these voluntary arrangements fail, the Secretary of State already has a reserve power under Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992. Where he considers that joint working is desirable following a structural or boundary change but such arrangements fail to emerge, he is able to establish a statutory joint authority explicitly charged with preparing a structure plan for the combined local authority areas in place of the unitary authorities themselves.

The noble Lord's amendment, by contrast, does not explicitly recognise the desirability of voluntary joint working. Furthermore, it would allow the Secretary of State a much wider range of discretion to intervene if he chose to do so. This is not a power that my right honourable friend wishes to have and I would be surprised if many local authorities were anxious that he should have a wide-ranging power. I would therefore prefer to remain with the existing provisions. They provide a clearer indication of the occasions on which the Secretary of State would feel it necessary to intervene.

We are keen to further the objectives of sustainable development through the planning system, and the planning system currently provides the means to do this both across regions through the framework of structure plans and within local planning authority areas through local development plans. We do not believe that the provisions in the amendment are desirable or necessary.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask one question. My fear is that the proposals of the Local Government Commission, particularly where they result in small unitary authorities, will make strategic planning for sustainable development more difficult. Is my noble friend really saying that my fear is groundless?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I cannot banish all the fear in my noble friend's mind. But what I do say is that we are working up proposals that the local authorities should form joint working arrangements so that the strategic planning concept is not just based on the identity of the unitary district or authority. That is not the concept. I agree that it is done on a voluntary basis, and that is what we should certainly like to take forward. The noble Lord is indicating in his amendment that unless, after consultation, he is absolutely assured that this is going to happen, the Secretary of State would direct it. I believe that that power of direction acts much too early in the whole process.

Lord Bancroft

My Lords, this has been a very short but interesting debate. It has demonstrated the concern felt in various parts of the House about the future of strategic planning and sustainable development in the wake of the latest round of local government reorganisation.

I listened to the noble Viscount's remarks. I think that he misinterpreted a little. The purpose of the amendment is that the Secretary of State should consult; but he should not direct unless there is no voluntary co-operation coming in sight from the local authorities. The powers of direction are very much a last resort, to be sparingly if ever used. That having been said, I should like to study the noble Viscount's remarks with care to decide whether I wish to take the issue further. I thank him. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 225:

Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause:

("Vehicle exhaust emissions

.—a) An authorised officer of a local authority may test a motor vehicle on a road in the local authority area in which he is authorised for the purpose of ascertaining whether the requirements imposed by law as to the prevention or reduction of the emission of smoke, fumes, or vapour are complied with as respects the vehicle.

(2) The authorised officer must produce his authority to act for the purposes of this section if required to do so.

(3) The authorised officer may operate the vehicle for the purpose of testing it.

(4) If there is a defect in the vehicle by reason of which the vehicle does not comply with any construction and use requirements applicable to the vehicle relating to the prevention or reduction of the emission of smoke, fumes or vapour, the authorised officer may serve on the owner of the vehicle a notice requiring him to—

1. (a) pay a penalty charge to the local authority, and
2. (b) produce to the local authority within 56 days a certificate signed by a person having power to carry out examinations at a vehicle testing station under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 confirming that in his opinion the vehicle complies with the relevant construction and use requirements.

(5) The owner of a vehicle served with a notice under subsection (4) above shall have the right of appeal against the service of the notice to the local authority in the first instance and thereafter, to an adjudicator appointed by the local authority.

(6) The amount of the penalty charge payable under subsection (4) (b) above shall be set at a level which would allow the local authority to recover the reasonable costs of the enforcement of the provisions of this section.

(7) Before enforcing the provisions of this section, a local authority shall make and thereafter maintain and have regard to a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I believe that it will be for the convenience of all noble Lords if we discuss Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 at the same time. It will be within the recollection of the House that, four weeks ago exactly to the day, I moved the same group of amendments dealing with vehicle emissions. I was greatly encouraged by the support which I received from all parts of the House. Indeed, these amendments are in the names of Members from all parts of the House. Since then my noble friend on the Front Bench has been kind enough to receive a delegation from the London Boroughs Association. We had what I hope was a useful and productive discussion.

Perhaps I may remind the House that the amendments deal with three particular situations where there is pollution of the atmosphere by vehicles and equipment. The first amendment gives power to local authorities to carry out kerbside testing of vehicles which have polluting exhausts. If they are found to be offending under the construction and use regulations, the local authorities have power to take the vehicles off the road. They have powers to fine and to require the owners to take remedial action. These powers exist at the moment in one form or another with the Vehicles Inspectorate and the police. But I believe that it is everybody's experience that the powers are very infrequently used. Enforcement is the real problem here and the key is to give local authorities the necessary powers to test but not to stop, because I believe that that would not be right. The only people who should stop a vehicle are the uniformed police. That is the first power.

The second provision is to give powers to local authorities to deal with machinery and equipment. Examples of these are tar boilers, cement mixers, air compressors and so on, which are used, for instance, in the construction industry. Local authorities have powers to deal with them if that machinery or equipment pollutes on a building site, because the machine can be closed down but, if the contractor just moves the machinery out into the street, then the only people who can deal with it are the police. It is quite unrealistic to expect the police, with all the pressures on them, to deal with equipment of that kind and in those circumstances.

The third power which aroused a certain amount of interest in your Lordships' House when I moved the amendment in Committee is the power as regards stationary vehicles. One sees them all the time, vehicles such as coaches, buses and lorries, standing for hours with their engines switched on and their exhausts puffing into the atmosphere. There is a need for a power to allow local authorities to have the engines switched off.

The origin of these powers lay in the London Local Authorities Bill, promoted by the London Boroughs Association. That Bill is currently before the House and contains much more detailed legislation than I have included in these amendments. I did not want to weary the House with 25 pages of detailed legislation which I suspect few of your Lordships would want to read.

There has been a great deal of consultation on this matter by the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. When the Government published their document Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge, they actually welcomed the proposals which were being put forward by the London boroughs. The Government said that they welcomed the initiative, in bringing forward proposals in the London Local Authorities Bill to extend kerbside emission testing powers to London local authorities".

They went on to say, The proposals may present an opportunity to increase the level of roadside emissions testing in London, supplementing testing already carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate, and may provide a blueprint for future initiatives elsewhere in the country".

So what is being proposed here is something which in principle the Government have already accepted. However, when we came to discuss the amendments, my noble friend made some general welcoming noises about the first of the three amendments concerning the roadside testing of vehicles, but, having now studied what he said, the reasons do not appear convincing. He was much less enthusiastic about the other two amendments.

This has all been discussed against the background of two very important factors. The first is the Government's very welcome intention to legislate by introducing provisions in another place into this Bill to deal with their strategic air pollution policy along the lines of the amendment which was moved by the noble Lords, Lord Lewis of Newnham and Lord Nathan. I believe that there was a very general welcome in all parts of the House. We look forward to seeing that legislation when the Bill returns from the other place. It will provide a comprehensive new policy to combat air pollution.

My noble friend also undertook to introduce general powers in the Bill for a national strategic plan and to have local air quality management powers for local authorities. It is already clear that it is local authorities which will have to play a very important role in this. So we are to have legislation.

The second point is that, since we debated these matters in this House on 9th February, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, has announced what his press release was pleased to call, A major new programme of action to cut vehicle pollution in city streets".

It achieved wide publicity and was widely welcomed by the press and the other media when he made that announcement. The press release continues, In a five-pronged initiative he announced new resources for a major national blitz of polluting vehicles across 23 cities and towns over the next two months; the speeding up of tighter MOT test emission standards; a prosecutions crackdown on offending vehicles with fines of up to £2,500; automatic prosecution for motorists and operators who exceed limits by neglecting vehicle maintenance; and an urgent study into the possibility of roadside checks for engines burning too much oil".

That is only one of the particular problems, but it is an important one.

We are to have a national strategy. We are to have local air quality initiatives with local authorities involved. There is to be a blitz on polluting vehicles and we have had a warm welcome from the Government for the provisions in the London Bill, saying that they welcome local authorities having powers to test.

But we need to have those powers in this Bill. Why should these provisions be confined to London? Why should we have to wait for the vagaries of the London Local Authorities Bill in order for them to become law? Why should the provisions not be equally applicable to other parts of the country?

When we debated these matters earlier the Committee wanted to see these provisions in this Bill. When we met my noble friend we were given a number of answers. I do not wish to be in the least unkind to him because he was very helpful. At a time when he was extremely busy he and his officials gave us a great deal of their time. But my noble friend did not appear to me to be convincing.

Much of this work has been done. There has already been a great deal of consultation. Two factors have figured in the petitions against the private Bill—first, the power to stop by local authorities, which is not in my amendments and not in these proposals. The second objection has been to the proposition that these measures should apply only to London and not nationally. The London local authorities cannot promote national legislation, but we have it here in front of us.

The obstacles which my noble friend has put up can be overcome. Those of us who have had responsibilities in these matters are very familiar with being put under this kind of pressure by colleagues in either House. He should tell his officials to get on with it. There is no reason why they cannot now produce the clauses which are all there in draft. They have been very widely discussed with all the relevant interests. This afternoon we hope that my noble friend will say that these provisions should be added to this Bill in another place. If we miss this opportunity, how long shall we have to wait before we can propose these measures again? I ask my noble friend to give that assurance.

There are two other points. As regards stationary vehicles, my noble friend said that it was difficult because there are already powers if the vehicle makes a noise, but emissions would be very difficult to prove. That is not right. We are not going to have to prove the emissions. All that we shall have to prove is that the vehicle is sitting there with its engine on for no good reason. The local authority can then say, "Would you mind turning that off because you are polluting the atmosphere?" Therefore, I do not think that the parallel with the noise power has any relevance.

On the question of stationary equipment, it is absurd that local authorities can deal with such problems on a building site but not if the machinery is on the road. Again, it is not enough to say that the police can deal with it. I hope that the police are doing more important crime prevention work than stopping tar boilers puffing out black smoke. I think that the House is entitled to ask that these provisions should be introduced in another place in this Bill—not necessarily these new clauses, but provisions along their lines. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi)

My Lords, I should point out that there should be a small amendment to subsection (6), where, to correct a printing error, the words "subsection (4) (b)" should read "subsection (4) (a)".

6 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has dealt with the amendment extremely comprehensively. We have so much business to get through that I do not intend to detain the House other than to support warmly and wholeheartedly both the amendment and the noble Lord's supporting arguments. However, I should like to add one point. I join the noble Lord in thanking the Minister for receiving the delegation. Doing so on Tuesday morning must have been extremely inconvenient for him.

Local authorities understand the need to take such steps and, in understanding that need, they also understand that they may not be desperately popular with those individuals against whom the steps are taken. However, as I said, they recognise the overall need and understand the loud call which is now coming from city centres and the suburbs—indeed, throughout the country—for steps to be taken urgently to improve our air quality. As the noble Lord said, this is not a matter that applies only to London.

It will not be that easy for the local authorities to introduce the measures. As the Government know, such steps tend to provoke hurt and outrage among those who are caught out. As a local councillor, I am sure that my 'phone will ring with people saying, "How dare you!" Well, the local authorities do dare and would like to be given the powers to dare.

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

My Lords, I too urge the Government to be courageous about the amendments. I was in Austria last year where such provisions are strictly enforced. All tourist coaches turn off their engines when stationary. They are not allowed to lurk in the centres of towns. There are extremely strict controls on vehicle emissions. It can be done. It is not just a question of health, asthma and the carcinogens that are pumped out with diesel fumes; it is also a question of the greenhouse effect. I note that the Secretary of State admitted yesterday that the greenhouse effect is a reality and that we are faced with global warming. It would be a small but urgent contribution to controlling vehicle emissions if the new clauses could be inserted in the Bill.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, during his speech of only a few minutes I believe that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding produced an absolutely unanswerable case. I do not intend to repeat any of his arguments, except to say that the idea that pollution and bad smells have to be dealt with in London but not elsewhere in the country seems far-fetched and unreasonable even by the standards of modem legislation.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I spoke briefly in Committee to support the principle of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, and I should like to do so again this evening. I should also like to make a few suggestions about how the provisions might be put into force. First, as my noble friend said, it is an offence at the moment under the construction and use regulations to do what the amendment seeks to stop. It would be strange to have two sets of offences for that—one under the construction and use regulations and one under the provisions to be given to local authorities. I believe that the current construction and use offence should be decriminalised and that local authorities should be permitted to carry out the enforcements.

Secondly, I believe that the funds raised from fixed penalty notices should be ring-fenced for further enforcement, as happens to local authorities with parking enforcements. That is the precedent. Furthermore, the police should be reimbursed for stopping vehicles. Treasury rules should be changed to allow that funding to be additional to the core Home Office funding. I suggest also that the fixed penalty charge, which the amendment suggests, should be set at a fairly low level to begin with as drivers are often unaware that they are committing an offence. The existence of a penalty would act as an incentive to motorists to check that their emissions are in order, but I believe that it would be unfair to penalise such motorists unduly because they will face the additional cost of rectifying the vehicle. The penalties for non-compliance with a rectification notice should, however, be harsh. If people do not obey such a notice, they should be penalised.

My only other observation in support of the amendment is that the training requirements of the authorised officers in the local authorities should be the same as those of the Department of Transport's Vehicles Inspectorate. That should be included in the code of practice to which subsection (7) of my noble friend's amendment refers.

Having made those observations, I am anxious to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say, and particularly whether he can expand on what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport said between the last stage of the Bill and today.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment and ask for the forgiveness of the House if I raise what may appear to be a minor point. I am interested in the apparent justice of any provision which contains within it a penalty. Your Lordships will observe that the amendment allows a penalty to be charged by a notice served by an authorised officer of a local authority. The right of appeal against that penalty, which is payable to the local authority, is in the first instance to the local authority. The appeal from the local authority is to an adjudicator appointed by the local authority.

Your Lordships may feel that that chain of appeal does not include any independent person upon whom the driver can rely. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—or the Government if, as I hope, the amendment is accepted—might not think it proper that at least the last person in the chain of appeal—namely, the adjudicator appointed by the local authority—should be an adjudicator appointed by the ministry.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said almost exactly verbatim what I was going to say. I agree totally with what is proposed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. All that I would add is that the appeal thereafter should be to the local magistrates. We have had them for 600 years and they are quite capable of doing that. It seems the simple way of dealing with the matter. Apart from those words, I am in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Jenkin.

Lord Renton

My Lords, there is another small technical point to which I feel obliged to draw your Lordships' attention. I have great sympathy with the main purpose of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, but I draw your Lordships' attention to the top of page 13 of the Marshalled List and to subsection (6) which states: The amount of the penalty charge payable under subsection (4) (b) above shall be set at a level which would allow the local authority to recover the reasonable costs of the enforcement of the provisions of this section". But if we look back to subsection (4) (b)—

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend should understand that the noble Lord who is in the Chair made a correction to that. It should read "subsection (4) (a)" not "subsection (4) (b)".

Lord Renton

My Lords, I did not know that. Indeed, had I known it I would not have made that point. I thank my noble friend.

Lord Burnham

My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, in proposing the amendment, talked about a motor vehicle on a road. He talked about tar boilers and other similar vehicles which may not be motor driven or are unlikely to be motor driven. Will the Minister consider whether in this context it would be right to use another definition to include tar boilers and similar vehicles?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, these amendments seek to increase the powers of local authorities to deal with emissions from vehicles in the street. Amendment No. 225 aims to give local authorities the power to carry out vehicle emission testing and to impose a penalty charge on the owner of a vehicle failing to comply with emission standards as laid down by appropriate construction and use regulations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will note the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, when he considers whether his amendment is correct.

The noble Lord brought forward this amendment in Committee and was gracious enough to withdraw it on the basis of an assurance that government would, without commitment, consider whether they could bring forward their own provisions at a later stage in the Bill. I am afraid that I can add little to the assurance I gave then. Ministers are sympathetic to the noble Lord's aims and are actively considering the matter. The noble Lord will appreciate, however, that his proposals raise a number of complex issues in relation both to the charging regime and the use of police resources. I am afraid therefore that I can give no commitment as to the likelihood of government bringing forward provisions at a later stage of the Bill.

Although we support wholeheartedly the principle underlying the noble Lord's amendment, the Government's priority within the Bill is to move forward with the main legislative base for its proposals for air quality management. These were set out in Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge, the statement of the Government's strategic policies in this area published in January by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment. We will be bringing forward amendments establishing that framework in another place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, urged me to be courageous about these amendments: I believe that we are being courageous about those amendments but perhaps not about these amendments. These are likely to be similar in effect, if not form, to those brought forward by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Lewis in Committee.

The Government are giving detailed consideration to the kinds of new powers and tools that may be needed by local authorities to carry out their new responsibilities in the area of air quality management in addition to the planning, transport planning, and local air pollution responsibilities they already possess. This week we commenced formal discussions with local authorities and local authority associations, including the LBA, on implementation of the Government's air quality management proposals. We expect to cover in depth the issue of additional powers and tools and how best they might be framed. Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge explicitly recognises that the power to test vehicle emissions may well prove useful to local authorities in, for instance, air quality management areas.

In that context, I appreciate the helpful intent with which my noble friend brings forward his amendments. However, it is important that we do not move ahead of ourselves. Of paramount importance is establishing the legislative framework for air quality management within which the provision of further powers can be considered. As I indicated, we hope to do that in another place. Once that is established, we shall better be able to consider the new tools that local government may need and how best they might be framed. We would hope to bring forward such provisions at a future legislative opportunity, although again I am unable to give any assurances in relation to the specific powers sought by my noble friend. The Government are, however, fully committed to increasing resources available for vehicle emission testing. Only last month the Secretary of State for Transport announced a programme of further measures to address vehicle pollution. This includes a further Vehicle Inspectorate emissions testing blitz, building on the considerable success of a similar exercise at the end of last year. It is hoped that more blitzes may take place later in the year. The Secretary of State has also announced a prosecution crackdown on offending vehicles with fines of up to £2,500, and he will be bringing forward the date of introduction of tighter MOT emissions standards for older, more polluting vehicles.

Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge highlights the importance of partnership between central and local government in securing sustainable improvements in air quality. To that end, future Vehicle Inspectorate-operated emission testing blitzes will be subject to consultation with local authorities. This is critical to ensuring the most effective use of resources for emission testing.

Amendment No. 226 seeks to extend the statutory nuisance controls in Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include smoke, fumes or gases emitted from any vehicle, machinery or equipment in the street, excepting those emitted from vehicle exhaust systems. As I indicated in Committee to my noble friend, although again I cannot find fault with his intentions, the Government believe that there are already sufficient powers available to the police, vehicle inspectors and others to control these emissions. These include the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and a variety of provisions under health and safety legislation. The Government therefore feel that the amendment would be an unnecessary duplication of existing controls, which was also a fear of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The Government oppose the amendment.

Amendment No. 227 seeks to deal with motorists who leave their engines running unnecessarily when parked. Again, I am forced to repeat myself. When the noble Lord brought forward this amendment in Committee, I stated that it sounded attractive and that I was very much in sympathy with the intent behind it. Any noble Lord walking around Whitehall or St. James's during the height of the tourist season cannot fail to notice the unpleasant emissions from tourist coaches idling their engines while waiting for their passengers to embark. However, there are difficulties with the approach suggested by my noble friend and it is not clear that his amendment is the answer. A similar offence to the one he proposes already exists in relation to noise emanating from stationary vehicles. I refer to Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. This requires that drivers should take appropriate action to prevent unnecessary noise by switching off their engines when stationary. In practice, however, the offence is very difficult to prosecute and difficult to prove. The Government would not wish to duplicate those difficulties in respect of emissions.

I have indicated that the Government are moving forward on this front. My noble friend wishes me to go further and faster. However I hope that in the light of what I have said he will not press the amendment.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, when I heard the dreaded words "future legislative opportunity" my heart sank. I cannot think why Parliament should have to wait for future legislative opportunity to do something for which such widespread support has been expressed in the House. I shall not repeat my arguments, particularly those about the second and third amendments, except to say to my noble friend Lord Burnham that tar boilers are within the definition of subsection (2) of Amendment No. 226 which refers to smoke, fumes or gases emitted from machinery or equipment in the street.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Onslow have a good point. Anyone wishing to look at this legislation, as I hope they will in another place, will recognise the wisdom of going down that road so far as there is an external appeal.

I was grateful to have the support of noble Lords, and in particular that of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, because I am aware of the interests that he is so eloquent in supporting and defending in the House. To have his support for this group of amendments is valuable. We should not wait for a "future legislative opportunity". It would greatly encourage the Government and their officials to produce suitable legislation in another place if we had put these amendments into the Bill. I think that I want to test the opinion of the House.

6.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.225) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L [Teller.]
Airedale, L.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L
Bancroft, L.	Kennet, L
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Kilbracken, L
Blackstone, B.	Kilmarnock, L
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Lawrence, L
Carnock, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Chorley, L.	Lytton, E.
Clinton-Davis, L.	McNair, L
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Meston, L
Craigavon, V.	Mishcon, L
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Monkswell, L
Dormand of Easington, L.	Moran, L
Dubs, L.	Nelson, E.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Nicol, B.
Gainsborough, E.	Onslow, E.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L
Glenmara, L.	Redesdale, L
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L
[Teller.]	Shannon, E.
Hamwee, B.	Strabolgi, L
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L
Harrowby, E.	Tordoff, L
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Walpole, L
Hertford, M.	Wharton, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Jeger, B.	Williams of Elvel, L
	Young of Dartington, L

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L	Birdwood, L
Addison, V.	Blaker, L
Astor of Hever, L	Blanch, B.
Astor, V.	Blyth, L

Braine of Wheatley, L	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Brigstocke, B.	Mackay of Clashfern, L [Lord Chancellor.]
Brougham and Vaux, L
Butterworth, L	Mancroft, L
Campbell of Croy, L.	Marlesford. L
Carnegy of Lour, B.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Mersey, V.
Chesham, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Clanwilliam, E.	Monk Bretton, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Mottistone, L.
Cork and Orrey, E.	Moyne, L.
Courtown, E.	Munster, E.
Craborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cross, V.	Northeask, E.
Cumberlege, B.	Orkney, E.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Donegall, M.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Dudley, E.	Renwick, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Elles, B.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Erroll, E.	Sharpless, B.
Flather, B.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Shuttleworth, L.
Goschen, V.	Skelmersdale, L.
Greenway, L
Halsbury, E.	Skidelsky, L
Hayhoe, L	St Davids, V.
Henley, L	Stewartby, L
HolmPatrick, L	Stockton, E
Hooper, B.	Strathcarron, L
Howe, E.	Strathclyde, L [Teller]
Hylton-Foster, B.	Suffield, L.
Inglewood, L [Teller.]	Thomas of Gwydir, L
Kingsland, L	Trumpington, B.
Lane of Horsell, L	Ullswater, V.
Leigh, L	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Lindsay, E.	Weatherill, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E	Willoughby de Broke, L
Long, V.	Wise, L
Lucas, L	Wynford, L
Lyell

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 not moved.]

6.28 p.m.

Clause 75 [National waste strategy]:

Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 228:

Page 78, line 28, at end insert ("and (iv) suitable disposal sites or installations.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment, which was suggested to me by Earth Rights, the environmental law and resources centre, is to comply with EC directive 75/442, as amended, so as to ensure that suitable disposal sites or installations are mentioned specifically, and included within the national waste strategy. We have now had the benefit of seeing the Government's draft of their waste management plan on the import and export of waste. This is a DoE, Welsh Office, Scottish Office, and DoE (Northern Ireland) joint document. Paragraph 11 states: It is the Government's aim to facilitate and enhance a network of disposal and recovery facilities within the United Kingdom through its National Waste Strategy".

Therefore, it is surprising that there is no reference in the Bill to the issue of sites.

The new EPA Section 44A, which arises at Clause 75, provides for that national waste strategy for England and Wales. However, that strategy contains the Government's policy on waste recovery and disposal as required by the EC directive to which I referred. That strategy is to be drawn up by the Secretary of State; it is not a strategy which is to be considered by this House.

One of the essential requirements of the directive has, in my view and in the view of Earth Rights, not being included. Article 7 of the directive requires four particular matters to be included within the strategy and in waste management plans. The first is the type, quantity and origin of the waste to be recovered or disposed. The second is the technical requirements that generally apply. The third is any special arrangements for particular wastes and the fourth is suitable disposal sites or installations. The section requires only the first three of those matters to he included within the strategy. Therefore, the requirement relating to suitable disposable sites has not been included. I beg to move.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, Amendment No. 228 would require the national waste strategy for England and Wales to include provisions relating to suitable disposal sites and installations.

The amendment is well intended. It aims to ensure that we meet fully the requirements of the amended EC framework directive on waste, Article 7 of which does indeed require waste management plans to relate to suitable disposal sites or installations. However, the omission of this requirement from the list of provisions which the national waste strategy must cover is deliberate, and reflects the existing arrangements for implementing Article 7 of this directive, which will be partly superseded by the provisions of Clause 75.

At present, Article 7 is implemented jointly by waste disposal plans drawn up by waste regulation authorities under Section 50 of the Environmental Protection Act, and by development plans drawn up by local planning authorities. The precise arrangements for implementing the directive are contained in Schedule 4 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Paragraph 7 specifically requires the waste policies in development plans to include policies in respect of suitable disposal sites or installations. That is because the siting—and criteria for siting—new waste facilities is a matter for the planning rather than the waste regulation authority.

In drawing up the waste strategy provisions, we have been careful to retain this distinction and the waste strategy accordingly must relate to type, quantity and origin of waste, general technical requirements and special arrangements for particular waste. But it is not required to relate to suitable disposal sites or installations, which rightly remain the responsibility of local planning authorities and for which the latter will continue to be required to make provision in their development plans.

I should add that neither the strategy nor development plans need be confined to the matters set out in the directive and I have no doubt that there are other matters which the Secretary of State will wish to include in his strategy, including information about existing facilities which will be obtained through the national waste survey. However, we believe it important to maintain the distinction between the role of the planning authority and the role of the Secretary of State in determining the location of new facilities.

I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that, in reference to yesterday's debate, this is some kind of subsidiarity in relation to the national waste strategy and local planning authorities. He has clearly pointed out that the installations and suitable sites are regarded as planning matters.

I shall study what he said. I am grateful to him in particular for noting that there may be further guidance from the Secretaries of State on this matter. For those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman (Lord Strabolgi)

My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Amendment No. 229 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 230.

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 229:

Page 78, line 30, leave out from ("State") to ("may") in line 37 and insert:

("(a) shall consult the Environment Agency,

(b) shall consult—

1. (i) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government, and
2. (ii) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry,

as he may consider appropriate, and (c)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 229, 231 and 233, which are tabled in my name, respond to concerns expressed by noble Lords during Committee—in particular my noble friends Lord Wade and Lord Lucas and, among others, Lord Mottistone—about the need to consult industry on the national waste strategies and on the waste surveys carried out by the agencies. We accept that industry should have an opportunity to make known its views on the scope and conduct of the survey and on the content of the strategy in advance of any decisions on these matters. These amendments will ensure that such consultation takes place. I beg to move.

Lord Wade of Chorlton

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these amendments in response to our discussions in Committee. They make redundant my two amendments and I am sure that my noble friend's amendments are more efficient than mine. I support them.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend has indicated his assent to my amendments, thereby indicating that he will not move his amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman (Lord Strabolgi)

My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Amendment No. 231 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 232.

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 231:

Page 79, line 28, leave out from ("consult") to ("it") in line 30 and insert:

("(i) such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of local planning authorities, and

(ii) such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry, as").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 233:

Page 81, line 7, leave out from ("consult") to ("it") in line 8 and insert:

("(i) such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of planning authorities, and

(ii) such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry, as").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Producer responsibility: general]:

Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 234:

Page 82, line 40, after ("but") insert (", other than in respect of packaging waste,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment follows on from the discussion that we had in Committee about a multipoint or a single point scheme for the disposal of packaging waste. The purpose of the amendment is to refer only to packaging waste. The amendment that I tabled in Committee sought to delete a whole sentence from the Bill but my noble friend pointed out that there were a number of waste streams and it would be appropriate for some to be dealt with in one way and some in another.

Amendment No. 234 seeks to ensure that the Government will not place a single point system on the handling of packaging waste. The Producer Responsibility Group, which the Secretary of State asked to report on the matter, came forward with a detailed report. It acknowledged that the responsibility for packaging is shared between all parts of the packaging chain; that is packaging manufacture, packer/filler, distribution and retailing. We must ensure that the individual requirements of those various sections of the chain are adequately met and ensure the satisfaction of the final consumer. We must remember that the final consumer is probably completely unaware of the complex nature of the supply chain and the various parts of the packaging and the materials involved. The PRG concluded in its report that its proposals could achieve a recovery level of 58 per cent. of packaging waste by the year 2000, which was in line with the Government's requirements.

The packaging and associated recycling industries are extremely complex. No single element should be organised or controlled in isolation. I speak on behalf of all sectors of the packaging industry and they have indicated to me their anxiety about this matter. They believe very strongly that the legal obligation should be placed on the whole packaging chain and not just on a specific part of it; in other words, it should be a multi-point obligation.

There is reason to believe that at this stage officials favour a single-point option because they feel that such a system would be easier to police and would be easier to control by government. But the industry believes very strongly that such a solution would create more problems than it would solve. The system would be extremely unfair. If that system were used, it is extremely unlikely that the requirements and targets would be met. The industry believes strongly that no single part of the chain has the ability to deliver what the Government seek, when one considers the responsibilities in relation to the delivery aspect and, importantly, the recycling aspects of the industry.

I must emphasise that every stage of the chain is involved with the handling of packaging and packaging materials which are passed down the distribution chain. But that also generates further waste for which each part of the chain has further responsibility. I cannot emphasise too strongly that whatever is achieved can be achieved only with the industry co-operating fully with the scheme. At the end of the day it is the packaging industry and all the different parts of it which can deliver what the Government want. The industry has considered all aspects of the matter in great detail and it is strongly of the view that only through a multi-point scheme can there be any possibility of achieving what the Government want.

The first of the packaging proposals was put into effect in Germany and German industry decided upon a single-point system, which the Government now appear to favour. It would be fair to point out that industry costs are running at between 6 billion and 8 billion deutschmarks per annum; that is something in the order of £3 billion to £4 billion. That is far higher than anybody ever expected. The situation is so complicated that there are now reckoned to be some 320 plants in Germany, many of which have to separate the various packaging materials by hand. That is why the costs are so high.

I hope that the Government will make some very encouraging remarks on this matter. The industry eagerly awaits a positive response and hopes that the Government will support its strong view that the multi-point scheme will be most effective in delivering what the Government want and what we all want from this legislation. I beg to move.

6.45 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on the packaging industry but I do not believe that it would be a very good idea to single out the packaging industry and leave other waste streams to be dealt with perhaps by a single-point scheme.

There are many other waste streams to be considered. The British Retail Consortium is extremely anxious that if we make a definite commitment, we should remember those other streams; for example, newspapers, batteries, electronic goods, tyres and motor vehicles. In all those cases, it would be extremely difficult for the industry concerned if a single-point scheme were introduced. Putting an express power of that kind into the Bill now would seem to indicate that the Government are not taking very seriously the consultation process which they have promised on this issue.

Therefore, although I am extremely sympathetic towards the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I should not wish to see a specific commitment made at this stage unless we are assured that genuine consultations will take place at the same time with the rest of the industry.

Lord Moran

My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee and I support what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said. The arguments for a multi-point scheme are overwhelming, and I shall not repeat what I said at an earlier stage.

I have a good deal of sympathy for the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It is important that other waste streams, which at the moment are being considered by other producer responsibility groups, should be borne in mind. I too was briefed by the British Retail Consortium and I am impressed when it says that: There seems no evidence to suggest that a single-point responsibility would be effective or fair for these goods". It seems to me that a single-point responsibility is not satisfactory for the packaging industry. It is extremely important to be fair and to pay attention to the many firms concerned, all of which seem unanimous in their view that a fair system must apply to each stage along the chain and not to one single point simply for the sake of convenience.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I too strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade. Whether it will affect only one part of the waste system at this stage I should not like to guess. It may be possible to change the amendment and widen its scope.

However, it is extremely important that we should have the multi-point option which the producer responsibility group recommended after taking immense trouble to get the thing right. I am slightly fearful that the Government might feel that because the Germans have adopted a particular line, that must be right. I have not always found that to be a necessary conclusion.

Also, the Government might think that the single-point approach will make it easier for them. I am not sure that it will. Certainly they could not have taken the same trouble as have the people who form the producer responsibility group. Those people are the experts and they know about this matter; officials serving the Government do not. They have to accept advice. Some departments—I am not saying that my noble friend's department is one of them —may jump to conclusions and, therefore, not pay proper regard to the views of the group.

It may be that the wording of the amendment could be improved or that we need to make amendments to another part of the Bill. But I hope that the Minister will give us some sort of encouragement and say that before the Bill leaves both Houses of Parliament, it will provide that it is not essential that the single-point solution to the problem is the only solution that can be adopted.

The multi-point option must operate if we can set up the necessary machinery for that. That must not be kept out of the Bill as it stands. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give that encouragement.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, Clauses 76 to 78 of the Bill concern the policy area of producer responsibility for waste. Before I turn to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wade, I should just like to clarify the position on an amendment that he laid in Committee and which I said I would consider. The amendment was to clarify that the term "recovery" encompassed "energy recovery". We have always used the term recovery to denote "value" recovery in the broadest sense. That would indeed encompass energy recovery, but I agreed that I would consider whether we should clarify that on the face of the Bill.

We are still in discussion on whether that would be appropriate and, if so, how it might be done. If we conclude that it is necessary, we will bring forward an amendment to achieve that effect. I apologise to the House that those discussions have not concluded in time for me to let my noble friend have a final view at this stage, but I will inform him of the outcome as soon as I am able to do so.

I now turn to Amendment No. 234. The purpose of the amendment is to limit the options for producer responsibility for packaging waste by removing the possibility of an obligation placed at one stage in the production process for this wast stream alone.

I know that there was considerable interest in the issue in Committee. I considered the issue thoroughly then and gave my reasons for refusing the amendments at that time. I have returned to the issue once again in response to my noble friend's amendment and have looked hard at the whole issue of where the obligation should fall. Again, my conclusion has been that to limit our options on the face of the Bill now would not be appropriate. Let me explain why I have come to that view.

The clauses that we are discussing here have been brought forward in response to a request from the packaging industry that we should provide framework legislation to prevent companies which refused to participate in recovery and recycling operations gaining a market advantage. The task of legislating places a responsibility on government to ensure that the systems put in place are workable and effective. Government will also have a legitimate interest in the extent to which the proposals are consistent with a broad range of policies. In line with that, we will always try to reflect the wishes of industry, particularly in cases such as this where we have worked closely and fruitfully with the interested parties.

I am aware that some elements of the packaging industry have been vocal in their view of where the producer responsibility obligation should fall. But they are not the only parties who have a legitimate interest in these issues. In fact, a number of different models have been promoted as part of the debate on the relative merits of "single point" and "multi-point" options for the statutory obligation. Industry has put forward options based on both the single and multi-point model. Although those favouring the multi-point systems have captured rather more interest, I do not think that that should blind us to the range of options which have been proposed by other sections of industry during our discussions.

We are continuing to hear as many views as possible and to promote useful and proper debate. But we have yet to consult formally on the available options, as the legislation will require us to do. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was quite right to remind the House of that requirement in the Bill.

There is a much wider constituency which deserves a hearing. We should not take action based on informal discussions when we fully intend to carry out public consultation. That is not to say that the different forms of model which industry propose should not be part of the consultation. I hope that a number of them will be. But I am very keen at this stage that nothing is ruled out. I must make clear that no final decisions have been taken, and we will not do so until after the consultation process is complete.

It is essential, therefore, that we do not pre-empt the consultation in any way. We must listen to the views of those who are most concerned but we must not make premature and permanent judgments. It is conceivable that the proposed amendment might remove the flexibility to deliver what industry requires.

Therefore, the next step in that process must be the preparation and publication of a consultation paper on those issues. The document has been delayed as a result of the thorough process of informal consultation which must necessarily inform its contents. That process is drawing to a close and we shall endeavour to publish the consultation paper before the clauses are considered in detail in another place.

We anticipate that the consultation paper will discuss a number of possible approaches. The options to be included will need to perform well against the series of tests for the legislative option which we published on 2nd February. Prior to publication, we will do what we can to improve the performance of the different models against the tests. The multi-point model, to which my noble friend referred, has already been improved in that respect. I am not yet able to say with any finality that we will include that or any other model proposed by industry in the consultation paper, but both we and industry have worked intensely on these issues and it is our aim to reflect its wishes in that respect. Although I understand my noble friend's wish to put forward these views strongly now, they would more appropriately be put as part of the consultation process.

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was right to point out that, of course, the provisions in the Bill are there to cover a number of waste streams, not just the one which is the subject of the amendment now before us. In Committee, I indicated that we did not want to have our options reduced; that there may be certain waste streams which would either go through the multi-point system or the single-point system and that we needed to provide that framework in legislation.

I believe that I have indicated to my noble friend that we have thoroughly considered the issue and, as a matter of principle and to avoid curtailing or pre-empting what will be a full and thorough consultation process, I have concluded that I cannot accept the amendment. However, with the assurance that I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Wade of Chorlton

My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments on energy. I am delighted that he is still looking at that issue. It is to be hoped that we shall receive some helpful comments on that matter at a later stage. As regards packaging waste, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his detailed and comprehensive reply to my amendment. Obviously I am disappointed that he could not be a little firmer. However, I believe that my noble friend understands that there is very clear feeling from all sides of the House on the issue. Indeed, I am most grateful for the support that I have received. I shall read what my noble friend said and clearly, when the consultation period comes along, he should have no doubt that there will be very strong representation on the multi-point system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 234ZA:

After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:

("Conservation of natural resources: combined heat and power

.—(1) For the purposes of promoting or securing the conservation of natural resources and the efficient management of waste the Secretary of State may develop a strategy and take such steps as he considers appropriate to encourage the use of local combined heat and power schemes.

(2) In this section "combined heat and power" means the incineration of waste to generate electricity and to supply premises in the surrounding area with heat produced in association with that electricity and steam from and air and water heated by such heat.

(3) In subsection (2) of section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity from non-fossil fuel sources), at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "including generating stations which supply to any premises heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from, and air and water heated by, such heat.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the importance of combined heat and power in achieving the Government's sustainable development objectives. The amendment arises from the recommendations of a number of parliamentary and other committees which expressed the view that there should be a stronger role for high efficiency combined heat and power systems in the options before waste disposal authorities.

At this stage, I should like to add that, last week, the Combined Heat and Power National Conference took place in Nottingham at which Professor Stephen Littlechild—if it is permissible to mention his name on this occasion—spoke. As noble Lords will know, he is renowned for being the regulator of the electricity industry. The professor expressed the view that arrangements should now be put in place to bring combined heat and power within the scope of technologies supported by the Government's non-fossil fuel obligation. It is important to note that, at present, the non-fossil fuel obligation is an economic hurdle to the development of combined heat and power because the arrangements for NFFO do not specifically recognise the existence of combined heat and power.

Quite clearly, many of the issues that we have discussed depend very strongly upon the efficient use of waste and the efficient use and handling of many of the by-products from waste. It is important that we use such materials in the most energy-efficient way possible. As a result of my amendment, I hope that the Government will agree to look a little more closely at the importance of CHP in achieving what the Bill sets out to do. It is to be hoped that, at some stage, they can place either directly in the Bill, or at least in the guidance, some responsibility on the agency to promote and support energy-efficient activities, to which this very important technology can now make such a very important contribution.

As my noble friend and the House will be aware, the Government have established certain targets. They have doubled the target to five gigawatts of power from the use of CHP by the year 2000. I think my noble friend will agree that in order to achieve that there will have to be a clear and positive programme to make it happen. I hope that my noble friend and the House will support that view. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment. I am aware that the option of CHP for waste disposal is not favoured by some organisations involved with recycling, but I believe that in waste disposal as in many other environmental considerations we have to seek more than one solution to every problem. I consider this particular option an extremely helpful one in a number of ways.

There is a growing acceptance of the value of CHP. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about Professor Littlechild, and the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution on the incineration of municipal solid waste drew attention to the benefits of electricity produced in this way. I understand there is a consultation paper from the DoE on a proposed waste management strategy which also features the option we are discussing. All of those bodies have taken account of the high efficiency of CHP systems. Waste plants which produce only electricity are just 20 per cent. energy efficient while CHP is 60 per cent. energy efficient. That is a considerable advance. With the growing difficulties and the growing costs of landfill, and the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, the CHP option is becoming ever more attractive in environmental and in market terms. I am glad to support the amendment.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, my noble friend's amendment would give the Secretary of State powers to develop a strategy and take such steps as he considers appropriate to encourage the use of local combined heat and power (CHP) schemes which are fuelled by incinerating waste. It would provide vires to identify such CHP schemes as a specific group in future non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) orders. This would ensure that such CHP schemes were able to compete effectively with other forms of renewable energy for subsidy under the fossil fuel levy.

The Government attach great importance to the efficient use of energy and to the use of combined heat and power schemes to help to carry forward their energy efficiency policies. CHP is very efficient and cost effective, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, indicated. It helps us to carry forward our sustainable development policy, changing people's culture by promoting realistic ways of achieving development at lower cost to the environment. Hence we share my noble friend's concern that CHP should be encouraged wherever possible. It should not suffer from unnecessary disadvantages in comparison to other methods of generating electricity and heat.

We fully understand the intentions behind my noble friend's amendment. I am concerned whether, in this technical and complex area, the amendment as drafted achieves precisely the effect my noble friend is looking for. It might be helpful if his advisers and mine were to have some discussion about the thinking behind the amendment, although my noble friend will understand that I can give no assurances about the way forward. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Wade of Chorlton

My Lords, I am most grateful for those very helpful comments from my noble friend. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. With my noble friend's assurance that we can meet to discuss this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again no earlier than five minutes past eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.