HL Deb 20 March 1995 vol 562 cc1096-120

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.

Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous statutory functions of authorities]:

Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 159, line 6, 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, I beg to move Amendment No. 38 standing in the names also of my noble friends Lord Wise and Lord Addison and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The amendment is identical to that tabled at both Committee and Report stages. Its purpose is very simple. It is to transfer responsibility for managing the public rights of way network within national parks from the highway authorities to the national park authorities.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me make clear once again that the amendment has nothing whatever to do with changing the rights-of-way network. It does not affect trunk roads or metalled roads. It affects only those roads, paths and lanes to which laymen refer as the public rights-of-way network. The amendment addresses itself only to the question of who should manage them and who should keep them up.

I should underline, too, that in opposing the amendment at earlier stages of the Bill the Minister found himself entirely alone. At that time I was able to tell your Lordships that the amendment was supported by all the organisations which had knowledge of the subject and by all those organisations anxious to ensure that the park authorities should be given powers to carry out their second primary duty, namely, to "promote enjoyment of the Parks".

Since Report stage I have felt it right to consult again each and every one of those bodies and have asked them in the light of the points made by the Minister at Report whether they are still in favour of the amendment. Each of those bodies has responded that it found the Minister's arguments unconvincing and has urged me to press the matter.

It is important to remind your Lordships just which those organisations are. They are not just a special interest group. The amendment is supported by the Association of National Parks, which represents the chairmen and chief executives of the parks, the Council for National Parks, the Country Landowners' Association, the Ramblers' Association, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Association of County Councils, which represents most of the highway authorities. In addition, since Report I have been contacted by the County Surveyors Society which wished me to know that county surveyors in those national parks where management of rights of way has already been delegated to national parks have, found that the system works extremely well. We accept the logic that responsibility for rights of way in all National Parks should pass to the new National Park Authorities".

Where then do the Government stand? The Minister has repeatedly stated that he, too, believes that the rights-of-way network should be managed by the national park authorities. Indeed, it would be surprising if he had said anything else since that has been declared government policy since 1976. In spite of that, let me tell your Lordships what happens in practice. I take the example of the Peak District, where highway authorities have failed, in spite of years of ministerial guidance, to enter into agency agreements with the park. The park's rangers recently surveyed the whole of the network in the park and found over 600 obstructions. If the Peak park had the rights of way responsibilities, would those obstructions be there today?

Your Lordships may wonder, therefore, why the Government have so far opposed the amendment. I say "so far" because we have a listening Minister and I hope that today he might modify his stance. In essence, he says that he wishes the highway authorities to delegate management to the national park authorities, that he intends to write to them in strong terms urging them to do so; but that he will not oblige them to do so in the Bill.

Ever since the so-called "Sandford amendment" in 1976, Ministers have given identical guidance. A significant number of highway authorities have obeyed; significant numbers have ignored it and continue to ignore it. I am advised that, now the national park authorities are to become totally independent of county councils, certain highway authorities will be even less likely to listen to the guidance. Indeed, they may reasonably argue that since the Government have not taken powers in the Bill to require them to do so, they cannot be serious in wishing the powers to be transferred. Unfortunately, at present the Secretary of State—as I elicited in answer to a question—has no reserve powers at present to direct recalcitrant authorities to obey the guidance. That is the nub of the question.

At Report, the Minister put forward four arguments against the amendment. Although he did not press them hard, I must in fairness deal with them. First, he expressed the Government's view (at col. 430 of Hansard for 9th March) 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".

This is the weakest argument of all. Already responsibility for the network is divided between the Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for trunk roads, and the county councils and certain district councils which are responsible for other roads. Furthermore, in most national parks there is not and will not be a common highway authority. Brecon Beacons National Park, for example, will be covered by no fewer than seven different highway authorities after local government reorganisation. The Peak District National Park will also have seven different highway authorities, and so on. Your Lordships may well imagine the work involved for a park authority in trying to persuade seven different councils, some of them newly created, to delegate powers to it which the Government have not seen fit to give it in the Bill. So there will be a division of responsibility in any case. Surely the network of metalled vehicular roads is rightly the responsibility of the existing highway authorities, whereas paths, bridleways and BOATs (byways open to all traffic) of recreational importance should pass to the parks.

Secondly, the Minister pleaded a financial argument. He said that the park authorities needed to be confident that the constituent county councils would be standing behind them when unforeseen circumstances arose which required the rapid injection of large sums of money. This, I am afraid, attracted belly laughs all round. As one park officer said to me, "That will be the day!" The message I get from county councils is that inevitably footpath networks will always have a low priority for them. Rightly, they consider that their priority is to keep vehicular roads in good repair. With the cuts in their budgets, they do not even have enough money to do that properly all the time. When it comes to priorities, they will therefore always spend the money on vehicular roads.

Furthermore, it is not always true that the relevant county budgets are bigger than those of the national parks. In some cases, the councils will be relatively small or impoverished or will contain only a small area in a national park. For example, Dyfed County Council currently contributes £5,000 a year to the Brecon Beacons National Park for rights-of-way work. Would it or its even smaller successor, Carmarthenshire, suddenly increase that to £50,000 to mend a footway or bridleway bridge?

The third argument of the Minister was that there are a very small number of cases where there is a tarmacadamed or surfaced footpath in a small town. Neither the national parks nor the county councils see any problem. National parks authorities are already responsible for numerous tarmaced carparks and so on and they could certainly organise the repair of a surfaced footpath in a town. In any case, only a very small proportion of the 11,000 miles of rights of way—I emphasise 11,000 miles—in the national parks come into this category. Is it so large that it justifies risking the parks' ability to carry out one of their two statutory purposes?

The last argument put forward by the Minister was that in some cases we are some way from achieving precisely the definition of "byways open to all traffic", BOATs. The Minister felt that to require highway authorities or national park authorities to define those would deflect resources from more important work. But the Minister seems to have forgotten that Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which took effect in February 1983, requires byways to be defined. If the task has not yet been completed, it is because resources have been deflected away from the task for the past 12 years and some re-deflection is long overdue. The Government are in any event committed —and they have repeated this—to ensuring that the definition of byways is complete by the year 2000. So resources will have to be deflected pretty soon.

The reason the work has not been completed is that it is a low priority for county councils, but it is of considerable importance for the national parks. If they are to manage the parks properly, it is essential that the status of the byways be clarified. The parks are therefore anxious to get on with the work, but, of course, they cannot do so without the necessary powers.

All those points are, however, minor and quite capable of resolution. I accept that the Minister did not himself place huge importance on them. Everyone, including the Government, believes that the new park authorities cannot properly perform their duty to promote enjoyment of the parks without these powers. The Minister intends to urge the highway authorities to delegate to national park authorities. Unfortunately, the experience of the past 20 years shows that guidance will not be effective if not backed up with powers.

Unless, therefore, your Lordships pass the amendment, the national park authorities will find themselves with the statutory duty to promote enjoyment of the parks which they have no power to perform. I hope very much, therefore, that when my noble friend replies he will be able to indicate that he has indeed been listening and that there is a change in the Government's position. I hope that he will either be able to accept the amendment or find some other way of enforcing the Government's own wishes—and the word is "enforcing"—that the parks should manage the network. If the Minister cannot give us undertakings in either of those directions, I shall urge your Lordships to support the amendment in the Lobby in the interests of the parks and of common sense.

Lord Wise

My Lords, once again I strongly support my noble friend Lord Derwent in this important amendment. I spoke at quite considerable length to this amendment at Report stage in the absence of my noble friend, and he has dealt very adequately with the arguments put forward on Report by my noble friend the Minister.

As he says, the principle of giving national park authorities responsibility for rights of way in their areas has received much support from all sides of the House both in Committee and on Report. I believe that that support has been received because the amendments would make control of rights of way far more simple and efficient and make national park authorities more accountable for what is probably their greatest resource. As my noble friend said, in most national parks there is no common highway authority. It is likely that over half of the parks have more than two highway authorities with which to deal; in fact, two of them even have seven. Surely this situation must provide an ideal opportunity for bureaucracy and confusion.

Rights of way are the premier recreational resource in national parks. They do not respect the boundaries of highway authorities and often traverse the length and breadth of the whole park. For the full benefit to be obtained from the use of this resource, it must be managed strategically by the national park authority.

A national park authority will find it difficult to influence visitor use of the particular areas if it has no control on how the rights-of-way network is managed in those areas. This amendment would give every national park authority the tools with which to manage the rights-of-way network for the whole of a national park. Surely this would be a major step forward in managing recreational activity. I therefore strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I hope once again that my noble friend the Minister will be able to look favourably upon it.

8.30 p.m.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, I support this important group of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Derwent. I spoke on this matter both in Committee and on Report, when the amendments received much support from all sides of the House.

Why would making all national park authorities responsible for rights of way in their areas be an improvement on the present arrangements? There is much evidence that where national park authorities have had certain rights-of-way powers delegated to them through agency agreements, it has worked well. However, in many parks it has not been possible for the parties to enter into such an agreement. The amendment would therefore ensure that all NPAs are able to share the undoubted benefits of responsibility.

Presently, six national park authorities have some responsibility for rights of way under agency agreements. It is much easier for those authorities to manage rights of way than it is for highway authorities, as they can draw on the services of their rangers and wardens for maintenance and surveying. Where national park authorities have had responsibility, they have demonstrated that they are ideally placed to carry out the task.

In Exmoor, delegation of rights-of-way responsibilities has allowed the national park authority to develop a three-year experimental management project in partnership with the National Trust dealing with eroded paths in the Dunkery Beacon area. Furthermore, a countryside recreation and access group (CRAG) is to be set up to promote close working with user groups and members of the public. This integrated approach is an example of how the rights of way in the parks can be managed when park authorities are given responsibility for the network. This amendment will ensure that all national park authorities will be able to carry out such work so that it may become the rule rather than the exception.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made a very important point which was perhaps missed at earlier stages of the Bill when we discussed this matter; namely, that the national park authorities, as we hope they will be constituted, have to have regard to the purposes set cut in Clause 58 of the Bill—purposes with which we agree.

It seems to me extremely difficult—this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made—for a national park authority to fulfil the purposes set out in Clause 58 without the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, proposes. After all, national park authorities will be the planning authority for that area. Paths, bridleways, or whatever they may be, may be converted and may be subject to various permissions with which the national park authorities will have to deal. I would have thought that Amendment No. 38 was complementary to Clause 58 for the purposes of national parks. I find it very difficult to see, if a national park authority is divorced as a planning authority from the administration of the public rights of way, how that national park authority can properly fulfil the purposes of conserving and enhancing natural beauty and promoting opportunities for the quiet enjoyment and understanding of the parks. For that reason I believe that the noble Lord's amendment is well put and well argued. We will support it.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley has his name to this amendment and is sorry not to be able to be here himself to support it. I do so on his behalf and on behalf of these Benches. The point that was put was extremely well argued. What the noble Lord said is a matter of common sense quite apart from anything else. I am particularly struck by the need to marry the planning and the highways functions. I have always felt that highways and planning need to go very much hand in hand to be effective. For that reason, as well as for others, I support the amendment.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. I am sure that the impressive support for it stems from the fact that it will simplify the present system and enable greater efficiency in rights-of-way management. It will also allow national park authorities to plan strategically to maximise the benefit of their rights of way, as well as making the day-to-day management of this important resource more efficient.

The most popular activity in the national parks is walking. It simply does not make sense that those bodies that are set up to promote recreation in national parks (the park authorities) often find themselves without powers or responsibilities for rights of way. This amendment would resolve that problem.

The Earl of Clanwilliam

My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Derwent on this subject. It must be obvious that the national parks must have authority to implement their duty to provide enjoyment. You cannot have enjoyment of the paths if they are crowded with four-wheel vehicles which may be allowed by the byways open to all traffic. It is absolutely vital that the national parks should have total authority over the control and maintenance of their paths. They should be open to horses, people, ramblers, visitors, even cyclists. They must have ability to control the vehicles that use those paths. Those vehicles will destroy the paths unless they are controlled, and the cost to the parks of maintaining the paths after they have been destroyed will be prohibitive. It is vital that this amendment is passed.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I recognise the support for Amendment No. 38 moved today by my noble friend Lord Derwent and moved by my noble friend Lord Wise at Report stage. As my noble friend Lord Derwent indicated, these are indeed the same amendments which appear for the third time.

My noble friend has secured a great deal of support for his amendment, both inside the Chamber—as has again been demonstrated this evening with nobody speaking against him —and also outside the House. He enumerated eight important organisations which supported his amendment. I also appreciate the strength of feeling among noble Lords that if the Government cannot accept the amendments as drafted, they should accept the principle underlying them.

I made the Government's policy on this issue clear on previous occasions. We recognise the importance of the rights-of-way network to national parks as elements in securing the promotion of enjoyment of the parks. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, talked about this amendment as being complementary to the purposes as set out in Clause 58. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated that she wanted to make certain that the highways and planning were married so that they could deliver those purposes. However, we do not believe that national park authorities should be made into highways authorities. We want to see them given responsibility for rights of way, tailored to the needs of the individual park, for which the most appropriate means are the agency agreements entered into with the relevant highway authorities. We intend to take steps positively to encourage such agreements across all the parks.

We shall give every encouragement to highway authorities to enter into agency agreements with individual national park authorities to facilitate the best management of rights of way. By adopting that approach, the national park authorities will be able to take on the day-to-day management of rights of way, confident in the knowledge that highway authorities, with their more substantial resources, will be standing behind them when the need arises. I believe that that approach is in the best interests of the promotion of a well managed and maintained rights-of-way network for the countryside as a whole, including that outside the national parks.

I recognise—I listened to my noble friend Lord Derwent demolish all my carefully thought-out arguments on previous occasions—that not all highway authorities have been willing to enter into such agreements with the existing national park boards and committee. Having listened to the arguments which have been put to me today, I should like to look again at this issue. We intend to look again at the procedure for making agency agreements between the highway authorities and the national park authorities and to consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce a reserve power which would be available to be brought into play where satisfactory alternative arrangements have not been made. I believe that that would be preferable to any move to create a new category of highway authority.

Therefore, I ask my noble friend Lord Derwent to withdraw his amendment on the understanding that we will bring forward proposals when the Bill reaches another place. Having said that, I should perhaps also indicate to my noble friend—because he indicated to me at an earlier stage that he would separate the amendments standing in his name; that is, to take Amendment No. 38 separately and Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 as a separate group—that I would respond in very much the same way as I have responded to this one, should he want to speak to the amendments. Otherwise, I say to him, on the understanding that I have given him, that perhaps he should not seek to move those amendments.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I wonder whether he will clarify what he said. He said that he would look again at this. Does this mean that he gives an undertaking that the Government will bring forward some amendment, along the lines he suggested, in another place?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I said that I would bring forward proposals when the Bill reaches another place. I believe that is as far as I can go.

Lord Derwent

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, he said two things which seemed to me to be contradictory. He said that he would consider whether it would be appropriate to bring forward proposals giving reserve powers to the Secretary of State and then he seemed to say, "I will bring forward some proposals". If the Minister is able to undertake that when this Bill reaches the other place the Government will introduce an amendment giving the Secretary of State reserve powers to direct highway authorities in cases where agreement has not been reached, I would be more than content —I feel that it would be only right—to withdraw this amendment.

However, if he is not saying more than that he will consider whether it is appropriate to introduce reserve powers, I am afraid that I must ask the opinion of the House. Before I take a final decision on this matter, I wonder whether the Minister will clarify exactly what he is undertaking to do.

8.45 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, as I indicated to the House a moment ago with regard to the voluntary agreements which I was seeking between the highway authorities and the new national park authorities, there may be a stage where they would not agree to the agency basis which I was anticipating. Therefore, I indicated to the House that I should want to look again at the issue and intend to look at the procedure that we should need to go through for making the agency agreements between the highway authorities and the national park authorities and to consider whether the reserve power that my noble friend asks me for would be the best way of achieving the solution for which I believe both he and I are looking. Having said that, I have said to the House that my honourable friend will bring forward proposals when the Bill reaches another place.

Lord Derwent

My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the Minister had to say. I feel that all noble Lords would agree that much the best procedure would be that he should give guidance as he proposed, but that everyone should know that if people do not obey the guidance the Minister will have the power—if he judges it right in a particular case —to direct them. To me that would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to the amendments that I propose.

However, I am afraid that the Minister has not gone as far as that. The Minister said that he will look at how it might be done. He is not quite sure how it might be done. But he has gone short of saying that either the Government will bring in amendments like these or they will give reserve powers to the Secretary of State.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, with the permission of the House, before my noble friend decides whether or not to press his amendment, perhaps I may encourage him and the House to consider very carefully what I said. We are all agreed—certainly he and I appear to be very much agreed—on the way that we want to move forward, in that we want to create the agency agreements that we are both seeking. I believe that my noble friend and I are at one on that. I suggest that we ought to look at ways in which we can achieve that, especially by bringing forward proposals.

I have to say that, on the other hand, my noble friend's amendments create a new form of highway authority. I urge my noble friend to accede to what I have said this evening and to work towards the creation of the agency agreements, which may need to be strengthened by the Secretary of State if they do not work, rather than creating new highway authorities in the first instance.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may refer to the very simple question put by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. Is the noble Viscount saying—I still do not have it clear—that he will bring forward proposals on how to achieve the common aim that he has expressed between himself and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in another place; or is he saying, "We will look at it and consider not how to do it but whether it is possible"? If it is a question of pure mechanics, that is one thing; if it is a question of whether the principle is right, that is another thing.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, by saying that we are looking again at this matter. We should like to look at the issue carefully. We want to make certain what it is that my noble friend and I are making common cause about, in that these agency agreements should succeed. Then I shall want to bring forward, or my honourable friend will bring forward, proposals to achieve that end in another place. However, I should not like to see the amendment, which creates a separate highways authority in the parks, being accepted at this stage.

Lord Derwent

My Lords, I hoped that my noble friend would say that, while he still had to look at the best way of doing it, he would give me an assurance that by the time the Bill left the other place there would be some means of compulsion for recalcitrant authorities, whether by means of an amendment or by the kind of reserved powers to which he referred. I should have been happy with that. Sadly, the Minister was unable to go that far. As I understand it he said that he would try; he will look; he will see whether there is some way of achieving what we all want in a better way. But he did not commit himself to the fact that by the time the Bill leaves the other place there will be reserve powers or something of that sort. Therefore, though I dislike dividing the House at this time of night, I regret that I must seek the opinion of the House.

8.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 56.

Division No. 5
CONTENTS
Addison, V. Lawrence, L.
Airedale, L. Lytton, E.
Annaly, L. Marlesford, L.
Barber of Tewkesbury, L. McCarthy, L.
Blyth, L. Monkswell, L.
Burton, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Moyne, L.
Derwent, L. [Teller.] Nathan, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Nicol, B.
Dundonald, E. Norrie, L.
Freyberg, L. Northbourne, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hamwee, B. Walpole, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Judd, L. White, B.
Kinloss, Ly. Williams of Elvel, L.
Wise, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L. Goschen, V.
Astor, V. Harmer-Nicholls, L.
Barber, L. Harmsworth, L.
Blatch, B. Henley, L.
Boardman, L. Howe, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Inglewood, L. [Teller.]
Burnham, L. Kingsland, L.
Cadman, L. Kinnoull, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Kintore, E.
Carnock, L. Lane of Horsell, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Leigh, L.
Chelmsford, V. Lindsay, E.
Coleraine, L. Long, V.
Cross, V. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Dean of Harptree, L. Lucas, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Dixon-Smith, L. Miller of Hendon, B.
Downshire, M. Mountevans, L.
Elton, L. Newall, L.
Ferrers, E. Oxfuird, V.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Renton, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Renwick, L.
Rodger of Earlsferry, L. Trumpington, B.
Seccombe, B. Ullswater, V.
Shaw of Northstead, L. Vinson, L.
Skelmersdale, L. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.] Wakeham, L.
Sudeley, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.59 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]

Schedule 13 [Pollution of rivers and coastal waters in Scotland: amendment of the Control of Pollution Act 1974]:

The Earl of Kintore moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 182, line 11, after ("person") insert ("who is not the owner or occupier of the mine in question").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House has expressed an opinion on Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. Amendment No. 41 seeks to achieve the same result in Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Schedule 18 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 218, line 25, at end insert:

("(3) At the beginning of subsection (8) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (8A)"

(4) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted— (8A) Where the conditions of a licence would require the consent of another person in accordance with subsection (4) of this section the waste regulation authorities shall act in accordance with the guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ullswater said in the Official Report on 9th March at col. 528, that he would like to consider this problem again. I wonder whether this amendment, which alters the words to "shall act in accordance with" the guidance, from the present wording, which is "to have regard to", might appeal to my noble friend. I beg to move.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, Amendment No. 43 would require waste regulation authorities to act in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State where the conditions of a waste management licence would require the consent of another person in accordance with Section 35(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

My noble friend tabled amendments at Committee and Report stages which would have amended Section 35(4) to ensure that the owners of land adjacent to a licensed waste management facility were consulted and received compensation if it was necessary to impose licence conditions which required works to be carried out on their land. My noble friend will recall that I said at Report that we wished to consider the matter further and in particular to consult all those who would have an interest. That is still our intention and we shall be writing shortly to various representative organisations seeking their views. We will then be in a position to consider what action, if any, needs to be taken, including, if necessary, amendments to this Bill in another place.

However, the amendment we are considering today takes a slightly different approach and does not attempt to make detailed changes to the way in which Section 35(4) operates. Instead it provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance and for the waste regulation authority to act in accordance with that guidance. I presume that it is the intention that such guidance should set out requirements which would have the same effect as the earlier amendments.

I appreciate my noble friend's wish to ensure that at least something is on the statute book that would enable his proposals to be brought forward at a later date when we have been able to give further consideration to this issue. I do not think, however, that guidance could achieve all that my noble friend proposed in his earlier amendments, because it could only be directed at waste regulation authorities. It could only require operators to do that which the waste regulation authority was empowered to require.

Furthermore, even in so far as guidance could achieve my noble friend's objectives, the necessary powers already exist. Section 35(8) of the Environmental Protection Act places a duty on waste regulation authorities to have regard to any guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State with respect to the discharge of their functions in relation to licences. If my noble friend considers that "have regard to" is insufficient since he has proposed the term "act in accordance with", then I suggest that his intent would be achieved just as well by means of a direction to the agencies either under Section 35(7) of the 1990 Act or Clause 38 of the Bill.

I have explained that we are considering the issues which my noble friend has raised, but I hope I have shown that this amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State already has powers to require waste regulation authorities to have regard to guidance. My right honourable friend will have ample power to direct the agencies. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, yes, of course I shall. Subject to my still being alive and well in October when this Bill comes back, I shall check whether my right honourable friend has in fact done something about this as my noble friend promises that he will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 222, leave out lines 24 to 33.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 45:

Page 234, line 32, at end insert:

(" 116A.—(1) In section 50 of that Act, in subsection (1) (power to make regulations, in relation to cases to which section 49 applies, for conferring succession rights to abstraction licences where a person becomes the occupier of part of the relevant land) for the words "cases to which section 49 above applies" there shall be substituted the words "cases in which the holder of a licence under this Chapter to abstract water ("the prior holder") is the occupier of the whole or part of the land specified in the licence as the land on which water abstracted in pursuance of the licence is to be used ("the relevant land")".

(2) That section shall have effect, and be taken always to have had effect, as if it had originally been enacted with the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall address Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 together. At Committee stage my noble friends Lord Mills and Lord Crickhowell suggested that we should use this opportunity to deal with a certain point about the management of water resources where the need for legislation was admitted but no suitable vehicle had been found. I agreed to consider the suggestions.

Amendment No. 45 deals with the first of these on succession to water abstraction licences. I should draw the House's attention to the fact that it would be retrospective. That is because the wording of the Water Resources Act 1991, which was a consolidation Act, is accepted not to have reproduced the exact effect of the previous legislation. There was an inadvertent change. This amendment therefore ensures that the law will always have been what was intended.

Amendment No. 46 deals with the second suggestion that there should be a power to make drought orders to deal with problems for the aquatic environment and not just problems of water supply. The Government agree that those are desirable changes. The amendments provide the appropriate wording, which is close, but not identical, to that suggested by my noble friends.

We equally accept that there should be an amendment to deal with their third suggestion, which is to give the environment agency wider powers in the management of droughts rather than always requiring the involvement of the Secretary of State. I regret that there has not been the time to produce such provisions for your Lordships' consideration at this stage, but my honourable friends will ensure that an appropriately worded amendment is introduced in another place. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills regret that they are unable to be present this evening. I know that they would wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for his further consideration of the suggestions that they made at an earlier stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 234, line 38, at end insert:

(" .—(1) Section 73 of that Act (power to make ordinary and emergency drought orders) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (1) (power to make ordinary drought orders) for the words from the beginning to "then" there shall be substituted the words— (1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that, by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain, there exists or is threatened—

  1. (a) a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any area, or
    2. 1109
  2. (b) such a deficiency in the flow or level of water in any inland waters as to pose a serious threat to any of the flora or fauna which are dependent on those waters, then,".

(3) In subsection (3) (power to make drought order not to be exercisable except where an application is made by the National Rivers Authority or a water undertaker)—

  1. (a) for the words "except where" there shall be substituted the word "unless"; and
  2. (b) at the beginning of paragraph (b) (water undertakers) there shall be inserted the words "except in the case of an ordinary drought order under subsection (1) (b) above,".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 20 [Repeals and revocations]:

Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 265, line 13, column 3, leave out from ("section") to ("the") in line 16 and insert ("11A(6) (b),").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made.

9.10 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

On Second Reading, there was a broad general welcome for the Bill from many noble Lords. I was grateful for that because I believe that this is an important piece of legislation, and a most important subject. Throughout the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House, there has also been general agreement with the principles brought forward in the Bill, although there have been a number of areas where the specific approaches that we have sought have differed.

I should very much like to thank all noble Lords on all sides of the House for the interest that has been shown in the important topics that have been covered by the Bill, for the time that noble Lords have taken in considering those issues, including the late nights that some of us have spent here in the Chamber; and for the contributions that have been made towards the development, and often the real improvement, of the Bill as a whole.

I believe that the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House has been productive. We have debated many issues and I hope that the Government have been able to meet many of the concerns which noble Lords have raised. We have attempted to respond in various ways to the questions which your Lordships have brought forward.

The Government have responded to a number of issues that have been raised about the environment agency and Scottish environment protection agency. The establishment of the agencies is a vital part of the Bill and should provide the way ahead for a more integrated approach to environmental protection across all the environmental media. We have provided a strategic purpose for the environment agency under Clause 4 of the Bill. We have considered the points raised by your Lordships about statutory consultation on, and publication of, the guidance under Clauses 4 and 29. We have brought forward an amendment today in response to the strength of feeling that guidance under those clauses should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

We have accepted amendments to Clause 7 to include a socio-economic provision in respect of rural areas, and have amended Clause 30 along similar lines in respect of Scotland. I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships that the conservation duties that we are giving the agencies will prove to be strong and effective. We have responded to concerns raised from all sides of the House that the costs which the agencies must assess under Clause 37 include environmental costs by setting that on the face of the Bill. I believe that the provisions that we shall pass on to another place will establish strong and effective bodies which will be able to build on the strengths of their predecessors and provide for integrated and efficient protection and management of the environment.

In the light of comments made by a number of noble Lords, the Government brought forward major amendments at Report stage to the definition of contaminated land, to restrict its scope. It will now apply only in cases of significant harm, or of pollution of controlled waters. This brings the definition clearly into line with the Government's overall "suitable for use" approach.

There is a major role for guidance from the Secretary of State in the determination of whether harm is, in any instance, to be regarded as significant. The Bill now provides both for consultation on that guidance, and, more specifically, for parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure before it is issued. We have today also resolved the question of liabilities falling upon the innocent victims of fly-tipping. There is still some work to be done, and I have undertaken to consider a number of other issues in respect of contaminated land, and, where appropriate, the Government will bring forward amendments in another place.

We have also taken account of issues raised by your Lordships on Part III of the Bill relating to national parks. We brought forward an amendment today in response to concerns that proper attention should be given to the interests of local people, which strengthens the duty on national park authorities under Clause 59 with respect to the economic and social well-being of park communities.

The Bill also now requires national park authorities to make arrangements for informing and consulting parish or community councils about the discharge of their functions, and local authorities will have a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of appointing to the new authorities people who represent wards in the parks. We have also included English Nature as a statutory consultee on national park management plans, and made explicit that the conservation of natural beauty includes flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.

I appreciate the considerable interest which your Lordships have in our national parks, which has been expressed clearly in our debates on this important subject. I am grateful to the significant number of noble Lords who have spoken in those debates in reflection of that interest.

The Government have also responded to concerns about the broad nature of the power to introduce a statutory scheme to protect important hedgerows. I have brought forward amendments which give statutory force to our intention to consult widely on the detailed arrangements for hedgerow protection and make the regulations themselves subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Together, those measures will ensure that all interests are consulted properly and that future regulations are debated fully before they are implemented.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Environment Bill, as amended in your Lordships' House, will make a strong contribution to the improvement of environmental protection. The environment is, as I have said, a most important subject and one which, by its very nature, affects all of us and all sectors of society. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Ullswater.)

9.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, on Second Reading I said that, while I welcomed the Bill, I thought that it was something of a curate's egg: it was good in parts and not so good in parts. I said also that it was not in our view an overall Environment Bill that was right for the 21st century. It had certain limited aims and did not encompass what we hoped it would. On the other hand, I gave it a welcome in so far as it went, and I reiterate that welcome this evening.

Your Lordships, I am sure, will be aware that the Bill has been discussed fully, and, as the Minister has just pointed out, we have sat late into the night. Many noble Lords have participated in our debates. There have indeed, as the Minister pointed out, been some improvements. We are glad that the Government have conceded the idea of a strategic aim. We should have liked to have seen it in Clause 1, or before Clause 1, but it is in Clause 4, and sometimes one cannot have more than half a loaf, and we welcome that half a loaf.

We welcome the Government's concessions in Clause 7 on guidance and how that should be treated, because that was a worry at the beginning of the Bill. We are content—perhaps a little bit more than content—with the whittling down of the cost benefit analysis in Clause 37 by including environmental costs as a cost, although I am bound to say that I would find it extremely difficult, as someone who has engaged in many cost benefit analyses, to try to put figures on environmental benefits and environmental costs. I wonder what all that will mean in practice.

Specifically on national parks, we are glad to recognise that the Government have moved a certain way towards satisfying your Lordships on a number of matters. In particular, we are happy that the House has endorsed our view that the national parks should follow the recommendations of the Edwards Report by including "quiet enjoyment" in their purposes, and I hope very much that when the Bill goes to another place, despite any difficulties there may be about the interpretation of "quiet enjoyment", that will not be lost. In addition, we discussed the local authority role, which is important. We are pleased that the Government brought forward what we consider to be more or less the right balance in respect of hedgerows. However, we would have liked to have seen the inclusion of the conservation of areas other than hedgerows.

We must confess, however, that certain problems remain. As was said earlier today, Clause 54, which deals with contaminated land, is still a bit of a mess. I suspect that in another place there will be urgent and continuing debate on Clause 54. I also suspect that at the end of the day the only solution to contaminated land will be to compile a national register. That is a matter with which another place must deal.

As regards minewater pollution, we were sad that we lost today's Division on an important issue. On the other hand, the issues that we have debated are fully in the Government's consciousness. None of the problems is easy and sooner or later we must clear up the mess that previous generations have left not only in coal mines but in metal mines.

I am depressed that your Lordships have not allowed Wales to have its proper consultation on subordinate legislation from the Secretary of State to the Countryside Council for Wales, but no doubt that matter will be brought to the Government's attention in another place and perhaps with more acerbity than in your Lordships' House.

Other matters remain to be decided in another place. There is the issue of air quality on which we shall bring forward amendments. There is also the issue of rights of way in national parks, about which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has spoken tonight. Those and other matters must be resolved by the Government in another place. I can speak for my right honourable and honourable friends in another place in saying that they, as we have, will provide a constructive if sometimes fairly aggressive opposition. That is what the Government need in order to get the Bill into as good a shape as possible as it goes through both Houses, given the complications of its diverse nature.

I wish to place two major procedural problems on the record. The first relates to timetabling. As the noble Viscount pointed out, and as I have mentioned, we have sat late into the night on a number of occasions. In your Lordships' House it is normal that the timetabling of Bills—that is, how many days there should be in Committee and on Report—is agreed through the usual channels. In more Bills than I can remember—and I have taken a number of Bills through this House for the Opposition—it has been possible to say that four or five days might be right. I am bound to say that for the first time I have been unable through the usual channels to give any guarantee on the date of delivery either in Committee or on Report. The reason is that amendments have been tabled from all sides of the House.

The Bill has been diffuse and therefore we have had several debates on different issues. Different Members of your Lordships' House have attended on different occasions to put forward different points of view. The Opposition, including the opposition party on my right—and I shall not repeat this—have from time to time, because of the need to accommodate the timetable that they put forward to the usual channels, felt somewhat constrained in speaking to some of the amendments that we wished to move. As your Lordships will be aware, on some occasions we have not moved amendments which we should have liked to debate because time was taken up by noble Lords in other parts of the House.

As regards the sittings of the House, it was agreed by your Lordships that the House should rise at 10 o'clock and that we should conduct our affairs in a manner which allows that. But I am afraid that on this Bill, that has gone by the board and that is a lesson which the authorities in the House should consider.

The second procedural problem which I believe that we must consider is the question of groupings. On many occasions during the passage of the Bill, groupings appeared to have been agreed but had not been agreed. Again, that is partly because it is such a diffuse Bill and with many noble Lords coming in as they do at perhaps lunchtime, 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, it has not been possible to agree something which is usually agreed through the usual channels. We cannot blame those noble Lords for that but the job of the Minister and the spokesmen for the Opposition has been made extremely difficult when the groupings are suddenly broken and we are not quite sure where we are. Again, on all sides of the House we must consider the question of groupings in relation to a complicated Bill such as this.

My last task is to thank the noble Viscount, which I do very sincerely, for the courtesy with which he has dealt with all the matters on the Bill. In particular, I thank him for the courtesy which he has extended to the Opposition and I thank him also for the expertise which he has brought to bear on the matters we have debated. I thank also the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. I understand that it was his first job on the government Front Bench. He has been assiduous, in particular in relation to Scottish affairs. Also, from time to time, we have had the benefit of the interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, not, alas, this evening, to my pleasure, but he has done so always with his usual elegance and courtesy.

I wish to give my deepest thanks to my noble friend Lady Hilton who has helped me enormously and has provided the House with an excellent example of how the Opposition can field a number of good calibre spokesmen. I know that she will wish to intervene in the debate but I wish to express my personal thanks to her. I thank also my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. He has borne the heat and burden of the Scottish day, if I can put it like that.

To sum up, we wish the Bill well. We hope that it will be further improved in another place. We believe that your Lordships have improved it but it needs to be better. I am sure that it will be improved in another place and I look forward to further discussions on the Bill when the amendments come from the other place. In the meantime, as I say, I am happy to support the Motion that the Bill do now pass because, in general, we think it is a good Bill.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in thanking the Minister for his courtesy and patience throughout our discussions on the Bill. In Committee I felt that the Government's ear was not quite as open as they professed it to be, and that turned out not to be so. The Government have brought forward many welcome amendments, although—and it is inevitable—they have not always gone as far as we would have liked or perhaps not in quite the right direction.

It has been a pleasure finding points of contact around the House from all corners, and sometimes a little unexpectedly. I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. I believe that the noble Earl and the Minister have maintained their good humour later into the night than any of us had any right to expect.

I share some of the disappointments that have been mentioned. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I welcomed the Bill initially, but having thought about it further during its course, I have become increasingly disappointed in relation to the limitation of its functions, even though that has been improved over the course of the past few weeks.

I shall not at this hour rehearse again all the topics for fear of taking us on to another late night, but I wish to mention in particular my welcome for the Government's acceptance of the need to include within the Bill the matter of air quality. I look forward when the Bill returns here from another place to seeing how that has been dealt with. I also wish to thank very particularly those from outside the House who have helped us to improve the Bill. I hope that we have managed to do justice to the expert and energetic briefings that we have received from so very many agencies and organisations.

Finally, I should like to share with your Lordships both my welcome for the Bill and my sense of irony that in welcoming it what we in this House are doing is creating yet another set of quangos.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that she regretted the limitations of the new environment agency because, quite frankly, I think that it will have more and wider powers than any other public body within my long recollection. We all welcome the Bill and it is splendid that we do. It is a most complicated, long, far reaching and at times controversial Bill. My noble friend Lord Ullswater has handled it with consummate skill and has shown not only the courtesy and patience to which the noble Baroness referred but has above all been open minded about it. On some very controversial points the Government have tabled acceptable amendments. My noble friend Lord Lindsay showed great skill on his first venture of this kind.

It occurred to me only today, strangely enough, the difference in phraseology. For England and Wales we are to have an environment agency but for Scotland we are to have an environment protection agency, as though the Scots are so rapacious that their environment needs more protection than that in England and Wales. However, that is a point for further consideration.

It is a greatly improved Bill but, of course, Members of another place will consider it in the light of their own constituency interests and problems. We can expect to have some further amendments resulting from their initiative. We shall want to see it improved in the various ways which some of your Lordships have suggested. I alight on two points in particular. Speaking as one who years ago had responsibility for health and safety at 300 coal-mines and went down many of them, I remember so well how surprised I was to find not the contamination—one expected that—but that in nearly every mine one went to water that had to be pumped away—sometimes at not very deep levels. That water was going eventually to find its way to the surface and contaminate brooks and rivers. So we need to pay much more attention to Part II of the Bill dealing with contaminated land and abandoned mines. We really have to get it right.

On national parks, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, properly referred to the phrase "quiet enjoyment", which was carried by a majority in the House, in my respectful opinion wrongly. It is a matter which the Government will have to have attended to, no doubt on the advice of Law Officers, in another place. I think this is a very important Bill but we still have a lot to get right and I wish the Government well in all the efforts to do so.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I cannot let this occasion slip without mentioning Part III of the Bill. This represents a major step forward for national parks. I am delighted it provides for the creation of new national park authorities along the lines of my Private Member's Bill last Session. The Bill also updates national park purposes as recommended by the Edwards Report, and I welcome the inclusion of wildlife and cultural heritage among the qualities that are to be conserved. I also welcome the fact that the Bill makes it explicit that the type of enjoyment national parks should promote should he quiet.

Progress has also been made in making all public bodies more involved in national park purposes. My noble friend Lord Ullswater and the Government should he congratulated on including those provisions in this Bill. Finally, the debate on this Bill has demonstrated yet again that the well-being of national parks is of concern to all political parties. I should like to place on record my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and those many other Peers on all sides of this House who have worked unstintingly to get the Edwards Report recommendations on to the face of the Bill.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, when we had the Second Reading in December of last year, your Lordships gave a warm general welcome to the Bill which had been some long time in coming. Undoubtedly the creation of the agency will prove to be of tremendous importance. Its task is enormous, and how it will complete it by 1996 when the board will become officially constituted I do not know.

I have been very critical over many issues during the passage of the Bill. The criticism has not been levelled at my noble friend the Minister or indeed my noble friend Lord Lindsay and other colleagues. It was more a criticism of that which was put before them to deliver to your Lordships. That the Government have made a number of concessions—and indeed there are a number of outstanding issues upon which the Government have made promises to be effected in another place—to me illustrates how ill thought out many parts of the Bill were, particularly Part I. Here my complaint remains the same. The agency advisory committee, as it currently is, does not, I believe, show strength of knowledge across all those areas that have to be dealt with. I refer to no one particular person, but to me there seems to be a weakness here, although the Government have said that this is a strategic working unit and the expertise will be found in the advisory committees yet to be appointed.

Part II of the Bill deals with contaminated land. From all sides of the House, and in comments representing a number of different views, criticism has been levelled and is still being levelled on this matter. To me that shows that there has been a lack of either knowledge of how some parts of the industry work or a reluctance to accept the practicalities that are contained in the Bill. There remains yet more work to be done. As regards parts of Part IV, again a number of amendments have been put down from various quarters in your Lordships' House demonstrating the concern that still remains as regards the ancillary and supplementary regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, drew attention to some procedural matters. I concur with many of his remarks. It has been almost impossible to draw some of our debates to a meaningful conclusion, whatever that conclusion should have been. Therefore, inevitably, more work will rest with another place. Your Lordships have always prided yourselves on sending Bills to another place in a more complete form than they arrive in this House, from wherever they come. In this instance I do not believe that we have been able to do our job as well as usual. That is regrettable.

Against that somewhat critical background there has been, as other noble Lords have said, the unfailing courtesy and patience of the Government Front Bench. With that in the back of my mind my more severe criticisms can be kept in check. I have been somewhat mollified by their attitude and helpfulness. When the Bill returns to this House in later months we shall have to see how far the Government have been able to address the real concerns that have been raised.

This is an important Bill. The fact that it will undoubtedly become law in the fullness of time is to be welcomed. I hope that in another place some final adjustments will be made to make the Bill even better.

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

My Lords, it has been a pleasure working on the Bill for many of the reasons already mentioned by your Lordships, including the courtesy of the Minister, the good cheer and helpfulness of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, outside the Chamber and the support of my noble friend Lord Williams. It is my pleasant task to pay tribute to those people outside this Chamber who have been of such great assistance during the passage of this extremely complex piece of legislation.

I should like to mention first Kay Jenkinson and Barbara Edwards of the Coalfields Communities Campaign, who waged an excellent public campaign which has brought to the attention of the nation the problems of the coalfields communities and of mine water pollution. I regret only that we have not managed to do more for them. Perhaps as they continue their campaign in another place they will be able to achieve a change in bringing forward the date on which the responsibility for mine water pollution will be more clearly allocated.

I should also like to pay a tribute to Karen Bate of the World Wildlife Fund, who suffered a close bereavement during the passage of the Bill but nevertheless managed to continue to provide me with excellent briefings, particularly on ponds. I continue to regret that I have failed to sway your Lordships to my enthusiasm for ponds and that they do not rate equally with hedgerows. However, I shall continue in the years ahead to fight the battle on their behalf.

We are particularly grateful for the many briefings and amendments we have received from Mary Wimbury on behalf of the AMA and ACC. Many of those amendments have found a place in the Bill in a transmuted form in government amendments, although perhaps not going as far as we would wish. However, many of those on consultation and open government have now found a place in the Bill. Without those many excellent briefings on many of the amendments that we have put from this side of the House we would not have coped with this extremely complex piece of legislation.

Finally, I should like to pay a tribute to our researcher, Robert McGeachy, who has managed to remain supportive and cheerful despite the many pressures that have been placed upon him over the past few weeks.

I have greatly enjoyed working on the Bill, despite the late hours we have had to work, and I am grateful to your Lordships.

The Earl of Lytton

My Lords, from these Benches it is not possible to speak on behalf of my noble friends who sit in this part of the House. However, there is one issue on which I feel that I can speak for all on these Benches, and that is to thank the Minister for the courteous and efficient way in which he dealt with inquiries and with the amendments that were tabled, always managing to maintain the highest standards of candour and politeness throughout, even late into the night. I must pay him great tribute for that. Perhaps I may pay tribute also to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. We are broadly of similar age. If I may say so, he has brought a youthful appeal to the Front Bench, which is much appreciated. However, by the same token perhaps I may express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and his team. We have often not agreed wholeheartedly on matters in the Bill, but we have respected the reasons why we differ in our views.

I have often found myself speaking a slightly different language from that of the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Norrie. I hope that the respect for each other's position which has been established during those dialogues will be an enduring feature.

The Bill is an important watershed in legislation. It represents an enormous opportunity. Some difficulties will still have to be sorted out in another place. However, that factor underlines the complexity of the different facets within the Bill rather than denoting that there are intractable problems. I do not know whether the problems are intractable. Ultimately the proof of the pudding will be the manner in which the commercial world considers matters of residual liability, the interaction between BATNEEC and fit for use, and cost benefit. Those are all important factors.

I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he responded regarding the way in which hedgerows are to be dealt with, and the many other matters which I have raised including socio-economic factors in national parks. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am not quite so happy on the question of quiet enjoyment. It is not that I fail to understand the intention; I understand it well. It is simply the sheer difficulty of defining the term in a manner which satisfies all legitimate interest.

I wish the Bill well in another place. No doubt it will return to this House with amendments to be considered. However, I wish the Bill well, I hope that it has a safe passage.

The Earl of Kintore

My Lords, perhaps I may join in the thanks for the courtesy and patience with which we have been heard. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for the improvements that we have managed to make for Scotland.

9.45 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, first, I should like to respond to the very kind words which have been uttered around the House on the handling of the Bill both by my noble friend and myself. I do not believe that I could have managed the Bill so adequately (if adequately is the word) without the support of my noble friend. He has been cheerful and supportive throughout.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that he had had problems with the timetabling of the Bill, with which I agree. He indicated one or two of the concerns, which I shared, regarding the unbundling at Committee and Report stages of groupings of amendments. I find that quite difficult to cope with. However, noble Lords had difficult problems with which to deal. They wished them spoken to and therefore we had to respond in that way. My noble friends behind me moved many amendments which they wished me to accept. If I have not been able to respond to them with amendments, I hope that I have been able to reassure them and noble Lords opposite on some of the matters.

However, I much appreciate the constructive approach of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hilton of Eggardon and Lady Hamwee, to the Bill. It has been an interesting experience for me and I have enjoyed dealing with it. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that there were areas of anxiety which we needed to address in another place. He mentioned that Clause 54 is still a bit of a mess. As noble Lords will know, there will be certain government amendments to try to sort out the difficulties which the noble Lord has in mind and I hope that we shall improve the Bill in another place before it returns here.

I should like to mention two areas before I conclude. One is air quality. As I indicated to the House in Committee on 9th February, our proposed amendments on air quality will provide for the Government to establish a national strategy for maintaining and improving air quality. That strategy will include clear standards and targets for the important pollutants. The amendments will also establish a new system for managing air quality at the local level under which local authorities will have a duty to assess regularly the air quality in their area. Where it is found to be poor, they will have a further duty to take the necessary remedial action to ensure that standards and targets are met. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were interested in that.

Finally, I should not let the occasion pass without indicating that at a previous stage we extensively debated the issue of old mineral permissions. The minerals industry is of considerable importance to the economy and is to be commended on the steps which it has taken to improve environmental standards. However, not everyone in the industry works to the same high standards. My noble friend Lord Addison raised the issue at Report stage. I then undertook that the Government would bring forward amendments in another place to resolve the problems created by old mineral permissions, which typically have few, if any, modern working and restoration conditions attached to them. Therefore, we shall work on the amendments in another place.

I concede that there is some work still to do and that it will have to be done in another place. The Government have undertaken to bring forward measures as necessary on air quality, as I mentioned, on contaminated land, mineral permissions and also on fisheries, both to implement government policy and to meet further concerns that have been impressed upon me in this House.

Overall, I believe that the measures now included in the Bill, subject to our commitments to bring forward further amendments, provide an excellent approach to environmental protection across the whole range of government policy—an approach which will provide strong measures for the protection and management of the environment. The Bill and the interest in it, as well as the valuable contributions which it has attracted in the House, reflect the importance of environmental protection and the longer term outlook which sustainable development demands. It should enable environmental protection in the UK to continue to improve as we approach the new millennium. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.