Lords Sitting of 27 February 1998

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1998
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this order is to bring under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 six previously uncontrolled substances—namely, aminorex, brotizolam, etryptamine, mesocarb, methcathinone and zipeprol.
The order is necessary to enable the United Kingdom to comply with a decision made by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs to control the six substances under the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
Four of the substances—aminorex, brotizolam, mesocarb and zipeprol—have medicinal uses. They are used as medicines in other countries but are not currently licensed for use as medicines in the United Kingdom. The other two substances—etryptamine and methcathinone—have no recognised medicinal uses.
All six substances have abuse liability and are potentially attractive to drug misusers. There have been a few reports of the misuse of methcathinone in the United Kingdom, but no evidence that any of the other five substances is currently misused here.
Before an order of this kind is brought before Parliament for approval, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 requires that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the expert body which advises the Government on drugs issues, is consulted. The council has been consulted and has advised on the measure.
The order proposes that etryptamine be added to the list of controlled drugs specified as Class A in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act; that methcathinone and zipeprol be added to the list of controlled drugs specified as Class B; and that aminorex, brotizolam and mesocarb be added to the list of substances specified as Class C.
Subject to the order being approved, the Government would then intend to lay before the House amendment regulations to bring the six drugs under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. These regulations will provide the regime of control over them. Here again, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has given its advice, which the Government have followed. The changes would, as your Lordships will have seen from the draft order, take effect from 1st May.
The amendment regulations to which I have just referred will also increase the regime of control on the drug flunitrazepam, or Rohypnol, the drug which has
874
been referred to in the press as the "date rape drug". I am glad to be able to tell the House that, notwithstanding that appellation, the Forensic Science Service has found very little evidence of its use in that way. It is already controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act and as a result is not covered in the modification order which is before the House.
The UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided—at the same time as it made recommendations relating to the six substances which are the subject of the modification order—that flunitrazepam should be subject to a stricter regime of control under the UN convention. The amendment regulations which the Government propose to lay shortly will provide for the drug to be transferred from Schedule 4 to Schedule 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985, imposing stricter controls on the drug in compliance with those now required by the UN convention. The effect will be to make it an offence to possess the drug without lawful authority, apply import and export controls, and require the drug to be stored securely in warehouses and pharmacies.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned the order is essentially a pre-emptive measure enabling us to comply with our international obligations. It will help to protect the United Kingdom from the misuse of these drugs. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hoyle.)
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, as the Minister said, the order adds six substances to Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which specifies drugs which are subject to control under that Act. I am more than usually grateful to the noble Lord for rehearsing the pronunciation of all those drugs. As a result—thank goodness!—I shall not even attempt to do so.
We on these Benches support every effort of the Government to prevent, and to prosecute, the abuse and misuse of drugs. I say straightaway that we shall not oppose the making of the order but, as I was reminded in another discussion with regard to the Social Security Bill, where there is consensus between the main parties it is sometimes all the more important that we test the reasons why we are making changes and the necessity for adding to regulations.
It was in that spirit that I gave notice to the Minister before today that I would raise a question about the relevance of the Medicines Act in relation to just three of the drugs, which he expertly pronounced, to be added under the order as Class C drugs. I did so simply to give the Government the opportunity to say whether they had considered whether these three drugs were already sufficiently covered by the provisions of the Medicines Act and therefore did not need to be included in the Order. I assume from the fact that the three drugs are associated with Class C drugs in the order that they give rise to a very low level of risk of criminal misuse or abuse and that the Medicines Act may be an appropriate vehicle for prosecuting their misuse. That Act provides that one must not sell or supply certain medicines off

875
prescription, even if they are not named in the Misuse of Drugs Act as Class C drugs. They are already covered. The Act provides that,
"no person shall sell by retail, or supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale, a medicinal product of a description, or falling within a class … [except] in accordance with the directions of an appropriate practitioner".
It gives Ministers the opportunity to specify what kinds of medicinal products are covered by the regulations.
I understand that the underlying intention of the Medicines Act is to prevent the off-prescription sales or supply of particular drugs by certain less scrupulous medical practitioners. But the definitions in the Act of "retail" and "supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale" make clear that the Act includes the wider activities of those who indulge in, or benefit from, the promotion of the illegal sale of drugs.
Have the Government considered whether these three Class C drugs can be more appropriately dealt with under the Medicines Act and, if so, why have they decided against doing so? I suspect that the Minister gave the major part of the answer but I should like to know the criteria that are used to determine whether a prosecution should be brought under the Medicines Act or the Misuse of Drugs Act. It may well be that the Government do not believe that the penalties available in a magistrates' court are sufficient. However, magistrates are allowed to pass a maximum sentence of six months on each individual offence and on two offences they may pass a consecutive sentence of six months, raising their maximum sentencing power to 12 months. I should be grateful if the Minister would address those points. However, we have no intention of opposing the making of the order.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it goes without saying that we too welcome any attempt to clamp down on the misuse of narcotic drugs that is drawn to our attention by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. I wish to ask the Minister just one question having listened carefully to everything he said about these particular drugs. I echo the congratulations expressed by the noble Baroness on the Minister's pronunciation. I shall not attempt to emulate it except for one drug that the Minister said had been the subject of a few reports of misuse: Methcathinone. Can the Minister inform the House what reports have been made to the Government about the misuse of this particular drug? I believe that it is the only drug mentioned in the order which has been the subject of such reports. I believe the Minister said that the others were referred to in the order by way of pre-emptive action to stop any possible future misuse whereas in the case of Methcathinone there had already been some reports of its misuse. Perhaps the Minister can describe the nature of the reports and how extensive the misuse has been.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am very pleased that I am a qualified engineer rather than a pharmacist or medical practitioner and I do not have to pronounce the names of these drugs all the time. I deal first with the point raised by the noble Baroness. While some of the drugs
876
mentioned today are in Class C, all of the Class C drugs in the Misuse of Drugs Act are also covered by the Medicines Act 1968. But the latter Act does not contain the same teeth or clout as the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The primary purpose of the Medicines Act is to regulate medicines in normal usage. While it makes unauthorised sales an offence, it does not cover the wider concept of the supply of drugs; nor does it make an offence to possess with intent to supply. In addition, the use of the Medicines Act would not fulfil our obligations under the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Misuse of Drugs Act and its accompanying regulations ensure that we fulfil those obligations. Referring to Methcathinone, there have been reports of its misuse in the United Kingdom. All we have at the moment is a small number of reports by the police. They are very few.
The order will enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its international obligation as a party to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, while we in the United Kingdom are fortunate that we have not suffered any significant degree of misuse of the six substances, there is appreciable misuse of the substances worldwide. Approval of the order will help to ensure that, should any unlawful activities involving these drugs reach the United Kingdom, the necessary controls are in place to deal with them. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Exclusion Order 1998
Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998
Construction Contracts (Scotland) Exclusion Order 1998
Scheme for Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 1998
11.20 a.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 18th December 1997 and 12th and 19th January 1998 be approved [18th and 20th Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the four draft orders and regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper. I understand that that is acceptable to those of your Lordships who take part in such debates.
Part II of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 deals with construction contracts. Section 108 requires that all construction contracts provide parties with the right unilaterally to

877
refer disputes arising under the contract to adjudication. Sections 109 to 111 require construction contracts to provide certain payment mechanisms and notice provisions, and Section 113 prevents "pay-when-paid" clauses operating in most circumstances.
Where a construction contract does not comply with these sections of the Act, the relevant provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts take effect. In other words, the scheme is intended to be imported as implied terms into contracts which do not comply with the Act.
Part II of the Act was intended to cover a wide range of construction contracts. However, there are certain types of contract and agreement which, although connected in some way with construction operations, were never intended to be caught by the provisions of the Act. The exclusion orders are intended to ensure that such contracts and agreements do not fall within the scope of the Act. They cover certain agreements made under statutory provisions; head contracts under the private finance initiative; finance agreements, and development agreements.
Both sets of regulations have been subject to a great deal of consultation. It has not been possible to please all parts of the industry over their every detail. But it is quite clear that there is an overriding desire across the industry for the regulations to be put in place as soon as possible so that the industry can at least begin to benefit from Part II of the Act. I therefore commend these orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 18th December 1997 and 12th and 19th January 1998 be approved [18th and 20th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome the orders and regulations and wish to raise three brief points. I apologise to the House and to the Minister for being unable to give detailed notice of them. With regard to the two draft regulations, the first point relates to paragraph 20(a) dealing with the adjudicator's decision. It allows the adjudicator to revise certificates and decisions unless they are expressed in the contract with which he is dealing to be final and conclusive. The prospect is that the statutory right to refer disputes to adjudication could be undermined. Contracts could provide for adjudication provisions to apply but that all decisions and certificates would be final and conclusive; in other words, equivalent to contracting out of the adjudication provisions. Can the Minister comment on that? If not, perhaps she can write to me.
Paragraph 24 of the regulations relates to enforcement by the court. The enforcement provisions are those which will apply to the adjudication. The scheme amends the Arbitration Act 1996 and in consequence gives the courts the power to enforce the adjudicator's decisions. The scheme does not amend Section 42(1) of the Act, which provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties the court may make an order. I am not sure whether that is an oversight or whether deliberate action has been taken in leaving Section 42 as it stands.
878
I appreciate that the orders are not amendable and that I have not given the Minister notice of those points. However, I understand that in response to representations her honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Minister for London and Construction, has indicated to the industry that if there is evidence of abuse the regulations can be revisited. Can the Minister confirm that? If not, can she write to me?
Finally, do the Government intend to introduce rules of court to facilitate an application under paragraph 24 to enforce the adjudicator's decision? If they intend to introduce rules of court, which it appears are required, when are they likely to emerge?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the orders arise from Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, about which we had considerable detailed discussion in this House when my party was in opposition. The view which it then took on the matter is not the view which it appears to be taking now.
The problem was that the Government totally confused the ideas of adjudication and arbitration. Our debates were largely guided towards teaching the Government and their advisers the distinction between those two aspects of civil engineering contracts. The House will be aware of my long-standing relationship with the construction industry.
The Construction Industry Council reminded the Government that Part II of the Act was intended to implement certain aspects of the report made by Sir Michael Latham several years ago. It did so only in a partial manner and pointed out (I quote from the CIC's information):
"In view of the quick fix, rough justice nature" —
that was Sir Michael Latham's description of adjudication—
"the CIC believe that there are no circumstances in which the adjudicator's decision can be final".
However, it was agreed that it could be binding until the end of the contract, at which point the participants in a dispute or disagreement would then go to arbitration; arbitration being binding and final, but adjudication being temporary. It is a quick fix, rough justice solution to an interim problem. It was the kind of thing which consulting engineers used to do without adjudication.
I endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to paragraph 20. It has the effect of making adjudication arbitration. I sincerely hope that the Government will grasp hold of that idea because we have a new Government with clear eyes and clear minds. However, they seem to have taken this particular piece of legislation out of a pigeon hole to which it was consigned some time ago. I ask the Minister to realise that that part of the regulation is in error.
I have only one other point to make in relation to the regulations. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 2(3) which states that,
"an 'adjudicator nominating body' shall mean a body … which holds itself out publicly as a body which will select an adjudicator when requested to do so by a referring party".

879
I know that quite recently an Institute of Adjudicators has been established. I am sure that it is a worthy body. In fact, I know it is because I gave out some certificates for it a few months ago and saw those people in the flesh. They are very proper people. But that provision permits just about anyone to set up as an adjudicating body. My noble friend who sits here could set up an organisation and purport to be an adjudicating body. I believe that it would be a good idea for adjudicating bodies to be monitored or registered by the department in some way so that those bodies would have real authority.
Lastly, I endorse again the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to my honourable friend Mr. Raynsford who has suggested that the Government will keep this matter under review for a time and, if it proves to be unsatisfactory, will look at it again. Instead of having that "if', it would be better for my honourable friend to review the workings of the Act and undertake to bring in new housing legislation which will not only correct the errors in the regulations but will also implement the rest of the recommendations of Sir Michael Latham which are not as yet in legislation.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, with the leave of my noble friends on the Front Bench, perhaps I may express a few views from these Benches on the regulations.
I believe that we have every reason to be proud of our construction industry, our construction companies, our consulting engineers, in many disciplines, our architects and many others, as we look worldwide and see the achievements of our construction industry.
But our construction industry has also been subject to diverse problems. The difficulty—and I recognise it immediately—for government, whichever government are in power, is that they are not assisted by unity of views from the construction industry. Indeed, they suffer from the expression of diverse views arising out of the diverse problems of the construction industry. I well remember over 10 years ago, with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, when taking through this House the Latent Damage Bill the many diverse views from the industry which were then presented to the government of the day. Therefore, my colleagues on the Front Bench, remembering their days in government, will have sympathy for the Minister over the diverse views that are represented from the industry.
However, I should like to record that the industry is making good progress in consolidating its voice. For example, there is now a greater unity in contracts which are used in the construction industry. There are now more joint bodies which are able to represent the views of the industry to government. A particular achievement which I mention as a lawyer is that construction lawyers, with support throughout the industry, have managed to introduce and publish the Construction Industry Model Arbitration Rules.
One of the critical problems in the construction industry has been the problem of payment. As it happens, throughout this week I have been attending an
880
arbitration and the critical dispute between the parties in this arbitration concerns the matter of payment. Therefore, it is reasonable and helpful to have the new provisions of this Act which are in Sections 109 to 113. They address the problems of payment. Section 109 gives entitlement to staged payments and Section 110 specifies that there should be a mechanism for determining what payments become due under the contract. Section 111 prohibits a party to a construction contract from withholding payment after the final date for payment unless an effective notice has been given. Section 112 gives the right to a party to suspend performance on the contract when that party has not been paid. In Section 113 there is a prohibition on entering into an agreement not to pay another party until the first party has been paid. That has been one of the serious problems, particularly for sub-contractors, when the main contractor refuses to pay the sub-contractors until he has been paid by the employer.
Therefore, we should welcome these provisions for the reasons I have sought to identify. It seems that they have a sound basis. The problem is that this scheme goes a great deal further. It does not just deal with payment disputes but with all disputes which arise in the construction industry. Also under Section 108(2)(a), it permits adjudication "at any time" relating to any dispute which might arise during the construction process.
Thus there is a wedge being driven into the inalienable right of parties to reach a contract on a consensual basis. The effect of the scheme is to apply obligatorily statutory terms of contract into all contracts that are negotiated within the industry. That goes against established party autonomy—for example, in the Arbitration Act 1996—and ignores the powers available, for example, under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act where parties can go for provisional relief during the course of the performance of the contract.
As a result of those concerns, strong views have been represented, as the Minister knows, from certain sections of the industry, particularly the construction lawyers. Far from reducing the number of disputes, there is a real danger that the floodgates could be opened and abuse perpetrated. For example, it will enable a contractor who is determined to pursue an unmeritorious claim to cause maximum disruption to the dispute resolution process or even to the proper administration of the contract. There is not even a provision whereby the right to adjudication terminates upon notice of arbitration being given or upon the commencement of legal proceedings. That is unique. Thus, a party which is dissatisfied with the rate of progress or even the likely outcome of arbitration proceedings appears still to have the right to refer the same dispute, or even part of it, to adjudication leading to a decision which will be binding until the dispute is determined finally by the arbitrator.
It also does not deal with the problem of the multi-party dispute which is a well known problem in industry disputes.
So strongly were the views held by a number of experienced practitioners in the construction industry that a collection of papers was drawn together by

881
Professor John Uff and presented in printed form to the Government at the end of last year. It has the rather stinging title of, Construction Contract Reform: A plea for sanity. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consider most carefully where we go from here. I accept that these regulations today should receive the approval of the House. Indeed, I am not asking for them to be withdrawn.
However, it may have been more sensible for the Government to go forward in steps and not in leaps. It may have been more sensible for them, for example, to bring in these new adjudication proceedings just in relation to payment disputes and not in relation to all disputes. Therefore, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and I believe also with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in asking the Government to monitor the process of the scheme and to keep it under review. If it should be shown that there is abuse and the number of disputes are multiplied rather than reduced, I hope that the Minister will be able to undertake to bring the matter swiftly back to Parliament.
The other matter that I should like to ask the Minister to consider now is the phrase of, "any time", in Section 108(2)(a) of the Act. It would not be a difficult matter and I believe that it could possibly be dealt with by secondary legislation. While I hesitate a little on that proposition, this is surely a matter which should be addressed. There should be a time limit because otherwise people will abuse the scheme. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Minister and that she will, therefore, be able to bring some comfort to what I have said.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, there is little that I can add to the expert words that have already been spoken this morning. However, there is one part of the regulations on which I should like to ask the Minister to address the House when she responds. I refer to Regulation 25 which deals with the adjudicator's fees. It says:
"The adjudicator shall be entitled to payment of such reasonable amount as he may determine by way of fees and expenses reasonably incurred by him. The parties shall be jointly and severally liable for any sum which remains outstanding following the making of any determination on how the payment shall be apportioned".
As a solicitor in private practice, I am bound to point out to the House that I view with envy the idea that one can be the sole determinator of what is reasonable as regards one's fees.
However, on a rather more serious note, we are very often talking in construction contracts about small businessmen in contract with very large firms. While I appreciate that this is a fast track, and while I accept that when the matter was discussed in the other place it was said that it was unlikely that large fees would be incurred, nevertheless, the size of the fee very often depends on the ability of the person to pay. Indeed, that decides whether or not the amount is viewed as large or small.
I am somewhat unhappy that there appears to be nothing in the regulations to resolve a dispute about fees. Mr. Raynsford, the Minister's honourable friend,
882
said that the adjudicator would have recourse to the courts for enforcement of payment if the parties fail to meet the fees that were provided for and that provision has to be made through the courts for enforcement in that respect. Likewise, it appeared to be suggested in another place that the parties could have recourse to the nominating body if they felt that the adjudicator had demanded unreasonable fees and expenses.
Nevertheless, that all seems to me to be rather complicated and potentially expensive for what is supposed to be an inexpensive and fast-track procedure. I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point when she replies. I apologise for the fact that I was not able to give her prior notice of that question.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, to be asked to approach this matter with clear eyes and a clear mind is quite difficult. As all noble Lords who have spoken today have acknowledged, we are dealing with quite a complex matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was certainly right when he referred to the diverse views expressed within the industry. I listened to the comments made during the debate with great interest. There is clearly strong support in principle for the scheme and the principles behind it.
However, before I turn in detail to the points raised in the debate, I should like to make one or two brief general comments about the orders before the House. I believe that that will help to put the points raised into context and will show that the Government intend to make absolutely sure that the industry benefits from Part H of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and benefits from it as soon as possible.
The construction industry is a complex operation. It often involves a number of different processes carried out by different contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, professionals and specialists. These players may have different interests. A complex network of construction contracts normally sets the ground rules by which they act and interact. However, things do sometimes go wrong and disputes arise. There are often disputes about what has or has not been paid and those disputes often drag on, costing time and money.
Part II of the Act is introduced with cross-party support and with the support of the construction industry. Its principal aims are, first, to ensure that disputes over payments become rarer because construction contracts are clearer over what is to be paid and when; and, secondly, to provide a straightforward and speedy means of resolving disputes through adjudication.
I turn now to some of the detailed points that were raised during the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of paragraph 20(a) of the scheme. This paragraph gives the adjudicator the power to open up any decision or certificate unless the contract states that it is final and conclusive.
I am aware that this issue has caused concern to some parts of the industry. The Government took advice on that point and views were not unanimous. However, we accepted the argument that the "final and conclusive" proviso was important in order that the contracting

883
parties should be able to agree whether certain certificates and decisions should be opened up. It is only common sense that there are some decisions—and we are thinking of technical and professional matters—which parties will be prepared to have "signed off" and not reopened. However, I know that there are anxieties about the misuse of the paragraph 20(a) provision. I believe that they are misplaced, but, nevertheless, we will keep an eye on the workings of the scheme. If abuses of that provision become apparent once the legislation has been in operation for a while, we are prepared to act.
A further point was raised concerning enforcement of the adjudicator's decision under paragraph 24 of the scheme, in particular the importing of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act. For adjudication to work, it is vital that the adjudicator's decision is complied with by both parties. That will only happen in practice if there is a quick, unambiguous and practical route to the courts in cases of non-compliance.
The England and Wales scheme adopts a mechanism based on Section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The function of Section 42 in the context of arbitration proceedings is to ensure that any procedural order made by the arbitration tribunal may be enforced in the courts. Adjudication decisions are of course not mere procedural orders. They are quick, practical decisions which are intended to be enforced without challenge until a final decision or agreement is achieved. The use of Section 42, suitably amended, is quite fitted to the type of enforcement required under adjudication. It seems unlikely that the words,
"unless the parties agree otherwise",
in Section 42 of the Arbitration Act will cause problems. A person who goes to the trouble of specifically excluding a reference to Section 42 of the Arbitration Act from his contract is unlikely to be relying on the scheme in the first place. Such a person is more likely to use adjudication provisions which are more suited to his circumstances. However, I know that there are those in the industry who are concerned about the application of Section 42. I can assure noble Lords that we shall consider whether this causes significant problems in practice. If it does, we are prepared to consider changes to the scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to Section 42. I hope I can offer some clarification. Section 42 was brought into force on 31st January 1997. The procedure is covered by the rules of the Supreme Court amendment order 1996, which also came into force on 31st January 1997. Section 42 is not given a particular mention and is therefore covered by the general provision of the rules. The "white book" which contains the rules of the Supreme Court is published biennially. The latest edition does not include the 1996 orders.
My noble friend Lord Howie mentioned adjudicator nominating bodies. I should perhaps run through the background to the current provision at paragraph 2(3) of the scheme. The original intention, as set out in the consultation paper issued in November 1996, was that the scheme itself would list adjudicator appointing or
884
nominating bodies. This was intended to provide a straightforward fallback for obtaining an adjudicator if the contract did not make provision for this, or if the contractual provision had failed. The problem is that it would have required an amended affirmative order every time a nominating body wanted to be added to or removed from the list. That would not have been a good use of Parliament's time. Therefore Ministers decided that there should be no statutory list. That this was the correct decision is borne out by the fact that one of the potential adjudicator nominating bodies has already withdrawn.
The scheme now provides more flexibility for referring parties who wish to find an adjudicator quickly. It does not set strict criteria for adjudicator nominating bodies as to do so would immediately create scope to challenge the whole adjudication process. It does, however, place a clear and unambiguous duty on the adjudicator to act impartially, and includes various other checks aimed at ensuring that the adjudication is carried out in accordance with the Act. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Scottish Office will initially make available lists of organisations which offer their services as ANBs. The kinds of bodies which will be included on these lists will be professional bodies, legal bodies and industry umbrella bodies which have indicated their willingness and ability to offer an adjudicator nominating service.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised a point concerning the payment provisions in the scheme. They are based on lengthy and detailed consultation with the industry. The department took on board many comments made by the industry following informal consultation with the industry in the summer. I do not for one moment pretend that the provisions will be the ideal solution for every contract, but they provide a workable menu of clauses which can be imported as and when they are needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, commented on Section 108 of the Act. I hear what he says but I am afraid that I am unable to comment today on the wording of the Act. Adjudication was requested by the construction industry. It is still awaited with some enthusiasm by the industry. The Minister for London and Construction has said that the Government will monitor progress. The Government want this legislation to work for the construction industry and will do their best to ensure that it does so. The industry has waited a long time for Part II to be brought into effect. I fully expect the orders which we have debated to allow that to happen. With such a diverse industry it has been impossible to obtain a consensus. However, we have tried to listen to all the arguments which have been put to us and have come up with a scheme which reflects the interests of the industry as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked what controls there are as regards the levels of fees which an adjudicator may charge. Paragraph 12(b) of the scheme places a clear duty on the adjudicator to avoid unnecessary expense. The Government have not introduced any further requirements in the scheme on the level of fees or expenses. I do not think, for example, that it would be appropriate to list fee scales in the

885
scheme. Every increase would require the affirmative resolution of the House. I hope that the industry will use this as it is intended; namely, as a way of minimising the cost and disruption which have hampered many construction operations. But, as I said, if any aspects of it cause problems, we are prepared to make changes.
The type of matter covered in the legislation is untested and it clearly makes sense to keep a careful watch that it is benefiting the industry in the way intended. There are a number of ways in which monitoring can be carried out. What is vital is that the experiences of the adjudicator nominating bodies, professional institutions, industry bodies and, above all, those in the industry who use the legislation form part of the overview of how the legislation is working in practice. We shall be prepared to revisit the scheme if there are significant problems. I commend the orders and regulations to the House.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope that she can help me. In response to comments that I and, I believe, other noble Lords made, she said more than once—this was most welcome—that it is the intention of the Government to monitor the scheme. She also said, helpfully, that if problems arise changes will be made. Can she help the House a little further? Can she make available the results of the monitoring so that we can see how the scheme is working and possibly make helpful suggestions to the Government?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will welcome informed comment from all those with an interest in this scheme as part of the monitoring process. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. If that is not the case, I shall write to him.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, will the results of the monitoring be made public? That is what I am anxious to obtain.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I do not feel able to give a commitment because of the detail that may be contained in individual contracts that form part of the monitoring and the assessment. However, within reason and within those constraints, I am sure that it will be possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business Improvement Districts Bill [H.L.]
11.58 a.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Business Improvement District (Election) Orders]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, after ("authority") insert (", or in relation to which the authority is discharging the functions of another local authority as respects the establishment of a business improvement district").
The noble Lord said: I am aware that there is other business to follow this Committee stage that was put down after this Bill was scheduled to be heard today. At the same time I have to say that if there is to be any chance of this Bill reaching the statute book in this Session we need to examine it properly in this House because of the well-known, well understood problems that may exist in another place.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 28. The amendments go together. They are intended to deal with the situation where a local authority wishes to arrange to discharge its functions through another local authority. At Second Reading I gave the example of the Park Royal industrial estate where the boundaries of three local authorities impinge on that estate. It would be awkward if there had to be three separate procedures with three separate local authorities. It would add considerably to the complications of a business improvement district in those circumstances.
At present the Bill requires an area which is the subject of an election order to be wholly comprised within the area of the authority to which the application has been made. But it should be possible for authorities in those circumstances to make arrangements for one of the other authorities to discharge its functions with respect to the administration of the application so that where a bid area covers two or more authorities one authority would act on behalf of them all. There is no such provision in the Bill as drafted. Amendments Nos. 1 and 28 enable that to be done. I hope that it strikes the Committee as a sensible improvement. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before commenting on the amendments, I hope that the Committee will be indulgent if I make comments about the Bill as a whole. The Bill before us today provides a useful opportunity to consider how local services are provided to ratepayers and how that service is funded and accounted for. In that respect, it is an important contribution to the wider debate now going on about the renewal of local government. We believe that the needs of local people are best served by locally elected councils. We want to establish a framework for a modern, relevant local government; one in which local councils lead their local communities and work in partnership with businesses, the voluntary sector and local people to deliver quality services and improve their areas.
The modernisation of local government will demand a radical programme of democratic renewal. It will challenge authorities to deliver services at best value. It

887
will also require changes to the local government finance system to reflect the need for authorities to have greater local discretion and be more accountable to their communities.
Over the past six months, we have been discussing the finance issues with local government, with the representative business organisations and other interested parties. Nearly three weeks ago we published a consultation paper entitled Local Democracy and Community Leadership. Over the next month or so, we shall be publishing further consultation papers on the local government finance system, including a paper on the options for business rates.
The concerns which have prompted the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, to bring forward this Bill are shared by the Government. We are addressing them in the series of consultation papers which we have issued, or are about to issue. Today's proceedings therefore are an important part of the debate about the future shape of local government. I shall listen with interest to the Committee's deliberations.
With the full consultation process that is being, and will be, undertaken on the financing of local government, it seems to be premature to be considering the implementation of a compulsory mechanism as provided for in the Bill. If the Bill makes progress, there are a number of detailed issues that the House would wish to consider—for example, how such a scheme would tie in with the non-domestic rating system under the 1988 Act, and what form of enforcement mechanism might be appropriate.
However, I recognise that the Bill provides a very useful opportunity to discuss the principles. I should like to raise two specific points of concern which noble Lords will wish to consider as background to the debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said in his contribution to the Second Reading of the Bill that he had been advised that the money raised and spent by the BID company would not be treated as a tax and would not therefore be considered public expenditure.
This is an important point and the Committee will understand that I too have taken advice. It is clear that under the provisions of the Bill, businesses in an area will have to pay a certain amount if there has been a local vote to that effect. Although individual businesses will have the opportunity to vote, they will not have a choice on payment of the charge if the decision is taken to implement the draft scheme. As I am sure the Committee will recognise, this is exactly analogous to the taxation system in any democratic country. We can influence the level of income tax via the ballot, but there is no choice on whether or not to pay. This is, by definition, a tax and and spending of the income received would count as public expenditure. Section 2.68 of the European System of
888
Accounts, used by the Office for National Statistics, makes it clear that expenditure of this type by BID companies would count as public expenditure. The Committee may well reflect on the Bill in the light of this advice.
I am also concerned about the issue of accountability. The Bill makes provision for the charging, on a compulsory basis, of all businesses within the BID area. This being the case, it would be important for all those businesses to have a clear idea of how their money is being spent and accounted for. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, intends that this should be the case. However, it appears to me that the Bill as presently drafted does not provide any details on how the BID company will specifically account to the providers of its income. Where a local authority raises money and spends it, there is a framework of legislation and audit—it is not perfect, I am sure—which ensures financial probity and accountability to protect the interests of the ratepayers. There does not appear to be any provision made in the Bill for representation of the scheme chargepayers, and neither does there appear to be any supervision, reporting back or audit provision over and above what might be available through the Companies Acts to members of the company. Bearing in mind the compulsory nature of the contributions that would fund the company, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, might wish to consider whether such mechanisms might be appropriate.
I turn now to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. This provides for an election order to be made in a situation where one local authority was discharging the functions of another local authority. This seems to be a worthwhile clarification of a potential scenario. If the Bill progresses, then noble Lords will wish to consider the detailed wording of the clause to ensure that it works as they would wish.
Amendment No. 28 makes a useful point. If a local authority wishes to arrange for the discharge of its functions as respects the establishment of a business improvement district by another local authority, then no doubt this should not be discouraged.
I apologise for the length of this intervention. It was felt that it would be helpful to place on record the Government's position.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: That has somewhat taken me by surprise. I hope that the noble Baroness will not take it amiss if I say that we have had, as it were, a mini-Second Reading speech at the beginning of this Committee stage. The noble Baroness raised several points of considerable importance. We shall need to bear that in mind. We must deal with the amendments before us at Committee stage now, but at later stages of the Bill, we shall need to see to what extent we can take account of those important points.
The noble Baroness, on advice, seems to have arrived at a clear position on whether the charges made by a BID company are taxation and whether the expenditure is to be regarded as public expenditure. That has wide ramifications. There are

889
many forms of partnership arrangement. If that doctrine is to be extended more widely, there may be some anxiety about the future of other schemes.
I read the consultation paper with some interest. No doubt in due course we shall have an opportunity to discuss that and other local government consultation papers foreshadowed in it. One point struck me. The published paper, Local Democracy and Community Leadership, gives notice that,
"the Government intend to replace section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 due to concern over 'ultra Vires' which may inhibit partnership activities including participation in companies".
It seems to me that we are in danger of getting two messages: one that the Government actually want to give encouragement—indeed, I welcome the opening remarks of the noble Baroness—while at the same time there appear to be new restrictions, or at least a clarification, that contrary to the view I expressed at Second Reading, to which the noble Baroness made reference, such activity may become more difficult as it will have to come firmly within the system of public expenditure control and charges amounting to taxation. We shall need to examine the noble Baroness's remarks with some care.
The question of auditing and so on can be dealt with effectively by further amendments at a later stage although, once again, it would have been helpful to have heard comments at an earlier stage of the Bill. One could have taken account of them and there would have been more than one opportunity to get the drafting right.
The general tenor of the noble Baroness's remarks was one of welcome. She indicated that she is looking forward to the discussion; we can all approach it in that sense.
As for this amendment, we will examine the drafting in regard to this matter. However, I hope that the House will be able to accept Amendment No. I now, and, when we come to it, Amendment No. 28. Then, if necessary, we can examine the matter again between now and Report to make sure we get the drafting right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Application for election order]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("() state whether a financial contribution or other assistance is anticipated from the local authority and if so, the extent of that contribution or the nature of the assistance;").
The noble Lord said: It would be helpful to discuss Amendment No. 9 with this amendment. Their purpose is to make absolutely clear that a BID scheme can include a partnership with a local authority. When the Bill was originally drafted we had assumed that that would be possible. However, this pair of amendments puts the matter beyond doubt. The reasons for wanting to make it clear are that a number of local authorities would very much like to feel that they are part of a BID scheme and, secondly, that although it would be possible under the Bill for a business improvement district to be initiated from scratch it is much more probable that a BID will develop from existing collaborative
890
arrangements. At Second Reading I gave a number of examples. Since then, I have heard of a good many others which are currently operating and where those working them would welcome the provision which is the central purpose of this Bill to avoid the problem of free riders.
Many of these arrangements involve local authorities. It is not the Bill's intention that the process of partnership between the public and private sectors should be in any way discouraged. I have always been very strongly in favour of that partnership and the Bill is intended to reflect that. These two amendments put the point beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord introduces these two amendments with a reference to partnership with local authorities. The obverse of that coin is the question of additionality, referred to by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading. In other words, BID schemes should not replace the projects that are properly a matter for the local authority. As I read these amendments, that point does not seem to be affected either way. However, if the noble Lord could confirm that, I should be grateful.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. The amendment is certainly in no way intended to change the intention of the Bill that the expenditure by a BID should be additional to that which a local authority is undertaking. It may well be that local authorities would welcome sub-contracting some of their services to a BID company. We shall come to that provision in a later amendment. One can imagine, for instance, that it would be very awkward if one had two different groups of street cleaners, one working for the local authority and the other topping up the work, as it were, by the BID. The sensible course would be for the BID to contract with the local authority and then contract under the contracting out procedures for its share of that to be done by the BID, and of course paying for it.
The additionality point is important. I am aware of anxieties expressed by some ratepayers. I wish to state clearly that it is the intention of the Bill that the expenditure by a BID should be additional.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Bill requires applicants to prepare a detailed package of information to be submitted to the local authority. That will be of great assistance to the authority in deciding whether it would be appropriate to issue an election order. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 is to ensure that as part of that process a local authority can take account of the role that it might want, or be expected, to play. We recognise that a local authority may wish to assist a BID company. I am pleased that these amendments make any contribution that is anticipated from a local authority explicit from the outset, so that local taxpayers' money is accountable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Consideration of application]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) In considering a draft scheme a local authority shall have regard to such representations as may be made by—

(a) any ratepayer in respect of a hereditament within the area specified in the draft scheme;

(b) any other person in respect of such a hereditament, being a person having an interest in that hereditament in any capacity;

(c) any person who is either resident within the area specified in the draft scheme, or is not so resident but is affected by the improvements which are proposed by it.").

The noble Lord said: It will be within the recollection of noble Lords that at Second Reading a good deal was said about the need for wide consultation on a proposed BID and that the local authority which has to make the decision as to whether to make an order for an election must take account of a wide measure of representations. I gave an indication on that occasion that ordinary residential council tax payers would clearly have an interest in the establishment of a BID if it was to cover the area where they lived or even where they were accustomed to doing their shopping and so on. I quoted the example of the Fitzrovia proposals for the area between Oxford Street and Euston Road in London. Others have said that their views should be taken into account. One such group is obviously the owners of buildings. The charges, indeed the whole provision, are based on occupiers, who in many cases will be tenants. But the owners of buildings may well have views which they want to put. Amendment No. 3 therefore includes the reference in paragraph (b):
"being a person having an interest in that hereditament in any capacity".
There may well also be ratepayers, paying the national non-domestic rate or whatever may take its place, who, though not liable to pay under the scheme because it may be proposed that they be exempted or excluded under the provisions of the Bill, may nevertheless have a view. All those people are entitled to be heard. This amendment ensures that the local authority shall have regard to such representation. It will have to listen to them and take them into account. The amendment therefore meets the anxieties expressed from all parts of the House at Second Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 3 recognises that the establishment of the BID may impact upon parties other than those listed on the draft bid charge list. I fully support the principle of ensuring that consideration is given to representations received in response to a draft scheme.
However, it is important that in making representations interested parties have access to the relevant information. It is not clear from the Bill what information would be made available to those parties. At present Clause 2(5)(a) requires that the application is advertised in a local newspaper in the area to which the application applies. However, there is no indication given to the applicant as to what information should be incorporated within the advertisement. I am sure that the
892
noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will wish to consider whether further provision could be included to address this issue.
The amendment to Clause 3 will extend the scope of representations to enable persons from outside the area but with an interest in it—for example, those working in shops or offices—to submit their views on the scheme. In view of this, the Committee may wish to consider whether there is a need to advertise the BID application outside the area to which the application relates.
Finally, as representations will be taken into account in the local authority's consideration of the application, Members of the Committee may wish to give thought to whether such representations should be made available to the BID applicant.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The Minister has made an extremely helpful point. I wish to give careful consideration to the further detailed changes which she suggested. I believe that she indicated that this amendment is acceptable so far as it goes and perhaps the Committee may therefore be able to agree to its incorporation in the Bill. I give a clear undertaking that we shall look carefully at the other points which the Minister made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("28") and insert ("42").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 5, which I do not intend to move. Amendment No. 4 proposes that representations received within 42 days—rather than 28 days—after the date of the first advertisement should be considered by the local authority. Six weeks is not a very long period: it seems to me a more suitable period than 28 days. The local chamber of commerce, for example—which I hope would be involved in the drawing up of the scheme, but may not be—should perhaps have an opportunity to consult its members and put considered comments to the local authority; or perhaps individual businesses might need that longer period in order to consult other local businesses and generally to consider the matter.
The period runs from the date of the first advertisement. Clause 2(5) requires both an advertisement and the service of a copy of the application on individual ratepayers included in the list. I believe that six weeks would be a more useful period. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am pleased to note Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Clause 3(2) and the intention to have a clear time-frame within which interested people could submit their comments. I note that the noble Baroness does not intend to move Amendment No. 5. As originally drafted, there would have been a degree of uncertainty as to when the last date for representations to the draft scheme should be submitted, depending on the date the scheme was advertised under the provisions of Clause 2(5)(b). This

893
meant that there was some degree of latitude as to when the advertisement could be submitted. This amendment reinforces the importance of full consultation.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: I am happy to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we are willing to accept this amendment. I am glad that she has decided not to move Amendment No. 5 because I could not have been so forthcoming on that; I believe that in certain circumstances it might have had a rather perverse effect. Amendment No. 4 seems to me to be a considerable improvement to the Bill and I hope that she will press it.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that. I came to the same conclusion with regard to Amendment No. 5 a couple of minutes before I rose to speak to Amendment No. 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Making of election order]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (5)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and hope that the Committee will agree to discuss with it Amendment No. 15. These amendments concern the case where a local authority, having received an application and considered it, is prepared to embark on the procedure but wishes to see modifications to the application. New subsection (5) is intended to provide that, where a scheme has been modified, the local authority shall inform the applicant of the modifications. I am advised that it is necessary to include that provision in order to make absolutely clear that the applicant should know of the modifications. It seems unlikely that the local authority would make modifications and the applicant not know about it, but modifications may affect an applicant's decision as to whether to go forward. The modifications may be substantial and significantly change the nature of the scheme originally submitted. The applicant may therefore decide in the light of the modification that it would not be appropriate to go forward at that stage without more consultation. Therefore, the application can be withdrawn, consideration can take place and, if thought proper, another application can be submitted. It is for that reason that applicants must be told of any modifications. That is what these amendments are intended to provide, and I hope that the Committee will accept them.
Lord Bowness: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend how that provision would affect the other interested parties whom we talked about under the amendment to Clause 3. Will there be an obligation on the local
894
authority, if it makes the substantial modifications to which my noble friend referred, to re-consult those who have to be consulted under the amended Clause 3?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend has raised a very good point, which we should like to consider. A further amendment may be required.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This seems a sensible requirement that should be included within the Bill. The noble Lord may also wish to consider whether in such a situation provision should be made to establish whether the applicant would want to proceed with the application, with the local authority's modifications, prior to the local authority making an election order.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: I hoped I had covered that point. I am not sure that it would require a provision in the Bill. Taking the point made by my noble friend Lord Bowness, perhaps we need to look at the procedure as a whole. As the noble Baroness indicated, this amendment seems to be a good one, and perhaps the Committee can accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 5, after ("may") insert ("at its discretion").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10, which is grouped with it. Also in this group is Amendment No. 8 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Boding, which is, I believe, a drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 7 proposes that in Clause 4(1)(b) it be made clear that the local authority has complete discretion as to whether it can refuse to make an election order. I assume that that is the case but believe it may be helpful to have confirmation of that.
Amendment No. 10 proposes that under Clause 4 (3) a local authority should be able to make modifications which it not only thinks are necessary but which are also reasonable. I tabled the amendment because the term "necessary" seems to me to be an extremely narrow one, even though I note that the modifications would be those that the authority "thinks" are necessary rather than, more objectively, "are" necessary. Nevertheless, to allow it to take account of what it considers to be "reasonable" would allow it to assist in the creation of a better scheme. I beg to move.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: It might be helpful to the Committee if I say a brief word about Amendment No. 8. The Minister may then like to express a view on the whole group and I could then respond.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested, Amendment No. 8 is a drafting amendment. It is technical and intended to make clear that local authorities should not make an election order where the scheme does not appear to be to the benefit of all the scheme chargepayers, as opposed to all the

895
ratepayers in the area, some of whom may not be included because they have been exempted under, for instance, Clause 2(4)(j).
The reason for the amendment is that there has been some concern by small businesses that large occupiers might dominate bids and result in skewed projects which leave the small occupiers on the sidelines. The amendment is intended to reassure people that the local authority has to take account of whether the scheme will benefit all chargepayers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 appear to be sensible clarifications of Clause 4(1)(b) and (3). The amendments improve the Bill, which otherwise might not make clear what scope local authorities have in considering applications.
We fully support the principle behind Clause 4(2) in ensuring that the local authority takes into account the impact of the draft BID scheme. However, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, may wish to consider the effect of Amendment No. 8, especially when seen in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 11 and 16 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It seems to me that the local authority would not be required to take account of the impact that the proposed BID might have on those ratepayers who would not be scheme chargepayers under the draft scheme.
While all businesses within the proposed BID can make representations to the local authority, the noble Lord may wish to consider whether it is desirable for the local authority, in assessing the potential impact of the draft scheme, to exclude from its consideration the impact it might have on those businesses within the BID boundary which the local authority has decided will not be scheme chargepayers by virtue of the level of the NDR that they pay.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Once again the noble Baroness raises some points of importance at which we will need to look carefully. I was a little surprised that she was ready to accept Amendment No. 7 and the insertion of the words "at its discretion". My advice was that I would be able to give to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, an assurance that the use of the word "may" implied discretion and therefore the additional words would be unnecessary. That is not a particularly good reason for excluding the amendment altogether, but normally draftsmen are quite particular, especially when government Bills come forward, and one of the most frequent reasons for asking people to withdraw an amendment is that the words are unnecessary. I confess therefore that I am a little puzzled by that.
We entirely take the point in relation to Amendment No. 10. My only comment is that I believe that the word "reasonable" is now in the wrong place. I do not believe that the intention of the noble Baroness was that the thing should be either reasonable or necessary. If that amendment is withdrawn, I shall undertake to bring forward at a later stage in the Bill
896
an amendment introducing the concept of a "reasonable" modification in line 3 of subsection (3), which would then read,
"Before making an election order a local authority may, having regard to the grounds for the refusal under subsection (2) above, require such [reasonable] modifications to be made to the draft scheme as the local authority thinks necessary".
That may reflect the intentions of the noble Baroness more clearly. If she will withdraw the amendment I shall give an undertaking to accept such an alternative at a later stage.
I am grateful for the Minister's view on Amendment No. 10. We will need to consider what was said. However, I am concerned as to whether the words, "at its discretion", are necessary. I would not be too worried if they were to go in, but I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may be prepared not to move that amendment. However, I hope that we can deal with Amendment No. 10 in the way I suggested.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that response. I will of course not move Amendment No. 10. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for proposing to come back with an alternative amendment. Whether that other amendment should be worded,
"require such [reasonable] modifications … as the local authority thinks necessary",
I am not sure. It may not be the right combination of terms. However, that is perhaps a matter for another stage.
The noble Lord's response to Amendment No. 7 was rather more what I expected than the response from the Government Front Bench. I was seeking an assurance that discretion was the order of the day within Clause 4(1)(b). On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 10 and insert ("scheme chargepayers;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 12, after ("application,") insert ("and having regard to any contribution which the local authority proposes to make or other assistance the authority proposes to give,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
("() for the exclusion from the provisional BID charge list of hereditaments whose valuation for the purpose of non-domestic rates is of an amount determined by the local authority or below that amount:").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. There was some talk at Second Reading of concern for small businesses which, through these proposals, may have a charge—a tax—levied on them which

897
could be disproportionately difficult for small businesses to bear. I understand that the scheme could contain the exclusion of certain hereditaments. Amendment No. 11 seeks to allow the local authority to exclude from the charge list hereditaments whose valuation it believes is below a level which seems appropriate in the circumstances.
I appreciate that that is a broad brush approach to the issue, but I felt that some attempt to deal with the point was required. Amendment No. 16 is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I might respond before the Minister replies, simply to say that this is an issue on which we are still consulting. It was raised at Second Reading. If I give an undertaking that the consideration is continuing, and if I perhaps have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the noble Baroness at a later stage, she may feel able not to press the amendment.
The points I make are twofold. First, there is already provision under Clause 2(4)(j) to,
"describe any ratepayer or class of ratepayer who is proposed to be excluded from paying",
and therefore the scheme could properly make provision for doing that. Secondly, there is no intention that BIDs should be drawn in straight lines and sweep up everybody in them. I had the experience of introducing enterprise zones. It may be within the recollection of noble Lords that some of the enterprise zones looked like pieces of jig-saw puzzles. They were quite clearly intended to take in particular buildings and pieces of land and to exclude others. When one saw them on a map, one thought that it was dotty; but, on the contrary, it was in fact extremely good common sense. There was no point in conferring the benefits of being an enterprise zone on owners and occupiers where it was completely unintentional.
I have been discussing, in relation to a proposed BID which might run along part of Oxford Street on both sides, exactly how the line might be drawn so as to leave out small shops in the side streets which might derive only marginal benefits from the kind of improvements which I know the City of Westminster has in mind with a number of its major ratepayers in the area. One could draw the line very carefully so as to exclude the small shops.
Thirdly, there is the idea that the little kiosk might be excluded. I am told that some of these small kiosks are real money-spinners. Their overheads are extremely low but they are able to trade very profitably. If there were an increased footfall as a result of a BID scheme it would be absurd that they should not be contributing to that because they would benefit very directly.
There are a number of provisions in the Bill and a number of other considerations which might make it difficult to embody an exclusion simply based on the amount of the non-domestic rate that small traders may pay. Having said that, I am well aware that a number of small retailers are trading on narrow margins and that any additional charge would be a considerable burden to them. We are trying to consider this with
898
representatives of retail trades, chambers of commerce and so on to see whether we can find something that will reflect the clear intention which the amendments have in mind.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In the light of the points that have been raised and the position that is being taken, it may be helpful if I comment on the amendments, which seek to exclude from the BID charge list those businesses where the NDR valuation is below an amount determined by the local authority. We would support the view that in setting a compulsory charge we need to make provision for those businesses which may be unable to absorb the additional cost that the BID would introduce. I think, in particular, about small businesses which may already be operating against very tight margins. For this reason we support the principle of the amendments. However, there are a couple of points which the noble Lord may wish to consider and reflect on in the light of the amendments not being moved today.
First, there needs to be consistency in the application of the clause. It is not clear from the provisions of the Bill how the NDR figure below which businesses would be excluded from the payment of the BID charge will be arrived at. There could be considerable disparities between different areas. Is it the intention that there should be this much flexibility?
Secondly, the exclusion of the business from a BID charge list on the basis of its NDR would mean that it was excluded from the vote procedure and a say in the activities of the BID. While I accept that those not paying may not have as much right as, say, those who are paying, noble Lords may want to consider whether it is right that small businesses should be fully prevented from having some voice in the BID when they are likely to be affected by its activities.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may respond to that. On the noble Baroness's final point, the amendment which we have already accepted on the question of representations specifically included people on the representations who might be excluded from the scheme. So I think we have now taken account of that point.
On the question of consistency as against flexibility, we would like to reflect on that. It is envisaged that this procedure may be applicable in a wide variety of circumstances. Certainly if the experience in other countries is any guide, they can be very large schemes or quite small schemes. They can be in potentially very prosperous areas of town centres; they can sometimes be in very deprived areas where a little extra help can stop the process of further dereliction. So I think it would be quite difficult to provide a single measure of what might be an exclusion on the basis of NDR.
However, we shall look at what she said and see whether there is some way in which that can be dealt with. My view is that flexibility in this is likely to be more valuable than uniformity or consistency. However, if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will withdraw the

899
amendment, I undertake that we will be discussing further how we can achieve what I believe is the same purpose.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that. As I indicated, I did not feel that my amendment was necessarily the right amendment. However, I felt it was appropriate at this stage of the Bill to get the matter within your Lordships' consciousness as one that perhaps needs to be pursued. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("determined") to end of line 31 and insert ("in accordance with section 7(2); and").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we are discussing Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20. They all bear on the same point: what is the majority that should be necessary to activate a scheme? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I have come up with exactly the same answer, which is that it should be two-thirds. The Bill originally provided for more than half. We are providing two-thirds or more—at least, my amendments are providing two-thirds or more: I am not sure that that is necessarily implied by the noble Baroness's amendments. However, if my amendment is accepted, it will not then be possible to put the noble Baroness's amendments as they will have been pre-empted. I believe that my amendments will achieve the purpose of establishing a two-thirds majority as the threshold for the approval of a scheme. I hope that has the approval of the Committee. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 12 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 13 or 14.
Baroness Hamwee: I am happy to be pre-empted on this and support the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We welcome the amendments. The proposal to increase the proportion of votes needed to establish a BID from a majority to two-thirds will ensure that any BID established has the clear support of businesses in the area.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful for that support. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("(5) Where a draft scheme has been modified pursuant to subsection (3) above, the local authority shall inform the applicant of the modification before making an election order.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Provisional BID charge list]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Elections]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 17, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 18 and 20.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("a majority") and insert ("two-thirds or more").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("more than halt") and insert ("two-thirds or more of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Services etc provided by local authority]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 15, after ("section") insert ("4(1) or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Amendment No. 21 queries why in Clause 9(1)(a) as regards a local authority and the reference to,
"in coming to an opinion as to the making of an election order"
Clause 4(1) is not mentioned, but Clause 4(2) is. However, I am beginning to be even more confused than I was when I tabled the amendment because I am now wondering whether it is correct to mention Clause 4(2) at all. That subsection refers to not making an election order. Whether it is right in Clause 9(1)(a) to speak about,
"coming to an opinion as to the making of an election order under section 4(2)"
when that subsection speaks about not making an election order, I am not sure. However, that amendment is not down for consideration. I am probably taking the Committee around hoops that may be unnecessary. My query is as to why Clause 4(1) is not mentioned.
Amendment No. 22 deals with the local authority's assumption about existing provisions. That takes us back to the point made earlier today. I have suggested wording which I am not wedded to. I do not believe that it is perfect. The local authority may make an assumption. I am proposing that it has a report on the issue. Although not every local authority proceeds with the speed at which the last few minutes of this Committee stage have progressed—that is in no way a criticism of the Deputy Chairman of Committees because I see him looking at me—it is nevertheless

901
sometimes the case that local authorities do not give public consideration to matters in a desirable way. Having reports on paper which are then available to the public is often useful. I am proposing that a report should be considered and not simply a move direct to the assumption. Amendment No. 23 is consequential to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may be able to relieve the noble Baroness of some of her anxieties. I share the view that the drafting of these amendments is not in a form appropriate for entry into the Bill. The noble Baroness has raised some important points on Clause 9. With my advisers, we are continuing to examine what is the best way of dealing with the matter. Amendment No. 21 seeks to relate the opinion of the local authority about making an order to Clause 4(1). That subsection confers the power on the local authority to make, or to refuse to make, an order: it does not refer to the opinion of the local authority in coming to that decision. Clause 4 is silent on the way in which local authorities exercise their judgment generally. It is assumed that, as a matter of law, that will be done reasonably. If a local authority makes a decision which is unreasonable, as I know to my cost, one may find that it is open to review in the courts. We see the point that the noble Baroness is getting at, but I do not believe she has succeeded—and we have not succeeded—in tabling an amendment which addresses the issue in a watertight fashion. I can assure the noble Baroness that work is continuing on it.
As regards Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, the point that the noble Baroness made is accepted. This returns to the matter of additionality. I am equally clear that this is not the way to deal with it. So on the undertaking that we are looking carefully at these matters and still consulting—and I certainly undertake to have a word with the noble Baroness—it may be helpful if she does not press these amendments.
Lord Bowness: My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said that the matter is still under consideration. I believe that at Second Reading I raised a point about the wording of,
"not in substitution for the existing provision",
and attempted to make the point that an "existing provision" is easier to determine when one is looking at revenue. It seems to me that one of the things that a BID company might wish to do is to bring forward capital improvements. It can be argued that staged capital improvements across an authority were its "existing provision". I would not want the wording,
"not in substitution for the existing provision"
to prevent the BID company making an application which involved what otherwise would have been done by a local authority at some time in the future being done at an earlier date. When we discussed that at Second Reading the point may well have been taken. I hope that the question of capital expenditure is still part of the ongoing consideration.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The debate on Amendment No. 21 has been interesting. The advice that
902
I have received is that the amendment is not necessary to achieve the objective. I believe that it would be helpful for discussions to take place between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment No. 22, requiring local authorities to consider a report of existing provision, is attempting to ensure that the improvements from the BID scheme are in addition to those delivered by the local authority. We can certainly support the thrust of these amendments which is to ensure that where businesses put in extra money they receive extra services rather than providing an excuse for the local authority to withdraw its own spending.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, although the amendments try to deal with this risk, I am sure that the Committee will recognise the difficulty of fixing a level of service and assessing how it can be sensibly measured and maintained over a number of years. The noble Lord referred to what may be a capital programme that is intended to take place over a period of years. While Clause 9 is directed towards the idea that a BID's provision should be additional to existing levels of service, I am sure that the Committee would wish to consider whether it is really effective in proposing a way of measuring that or of enforcing the intention.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am very grateful for the Minister's remarks. The growing use of service level agreements is one way in which it is becoming easier to measure the given level of service, particularly as increasing numbers of services are provided under such agreements with private contractors.
As regards capital, that is an issue we still wish to consider. My noble friend rightly said that it could be a considerable advantage to ratepayers in a particular area that a much-needed capital improvement, perhaps embodying a traffic scheme or something of that sort, could be advanced and brought into operation earlier than it would have been possible for the local authority to achieve under its capital programme.
So it is clearly envisaged that there could be one-off capital schemes of that kind as part of the BID. Similarly, as regards the addition of amenities—whether tree planting, providing tubs or whatever—that could be advanced and brought in earlier. That would be an undoubted improvement. It is not just relieving the local authority of expenditure. The scheme will have to ensure that the local authority is involved and makes an appropriate contribution. The Bill makes provision for that, and is strengthened by some of the amendments already passed. Everybody agrees with the principle; we simply have to find the best way of doing it.
Baroness Hamwee: This has been an interesting exchange and we shall take these matters further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
1 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
("() Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to such provision as would otherwise be made by a local authority in the discharge of their functions which is, pursuant to an order made under section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (functions of local authorities) made through the exercise of those functions by a BID company authorised by the local authority in that behalf.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to deal with a situation where a local authority and a BID company agree that the company should undertake specified functions on behalf of the local authority. I referred to this in a debate on an earlier amendment. It can be achieved by making an order under Section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I said that it would be silly to have two cleaning companies charging round the streets and that the local authority should be able to delegate that function to a BID. On the Park Royal Estate, to which I referred earlier, there is already considerable evidence that the local authorities would be happy to contract with the new BID company for quite a lot of the services on the estate. There are no council tax payers on that estate. It comprises entirely commercial ratepayers. This seems a sensible way of developing and improving the services for the benefit of the occupiers. This amendment is intended to make that possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I note this new provision which helpfully distinguishes when a BID scheme is acting on behalf of a local authority and when it is acting on its own account. In this way, it would avoid Clause 9 having the, I am sure, unintended effect of overburdening local authorities in circumstances where activities had been contracted out following an order made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Formation and functions of BID company]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert—
("(No BID company shall be constituted so as to be a company to which the provisions of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (companies in which local authorities have interests) apply, by reason of being a company under the control of, or subject to the influence of, a local authority within the meaning of that Part.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was drafted before we had the introductory remarks made by the Minister at the beginning of this Committee stage. The amendment as drafted was designed to ensure that the expenditure of a BID is not imputed to the local authority. That would arise if the BID company were construed so as to fall within Part V of the Local
904
Government Housing Act 1989. That would clearly be a substantial constraint and a disincentive to setting up a BID. The consequence of the amendment would be that local authority participation in a BID and in the company would be limited. However, it does not preclude the involvement of local authorities and existing partnership arrangements under, for instance, town centre management schemes which often mirror the minority interest which is required to avoid the operation of Part V.
However, I think that we shall need to reconsider the provisions in the light of the advice that the Minister has clearly received from her officials and no doubt from other departments, including the Treasury. We shall have to explore the best way of making sure that that advice is correct. I am apprehensive that if that view is upheld we shall find ourselves in some difficulty. It may well be that the provision would become inappropriate in those circumstances. It is intended to deal with a particular problem. I would be happy to know whether, in the light of the circumstances which the noble Baroness has disclosed today, it would still be appropriate to go ahead with this amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise if the timing of the views expressed at the opening of this Committee stage has been inappropriate and thus unhelpful to the noble Lord. I offer him an opportunity to discuss the issue between now and Report stage. I note that this amendment is intended to ensure that the BID company will not be under the control of the local authority, and that the business community will be very much in the lead. This matches the aim of a BID, but perhaps the Committee might want to give some thought to the issue of accountability which was raised in the debate on Clause 1, and whether the clause would meet its aim at all times after the company has been launched.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful for that. However, in the light of the anxieties that I expressed and what the Minister has said, I do not believe that it would be right to press the amendment, so I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause
LEASES
(".—(1) This subsection applies where—

(a) premises are let to a person ("the tenant") who by reason of his occupation of those premises is, or becomes liable to, a business improvement district charge; and

(b) that person alleges that, having regard to the nature of the improvements proposed by the business improvement district scheme to which the charge relates, the whole or part of the charge ought to be borne by the person from whom the premises are let ("the owner").

(2) Where subsection (1) applies—

(a) the tenant may, in the absence of agreement as to the part of the charge to be paid by the owner, apply to the county court, and the court, after hearing the parties and any

905
witnesses they desire to call, may make such an order as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case, regard being had to the terms of any contract between the parties; or

(b) the court may, at the request of the owner or tenant, determine the lease.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause raises a point which has caused those who are advising me and myself considerable anxieties. It is not in doubt that we shall have to deal with the issue of people other than the occupier or the tenant of shop premises. There may be superior lessees and there will certainly be owners. If there is a short lease and there are to be significant improvements, much of the improvement will accrue to the benefit of the owners with regard to the value of their property, and it might be argued that the owners should therefore have to contribute by paying part of the charge. If it is a very long lease or if the improvements are relatively transitory, it may be that they will inure entirely to the benefit of the current occupiers, with very little impact on the value of the property.
It has become clear that there is a problem to be addressed. Discussions with bodies such as the British Retail Consortium, the British Property Federation and chambers of commerce have convinced us that that is the case. An amendment is clearly necessary because under the original Bill there was no provision for involving owners. We have already passed an amendment that owners will be entitled to make representations and will have to be consulted, and the local authority will have to take their views into account. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that, in the absence of agreement between the leaseholder (the occupier) and the freeholder, there is a procedure for application to the courts for a fair decision to take account of the respective interests and benefits. Essentially, we are seeking to provide such a mechanism.
Happily, there is a good statutory precedent because exactly the same situation arises under Section 170 of the Factories Act 1961 where a county court can apportion the cost of structural alterations between an owner and a tenant. The circumstances are different, but one can well imagine that the Factories Act might require structural changes that will enhance the value of a building and that the owner should pay part of that. Under that 1961 Act, where there is no agreement, a simple county court procedure is provided. That is the solution that we are proposing here.
That Act refers to the terms of a contract in deciding apportionment, but in their wisdom—I think it is entirely right—the courts have made it clear in case law that a court does not regard itself as bound by the terms of the tenancy alone. If it were so bound, the provision would be unnecessary and otiose. The courts have been able to resolve differences by taking account of all the circumstances and making a fair division. It may be suggested that recourse to the courts means that the problems of litigation and the costs involved are a considerable burden. However, one needs a fallback provision. It is envisaged that in most cases it would be perfectly possible to reach a solution. The knowledge that it would be open to one or other party to go to the courts would be a powerful incentive to agree.
I believe that this offers a more satisfactory route than the one considered earlier which involved the deployment of a disregard in assessing rental values where improvements were effected by a BID scheme and paid for by tenants through BID charges. The disregard route might be taken by analogy to the Landlord and Tenant Act but, having considered the matter and discussed it at some length with the representative bodies involved, we believe that the precedent of the Factories Act 1961 offers a better procedure. I hope the Committee agrees that that is a reasonable solution to a very real problem. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Bill envisages that it is the business ratepayers, normally the tenants, who will participate and pay charges. However, one of the possible consequences of a successful BID scheme would be to push up capital and rental values. Some tenants might feel that this was unfair. Amendment No. 26 enables a business tenant who thinks that the owner should bear part or whole of the scheme charge to apply to the county court. The court would then have discretion to apportion the charge between landlord and tenant or, at the request of either party, determine the lease.
I fully endorse the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, to draw up a provision aimed at producing a greater degree of equity between landlord and tenant. However, I wonder whether the amendment as drafted is necessarily the most appropriate way to address the point. In particular, the noble Lord will want to consider whether court proceedings are the most effective means of determining these matters. I have two particular concerns. First, the court would have the quite draconian power to determine the lease on the request of either party. It is not clear why it should have the power to terminate a private contract, especially in view of its wide discretion to apportion charges between landlord and tenant. Secondly, there is potential for a large number of cases. It is quite likely that many tenants will wish their landlords to make some contribution to the cost of the BID. It is equally likely that landlords will wish to resist. This would add significantly to the burden on the courts. I note that in this regard the Bill provides little guidance on how to determine cases.
The noble Lord has identified a particularly important point about balancing the responsibility between tenants and landlords within the area of a BID. However, bearing in mind these concerns, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and consider in due course a more appropriate mechanism for finding the right balance.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am not altogether surprised by the line that the Minister has taken. I hope that there was a note of tentativeness in the way that I moved the amendment. This is certainly not the only possible solution. As to the possible burden on the courts, it is my understanding that the comparable provision in the Factories Act has given rise to very few cases, and that knowledge of the fact that there is power to apply leads the parties to reach

907
an agreement. There are a number of trip wires at earlier stages in the process—consultation and so on—which would enable owners to make known their views very forcefully. I take the Minister's point that to terminate the lease would be a draconian measure. I believe that that is drawn directly from Section 170. That may not be appropriate in these circumstances.
I am happy to accede to the Minister's request. I do not press this amendment. I am equally convinced that we must find a solution to the problem, and in the end that may have to be done by the courts by one procedure or another. If there is no agreement it must be resolved by someone. We will take account of the important points that the Minister has made. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.15 p.m.
Clause 14 [Alteration of business improvement district charges]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 6, line 5, leave out ("all") and insert ("three-quarters of").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 27 which is another probing amendment. Clause 14 provides that the level of the charge can be increased if all the ratepayers who are liable to pay it agree to that increase in writing. I am by no means convinced that the agreement of three-quarters of the ratepayers to an increase is the right number, but rather than be tedious and specify 99 per cent. or some other such figure I simply look for a device to query the practicality of the provision. As drafted, one chargepayer can block what may be a small sensible increase. I shall be grateful to receive any clarification that the noble Baroness may be able to provide.
Lord Bowness: I support an investigation or further discussion of how the Bill can be amended to avoid the requirement that all ratepayers should agree. That may bring to an end something that is very worth while. I am sure that the appropriate figure can be reached in discussion.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am glad that the noble Baroness has moved this as a probing amendment. I do not feel able to accept it as it stands. I believe that if ratepayers have decided to go ahead with a scheme on a certain basis and are already coercing the minority—whether it be one-third or less who are against the scheme—this will add additional burdens. They might find it extremely difficult if they were to be coerced still further. It was for that reason that originally we inserted "all" so that all of them would have to agree if the figure was to be raised.
I accept my noble friend's point that it would be rather silly if 1 per cent. suddenly dug in their toes. Perhaps we can consider it. I would lean toward making it all, but I would certainly not want a scheme to be frustrated because one or two very unreasonable people who represented a very small share dug in
908
their toes and said, "If you want us to agree, ante up". That would be the wrong spirit in which to approach the matter. Maybe we require some kind of de minimus disregard. We shall think about it. I do not think that the figure of three-quarters is right.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We support the principle behind Amendment No. 27 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and look forward to hearing the outcome of discussions as to whether three-quarters is the precise figure.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for the indication that further consideration will be given to this matter. As the noble Lord was speaking, it occurred to me that the right balance might be a given proportion but also with reference to a proportion of the charge. As the noble Lord put it, there should be a de minimus provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 28 agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause
LOCAL AUTHORITY DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS
(" . Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as constituting an express provision within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities); and accordingly, a local authority may arrange for the discharge of their functions as respects the establishment of a business improvement district by any other local authority.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Interpretation]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
(""proper officer" means an officer appointed by a local authority for the purposes of Part III of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: The definition needs to be inserted into the Bill. "Proper officer" must be defined because reference is made to it in earlier parts of the Bill. Perhaps I may assure noble Lords who are anxious to debate the Crown or the countryside that we covered the legislation as quickly as we could. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This is a sensible clarifying amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Succession to the Crown Bill [H.L.]
1.22 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that I am a supporter of the Royal Family and a believer in this country having a monarch. There are no conditions in which I would favour a president for Britain. However, that does not mean that as we approach the 21st century we should not consider any changes to a system that has served us so well for centuries. So I ask the House to approach my Bill in a positive way. With that in mind, I will put forward my reasons for why I believe this piece of legislation deserves the support of your Lordships' House.
First, it is important to place on the record that this Bill will have little or no effect for at least two generations—in real terms, probably around 60 or 70 years. Therefore, there is unlikely to be a single Member of this House alive to see the results of the Bill. Her Majesty the Queen, if her mother is anything to go by, will surely continue to be our monarch for many years to come. In the fullness of time, she will be succeeded by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, her first born, who in turn will be succeeded by his first born, His Royal Highness Prince William, who is only 15 years old. So the earliest the Bill could take effect would be if Prince William's first born was to be a girl. Indeed, if it were a boy the Bill would not be enacted until the 22nd century.
The Bill would have no effect on the present Royal Family, making no difference to the status of the Princess Royal, so it could hardly be described as a revolutionary concept. While I am on the subject of the Princess Royal, I would suggest that had she been the first born, this debate would not be taking place in a half empty House of Lords on a Friday afternoon, but in every household in the country. Although I am delighted by the prospect of King Charles III, I am not fearful of Queen Anne II. I might add that it was on the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that I decided to ensure that the Bill would not take immediate effect.
I suspect that our great grandchildren will find it difficult to believe that this subject was even considered worthy of debate. I feel confident that the House has noted that since the publication of my Bill, it has been met with overwhelming public support and been welcomed by the press. Indeed, a leader in The Times went so far as to say that it was surprised that the then Conservative Government had not come up with the idea themselves, or at least it should have been suggested by the then Opposition rather than a Conservative Back-Bencher in the House of Lords.
During the past months, my letter bag has been equally supportive, with only two letters opposing the Bill. The first suggested at great length and in considerable detail that God had put men on earth because he intended them to be superior to women. If that is the case, I am bound on this occasion to think that God got it wrong. How many men in this House
910
would dare to suggest that they are superior to their wives? And in that I include Members of the Cabinet and shadow Cabinet. In my own case, the subject is not even worthy of discussion.
Who among us would say that on balance our kings have more impressive records than our queens? I will happily be a standard bearer for Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II against any three kings my opponents might care to select. More important, history has shown us that more often than not queens have the advantage of longevity. That has made it possible for our present monarch to be able to advise nine Prime Ministers since Winston Churchill. Queen Elizabeth II is respected and admired from one side of the globe to the other. The idea that her great granddaughter should not be allowed to take the throne ahead of a younger brother is not only farcical, but insulting to half the population of this country.
The second letter that I received opposing the Bill I took far more seriously. The writer put forward the argument that it was dangerous to tinker with the constitution. But if that argument had great validity, this House would never have passed the great Reform Bill of 1842 or agreed to women's suffrage in 1928. Mind you, it was extremely difficult to get either of those Bills through this House because many of your Lordships' ancestors voted against them, so I shall not be surprised to face some opposition today.
Some of your Lordships have put to me the thin edge of the wedge argument; namely, that if the Bill became law, hereditary Peers would be the next in line. I know that many of your Lordships feel strongly about that. I shall not dwell on the subject long because I know that my noble friend Lord Gainford will concentrate on that aspect of the argument. However, I would not wish to be accused of avoiding the issue so I shall say only that if it is good enough for the Royal Family, I do not see why it should not be good enough for the rest of us.
Others in your Lordships' House have suggested to me that perhaps this is not the appropriate time to be discussing this particular subject, while our Royal Family is facing its present difficulties. To them I am bound to say perhaps they would be kind enough to let me know when it is the appropriate time because with the present tabloid press, I cannot see that being in the foreseeable future. I repeat that that same press would make much more of a meal of it if Prince William's first born were to be a girl.
As I walk around the corridors of your Lordships' House, I am told time and time again that often it is the Peers who, because of their independence of mind, are more in touch with the views of the people. If that is the case, then those same Peers will have been left in no doubt how the people feel and will accept this Bill as no more than a tiny and common sense step forward in our constitution.
Therefore, I ask the House to support this small step forward so that it never crosses the minds of our yet unborn great grandchildren that we were either out of touch or that we considered that men were naturally superior to women. There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken on the flood, leads on to fortune. Let this

911
be a time in the affairs of women when, in your Lordships' House, not in the Commons, we are seen to be bold, progressive and in touch. My Lords, God Save the Queen. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—
(Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
1.32 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the admirable speech with which he introduced the Bill and I rise to speak in support of it. There seem to be three powerful reasons which coincide in its favour. The first is that the reasons for the present rules of succession are long passed. There is a Latin tag which, since your Lordships do not favour the way in which lawyers pronounce Latin, I shall translate. It really means that where the reason for a legal rule has ceased, let the rule itself be brought to an end.
As I say, the reasons for the present rules of royal succession are long past. They reflect the rules by which real property—that is, land—descended before the reforms of 1925. Those rules in turn depended on the feudal law. The feudal law itself presupposed that the feudal inferior had to produce himself as an armed horseman or a body of armed horsemen and together they constituted the royal army with the monarch himself at the head. But it was considered for a number of reasons that that role of armed chivalry was not suitable for a woman and hence the rule of male primogeniture. Sometimes, as your Lordships know, if only from Shakespeare, some monarchies went much further. The French took over the rule of the Salian Franks whereby the Crown could not merely not descend to women but could not descend through a woman. It was because our system was different that the English kings maintained their claim to the French crown throughout the middle ages.
The Salic rule or anything like it was never applied in this country. On the contrary, a woman might inherit but she was postponed in her inheritance to her male siblings. When one looks at it like that, that is surely even more derogatory to the female sex than a total exclusion, because it is invidious. One is bound to ask in these days—and as the noble Lord said so resonantly—why should a woman be postponed in her moral right to her male siblings?
It is because our rule is particularly derogatory to women, as well as being quite out of date, that I come to the next reason which was indeed adumbrated by the noble Lord in moving the Bill. In a word, that is feminism. I confess to being a card-carrying feminist, although not, I hasten to add, of the bra-burning wing of that sorority. However, I do rather favour not mere egalitarianism but the way it was considered by Burke when he spoke of that generous loyalty to rank and sex. It is for the reasons that the noble Lord gave when we compare ourselves to our wives and mothers that we feel a humility which also speaks very strongly in favour of this Bill.
But even when strong reason and decency of feeling speak in favour of a measure, in this country we still tend to look at the matter pragmatically, in the light of
912
experience. But experience too reinforces the two considerations which I venture to put before your Lordships. It was only a few years ago that we had a female monarch, a female Prime Minister, a female Leader of your Lordships' House and a female Lord Mayor of London, all highly admired in their achievements. Perhaps I may add how delighted we are and how suitable it is that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is to speak in this debate.
But it is not only those women. We have had experience of women monarchs. I believe that we have had six female monarchs since the Tudors inaugurated the modern monarchy. I suppose that the role, position and status of Queen Mary I is controversial by reason of religious differences and no doubt we must wait for the biography by Lady Russell to form a just and balanced view.
The second Queen Mary shared her throne. Of the remaining female monarch one has only to think of Elizabeth I. One thinks of Queen Anne. She was perhaps not a charismatic figure but she presided over some of the great victories of the British army, which stood against, not for the first nor for the last time, continental hegemony. After Queen Anne, there was Queen Victoria and our present Monarch. In view of those sole monarchs—Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and our present monarch—who can say that experience, too, does not speak strongly in favour of this Bill?
There are two other matters with which I shall venture to deal. The first has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Archer; namely, the view that your Lordships took on a Bill that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, a few Sessions ago to alter the rules of succession of the hereditary peerage. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, is to say something in that respect.
I can only say that I see no reason why this Bill's principles should be more widely applied. I hope that we shall not hear any talk of the thin end of the wedge. A great Conservative political thinker and active statesman said that the British Constitution is full of wedges which the good sense of the community refrains from driving home. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not be deterred, if they think that the Bill is right on its merits, from acclaiming it.
I turn now to the final matter. It relates to subsection (2). I venture to doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Archer, is entirely right in his reading of that. I would not have thought in any case that it is necessary, because this is not a procedural Bill, but one that affects substantive rights, so it would not in any case be read retrospectively. However, its incidence falls on the passing of this measure. One can envisage melancholy circumstances which might cause its provisions to be called into action in that event. We would very much welcome the views of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the matter. I venture to think that it is a matter of such importance that the Law Officers should be asked to advise on it.
I cannot speak categorically in view of the fact that the noble Lord himself is so certain of the effect of the Bill but I crave to venture a tentative doubt. Subject to that, I wholly support the Bill.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, first, I should like to crave your Lordships' indulgence. As some noble Lords know, I had a bit of bad luck recently, although things are improving. The result of what happened is that my face and voice are not now my fortune, if indeed they ever were before. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships can hear me. I speak in support of my noble friend's Bill. I first showed that support by acting as Teller on 9th December 1996, when the opinion of the House was sought as to whether my noble friend might present his humble Address to Her Majesty concerning his proposed Bill. Since then, I have been very much looking forward to this occasion.
This century has seen a revolution in the status of women. A hundred years ago most women were virtually powerless unless they had men to speak or act for them. I can remember my late mother recalling her own grandfather saying, "No woman must be allowed to handle her own affairs". Many women were quite prepared to accept that situation, even to the extent of being shocked by, or even despising, members of their own sex who attempted to break out into independence or enter various professions such as that of a doctor.
Since that time women have advanced rapidly. No doubt two world wars in which women showed how they could do men's work were an influence. They are now in almost every profession, even the priesthood. Indeed, their presence in your Lordships' House is one proof of that progress. We have had a lady Prime Minister and also in another place we now have a lady Speaker of the House. It may not be long before we have a noble and learned Baroness sitting on the Woolsack.
Such a thing was foreseen way back in 1934. The late A. P. Herbert was the brains behind a brilliant review titled "Streamline" which was produced by the late Charles B. Cochrane. Florence Desmond was among the performers. One item on the programme was a musical sketch entitled, "Perseverance", which was a take-off of Gilbert and Sullivan's "Gondoliers". There was a singing entrance line for a lady. She who came in singing:
"I am the Lady Chancellor, I am;
But once I was a nurse and pushed a pram".
It was a good joke and audiences loved it. However, looking back, I wonder whether it might just have been a tiny bit prophetic.
With the advance in the status of women there must come an eventual change in hereditary laws, which even royalty may have to consider. In supporting this Bill, just like my noble friend I declare my total support for the Monarchy. I am an ardent monarchist. The last thing that I would want to see is anything that would diminish the influence of our Royal Family and the respect that the public has for it. That applies particularly at present, because it has recently had to take some rather hard knocks.
There are some who think that the male prerogative in inheritance is the status quo which must be preserved, almost as if it is a case of divine right. Of course, chauvinism will raise its head. We all get it in certain ways, and I am not excluded. Mine could be summed
914
up in something that my elder daughter said to me. She is someone—and the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon, mentioned this—in whom I have a particular interest, and I was really speaking on her behalf when the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, attempted to bring in a Bill to enable daughters, especially those of a Peer like myself who has no son, to inherit peerages. I can just about remember her words. She said, "Dad, you are loyal to Her Majesty. You were loyal to Lady Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. You supported women seeking ordination. You struggled in the House of Lords for daughters to be able to inherit Peerages: why do you still object to ladies coming into the Pavilion at Lord's?" That matter is, of course, now a subject of news reports.
Whatever progress is made and whatever heights women rise to in the future, we men trust that one privilege will not be taken away from us: namely, the right to court the lady of our choice, win her heart. marry her and provide for her, even if she is much more skilled at earning a higher income. Women are beautiful and wonderful creatures. I enjoy their company. Someone once suggested that I was a dirty old man. I retorted: "I am not a dirty old man: I am a very sexy senior citizen". Yes, my Lords, they are lovely creatures. They can drive a man up the proverbial wall, across the ceiling and down the other side. But we love them.
I recall again 9th December 1996. I remember that some newspaper reports showed interest in what had happened in this House. One headline read: "Judging Jeffrey's Bill". That is what we are doing today in this Second Reading debate. Let us grant it a satisfactory and just verdict.
1.49 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, this little Bill is an extraordinary piece of machinery for constitutional change with wide ramifications. To have it before the House on a Friday afternoon when the House is three-quarters empty does no credit to the procedures of the House or the arrangements for our business. It is a bad Bill and when the Question is put I shall shout, "Not content".
1.50 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I apologise for appearing in the anonymity of the gap in the speakers' list. I express no view on the merits or demerits of this Bill but, as I said on an earlier occasion in your Lordships' House when talking about the proposal by the Government to deprive hereditary peers of their rights, I object to constitutional change taking place by the method of a thousand cuts. For good or ill we now live in a different world from the one we inhabited less than 12 months ago. It is in particular a world in which there is great constitutional change beginning to occur. The Government have been playing this by playing one card and putting the rest of their hand under the table—not even against their chest—where no one knows precisely what will happen to the cards.
This is another example of trying to deal with important matters separately without looking at the whole. I very much regret to say that my noble friend

915
Lord Archer destroyed his own case almost in his first sentence—I am sorry that he did not get someone to vet his speech, even if it was a lady—by saying that it would be 60 or 70 years before his Bill took effect. It seems to me that before that period of 60 or 70 years has expired we ought to look at the question of major constitutional change. I deliberately do not use the word "reform" because that has certain implications. But we ought to look at major constitutional change as a whole because we in this generation, or indeed in the next few years, may take decisions which will be of major importance so far as the future of this country is concerned.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I merely wish to correct some arithmetic by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. The Chamber is not three-quarters empty; it is over 90 per cent. empty.
1.52 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have known, admired and considered a friend over a long period of time my noble friend Lord Archer. On the subject of this Bill my noble friend has been consistent, persevering and tenacious. I know that he feels deeply that there should be no sexual discrimination when determining the line of succession to the Crown. I hope therefore that my noble friend will respect the way in which I intend to respond to this Bill because I, too, do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of the Bill. I cannot, however, support addressing a subject of such profound constitutional significance on the basis of what may be passing mores that insist on placing a strict sexual egalitarianism above custom and tradition by way of a Private Member's Bill. There are certain institutions, of which the monarchy is most emphatically one—I would argue that the House of Lords is another—that should be beyond revision and reformation by Private Members' Bills or narrow sectional interests. Such proposed constitutional change, I believe, should be subject to a long period of reflection, deeper analysis which takes into account the historical perspective and contemporary thinking and should consider the consequences and impact of any changes for the future of the nation. If, following such a prolonged and in-depth consideration, reform is proposed, I hope that a much wider consensus across the political and social spectrum could be secured.
Under the present system of succession our country has had the good fortune to be ruled exceptionally wisely by women for 109 of the past 161 years. I, for one, am content to be guided by divine providence that under the tradition of centuries has given us remarkable sovereign queens, rather than to set aside our ancient customs using this parliamentary device which ignores possible constitutional ramifications.
We read in the newspapers—I know that we should not believe all that we read in the newspapers—that the Government wish to see this Bill, or such a Bill as this, enacted. It will therefore be interesting to hear from the Minister on this point when he replies to the debate. If, however, reports are correct, I hope the Government will
916
not follow the example they have set on other constitutional changes, for example devolution for England and Wales, the removal of hereditary peers from this House; and indeed the future of this House, which is being proceeded with with indecent haste, is ill thought through and is totally lacking in any period of reflection and intellectual analysis. Nor are such constitutional matters being considered in their proper historical context and with all the constitutional knock-on effects being taken into account. Indeed my noble friend has conceded the thin end of the wedge argument by indicating in his speech today that there is a real probability that legislation affecting all hereditary peers would follow this Bill.
I know my noble friend will be disappointed in my response to this Bill. I do not wish in any way to argue with my noble friend that this is not a serious issue, nor that it is not an issue which has its devotees. I make only two points. First, I point out to my noble friend with some diffidence that my influence in this Parliament under a Labour Government is not great. Therefore the responsibility for the progress and survival of this Bill, or any other such Bill on this issue, is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and his colleagues in another place.
Secondly, I feel very strongly indeed that constitutional changes should not be made lightly. They should be the subject of wider, deeper, thoughtful and intellectual consideration. It is therefore the means by which we are being asked to consider succession arrangements to the Crown, taken together with the plethora of legislation which is dismantling centuries of tradition, which I find deeply disturbing. I will, however, honour the convention of this House by not opposing the Bill's Second Reading.
1.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. Noble Lords have raised issues which are related to the subject of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, but which are not covered specifically by its provisions. I do not propose to deal with those now. I want simply to explain to the House what view the Government take about the noble Lord's Bill.
I should make it clear straight away that before reaching a view the Government of course consulted the Queen. Her Majesty had no objection to the Government's view that in determining the line of succession to the throne daughters and sons should be treated in the same way. There can be no real reason for not giving equal treatment to men and women in this respect.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, on a point of order, I had always understood that in this House it was not normal to make known the views of the monarch on legislation before the House. I thought that was a pretty fundamental precept.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I may be allowed to respond, this text has been specifically

917
cleared with those to whom reference has been made. I therefore resent any suggestion that I have done anything improper. I therefore continue. There can be no real reason for not giving equal treatment to men and women in this respect.
We do not think that, whatever its merits, a Private Peer's Bill is an appropriate vehicle for so important a change as the one we have been debating. A major constitutional measure of this sort ought properly to be the subject of a government Bill. We shall be considering how best to carry this forward within government and in consultation with the Royal Family.
Under the Statute of Westminster 1931, before any alteration in the law touching the succession to the Throne can take effect the assent of all those countries of which Her Majesty is Queen is required. The United Kingdom cannot act unilaterally. That is another good reason for introducing a government measure. It would seem very odd to the legislatures of the 15 Realms to be invited to consider assenting to legislation instigated by an individual Member of your Lordships' House.
I cannot tell noble Lords today precisely how we shall be taking this forward. A number of suggestions have been made today for further changes in the law governing succession to the Throne. We shall of course look at these—in consultation of course with the Royal Family— but the only issue on which a decision has been taken is that which is the subject of the noble Lord's Bill: equality of treatment for men and women in relation to the succession to the Throne.
I do not think that I need say more at this stage. We have had our debate and I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have participated in it. I welcome the support which has been expressed for the principle behind the noble Lord's Bill and I trust that he will understand why we cannot support the Bill itself.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before my noble friend rises, perhaps I may put a question on the record. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me and other Members of the House. Is there any precedent whatsoever in the life of Parliament in this country for the definitive view of the Sovereign on the outcome of any Bill being announced to this House in advance of the Bill being considered by both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness and ensure that a copy of such letter, after appropriate consultations with those affected, is placed in the Library.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that I, too, was surprised by the statement. I shall be interested to read the letter.
I thank the Minister for taking the Bill so seriously. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for supporting me on this occasion. He is a man with a distinguished record in the constitution. For the noble and learned Lord to have backed the Bill was pleasing.
918
I understand fully the position of my noble friend Lady Blatch. Indeed, she was kind enough to say that we had been friends for many years and have supported many causes together. I understand fully her reasons for the conduct of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale said that he would be shouting "Not-Content". Perhaps in passing I may say how much I admired the excellent role my noble friend's daughter played in the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I hear that the Government take the issue very seriously. I take the point of the noble Lord who said that it was too big an issue to be debated in this way. Indeed some noble Lords suggested that the matter should be given more thought. I take that on board.
I hope that those Members who have for a long time opposed me on the Bill will not doubt my sincerity or my hope that I shall live to see such legislation as part of the law of this land. However, I hear clearly what the Minister said. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Second Reading.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.

Countryside Policy
2.4 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that their policies work to the benefit of people who live and work in the countryside.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to ask this Question. I am glad that Members of all major political parties, the Cross-Benches, and the Bench of Bishops are present to speak today. Perhaps I may begin by saying how much we look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, a notably rural diocese. I understand that beacons and bonfires were to be seen last night from north to south and east to west of his bishopric.
I am also extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will answer the debate. I understand that he knows a great deal about agriculture and the countryside. Like all chief whips he is known for his great subtlety, and for his absolute forthrightness in speaking, and in answering questions. I know that he will seek to answer in a straightforward way what seems to be the most important question to be asked today in your Lordships' House. If all is well in the countryside why do we have tens of thousands of discontented people in the countryside? We have the promise of I know not how many people marching for the first time ever in an unprecedented gathering in the streets of the capital. They are not just from rural areas but from the cities. They are unhappy with the way in which countryside matters are being handled. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be able to answer that question head-on in his normal much appreciated way. In the closing moments of my speech, I shall have a helpful suggestion for him.
Rural discontent is not a matter of hunting, fishing or shooting. It is not all about farming. It is not about beef bones. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no interest to declare today in respect of any of those matters. The issues go far wider. I know that others, on all Benches in this House, will pick on particular issues during the course of this brief debate.
Perhaps I may illustrate my argument from three areas where there is widespread concern, above and beyond the burning issues of hunting, shooting, fishing, farming, beef bones and related matters. I take those matters seriously, and share the concern of those of your Lordships who, in turn, share the concern of country people in relation to them. However, I leave those points to be debated by later speakers. I prefer to turn first to the obvious concern that exists in the countryside as to the rate, nature and pace of the building of roads and homes.
Country people are very sensible. They want to get from A to B, so they do not mind new roads and by-passes being built from time to time. They know that their sons and daughters will have to live in houses, and therefore fully understand that homes should be built in the countryside as much as in the town. But it is the nature and scale of much of the development that has happened in the past and is feared for the future, and its disruptive effect on sometimes fragile communities, that causes so much concern in so many rural areas. That is one theme that unites many in the countryside—and many in the towns, who wish to go out from the towns to "recreate" themselves, to enjoy the countryside and meet with country people. Townspeople and country people should not be part of two nations. They need each other, and should learn more about each other.
Secondly, there is the issue of the right to roam, which seems very much to have crystallised rural discontent. It causes concern because country people think that it is a one-way street—perhaps one might call it a one-way lane, or a one-way bridle-path. I recently asked Her Majesty's Government whether they had any intention of being even-handed on the issue of the right to roam, and whether they would provide that right for rural people in urban areas as they propose to for urban people in rural areas. I received an ever helpful reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which I have taken the precaution of bringing with me. It states that the Government do not have any intention of extending the right to roam into urban areas. One cannot therefore blame country people for feeling that the very symbol, the icon, of the right to roam shows that the Government have less than even-handed intentions towards country people.
Thirdly, there is the matter of the preservation of village life in this country. The decline of the English village goes back many decades. However, it is clear that in rural areas there is severe deprivation among a small number of not very vocal people who cannot sometimes, for example, easily get to a doctor or a shop. They cannot take for granted the privilege of easy access to services which people in towns, and increasingly in suburban areas, experience. I suppose that in this country we are mostly suburban now; that is where the
920
majority of people live. That is why so many villages seem to be dying on their feet. It is peculiarly poignant that the model of the self-supporting, self-sustaining English village community, for so long prayed in aid by observers of social policy, and indeed by the Church of England in some of its important reports in the 1980s, as the very way in which the inner city might be revitalised, should itself be slowly dying—it is death by a thousand cuts. Those are three examples of how the issue of the countryside and the fate of those who live and work there is very much more than hunting, shooting, fishing, farming, beef bones and all the rest—although I have very deep sympathy with those who are concerned about those issues.
I would say to country people that their organising of themselves has begun to produce results. We have had three important government Statements within the past week of which noble Lords are well aware. They are announcements which, had I still been in another place and full of the bad habits of another place, I should have referred to as U-turns. But I have learnt the more polite parlance of this House, and therefore say that these are welcome re-evaluations of government policy and revisions of pre-existing of government Statements in order to clarify the situation.
I shall not say that the countryside has tasted blood. That would be inappropriate. But now that the Countryside Alliance and the countryside movement generally has seen that well-organised pressure, and the careful and moderate arguing of the countryside's case, can produce these results, I hope that the countryside will continue to organise itself in the way that it has done. I believe that the manifestation of the Countryside Alliance's march this Sunday will be repeated in future years and I hope that at long last we shall see the Government take seriously rural problems.
It is on that point that I conclude, for I wish, as I promised the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at the beginning of my remarks, to be constructive. It is a matter of fact that approximately 150 different government working parties and working groups have been set up since the present Government assumed office on 1st May last year. I believe that the last body count was 147; others may have been created since that I have missed. Not one of those working parties or working groups is concerned specifically with rural matters. That seems to me an extraordinary reflection on the Government's attitude towards the countryside. I am sure that it is an oversight; it needs to be put right. It is clear that there is no one in charge of rural policy in Her Majesty's Government.
The turf wars between different ministries over rural matters have been endemic over many decades. We have the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. There is, however, no one to take charge of rural matters. That must be put right. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that he should pass on to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister the suggestion that, following the good example of the Social Exclusion Unit, the Government should immediately set up a rural exclusion unit, located in 10 Downing Street, to begin to look across government at the problems facing rural areas. I hope that the noble

921
Lord, Lord Carter, will pass on that suggestion to his right honourable friend in the constructive spirit in which it is meant.
Unless something is done, we are in grave danger of having two nations in this country: an overweening, overwhelming, over-mighty, un-understanding urban majority and a small, fragile and increasingly threatened and excluded rural minority. That would be a tragedy. We must not allow an iron curtain of misunderstanding to come down permanently between town and country.
2.15 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating this more than timely debate. I too am particularly glad that the response for the Government is to come from my noble friend Lord Carter, who, I think it is fair to say, is in a very real sense acknowledged to be a true friend of the countryside.
We have five minutes in which to speak, but five hours would not be sufficient. Last night's beacons and next Sunday's march are the public displays of a crisis in our land which no one in Parliament should overlook, underestimate or try to belittle. I have never known such fear, such anger, such sadness and such frustration as I have encountered over the past year almost wherever country people are gathered together. "We feel totally disenfranchised", are words which I have heard from Wales to Scotland, from Somerset to Yorkshire, from everywhere.
The problems stem from long before the general election. This is not simply a financial crisis in agriculture, although when farming is in crisis so is much of the rest of the rural economy. There is a deeper and even more difficult crisis for the Government to face. It is one caused by pressure of population from urban Britain. It comes from those who wish to use the countryside as a recreation area, those who wish to use it as a dormitory for the town, those who wish to retire there and those who seek to change its ways to suit different urban tastes. It is that pressure, sometimes combined with intolerance, which has made those who live and work in rural Britain feel under threat as never before.
Of course, country people want many of the same things from their government as do those in the town: they want affordable houses, jobs, good education, good healthcare and security from crime. In short, they want the opportunity to enjoy their lives to the full. Policies and attitudes to meet those requirements which are appropriate for the town may often be harmful when applied in the same way to the countryside. To give one example, measures to limit car use may be good for the town but may result in there being no affordable means of transport and loss of jobs in the countryside.
This debate is about government policies. As the noble Lord fairly conceded in asking his Question, three major steps forward for the countryside were taken last week. The Deputy Prime Minister's announcement on housing development on Monday, the Minister for the Environment's announcement on access on Wednesday and the new package of assistance for the very
922
hardest-hit livestock farmers announced by the Minister of Agriculture deserve universal acknowledgement and the gratitude of rural Britain. The Government have clearly begun to listen and respond to those worries. So far, so good. But I echo what the noble Lord opposite said. What is needed is one government department to speak for the rural minority and to ensure that all government policy takes account of their very different needs and problems.
On Sunday country people, frightened for their future, will come to London in their thousands. There will be many different priorities, many different reasons for their being there, but they will be united by one thing—their opposition to the current Bill to ban hunting which is before Parliament in another place.
A vast amount of money—an estimated £2.5 million—has so far been spent by supporters of that Bill in mounting an advertising campaign, political lobbying and public relations designed to whip up hatred in our largely urban population against a rural minority in the name of animal welfare. Ironically, those on the receiving end of the abuse and vilification are those who own and care for most of the animals and look after the countryside and its wildlife for all to enjoy.
The feeling of unity, anticipation and hope which was felt throughout our country in May this year when many rural areas elected Labour MPs was severely damaged by the vote at the Second Reading of the Bill. Our Government—I pay tribute to them—have not given support to that measure which many of us believe would be bad for animals, bad for people, had for freedom and in the long term disastrous for our countryside. Let those who disagree try to persuade others by force of argument. But do not try to pass legislation to send those to prison whom you fail to convince.
The very diversity of our nation is its strength and richness. We ask our Government to protect that diversity and lead the way in tolerance of minorities, of which rural people are perhaps the largest in our land. Tolerance means tolerating things we may not like. Give us, both town and country people, the chance to do more with our lives. Do not spend your precious time in government passing legislation to restrict, control and ban. The countryside wants you to succeed; let us work with you.
2.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate and am grateful to the noble Lord who introduced it for weaving into his remarks a reference to Salisbury. He will understand if I speak from experience of that rural part of the world which is the southern part of Wiltshire and Dorset, but I speak also out of the Church's commitment, which it shares with government, to build strong communities.
In my part of the world rural communities feel under threat. Their integrated way of life, with its close links between land use, housing, schools, shops and transport, does not feel understood or appreciated for the contribution it wants to make. Let me rehearse one or two of those concerns.

923
First, there is real poverty and deprivation in many of our rural areas. The picture of the countryside as a rural playground protected for the wealthy is unreal. In real life it is the smell of slurry that competes with the roses over the cottage door. There is a village in our diocese, which is not untypical, where one-third of the population earn over £40,000 per annum but another third earn less than £6,000. The average income figures paint a rosy picture but conceal a real poverty. To build strong rural communities in England, we need a realistic picture of our rural and social economy.
Secondly, the question of housing arises. Some recent government changes seem welcome—the recent announcement of the reduction in the total number of houses to be built and the shift in the balance towards building on brownfield sites. But in our diocese there is an enormous lack of brownfield sites and those that exist are often expensive to develop. Recently a village in Wiltshire wanted to build just 12 houses on one of those sites. It had been used for waste infill. It cost more than £250,000 to prepare the site for building and that put the cost of each house up to a level beyond the reach of many of those in the local community. Where there is no brownfield site available, the imposition of VAT on greenfield sites will make village development much more expensive.
What makes this worse is that regulations prevent district councils from specifying a proportion of affordable houses on small scale developments. But it is this small-scale development that we most need in our village communities—affordable houses that could be bought or rented by the young first-time house owners or by people in later life coming back to their rural roots, not the executive-style properties that are so often built and sold to wealthy weekenders or commuters. That is why our diocese has a policy of releasing glebe land for social housing. We have housing developments in villages, mostly with houses or flats to rent or for equity sharing, most of which are only six or at the most eight houses. All tenancies are made to local people and it is part of the scheme that covenants on those houses can control their future use.
If there is no affordable housing, young families on low incomes cannot get into the villages and school numbers fall. Pride in your local school is an important factor in generating a sense of being part of a community that has a future. With so many signals of uncertainty about the future of the farming industry, institutions that represent a commitment to the future are immensely important for morale.
The issue of rural transport is key. Both the young and the old are particularly hard hit by a lack of it. It also affects who can shop where. A recent report showed that 83 per cent. of villages in Wiltshire and an astonishing 88 per cent. in Dorset have no bus service at all. But where there is a bus service, it is very important that it is integrated and is one that meets the needs of local people. I came across a village near Devizes where the locals could get into town by bus on market day but could not get back in time to meet their children out of school. It is a question of co-ordination. Without incentives like this, people will continue to use
924
their cars. I know that many are concerned about the reported intention of the Government to raise petrol prices by a substantial amount. That may help control urban pollution but it does a grave disservice to the country.
I am telling your Lordships what it feels like to work in a largely rural area where we want to encourage the Government to appreciate the distinctive contribution which the rural way of life offers. In the countryside our lives are constrained by a variety of natural factors, from the seasons of the year to the vagaries of the climate, from the geophysical structure to the inherited patterns of land use and management. We in the countryside need the chance to develop our distinctive contribution and then to contribute to the national agenda on the crucial question of what makes strong community.
A major part of the Church's task is to create community, models of people in relationship with one another. We are willing partners with a government who seek to build community at all levels. But strong community needs social policies to back it. What the life of the countryside reveals is that such social policies need to be integrated, not contrived piecemeal and developed unrelated to one another; and to have integrated social and economic policies, you need a vision of what community means. That vision springs out of the conviction, which I believe the Church shares with the Government, that neither dependence nor independence is the key, but interdependence. Interdependence is what life in the countryside models. So I hope we will cherish that vision which the countryside offers as its contribution to our common life.
2.28 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury. Time will not allow me to pay as much care and attention to his many attributes as I would like, but certainly the feelings he expressed for his community are well appreciated by your Lordships. We look forward very much indeed to hearing the right reverend Prelate again in the future.
I thank my noble friend Lord Patten for initiating this debate. I think it is too early to tell whether the Government's policies are having an adverse effect on those who live and work in the countryside, with the exception perhaps of beef on the bone, which was quite frankly a bad mistake. I think the Government now appreciate that. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, indicated, there is real hostility building in the countryside. People do not like what they see. They do not like the pointers that are coming from the Government on rural issues.
In new Labour we have a government who appear—for the time being at any rate—to have shed the profligate images of their predecessors. But one cannot help feeling that in their attempt to placate their Left wing the Government are eyeing up the countryside as what they see as the soft belly of privilege and traditionalism, which is there to be dismembered purely

925
on the back of political dogma. I believe that that would be dangerous and foolish. I hope that those prognostications do not turn out to be true.
New Labour has few rural roots. That is not a criticism, but simply a fact. There are, of course, exceptions and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is a very good exception. We all know that his rural credentials are as good as anybody's. But it is for that very reason that I believe that this Government should listen and learn from the countryside if we are to have a government, as the Prime Minister has said, that is going to govern for everybody and not just for their chosen few or chosen many, as the case may be.
As someone who lives, works and owns land in the countryside, I appreciate the wonders of the countryside, but I also understand the difficulties, such as poverty, crime and—something which I feel strongly about—the imbalance that exists at the moment between agriculture and the environment. But whether we like it or not, the countryside has been, and will continue to be, shaped by those who live, work and invest there. The Government must work with those people if they are to gain their confidence.
I believe that what those whose responsibility it is to manage the countryside object to most is the criticism that comes from those who have no practical experience of rural matters. They are what one might term the armchair critics; those who venture out from time to time and then try to tell us how we should run our affairs. Every sector of society has its ways and traditions and some of those associated with the countryside may indeed seem strange. But, generally speaking, there are very good reasons for these traditions. They have been born out of trial, error and practice by good, honest citizens and not simply devised on the back of some whim or by some spin doctor. So what we seek is tolerance and understanding. We expect people to find out about things before they start condemning the countryside.
An example of that is that it is no coincidence that two of the recent chief executives of the League Against Cruel Sports have changed their attitude towards hunting having separated the emotional from the practical, the fact from the fiction. Hypocrisy, too, clouds our thinking and I suppose it is fair to say that we are all guilty of that to a greater or lesser extent. I find it difficult to understand, for example, those who condemn field sports, but at the same time keep cats. Killing is part of the field sports ethos for there is a net gain for the countryside through habitat management, employment, and so on. Yet in a recent report by Mick Fox, I see that there are 9 million cats in this country which account for the indiscriminate death of at least 88 million birds and 164 million mammals annually. Many of those deaths are hardly instantaneous: I suspect that they are rather cruel and lengthy. But we do not ban cats for the simple reason that we are tolerant towards those who get pleasure from them.
In conclusion, Sunday's March—which, I suspect, is really why we are discussing these issues at the moment—is not anti-Government: it is pro-countryside. But it is not the sanitised theme park-type countryside
926
that some would envisage. We are talking about the real, living countryside. The march is about jobs and communities' traditions, which many of us feel very strongly and passionately about. It is about farming, forestry and field sports, but above all it is about freedom and liberty.
Let us not forget one thing. Perhaps not all those marching on Sunday—however many they be—participate in hunting. But they will be there because there is an anti-hunting Bill in the other place at the moment, and all of those people marching on Sunday see hunting as part of the fabric of the British countryside which they wish to preserve.
2.35 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, it is with much trepidation that I rise to address this august House and I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for my maiden speech. I was intrigued when I learned that I was to speak after the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I do not know whether he knows that my grandfather succeeded to his seat in Parliament when his grandfather was elevated to this House.
I started farming on my own account 25 years ago, having first attended agriculture college, and then spent a year and a half in a City merchant bank to broaden my perspective. It is poignant with regard to today's debate that the ex-farm price of corn is now the same as it was then, 25 years ago. How many people and their products could compete on the basis of such prices?
I am now more involved with industry than agriculture, and my remaining farming interests are run by professional advisers who farm on their own account. I am chairman of a Warwickshire-based firm of leading manufacturers to the construction industry.
Today, those who live and work in the countryside make up less than 10 per cent. of the population. Those in agriculture make up 2 per cent. of the workforce in employment. Against that background there has to be, by definition, far fewer people who can understand the predicament of farmers today. Theirs is indeed a perilous one. Out of a total of about 200,000 farmers, nearly 30 per cent.—or 60,000—face the possibility of losing their livelihood; of those, half are at risk from the borrowings that they undertook in order to better their farms; the others are at risk from the fact that their farm is of an uneconomic size.
Perhaps I may take a local farmer as an example. His 300-acre farm used to support three families, yet his son now wonders whether the farm will be viable in the future for his family alone. No grass has been ploughed for 50 years. The farm uses little chemicals. The farmer works 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and he last left his farm for a holiday 24 years ago. In the past 12 months he has seen his income fall by 50 per cent. He wants no sympathy. He merely wonders whether, when his time is up, anyone will be willing or able to take on that land.
That farmer is based in the more prosperous Midlands. How much more serious must the situation be for those hardy folk, the upland farmers? Do we want those farms turned into a wilderness area? They look

927
as they do today because they have been cared for by succeeding generations for hundreds of years. Many upland farmers must be wondering how long they can carry on.
In the past few days, we have heard of the new initiatives being implemented by the Government pledging £85 million to aid livestock farmers. I fear that more will be required.
The situation in the countryside today is very serious. Sadly, with fewer than one person in 10 now living in a non-urban environment, few people can comprehend that fact. Let us hope that a caring government will be able to resolve the situation by their initiatives. It occurred to me as an afterthought that perhaps the £800 million Dome should contain a model of a real hill farm, which will perhaps one day have a tomb on it with "RIP hill farmers" engraved upon it.
2.40 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, it falls upon my shoulders to congratulate on behalf of the whole House—I do it with pleasure—the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, on his maiden speech. In the few minutes allowed to him the noble Lord displayed his knowledge and depth of experience of the countryside. I hope that in the months and years ahead we in this House can put the noble Lord's experience to great benefit, if we are still here.
This is a timely debate, for which I thank my noble friend Lord Patten. It follows a night when over 5,500 bonfires were lit across the full length and breadth of the country and before the countryside march in London to be held the day after tomorrow. It is very likely that the numbers of people who descend upon London on Sunday will exceed the 120,000 who attended the countryside rally in Hyde Park on 10th July. Surely, this carries a strong message to the Government from many who live and work in the countryside. It is simply: listen to us, listen to us.
There is growing concern among many thousands of people, albeit a minority in national terms, that their way of life and in many cases their livelihoods are under threat. While there are many issues of concern to people who live and work in the country—to farmers it is the strength of the pound and the fall in their incomes, but there are also issues such as transport, education, housing and development in the countryside, all of which are areas of great importance—it is the Foster anti-hunting Bill which is about to reach its Report stage in another place that has been the catalyst to bring together country sportsmen, farmers and others who feel threatened and frustrated by the Government's attitude to them.
After the Hyde Park rally last July the Government indicated that they might include an anti-hunting amendment as part of a government Bill at a future stage. Britain has always prided itself on its freedom of speech and tolerance of minority groups and interests. Surely that is something for which some of your Lordships, and for some of us our fathers, fought and won the last war. There are at last some encouraging signs that the Government are beginning to listen to
928
some of the concerns of the country dweller and worker. In their recent consultation document Access to the Countryside the Government have stepped back from legislation on the right to roam in favour of voluntary agreements. This must be the preferable route to go down. It would be quite wrong to enforce public access. If the Labour Party truly believes in voluntary access, it should drop the threat of coercion. Voluntary agreements between landowners and government agencies have been responsible for creating new opportunities for access to over 250,000 acres of land since 1990, according to the Countryside Commission survey. A recent Gallup poll of 5th February published by the CLA showed that, while a large percentage of the public would prefer to see greater access to the countryside, nearly two-thirds preferred to follow way-marked paths rather than choose their own route.
Another issue of concern to many people living in the country is the threat of development in the countryside seemingly at an ever-increasing pace. The countryside is a scarce resource and once it has been developed we cannot get it back. This is why I am concerned by several recent decisions by the Government, one of them being the development of up to 10,000 homes on the green belt between Hitchin and Stevenage. The new measures announced by the Government on 23rd February regarding 60 per cent. of new development in the countryside being on brownfield sites are certainly a step in the right direction, for which they should have full credit. I would, however, like to see the 60 per cent. increased to at least 66 per cent. Some so-called brownfield sites might be set in unspoilt countryside. If they were to be developed all the upgrading to the roads in the area and the increase in traffic, not to mention the light pollution, would totally change the character of the area for the worse. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a halt to the adoption of further county structure plans until the Government's new policies have been clarified?
2.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in joining noble Lords who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing the debate, I should declare an interest. I live in a national park; indeed, I own all of two-thirds or three-quarters of an acre. I also join noble Lords who have expressed reassurance that my noble friend Lord Carter is replying to the debate. It is difficult to think of anyone with a more convincing commitment to and knowledge of the countryside and its needs.
Reference has been made to the forthcoming demonstration this weekend. I am afraid that one characteristic of the demonstration which concerns me is the confusion, manipulation and emotionalism which surrounds it. I believe that the Ministers who are preparing to identify themselves with the demonstration need to be very careful. They need to be careful about what they are standing for in going to the demonstration lest they end up being associated with things in which they have no interest whatever.
With characteristic candour, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu referred to hunting. We all know that concerns about hunting have been central to the motivation for

929
the demonstration. But I must say to my noble friend that there has been too much confusion about the issue. Many are, like me, totally convinced that wildlife must be managed. The argument as we see it is about what is the most decent. humane and civilised way to achieve that without pandering to baser and on occasions sick elements in human character, not least among morbid, bloodthirsty spectators.
Another characteristic of the demonstration which concerns me is its social divisiveness. I ask myself where was the concern of those involved when the technological revolution, asset stripping and the de-industrialisation of Britain were decimating living urban communities and causing grave physical and mental health problems for hundreds of thousands of displaced workers and management and their families? All that change was justified in the name of economic progress from which many landowners were able to benefit and upon which many farming communities depended for their subsidies.
The truth is that there is a complex inter-relationship between urban and rural life. I think also of the nightmare of accumulating waste and its disposal, or of pollution and its implication for the climate. It is clear to me that the market alone will never find the solutions. Government, as always, is about intervention for the common good; establishing the central strategic balance between market forces and the long-term benefit of sustainability for society as a whole.
I will have good friends and neighbours participating in the demonstration, but there are very many rural dwellers who will not be there. I refer to the rural poor and underpaid; the frail and elderly in their isolation; the rural unemployed, not least the young; and the rural homeless. I hope that my noble friend will have something convincing to say about them. There are other urgent needs—
Earl Peel: My Lords, what makes the noble Lord believe that the rural underpaid will not be at the march on Sunday?
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that even more rural underpaid people will not be participating in the demonstration on Sunday.
I think also of the need for reliable—and it is even more important than frequent—public transport and of housing for indigenous rural populations as distinct from overspill housing for people from the cities, which leads to the continuing decline of urban communities. We are glad to see that the Government are now tackling that.
There is the whole issue of the nonsensical counter-productive subsidies with their emphasis on set-aside and all the resentment that causes, and in relation to stock there is the consequent over-grazing, particularly in marginal hilly areas, which results in serious degradation of the environment.
If there is one justification for the emotional outburst this weekend, I believe it to be the absence of a convincing, positive, integrated strategy for the countryside; a strategy which recognises both the countryside's interdependence with urban society and
930
the needs of people who live and work in the countryside; a strategy which sees the countryside as literally the indispensable lungs of the nation as a whole, hence, incidentally, the crucial importance of the integrity of remaining open spaces; a strategy which establishes the priority of resources and subsidies for the qualitative and positive management of that precious national asset—for example, by the redevelopment of skills like dry-stone walling, hedging, ditching, coppicing, thatching and managing moorland and by the preservation of pathways and the prevention of erosion.
I, for one, hope that we can celebrate the new millennium by the imaginative reassertion of the priceless significance of the countryside as a vital part of the nation as a whole. It is an asset which all can enjoy and in which all can take pride. It is by the generation of a sense of involvement and responsibility in the nation as a whole that the wellbeing of the countryside will best be protected.
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. The high environmental quality of the national parks is dependent on the nature of human interaction with them. People have lived in the areas now designated for thousands of years. Successive governments have made it clear that there is no incompatibility between conserving and enhancing our national parks and their remaining as living and working communities. For example, Circular 12/96 says that:
"the qualities for which the Parks have been designated are as much the products of man's hand as of nature. It is in the interests of the conservation of those qualities that the National Park Authorities now have a duty to work with and for their local communities".
Data collected by the Council for National Parks during its major National Parks for Life project on the sustainable use of national parks shows that across the parks the percentage of the male population of working age which is economically active is 79 per cent. The research project showed that the employment structure of national parks, perhaps not surprisingly, showed a great reliance on the tourism, service and agriculture industries. This reliance strongly suggests that protecting the environment of national parks may be significant in protecting the social and economic well-being of park communities.
Good quality countryside also attracts inward investment by way of high technology industry. Development of modern communication systems has enabled individuals and small companies to set up new computer-led business opportunities in several national parks. Location in such an environmentally attractive area is undoubtedly a factor in attracting customers.
Agri-environment schemes provide an important boost to the local economy. This is clearly demonstrated by the Tir Cymen scheme in Wales. A socio-economic evaluation of Tir Cymen, undertaken by ADAS in 1995, revealed that the scheme supports not only farm incomes and employment but the wider rural economy with benefits to contractors, suppliers and new enterprises. The ADAS study showed that Tir Cymen had generated about 200 casual jobs within the three pilot areas.

931
Twenty-nine out of the 35 businesses surveyed reported an increase in demand for their businesses as a result of Tir Cymen. We hope that this success will be repeated when the all-Wales agri-environment scheme comes on line in the summer.
The relationship between environmental quality and social and economic well-being is recognised by the Government. For example, PPG 7 states that,
"wealth creation and environmental quality are increasingly interconnected. The appeal of the countryside is central to its economic prosperity, and healthy economic activity in rural areas facilitates investment to protect and improve the countryside".
The consultation processes that underpin planning in the parks also help to ensure local participation. National Park local plans and the new tranche of management plans are all subject to extensive and open consultation with local people. For example, the Planning for Real exercise in the Brecon Beacons National Park saw officers hold local workshops all over the park to gauge the views of local people.
Section 62 of the 1995 Environment Act places a duty on national park authorities to seek to foster the social and economic well-being of their local communities in ways that are compatible with their pursuit of national park purposes. That new duty reinforces the need for the authorities to take a positive view of the well-being of their local communities.
National park authorities have made a clear commitment to working with people through the Local Agenda 21 process. For example, in 1995 the Peak District National Park Authority agreed to set up a Local Agenda 21 project at Tideswell village. The project is a partnership of county and district councils, the Rural Development Commission, East Midlands Electricity and North Derbyshire Health Authority. By kick-starting this Local Agenda 21 initiative, the Peak Park Authority has demonstrated a key role for national part authorities in working towards a more sustainable development.
The Government recognise the important role that national parks play as test beds for the sustainable management of whole countryside. How wonderful it would be if this could be even more widely applied. But application needs funding. I was interested to note the Prime Minister's commitment to increased funding for the shires, as expressed in Country Life magazine on 26th February. On 5th November last, during a debate on environmental protection and enhancement, I informed the House that in 1996 national parks received funding of 16p. per acre, compared with the figure of £137 per acre for arable area or set-aside payments. I should welcome the Minister's assurance that the funding of the jewels in countryside's crown will receive as much attention as the financial needs of the shires in order that they will be adequately protected and meet sustainability objectives.
2.56 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I, too, join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing this important topic at a crucial time for the countryside: just 48 hours before
932
hundreds of thousands of people will be expressing their concerns here in the capital in the clearest and most forthright way to the Government:
"Stop attacking the countryside. Take the trouble to understand. Listen to us!".
Nothing could be clearer than that.
The elected Members of the other place have overwhelmingly voted to ban hunting with dogs, but they have failed to recognise the crucial service that is given to the care of the countryside by the landowners, the farmers and the rural communities themselves. If we are not very careful,
"England's green and pleasant land",
to quote William Blake, will become a concrete jungle and an ecological wasteland.
Many figures and statistics have been widely misleading and misquoted. I should like briefly to put the figures into perspective by looking at a typical part of our countryside—the Border area. In particular, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a recently completed study undertaken for the Borders Foundation for Rural Sustainability. The report, which is entitled The Economic Contribution of Hunting within the Scottish and Northumberland Borders, covers an area hunted by seven packs of foxhounds. The gross contribution to the economy of this very rural region is about £3.5 million; £1.3 million is specific to hunting, while a further £1.2 million is spent on other goods and services such as farriers, veterinarians, maintenance, welfare and horse livery, to quote just a few of the things upon which the money is spent.
The total employment deriving from the Borders hunting is nearly equivalent to 350 full-time jobs, which will go if hunting is banned. Rural businesses are run on small profit margins. For example, if this step is taken, 10 out of the 11 farriers in the Borders would lose their business and the remaining farrier would lose his apprentice—a loss of some 11 jobs.
A traditional service provided by hunts to farmers in their hunting country has been the collection of fallen stock. This may be humane slaughter and collection of sick or injured animals or just the disposal of dead animals delivered to them. In the past a service was offered by local "knackermen" who would similarly collect fallen stock. However, recent government legislation has effectively closed the knacker trade as the cost of offal disposal soars. The whole of the Border region has now only one knacker business left.
Within the past 12 months the seven hunts to which I have referred handled over 6,000 head of stock. Added to this, from 1st April knackermen will be subjected to a further cost rise as a result of skip cost increases. The problems of fallen stock are numerous and could lead to illegal burying of dead animals. Will the Minister give us some indication what plans there are as regards the disposal of fallen stock when he replies to the debate?
The Borders Foundation report on rural sustainability concludes,
"That the abolition of hunting would have economic and social implications way beyond the approximate 350 jobs it currently generates".

933
Country sports, particularly hunting, provide a focus of interest for rural communities which both enriches and enlivens them and provides the basis for cultural and traditional practices.
The Rio declaration on the environment and development in 1992—having been formulated at the United Nations conference on the environment and development—proclaims a key principle (known as principle 22) that
"local communities have a vital role to environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interest and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development".
Do the Government accept this principle, and do they intend to keep to it in the future?
The consultation paper, Access to the Open Countryside, is clearly giving this Government a breathing space and is a concealed attempt to force landowners to open up their property to society generally, to enable people to do whatever they want and to go wherever they want. If landowners do not comply with the Government's wishes, the paper contains clear threats of legislation to open up the countryside. This threat has already caused deep concern among those who live in and depend on the countryside for their livelihood. The very realistic fear among country folk is that if the right to roam is imposed, their rights as owners and managers will be trampled underfoot. I am concerned about the welfare of animals, which could well be affected by those who will roam by right in the future.
I note the list of consultees at annex 1 of the consultation paper which at first glance looks impressive. However, when you look more closely you can see there are many important bodies of opinion which do not appear to have been consulted. I ask the Government whether animals will be protected, and in particular breeding animals. I take two examples. As regards horse stud farms, I note that neither the British Racing Board nor the British Thoroughbred Breeders' Association appear on the list. I refer to pig breeding on open ground, which I know is a matter which interests the noble Lord, Lord Carter. What do the British pig breeders have to say? There are many questions to be answered, but it would be helpful if the Minister in his reply could give us some assurance that the welfare of animals will be properly catered for in the future.
I have highlighted just two areas in an attempt to show that the countryside is under severe threat at the present time. The Government have great responsibility not to fritter away the country's assets in high profile projects to retain public popularity. As we have heard so clearly, farmers are in desperate need of help and those in the countryside need the assurance that their livelihood and way of life are secure in this Government's hands.
3.4 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Patten for tabling this Question. As many noble Lords have said, he could not have chosen a better day for it. I add my congratulations—however improper it
934
is for me to do so—to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, on their excellent maiden speeches.
I have to declare an interest. I live in the countryside. I used to work in the countryside; I do not do so now. We on these Benches have a great regard for the expertise, fairmindedness and good nature of the noble Lord the Chief Whip. I feel rather sorry for him in having to reply to the debate. I wish to ask him this question. When the countryside and those who live and work there are occupying such a prominent place in the media and will be, shortly, on the streets, why have they failed totally to attract the attention of those planning the contents of the Millennium Dome? As it is clear that urban dwellers are failing entirely to understand rural affairs, why not use that opportunity to try to change the situation?
Ten months ago the single overwhelming reason that the Labour Party gained such a massive majority in another place was its success in winning a large number of seats in rural areas. In my opinion, voters fell hook, line and sinker for a brilliantly executed ploy that Labour was not dangerous, it would be more efficient, and it would be fairer generally. Let us consider what has happened.
I have not heard of any of those ladies and gentlemen who so unexpectedly won those old Tory strongholds. Have they contributed to debates on rural affairs in another place? I do not know.
A noble Lord: My Lords, last week one of them did so.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am glad that one of them has contributed.
Beef exports were mentioned by many noble Lords in the debate. They were the subject of absolute derision by the former Opposition. They derided the former government's handling of that difficult issue. They said, "Put us into power. We will soon speak to our friends in Europe and clear it up". Have they, my Lords? Is there any progress in 10 months? There is little progress. We are still in the same position as we were then.
Farmers are going through one of the worst depressions of this century. What do farmers of beef or dairy herds, sheep and others gain? They receive crumbs, talk, and some rather nasty leaked information, or speculation, on increases in petrol duty in the next Budget. That will hit those in the countryside more than anyone in the towns.
No wonder farmers are desperate. They are also furious that the Government for whom so many of them voted are dithering and ducking, and trying to sound caring at the same time.
The right to roam is supposed to have been toned down. I am not sure whether it has. I think that it is one more effort to get over this coming weekend. In answer, after her apology for the leak last Wednesday by the right honourable gentleman the Minister of State, Mr. Michael Meacher, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, twice mentioned the right to explore. What does that mean? I have read the consultation document.

935
Footpaths and bridlepaths are hardly mentioned. All that has changed from the Labour Party's aggressive attacks on the rights of property owners is a short delay for what I think is cosmetic political expediency. Compulsion is the core socialist word. Socialists will always come back to it in the end. Let us beware—"Mischief thou art afoot". In the meantime, 200,000 people will be afoot on Sunday demonstrating how they feel about their lives in the country.
Hunting has been mentioned. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, described me as a bloodthirsty spectator. I am sure that in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will say that hunting is the main issue of this march. While I agree that it is the spring from which the march arose, it is not the main issue. With the little pourboires from here and there, the Government are showing all the symptoms of running scared. For once, they are not doing a very good job as regards their PR. I suggest that they make a genuine U-turn—or what was described earlier as a re-evaluation of government policy—and take the concerns of those who live and work in the countryside to heart.
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, today's short debate, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Patten, comes at a most opportune time, just prior to Sunday's countryside march. The farming community, landowners and people who live in rural areas will be coming together to express their concern about this Government's approach to rural matters. My noble friend asks the Government,
"whether they are satisfied that their policies work to the benefit of people who live and work in the countryside".
One sometimes wonders what those policies are. During these past few months, policies have been stated and changed; consultation has been instigated; there has been review upon review—all resulting in total confusion with regard to policies for the countryside. Farmers wish only for a fair deal, and long-term policies on which to plan their business future. They cannot do that when such a degree of uncertainty exists. They wish to be allowed to get on with running their own lives, providing food for us to eat while at the same time looking after the countryside which we all enjoy today.
That countryside is a living environment. It is not a picture postcard or a museum, but a working environment for many thousands of people. The Government must accept responsibility for the confusion that has grown up in recent months and which has brought great anxiety to many farmers and people who live and work in rural areas.
The green belt was to be protected. But in three areas recently, that has not been the case, the Environment Minister overriding the wishes of local people by granting permission for new houses on three large greenfield sites. The rebuilding of our rural services is promised. But are the Government not concerned that the proposed minimum wage could hit rural areas—as would any increase in tax on petrol? Banning beef on the bone, plus the continuation of the strong pound, all add to the difficulties faced today by farmers. Those,
936
plus the proposed right to roam and the threat to countryside pursuits, highlight just how out of touch this Government are at times with rural communities. If fox hunting is to be banned, jobs will be lost and whole communities will be put at risk. If hunting is banned, what will come next? Perhaps fishing; maybe shooting?
As I have implied, confusion abounds, and no more so than this week when the Government launched Access to the Open Countryside. They say it is a consultation document. But is it just that? The Environment Minister, Mr. Meacher, said in a recent interview on the "Today" programme that the Government were going to increase the right to roam as set down in the consultation paper, and added:
"If we can achieve it by voluntary means that is by far the best way to proceed in this as in other areas, but if we cannot, then we will bring in legislation".
As my noble friend Lord Inglewood remarked at the time, that is not consultation: it is an ultimatum.
Should there be any doubt, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in repeating the Statement in this House on 25th February, went on to say:
"We made it quite clear in our manifesto that our policies included greater freedom for people to explore our open countryside. We intend to keep to that commitment. In a sense that commitment is not open to consultation".—[Official Report, 25/2/98; col. 725]
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord, Carter, will clarify the position.
One person's rights are another's restrictions. Many smaller farmers—I declare that I was one in the past—who work land near to urban areas know only too well of the difficulties caused by those who do not respect our property. Vandalism and damage are routine problems. Gates are left open and animals are deliberately let out without regard for their safety. Trespass is a regular occurrence, litter is dumped and barns are set on fire.
While I appreciate that many members of the Ramblers' Association do not fall into that category, not everybody who walks in the countryside observes the country code and keeps to the prescribed paths and refrains from damaging property. The Deputy Prime Minister recently said that the rural environment was safe in his hands. Can he be so sure that it will be safe in the hands of the members of the general public?
The countryside march on Sunday will bring together farmers, landowners and those who work and live in the countryside, along with many city dwellers who already enjoy country life. The march will highlight their concerns, to which many noble Lords have referred today. I hope that the Government will stop and listen, have respect for the traditions of rural life and work towards restoring confidence, which has been so badly damaged over recent months. We could not have a better person to respond to the debate than the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on having asked this Question today. From these Benches, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the

937
Bishop of Salisbury and the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, says is all right by me because he is one of my clients at Champneys!
Reflecting on the subject of this short debate, I kept returning to the central question of why there is such dissatisfaction and disquiet among country dwellers. I therefore wish to dwell on that central question.
Although the drift from the country to the major cities has been going on ever since the Industrial Revolution, I believe that until quite recently most people would have regarded this country as essentially rural. However, at some point over the past quarter of a century that has ceased to be the case and we are now clearly an urban society. Country dwellers have become a distinct minority and have taken on the characteristics of a minority. They feel resentful, fearful, hurt and powerless in the face of what they perceive to be the superior force of the urban dweller. The result is that, whether real or perceived, a huge tension now exists between the country dweller and the town dweller. I wonder how this has come to pass.
I have no doubt that it is a problem of the '80s. I believe that the single most destructive force ever let loose to wreak havoc on the countryside was Thatcherism. The vast majority of the problems facing those who live and work in the country today are a direct result of the social, economic and environmental policies which the previous government pursued through the '80s. In 1979 most rural villages still had a shop, a post office, a pub, a cottage hospital nearby, a school, a police house with a local policeman and a daily bus service. Today in many parishes throughout the land those are a distant memory.
The policies of the uniform business rate, deregulation of buses, local authority capping, reform of the NHS and pressure on budgets for health, police and education, to name but a few measures, have been a disaster for the countryside. The relentless drive to measure life purely by the two-dimensional means of the balance sheet, without any regard for the social dimension, has ripped apart the community feeling that was such an essential part of rural life. I have to say, more in sadness than in anger, to those noble Lords on the Conservative Benches who supported that government: you sowed the breeze, you now reap the whirlwind.
The noble Lord's Question today asks the Government whether they are satisfied that their policies work. I suspect that, given that the vast majority of the electorate live, work and vote in urban communities, the majority of the policies which the current Government put forth in its manifesto have never been considered in the light of the needs of country dwellers.
However, I believe that there is hope, since we are in the early stages of the Parliament and the Government are reviewing many of their policies. They have a chance to frame their policies with a proper regard for the impact they will have on those who dwell in the country, who may well be a minority but are nonetheless vitally important to the fabric of our society. Above all, like the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I plead with the
938
Government to take an overall and integrated approach to the formulation of policy for the countryside. Economic, environmental and social policies have to be considered together; they cannot be taken piecemeal. At the centre of that integrated approach must be a recognition of the need to preserve rural communities as communities.
One of the key issues is housing. We need to ensure that there is affordable housing for local people, particularly the young. We need to ensure that villagers are linked by an adequate transport system, bearing in mind that a high percentage of rural workers are on low wages and 20 per cent. of rural dwellers have no car. Another key issue is local democracy and participation. We need to reverse the feeling of powerlessness in rural communities following local government reorganisation and we need employment to replace the loss of traditional employment. I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu: we need a central department to look after those issues, perhaps even a Minister for the Countryside. If London can have one, why not the countryside?
There are a huge range of other issues affecting the countryside, but I do not have time to go into them today. Recognising from the list of speakers that there would undoubtedly be those who would refer to the march and to hunting, I used my time to speak of the central issues. But on hunting I say this. We regard it on these Benches as a matter of personal conscience and therefore my remarks are my own and not those of my party.
I have never hunted and have no idea what it is like, but I make two points. First, the issue is not of itself the most important issue that will come before Parliament. But, taken in the light of the tension of which I spoke, it is a match that could well inflame the countryside. Secondly—an old Liberal view for which I make no apology—it is the prime duty of the state to look after the interests of the individual, even in a perceived minority. It is not good enough simply to say that we do not like something and therefore must get rid of it, particularly when, for the vast majority, it has no effect on them one way or the other.
I conclude by returning to my central theme. This Government have an opportunity genuinely to reflect on the social, economic and environmental needs of the country and frame their policies with a true regard for its wellbeing. I sincerely hope that they will do that. Above all, I urge them not to make the mistake of the last government and treat the countryside with complacent laissez-faire, but instead to develop a genuine and integrated approach.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for asking this Question and I offer the congratulations of these Benches to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, on their maiden speeches.
The danger is that our attitude to the countryside is seen through the eyes of town dwellers. My noble friend Lord Marlesford reminded us on 11th February that

939
90 per cent. of the population live in urban areas. The challenge for the Government—I am not certain that they are yet rising to it—is to ensure that urban views do not prevail over the traditional lifestyles and values of the countryside. Of course I acknowledge the steps that have been taken, and referred to this afternoon, which have improved the situation. But it is important that urban and rural people live together easily so that each can—it is necessary for them to be able to—enjoy each other's habitat.
Of course, the countryside is not set in stone; it is a living, evolving entity. There is plenty of evidence to show that people in the countryside accept that. Rural tourism is but an example. My noble friend Lord Addison gave others. But it is important that that evolution is not to the detriment of the countryside itself and rural life. We need to remember that people live and work there. The countryside is not just a recreational resource for town dwellers, though it is valuable for that purpose.
I must declare, possibly uniquely among the speakers this afternoon, that I am an urban animal. I therefore understand the urban view. But I hope that I appreciate, by virtue of that, that I am not the best judge of what is right for the countryside. I have not been born to it, I have not worked in it and I live only on the edge of it. No doubt like many townspeople I have an idealised view of the countryside and it seems to me that we urban beings have a lot to learn about how we live our own lives before we start imposing our will on the countryside. Can we wonder at the fears of country people and landowners at what will happen to some of the most valuable parts of our heritage if rights to roam are imposed? My noble friend Lady Byford referred to that.
If we looked around our towns and cities this afternoon for a moment instead of the countryside, we would see graffiti in some of the most inaccessible places; open spaces in streets deposited with litter; vandalism and a lack of respect for property. I understand the worry of country people and the argument that has gone on about the development of greenfield or brownfield sites—or recycled land, as we are urged by the Deputy Prime Minister now to call it. That argument raged for some time. Happily, the case for brownfield sites seems to be succeeding. But it is not just because it is a victory for the countryside that that is welcome; it is also a victory for the towns. Far from being seen as depriving town dwellers of the opportunity to escape into the countryside, it should be seen as giving them the opportunity to stay within the towns where the facilities and employment are and where communications are good or at least better than in many rural areas.
It does not surprise me that in the debate this afternoon the question of hunting has been raised. As I said, I am an urban being. I have never hunted. I was once taken hare shooting by a friend. I confess that I aimed deliberately high. I do not fish, and many of your Lordships will say what a dull person he is, and not just in his speeches. But like many townsmen and women, and indeed those who live in the countryside, I am full
940
of contradictions. I have taken my children to see the spectacle of a hunt meet on Boxing Day. I enjoy eating game and fish, but with the comfort of distance. I do not see how it gets to my plate. I do not know whether the creature died instantly or slowly. I find it difficult to contemplate tending animals in the knowledge that they are being bred for slaughter. But I buy and eat the meat and I am happy for farmers to perform that service for me. Who am I and other townsmen to sit in judgment on people who know and understand that way of life?
I understand that hunting is part of rural life. I know it is both a sport and has a purpose. Therefore, any suffering that there is is not gratuitously inflicted. And because I do not do it and I do not wholly understand it, I am not prepared to join the ranks of those who would ban it. Indeed, I use the word "gratuitously" quite carefully, because gratuitous cruelty towards animals surrounds us on a major scale, which I suspect exceeds anything in the hunting field—the wanton cruelty that any animal charity will give examples of. The abandoning of animals, be they dogs or cats, and the lack of controls on the sale of pets are a far greater blot on our civilisation than the pursuit of a fox by other animals and its subsequent death.
What is needed is a tolerance of different ways of life within our country. I cannot accept the strictures of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who blames the previous government. The volcano we are seeing exploding this weekend has occurred as a consequence of many of the doubts that have arisen over the past few months. However, I say to your Lordships that just as we preach tolerance for different cultures and peoples within and outside our country, we should preach tolerance if there is not to be a great divide within this country. The Government must act with greater care and respect for the countryside and country people than they have perhaps hitherto done.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for tabling this Question and thank him and other noble Lords for their kind words about me. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred to me as a good-natured Chief Whip. That is a classic oxymoron, if ever I heard one.
We have heard a great deal about the countryside march, which will be taking place on Sunday. Owing to a longstanding family engagement I shall not be able to take part in the march. Early on Sunday morning I shall be driving many miles and making a considerable effort to attend a pre-march function which, I understand, takes the form of breakfast at the Savoy, which is a suitably un-rural venue and not exactly redolent of penury.
We have had some excellent speeches in this debate and none better or more notable than the maiden speeches of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we enjoyed their speeches and wish to hear from them again. There is genuine concern about the problems of

941
the countryside. But they have not all suddenly come about since 1st May last year. When I listened to some of the speeches I began to think that we did not have a general election last year, but a cross between Armageddon and The Flood.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, asked me why I thought there would be so many people taking part in the march in London on Sunday. Far be it from me to speculate on the reasons and the pressures that bring people to London. But I cannot help reflecting that with the advent of a Labour Government after a long period in opposition, it brings on an urge among farmers and others to take some healthy exercise and carry banners. When Labour won the general election in October 1964 with a majority of three, it was in very difficult economic circumstances. By early 1965, after the annual price review, the farming organisations and others had organised a "fair deal" campaign and they marched down Whitehall.
I begin with two simple propositions. Opposition to field sports does not equate to opposition to the countryside, its problems and those who live and work there. In addition, country people have just the same needs and rights as those who live in urban areas to good schools, housing, transport and health care. In my own view, it is a great shame that the field sports argument has somehow become a symbol of the many and genuine concerns that exist about the countryside. We know that opinion in the countryside itself is divided about hunting.
In turning to the Question, it is fair to remind the House that it was ACRE (Action for Communities in Rural England) which described the record of the last government on countryside matters by saying,
"Our main perception is one of neglect".
Also, as the Opposition spokesman on agriculture and countryside matters for 10 years, I am entitled to point out that in opposition we campaigned vigorously—sometimes successfully—against, for example, the deregulation of the bus industry; the neglect and closure of rural railways; the proposals to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board; and the sale of housing association homes in small villages. As we were entitled to do, we also drew attention to the mishandling of the whole sorry BSE saga. It is estimated that about 10,000 jobs were lost as a result of BSE, and most in the spring of 1996. That is a fact which puts the beef-on-the-bone debate into some sort of perspective.
In our manifesto we made the following pledges: to recognise the special needs of rural areas and communities; not to allow public and transport services in rural areas to deteriorate; to give greater protection to wildlife and to give greater freedom to people to explore the open countryside. As your Lordships know, we received massive electoral support for that manifesto.
The rural dimension is an important consideration for all government policies. Jobs, transport, housing and services in rural areas are closely linked and need considering in the round. The protection of, and access to, the countryside are equally important for the people who live there and for those who visit it. The Government's policies take full account of these needs. The article in Country Life by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made that clear.
942
New jobs are being created in the countryside. In recent years the growth in employment has been slightly higher in rural areas than in urban areas. The registered unemployment in rural areas is 3.9 per cent. as opposed to 5.7 per cent. in England as a whole. We recognise that within this overall picture there are obviously particular communities suffering acutely from the effects of economic change. We point out that the new deal for the young unemployed is just as relevant to the countryside as to urban areas. Its design and delivery will be sensitive to rural circumstances, the needs of rural businesses and communities and unemployed young people living in the countryside.
We shall have the obvious support of the farming organisations in our proposals on the national minimum wage, because there has been a national minimum wage in agriculture for 50 years. Low wages remain a problem in many rural communities, particularly for those employed in agriculture and tourism. They lead to pockets of deprivation and social exclusion in the countryside which are often overlooked. The agriculture minimum wage applies only to agricultural workers, so not all workers in rural areas benefit from that underpinning. The national minimum wage will provide a floor for all employees. It will help to remove the excesses of low pay and should help to tackle deprivation.
I turn to housing. Strong feelings have been aroused by the debate about national household growth and where to build the new homes that we need. As my noble friend Lady Hayman said in her Statement on Monday, we are determined to build as many new homes as possible in urban areas and to prevent, wherever possible, urban sprawl and the loss of greenfield sites. We have set a new higher target of building 60 per cent. of new homes on previously developed land. That compares with the achievement of 42 per cent. under the previous government. Our target includes providing new housing on existing brownfield sites in the countryside.
We must remember that much of the demand for new housing in the countryside is local. We need to look closely at the housing needs of rural people. That point was extremely well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury in his maiden speech. Rural areas need much more affordable housing. I said in opposition, and I say now, that the biggest social problem in the countryside is the lack of affordable homes to rent or buy. However, we are addressing that problem by releasing £900 million of local authority capital receipts—the money that they received from selling council housing in the past—to help to provide homes in which rural families and their children can afford to live. Specific support is provided for rural areas by the Housing Corporation's rural programme. That funds social housing in small villages. The target for this year is to provide between 1,000 and 1,500 new homes. I speak as a former trustee of the Rural Housing Trust.
Turning to education, the Government are conscious of the importance of the local school to rural communities. The policies which were designed to raise standards in all schools will also apply to rural schools. The decision to create education action zones will help schools in

943
deprived and rural areas. We have allocated £477 million extra to the shire counties to help them to raise standards, and for repairs.
A great deal has been said about access to the countryside. The consultation paper on access to open countryside was published on Wednesday. Irrespective of whether people choose to make their home in urban or rural areas, the countryside should be an asset to be enjoyed by all. We are determined to secure the objective of increased access for all those who enjoy walking and relaxing in Britain's beautiful landscape. The proposals demonstrate that we are determined to ensure that increased access goes hand in hand with respect for the countryside and those whose livelihoods may depend on it. We are proposing a new code of practice for walkers to encourage respect for the countryside.
Countryside interests have been given the opportunity to prove that their oft-repeated arguments for voluntary agreements can now deliver. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, made a neat debating point about the right to roam in urban areas. However, if the noble Lord cannot tell the difference between the Elephant and Castle (where I was born) and open moorland, I am afraid that I cannot help him.
The Government fully understand that farmers and others who care about our rural areas are anxious about what the future may hold. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Luke, who referred to the worst recession this century. I thought that that was perhaps a little over the top. It has been calculated that in the 1990s the total transferred to agriculture from taxpayers and consumers as a result of the CAP is of the order of £92 billion. In 1998 it will be £11 billion. Between 1990 and 1995 farmers incomes rose by over 70 per cent. in real terms. However, we are of course aware of the problems in the last season.
The £85 million already committed to assist livestock farmers is a large sum of money. It is made available to livestock farmers in recognition of the particularly severe economic pressures they are facing at the moment. Farmers have immediate concerns that the Government are prepared to address. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that the Government have decided that the charges for implementing the SRM controls on cattle, sheep and goats will not be recovered from industry from I st April as previously planned. The value of that decision to the farming industry throughout the United Kingdom will be some £35 million. We have also decided that we will meet the costs of setting up the new computerised cattle tracing system and running it and enforcing it in its first full year. That is worth another £35 million.
In addition to relieving charges, the Government are conscious of the financial position of livestock producers. As well as providing agri-monetary compensation, the Government will shortly be completing the redistribution exercise arising from the special aid schemes for livestock producers introduced in 1996. The net effect of this is that we shall be redistributing some £9 million which will go mostly to some categories of beef special premium producers but also to some suckler cow producers. That is a total of £164 million in a very tight public expenditure situation.
944
We all know the problems of the strong pound. The freezing of the green rates is worth £400 million to farming in the next two years. We know that many beef and sheep producers face some very difficult economic conditions at the present time and want to be able to review their options for the future. We are therefore launching a wide-ranging consultation in the very near future in order to gauge farmers' interest in early retirement and other options. We hope that the results will be available by late April.
Perhaps I may turn to a few of the points made in the debate. If I do not deal with all of them I shall certainly write to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to the 150 government working parties. He said that not one concentrated specifically on rural matters. That appears to me to be a failure to understand the central point that rural problems should be taken into account in all relevant areas of government policy. The DETR and MAFF are currently conducting a joint review of countryside policy as part of a comprehensive spending review, including a review of institutional structures. The Social Exclusion Unit is looking at rural as well as urban areas.
A number of noble Lords referred, not surprisingly, to hunting. In our manifesto we said that we would allow a free vote on hunting with hounds. That was our only commitment, and we delivered it last November with the Second Reading of the Foster Bill. The Bill is starting its Report stage in another place. The Government remain neutral on the issue of hunting. Speaking as Chief Whip in the Lords, of course I agree with the Government.
My noble friend Lord Judd made a powerful speech. We can all agree that rural poverty is real and pressing. I hope that my earlier remarks about what we hope to do by way of welfare-to-work, the New Deal, education, healthcare and the rest show that the Government take this problem seriously. Reference was made by my noble friend Lord Dulverton and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, to the problems faced by hill farmers in the uplands. The total direct livestock subsidies to all farmers in the UK's less favoured areas are estimated to be worth about £530 million in 1998.
In only 10 months the Government have set in train action to ensure that their policies work for the benefit of people who live and work in the countryside: in planning, the green belt, housing, healthcare in rural areas, rural education, welfare-to-work, the New Deal for 18 to 24 year-olds, the national minimum wage, regional development, proposals for an integrated transport review and extra money for farmers in a very tight public expenditure situation. That has taken place in only 10 months. We want a healthy dialogue with all those who have interests in rural areas, both representative organisations and the rural people themselves. We shall continue to listen to a wide range of views as we develop our policies. We are confident that the integrated approach to rural policy that we are developing is for the benefit of those who live and work in rural areas and all those who value the British countryside.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before four o'clock.