FUNCTIONS OF CERTAIN BODIES IN RELATION TO AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

HL Deb 16 October 2000 vol 617 cc791-869

(" .—(1) The following provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (in this Part referred to as "the 1949 Act")—

1. (a) section 6(4)(e) (duty of Agency or Council to give advice in connection with development matters),
2. (b) section 9 (consultation in connection with development plan),
3. (c) section 64(5) (consultation in connection with access agreements), and
4. (d) section 65(5) and (5A) (consultation in connection with access orders),

apply in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty as they apply in relation to National Parks.

(2) In section 6(4)(e) of the 1949 Act as it applies by virtue of subsection (1), "appropriate planning authority" means a local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of an area of outstanding natural beauty and includes a local authority, not being a local planning authority, by whom any powers of a local planning authority as respects an area of outstanding natural beauty are exercisable, whether under the 1949 Act or otherwise.

(3) Section 4A of the 1949 Act (which confers on the Council functions under Part II of that Act corresponding to those exercisable as respects England by the Agency) applies to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) for the purposes of their application to areas of outstanding natural beauty as that section applies for the purposes of Part II of the 1949 Act.

(4) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of an area of outstanding natural beauty has power, subject to subsections (5) and (6), to take all such action as appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty or so much of it as is included in their area.

(5) Nothing in this Part is to be taken to limit the generality of subsection (4); but in so far as the provisions of this Part or of the 1949 Act confer specific powers falling within that subsection those powers are to be exercised in accordance with those provisions and subject to any limitations expressed or implied in them.

(6) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by this Part, subsection (4) has effect only for the purpose of removing any limitation imposed by law on the capacity of a local planning authority by virtue of its constitution, and does not authorise any act or omission on the part of such an authority which apart from that subsection would be actionable at the suit of any person on any ground other than such a limitation.

(7) In this section "local planning authority" has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 524.

Baroness Byford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 524, Amendment No. 524A: Line 26, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Baroness said: We suggest that subsection (4) is left out. Tonight's discussions have shown that many Members of the Committee recognise that if subsection (4) stands some of the powers of the local planning authority may be overridden by the new functions of the AONBs. We have concerns about that and the amendment speaks for itself. I have reservations about the provision and I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

We would welcome clarification because we understood that the management plans drawn up by the conservation agencies would inform all local plans. The development control function would then stay with the local planning authority.

I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the reservations of the LGA—it wants the issue clarified—but I did not reply to the noble Lord's remark. Notwithstanding the LGA's desire for clarification, it remains supportive of the concept because its members make up the joint advisory committees. Those democratically elected parish and district county councillors are asking for the formation of the boards. If they have concerns about where the development control function will sit I hope that the Minister will be able to allay them.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

Speaking in support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, perhaps I, too, may ask the Minister for clarification. It is difficult to see how this clause fits in with the subsequent clause about the establishment of conservation boards. It would be helpful to know precisely what is the meaning behind the proposal. It appears to give an all-embracing power to the local planning authorities, which is then superseded by the subsequent section.

Lord Whitty

I am slightly surprised that the issue has raised such controversy as it virtually reproduces the existing law. Clearly, it does not of itself transfer any powers. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others appeared to suggest that powers were being transferred but none is switched. The clause gives local planning authorities the powers they need to take supportive action in relation to AONBs but it does not place on them duties and demands over and above what exists. The provision has been in the law since the passage of the 1949 Act, save that the reference to "conserving" was changed to "preserving" during the passage of the Environment Act 1995.

The subsection (4) of the Government's Amendment No. 524, which the amendment intends to remove, re-enacts the provision of the 1949 Act which gives powers to local planning authorities containing all or part of an AONB, and subject to the specified qualifications quoted in the subsequent two subsections, to take all such action which appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty in their part of the AONB. In other words, the form of power given to the local authorities in relation to an AONB has existed since 1949 and has largely stood the test of time. Its relationship to the amendments in the next group—the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry—is that in certain circumstances some of the powers and activities can be agreed among the local authorities to be carried out by the conservation board. It does not alter the basic fact that the powers remain with the local authorities, as they have done since 1949. That does not affect the provisions of the next group of amendments, which provide for a conservation board in those areas where either the local authorities or the Secretary of State decide that that would be appropriate. It has nothing to do with the transfer of powers.

Lord Bridges

If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the purpose of subsection (4) of the new clause was to enable local authorities to take all such supporting action as is necessary for the purposes of conservation. I believe that that is a form of words much superior to that which now appears in the amendment. I believe that if the Minister reconsidered the matter and introduced his own words later it would be an improvement.

Lord Whitty

We never have closed minds. On the other hand, the expression that we are considering has been understood since 1949. One would have to think carefully about the form of words. If one tried to provide for a situation in which a conservation board had been created, that would be consequential on the next group of amendments, not here. As I have said, a conservation board will be established in only a few AONBs.

Lord Bridges

The noble Lord is too modest. The Minister has introduced an improvement. I find particular difficulty with the words "expedient" and "enhancing", not least because I live in a parish which was informed by the planning authority that it was to be enhanced, with the most dreadful results. That is an unfortunate word to use in this context.

Baroness Byford

At this stage perhaps the best course to take is to read what has been said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 524A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 524, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 524 agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 525: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSERVATION BOARDS

(" .—(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may—

1. (a) in the case of any existing area of outstanding natural beauty, or
2. (b) in connection with the designation of any area as an area of outstanding natural beauty,

by order establish a board (in this Part referred to as "a conservation board") to carry out in relation to that area the functions conferred on such a board by or under this Part.

(2) Schedule (Conservation boards) (which relates to the constitution of conservation boards) has effect.

(3) Where the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales considers it expedient for either of the purposes mentioned in section (General purposes and powers)(1), an order under subsection (1) may—

1. (a) provide for the transfer to the conservation board to which the order relates of any of the functions of local authorities, so far as relating to the area of outstanding natural beauty in question, or
2. (b) provide for any function of a local authority, so far as relating to the area of outstanding natural beauty in question, to be exercisable concurrently by the local authority and by the conservation board.

(4) An order under subsection (1) may make further provision as to the constitution and administration of the conservation board to which it relates, including provision with respect to—

1. (a) the appointment of members,
2. (b) the removal and disqualification of members,
3. (c) the conduct of members,
4. (d) proceedings of the board,
5. (e) the appointment of staff,
6. (f) consultation with other public bodies,
7. (g) records and documents of the board,
8. (h) the provision of information by the board, and
9. (i) complaints of maladministration.

(5) Before making an order under subsection (1) in relation to an area of outstanding natural beauty in England, the Secretary of State shall consult—

1. (a) the Agency, and
795
2. (b) every local authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of the area of outstanding natural beauty.

(6) Before making an order under subsection (1) in relation to an area of outstanding natural beauty in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales shall consult—

1. (a) the Council, and
2. (b) every local authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of the area of outstanding natural beauty.

(7) An order under subsection (1) which amends or revokes a previous order under that subsection establishing a conservation board—

1. (a) may be made only after consultation with the conservation board to which it relates (as well as the consultation required by subsection (5) or (6)), and
2. (b) in the case of an order revoking a previous order, may provide for the winding up of the board.

(8) Subject to any order under subsection (9), where there is a variation of the area of an area of outstanding natural beauty for which there is or is to be a conservation board, the area of outstanding natural beauty for which that board is or is to be the conservation hoard shall be taken, as from the time when the variation takes effect, to be that area as varied.

(9) Where provision is made for the variation of the area of an area of outstanding natural beauty for which there is or is to be a conservation board, the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may by order make such transitional provision as he or it thinks fit with respect to—

1. (a) any functions which, in relation to any area that becomes part of the area of outstanding natural beauty, are by virtue of the variation to become functions of that conservation board; and
2. (b) any functions which, in relation to any area that ceases to be part of the area of outstanding natural beauty, are by virtue of the variation to become functions of a person other than that conservation board.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 525, I should like to speak also to the other amendments in the group. These amendments are of greater substance than the consolidated amendments in the previous group, but no doubt some of the same arguments will arise again. These amendments enable the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to establish conservation boards for individual AONBs. They would be required to consult the agencies and all affected local authorities. We would expect a significant level of local support to be demonstrated before establishing any board.

There has been consistent and widespread support for the introduction of this provision since the Countryside Commission first presented its advice on the future protection of AONBs to the Government in 1998. All developments since then have reflected the reaction to that. I emphasise that the Government does not see a conservation board as the right solution for every AONB area. We are not interested in imposing conservation boards where they are not wanted locally. They are likely to be most appropriate for some of the larger AONBs which cross a number of local authority boundaries. We expect the first moves to establish a conservation board to come from those which manage a particular AONB at present.

The boards would have two main purposes as set out mainly in Amendment No. 526: to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB; and, in recognition that conservation takes place to help both local people and visitors to enjoy the AONB, a duty to increase public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the AONB. The long-standing "Sandford principle" in the context of the national parks would apply so that, in the event of a conflict between the two purposes, conservation would take precedence.

The detailed functions of a conservation board would be set out in its establishment order. The functions transferred from the existing structure would have to be relevant to the AONB designation and the overarching purposes of AONB conservation boards. We have in mind activities such as managing rights of way, providing picnic sites and car parks and carrying out the usual countryside management services undertaken by local authorities. The Secretary of State is required to consult all relevant local authorities. Any establishment order, as was said earlier, will follow the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.

The conservation boards would have duties towards the economic and social well-being of their local communities similar to those of national park authorities.

The basic membership arrangements which we propose are set out in the schedule in Amendment No. 539. That provides for local authorities to appoint at least 40 per cent of the members. The way in which this would work for an individual board is left to its establishment order. The remaining members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. In England, where we have parish members—for example, on national park authorities—the Secretary of State's appointees would also include parish members, who would make up at least 20 per cent of the total membership. The remaining appointments by the Secretary of State would cover a variety of interests, including conservation, land management and countryside recreation.

Amendment No. 530 makes provision for grants to be made to the conservation boards. Local authorities may also be expected to contribute, as they do to the management of their AONBs now. But there is no provision for conservation boards to be given levying powers as some Members of the Committee are advocating.

Many Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government have already increased considerably the budget going to AONBs via the Countryside Agency. I anticipate that we shall be able to announce a further increase later this year. I am pleased to say that my department, the Countryside Agency and the AONBs' association are working closely together to agree a method of allocating funds from the Countryside Agency to every AONB in England.

I should refer briefly to Amendment No. 527A, which replaces Amendment No. 527. The sole changes are to insert references in subsections (3) and (4) to provide that those two subsections apply only to orders made by the Secretary of State, and not to those made by the National Assembly for Wales. The two subsections deal only with Westminster procedures. So that is a tidying up of my original amendment. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 525A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, not moved.]

10.45 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 525, Amendment No. 525AA: Line 15, leave out paragraph (a).

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 525AA seeks to remove paragraph (a) of subsection (3) from the Bill. Subsection (3) states: Where the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales considers it expedient for either of the purposes mentioned in section (General purposes and powers)(1), an order under subsection (1) may—(a) provide for the transfer to the conservation board to which the order relates of any of the functions of local authorities, so far as relating to the area of outstanding natural beauty in question".

We have had some debate about whether or not it is the intention that planning powers should be transferred to conservation boards. This particular paragraph clearly makes it plain that they can be. However, it is not only planning powers: one could conceive of highways interests also being transferred. Given the scale of activities like fly tipping and the problems that there are with waste nowadays, one could even conceive of some powers in relation to waste being transferred.

I find myself wondering whether that is really what we want or whether it is desirable. If we simply take that little paragraph out, we are left with the preamble which I read. It would then state that an order may, provide for any function of a local authority, so far as relating to the area of outstanding natural beauty in question, to be exercisable concurrently by the local authority and by the conservation board".

It seems to me that that is the preferable and proper way of going forward in this particular matter.

I look forward to what the Minister has to say on this point. He has on occasion, if I have been listening with sufficient attention, given the impression that powers are not to be transferred to conservation boards, but the fact is that this part of the new clause makes that possible. We do not think that the possibility is helpful and we do not think that it takes the Bill forward. We think it would be better to remove the provision. I beg to move.

Lord Jopling

I have listened to the debate on this group of amendments on areas of outstanding natural beauty which the Government have cascaded onto the Bill at a late stage. I have to say that I am totally perplexed by this method of legislation. We are looking at government amendments without having had a proper opportunity fully to debate their implications.

My mind goes back to 1975 and to another Bill introduced by a Labour government. It was the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, on which I happened in another place to lead for the opposition. At the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister—I think I am right in saying that it was that great and lovely man, Fred Peart, who was as distinguished in this House as he was in another place—cascaded into it a whole group of new provisions to abolish the tied cottage system. I shall not enter into argument about whether that was a good or a bad thing, but I can remember making representations to the government of the day and saying, "This is a totally unsatisfactory way of legislating. You cannot introduce a whole raft of new measures into a government Bill while that Bill is in full flood". The government of the day had the common sense to say—it is the difference between the way Fred Peart handled that Bill and the way the Government have handled this one— "We accept that. We will go back to the Floor of the House and have a Second Reading debate on the provisions to abolish the tied cottage". The Committee stage was suspended, we had a Second Reading debate on the provisions to abolish the tied cottage, we then came back to the Committee stage having had that full debate, and we proceeded from there. That is the way we should be proceeding over these measures, because they are just as important and fundamental and have just as large an effect on the countryside as those provisions to abolish the tied cottage.

I have listened to the debate so far. In this group of amendments the Government are seeking to do all kinds of extraordinary things. They are seeking powers to allow Ministers to transfer to the boards any or all local government functions in the matter, and other extremely fundamental powers are being taken. I ask the Government to reconsider the position. Even if Ministers on the Front Bench have sympathy with what I am saying, I suppose it is too late, particularly at this stage of the legislative programme, to suggest to the business managers of this place, bearing in mind the absolutely criminal way in which they have managed the legislative programme this year—here we are, half way through October, and we are only reaching the end of the Committee stages of this and other Bills—that they ought to go back and have a Second Reading debate on these fundamental amendments to the Bill. I suppose that that is too much to ask.

In my view, the business managers in this House have organised the legislative programme in a way that is totally inconceivable so great is its incompetence. I say that as a former government business manager in another place, so I do have some knowledge of managing the government programme. As I said, the way in which these people have organised this year's programme is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to Parliament and a disgrace to the whole democratic system in this country. I could not be more infuriated by this. It is all well and good for the Minister to attempt to laugh this off, but, with great respect to him, I think that he has very little experience of the parliamentary process. I happen to have been around this place for a long time and for much of that time I have been deeply involved in the management of government business. What is taking place now is a total disgrace.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Perhaps I may—

Lord Jopling

I should like to finish what I have to say. In all my 35 years in this building, I have never seen government legislation handled in a more incompetent way. The Government should be totally ashamed of themselves.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I wished only to say that the Minister was laughing at me, not at the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I apologise for that.

Earl Peel

I should like to speak briefly after the contribution from my noble friend Lord Jopling. He has echoed what I said earlier, but he has put it in far more powerful terms, based on his long experience. I have to say that I agree entirely with what he has said. However, I shall not repeat the points I made earlier.

Perhaps I may refer to my noble friend's amendment. The Minister stated that there was widespread support for these measures throughout local councils. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested something similar. All I can say is that, speaking as someone who comes from the north of England and living in an AONB, I do not believe for a moment that those views are shared. I do not know from where the idea has developed that every single council has been consulted on and approved of these measures. That simply is not true.

Even if some councils do support the principles, I wonder whether they had any idea that such functions of local authorities could be transferred from them to these new boards. I would bet that they did not. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's amendment.

Baroness Hanham

I had not intended to intervene in this debate because I have not taken part in it before. However, we do need to look at the situation in local authorities. It is quite extraordinary to see provided in this Bill quite specific arrangements to remove powers from local authorities and confer them to what, in other terms, might be described as development boards. We have seen such boards before.

However, by doing this at a time when great reforms are being made—we have greatly reformed local government—we are about to give powers to conservation boards which are to be taken away from local authorities which in other legislation over previous months we have described as being about to take on more and more powers in different ways in order to have a greater effect over their local areas.

The concern I feel relates to something on which my noble friend will touch in a minute—that is, the general way in which local people will be consulted about what is to be done in their name. These powers will be handed over by local authorities which, as my noble friend Lord Peel said, may not be too keen on having them transferred. Perhaps we should be taking far more account of the other measures and of the way in which local authorities are being reconstructed than has been so far evident.

Perhaps I may refer back to Clause 26(4) which has been discussed. It seems to me that subsection (3)(a) of the amendment would enable the provisions in that clause to be carried out and implemented, and all the powers could go immediately to the conservation boards without further touching or impinging upon local authority consideration.

I hesitated to intervene. Local authorities are being seriously undermined by what is proposed here. They may not perhaps be quite as excited and enthusiastic about this when they see what the implications are in the future.

11 p.m.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

I, too, was under the impression that there was general approval for the basic proposal that there should be a board where the area of outstanding natural beauty covers more than one local authority area. But I think that I was misled in this belief because, quite clearly, having heard from the Country Landowners' Association and from the Local Government Association, there is some concern about the Government's proposals. In particular, the Local Government Association is concerned about the transfer of its planning powers to the conservation boards.

I am here to represent in particular the interests of Wales. I believe that of the five areas of outstanding natural beauty currently designated in Wales only one extends beyond a single authority—that is, the Wye Valley, which crosses the border into England. That will pose a very interesting problem. It has had a joint advisory committee for some years and, as I understand it, it has worked well.

I think that the Wye Valley AONB committee may well consider it advantageous to seek board status. In that event, it would involve a twin-track procedure for the relevant order involving the Secretary of State, this Parliament in England and the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with the new clause in Amendment No. 527A. It may well be a prolonged and difficult process, but I would hope not impossible if there is cross-border agreement. It is the kind of situation with which we are faced—potentially difficult but not impossible.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, based in Welshpool, Powys, which keeps an eye on all the AONBs in Wales, has written to me to express concern that those areas which are limited to single local authorities may be disadvantaged financially by not having board status and the additional grants that will accompany that. That organisation foresees a three-tier system of national parks, conservation board AONBs and non-conservation board AONBs, each tier with rather fewer resources than the one above. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that, so far as concerns England, there would be an increase in resources for AONBs. However, he did not specify whether there would be more for conservation board AONBs than for non-conservation board AONBs. Perhaps the matter can be clarified. What happens in England will be indicative of what should happen in Wales.

So far as concerns the smaller AONBs, amalgamation, certainly in the Welsh case, to achieve conservation board status will not be an option, because the Welsh AONBs are geographically remote from one another. The Ynys Mân coastal area is separated by the Menai Straits and the Irish Sea from the Lleyn Peninsula AONB, and the Clwydian Hills are very far from Gower. I hope that the Government can give some reassurance that the non-conservation board AONBs will not be unduly disadvantaged. I am sure that many in England, like those in Wales, have low rateable values and cannot raise much money locally.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales also points out that the conservation boards will have a duty to increase public understanding and enjoyment of their areas, and to foster the social and economic well-being of their communities. I think that the phrase "without significant expenditure" goes in there somewhere.

These duties are not specifically attached to AONBs as they stand, although the local authorities and other interested bodies may be empowered to act in these respects. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board and that he will comment on it. In other words, is there a difference in function, in duty, between the conservation board AONBs and the non-conservation board AONBs?

Incidentally, Amendment No. 539 (after Schedule 10 to the Bill) is curiously drawn in that it prescribes, as I implied in an earlier intervention, parish council membership in England to the extent of 20 per cent of the conservation board. But there is no mention of community council membership in Wales. Community councils are the Welsh equivalent of parish councils. Are community councils to be ignored and have no prescribed part in any conservation board that may be set up in Wales, or is the situation different? The Minister implied that the situation regarding community councils in Wales would be the same as that for parish councils in England. I hope that that is the case.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

Several Members of the Committee have implied that, under the arrangements whereby conservation boards might take on some of the powers of local authorities, matters would be worse for local people because there would be less accountability. If one asks local people who live in AONBs what kind of activities they are attempting to undertake and what difficulties they experience under the current arrangements, one example given is that they are trying to establish an economic development plan that ties in the production oflocal produce with the marketing of that produce. As matters stand, they may have to deal with five, six, seven or eight different local authorities and their various economic development plans and tourism strategies. Parish councillors, farmers and shopkeepers in an AONB who are trying to get together to implement a plan simply cannot go around so many local authorities putting their point of view. It is very time-consuming. They can see an advantage in the powers being vested in the conservation board so that it can get on with this sort of activity. It would fall into the category of social and economic well-being.

The question has been asked whether there should be a straight transfer of powers from local authorities to conservation boards. We on these Benches would be the first not to wish to undermine the democratic accountability of local councils. However, if one looks at the situation from the point of view of those who are trying to exist and make a living at the same time as keeping their area's outstanding natural beauty truly outstanding, one sees that where they have to deal with many different local authorities, they have a considerable problem. They are hoping that the Bill will be able to overcome that problem. The point that the Minister needs to establish is whether the Bill will achieve that aim. Alternatively, will it undermine those districts and counties that already have plans of their own by taking away their functions?

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, touched on the issue of two-tier funding, which I believe I mentioned earlier and to which we shall return later when discussing the funding. At that stage I shall support the statements that he made.

The Earl of Selborne

I have to say that the points just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, really amount to a vote of no confidence in local government. One really has to decide whether the existing powers for local authorities to operate jointly in an advisory committee and to ensure that they present a face to the farmers, and others, who will use the new markets in such a way that they are user-friendly can be effective. The answer is that they can, because that is done in the best-regulated authorities.

Do we really think that giving the Secretary of State powers when he or she thinks it "expedient" to pass these powers on to a conservation board—the majority of whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State—amounts to local accountability or an improvement on the situation? You only think so if you do not believe that local authorities can get their act together. That is why I say that what we have just heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench amounts to a lack of confidence in local authorities.

I start with the premise that it is possible for local authorities to work together; indeed, it will be possible for them to work concurrently with conservation boards. I do not oppose the concept of conservation boards in principle, but I certainly oppose the idea that the Secretary of State, when he thinks it expedient, should be able to move any powers—whether it is planning, transport or anything else—to these conservation boards. I believe that I am right in saying that the Bill of my noble friend Lord Renton, which we considered a year or so ago, had some sort of clause stating that there had to be a broad measure of agreement that a conservation board should be established. Of course, my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong in that respect, but I see no such provision on the face of this amendment.

Therefore, we have here some quite draconian powers that are given to the Secretary of State. This amounts to an assumption that local authorities, as constituted at present, will be so incapable of collaborating and so remote from those whom they seek to serve that it will be much better to move these functions lock stock and barrel to a conservation board, with the Secretary of State (and no one else) ultimately deciding that that is appropriate. That does not sound to me like a sensible way to proceed.

The Earl of Caithness

Perhaps it would assist the Committee if I were to speak to my Amendment No. 525CA, which appears on a separate piece of paper. It takes us back to the point of local consultation about the conservation boards. Indeed, it is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, raised earlier in debate. My noble friend Lord Selborne raised it in connection with a previous amendment, and my noble friend Lady Hanham mentioned the matter just a few moments ago.

There seems to be some consultation about setting up the conservation boards, but before creating such an unelected and unaccountable quango, as the Government propose, it is desirable both in England and Wales that there should be contact with the interested parties; that is to say, those who live and work in the area. However, as I read the current proposals, there is no such provision. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 525CA, which would oblige Ministers and the Assembly to advertise the proposals for an order to establish a conservation board. That would be done in local newspapers so that local people would have some imput into the measure.

While I am speaking to this group of amendments, I should like to mention Amendment No. 530 on the subject of finance. I believe that we come to the crux of the problem here. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry is looking into the future with rose-tinted glasses if he thinks that there will be more money available. The Minister said that there are proposals to increase the budget in the next financial year. However, I cannot see that continuing for ever. I envisage the conservation boards being established with almost the same powers as national parks but without their support and finance. One of the great flaws in the scheme is the financial flaw. Great hopes and great expectations have been raised, but there will not he the finance to see the scheme through.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

This has been another wide-ranging debate. First, I shall make a few general points as a number of accusations have been levelled at the Government both in terms of procedure and what we have told the Committee.

The LGA has consulted all local authorities. Its official document states: The LGA believes there is a wide degree of consensus or cross-party support for the inclusion of measures to give statutory backing to AONB management in this Bill. The proposed new clauses", which include the one we are discussing, will enable local authorities to discharge their management duty through the statutory conservation boards. Conservation boards will be particularly suited to large and administratively complex AONBs shared by a number of local authorities". Therefore I believe that local authorities have indicated that they support this option. They have recognised the problem to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred in terms of local people and local businesses not having a single point of contact on issues related to an AONB.

The benefits of having a single board were ably spelt out when we discussed the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I think that there is pretty wide support among local authorities for having such a body. That is not to say that local authorities do not have reservations. They want to be reassured that they will not be trampled all over and that the finance will be available. They also want to be reassured that they will have agreed any powers which are transferred to the body we are discussing. It is important to recognise that powers which are transferred will have been agreed locally. The views of local authorities must be taken fully into account in any such transfer. As regards planning—

Lord Greaves

I am grateful for that assurance. Will the Minister tell us exactly where it states in the amendments that, in effect, a local authority would be able to say no to any transfer of powers to which it did not agree?

Lord Whitty

It is probably not true to say that a single local authority would be able to do that. However, local authorities within an area could do so as the Secretary of State would have to take a view of the local authorities concerned. If there were six or seven local authorities and one objected, I concede that there may be a problem. However, the central point is that local authorities' views will be fully taken into account and transfers of powers will therefore be decided locally. There is no intention to transfer planning powers. Any powers which are transferred must be relevant to the role of the conservation agency and the AONB. There is not an open-ended ability to transfer powers from local authorities.

Lord Greaves

I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer; namely, that it is obviously sensible for some powers to be transferred in some circumstances. However, in the Bill as drafted, what is to prevent the Secretary of State deciding to transfer, for example, development control powers? What is to prevent the Secretary of State overriding the views of local authorities in the area, or a majority of those views? Where is it stated in the Bill that that consent is required?

Lord Whitty

The measure states that local authorities must be fully consulted and that the transfer of powers must be agreed locally. As regards planning consents, there is obviously a deep misapprehension among the Committee that the intention is to transfer planning powers. We have always said that there is no such intention and that local authorities understand that. Those who advocate the creation of conservation boards understand that. I shall consider whether it is necessary to make that more explicit. However, I believe that we have made clear our intention in relation to planning powers. Indeed, one would have hugely more complicated provisions were one to be in the position of transferring planning powers. The simple ability to transfer any power would not cover the situation.

Lord Greaves

I am prepared to accept what the Minister says as to intention. The worry is that the precise wording of the proposed subsection (3)(a) appears to go far beyond what the Minister says. Will the Minister consider a change of wording, perhaps on Report, to allay those fears?

Lord Whitty

If that wording is not clear enough, I shall consider the matter further. But it is clear that no one has argued for the transfer of planning powers in the sense referred to here.

Funding is of central concern to local authorities. The conservation boards are not able to levy money. I said that the Countryside Agency is working with the AONB association on a fairer funding model for all AONBs. We have increased that budget substantially already via the Countryside Agency. Therefore, there are more resources available here. We hope to announce the increase shortly.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, there is no desire to create two classes of local authority. There will be no discrimination between those AONBs which decide, with the Secretary of State's agreement, to have a conservation board and those which do not. The allocation of such moneys would be via the Countryside Agency on the basis of need.

Although there may be some concern among local authorities, in principle they want these powers. I indicated that the reassurance is already in place to deal with the anxieties of local authorities.

The proposition has been around for some time. I do not accept any of the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. His analogy is interesting. We have had outside pressures to introduce these clauses. Having failed to pass the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, last year, I can imagine the furore among all interested parties were we to allow again a piece of countryside protection legislation to go through without taking the opportunity to increase the provisions for the AONBs. I believe that we would be subject to considerably greater criticism.

As regards the point at which we have introduced the clause, it reflects a clear commitment made to the Front and Back Benches on all sides of another place that we would so do in this House. Convention means that we could not introduce the measure before Second Reading. We are, therefore, introducing it at the first possible opportunity.

As regards analogies to the 1974 legislation, I find it most unlikely that the then Conservative opposition had requested the then government to introduce provisions on tied cottages. However, in this case we face a united all-party request for these provisions. We have brought them forward so far as concerns this Chamber at the earliest opportunity. I believe that we have had reasonable scope for debate in Committee. No doubt we shall return to some issues on Report. At the moment, I hope that the noble Lord does not pursue his amendment.

Baroness Hanham

Would the Minister be kind enough to draw to my attention the provision in the amendments that says that planning powers will not be passed to the boards? The amendments say that any of the functions of local authorities can be passed to the boards. They do not exclude planning powers. If planning powers are not to be passed, that should be specified in the Bill. It seems that the powers to enable litter to be picked up, waste prevented and perhaps a road built are the only ones that will be passed. Any visitor centre to be built would require planning permission. Either the planning powers would have to be passed to the board or they would be kept by the local authority and the conservation board would have to make an application to it as the planning authority. That is an important issue. I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure us as to where it will be specified that planning powers will not, should not or shall not be passed to the conservation board.

Lord Jopling

I should like to say a few words about the Minister's response to my earlier remarks. I am sorry to say that his justification for the Government's handling of the legislation in this way tonight was pretty lame. The effects of the amendments on the countryside will be far greater than the example of the closed shop that I quoted earlier. However, I realise that the Government are intent on pushing the provision through within a few weeks of the end of the Session. I have made my point and I shall leave it at that.

I come back to remarks made by two noble Lords. First, my noble friend Lord Selborne made a point about last year's Private Member's Bill of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry agrees that it was on my initiative in Committee that he agreed to include a provision that such boards would be established only if there was general local consent. I remember talking to him about that and speaking about it in Committee. He accepted that point at the time. My recollection is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Selborne.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he could see nothing that went further than the provision in Amendment No. 525 (5)(b), with regard to England, and subsection (6)(b), with regard to Wales, that there should be consultation with, every local authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of the area of outstanding natural beauty". I think I heard the Minister say that the Government were prepared to reconsider the issue in the next week or so, before Report stage. I am grateful for that. The most crucial aspect of my noble friend's Bill last year was that there should be broad local consent. That is also crucial for this Bill. We need to add a provision that the Government will proceed only if there is broad agreement. I do not know whether a figure such as two-thirds of the local authorities in the area should be specified, but there needs to be broad agreement that such boards ought to be set up.

I should have preferred to add a paragraph (c) to subsections (5) and (6) stating that consultation should also take place with more specified local people; for example, with regard to the farming industry and to any other organisations which appeared to have a crucial interest in the area. That may not be possible. However, I believe that it is absolutely essential that on Report we have an amendment which states that the order can proceed only provided that broad agreement is reached by the local authorities that the organisations should be set up.

11.30 p.m.

The Earl of Carnarvon

I wonder whether the Minister would consider bringing back on Report in both paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) some wording regarding the function of local authorities apart from planning. That would go a long way towards satisfying many people in local government who see a clash of identities between the board and the local authorities involved. That will obviously require some redrafting.

I find the words "so far as relating" difficult to understand without a reference to the function. It is the planning function which worries most people.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

Perhaps I may start by responding to some of the comments made about my Private Member's Bill which I introduced into this House a year ago and which, indeed, would have made rather more progress if it had not been so strongly opposed by some Members of my own party. That is something that is becoming a little familiar tonight.

First, I say to my noble friend Lord Selborne: yes, indeed, my noble friend Lord Jopling is absolutely right. After consultation with him, I included wording to specify that, before a conservation board is established with the agency, there should be consultation not only with the Countryside Agency but with affected local authorities. However, before making an order, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is a broad measure of agreement among those consulted that a conservation board should be established. It is possible that the Minister would like to consider adding wording along those lines before Report stage.

That said, I now want to speak to my own amendment—Amendment No. 536A—concerning finances. I believe that we have moved on to that subject. However, before I do so, I must repeat that I speak not only as chairman of, I believe, the only existing conservation board on which 14 local authorities are represented but also as a member of the executive committee of the AONB Association, which now contains every single AONB in England and Wales—41 if the Wye Valley is considered as one; 42 if it is considered as two, part in Wales and part in England. I know of no one on either of those boards who is deeply worried about the dragons and demons that some of my noble friends have been seeing in the past hour or so.

Of course, it is always possible to envisage that a great deal of power will be transferred by an over-mighty Secretary of State. However, the general feeling among AONBs all around the country and among joint advisory committees on which many local authorities sit is that this broad proposal by the Government is now a necessary step forward. It has been talked about for more than 10 years and it has been discussed in both Houses of Parliament.

I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he expresses surprise at some of the nightmares. Of course, as will any Minister, the noble Lord will reconsider the drafting in the light of what has been said. However, it is only fair to say that these amendments were published at the end of July. They have been available for the whole of August and September and up until now in October. I believe that they were published on 26th July.

The only worry that I have heard from either of the bodies on which I sit, one of which I chair, is that which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, outlined; that is, the worry about what will be the financing position of those AONBs which do not become conservation boards. Are they to be regarded very much as second-class citizens? If so, how can their position be improved? It is not that they do not want this legislation but they want to know how their position can be improved.

That takes me on to the question of finances, which is by no means the only issue which we are discussing at this stage. However, we have reached the point at which it is in order to discuss it. My noble friend Lord Caithness said he thought I was rather over-optimistic in thinking that there would be more money available. At the moment, the joint advisory committees have no security or certainty of any money at all. They have nothing. If they are funded by anyone, it is by the Countryside Agency in partnership with the constituent local authorities. The Countryside Agency may give them some money or it may not. But, as I said in my earlier speech, the worry that they all have is that, when the pressures are on local authority finances, one of the first things to be cut is the money for conservation, because, sadly, in the scheme of things, it is not the top priority.

Under the financing which the Secretary of State proposes in this Bill, it is quite clear that there will be, as for the national parks, a regular contribution coming from the Secretary of State and the Department for the Environment every year. On that basis, staff can be hired; rangers and conservation officers can be employed.

In the case of my own board, to which one noble Lord referred rather kindly—and I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Peel—our present position is that as of 1st April next year, which is only five months away, we do not know whether we shall have any money at all. We really do not know because our present arrangements with the local authorities and the Countryside Agency, as a generally successful voluntary conservation board set up by the local authorities and the Countryside Agency by agreement in 1991–92, come to a finality on 31st March, which is six months, time. As chairman, I am deep in negotiations to ensure that there is enough money for us to continue. That is precisely the course which Lord Nathan embarked upon three years ago when he wisely asked me to take over chairmanship of the board.

And so how can we, on the conservation board, with all we are trying to do on the South Downs, in terms of landscape enhancement, for example, in partnership with local farmers, employ good rangers and good officers when they do not know whether they will have a contract of employment with my board on 1st April? That is an essential point about why the AONBs, represented by their JACs or whatever—most of which have a majority of local authority councillors on them—so strongly support the proposals which the Government are now putting forward.

Therefore, I have tabled an amendment which deals with the financing—Amendment No. 536A, which is lifted from my Private Member's Bill—and it represents almost exactly the funding of national parks. Members of the Committee will know that the funding of national parks comes 75 per cent from the Secretary of State for the Environment. He looks at a three-year plan for the national parks; discusses it with national parks officers and the Countryside Agency; the three-year funding is agreed. The balance of 25 per cent is a levy on the local authorities.

The Bill as put forward by the Minister and the Government does not include that levy on the local authorities. A few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that there was no intention of placing a levy on the local authorities. I believe that that is wrong, because, as so many of my noble friends have said, the local authorities need to be involved. I do not believe that all the money should come from the centre. If the local authorities are involved at the levy level of 25 per cent, that helps them to keep their finger on the pulse of what is happening. It is true also that he who pays the piper plays the tune and I should not like to see the local authorities totally divorced from the funding for the reason that many Members of the Committee have advanced in the last hours; that is, to make certain that the local authorities feel, to a large degree, that the conservation board is theirs, that it is part of them, not a foreign, alien structure. To make them pay part of the money is perhaps a funny way to do it, but I am sure that it is right.

Therefore, I hope that the Government, in reconsidering parts of this Bill, will reconsider the possibility of putting the funding of the conservation boards, if and when they are constituted, at the same level as the national parks, so that they receive 75 per cent from the department and 25 per cent as a levy from the local authorities. That works extremely well with the Chichester Harbour Board, in Sussex, which is financed on exactly that basis. The interest of the local authority is maintained and it has made the Chichester Harbour Board a successful authority. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selborne

It is one thing to support conservation boards in principle, as I certainly do, but it is quite another to say that measures proposed in these amendments, be they government amendments or those of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, are appropriate.

We have not fully discussed the requirement to ensure that the Secretary of State is not to use his powers to move statutory planning functions over to the conservation boards. The Minister has been frank and explicit which will reassure us. However, for those of us who, in the words of my noble friend Lord Renton, are slaying dragons that do not exist—it is our job to anticipate dragons that may appear—we should ask the question: if there is no intention to use the powers, why not say so? I hope that the Minister will reconsider that point. I also hope that the Minister will not be swayed by the arguments that conservation boards should have powers to levy funds from local authorities under terms set down by the Secretary of State.

I understand that the conservation boards want that because they find that they are unsuccessful in negotiating with local authorities. However, they must collaborate with the local authorities. If they find that the system does not work, it may be because they have not persuaded the local authorities of the wisdom of their expenditure, or it may be because there needs to be a better understanding among all parties. I simply do not believe that to take the matter out of local authority accountability and to give levy-raising powers to conservation boards will help local democracy one little bit, nor do I believe that it will help the conservation boards to acquire the support that they need.

Earl Peel

I entirely agree with my noble friend. Perhaps I can return to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton in relation to demons. It is all very well to say that local authorities or individuals have visions of demons, but they have to be dismissed if we are to go forward with any degree of confidence with regard to AONBs. My noble friend Lord Renton has a whole series of items that are designed to deal with demons under Amendment No. 539A. Quite clearly he is as concerned about demons as the rest of us.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

With great respect, I have not yet had a chance to speak to Amendment No. 539A. It takes up the point stressed by the noble Earl himself about more local authority representation on boards, with which I wholly agree. It is not a demon; it is a matter of numbers.

Baroness Byford

On these Benches, we support the second part of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I believe that it makes sense that the Secretary of State may make grants to the conservation boards for such amounts and on terms that the Secretary of State thinks fit. I had assumed that that would be done through the SSAs in the normal way. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

I do not follow my noble friend's line of thought on the first point in the amendment, that the conservation boards should he able to issue levies on councils. I have reservations in that regard. While I support the second part of the amendment, I struggle to support the first part for the reasons expressed by other noble Lords.

We are in a slight muddle. We have jumped and missed out swathes of amendments. My noble friend was quite right to move his amendment because that came in with the Government's amendment and I have no difficulty with that. But somehow we have jumped around. Is it possible to come back to some semblance of order and proceed from there? I do not mean to be difficult.

11.45 p.m.

Lord Whitty

I heartily agree that we are in a slight muddle, though many of the amendments interrelate. My understanding is that I formally moved Amendment No. 525 and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, moved an amendment to it. We have spread ourselves rather widely since then, incorporating the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. We have been trying to put to rest some of the demons and, as the midnight hour approaches, I should perhaps try again otherwise they may come back to haunt us.

The worries of local authorities and others about the establishment of these boards fall under three headings: first, finance; secondly, how far consultation will go and who will be involved in the decision; and, thirdly, the powers to be transferred. On consultation, let me make it clear that the requirement on the Secretary of State under Amendment No. 525 to consult before making an order also implies a requirement on him to act reasonably in the face of that consultation. It would therefore be extremely unlikely and certainly subject to serious challenge were all local authorities in the area, or even the majority of them, to object to such a move and then the Secretary of State to impose it. It is intended to be a consensual arrangement to apply in areas where the majority of people already involved with conservation and AON Bs want a new body to carry out the duties and where the multiplicity of bodies at the moment is a problem. There are a number of the 41 AONBs where that situation applies.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for introducing a slightly corrective note in regard to people's apprehensions. By and large people are looking for measures to provide an option to establish such a board. But local authorities will be consulted and will not be able to be ignored following that consultation.

There is clearly misunderstanding in relation to the powers to be transferred. The powers involved relate only to the functions of the AONB management. The idea that wide-ranging powers, including full development planning powers, can be transferred is wrong. We are not talking about national park type powers; we are talking of the powers of the AONB management.

It appears that in relation to planning and other areas such as those raised by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, greater clarity is needed. I shall certainly take away the view expressed on all sides of the Committee that the planning situation is not clear and perhaps look at one or two other areas to see whether anything can be done between now and Report to clarify the position. Clearly, it was the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and others that planning could be transferred wholesale under this provision. That was not the intention and if that appears to be possible, we want to ensure that that is no longer the case.

To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and the noble Baroness, some of the increased money for conservation to which I referred will come via the countryside agencies to the AONBs. We have already referred to the discussion taking place between the countryside agencies and the AONB committees. That money will not come via the SSA; it will be a specific grant either via the agencies or direct to the new board. I hope that clarifies the position. However, there is more money forthcoming and therefore some of the problems in relation to resources, lack of stability and lack of forward planning to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred, should be overcome by that provision.

However, it would not be helpful to take the noble Lord's other point in his Amendment No. 539A—I am not sure that I should refer to it at this time. I believe that the levy could undermine the essential requirement that the conservation board would need to co-operate in a constructive and pro-active way with the local authorities. There is the danger that local authorities would see the payment of the levy as handing over all responsibility to the board and therefore leaving all aspects of conservation to the board. We would rather that such a passive financial relationship, which might lead to resentment on both sides, was not the basis for funding. That should be as I have described.

I return to the only amendment to my amendment to have been moved. I have indicated our intention as regards planning transfers and said that I shall look to see whether we can clarify it. I hope that our intentions are clear and that that amendment will not be needed.

Lord Judd

As regards planning, my noble friend has listened patiently to an interesting debate on the other side of the Committee. However, will he assure some of us who are deeply concerned about the danger of erosion in AONBs that what matters above all is that where it is decided that there is an area of outstanding natural beauty there must be a management system dedicated to the preservation of that AONB as a priority above all else?

Lord Whitty

I believe that I can give that assurance, except for the word "a" in the sense that in some cases the local authority or authorities will be adequately carrying out that task—they may want to do so—and can be trusted in their present form to continue to do so. In other circumstances, we will need to create a new body and will want local authorities to act in conjunction with it. However, the responsibility must be undertaken and it is the Government's objective to ensure that that not only preserves but enhances the status and protection of AONBs. That is our objective and the other measures are simply means to achieving it. I hope that that is widely understood in the Committee.

Lord Marlesford

I understand that we have not yet discussed Amendment No. 528 but that we shall come to it later. I understand that it is all about planning.

Lord Whitty

The noble Lord is right procedurally. Whether that is what happens is entirely another matter.

Lord Dixon-Smith

For some time now I have been trying to rise to wind up the debate. I was beginning to think that it must be Halloween because we seem to have raised a number of bogies and boggles tonight.

It would be superfluous to try to run through what once again has been a wide-ranging debate. Such a debate, if it does nothing else, indicates the dangers of the procedures in which we are indulging to get the legislation on the statute book. We are not opposed to getting the consequences of this on the statute book, but we question a number of points of detail, some of which involve fundamental principles.

The Minister, in his second summing up, has gone a long way towards answering many of the concerns, in particular those relating to the transfer of powers and the ways in which conservation boards might be introduced. The problem is that we must deal with what is on the face of the Bill and not with the Government's conscious intention which is not available to us until the Minister has explained it and we can later read it in Hansard. I am confident that we shall need to return to this issue on Report. Perhaps at that stage the Minister will bring forward amendments which will satisfy us but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 525AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 525B and 525C, as amendments to Amendment No. 525, not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, Amendment No. 525CA: Line 45, at end of subsection (6) insert— ("( ) In addition to their duties to consult under subsections (5) and (6) above the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as the case may be, shall before making an order publish in The London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area of the area of outstanding natural beauty, notice that they propose to make the order, indicating the effect of the order and stating the time within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the proposed order may be made to them, and shall consider any representations duly made.").

The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendment No. 525CA is purely to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to the points that I made. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The noble Earl's amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult publicly by publishing an announcement in the London Gazette and in other local newspapers. We would expect wide non-statutory consultation to take place before an establishment order is made. That would be more likely to be led by the agency rather than the Secretary of State direct, since the agency would be the statutory adviser and would do the preliminary work. Clearly, this provision would require a very substantial information programme before consultation could take place. Therefore, the objectives of the clause would have to be met by the agency in conducting its consultation, but probably not in quite the terms of the amendment. Although I do not consider it appropriate to add the amendment, I assure the noble Earl that there would be an opportunity for consultation and information on the basis of which that consultation could take place.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful for the response of the Minister. We have the same problem as that identified by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith; namely, we have to read the Bill as opposed to the Minister's mind. What requirement is placed on the Countryside Agency to consult before making a designation for a conservation board? Is this in legislation, or is it assumed good practice?

Lord Whitty

There is good practice in relation to consultation which is currently being updated by the Cabinet Office. We are talking about the pre-proposal period. That consultation is not normally set out in the primary legislation which governs the making of such regulations. Nevertheless, it is fairly standard practice and the requirement to set out the information is part of that.

The Earl of Caithness

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 525CA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 525D and 525E, as amendments to Amendment No. 525, not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, Amendment No. 525F: Line 68, leave out ("a person") and insert ("an authority").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with what I suspect is a slip of the draftsman's pen. If one looks in line 68 of Amendment No. 525, which deals with what happens to functions relating to an area that ceases to be part of an AONB, one sees, the variation to become functions of a person".

I believe that "person" should be "authority", and this short and simple amendment is designed to give effect to that. I do not believe that functions would ever be transferred back to a person. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I undertake to look at the matter. My understanding is that in this respect "person" includes a corporate person, and it may well include an authority but not exclusively. I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Dixon-Smith

With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 525F, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 525 agreed to.

Midnight

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 526: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

GENERAL PURPOSES AND POWERS

(" .—(1) It is the duty of a conservation board, in the exercise of their functions, to have regard to—

1. (a) the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty, and
2. (b) the purpose of increasing the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the area of outstanding natural beauty,

but if it appears to the board that there is a conflict between those purposes, they are to attach greater weight to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) A conservation board, while having regard to the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), shall seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the area of outstanding natural beauty, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of outstanding natural beauty.

(3) Sections 37 and 38 of the Countryside Act 1968 (general duties as to the protection of interests of the countryside and the avoidance of pollution) apply to conservation boards as they apply to local authorities.

(4) The powers of a conservation board include power to do anything which, in the opinion of the board, is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to—

1. (a) the accomplishment of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), or
816
2. (b) the carrying out of any functions conferred on it by virtue of any other provision of this Part or by virtue of any enactment not contained in this Part.

(5) The powers conferred on a conservation board by subsection (4) do not include—

1. (a) power to do anything in contravention of any restriction imposed by virtue of this Part in relation to any express power of the board, or
2. (b) power to raise money (whether by borrowing or otherwise) in a manner which is not authorised apart from that subsection,

but the things that may be done in exercise of those powers are not to be treated as excluding anything by reason only that it involves the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights.

(6) Schedule (Supplemental and incidental powers of conservation boards) (which relates to the supplemental and incidental powers of conservation boards) has effect.

(7) An order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) may—

1. (a) make further provision with respect to the supplemental and incidental powers of the conservation board to which it relates or the limits on those powers, including provision relating to the borrowing of money, and
2. (b) provide for any enactment which relates to or limits the supplemental or incidental powers or duties of local authorities or relates to the conduct of, or transactions by, local authorities to apply in relation to the conservation board with such modifications as may be specified in the order.").

The noble Lord said: I formally move the amendment.

Baroness Byford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, Amendment No. 526A: Line 4, leave out ("and enhancing").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 526A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 526B, 526C, 526D, 526E and 526F. I can speak briefly on Amendment No. 526A. The amendment is about enhancing AONBs. On these Benches we support the enhancing of areas of outstanding natural beauty. The question is, who actually pays for that enhancing? Our debate has ranged so widely that the Minister may say he has covered the topic already. I shall be happy if he does.

Amendment No. 526B seeks to leave out the words "seeks to foster" and to insert "support". The word "support" is stronger than "seeks to foster". It is much more direct. I hope the Government will consider that.

Amendment No. 526C seeks to leave out the words "beauty" to "and so". That removes the expression, without incurring significant expenditure".

That is really a value judgment. I wonder if the Government intend it so to be. Who decides what is or is not a significant expense? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

Amendment No. 526D seeks to leave out subsection (4). As other Members of the Committee have said, if that subsection is kept in the Bill, it gives the conservation board the power to do anything. I should like greater clarification on that. After our discussions about the powers of local authorities and their responsibilities, those are huge powers to give the board.

Amendment No. 526F is a probing amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bridges

I have a brief comment to make on Amendment No. 526. It seems to me that the first two subsections are in a sense contradictory. The subsections lay out the duty of the conservation board. Subsection (1)(a) states quote uncontroversially, the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty". That makes it a more important paragraph than paragraph (b) which follows. But subsection (2) states that the, conservation board … shall seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities". That is extremely broadly defined. It would seem to me to be capable of overriding subsection (1) altogether. What would happen if it was proposed to have a large commercial development at the very edge of the area in question? That would be permitted by the clause. It would also be permitted by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, Amendment No. 526B.

I suggest to the Committee that the great attraction of these areas is the absence of development. So far as possible, that should be maintained. I cite as examples two cases in foreign countries where the absence of development in national parks is actively promoted. In the United States, when I lived there, I spent several summers in the Rocky Mountain national park, west of Denver. It is the most beautiful place. I came to understand the rather interesting rules of the national park which stemmed from President Theodore Roosevelt, who was the father of the national park movement in the United States. The rules had the effect of giving the national park authority the ability to have the first choice of purchasing any property which came on the market. If, for example, you inherited from your mother and father, who had lived there all their lives, a small shop, you had to have permission from the national park authority to have the property transferred to your name. That helped to preserve the beauty of the place from the development of hamburger stands and other things which are such a feature of the American way of life.

The second example occurred in Italy. A few years ago I went as a member of a group, the International Dendrology Society, to visit the Abruzzo National Park in central Italy. It was one of the first national parks in Italy and it is in a very beautiful area, high up in the Apennines, with many native beech forests. When the national park was created a good many of the existing commercial activities were gradually closed down; for example, the commercial exploitation of timber and certain small industries which stemmed from that. At first there was a great uproar in the local community because people felt that their livelihood was being taken away from them. But now, 30 or 40 years later, it is clearly seen by the inhabitants that it was an extremely wise development, because the people coming into the national park from outside create more prosperity than had existed there with the original commercial activities.

Therefore, I suggest that there is a choice to be made. The present words of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and of the amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 526B, duck the question. We have a choice. Do we or do we not allow the commercial development of areas of outstanding natural beauty? I think that we should adopt a rather more reserved attitude than is permitted under the amendments as they stand.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has just said. One of the difficulties is that in essence there is a feeling—I found this with my Private Member's Bill last year—that the social and economic well-being of the communities should be included in the objectives so that the Bill is not just seen as a conservation Bill—a Bill to protect wild flowers and fauna and to help the farmers—but as a Bill generally to improve the economic standing of the area. But because, for just the reasons given by the noble Lord, people are rather frightened about that, the Government have included the words, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so". I was under exactly the same pressure when I brought forward my Private Member's Bill last year and I succumbed to it. I included those rather weasel words. However, it means that one is behaving like Saint Augustine—I am willing to give up sin, but not yet. It is a compromise that does not make a very great deal of sense and it has been carried forward into the Bill as it stands.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

Noble Lords who sat through the discussions on the Local Government Bill about the purposes of sustainable development will know that there was a lengthy debate around the balance between economic, social and environmental well-being, at the end of which the House generally concluded that all three were important and that in different areas the balance would be different. Clearly, in AONBs the balance would be heavily on the environmental side. But to go beyond what is said in the Bill in terms of fostering economic and social well-being would be wrong. While I can understand the wish to support economic activity—in many cases it might well be the right thing to do—AONBs vary considerably in their capacity to be developed in economic terms. Some cry out to have just their qualities of outstanding natural beauty preserved.

The Bill as drafted is probably as satisfactory as we are going to get in terms of a national prescription. I do not think that we should weight it any more heavily on the economic side, although I would certainly underline that without the economic side it will be difficult for people to carry on the conservation of those very features which are so important to them.

Lord Marlesford

I support what has just been said. There are many examples of national parks getting it right. There has been conservation and there has at the same time been the fostering and development of social and economic advance. It is perfectly possible to do both.

Indeed, what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is very interesting. The obvious analogy here is that, traditionally, when a plan is put in place to bypass a small town, the local traders worry that they will lose business. In general, the reverse proves to be true. There is nothing inconsistent between conservation and the fostering of economic and social benefit.

Lord Whitty

As regards Amendment No. 526A, we had a lengthy debate earlier on "enhancing". The amendment broadly raises the same point and we would continue to insist that "enhancing" has been in place throughout and should remain in place. The provision is not open-ended; there is "enhancing" only to fulfil the purpose of the AONB board or other management agency. For that reason, I do not believe that the word "enhancing" would have the kind of frightening effect envisaged earlier by the noble Baroness and others.

Amendments Nos. 526B and 526C seek to alter the provision in relation to economic and social matters. I recognise that these are delicate points and that the balance to be struck may be different between areas. Nevertheless, the economic and social well-being of the area and of those who live there forms part of the success or otherwise of the AONB's management. That is why we have employed almost the same phraseology as that covering "economic and social responsibilities" which was put on to the national park authorities in the Environment Act 1995.

The formula has worked reasonably well in the national parks. Although it does not allow them to spend significant amounts of money, it does mean that that dimension of their work must be taken into consideration, as well as underlining the need for close co-operation with neighbouring authorities. For those reasons, I should prefer to see the wording remain as it stands.

Amendment No. 526D would remove the Government's proposal to give conservation boards a general power to do anything to facilitate the accomplishment of their purpose. This power is properly expressed and is based closely on similar powers given to the national park authorities under the terms of the Environment Act 1995. Furthermore, the power is properly circumscribed by the following subsection, subsection (5) of the Government's new clause. The general power is firmly focused on the purposes we propose to give to conservation boards by means of this legislation. Again, it has not been put in place as an open-ended power, but it is important that such a general power is conferred.

So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 526E and 526F, I am not sure that I understood entirely why the noble Baroness wished to pursue those changes. On Amendment No. 526E which relates to the proposed limitations on subsection (5) of government Amendment No. 526, although I agree that the formula is a little complicated in our amendment, I cannot see that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would significantly improve the situation. Amendment No. 526F appears to be designed to limit further the powers of conservation boards. If that is the intention, I do not see the justification for it. If that is not the intention, I am not convinced that we would need the amendment.

I regret that I cannot be more positive about these amendments, although I recognise that some anxieties needed to be addressed. I hope that my comments will have helped to reassure the noble Baroness.

Baroness Byford

I thank the Minister for that response. As I said earlier, the last two amendments in the group were probing amendments because we have here a circular argument as regards exactly how this proposal will work. However, I do not wish to detain the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 526A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 526B to 526F, as amendments to Amendment No. 526, not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)

In calling Amendment No. 526G, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 526H.

12.15 a.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, Amendment No. 526G: Line 44, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 526G, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 526H. These amendments are probing amendments directed to the same purpose. They illustrate the difficulties of joint authorship against tight deadlines. Those of us responsible for the amendments would have preferred to table only one, but we did not have time to debate which one before the deadline for tabling amendments hit us.

These amendments concern the question of the order which will deal with the powers of conservation bodies. Amendment No. 526G seeks to remove subsection (7), which deals with the making of further provision in respect of supplemental and incidental powers and so on. Amendment No. 526H is more precisely aimed at subsection (7)(b), which states: provide for any enactment which relates to or limits the supplemental or incidental powers…to apply in relation to the conservation board with such modifications as may be specified in the order".

It seemed to me that that might put the conservation boards in a rather privileged position vis-à-vis local government legislation compared with local government itself. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. However, we felt that we should ask the question in order to discover precisely what does lie behind the new clause in Amendment No. 526. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

Acceptance of either of these amendments would make the proposed system of conservation boards inoperable. The Government have not set out to prescribe every facet of the powers of conservation boards in this legislation in order to enable arrangements to be made to suit local circumstances at the time an order is made.

Orders will need to make further supplemental or incidental powers available, for obvious reasons. Without that provision, conservation boards would not be able to operate. It is sensible to allow enactments relating to local authorities also to be applied but to recognise that certain features of them will need modification to match the circumstances of conservation boards, which are intended to be light touch bodies with limited powers and limited budgets. The full weight of procedures applying to a country or to a district will not always be appropriate to such a board, but suitable modification to take account of the board's circumstances will allow propriety to be safeguarded without overburdening the boards with bureaucracy. Once again, there is the point that anything done in an establishment order will be covered through the affirmative resolution procedure.

These provisions are needed to tailor the regulations covering the boards to meet their particular circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall study it with some care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 526G, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 526H, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 526 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 527 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 527A: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

ORDERS ESTABLISHING CONSERVATION BOARDS

(" .—(1) Any power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make an order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(2) No order shall be made under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(3) A statutory instrument containing an order made under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(9) by the Secretary of State shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) If a draft of an order made under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) by the Secretary of State would, apart from this section, be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.

(5) The power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make an order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) includes power to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the person making the order thinks necessary or expedient.

(6) The power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales by an order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) to make incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision includes power for any incidental, supplemental, consequential or, as the case may be, transitional purpose—

1. (a) to apply with or without modifications,
2. (b) to extend, exclude or modify, or
3. (c) to repeal or revoke with or without savings,

any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment.

(7) The provision that may be made for incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional purposes in the case of any order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) which—

1. (a) establishes a conservation board or provides for the winding up of such a board, or
2. (b) otherwise has the effect of transferring functions from one person to another or of providing for functions to become exercisable concurrently by two or more persons or to cease to be so exercisable,

includes provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from one person to another.

(8) The power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) to provide by order for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities, or to make transitional provision in connection with any such transfer or with any order by which functions become or cease to be exercisable by any conservation board, includes, in particular, power to provide—

1. (a) for the management and custody of any transferred property (whether real or personal);
2. (b) for any liabilities transferred to include liabilities under any enactment;
3. (c) for legal proceedings commenced by or against any person to be continued by or against a person to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred or, as the case may be, any board or other authority by whom any functions are to become exercisable;
4. (d) for the transfer of staff, compensation for loss of office, pensions and other staffing matters; and
5. (e) for treating any person to whom a transfer of property, rights or liabilities is made or, as the case may be, by whom any functions are to become exercisable as, for some or all purposes, the same person in law as the person from whom the transfer is made or the authority by whom the functions have previously been exercisable.

(9) The power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make an order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) includes power to make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different areas or localities and for different boards.

(10) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act.").

Lord Dixon-Smith moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 527A, Amendment No. 527B: Line 13, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 527A states: If a draft of an order made under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) by the Secretary of State would, apart from this section, be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument".

I wonder why.

First, let us be quite clear that we have a specific procedure in the Red Book to deal with hybrid Instruments. Hybrid instruments are matters which affect the rights of individuals. Where a Bill or an order is judged to be hybrid, special procedures are involved and the individuals affected have the right to petition against the Bill or order. I found myself wondering why it was necessary to write this exclusion in to the Bill, so that a matter that affects individuals is treated as though it does not, and the individuals lose their right to appeal against it.

It was pointed out to me that no one could remember when there was last a hybrid instrument. But that is not a reason for including this provision in the Bill. There might be one, and I should be concerned if in passing this provision we were to deprive individuals of what would otherwise be their rights before Parliament. That is the reason why I tabled the amendment. I am an optimist. I like to think that the Minister will have an adequate explanation as to why the subsection is on the face of the Bill; but I have had some difficulty in trying to dream one up.

Amendment No. 527C, in the same group, deals with a part of the Bill which has too many words. Line 21 refers to such, consequential and transitional provision as the person making the order thinks necessary or expedient".

This is an example of prolixity—the point reiterated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. If a matter was not considered expedient, it would not be there. The words, the person making the order thinks necessary", are not required. The only words required are, "as is expedient".

Subsection (6) deals with a matter that always causes me concern. Paragraph (c) of the subsection contains the words, to repeal or revoke with or without savings, any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment".

This is one of the wonderful catch-all phrases that we see from time to time in legislation. It bothers me every time I see it. Governments persist in doing it. They say that it gives them flexibility for the future. It is wrong in detail and in principle that the Secretary of State can have the power in making an order, to repeal or revoke … any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment".

That is a slightly strange extension of what is necessary. It should not be necessary to include those words in a Bill. I have seen them before, and have complained about them before. Speaking pessimistically, I suppose that I shall see them again, and I shall probably complain about them again. However, I hope the Minister will not mind having to explain himself once again. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The noble Lord is right. Subsection (4) of my amendment is intended specifically to avoid such establishment orders being regarded as hybrid and, therefore, going through an enormously complicated procedure here—which, thank God, we have managed to avoid for most of the legislation that we have passed. Indeed, it would not be appropriate to regard this as a hybrid instrument that would discriminate and affect one group of persons as against another.

There is no substantive change to local residents by bringing in the existence of an AONB. It is just one particular form of managing the AONB. The same planning rules will apply as refer to AONBs without conservation boards. There is no detriment—certainly not a discriminatory one—to local people. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that this is not treated as a hybrid instrument. It is a fairly common device, although the noble Lord may not like it because it is common.

I am not quite sure of the purpose of Amendment No. 527C; indeed, I do not believe that it would make any difference. However, if it did, it would remove the limitation on the provisions that can be included. So it would give rather wider powers. As I say, I doubt whether it would have much effect but, in so far as it could, it would probably be in the opposite direction to that desired by the noble Lord.

Amendment No. 527D deals, again, with a pretty standard kind of provision, which allows proper flexibility. The noble Lord may not like such flexibility for the Secretary of State, but successive Secretaries of State have used such provisions in legislation. When one draws up regulations, especially ones that may have to apply to different parts of the country and take account of local circumstances, it is important to have a degree of flexibility. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

Lord Marlesford

Amendment No. 527B deals with the hybridity issue. I suppose that I am ignorant in this respect, but I am horrified to hear that it is common practice in legislation to declare that statutory instruments that are hybrid should not be treated as such. I regard the parliamentary provisions for dealing with hybridity as a most important part of our democracy. I do not see the distinction between primary legislation and secondary legislation which may be declared hybrid. As I understand it, the objective of having a hybridity procedure has always been to prevent governments from discriminating between classes of persons who, apart from discrimination, are the same in other respects.

I am very worried about this provision. It is possible that it is much more common that I thought. I shall certainly make some enquiries as to whether or not I am wrong. I suggest that the concept of hybridity is central to our parliamentary democracy. I wonder why it is in this Bill.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for his intervention. He raised the precise principle that worries me. I believe that I understood the Minister's response. Provided that he can give me an assurance at a later stage—he need not do so tonight—that the power could never be used other than to disbar the specific matter that he described, we would probably not have any problem with it. However, I always suspect that such clauses are simply an excuse to save the parliamentary draftsman from having to draft precisely what it is that the Government do mean. I accept that that is part of the problem with legislation.

Amendment No. 527C was not supposed to affect the substance and consequences of the Bill; it was simply designed to reduce the number of words. It deals with the question of prolixity. I shall study what the Minister said on Amendment No. 527D. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 527C and 527D, as amendments to Amendment No. 527A, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 527A agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 528: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

MANAGEMENT PLANS

(" .—(1) Every conservation board shall, within two years after the date on which they are established, prepare and publish a plan which formulates their policy for the management of their area of outstanding natural beauty and for the carrying out of their functions in relation to it.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the relevant local authority in respect of an area of outstanding natural beauty shall, before the end of the period of three years beginning with whichever is the later of—

1. (a) the commencement of this section, or
2. (b) the date on which the area is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty,

prepare and publish a plan which formulates their policy for the management of the area of outstanding natural beauty and for the carrying out of their functions in relation to it.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where, before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection, a conservation board has been established for the area of outstanding natural beauty.

(4) A plan prepared under subsection (1) or (2) is to be known as an area of outstanding natural beauty management plan.

(5) A conservation board or relevant local authority may, instead of preparing a plan under subsection (1) or (2),—

1. (a) review any plan for the management of the area of outstanding natural beauty which has been prepared before the commencement of this section—
1. (i) by a local authority, or
2. (ii) by a joint committee established by two or more local authorities, and
2. (b) adopt the plan as reviewed as their area of outstanding natural beauty management plan, and
826
3. (c) publish it under subsection (1) or (2) within the time required by that subsection.

(6) A conservation board may, within six months of the date on which they are established, adopt an area of outstanding natural beauty management plan prepared for their area of outstanding natural beauty by the relevant local authority as their area of outstanding natural beauty management plan, and publish it under subsection (1).

(7) Subject to subsection (8), a conservation board shall review their area of outstanding natural beauty management plan before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which it was published and, after the first review, at intervals of not more than five years.

(8) Where a conservation board have adopted a plan under subsection (6), the first review must take place before the end of the period of three years beginning with the date on which the plan was published.

(9) Where an area of outstanding natural beauty management plan has been prepared under subsection (2), the relevant local authority shall review the plan before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which it was published and, after the first review, at intervals of not more than five years, but this subsection does not apply where a conservation board has been established for the area of outstanding natural beauty.

(10) Where a conservation board or relevant local authority review any plan under this section, they shallx2014;

1. (a) determine on that review whether it would be expedient to amend the plan and what (if any) amendments would be appropriate,
2. (b) make any amendments that they consider appropriate, and
3. (c) publish a report on the review specifying any amendments made.

(11) In this section "relevant local authority" means—

1. (a) in the case of an area of outstanding natural beauty which is wholly comprised in one principal area, the local authority for that area, and
2. (b) in any other case, the local authorities for all the principal areas wholly or partly comprised in the area of outstanding natural beauty, acting jointly.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 529. These amendments represent an extremely important element in the Government's strategy. They require a management plan to be prepared and published for every AONB. Normally this would be done by the local authority which has the responsibility, or by a number of local authorities working together. In cases where an AONB conservation board comes into being, the duty to prepare the management plan would transfer to that board.

The Government propose to allocate additional funding to the Countryside Agency to enable it to provide grant support for the production of management plans. Local authorities and conservation boards preparing those plans will be expected to work closely with local people and local groups who are stakeholders in the AONB so as to develop a shared vision with a shared commitment on the future of that AONB. The Countryside Agency intends to issue guidance next year on the recommended content of those plans. As I said earlier, the agency is working closely with the Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The experience gained by the national parks authorities which already prepare national park management plans under the Environment Act 1995 will be helpful. AONB management plans, like the park plans, will be expected to set out the management board's policy for the management of the AONB and the carrying out of its functions, e therefore accordingly expect management plans to contain both high level aspirations for the overall stewardship of the AONB and specific objectives on the work of the managing body—the local authority or the conservation board. These amendments set out the timescale for the preparation of plans. Generally, local authorities will be required to prepare and publish a plan within three years of this legislation coming into force and a conservation board within two years of its establishment. Plans will have to be reviewed at intervals of not more than five years. There is a provision for a local authority in the first instance to adopt a previously existing non-statutory management plan provided that it is reviewed by that authority first. I believe that these are sensible provisions. I beg to move.

12.30 a.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 528, Amendment No. 528A: Line 35, after ("authority") insert ("or joint committee").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to aid the clarity of the Bill. The proposed new clause in government Amendment No. 528 states at subsection (6): A conservation board may, within six months of the date on which they are established, adopt an area of outstanding natural beauty management plan prepared for their area of outstanding natural beauty by the relevant local authority".

Amendment No. 528A seeks to add the words "or joint committee". The proposed new clause in government Amendment No. 528 mentions at subsection (5)(a)(ii) a plan prepared by a joint committee. For the sake of clarity the wording of the proposed new subsection (6) ought to be consistent with that of the proposed new subsection (5) in regard to a plan prepared either by a local authority or a joint committee.

Amendment No. 528 requires conservation boards to prepare a management plan within two years of their establishment. They can do that by adopting an existing one, modifying an existing one or creating a new one. They have a considerable period of time in which to do that. However, we thought that it would be beneficial for them to state which route they intended to follow in establishing a management plan. I beg to move.

Earl Peel

The Minister in moving his amendment drew attention to the fact that he expected conservation boards or local authorities to work closely with local people when drawing up management plans. I am obviously delighted to hear that. However, as I understand the position, there is no statutory obligation for them to do so. Does not the Minister agree that it would be more expedient if there were something to that effect on the face of his amendment and, ultimately, on the face of the Bill?

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I speak to Amendment No. 529 and to Amendment No. 533 standing in my name which is grouped with it.

The management plan proposed by the noble Lord is the conservation board's intervention in planning. That will eventually be equal to a county structure plan. It will cover much the same area and scope. I would hope, therefore, that it would make the conservation board a statutory consultee at that level. I am not clear from the clause whether it does so. The provision refers to the plan being referred to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. What do they then do with the plan?

Amendment No. 533 calls for a specific response. I suggest to the Minister and my noble friends on our Front Bench that this is an appropriate additional clause to seek. If the management plan is of importance—the Minister says that it is a mixture of high level aspirations and specific objectives with structure planning in mind—and goes to the Secretary of State, he should have to reply within a reasonable time; I have suggested six months.

I have talked to one of the former chief inspectors of prisons. Whenever he sent in a report on a prison, the Home Office told him that it was a marvellous report but did not reply to it for two years. By that time, conditions had changed; the governor had probably moved. The next chief inspector of prisons made it a condition of accepting the appointment that the Home Office would reply within six months and, if not, that he would have the right to publish the report off his own bat.

This is not an exact analogy but there is some similarity. I hope, therefore, that Amendment No. 533 will find favour with the Minister and will be adopted. I believe that it would be a proper emphasis to ensure that the management plan receives a reply at the highest level within a reasonable period.

Lord Marlesford

I support Amendments Nos. 528 and 533. It is an essential part of the legislation on AONBs. As my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry says, the management plan is similar in effect to a county structure plan. Its advantage is that it is a plan prepared for the benefit of the AONB. It will apply only where there is a board. That is a good reason for having a board for AONBs.

I agree with my noble friend that there should be a response to the plan. When a planning application is made to a local authority which appears to be contrary to a county structure plan, that is a good reason to oppose the planning application. It enables voluntary bodies in particular to make a good case to the district council, which is the planning authority, against a specific proposal where it appears to conflict with the county structure plan. Although the Minister explained earlier that the Government do not intend to take over the planning function from local authorities in the sense of taking over district council planning functions, I believe that this move is important and will to some extent have the same effect.

Lord Whitty

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was trying to clarify Amendment No. 528 through Amendment No. 528A, but I am not sure that it does that. Subsection (5) of Amendment No. 528 already allows a local authority or a conservation board to adopt a pre-existing non-statutory plan. Subsection (6) deals with the situation in which a conservation board is set up and wants to adopt an AONB management plan prepared after the passage into law of the Bill, which would therefore be a management plan of the type required by the Bill.

Local authorities acting jointly will continue to be able to delegate that statutory function to a properly constituted joint committee. That is implicit in the normal run of things. The Bill places the duty to prepare a plan on local authorities. We do not need to refer specifically to the possibility that a local authority may have delegated that to a joint committee. The local authority is the responsible body.

Amendment No. 528B would require the conservation board to announce within six weeks of its establishment whether it intended to adopt an existing management plan. That would add substantially to the pressures on a newly established authority. The Government have laid down a time limit of two years to adopt a management plan, including in the case of a decision to review and adopt a non-statutory plan, or within six months of establishment if the decision is to adopt an already prepared AONB management plan. If a local authority develops a plan that meets the requirements of the Bill and a board is subsequently established, the time limit will be six months, not two years. It is a bit exacting for a new board to have that time limit reduced to six weeks. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not pursue that amendment.

The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked about consultation on the plan. He is right that there is no statutory provision for consultation, but that will be reflected in the Countryside Agency's guidance on how the plans operate.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has tabled Amendment No. 533. It is not accurate to say that the plan being produced in this case is equivalent to a county structure plan. The management plans are separate from the development of the plan system. I suspect that he knows that in national parks there is a structure plan and a management plan. We shall continue to have a structure plan alongside the AONB plan. The Government envisage that such a plan should be a local document. Government representatives will participate in the drawing up or the review of those plans and the local representatives of the government agencies should continue to be involved in the operation and review of the plans.

The amendment would require the Government to produce a formal response to the plan, much as they produce a formal response to regional planning proposals. That risks us getting into a confrontation with the AONB body. There should not be such conflicts if the participation of the agencies has worked well.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

Is not the risk that the plan goes to the Minister and he does nothing about it greater than the risk of conflict?

Lord Whitty

There is a possibility of a government department commenting informally on the plan via the agency or directly, but a statutory response stage in the procedure would contradict the fact that the AONB body, whether it was a local authority or a conservation board, should have the responsibility for drawing up and reviewing that plan. Taking the analogy of planning arrangements, there could be potential conflicts, particularly if there was highly controversial material in the plan. Therefore, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State or his officers commenting on the plan, but I believe that having a statutory response is building inflexibility and possible dispute into the process. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the point. I understand his need to see an iterative process between the AONB body responsible and the agency or department, but, I fear, not in this way.

12.45 a.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my two amendments. I shall certainly undertake to study with care his reply to Amendment No. 528A. In saying that, I should like to feel that the arrangement might be reciprocal. I am not entirely convinced that he has answered the point that I raised. I hope that in a rather, shall we say, cooler atmosphere than we have to deal with tonight he will consider whether I have a point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 528A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 528, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 528B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 528, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 528 agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 529: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO MANAGEMENT PLANS

(" .—(1) A conservation board or relevant local authority which is proposing to publish, adopt or review any plan under section (Management plans) shall—

1. (a) give notice of the proposal—
1. (i) if the area of outstanding natural beauty is in England, to the Agency and English Nature.
2. (ii) if the area of outstanding natural beauty is in Wales, to the Council, and
3. (iii) in the case of a conservation board, to every local authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the area of outstanding natural beauty,
831
2. (b) send a copy of the plan, together (where appropriate) with any proposed amendments of the plan, to every body to which notice of the proposal is required to be given by paragraph (a), and
3. (c) take into consideration any observations made by any such body.

(2) A conservation board or relevant local authority shall send to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales a copy of every plan, notice or report which they are required to publish under section (Management plans).

(3) In this section "relevant local authority" has the same meaning as in section (Management plans).").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 529A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 529, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 529 agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 530 to 532: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

GRANTS TO CONSERVATION BOARDS

(" .—(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may make grants to a conservation board, of such amounts and on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State or the Assembly thinks fit.

(2) Before determining the amount of any grant which he proposes to make to a conservation board under this section, or the purpose for which the grant is to be made, the Secretary of State shall consult the Agency.

(3) Before determining the amount of any grant which it proposes to make to a conservation board under this section, or the purpose for which the grant is to be made, the National Assembly for Wales shall consult the Council.").

After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

INTERPRETATIVE AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION

(" .—(1) In this Part, unless a contrary intention appears—

• "the 1949 Act" means the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;
• "the Agency" means the Countryside Agency;
• "area of outstanding natural beauty" has the meaning given by section (Designation of areas)(3);
• "conservation board has the meaning given by section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1);
• "the Council" means the Countryside Council for Wales;
• "liability", in relation to the transfer of liabilities from one person to another, does not include criminal liability;
• "local authority" means a principal council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972;
• "principal area" has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1972.

(2) Any reference in this Act to the conservation of the natural beauty of an area includes a reference to the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.

(3) This Part does not apply in relation to any of the lands mentioned in section 112(1) of the 1949 Act (Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches).").

After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

(" . Schedule (Areas of outstanding natural beauty: consequential amendments and transitional provisions) (which contains consequential amendments and transitional provisions relating to areas of outstanding natural beauty) has effect.).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 533: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

PUBLICATION OF RESPONSE TO MANAGEMENT PLANS

(" .—(1) The appropriate national authority shall, in respect of every management plan which it receives, within six months publish a response setting out—

1. (a) the steps which the authority intends to take to further the objectives in that management plan; and
2. (b) the extent to which the policies of the authority may conflict with that management plan and the steps which the authority intends to take to resolve that conflict.

(2) In this section— appropriate national authority" means—

1. (a) in relation to a national park or area of outstanding natural beauty in England, the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and
2. (b) in relation to a national park or area of outstanding natural beauty in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales.

(3) In this section— management plan" means—

1. (a) a National Park Management Plan published by a National Park authority in accordance with section 66 of the Environment Act 1995; or
2. (b) a management plan in respect of an area of outstanding natural beauty published by a conservation board or relevant local authority in accordance with section (management plans).").

The noble Lord said: I shall study the Minister's words carefully. I may wish to return to this matter on Report because I believe that it is important. However, in the meantime, I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 533 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 534: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

POACHING OF DEER

(" . After subsection (4) of section 1 of the Deer Act 1991 (poaching of deer) there shall be inserted—

"(5) If any person fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (4) above or wilfully return to the land, an authorised person may apprehend such a person and convey him or cause him to be conveyed to a constable as soon as conveniently may be."").

The noble Lord said: I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 534, 535 and 536 in this group are appropriate at this stage of the Bill. I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendments Nos. 534 to 536 not moved.]

Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 536A: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

CONSERVATION BOARDS: FINANCES

(" .—(1) A conservation board shall have power in respect of every financial year beginning after the establishment of that board to issue levies to the councils by whom local authority members fall to be appointed to it, and accordingly section 71 of the Environment Act 1995 shall apply to a conservation board as if references in that section to a National Park authority were references to the board.

(2) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may make grants to a conservation board for such purposes, of such amounts and on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State or the Assembly thinks fit, and accordingly sections 72 and 73 of the Environment Act 1995 shall apply as if references in that section to a National Park authority were references to the board.").

The noble Lord said: I listened carefully to the Minister's words. I cannot say that I agree on the point about not levying local authorities but I shall consider his words carefully. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford

As I said earlier, I wish to raise only a simple point in relation to my noble friend's amendment. He knows what I said.

Perhaps I may raise an important matter in relation to this part of the Bill which has not been touched on tonight. My noble friend was kind enough to arrange a meeting with his colleagues from the management of the various boards of the AONBs. Although we are dealing with the question of a facility which will enable conservation boards to be set up, I should not like this opportunity to go by without referring briefly to the position of the smaller boards, which other noble Lords have mentioned.

My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but at that meeting many of the smaller boards, which are informal groups, expressed their concern regarding their funding. Again, I am more than willing to be corrected, but they do not see their way forward as becoming part of a big conservation board. Certainly, the indication from the groups to which I spoke that evening was that there may be only two or three groups which wish to become full conservation boards. However, the other more informal groups are extremely anxious that they should be able to carry on their work. They spend much of their time in the act of conserving. Conservation is the very nature of the work they do.

The Minister said that money will be made available to the boards and I ask him to put on record that those smaller, informal groups will not be overlooked. Their needs will be smaller compared with those of the larger boards but those small needs may be more crucial—although my noble friend will not agree with me—in order for them to be able to continue on a day-to-day basis.

It is not that I do not agree with what my noble friend said and I understand where he is coming from, particularly with regard to his South Downs board. I well understand the position in which it finds itself. But many of the other smaller groups are not looking to establish a bureaucratic regime and are extremely anxious about their future. Perhaps the Minister will give some further clarification as to how the money is to be allocated and how much which will go to the full conservation boards and how much will go to other less formal boards.

Lord Whitty

I said earlier that in terms of the allocation of the sums available for AONBs, there will be no discrimination on the basis of whether or not there was a conservation board. The allocation will be made on the basis of the needs of the AONB. I hope that that is sufficient to meet the noble Baroness's concerns. We may return to this issue on Report.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My noble friend on the Front Bench raises a very important point, and one which is certainly recognised by the larger groups which either have a conservation board or a substantial joint advisory committee.

I hope that we do go forward along this route. I believe that it is extremely important that the smaller, less formal groups should know from where they will receive their money. I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend. We are not going to set up a bureaucratic regime but we want to know that we have sufficient finance to put into practice long-terms plans with farmers, stewardship schemes and so on. Clearly, the small groups also need that information. Clarification would be extremely helpful. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 536AA: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF MARITIME AREA

(" .—(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) and National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may make regulations for the implementation of Article 2 of Annex V of the 1992 OSPAR Convention on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may in particular make provision with respect to—

1. (a) measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the maritime area, and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected;
2. (b) programmes and measures for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) for the control of human activities; and
3. (c) the enforcement of such measures and programmes.").

The noble Lord said: Despite its commendable purpose of amending the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife, the Bill as it stands does nothing to improve the prospects for conservation in the UK's marine environment. Yet the UK is home to an extraordinary array of marine biodiversity. In the 1994 UK biodiversity action plan, published by the previous government, it was estimated that within our 12-mile limit there is an area equivalent to 70 per cent of the land surface of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it has been estimated that 50 per cent of the UK's biodiversity is found in the seas with literally thousands of precious species. I know that my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen wants to say more about that.

The world record for the largest turtle found stranded is not attributable to Sri Lanka, Cuba or the Philippines, as one might suppose, but Wales. According to the Countryside Council for Wales, a leatherback turtle was found stranded on the beach at Harlech in 1988. It measured just three metres long.

Even more significantly, it is now clear that national legislation in the United Kingdom which relates to nature conservation should apply to up to 200 nautical miles rather than just 12 nautical miles.

Recently the European Union issued a communication expressing the view that, if a Member State exerts its sovereign rights in an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles (for example, the granting of an operating licence for a drilling platform), it thereby considers itself competent to enforce national laws in that area, and consequently … the Habitats Directive also applies, in that Community legislation is an integral part of national legislation".

The matter was also the subject of a recent legal challenge in which the High Court held in favour of Greenpeace that the obligations of the United Kingdom Government, under the habitats directive, were not restricted to 12 nautical miles, but extended to 200 nautical miles from the coast; yet currently there is no legislative framework for delivering effective nature conservation in the UK's large and diverse marine enviroment. The problem is most clearly illustrated by the failure to designate marine sites, whether they be marine nature reserves, marine special protection areas as designated under the European Union birds directive, or marine special areas for conservation as designated under the European Union habitats directive.

The failing was recognised by the Government in the 1998 consultation paper on conservation, which paved the way for this Bill. Paragraph B16 of that paper stated: The Government accepts that the concept of Marine Nature Reserves established under the 1981 Act has not been as successful as had been hoped, and only 3 have been designated to date".

That is in contrast to around 6,500 sites of special scientific interest and areas of special scientific interest on land.

The failing was also identified by Sub-Committee C of the House of Lords European Union Committee, of which I was a member, in a study into biodiversity conservation in the European Union. A key conclusion was that action was urgently required in the UK environment. It is difficult to see how the United Kingdom would ensure effective nature conservation in the marine environment or meet its obligations under the European Union directives and international conventions unless it rapidly addresses the lack of legislative framework for marine nature conservation.

The amendment in my name is based on Article 2 of Annex V to the Oslo-Paris Convention. I understand that that annex is soon to be ratified by the United Kingdom. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic entered into force on 25th March 1998. Annex V covers the conservation of marine biodiversity and must be ratified separately from the rest of the convention. In fact, Article 2 states: Contracting parties shall:

1. (a) take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the maritime area, and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected; and
836
2. (b) co-operate in adopting programmes and measures for those purposes for the control of the human activities identified by the application of the criteria in Appendix 3".

Although the United Kingdom has signed up to the Oslo-Paris Convention, currently it has no legislative framework for its implementation. This simple amendment, which builds on an existing government commitment, highlights just how much the Government need to do if they are to meet the spirit and letter of the convention. Action is needed on many fronts, including species and habitat measures, protected areas and sustainable development solutions and enforcement.

I suggest that the timing is now appropriate for the Government to move forward on marine nature conservation as a matter of urgency. Following the formal consultation on sites of special scientific interest, the Government established the Review of Marine Nature Conservation (RMNC). That review will soon conclude its work and it is essential that there is no delay in taking forward its recommendations. There is a clear need for a marine environment Bill to be introduced early in the next Parliament. If that does not happen, the exemplary work—I believe that it is exemplary—that has gone into the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will be an excellent job only half done. In the absence, as yet, of a clear commitment from the Government to introduce such a Bill, I believe that this simple but vital amendment is necessary. I beg to move.

1 a.m.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen

It is late and I do not intend to keep the Committee long. I simply want to add a few words to what my noble friend said on Amendment No. 536AA. He mentioned the Welsh turtle. I should like to say a little about a few other friends on our coast that we may not be aware of.

It is estimated that the UK's marine environment is home to over 8,000 marine organisms, including many that even those who have an interest in marine life may not realise are native to our shores, the harbour porpoise, the orcas and the bottle-nosed dolphin being good examples. Noble Lords knowing much more about this subject will be able to name many more. But those three alone serve to illustrate why the UK's marine environment must be better protected and improved upon.

My noble friend outlined a great deal in relation to the Oslo-Paris convention. If the Government are to meet either the convention's spirit or its letter, they must take action on species and habitat measures as outlined in the amendment. As my noble friend said, the time is right for the Government to move forward on marine nature conservation. I hope, in that spirit, the Minister will be able to give a positive and encouraging response.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

The name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, appears on this amendment. But the Public Bill Office were confused and it is my name that should appear there.

I support the amendment. The review of marine conservation taking place at the moment is discovering new species almost by the day. It is an accident of timing that that review will report after we have passed this important legislation. It is right, therefore, to include provisions in the legislation to extend protection to underwater life. Just because we cannot see under the water does not mean that that area should not be protected. That is a mistake we have made in the past which we must rectify.

Lord Jopling

I listened with care to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is an old friend of mine, with regard to the implications of this amendment. I confess to him—this is bad manners on my part—that I have not had the opportunity to study the details of Article 2 of the Oslo-Paris convention. Therefore I am not entirely clear what it implies.

I intervene because I am not sure where all this takes us. Perhaps I can give the Committee one example of why I am not clear. I look particularly at subsection (2)(a), which says, measures to protect and conserve the eco-system". Later, the paragraph reads, restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be good enough to tell me what that means with regard to seals.

People have conflicting views about seals. Some tend to regard them as marine pussycats, adorable animals, which are nice to look at and swim in the sea. Others, particularly fishermen, regard them as a total menace. I have no specific axe to grind in relation to seals. For a period in my life I was a fisheries Minister. But earlier, when I was shadow fisheries Minister, I recall visiting a small Northumberland fishing village—it was not Craster but somewhere like it—where the fishermen were totally exasperated by the way that seals hung around their nets and took a nibble out of the salmon they had caught. I remember fishermen coming to talk to me. I also remember taking part in an interview for Tyne-Tees Television when I was shown frozen salmon which had had one bite taken out of their bellies. It is not as though the seals were hungry and wanted to catch a salmon to eat. They were playing with the salmon, taking out one bite and then moving on to the next to do the same.

In large parts of our coastal areas, the protection given to seals has enabled their numbers to grow enormously. They have become an absolute menace in terms of the fishing industry in which many people seek to make their living. I have always been a friend of the historic families in the North East. When I was a fisheries Minister I strongly resisted pressure from whom I described as "ducal river owners" in Scotland who wanted a ban on all drift netting on the north-east coast. I said, "No, no, these people have been fishing for generations. There is no good reason why they should be stopped. I am perfectly prepared to make sure that they do not abuse their historic right to catch salmon on that coast and I will insist that the licence holder shall be in the boat. They will not be allowed to fish at night and at weekends." I tried to control the situation so that one could achieve a balance. I became convinced that that particular fishery was being ruined by the uncontrolled expansion of the seal population.

I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd, how subsection (2)(a) will operate. Will the present population of seals around our coast be protected and conserved under the first part of that paragraph in a way which few people believe is justified? I believe that the enormous explosion in the seal population is totally unjustified. These creatures are not marine pussycats; they are vicious, nasty animals in large numbers. Will the second part of the paragraph be used, to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected", in order to return to the balance which existed years ago between, say, the salmon and the seals before the salmon was protected and their numbers exploded to the detriment of the salmon population in the marine environment?

With great respect, it is no good the noble Lord merely proposing the measure without coming clean about the likely influence on the situation I have described. I am sure that many marine biologists could quote many other examples of the marine populations of various species being artificially altered. These measures will make the situation either worse or better and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be able to explain them.

Lord Hardy of Wath

I recall pressing for marine nature reserves during the proceedings on the 1981 Act. The grey seals around the British Isles are a very significant part of the world population of that species. We are, therefore, morally obliged to maintain a significant population of grey seals. The best answer to the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, quite rightly identifies is to ensure that the world produces more salmon than it does at the moment, which may well suggest a more searching look at fish farms and practices associated with them.

One of the reasons why it is essential to pay greater attention to our marine reserves is that, although we have a rich variety of species around our coasts, I understand that the vast majority of the post-mortems carried out on dolphins, to which my noble friend referred, reveal high levels of poisons of various kinds. That may be a threat to the long-term survival of that very attractive species which has been around our coasts for millennia. I hope that we shall see more marine reserves which encourage a greater application of modern science and study so that, not only do we know more about them but, with that knowledge, we are able to contribute to their survival. I support the amendment and hope that that assists my noble friend.

Lord Greenway

I hesitate to intervene in this cosy little debate, but I believe that at this late stage it is entirely inappropriate to introduce substantially new powers of a maritime nature into what was, until the introduction of the dolphin and shark amendment in the other place, a wholly terrestrial Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, at the moment a government working group is sitting to consider these matters. I suggest that it is much better to wait until its report is received. Ministers will then be in a position to make an executive decision on what, if any, legislation is appropriate.

Baroness Young of Old Scone

My noble friend Lord Judd is right to raise this issue. The marine environment is a new and undiscovered country of incredible importance to the biodiversity of the United Kingdom. A marine working party is looking into this matter and, ideally, one should wait for its findings before moving ahead. However, it is 20 years since we last secured some decent wildlife legislation, and I am not sure that we can wait another 20 years for further legislation. I believe that we must seize this opportunity as it goes past and anticipate the fact that we must implement OSPAR. Effectively, marine conservation will require the kinds of regulations which are outlined in the amendment. Although the marine working party is doing extremely valuable work, it is looking at the matter in a much wider context, not simply some of the regulations covered by the amendment.

Lord Glentoran

I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We both spoke strongly on this subject on Friday in the debate on biodiversity. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Action on this front is urgently needed because of the damage which is being done daily. I have had the privilege to be a commissioner of the Irish Lighthouse Service and a yachtsman of one kind or another for 40 years. I have travelled the coast of Ireland regularly by sea, road and, at times, helicopter. I have travelled the whole of the coast of the United Kingdom and a good part of Europe in small boats and experienced inshore biodiversity regularly over the years. I have also visited the Mediterranean. I have observed the rapid deterioration of the marine biology, particularly in France and the south coast of England.

As my noble friend beside me said, marine biodiversity is not glamorous because what happens on the seabed is not seen. One does not see all the sewage that is released from yachts into estuaries. In certain parts of Europe, in particular the Mediterranean, it is already totally forbidden to discharge anything from a yacht or ship of any kind within a number of miles of the coast. Yachts at anchor may look attractive, but chains permanently rub along the seabed and keep it clear. There is no chance of life of any kind in those vicinities. The numbers of yachts and ships doing that are increasing. Valuable lichens and animals live on the rocks and cliffs where climbers go—I have done that as well—and they can be destroyed by boots. In short, our marine biodiversity seriously needs looking at in many respects. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said. This is a big subject. It needs to be properly researched. But we cannot wait.

1.15 a.m.

Baroness Nicol

I welcome the conversion on this issue of the Opposition. I have spent something like 17 years— particularly when I was sitting on the other sideof the Chamber—trying to get a positive response on marine protection. It has been quite impossible to make any progress. I am delighted now that we are to have the support of the Opposition in this particular field.

Baroness Byford

Perhaps I may interject that some of us were not here 17 years ago.

Earl Peel

I think I am right in saying that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the noble Baroness pressed for these recommendations to be accepted by the then government. Furthermore, a number of marine SSSIs were actually designated on the back of the recommendations of the noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House.

Baroness Nicol

I was not a Member of your Lordships' House at the time of the passing of the 1981 Act. I arrived a couple of years later. But I was quickly made aware of the fact that marine protection had to be forced into the 1981 Act. It was not done willingly. When one looks at the history of what has happened to marine protection since that Act, I wonder whether my noble friend is wise to pursue a similar course and force it into this provision. I am keen to have a proper Act on marine conservation.

Lord Whitty

As I indicated in the debate on Friday at which several noble Lords were present, I accept that there has been a lack of progress on designating marine conservation areas, as compared with land-based ones, and in affording the protection which would be achieved by them. That is why we have put into effect this current review on marine conservation to report by the end of this year.

However, the question in the amendment is whether we should use the Bill to implement Article 2 of Annex V of OSPAR. We ratified—to correct my noble friend Lord Judd—the annex earlier this year. Now, because an adequate number of countries have ratified it, it will come into effect on 31st October. We welcome that. We have indeed in part taken the lead in this.

However, the provision of a new international agreement does not necessarily mean that we need new powers in this country. Indeed, the logic is slightly the other way round in that we would not have ratified the treaty if we did not think we had adequate powers. We think that we have adequate powers, both European powers and under the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Petroleum Acts, which could be used to legislate for measures under Annex V. If we were to adopt new specific powers before the Bill came into force, and indeed before we had completed the current review of marine conservation areas, it may actually lead to us adopting the wrong additional provisions, should we conclude that we needed them.

Therefore, we believe that we have a substantial number of powers already. We now have the will to pursue an increase in identification and powers to enforce marine conservation areas of all kinds, and we will have the international obligation to do so from the 31st of this month. In the mean time, legislation is also being drafted to extend the UK's implementation of the habitats directive—for example, up to 200 nautical miles—to reflect the High Court decision on the judicial review last year. There are significant similarities between the habitats directive and the birds directive so we are also considering whether we should extend the provision in relation to birds as well.

A good deal is happening on the maritime side. There are new pressures on us in this area. But we do not think that this is the appropriate vehicle for implementing our obligations under Annex V. We can probably do so already, and if there are ways in which our present powers are inadequate, we do not yet know what they are. We would have to address that in what my noble friend has already identified as the preferred solution, which was underlined by my noble friend Lady Nicol just now.

Lord Judd

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. The hour is late. I would love to get into a long debate with my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about seals. I hope he will forgive me if at this hour of night I choose not to get into that specific debate except to say that what would be necessary under legislation is for the species and its future to be appropriately managed. That does not mean that one would not control the number of seals, but one would have to be certain that a policy was in place to ensure that the species survived.

I am a little concerned that in some of the contributions to this interesting debate there was what could be interpreted in one or two quarters as something approaching complacency. When we are all so disturbed about what has happened in the terrestrial setting and how we have almost lost control in terms of the rate at which species are declining, it is impossible to overemphasise the need for speedy and timely action in the marine environment. If the working party brings forward a report which facilitates proper regulation sooner rather than later, that will be altogether good. But if it leads only to further delay while still further debate takes place about what should be done, that will be approaching disaster.

What has heartened me is that my noble friend the Minister—I have known him for many years and he knows how much I respect him—has used some very important words. He said that the will exists. When my noble friend says that the will exists, that is on the record and we respect that he has said it. I interpret that as meaning that the Government will act and act effectively. All I say is that we have no alternative. I am delighted to hear that the annex has now been ratified. I thought that it was about to be ratified. The fact that it has been ratified is good news. But if the annex is ratified and the convention is signed, we have no alternative. Quite apart from the need to preserve these species, we have a legal obligation to get on with it. The Minister has said that he will get on with it. I take his word for that. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 10 [Wildlife: amendments of Part I of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981]:

Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 536AB: Page 107, line 32, leave out ("recklessly") and insert ("deliberately").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is really a matter of the meaning of words. "Recklessly" means regardless of the consequences. "Deliberately" means after very careful consideration.

It is all too easy for any bird to desert its nest. It is made even easier by the misguided policy of the RSPB, which does nothing whatever to control magpies and hooded crows. I always remember that the black-throated diver used to nest regularly at the bottom end of Loch Naver. We used to have a policy by which people did not fish down there because if one fished down there the bird left the nest and immediately the hooded crows came in and ate the eggs. That happened at least four or five times each year. So people took the deliberate decision not to fish down there.

I remember when we had an oystercatcher which always nested in a very stupid place. For the first five years of her life, she never succeeded in hatching a chick. During her last remaining four years—I was amazed at how long oystercatchers could live—she had no husband, but she continued to sit on a pink stone on a particular piece of shingle by the river where she had never successfully managed to breed. Close to the end of this period, I got another oystercatcher's egg and put it into her nest. I can assure noble Lords that, after eight years, never was there such a bird once she was able to raise a chick.

In my opinion, that was a deliberate action which was carefully considered and should not be turned into an offence in this way. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

The purpose of this amendment, to which I have added my name, is to remove the offence of "reckless disturbance" from the Bill. The introduction of this new offence, punishable by imprisonment—namely, that of recklessly disturbing birds listed in Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act—is causing considerable concern to many of those involved in land management. I should declare an interest here as someone involved in estate management.

The potential application of this provision goes very wide. It could catch the wholly innocent farm worker who perhaps disturbs a nesting barn owl as a result of entering a building in which he stores his equipment. It could catch the upland gamekeeper who inadvertently disturbs an early nesting Schedule 1 bird while heather burning. It could also catch anyone cutting a hedge, hacking down shrubbery or mowing a hay meadow. Without intending to, anyone carrying out such a task could harm or disturb listed nesting birds or their young.

Similarly, the introduction of the word "recklessly" on line 9 of page 108 of the Bill in relation to wild animals would make it an imprisonable offence to unintentionally but recklessly harm any shelter used by a listed wild animal such as the common frog or any species of bat.

Can the Minister explain how the Government intend this new clause to operate in practice? Do they really intend to expose innocent farm workers and others to the risk of imprisonment while carrying out their legitimate activities? Who will the Government rely on to enforce this provision?

I suggest that this is an oppressive and even a savage proposal, introducing penalties wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and which will do nothing at all to win friends to the cause of bird and animal protection. I beg the Minister to think again.

Baroness Byford

I rise briefly to support this amendment moved and spoken to by my noble friends. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it. As my noble friend Lord Reay has just pointed out, the proposal will impose a criminal offence on those who unfortunately may cause difficulty, even though not they had not done so deliberately. Anyone involved in the modern technologies of today's farming practices will be well aware of the issues surrounding hedge cutting, to name only one aspect.

I believe that my noble friends have made an important point here. I hope that the Government will respond sympathetically.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I appreciate the concerns expressed by noble Lords as regards the implications of our new offence of recklessly disturbing certain protected bird species.

However, we have clear information that in disturbance cases, genuine enforcement difficulties have arisen. The requirement that there has to be proof that any disturbance was caused intentionally has been found to be difficult. Clearly it cannot be right that a person found climbing a tree to visit a nest can escape conviction by claiming that he had not intended to disturb the birds.

We have been particularly careful to introduce the recklessness test only where it is appropriate. Our rarest birds are at their most vulnerable when they are at the nest, and I believe it is right that we should give them the extra protection they deserve. Introducing the test of recklessness will mean that a prosecutor will have to show that a person either deliberately took an unacceptable risk or failed to notice an obvious risk which caused disturbance.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act provides a defence that a person will not be guilty of an offence if he can show that something which he has done which would otherwise have been an unlawful act, was in fact the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided. I should also add that an accidental disturbance is not an offence.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that law-abiding countryside workers have nothing to fear from these provisions. In such circumstances the police are the statutory enforcement agency. In the light of these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

1.30 a.m.

Baroness Byford

Before my noble friend responds, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, particularly in regard to farm workers going about their normal business. I support her view that taking eggs from birds' nests is not desirable. It is something we are anxious about. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. The Minister is looking puzzled.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

For the sake of clarification, I should say that removing eggs is an offence. I made reference to people climbing to a nest even without the intention of removing eggs. That would be reckless disturbance.

Lord Kimball

In view of what the Minister has said and the fact that only a police constable can deal with such matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 536B: Page 108, line 12, leave out ("disturbs") and insert ("molests").

The noble Lord said: Paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 was inserted in another place by the Government without consultation with boating interests and despite the fact that the marine study working group is looking at these matters at the moment. It introduces a new subsection (4A) to the Wildlife and Countryside Act which makes it a criminal offence intentionally or recklessly to disturb a dolphin, a whale or a basking shark. It is aimed primarily at motorboats and personal watercraft—or jetskis, as they are more commonly known. I have no quarrel with that; it is a perfectly laudable aim. However, I am concerned that the provision might possibly impinge upon the lawful right of innocent passage in coastal waters.

It is true that the Wildlife and Countryside Act allows a defence where the alleged offence was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided. Navigation activities normally amount to a lawful operation, but it would seem that any disturbance of cetaceans and basking sharks which is the incidental result of such navigation can reasonably be avoided by keeping away from an area where such creatures may reasonably be expected to be found and by immediately leaving any area where they are encountered.

"Disturbance" is not defined for the purposes of the new subsection but, given its ordinary meaning, would include any interruption of the enjoyment of dolphins and so on of their habitat and not simply action amounting to some kind of molestation.

Some Members of the Committee may have boating experience. They will know that dolphins are very playful creatures. They are also highly manoeuvrable, much more so than any boat. It would be difficult for a yachtsman to avoid an over-zealous enforcement officer taking photographs in which the boat might appear to be disturbing dolphins. In this case, enforcement and policing will be extremely difficult. It conjures up wonderful Keystone Cops type images of young men on jetskis being pursued by policemen on jetskis with blue flashing lights, bouncing across rough seas.

Joking apart, it seems wrong that recreational yachtsmen and others should be put at jeopardy and have the reasonable exercise of their activities constrained by a prohibition on disturbance which not only involves no concept of harm or adverse impact, but would also permit an officious and wide-ranging anti-boating stance to be taken in pursuit of the precautionary principle. It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment. It attempts to narrow down the wide-ranging impact of the concept of "disturbance".

There is increasing pressure for the delineation of coastal areas for cetacean protection. The two redoubtable noble Baronesses on the Government Back Benches will not be surprised when I say that the Royal Yachting Association and other boating authorities are increasingly concerned that, if we go further down this road, in years to come substantial areas of coastal waters could be denied to small craft—despite the fact that scientific knowledge of what may or what may not disturb such creatures is still at a basic level. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government introduced the offence of "intentional or reckless disturbance" into the Bill in order to close the loophole which, due to their lack of a place of shelter or protection, would make it very difficult to apply the Bill's original provisions on reckless disturbance to certain marine species. This addresses concerns that some of these species, namely the cetacean family (dolphins, whales and porpoises) and the basking shark, are vulnerable to reckless disturbance, particularly by fast personal watercraft such as jetskis.

However, this amendment to insert "molest" would negate the benefit provided by the inclusion of "reckless" disturbance. "Molest" implies that the act was carried out with a degree of intent to injure or annoy, thus reinstating the need to prove intent. I therefore believe that this amendment would weaken the protection being offered to these vulnerable marine species.

I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and all those involved in responsible sailing and yachting interests that accidental disturbance of these species will not be an offence; nor will the ordinary navigation of a vessel. If a cetacean seeks out a vessel to ride its waves, the vessel would not be acting in an irresponsible or reckless manner, and would not be committing an offence. Conversely, if the cetacean changes its course and is followed by the vessel and every time the cetacean alters course the vessel follows it, then this activity may be seen as causing disturbance. There is existing guidance outlining appropriate behaviour when sailing near cetaceans which will help to avoid the commission of any offence.

At this late hour, I am sure that Members of the Committee would not like me to read out the entire list. We even have a small card which many people have found it useful to carry round with them. It offers carefully thought out guidance on how to avoid causing distress and trouble to these creatures while pursuing normal activities in a responsible manner. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, will not feel it necessary to pursue his amendment.

Lord Greenway

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am slightly unhappy that the parliamentary draftsman could not come up with some rather more appropriate words to deal with my concerns. However, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's assurance that yachtsman going about their normal duties will not be committing an offence if dolphins are playing around their boat. Dolphins and whales are extremely difficult to handle. Indeed, most yachtsman would keep well clear of a whale because, in many cases, it is rather larger than the boat. However, dolphins are a different matter. I shall read carefully in Hansard the response of the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 537: Page 108, line 19, after ("I),") insert— ("(a) after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted— (e) arrest that person where the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a failure to do so would result in the concealment, alteration, loss, damage or destruction of anything which may be evidence of the commission of an offence or may be liable to be forfeited under section 21,", and. (b)").

The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to add a subsection to Section 19 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It would provide police officers with the power of arrest to prevent the destruction or loss of evidence for offenders against wildlife legislation that might be found at another place before the enforcement agencies had had the opportunity to obtain a search warrant.

There is no such provision in the legislation at present. Therefore, when egg collectors are apprehended, the police sometimes have great difficulty arresting those concerned prior to discovering the evidence. We believe that such an amendment would close that loophole and make the work of the police substantially easier in enforcing wildlife law. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I share the concern of the noble Baroness that wildlife law should be enforced as effectively as possible. Indeed, I have some sympathy with the aim of the amendment and acknowledge the difficulties faced by police officers. However, it is also important that we do not make exceptions to provisions that have been drawn up for good reasons. Clearly, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codified and rationalised powers of arrest and established a structure that aims to match police powers and penalties to the seriousness of the offence. I recognise that the power of arrest sought by this amendment is conditional in that it would be used only for specific purposes. Nevertheless, it would be outside the structure established by that Act, part of which was designed specifically to clarify and rationalise police powers.

I shall be happy to consider the matter further to ascertain whether there is any movement that we can make on this front. However, I cannot promise anything. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I thank he Minister for his reply. I note that his colleague in another place was also sympathetic. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been in force for a long time; and, indeed, the value of eggs has grown substantially. Therefore, I believe that now is probably the time to move from being sympathetic to taking action on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 537ZA: Page 108, line 23, leave out from ("a") to end of line 25 and insert ("police constable").

The noble Lord said: Since the passing of the Act some 20 years ago, wildlife inspectors are now regarded with a certain amount of suspicion. One heard the other day of a wildlife inspector who got up in court in Norwich and announced that a kestrel was a rare bird. It is certainly not beyond the devious nature of these people's work when it comes to putting a poisoned bird on someone else's land, as in actual fact was proven by a case in the Western Isles with golden eagles.

I consider it quite wrong for the Secretary of State to authorise any individual to break into someone else's property at what is said to be a convenient time and take, or have taken, samples of anything that is found on the premises. Environmental sharp practice is not something new that we have to face. It was made clear in the debate that took place before many people had to leave this House when Lord Lytton introduced a debate about the lead shot order. During the discussion on that order, he pointed out that officials from English Nature had introduced a particular species into a certain area in order to try to get extra protection for that area, which it did not deserve.

I believe that my noble friend Lady Blatch eventually secured an answer at the end of last year. Since the Government came to power some 35 statutory instruments have been introduced to give powers of entry to private property. The time has come to stop that process. My amendment seeks to do so in a particular case. I beg to move.

1.45 a.m.

Lord Marlesford

I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. It is inappropriate that anyone in this country who is described in the words of the Bill as a, 'wildlife inspector' … a person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State under this subsection", should have the rights we are discussing.

I tabled a number of parliamentary Questions for Written Answer with regard to the lead shot regulations. It soon transpired that it is not the Secretary of State who personally authorises someone in that regard; any official of the department who has the authority of the Secretary of State can authorise someone. It is quite wrong that someone who perhaps works for the RSPB should be allowed to enter private premises. Although there appear to be certain exclusions in the Bill with regard to entering dwellings, the proposed new Section 19ZA(d) states: enter and inspect any premises for the purpose of verifying any statement". Therefore, it looks as if anyone can enter premises. The entering of private premises in this country should be restricted to those officials who can normally do so. They include such people as Customs and Excise officers who have had that right by long tradition and, of course, police constables. In the case we are discussing, the appropriate person should certainly be a police constable. As I said, I strongly support my noble friend. I hope that if the Government do not accept the amendment, either he will test the opinion of the Committee or bring it back on Report.

Lord Hardy of Wath

I do not claim expertise in the law on rights of entry. However, I hate to think that the Committee might seek to curtail such powers and rights as are held, for example, by the inspectorate of the RSPCA. Sometimes those people need at least to secure entry into a property to tackle some people's horrendous treatment of animals. I would not like to see curtailed the work of some people I know of in the RSPB and other bodies. My mind goes back a few years to the occasion when an RSPCA inspector, working in co-operation with the police, secured the arrest of one of my most respectable constituents. She was a middle-aged lady of high repute. However, she was trading in falcons and hawks. She sought to sell one of those birds late at night in a motorway service area on the M62. If anyone wished to sell a bird such as a peregrine falcon at Birch services, it would be reasonable for an RSPB inspector to be present. It was particularly appropriate that a police officer was also present to secure the proper pursuit of justice.

I believe that there is a place for the inspectorate in such cases. As regards the cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred, there may have been an excess of zeal on the part of the inspectorate. However, one should recognise that it has a part to play and one hopes that it will always be assisted by the constabulary in the various areas in which it operates.

Baroness Young of Old Scone

I, too, support the role of the wildlife inspectorates which carry out a wide range of inspection duties. They provide a proper monitoring framework for much of the legislation in this area. There is a real need for that inspection. There is considerable organised crime in this area. The most recent RSPB report on crimes against birds revealed 63 cases of illegal taking, possession and sale of wild birds in the past year alone. Many of these birds are on conservation lists. People want to trade in them illegally because they are lucrative and desired.

If we were considerably to restrict the inspectors' role, requiring inspection to be carried out by the police we would not have an adequate framework to implement the law. Law which cannot be properly implemented is no law.

Lord Whitty

My noble friend takes the words out of my mouth. There is a growing problem that has to be addressed. These provisions largely rationalise what inspectors are already doing but gives them new powers to require samples for DNA analysis. It is not the case that inspectors can kick in the door to everyone's home. Only those people who are subject to the controls may be visited. They must operate within strict guidelines which set out when inspections must be arranged and who is supposed to be present on those premises, including the occupier when the inspector goes on to those premises.

I believe that the inspectors need these powers. The powers are complementary to those of the police. Police officers are then free to concentrate on more serious offences. Without this possible detection means and deterrent, I think that much more wildlife protection would be lost. I therefore would not want to accept the noble Lord's amendment and hope that he will not pursue it.

Lord Kimball

We shall require a little time to consider what the Minister said. I do not believe that it is necessary to have these extra powers. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 537A to 538 not moved.] Schedule 10 agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539: After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—

("SCHEDULE AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY: CONSERVATION BOARDS

Interpretation

1. In this Schedule—

• "an English conservation board" means a conservation board for an area of outstanding natural beauty in England;
• "the relevant order", in relation to a conservation board, means—
• (a) the order under section (Establishment of conservation boards) establishing the board,
• (b) any order under that section relating to that board, or
850
• (c) any order made in relation to that board in exercise of the power to amend an order under that section.

Status and constitution of conservation boards

2. A conservation board shall be a body corporate.

3.—(1) A conservation board shall consist of—

1. (a) such number of local authority members as may be specified in the relevant order, and
2. (b) such number of members to be appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales as may be so specified.

(2) In the case of an English conservation board, such number as may be specified in the order as the number of members of that board who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State shall be parish members.

(3) The numbers specified in the relevant order for any conservation board in relation to the membership of the board must be such that—

1. (a) the number of local authority members is at least 40 per cent. of the total number of members, and
2. (b) in the case of an English conservation board, the number of parish members is at least 20 per cent. of the total number of members.

Local authority members

4.—(1) The local authority members of a conservation board shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the relevant order.

(2) The relevant order must provide either—

1. (a) for the local authority members to be appointed by such of the local authorities for areas wholly or partly comprised in the area of outstanding natural beauty as may be specified in or determined under the order ("the relevant councils"), or
2. (b) for the local authority members to be appointed by such of the relevant councils as may be determined in accordance with a scheme contained in the relevant order.

(3) A person shall not be appointed as a local authority member of a conservation board unless he is a member of a local authority the area of which is wholly or partly comprised in the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty; and, in appointing local authority members of a conservation board, a local authority shall have regard to the desirability of appointing members of the authority who represent wards, or (in Wales) electoral divisions, situated wholly or partly within the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty.

(4) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule and to the provisions of the relevant order, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his membership of any local authority is appointed as a local authority member of a conservation board—

1. (a) he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be a member of that authority; but
2. (b) his appointment may, before any such cessation, be terminated for the purposes of, and in accordance with, sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance).

(5) Sub-paragraph (4)(a) shall have effect so as to terminate the term of office of a person who, on retiring from any local authority, immediately becomes such a member again as a newly elected councillor; but a person who so becomes a member again shall be eligible for re-appointment to the conservation board.

(6) The appointment of any person as a local authority member of a conservation board may provide that he is not to be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) as qualifying for his appointment by virtue of his membership of any local authority other than that specified in the appointment.

(7) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (bodies to which appointments have to be made taking account of political balance), after paragraph (ba) there is inserted— (bb) a conservation board established by order under section (Establishment of conservation hoards) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;".

Parish members

5.—(1) The parish members of an English conservation board shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) A person shall not be appointed as a parish member of an English conservation board unless he is—

1. (a) a member of the parish council for a parish the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty, or
2. (b) the chairman of the parish meeting of a parish—
1. (i) which does not have a separate parish council, and
2. (ii) the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty.

(3) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule and to the provisions of the relevant order, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his membership of a parish council is appointed as a parish member of an English conservation board, he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be a member of that parish council.

(4) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule and to the provisions of the relevant order, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his being the chairman of a parish meeting is appointed as a parish member of an English conservation board, he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be the chairman of that parish meeting.

(5)Sub-paragraph (3) or (4) shall not have effect so as to terminate the term of office of a person who retires from a parish council, or ceases to be the chairman of a parish meeting, until such time as may be determined by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with the relevant order.

(6) A person who—

1. (a) on retiring from a parish council, or
2. (b) on ceasing to be the chairman of a parish meeting, becomes a member of the parish council again as a newly elected councillor or, as the case may be, is elected to succeed himself as chairman of any parish meeting is eligible for re-appointment to the conservation board at the time mentioned in sub-paragraph (5).

(7) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule and of the relevant order, a parish member of an English conservation board shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

Members (other than parish members) appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales

6.—(1) Before appointing any person as a member of a conservation board, the Secretary of State shall consult the Agency.

(2) Before appointing any person as a member of a conservation board, the National Assembly for Wales shall consult the Council.

(3) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule and to the provisions of the relevant order, a person appointed as a member of a conservation board by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—

1. (a) shall hold office for such period of not less than one year nor more than three years as may be specified in the terms of his appointment; but
2. (b) on ceasing to hold office shall be eligible for re-appointment.

(4) The term of office of a person appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to till such a vacancy in the membership of a conservation board as occurs where a person appointed by the Secretary of State or the Assembly ceases to be a member of the board before the end of his term of office may be for a period of less than one year if it is made to expire with the time when the term of office of the person in respect or whom the vacancy has arisen would have expired.

(5) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule and of the relevant order, a member of a conservation board appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

(6) This paragraph does not apply to persons appointed as parish members of an English conservation board or to their appointment as such members.

Chairman and deputy chairman

7.—(1) The members of a conservation board shall elect, from amongst their members, both a chairman and a deputy chairman of the board.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the chairman and deputy chairman of a conservation board shall be elected for a period not exceeding one year; but a person so elected shall, on ceasing to hold office at the end of his term of office as chairman or deputy chairman, be eligible for re-election.

(3) A person shall cease to hold office as chairman or deputy chairman of a conservation board if he ceases to be a member of the board.

(4) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of chairman or deputy chairman of a conservation board, it shall be the duty of the members of that board to secure that the vacancy is filled as soon as possible.

Audit

8. In Schedule 2 to the Audit Commission Act 1998 (accounts subject to audit) in paragraph 1 after paragraph (j) there is inserted— (jj) a conservation board established by order under section (Establishment of conservation hoards) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 539, Amendment No. 539A: Line 16, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—

1. (".—(1) A conservation board shall consist of not more than 24 members of whom—
1. (a) not less than two-thirds shall be appointed by local authorities and parish councils in such proportion as they decide among themselves; and
2. (b) the balance of not more than one third shall be appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as appropriate, from organisations whose interests and objectives are relevant to the Conservation Board.
2. (2) In the event of a failure by local authorities and parish councils to agree appointments under paragraph (1)(a) above, the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State for arbitration and decision.

. A Conservation Board shall, after local consultation, decide whether to form an Advisory Council, and if such a Council is formed, shall appoint members who shall be drawn from local organisations concerned with the objectives of the Conservation Board.").

The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment because there is general dissatisfaction with the number of members of the conservation board to be appointed under Amendment No. 539 by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 539 suggests that 40 per cent shall be local authority members; and the balance of 60 per cent shall be appointed by the Secretary of State of which 20 per cent shall be parish members. I find it hard to understand why the Secretary of State should appoint parish members. It would be far more appropriate for that to be done by parishes, by local people. It is almost absurd to consider that parish members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.

I believe that the balance is wrong. My amendment is a probing amendment to which we shall return, probably on Report. I suggest that the balance should be two-thirds appointed by local authorities and parish councils, in such proportion as they decide among themselves".

It seems more satisfactory that local people should work out how many should be council members, how many district members and how many parish members. It would be better for that to be undertaken locally than by an edict passed in Parliament for implementation by the Secretary of State. Obviously, if local people could not agree among themselves, the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State for arbitration and decision.

I accept that one third of the members should be appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, but they should come from organisations whose interests and objectives are relevant to the conservation boards. The principle is that two thirds should be parish and local authority members appointed locally and a maximum of one third should be appointed by the Secretary of State.

I have added that the conservation boards shall consist of not more than 24 members. I wholly understand if the Minister says that it is not for us to set a limit because the order should decide. My point is that there is a great danger of there being too many people on such boards. The conservation board of which I am chairman numbers 36, plus me. If we were to become a national park, embracing east Hampshire as well—that is the Government's intention and the Countryside Agency is working on it—I am told that on the same distribution the size of our board would be 45. That is too large. For effective working, the smaller the board the better. I suggest that 24 is the maximum for a reasonable executive board capable of reaching decisions. Within that, no more than one third should be appointed by the Secretary of State and two thirds by local people.

However, with a board of only 24 there will be people who feel that they should be consulted and have not been. That is why I have tagged on the thought that: A Conservation Board shall, after local consultation, decide whether to form an Advisory Council".

That advisory council could be quite large, meeting perhaps twice a year. Its members could be drawn from local organisations concerned with the objectives of the conservation board. That is a different approach. I have got away from trying to decide exactly how parish members are elected and how many there should be. Let the local people decide. There could be a smaller number on the board, supported by an advisory council to bring in a larger gathering of people to talk about their objectives and aspirations once or twice a year. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selborne

I support my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. We have come back to the issue of local accountability on conservation boards. My noble friend has said it all. There can be no case for having a minority of locally accountable people who have been elected or appointed by local authorities. The Secretary of State could appoint up to 60 per cent—20 per cent from the parish councils and another 40 per cent from elsewhere. That is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will think again about the proposal.

Lord Bridges

I well understand the feeling that parish members should be represented on the boards, but I am somewhat concerned that they are to be confined to parish councillors. Having seen a good deal of the work of parish councils recently, I am not convinced that all the people who could best contribute to a conservation board would necessarily be found among their ranks. Parish councillors now face demanding tasks and there may be others who would be well able to contribute to the work of the board who have chosen not to be parish councillors.

We need a different procedure by which the parish council could suggest names from among their own number or from among residents of the parish to be considered by the appointing body, be it the Secretary of State or somebody else. I prefer the arrangement suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It would be much better and more representative and would not have the link with the Secretary of State whose role seems a little unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has so much to do. The Bill places many more tasks upon him, and this is something which he need not bear.

2 a.m.

Lord Marlesford

I support my noble friend's amendment for the simple reason that I want the Bill to be effective. I want the boards to be effective, and I am quite sure that 24 is the absolute maximum number of members for a sensible executive body. Certainly, the executive board of almost every company of which I am aware has fewer than 24 members. The total board, including non-executives, would probably comprise fewer than that number. Even the Cabinet has no more than 24 members. I am not sure whether the number is limited by statute, but I believe that the number of people in the Cabinet who can be paid is limited to 24. If a Prime Minister wants additional members, he must find people who will serve without payment.

I am sure that that number is right. I also believe that it is right to switch the proportions so that 60 per cent of the members are local people and only 40 per cent are appointed by the Secretary of State. I believe that that would give greater credibility to what will be an important body for AONBs.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

We have returned to the debate that we had earlier. Perhaps this is the point at which I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that I strongly disagree with the statement that he made earlier that I do not see local accountability as important. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the amendment.

I believe that the model proposed by the Government probably builds on the national parks model. The Secretary of State confirms the parish council representation in that instance. Therefore, it might he said to be a Secretary of State appointment. However, the parish councillors are chosen locally from among the parishes. I believe that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, may be covered by the precedent set by a parish council being able to appoint a school governor to represent it on a governing body. The representative does not have to be a member of the parish council.

One weakness of the national parks model which the Minister might address is that currently the Secretary of State's appointees who are considered to represent the national interest can be appointed from many miles outside the park—sometimes virtually from the other end of the country. That seems to me to be a weakness. I believe that the Secretary of State should make every effort to ensure that, where the person is appointed not as a local authority member but to represent a national interest, some qualification about living or working within the area should be in force. If the Secretary of State was truly unable to find such a person, it may be possible to look further afield. However, I believe that the underlining of the role of locally elected members in conservation boards, and the links that that would forge to local authorities, is extremely important.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I have a series of amendments which are grouped with my noble friend's amendment and which have a similar effect, but in their effect they have very much answered the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.

This series of amendments may appear to be scrappy because one must sit down and work out exactly what they say. My noble friend, however, has had the good sense to produce a cohesive amendment which appears to provide the perfect solution. Of course, it is not perfect because the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has pointed out its flaw. The flaw is that we do not understand—at least, I still do not understand—the need of the Secretary of State to appoint members to those boards when the chips are down.

If, in his reply, the Minister says that the Secretary of State will do so simply because there must be an appointment mechanism and he is it, we say simply that that is because we are unable to take sufficient care to ensure that the local organisations produce the people who are required. That is what my amendments are directed to because we see that the conservation boards should consist of council and parish council members and we leave to the Secretary of State the right to determine the numbers. But they both will be appointed in accordance with a scheme to be defined in the order. That can be done quite easily. It is reasonable to assume that one AONB in one part of the country will have a very different constitution from a different AONB in a different part of the country.

However, I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry about numbers. On the whole, the prejudice should be to keep numbers small.

If the Secretary of State has an interest, the point is covered in my amendments by allowing him to appoint two members. I am not even sure that that is necessary but I thought that I should leave in that provision because it seemed to me to be a reasonable concession.

Certainly, the conservation bodies can be covered much better by allowing the boards to co-opt such number of members who may be co-opted from relevant conservation bodies as specified in the order. You do not want someone from the national headquarters of a conservation body, except in particular circumstances, as a member of an AONB in the far-flung ends of the country. What we want is to have the local people who have local interests and who know what is going on. That applies just as much to conservation bodies as it does to parish and ordinary councils.

Therefore, my series of amendments goes rather further than the amendment of my noble friend. At this late hour, I do not ask the Minister to answer this question this evening but simply to say that he will go away and think about the issue because I do not pretend to have an absolute answer and I hope that my noble friend would not do so either. We are both pointing in the same direction: those bodies should consist of local people arrived at and determined locally, in so far as that is possible. If there is a need for national representation for a natural interest, that should be kept as small as is reasonably possible. It was with those thoughts in mind that I tabled these amendments.

Baroness Byford

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 539K and 539L. The first amendment suggests that the term of office should be limited so that it is not an ongoing office that somebody holds for ever and a day. That is why I suggest that that period should be 10 years.

Amendment No. 539L deals with the whole question of filling the vacancy. I suggest that that should be done within six weeks. I believe that the Scottish Parliament requires its vacancies to be filled within four weeks.

Lord Whitty

Clearly, some people object to the Secretary of State appointing anybody onto these boards. For them to work and for there to be a national network of AONB conservation boards, there needs to be some representation which is not automatically from the local authorities within the area. In fact, the proportions being discussed are not as wildly different as the debate may have suggested. We are saying that 60 per cent should be from the localities; that is, 40 per cent from the local authorities and 20 per cent from the parish councils.

There is an argument as to how the parish people should be appointed. We are using the same provisions as those which apply to representation in the national parks legislation.

I am not sure that I understand the argument that the Secretary of State should not appoint the 20 per cent, but in larger areas someone has to sort out the representatives from the parishes. Whether the parishes are happy about that being sorted out by the district council, for example, probably depends on the part of the country one lives in.

However, I am not persuaded by any of these alternative formulae. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, suggests putting a ceiling on the situation, I can see some benefit, but it makes the calculations more difficult when one has to deal with a significant number of local authorities and parishes within the area. I am not convinced that any alternative formulation is better than ours. No doubt we shall return to this matter. I shall consider it further, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-smith, suggests. At the moment I am not convinced of anything that has yet been proposed.

On Amendment No. 539K, which relates to the term served, I agree that there should be a limit as suggested by the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether that would be less disruptive, but there is some merit in the proposal and I shall be happy to consider it further.

Amendment No. 539L is a precise amendment that says that vacancies must be filled within six weeks. My experience of public appointments suggests that that would be difficult. I believe that it is best left to the detail of the regulations rather than being put on the face of the Bill, particularly as I believe that the point may be unachievable.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I thank the Minister for that reply. This is an extremely important point. The practical demonstration of local democracy will centre largely around the number of local people who are on a conservation board and how they are appointed. The thought of the Minister thinking more about this is irresistible at this time of night. I shall gladly accept the suggestion that we refer to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 539B to 539L, as amendments to Amendment No. 539, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 539 agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 540: After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—

("SCHEDULE SUPPLEMENTAL POWERS OF CONSERVATION BOARDS

Interpretation

1. In this Schedule— common", "disposal" and "open space" have the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; relevant order" has the same meaning as in Schedule (Areas of outstanding natural beauty: conservation boards).

Power to acquire land

2.—(1) For the purposes of any of their functions under this or any other enactment, a conservation board may acquire by agreement any land, whether situated inside or outside their area of outstanding natural beauty.

(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to acquisition by agreement is a reference to acquisition for money or money's worth as purchaser or lessee.

Power to dispose of land

3. Subject to paragraphs 4 to 6 and to the provisions of the relevant order, a conservation board may dispose, in any manner they wish, of land which is held by them but no longer required by them for the purposes of their functions.

4.—(1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales), a conservation board may not—

1. (a) dispose under paragraph 3 of land which consists of or forms part of a common, or formerly consisted of or formed part of a common, and is managed by a local authority in accordance with a local Act,
2. (b) dispose under paragraph 3 of land, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a disposal of land is a disposal by way of a short tenancy if it consists—

1. (a) of the grant of a term not exceeding seven years, or
2. (b) of the assignment of a term which at the date of the assignment has not more than seven years to run.

5. A conservation board may not dispose under paragraph 3 of any land consisting of or forming part of an open space unless before disposing of the land they cause notice of their intention to do so, specifying the land in question, to be advertised in two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated, and consider any objections to the proposed disposal which may be made to them.

6. Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1972 (consents to land transactions by local authorities) applies in relation to a conservation board as if a conservation board were a principal council and as if paragraphs 3 to 5 were contained in Part VII of that Act.")

Provisions as to charges

7. In section 152(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (provisions as to charges), after paragraph (ja) there is inserted— (jb) a conservation board established by order under section (Establishment of conservation boards) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;"; and section 151 of that Act (power to amend existing provisions as to charges) shall have effect as if references to an existing provision included references to any such provision as applied by or under Part IIIA of this Act.").

[Amendment No. 540A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 540, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 540 agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 541: After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—

("SCHEDULE

AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

PART I

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (c. 97)

1. In section 1 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales), in subsection (2)(a) after "National Parks or" there is inserted "under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

2. In section 112(2) of that Act (provisions not applying to Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches), for "eighty-seven" there is substituted "eighty-nine".

3. In section 114(1) of that Act (interpretation), for the definition of "area of outstanding natural beauty" there is substituted— "area of outstanding natural beauty" means an area designated under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;".

Harbours Act 1964 (c. 40)

4. In Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964, in paragraph 1, in paragraph (i) of the definition of "sensitive area" for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

Highways Act 1980 (c. 66)

5. In section 105A of the 1980 Act (environmental impact assessments), in subsection (6), for paragraph (e) there is substituted— (e) an area of outstanding beauty designated as such under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.".

Derelict Land Act 1982 (c. 42)

6. In section 1 of the Derelict Land Act 1982 (powers of Secretary of State). in subsection (11), in the definition of "area of outstanding natural beauty" for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)

7. In section 22 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (traffic regulation for special areas in the countryside), at the end of subsection (1)(a)(ii) there is inserted "designated as such under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)

8.In section 37 of the Housing Act 1985 (restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks, etc), in subsection (1)(b) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

9. In section 157 of that Act (restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks, etc), in subsection (1)(b) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)

10. In section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (exclusion of certain descriptions of land or development from a simplified planning zone), in subsection (1)(d) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43)

11. In section 130 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (countryside functions of Countryside Council for Wales), in subsection (2)(a) after "National Parks or" there is inserted "under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)

12. In section 156 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (restriction on disposals of land), in subsection (8), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest", for "for the purposes of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

Environment Act 1995 (e. 25)

13. In Schedule 13 to the Environment Act 1995 (review of old mineral planning permissions), in paragraph 2(4)(c) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".

Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)

14. In section 13 of the Housing Act 1996 (restriction on disposal of houses in National Parks, etc), in subsection (1)(b) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000"

PART II

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

15. In this Part "commencement" means the commencement of section (Designation of areas).

16. Any order under section 87 of the 1949 Act (designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty) which is in force immediately before commencement is to be taken to have been made under section (Designation of areas) in accordance with the provisions of Part IIIA of this Act, and may be amended or revoked by an order under that section.

17. Any reference in any instrument or document (whenever made) to designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty under section 87 of the 1949 or to an order under that section is, in relation to any time after commencement, to be taken to be a reference to designation as such an area under section (Designation of area). of this Act, or to an order under that section.

18. Anything done before commencement in connection with a proposed order under section 87 of the 1949 Act is, as from commencement. to be taken to have been done in connection with a proposed order under section (Designation of areas) of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Carnarvon moved Amendment No. 542: Before Clause 72, insert the following new clause—

("PLANNING AUTHORITY IN NATIONAL PARKS

PLANNING AUTHORITY IN NATIONAL PARKS

.—(1) In section 4A(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, at the beginning insert "If the order establishing the National Park authority so provides and".

(2) In section 65(3) of the Environment Act 1995, for "The functions of a National Park authority" substitute "In the case of a National Park authority which is designated as the sole local planning authority for its area, its functions".

(3) In section 67(2) of that Act, after "by order" insert "designate a National Park authority as the sole planning authority for its area.

(2A) An order under subsection (2) may".").

The noble Earl said: Before moving the amendment I must declare an interest as a former member of the Court of Verderers of the New Forest and the Court of Swainmote and as a member of Hampshire County Council. If Amendment No. 542 is agreed, an alteration to the Long Title of the Bill will be necessary, as proposed in my Amendment No. 567.

The Secretary of State can make an order under Section 67(2) of the 1995 Environment Act that land-use planning should remain with existing strategic planning authorities. Where he does not, he encourages the national parks authority to make voluntary arrangements to work with neighbouring planning authorities to prepare a joint structure plan for their combined area.

There is no provision in the Environment Act for the Secretary of State to make an order for development control functions—which I stress—to remain with existing local planning authorities in areas where there is a national park. The local authorities in the New Forest and South Down areas have been examining the implications of possible national park designation, including the implications for existing planning functions. The authorities there are proud of their activities in protecting the New Forest and the South Downs from inappropriate development. They recognise that both areas need special attention if their important characteristics are to be conserved.

Amendment No. 542 would enable the Secretary of State to make an order that development control functions should remain with the existing local planning authorities if considered appropriate in the circumstances of the area. The effect would be to introduce some discretion into existing legislation; discretion that could be exercised only by the Secretary of State. It would provide him with the means to have different arrangements for delivery of the planning functions in certain national parks from the standard solution at present provided by law. I beg to move.

2.15 a.m.

The Earl of Selborne

I rise to support this amendment. Here is another opportunity to ensure that local populations are able to influence their area planning decisions. We have perhaps been over zealous in protecting conservation boards from having planning powers foisted on them, which the Minister assured us time and again this evening no one intends to give them. But that is not the case with national parks. After all, they normally have statutory powers.

In some cases, national parks will straddle a wide range of local authorities. I refer, for example, to what would happen if the South Downs became a national park—I declare an interest as I would be either in it or near the edge of that area if it was designated a national park. The South Downs straddle any number of planning authorities stretching from Eastbourne to Winchester. I find it inconceivable that a national park undertaking development control functions for local communities would stretch from Eastbourne to Winchester. Nothing could be more calculated to cause resentment among local communities than the imposition of a national park having such far-reaching implications on decisions which are perhaps better left at a local level.

I recognise that the noble Earl is suggesting that the power should be discretionary and the Minister fairly, and frequently, this evening reminded us that the Secretary of State can be assumed to be a reasonable person. Here is an opportunity for him to be highly reasonable. Where the local authorities can better fulfil the planning and development control functions than a national park authority, clearly the Secretary of State should have powers to determine and ensure that local authorities have such development control functions.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

I, too, rise to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon.

This is a rather strange lacuna in the Secretary of State's powers in that national parks have the ability to delegate their development control functions to local authorities involved in their area if they wish to do so; but the Secretary of State does not possess that power. In fact, with the possible exception of the Broads authority, which is of the family of national parks, although sui generis, no national park has yet delegated its development control functions.

As the noble Earl said, we are looking at the situation in the New Forest and the South Downs. We are now offering the Secretary of State an additional power to enable him to delegate the development and control functions to local authorities if he wishes so to do. That is a most sensible suggestion and I should be surprised if the Minister did not accept it. Given the enormous range which, for example, the South Downs national park would cover—from Winchester to Eastbourne, 105 miles and 16 or 17 local authorities—it is right that at least the possibility of the Secretary of State delegating the development and control functions should be considered. That is part of what the noble Earl is proposing and I hope the amendment will be accepted by the Government Front Bench.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. The amendment would introduce a degree of flexibility, particularly where there is a possibility of new national parks being formed. It is a happy occasion when I am delighted to give the Secretary of State a greater degree of discretion than he is at present able to exercise.

Lord Whitty

I suppose that I ought to grab those last words of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It is not often he offers discretion to the Secretary of State. I understand the intention behind the amendment and that it would allow national park authorities to be set up without there being a local planning authority. I also understand the circumstances in which that might arise in relation to the possible designation of national parks in the New Forest and the South Downs.

It would be a big change from what happens in the existing national parks and inevitably there would be some concern there that this was a precedent for unravelling the situation which applies to them. The Government have stated that. in the process of consideration of the South Downs and the New Forest, and any other potential new national park, the planning arrangements need to be assessed and any modifications to the usual national park funding arrangements which might be justified because of particular local circumstances need to be considered.

The Countryside Agency is examining that and discussing it with the local authorities concerned. There will therefore be extensive consultation and local people and groups will be able to contribute their views. We expect the agency to bring recommendations to the Secretary of State when it produces draft national park designation orders. That is likely to be in the latter part of 2001 for the New Forest and a few months later for the South Downs. Following that, it is likely that there will be public inquiries, so the earliest possible date for a new park to come into being is during 2003.

The issue of the planning authority is important and the views of the local authorities concerned will need to be taken carefully into account. That may take some time. The Government intend to wait and see what is required in those two specific situations rather than legislating generally in the Bill now.

Part III of the Environment Act 1985, which the amendment sets out to alter, is based on the presumption of a national park authority being the local planning authority, as the noble Earl indicated. If we want to change that, we would need to amend Part III of that Act and I do not know that the amendment would have the effect of doing that.

Our major concern is to complete the review of the arrangements that would be needed if we went ahead with the designation of the two areas currently under consideration. We could then see precisely what would be required; either to do what his amendment would allow—that is, to keep the planning powers with the local authority—or alternatively to have a joint arrangement; the more traditional arrangement now existing in the national parks.

We would need to discuss that fully when decisions are about to take place with the existing national parks as well as with local authorities and the embryo organisations. We do not therefore have a closed mind, therefore, but believe that we would probably be raising too many expectations and apprehensions if we were now to legislate in such a general way when two or three years of the process have yet to be completed in relation to the two areas under consideration. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment and recognises that we understand the concerns which lie behind it.

The Earl of Carnarvon

I have listened carefully to the Minister. I have also spoken to him on the subject. It is important to remember that in the case of the New Forest the whole of the potential national park is within one district. That is one of the biggest districts in England, with 175,000 people, which is not a unitary authority. It is incredible to have an elected district council with planning powers that deal with only three areas of its district while the majority of the land is within the perambulation of the new national park. I listened carefully to the Minister who gave me every hope that in future this matter will be carefully considered. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 [Power of countryside bodies to enter into management agreements]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 543: Page 46, line 13, at end insert— ("(f) as respects land in any area of outstanding natural beauty designated under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for which a conservation board has been established under section (Establishment of conservation boards) of that Act, that board.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 543ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 543ZB: After Clause 72. insert the following new clause—

("Town or village greens

DEFINITION OF TOWN OR VILLAGE GREEN

.—(1) In section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965, for the definition of "town or village green" there is substituted— "town or village green" means

1. (a) land which has been allotted by or under any Act for the exercise or recreation of the inhabitants of any locality;
2. (b) land on which the inhabitants of any locality have a customary right to indulge in lawful sports and pastimes; or
3. (c) land on which the inhabitants of any locality or residential area have indulged in lawful sports and pastimes as of right for any period of not less than twenty years ending after 31st July 1990, whether or not other persons have used the land for like purposes."

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall allow the register of town or village greens to be amended by virtue of section 13(b) of the Commons Registration Act 1965 to include any land which on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent was lawfully covered by a building or its curtilage.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 543ZB takes the Committee back to the first day of its deliberations and the right of the public to recreation on access land. The amendment is not concerned with wide open spaces but small local areas of land. The amendment seeks to protect those areas which are being destroyed by a loophole in the Commons Registration Act 1965. When this matter was raised in the other place the Government found one or two reasons for rejecting the amendment. The fact is that the Government are keen on the creation of new areas of open space and have allocated some £12.8 million from the New Opportunities Fund to create about 200 new areas of open space in urban and rural communities. Therefore, it is strange to leave a loophole which may destroy about 50 village greens.

The loophole works as follows. For an open space to qualify as a green most people who use it must live nearby. Therefore, if too many people from outside the locality use a village green—they may come for the day or for picnics—they dilute the right of local people to register it. Therefore, an attempt to register that green will fail. Villagers and locals who want to register that land as a green, a status which protects it from development, must present a map which shows the land in question and the area within which people who use the green live. The map must show that there is a recognisable community living close to the land. However, some greens are now in semi-urban areas. So that can be extremely difficult to achieve.

We do not believe that when the Commons Registration Act was drafted it was intended to contain a loophole which would allow greens to be destroyed. The courts have also ruled that the 20 years referred to in the existing definition must be the period immediately before the application to register. Therefore, if use of the land by local people had suddenly been suspended without warning, for example, because a developer had erected a fence and patrolled the land with security guards, there could be no registration. There would be no time in which to gather the necessary evidence of recreational use and submit a convincing application.

The amendment seeks to close the loophole and, for the first time, replace the faulty definition with something that enables greens to be protected for all future generations within the spirit of the original legislation and the Government's intention in this Bill. The subsequent amendment deals with the Long Title, should Amendment No. 543ZB be accepted. I beg to move.

2.30 a.m.

Baroness Nicol

I rise briefly to support the amendment. We have become aware recently of how much more important than ever these greens have become, particularly in urban or semi-urban areas. They are constantly being lost. I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but I have a list of five which have been lost within the past year. At that rate, obviously the destruction—that is the word for it—of these greens becomes very important indeed for local people. I hope the Government will look kindly on this amendment.

Lord Whitty

I shall look relatively kindly on it. That is the best the Committee will get out of me at this time of night. We share the view that there is a need to tackle the difficulties in registering land and retaining common land in town or village greens. We share the wish behind the amendment of the noble Baroness to clarify the definition in the Commons Registration Act 1965. The Government have clearly signalled their intention to address these issues. We have tried to reflect on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, in so far as it affects the significance of use by outsiders and the circumscribing of a satisfactory community to justify a claim that the land has been a town or village green. There may be some difficulty as to precisely how we do that.

Moreover, there are some difficulties about the reference to the period of 20 years' use up to 1990. That clearly recedes as time goes on, and it may be difficult to reverse entirely the processes. So there are some complexities about the amendment. I am happy to agree to consider tabling our own amendment on Report. I hope the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that, at least for now.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I look forward to seeing the amendment that he intends to put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 543ZC: After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—

NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK BROADS

(" . In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in section 2(1) of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 543ZC is a fairly small amendment which seeks to bring the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads authority into line with the other ten national parks. At the moment, the authority is somewhat different. This amendment was tabled in the Commons. The Government were relatively sympathetic to it. It seems anomalous that the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads authority has different treatment. It clearly wishes not to have different treatment. Unless there is a good reason to continue the difference, it would seem reasonable to make sure that it is treated in the same way as the rest of its family of national parks. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Last Wednesday I undertook, in response to Amendment No. 453 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to consider bringing forward on Report a government amendment which would require relevant authorities, when doing anything in, or so as to affect land in, an AONB to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. That would parallel the similar duty which is applied by the 1995 Environment Act—when doing anything in, or so as to affect land in, a national park, relevant authorities must have regard to the purposes for which the national parks are designated.

It would not be right to exclude the Broads, as the other members of the family of designated landscapes, from the application of a similar duty on relevant authorities to have regard to its purposes. I therefore can give the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the same undertaking that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, last week, and undertake to consider bringing forward a government amendment on Report having the effect she seeks. I therefore ask her to withdraw this amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I thank the Minister for her helpful reply and look forward to seeing the amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 73 [Wales]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 543A to 543C: Page 46, line 20, at end insert— ("(1A) In that Schedule, at the end of the list of Public General Acts there is inserted— Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.) Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings relating to sites of special scientific interest)."."). Page 46, line 21, leave out ("does") and insert (", and the amendment made by subsection (1A), do"). Page 46, line 22, leave out ("concerned") and insert ("mentioned in subsection (1) or the provision inserted by subsection (1A)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 74 [Isles of Scilly]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 544 and 545: Page 46, line 28, leave out (", after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly,"). Page 46, line 32, at end insert— ("(2A) Part IIIA applies in relation to the Isles of Scilly subject to such modifications as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument. (2B) Before making an order under subsection (2) or (2A), the Secretary of State shall consult the Council of the Isles of Scilly.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75 [Expenses]:

[Amendment No. 545A not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 546: Page 46, line 38, leave out ("the Nature Conservancy Council for England") and insert ("English Nature").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 546A to 546D not moved.]

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76 agreed to.

Schedule 11 [Repeals]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 547 to 552:

Page 112, column 3, leave out line 9.
Page 112, line 28, column 3, at end insert—	("In Schedule 15, paragraph 9.")
Page 113, line 3, at end insert—
("1958 c. 51.	The Public Records Act 1958.	In Schedule 1, in Part II of the Table in paragraph 3, the entry relating to the Nature Conservancy Council for

		England
1964 c. 40.	The Harbours Act 1964.	England. In Schedule 3, in the definition of "sensitive area", paragraph (b).
1965 c. 74.	The Superannuation Act 1965.	In section 39(1), in paragraph 7, the words "The Nature Conservancy Council for England."
1967 c. 13.	The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.	In Schedule 2, the entry "Nature Conservancy Council for England.".")
Page 113, line 5, at end insert—
("1975 c. 24.	The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.	In Schedule 1, in Part III, the entry "Any member of the Nature Conservancy Council for England or the Countryside Council for Wales in receipt of remuneration.".")
Page 113, line 7, column 3, at end insert—
		("In section 32(1), the words "or land to which section 29(3) applies".")
Page 113, line 22, at end insert—
("1996 c. 47.	The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.	In Schedule 3, paragraph 20 and the heading preceding it.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 552A:

Page 114, line 5, column 3, at end insert—
	("In section 39(1) the words "which is both in the countryside and".")

The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to make equal the treatment between urban and rural areas where there are amenity spaces. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 currently prevents local and national park authorities from making management agreements that would be beneficial in urban areas. These are voluntary agreements made between landowners to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of amenity land and promote its enjoyment by the public, but only in the countryside. We have referred several times during the passage of the Bill to the importance to urban areas of their open spaces. It seems strange that the Wildlife and Countryside Act should continue to contain a provision whereby management agreements can happen only in rural areas. The amendment would remove that unnecessary bar and allow the power to be used wherever it made sense to do so. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has outlined the provisions of the amendment. The Bill already provides in Clause 72 that these powers to enter into such agreements should also be made available to the countryside bodies. Amendment No. 552A would enable local planning authorities and the countryside bodies to enter into Section 39 management agreements in respect of any land and not just in respect of land in the countryside. For example, it would allow the Countryside Agency effectively to provide for the long-term protection of millennium greens wherever they are located.

I believe that there may therefore be merit in considering this amendment, although we need to be confident that it is appropriate for Section 39 powers to be used to protect land in built-up areas. We also need to consider whether such wider powers should be made available both to the countryside body and to the local planning authorities.

We should like to consider this amendment further, without commitment. I hope that, in the light of this, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

Because I am an optimist, I shall take that to be an encouraging response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 553: Page 114, line 7, at end insert—