Sitting of 14 June 1996

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

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I take a great deal of pleasure in coming before your Lordships' House today to discuss the CDC Bill. It is a sensible and necessary measure which will enable the CDC to continue to fulfil its fundamental purpose in new ways, better adapted to present day needs in so many of the developing countries of the world and most particularly in Africa.
The CDC is well known to Members of this House. It has many friends here with personal experience of its operations overseas. To other noble Lords it is welcome as a valuable and well-respected development finance institution. Its role, established by statute, is to contribute to the economic development of poorer countries. The CDC has successfully been playing that part since 1948, and, although the developing world looks very different now, nearly 50 years on, anything that the CDC does today and in the future must still contribute to that single purpose. It is, I believe, important to be clear on this point. The CDC is the main instrument within Britain's overseas aid programme in promoting private-sector development in enhancing productive capacity, a central aim of the UK aid programme.
Perhaps I may at this point pay tribute to the excellent leadership provided by the Chairman of the CDC, the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, and by other members of the CDC. While speaking of CDC members I should like to say how sad we were to learn of the untimely death on 30th May of Ian Carruthers, Professor of Agrarian Development at Wye College. His energy, enthusiasm and clarity of vision will be greatly missed by the CDC and, indeed, by the Overseas Development Administration, with which he had a long association.
The CDC has its roots in the Commonwealth, and Commonwealth countries still remain at the heart of its operations. Nineteen of its 24 overseas offices are located in these countries, utilising the advantages of a common second language, legal and commercial systems based on UK law, education and other links. In 1995, 38 of the 50 countries in which the CDC operated were in the Commonwealth. These countries attracted 67 per cent. of the CDC's new investments and have 71 per cent. of the total portfolio.
Those strong links are directly relevant to the role which the CDC has been asked to play in the Commonwealth Private Investment Initiative, of which
1960
I shall say more later. But, since 1969, the CDC has, with ministerial approval, gradually and appropriately expanded its activities outside the Commonwealth, focusing on new countries on the basis of development need.
Looking to the future, the CDC's country coverage is not set to alter dramatically. There are, for example, no plans or intentions to divert activity into middle income countries or eastern Europe. The corporation has already ceased to make new investments in the richer countries in Asia, such as Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. The CDC will continue to focus on poor countries with a development need it can fill, drawing on its traditional experience and expertise. Over the next few years the CDC is expecting to continue to increase its new investments in Africa.
The CDC brings tangible benefits to the lives of local people and its contribution is growing. Overall, in 1995 new investments were at a record high of £276 million, an increase of 15 per cent. on the previous year. The CDC has also comfortably beaten the strategic targets set in the 1993 Quinquennial Review. Ninety per cent. of board approvals for new investments were in the poorest countries, against a target of 70 per cent. Forty-seven per cent. of these—or £153 million—were in sub-Saharan Africa. Forty-seven per cent. of approvals were in the form of equity, or quasi equity, against the target of 25 per cent. Against the target of 8 per cent. return on capital employed the corporation actually achieved 9 per cent. in 1995.
Sectorally, the CDC expects to give increasing importance to private infrastructure projects, important to wider development goals such as telecommunications and power, industrial materials, manufacturing and financial markets. The priority areas for its new managed businesses are forestry, rubber, aquaculture, arable crops, sugar production and processing, power generation and cement. Many of those businesses will build on the CDC's traditional strength in the agriculture sector and will add value to its investments for the benefit of host countries. By such means as these, the CDC will continue to be responsive to the changing needs in developing countries and will match its new projects to those needs.
The CDC recycles returns on its capital investments into new businesses. Just last month it announced the sale of the BAL Plantation in East Malaysia for about £100 million equivalent. That provides a good example of selling mature investments to local interests to raise funds for reinvestment in other development projects world-wide. As this House well knows, however, the CDC is not in business to make a quick or easy profit. It is not a passive investor. CDC is there to add value to enterprises, usually by providing longer term finance than is available on the commercial markets; by improving the design and structuring of investment proposals; by contributing management expertise; and by moderating risk in countries which normally attract only a small proportion of private flows. Between 1992 and 1994 the CDC invested 50 per cent. of its investments in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, compared with only 2 and 4 per cent. respectively of total private sector flows going to those regions.

1961
The CDC's activities have an important catalytic effect. In 1995 a total of £1·7 billion was committed alongside CDC's commitments in developing countries to produce a ratio of 1:6 of CDC's funds to those of other investors. By supporting commercially viable and developmentally sound businesses, CDC promotes growth which adds to the economic development of poor countries.
Against that background of success we might ask why CDC needs the new powers contained in the Bill we are considering today. Your Lordships will recall the Private Member's Bill introduced last year by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. It contained proposals essentially the same as those in the Bill today: to remove constraints on CDC which prevent its more active participation in sustainable development overseas. Those proposals met with support in this House, but regrettably, failed to make progress in another place. I am pleased to say they have now come back with its full support.
These new powers are particularly relevant to enable the CDC to be fully involved in the Commonwealth Private Investment Initiative, which I mentioned earlier and in which it has agreed to take a leading role as fund manager. The CPII was warmly endorsed by Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland last year. The initiative has the potential to benefit poorer Commonwealth countries by generating and using investment funds provided by other member states.
It is expected that the first phase of the initiative—the Commonwealth Africa Investment Fund—will be launched in July and should be ready to start investing at the time of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting later this year. The fund will focus on sub-Saharan Africa, with an initial capital target of 75 million dollars, of which the corporation will provide 25 million dollars. As the initiative gains momentum, the CDC intends to bring in other institutional investors from the major financial centres of the world, thus mobilising long-term private sector funds not otherwise available to sub-Saharan Africa. The fund is attracting an excellent response from governments and government agencies in South East Asia and Southern Africa. Prominent representatives from the international business and financial sectors have agreed to serve as independent directors.
But, to play its full part and to make the maximum use of its unique experience and network of offices in Africa, the CDC must have powers to assist with rehabilitation and restructuring. These, together with finance for the start-up and expansion of businesses in a wide range of sectors, will be the focus of the fund's activities. At present CDC is empowered to promote or expand new or existing enterprises, but it must have the same powers as its co-investors if the long-term development of this important Commonwealth initiative is not to be put in jeopardy.
I have explained that at present the CDC is empowered to promote or expand new or existing enterprises. This means, of course, that CDC funds are
1962
applied primarily to creating new or additional assets or capacity. This is, and will remain, central to the CDC's work, but it undoubtedly significantly limits the corporation in assisting host governments and major businesses which wish to divest themselves of enterprises, where change of ownership is a necessary preliminary step to regeneration. In many cases, it is the change of ownership and consequential changes of management which are vital to transforming the enterprise for the benefit of the economy. More and more governments in the developing world are seeking help in regenerating under-performing businesses, whose future they perceive would be more successful in the private sector.
In the past, the CDC has been unable to participate in a number of worthwhile enterprises in Southern Africa because they would involve reorganisation rather than immediate expansion. Clause 1 of the Bill addresses this need and would allow the CDC to play its full part in the development process.
The constraints imposed on the CDC by the existing legislation also hinder it in assisting in the development of effective money and capital markets in developing countries. The development of these markets is essential if business is to have access to finance and savers are to have ready access to investment opportunities. They are important for the efficient allocation of funds into productive investments and to promote economic growth. The CDC is able to set up and manage investment funds to assist small and medium sized enterprises. It has been doing this increasingly in Africa, but it is unable, for example, to invest in country or sector funds part of whose portfolio is in quoted securities, although such funds and their management encourage the development of capital markets and the formation of stock or securities exchanges or dealings mechanisms.
The powers contained in this Bill would enable the CDC to carry out these activities and to be placed in a position similar to that of the International Finance Corporation and other development institutions. There is no inconsistency here between giving the CDC the ability to promote successful funds which will attract private capital and its traditional activities. Both are necessary if the CDC is to continue with its "hands on" approach to investment, which, as we have seen, brings real benefit to poor countries.
The third change proposed in Clause 1 of this Bill relates to consultancies not linked to the provision of finance or management services by the CDC—referred to as "dry" consultancies. There are occasions when the corporation is asked to provide such services in areas where it has specialist expertise arising from its core activities. At present, it has to refuse unless the consultancy forms part of a project in which the CDC already has an interest or is expected to participate. We see no reason to maintain that restriction. The CDC will not normally compete for contracts with the private sector; nor does it intend to develop an extensive consultancy capacity. Rather it will use its specialist skills for the benefit of others on a full cost recovery basis.

1963
The CDC works closely with its sponsor department, the Overseas Development Administration, to ensure that all its activities contribute to the UK's development objectives. Key operational targets were set in the context of the 1993 Quinquennial Review and I have illustrated the ways in which the CDC is most successfully achieving them. Its performance is regularly monitored and reviewed. The CDC will remain a public sector body, operating within the strategic framework of controls agreed with Ministers. The CDC's board is fully committed to its fundamental purpose and will continue on that path. We should, however, recognise that change can be beneficial and is sometimes necessary to ensure future success.
We should empower the CDC to extend and adapt its activities carefully and logically in response to the changing needs of poor countries, which will remain the focus of its investments.
The Bill will assist the CDC to continue its fine work, which I know commands support among all parties. It enjoyed a swift unopposed passage in another place. I hope that it will receive enthusiastic support here. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Chesham.)
11.21 a.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purposes of the Bill. At the outset, I should like to associate this side of the House fully with what the noble Lord said about Professor Ian Carruthers. He will be sorely missed and leave a gap which it will be difficult to fill.
Let us at least start today by being positive. We welcome any opportunity to discuss the CDC because it enables us, once again, to put on record our appreciation of its largely very practical and constructive contribution to overseas development. It enables us to celebrate the dedicated service of those who have so effectively worked for it in the field and the loyal back-up by their colleagues in London.
Its hands-on, practical, front-line work has usually been outstanding, bringing expertise and management skills, to which the Minister referred, to build up the real, tangible economy—the wealth generating, job creating dimensions—of the countries in which it operates. That tradition of nitty-gritty engagement is the backbone of the enviable reputation won by the CDC over many years and it is one on which we should all help and encourage the CDC to build. The tradition must never—I repeat, never—become sidelined by the attractions of armchair financial wizardry. Its role must not be seduced into becoming just another merchant bank.
However, having said that, we all recognise the vital part to be played by private investment in development. The imaginative new Commonwealth Private Investment Initiative—and I fully endorse everything that the Minister said—is a timely illustration of this. If the CDC can help to bring investment funds to countries, programmes and projects where such funds would otherwise be lacking, that is something to be
1964
firmly encouraged; as, indeed, is appropriate assistance in the general development of the private sector and financial services when and if that is genuinely additional.
What worries us is the apparent confusion between the CDC and the ODA. That was well illustrated by the introduction of two Bills in quick succession last year. First, there was the Government's own Bill which, if the policy had been properly considered together with the CDC, should surely have covered all the essential points. But, no sooner had that Bill been passed than we were confronted by the Private Member's Bill—the Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill—originating in this House and sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on which we were frantically lobbied by the CDC, which told us that it was absolutely essential—I emphasise the word "essential"—to the future of the corporation, a view to which the Government lent their full support. With the greatest possible respect to all concerned, that was, frankly, extraordinary. How could an essential element have just been overlooked in the preparation of the Government's own Bill? We have never had a convincing answer. The saga continues, inevitably, to breed considerable anxiety about just how firm or clear-headed the stewardship of this distinguished corporation really is—a stewardship which depends upon the best possible working relationship between the ODA and the CDC. The anxiety is accentuated when, with genuine respect for the noble Lord with whom I personally greatly enjoy dealing across the Floor of the House, the Minister herself is not here to handle her own Bill. How far, we must ask ourselves, has the noble Baroness really focused on those important matters?
I know that the noble Baroness gets restless when I call for a comprehensive, strategic statement of the Government's overseas development policy as a whole—ideally, a White Paper. She cannot conceal her irritation that we are not prepared to make do with the fundamental expenditure review, her senior management review, her NGO review, her annual reports, her Chatham House speeches and the rest. But this Bill is another very good example. We have a lot of tails wagging or, too often, drooping in the sphere of overseas development; what we and the public cannot discern is the dog—if, indeed, in terms of strategic and comprehensive policy, the dog is there at all. The CDC is undoubtedly an indispensable instrument, but to measure its effectiveness, and what most needs to be done to maintain and enhance that effectiveness, we need to see how it fits into the strategy as a whole—just as we similarly need to see with the non-governmental organisations and other significant elements of the aid programme.
In the event, last year, after a great deal of probing in this House and the other place, not everyone in the other place was sufficiently convinced, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill fell. Now we have another Bill—this time sponsored by the Government—which very much reflects its ill fated predecessor. Let me repeat: the fact that the Government

1965
themselves are introducing it again as an essential measure underlines all the anxieties. How on earth did they forget this essential in the first place?
The Bill has been well debated in the other place. The noble Lord will have read the debate; indeed, in fairness, he has today dealt with some of the issues then raised in his characteristically full and courteous way. But some issues remain central and I should like to put them again to the noble Lord so that he has an opportunity to deal with them fully in his response.
First, are the indications, to which I referred, of a breakdown in the close relationship between the ODA and the CDC, indicative of failing government commitment? Is not the absence of the Minister herself today significant? How central does the CDC remain to the Government's overseas development strategy as a whole—always supposing that there is such a strategy? Will the CDC really remain in the public sector? I noted what the Minister said about the importance of being ready for change when change is necessary. Alternatively, is it being abandoned by default, if not by positive conviction, to the private sector? We look to the noble Lord to give categorical answers to those questions.
Secondly, we have been told that the powers in the Bill are required to enable the CDC to play a full part in the Commonwealth Private Investment Initiative—something that we all want to see; indeed, we understand that the CDC only sought new powers in relation to its role in this Commonwealth initiative. Why then do we now have a Bill before the House which provides for new powers for the CDC in all its operations? What specific operations beyond a part in the Commonwealth initiative do the Government intend to facilitate?
Thirdly, in that context, in addition to specifying exactly what operations the new powers in the Bill are intended to make possible, can the noble Lord enlighten us on how extensively it is envisaged that those powers will be used? Last February, the office of my honourable friend in the other place, Joan Lestor, was officially informed that:
"CDC might well set its own internal limits on the proportion of its investments to be in accordance with the proposed new powers".
But in the deliberations in the other place, the junior Minister, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, indicated that the powers would be much wider, relating to all CDC activities.
There is a great difference between specific, ad hoc powers and open-ended powers. This difference relates to the fears that CDC may be on the road to turning itself into a merchant bank juicily ripe for takeover by one of the institutions of the kind of which a number of its board members have so much experience. What is the Government's position? Can the noble Lord leave us in no doubt about this? Currently, the CDC has to apply to the Government for a licence to operate in non-commonwealth countries. Could not a similar process be adopted with regard to the new powers? We still have not heard how the Government and the CDC will ensure that the benefits of the Bill are concentrated on those in greatest need and are not increasingly
1966
diverted just to where the returns are greater. Effectiveness in meeting greatest need must surely be the guiding principle.
Fourthly, of course we recognise CDC's desire to improve private investment flows into Africa—we applaud it—and we very much sympathise with the frustrations under existing Treasury constraints; but, even if the new powers in this Bill could help in CDC's continued search to find the finance for new projects, there will still be a huge gap between possibilities and funds. Can the noble Lord tell us whether this Bill is the end of the legislative road or whether we are likely to see another CDC Bill in the near future to extend the powers of CDC to borrow on the private market? Have discussions perhaps already taken place with this in mind?
Fifthly, given that new CDC investment is largely funded from old and existing projects, does the noble Lord agree that there is a case for ensuring that a healthy balance is struck between reinvestment in those countries with an existing relationship with CDC and any new partners? Does he not also agree that it would be unfair to syphon off surpluses from countries which have generated them into countries where the need is not so desperate? How will the Government ensure that this does not happen?
Sixthly, in previous deliberations CDC has stressed that, because it spearheads investment in countries which other investment organisations ignore, it has no natural competitors. This Bill rather changes all that. What do the Government think will be the likely impact on the way CDC operates, reflected in the skills of its staff and the way it determines its market focus?
With too many aid programmes across the world—not least our own—faltering and declining, there is a temptation these days to talk up private investment flows. Private investment is never a substitute for sound and generous aid programmes designed to bring people into the real economy, and the noble Lord, I know, would not want to suggest otherwise. But private investment flows obviously have a dynamic and critically important part to play in sustained development. However, we all have to face the reality—as the Minister has perhaps indicated—that they do not flow to the poor countries of South Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. They go largely to a group of middle income countries in East Asia and Latin America. In 1994, 90 per cent. of private investment went to just 10 developing countries. Private flows to sub-Saharan Africa are minute and the World Bank has recorded that from 1992 to 1994 only 1 per cent. of private capital flows went to the most indebted countries. By contrast, and to its considerable credit, the CDC informs me that—I quote from a letter of 11th June last—
"CDC's portfolio is now heavily skewed towards poorer and therefore the most high risk investment environments. In broad terms, using a per capita income of less than 1,400 dollars in 1994 prices as the definition of a poorer country, 70 per cent. of our investments and commitments are in countries that do not pass that threshold, as compared with 38 per cent. for the IFC and around 50 per cent. for other European DFIs. Small economies (of total GNP of less than 25 billion dollars) account for 59 per cent. of our portfolio as compared with 16 per cent. for IFC".

1967
That is not bad. And of course, in 1994–95, CDC new business investments in sub-Saharan Africa increased from £41 million to £154 million. Furthermore, the corporation's investments are medium to long term and offer greatly needed economic stability. I assure the House that the incoming Labour Government will be fully behind CDC in enhancing its well managed, carefully directed and impressively focused private investment.
If there remains a doubt that the CDC, with the powers proposed in this Bill, could drift away from a development focused operation to a more orthodox investment bank approach, one way to put minds more at rest would be to increase the number of board members with a strong development background. Why do the Government not do that? At present the board is, frankly, overloaded with bankers. Some have said it is chock-a-block with bankers.
The noble Earl, Lord Cairns, the chair of CDC, has written to my honourable friend in the other place, Joan Lestor, taking her to task—perhaps just a little indignantly—for referring to the CDC as wanting to churn its assets. He insists that all CDC is seeking to do is to maximise the development input of inevitably limited resources. He argues that this may well involve actively seeking to disinvest where the development impact has been completed. We welcome this reassurance. We hope the noble Lord can give convincing answers to the questions I have raised today. For our part we shall then not just acquiesce in the Bill but give it our positive support.
11.36 a.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support this Bill for a second time. I do not believe there is a great deal of difference between this Bill and the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, brought forward in the previous Session. However, the wording is slightly different.
I am glad that the Government have found parliamentary time to bring forward this Bill again as it is an important Bill. I hope that it will pass through all its stages. I was quite surprised that the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which received so much support on a previous occasion, should have failed in the Commons. However, I understand that there was a degree of apprehension that the ugly word "privatisation"—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has a view on that—had raised its head. Perhaps the Minister can give us an open and plain assurance that it is the Government's intention that the CDC should remain totally in the public sector. I think that would put all our minds at rest.
I believe that the CDC's success and strength rely on the fact that it is part of the public sector and is so closely associated with the Overseas Development Administration. The activities of the CDC were coherently described by the Minister. Therefore I need not cover them again. However, I wish to pick up a point that he made; namely, that one of the underlying factors of the Commonwealth Development Corporation is its role in private investment. On that issue I have a divergence of opinion with the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
1968
I believe that private investment is vital for successful emerging economies. I believe that it is a vital component of that success. Aid should be the first step but private investment is far more important for a country to be successful.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Redesdale: I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, agrees with me on that. The area of the world that has failed so badly to attract private investment is the sub-Saharan African region. Therefore I welcome the Commonwealth African Fund most wholeheartedly. It is good to note that the CDC is investing 47 per cent. of its new investment in sub-Saharan Africa. It is worth noting that the headquarters of that fund will be situated in Zimbabwe. It is a brave move to site the headquarters there rather than in South Africa, which might have been considered by some as the logical choice. Zimbabwe is one of the countries which is trying hard at the moment to attract private investment.
Obviously the CDC will act as seed capital to try to attract private investment. After the recent democratisation in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the subsequent changes in economic practice, the financial conditions are now right for private investment. The conditions were not right a few years back. There has been mention that the CDC acts in a range of countries, some more prosperous than others. I have to support that for a number of reasons. Countries which are not particularly prosperous can act as a benchmark for the CDC because they have poorer and richer areas. I believe that the CDC needs a range of countries in which to spread its risk base so that it is seen as a credible organisation.
I was interested to note from briefing that Cuba is one of the countries in which the CDC operates at present. Does the ill thought out Helms-Burton legislation affect the CDC in any way? In recent briefing on the CDC it was put across with some strength that this is a necessary and worthwhile piece of legislation that needs enactment as soon as possible. I had the impression that there should be no hindrance; indeed, that the length of the speeches should be cut down so that the Bill can be enacted as soon as possible. We on these Benches hope that it will be.
11.41 a.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I shall say only a few words. It is Friday, and my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale have between them made all the important points relating to the Bill.
I have a strong sense of déjà vu because the Government did not have a proper CDC Bill last year but only an inadequate half sort of a Bill followed by an afterthought. As the two preceding speakers said, my friends in another place felt that that was the wrong way to introduce legislation and, not being certain why it had been done in that way, knocked the afterthought emanating from this House down with a feather. Usually it is the Government who do that with Private Members' Bills which go through all their stages in your

1969
Lordships' House. I speak with experience: my Private Member's Bill regulating junior doctors' hours fell in another place with the one word, "Object", from a Government Whip.
In a few sentences perhaps I may emphasise my noble friends' questions to the Minister and add one or two of my own. For instance, how central does the CDC remain to the Government's overall overseas development strategy? Will the CDC definitely remain in the public sector? What operations beyond playing a full role in the Commonwealth private investment initiative and the Commonwealth Africa Investment Fund—both of which we greatly welcome—does the Bill facilitate? How extensively will the new powers conferred by the Bill be used? There is a fear, for example—it was mentioned by my noble friend—that the CDC may be turning into a merchant bank rather than a hands-on development agency. Does the Bill confer all the powers needed in the foreseeable future to enable CDC to borrow on the private market?
Will surpluses earned by CDC enterprises be reinvested in the countries that generate them; or, as some people fear, will they be syphoned off to more profitable countries, leaving poorer and probably less profitable countries less well endowed? Does the Bill change the emphasis of CDC from a development agency operating in a unique way, helping to spearhead investment in difficult territory, into a financial agency? Will the current staff, for example, be supplanted by staff with financial rather than development expertise?
Will the organisation, in other words, still be a pioneer group opening the way for further investment, as is needed in today's conditions, where bilateral and multilateral official development assistance is becoming hard to come by? This really is the supplementary question that I put to the noble Lord at Question Time yesterday. As my noble friend has implied, the lack of infrastructure, both material in the form of power, communications and transport and social or human in the form of education, water supply, housing and health facilities, has been a factor discouraging investment in sub-Saharan Africa, not to mention the terrible conflict and lack of political stability in many countries over the past decade or two. Things look a little better now, with peace coming to Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Eritrea, but there is still trouble afoot in the Sudan, Sierra Leone and Liberia; and Nigeria is certainly in need of a great deal of reform and change.
Can the noble Lord amplify his Answer to me yesterday by saying how private finance in, for instance, the Commonwealth private finance initiative can be attracted to assist in human development as well as in the material aspects of infrastructure building in which the CDC has been involved up to now? Those are also important in attracting inward investment, as the tiger economies have shown so well.
In conclusion, I wish to echo the all-party praise that has been given to the work of the CDC over 48 years and welcome the Bill, as long as it allows the CDC to expand in the excellent way that it has done. We wish the Bill well, but we shall be watching carefully.
11.47 a.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken today on this short but important Bill. A number of points have been raised which I shall endeavour to answer. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for providing a copy of his questions just before the start of the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for advising me of his intended question on Cuba. I am in a perfect position to answer that, thanks to his talking to me last night.
I am not sure that I can take everything in exactly the same order as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked the questions. However, I believe that I can cover virtually every point he raised. If I miss anything, I shall write to him. However, I hope that I shall be able to satisfy him.
One of the major themes undoubtedly was the continuing public ownership of the CDC. Following the last quinquennial review, it was confirmed to the House in May 1994 that the CDC was being retained in the public sector. This remains the Government's intention. The present position—the public corporation run by the board within a framework of targets agreed with Ministers—is the right one. The characteristics which have contributed to the CDC's success—the ability to attract co-investors, freedom to work in the poorest countries, freedom to work at the margins of risk ventures—owe much to the security of being in the public sector.
The CDC has a distinctive role within the UK aid development programme and as such is obviously very important with the ODA. The suggestions that there was a rift between the ODA and the CDC are certainly untrue. There is continuing co-operation between the two bodies.
The CDC acts as a catalyst to private sector investment and shows others how to invest profitably in poor countries. This will be the great role in sub-Saharan Africa where it can show, through the Africa Fund, that investments can genuinely and sensibly be made in sub-Saharan Africa. It has an enormously important role in that, which will be supported by the Commonwealth. It will not just be CDC funds; other Commonwealth funds will go into it as well. It is an exciting initiative and we, and I am sure the whole House, wish it well.
The CDC has a mandate to pursue those investments which the private sector regards as on the margin of acceptable risk. Public sector status is valuable to the CDC in its dealings with the governments of the counties in which it operates. There is no hidden agenda behind the Bill; it does not affect the reasons for retaining CDC in the public sector. The Bill is simply intended to allow the CDC to better play its role as the main instrument of the aid programme assisting the private sector in developing countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked how extensively the new powers would be used. We have agreed with the CDC that there should be limits to the use made of the new powers, both to reorganise and rehabilitate businesses and to promote capital in financial markets. These limits will be considered in the context of CDC's existing strategic targets, which will continue to apply. We have no wish to be too prescriptive at this stage as

1971
it would defeat the purpose of the Bill, but we expect new activities to form only a minority of board approvals each year and they will be kept under regular review.
We do not believe that there is a need for a White Paper on aid, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be surprised to hear. Our aid policy is regularly debated in detail in both Houses. The fundamental expenditure review set out clearly the future direction of British aid policy.
The fundamental operating principle of the CDC is additionality. It is not investing where no value is added by the CDC. That will continue to apply to investments facilitated by the new powers. So the fear that it could just become a quasi-merchant bank are groundless. The targets and aims are exactly the same. This is to make it more able effectively to carry out its traditional aims and targets.
There was mention of the composition of the board of the CDC. The chairman and members have wide experience of service in finance and development. We believe that they are well qualified to lead the CDC. A sub-committee on development issues has been established, comprising the chairman, Sir William Ryrie and Professor Faber. The late Professor Carruthers was also a member. We recognise the importance of maintaining a balanced board. Following the untimely death of Professor Carruthers, we agree that it will be important to bring in new members with experience in the development field.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is giving a helpful reply which will enable us to be positive in our support for the Bill. However, he has just said something which I find difficult to swallow: that the CDC has committed its consideration of development issues to a sub-committee. That is exactly our anxiety: the whole corporation should be about development. This new financial initiative should be to support that, not to dominate the processes of the CDC.
Lord Chesham: Most companies have sub-committees to determine certain areas. It is essential that the most expert in development should consider the proposals before they are put to the whole board. That is a sound management strategy.
The next question I wish to address was from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the diversion of resources to less deserving countries. There is nothing in the Bill that changes the spread of countries in which the CDC works. Rather, the provisions will enable the CDC to respond more effectively to the changing needs of those countries in which it operates. We look to the CDC to take a clear view on where it is best placed to deploy its particular skills and have the most impact. It is important not to spread the financial and management resources too thinly.
The main driver of CDC's country coverage is a 70 per cent. target for poor countries, as it should be, given CDC's development role. This target has not changed. CDC is not planning to divert activity to middle income countries; on the contrary, as I mentioned in my opening
1972
speech, it is no longer making new investments in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong but is extending its activities in pre-emerging countries. That is very much what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would like to see and it is happening.
The noble Lord said that the Bill went beyond the CPII. The CPII gives an excellent example of where the CDC would use its new powers to good effect. There is no reason to limit it by preventing it from investing directly in other projects involving reconstructions which are covered in the Bill. It should not be purely for the CPII.
As regards further legislation, it would be wrong to rule out any further legislation for the CDC at any time in the future. I understand that at present the CDC is not seeking more changes, but it would be totally wrong to say that there will never be any requirement for a change in the legislation. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would like me to make that commitment anyway.
Reverting to the ODA/CDC situation, there is a regular dialogue between the ODA and the CDC. There is a well-established system to review the CDC's performance and agree with Ministers strategic targets for the future. It is an on-going process and there should be no fears.
I am not quite sure whether I am going back into history, but since the Bill last year was mentioned, I wish to make two points on it. The Government introduced a Bill addressing an immediate need by CDC to increase its borrowing limits. These were approaching their ceiling and were likely to have a detrimental effect on future investment plans. The Bill also allowed past and future government loans to CDC to be made interest-free, thus giving CDC more funds to recycle as investments. Unopposed, the Bill made swift progress.
At the same time, consideration was being given to widening CDC's powers of investment. These could not be included in the original government Bill which had progressed beyond the point where additional measures could be added within the Long Title of the Bill. That is why my noble friend Lord Trefgarne introduced a Private Member's Bill which successfully passed through this House but was opposed in the other place. In recognition of the importance of these extended powers and the urgency, given the role of CDC in CPII, the Government have now introduced a further Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the CDC having the power to borrow in private markets. The CDC has normal powers of borrowing under the 1986 Act.
I now turn to Cuba, with a little history. Following a request from the corporation, ministerial approval was given to operate in Cuba in July 1995. We hope that this will pave the way for further British investment in support of economic reform. An operating agreement on behalf of CDC was signed by the Minister for Science and Technology during a visit to Cuba in September 1995. In accordance with the strategic target

1973
set out in the quinquennial review, CDC will aim to give priority to projects in the private sector. Priority sectors are: mining, financial services, agriculture and industry.
So far as the Helms-Burton legislation is concerned, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain normal trading relations with Cuba. The US embargo against Cuba is primarily a bilateral matter for the two governments concerned. We have made our concern about the Helms-Burton legislation clear both bilaterally and in multilateral fora. We believe that the best way to encourage economic and political reform in Cuba is to maintain constructive dialogue as a means of encouraging reform and democracy there. CDC has a part to play in that.
The CDC is an expert in the business of development. I hope that I have covered all the points that noble Lords raised. In this debate the CDC was deservedly praised on all sides of the House. Our purpose here today is to ensure that the CDC has the necessary powers to continue with its important work in promoting sustainable economic development in poor countries. The Government are confident that the CDC will use these powers prudently and effectively both in the context of the Commonwealth private investment initiative and more widely.
Let us give the CDC the tools it needs. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Arbitration Bill [H.L.]
12.1 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arbitration Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill (100) as first printed by the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 82, page 32, leave out lines 16 and 17.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
  No substantive change is being proposed to the thrust of the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is simply to give order-making powers to the Lord Chancellor to allocate arbitration matters which come before the courts, as provided for in the Bill, as he thinks fit between the High Court and the county courts. Where appropriate he may decide that only certain county courts should have jurisdiction.
  1974
  We have come to the conclusion that rather than relying on existing arrangements for allocating business to the courts, there would be distinct merit in having specific provisions in the Bill. Hence the new clause. This will give us the flexibility which we need and which may not be possible under the existing arrangements.
  At the same time we would like to amend Clause 101. This clause provides for the recognition and enforcement of New York Convention awards by our courts. At the moment the clause provides that a New York Convention award may, by leave of the High Court or a county court be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of that court. In fact the present situation is that foreign arbitral awards are enforced only in the High Court and it would be preferable for the Bill to reflect this. There are no plans at present to involve other courts, although we would not wish to rule out that possibility for the future. Amending the clause to provide that New York Convention awards may be enforced by leave of the court enables us to continue with the current practice of High Court enforcement, while giving us the flexibility to change matters in the future. The detail will be spelt out in rules of court.
  The other amendments remove the existing definition of "the court" and signpost the reader in the direction of the new definition. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will explain what lines 16 and 17 actually do.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is my noble friend referring to lines 16 and 17 of Clause 82 on page 32 of the Bill?
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I refer to the first amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: They define "the court".
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, I do not know whether this is an appropriate moment to intervene. I wish to pass comment on Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, on which my noble friend the Minister is addressing the House at the moment, although she has moved only Amendment No. 1. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has any further intervention to make. I do not know whether he was satisfied with the answer he received to his question.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's question was that the lines contain the present definition of the word "court".
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, then I shall continue, if I may, and make my comments in relation to other amendments that my noble friend has brought before the House from the other place.

  1975
  While I do not intend to object to the amendments that my noble friend brings before the House, I do not think that Amendment No. 3 is going in the right direction. My noble friend is quite correct in saying that the present position is that awards under the New York Convention (of as long ago as 1958!) can currently be made only by leave of the High Court. It seemed to me when the Bill was before this House that it was a step in the right direction to have New York Convention awards enforced either by the High Court or by the county court. The effect therefore of this amendment is to take that power away from the county court and leave it under a future statutory instrument which the Lord Chancellor can put before the House for that extension of jurisdiction to be given to the county court. We are moving from primary legislation contained in the Bill to secondary legislation by way of statutory instrument. I do not see that as walking in the right direction.
  In dealing with Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, I should also comment that the New York Convention—which, I repeat, was as long ago as 1958—is also not being enforced in relation to domestic arbitrations. That matter was discussed at some length when the Bill was before this House. The hope was that the Government would complete consultations, and the further hope was that the division between the law applicable to domestic arbitrations and the law applicable to all other arbitrations would be changed so that there would be one arbitration law consistent with the New York Convention applicable to both domestic and international arbitrations. So, many years afterwards, we are still not properly in line with the New York Convention of 1958, and that is to be regretted.
  Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am very much inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his observations on Amendment No. 3. However, I do not feel that that is a matter on which we ought to disagree with the Commons.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister may welcome the fact that it is not our intention to oppose any of the amendments, as they seem to us to be fairly minor and technical, in spite of what was just said. We welcome the Bill as an important contribution to the speedy resolution of conflicts and as an encouragement to international business to use Britain for settling disputes.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is right in that I welcome his intervention. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. The amendment allows what my noble friend wants. We feel that it would be wrong to disturb the present position without further consideration. Allocation of business between courts is frequently dealt with as secondary legislation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  2 Clause 83, page 33, line 4, leave out 'section 82(1)' and insert 'section (Meaning of "the court": jurisdiction of High Court and county court)'.
  3 Clause 101, page 38, line 13, leave out 'High Court or a county'.
  4 Page 38, line 14, leave out 'that' and insert 'the'.
  5 Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
  'As to the meaning of "the court" see section (Meaning of "the court": jurisdiction of High Court and county court).'.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 en bloc. I spoke to these with Amendment No. 1.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, before this matter passes from your Lordships, I have considerable difficulty in understanding parts of the new Clause 105, particularly when one goes over the page to subsection (3) when there is a reference which reads:
  "The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision requiring proceedings of any specified description under this Act".
  I do not know whether my noble friend can help the House with regard to this matter. It never seems to me to be helpful in legislation to introduce words which are mysterious in their meaning.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  6 Before Clause 105, insert the following clause—
  MEANING OF "THE COURT": JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT AND COUNTY COURT
  '.—(1) In this Act "the court" means the High Court or a county court, subject to the following provisions.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—

  (a) allocating proceedings under this Act to the High Court or to county courts; or

  (b) specifying proceedings under this Act which may be commenced or taken only in the High Court or in a county court.

  (3) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision requiring proceedings of any specified description under this Act in relation to which a county court has jurisdiction to be commenced or taken in one or more specified county courts.
  Any jurisdiction so exercisable by a specified county court is exercisable throughout England and Wales or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland.
  (4) An order under this section—

  (a) may differentiate between categories of proceedings by reference to such criteria as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify, and

  (b) may make such incidental or transitional provision as the Lord Chancellor considers necessary or expedient.

  (5) An order under this section for England and Wales shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (6) An order under this section for Northern Ireland shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 which shall be subject to

  1977
  annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.'.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, I have made my observations in relation to Amendment No. 6. If my noble friend is able to help the House about the mysterious words in subsection (3) and the more mysterious words in subsection (4), it would be of great assistance. If she cannot help us from the Dispatch Box, I would be grateful if she would write not only to me, but to all noble Lords who have been concerned with the Arbitration Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I hope that I can help my noble friend. The order would specify the description; for example, patents.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  7 Schedule 3, page 49, leave out lines 5 to 10.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 8. These are tidying-up amendments. The provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which deal with industrial tribunals will be replaced by the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996, and we need to update Schedule 3. This amendment is consequential.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  8 Schedule 3, page 54, line 30, at end insert—
  'Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 (c.)
  In section 6(2) of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 (procedure of industrial tribunals), for "The Arbitration Act 1950" substitute "Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996".'.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  9 Schedule 4, page 57, line 38, at end insert—

  '1995 c. 42.

  Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995.

  Section 3.'.

  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. Schedule 4 deals with repeals of existing legislation. It is necessary to add Section 3 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 to the list of repeals. This section of the Act prospectively amends the Arbitration Act 1950 as regards interest on arbitral awards. The purpose of the amendment was to deal with foreign currency awards. Assuming this Bill is enacted, interest will be dealt with by Clause 49 of the Bill, and Section 3 of the 1995 Act will become spent.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Energy Conservation Bill
  12.15 p.m.
  Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is simple. It widens the scope of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 by adding houses in multiple occupation to the list of types of accommodation covered by that Act.
  The 1995 Act required energy conservation authorities to draw up energy conservation plans to achieve 30 per cent. savings in residential accommodation in their areas. The Act omitted one tenure—houses in multiple occupation. Surprisingly, those dwellings are not required to be included in the plans under the Act and thus it may even be ultra vires the powers of energy conservation authorities to include them in their plans under the Act.
  I am advised that that was simply an error. It is interesting to me, a new Member of your Lordships' House, to see that the other place does sometimes make mistakes and today, with your Lordships' help, we can rectify the situation.
  We have a small but important task to carry out with this Bill. There are 638,000 houses in multiple occupation in England alone. That is the scale of the problem. But even those figures do not give the full picture. By definition an HMO will be occupied by at least two households and simple arithmetic tells me that that means that at least 1·3 million households live in that type of accommodation. Assuming that the size of the household is two persons, we can see that today's short Bill, if passed, will benefit over 2·6 million people.
  Houses in multiple occupation are often the most run-down and worst type of accommodation. Many may be unfit or barely fit within the meaning of the fitness standards under the housing Acts. They may include some of the worst bed and breakfast and other short-stay

  1979
  accommodation occupied by homeless families—that is, not the genuine hotels, but large houses with no facilities simply converted to pack in as many people as possible.
  The job of securing energy conservation in such accommodation may sometimes be daunting and difficult. But we will not crack it unless we try. The Bill, by adding HMOs to the plans to be drawn up under the 1995 Act, ensures that we start to try. I believe that local authorities will welcome the Bill as officers and local political leaders have been dismayed by the loophole in the 1995 Act. They are more aware than anyone of the need to tackle conditions in these areas.
  The Bill was introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Nottingham South, Mr. Alan Simpson. It was supported by the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. James Clappison. It has all-party support and I commend it to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Wilcox.)
  12.18 p.m.
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am glad to support the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in commending the Bill to the House. It strengthens the Home Energy Conservation Act of 1995—an Act which came about as a result of the initiative of my honourable friend Mrs. Diana Maddock in another place and my noble friend Lady Hamwee in this House.
  The 1995 Act represents a major step forward in energy conservation in this country as it lays on local authorities the task of preparing reports on measures to improve energy efficiency in residential accommodation in their areas and the submission of those reports to the Secretary of State who should then decide on the action to be taken. It is for the Secretary of State to decide on the timing of these operations. I am sure that everyone associated with this legislation hopes that he will move fast so that the whole procedure can be put in train. The Bill before us strengthens the Act, as the noble Baroness clearly stated, by including houses in multiple occupancy. All that is to the good.
  Unfortunately, at the same time as these desirable actions are being taken, steps in another direction are being limited. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be aware of the concern expressed by myself and others in recent debates on the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill that finance for the home energy efficiency scheme, which exists for the purpose of insulating the homes of people on low incomes, was surprisingly cut by one-third in the last Finance Act. This means that while local authorities will, under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, be preparing plans for improving energy efficiency in the homes in their locations, the homes of those sorely in need will be less effectively dealt with than was previously the case.
  I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, whether, in all the circumstances, the Government have had second thoughts. We are all aware of the financial stringency that faces the Government; indeed it faces all governments. I cannot remember a time when any government said that they did not face financial stringency. However, within that situation, there are
  1980
  priorities. One of the essential priorities we face in this country is to improve energy efficiency, which the legislation we are considering today tries to do. We also need to help those who are in need, particularly the elderly, to live in warmer circumstances.
  The gravity of the situation is that we well know that avoidable deaths are caused by the low quality of housing inhabited by people who cannot afford to put them right from the point of view of insulation. This is a very serious matter. I hope that it will be considered alongside the legislation we are contemplating today.
  12.22 p.m.
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we too welcome this additional measure, which should assist the ability of local authorities to make plans. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on her introduction of a welcome measure. It is of course regrettable that it was omitted from last year's Bill. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about the general thrust of the Government's policy on energy conservation. On the one hand the Department of the Environment says all the right things and has brought forward this additional measure; on the other hand, the Treasury cuts £30 million from the home energy efficiency scheme. That is a considerable blow, not only to energy conservation, but also to those many poor, elderly people whose houses have not been brought up to a reasonable level of energy conservation. It also affects employment in those areas where schemes have been put into effect.
  We do not have a good record of energy conservation in this country. Germany and Japan have had extremely energetic economic growth for a long time and have also managed to reduce their energy consumption. Here, consumption has continued to go up. One would have liked to see the Government bring forward additional measures—implementation of the European Community directive on the efficiency of household appliances, for instance. That would have helped to reduce the use of energy. The setting of targets for energy reduction would also have been extremely welcome.
  Local authorities now have the ability to produce comprehensive strategic plans to deal with energy conservation and to lay out measures for dealing with the property in their areas. However, ultimately it comes down to finance and the ability actually to provide double glazing, draught-proofing, or even more elaborate installations, in multiple occupancy housing. That requires finance. And there is no indication that finance will be forthcoming from the Treasury. In fact, it may be reducing finance in this area. The Labour Party has proposed a self-financing national programme of energy efficiency work which would link the objectives of combating fuel poverty, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and generating substantial long-term employment. It is unfortunate that a cohesive strategy of that nature has not been proposed by the Government.
  Nevertheless, we welcome this additional Bill, which fills a gap in last year's legislation. We wish it well.
  12.25 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the Bill. I believe that it is the first Bill she has had the opportunity of introducing, and I hope it will be the first of many. It is a thoroughly worthwhile measure which the Government support. I congratulate also Alan Simpson, MP, who was responsible for introducing the Bill in another place. It reflects extraordinarily well on him that he had the good sense to choose my noble friend to present it here.
  The two noble Lords opposite concentrated on things other than the Bill. This is a Private Members' Bill, and I do not wish to be drawn into matters which are properly dealt with in government time. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows our position; the noble Baroness knows it, too. She also knows that she would not spend any more money than we are spending in the area. She therefore has a bit of a cheek to complain about what we are doing. However, with those words we wish the Bill the very best fortune.
  12.27 p.m.
  Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate: the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who spoke on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill; the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has had a longstanding interest in the issue; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who shares, I can hear, some of the concerns of the noble Lord. I have mentioned the work of Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. James Clappison in another place. To that I would like to add a tribute to the Minister himself, Mr. Robert Jones, who has taken a keen and personal interest in the subject.
  Finally, I add a word of congratulation to Diana Maddock, the honourable Member for Christchurch in another place, and her colleague in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in piloting through Parliament the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, to which the Bill before us will make a minor but significant amendment. It is to our credit perhaps that we recognise the potential of the 1995 Act to reduce energy waste while maintaining a decent level of energy services, especially to those householders who are among the least well off in society and who often live in the least energy efficient homes. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. In doing so I wish to say how grateful I am for the support it has received. I commend the Bill to the House.
  On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  Noise Bill
  12.28 p.m.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  1982
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Adoption of these provisions by local authorities]:
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 1.
  Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("or an order made by the Secretary of State so provides").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 6. These amendments introduce a power for the Secretary of state to make an order applying Clauses 2 to 9, which relate to the new night noise offence, to the area of a local authority. The order cannot have effect until a three-month period has elapsed from the date on which the order was made. As it is an order rather than a direction, it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, the amendment has been brought forward in those terms because of the comments made at Second Reading to the effect that it would be desirable to have the matter returned for parliamentary decision.
  There was much debate in another place as to whether the new night noise offence should be mandatory in at least some local authority areas—that is, that application of the provisions should not depend on their being adopted by local authorities. While appreciating the intention behind such a requirement, it was acknowledged that the controls would not necessarily be needed in every local authority area. Indeed, that point was made very clearly at Second Reading.
  I believe that the provision of this power provides a useful back up. In the course of the Bill the Government have indicated that they will review the operation of the offence after two years. In the light of that review, the Secretary of State will be able to make an order for those local authority areas where it is considered that the night noise offence should apply. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is virtual unanimity in both Houses on the need for the Bill but something puzzles me. Hitherto, I have been under the impression that this is an additional power to be exercised by each local community through its local authority. I am trying to understand under what circumstances central government would make an order against the wishes of the local community. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is as well experienced as I am in local matters and is fiercely jealous of the right of a local council to determine what it wants. Should it decide in its wisdom that it does not need the additional powers, what are the circumstances in which, regardless of whether the local council wants it, the order will be made? Clauses 2 to 9 apply to the area of a local authority only if the authority has so resolved or an order by the Secretary of State so provides. I am genuinely seeking after truth. Under what circumstances

  1983
  would the ministry consider that there was such a need for some action which was not being taken by the local authority that the order was required?
  Baroness Hamwee: My point is similar to the point appropriately raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. There is perhaps an implication of flexibility, which on closer scrutiny of these amendments does not really exist. Not only will the introduction of the powers become a matter for the Secretary of State rather than a decision by the local authority, but, as the noble Baroness said in introducing the amendments, controls are not needed in every area. I have amendments down that deal with powers which are not quite as proposed by the Bill, including the question of the areas to be covered. Can the noble Baroness confirm that in bringing forward an order it will not be possible, as the amendment is framed, for the order only to apply to part of a local authority area? The noble Baroness referred to controls not being needed in every area. However, I think that by that she must have meant the whole of each local authority area.
  It is important to have on record the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would use these powers of direction and indeed any other information that the Government might be able to give at this point.
  Lord Lucas: I am a little puzzled by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, because one of the main motivations for bringing forward the amendment was to respond to points raised by the noble Lord's colleagues in another place who wished to see this offence made mandatory and wished to see whether they could move the proposers of the Bill in that direction. As I understand it, the amendment has been produced at least partly in response to comments made by Mrs. Bridgit Prentice and Ms. Joan Ruddock in another place. Therefore, the noble Lord's questioning puzzles me to a certain extent.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: Good!
  Lord Lucas: My noble friend has outlined the purpose of the amendments. I should like to emphasise that in another place my honourable friend the Minister made a commitment that after two years there would be a review of the working and take-up of the night noise offence. The exact format of the review remains to be decided but I would envisage the consideration of a variety of issues, including the number of authorities that have adopted the offence and the type of areas they cover, together with operational aspects and the outcome of complaints dealt with under the offence. The findings of the review would assist in establishing how far a common approach from local authorities across the country is developing in relation to the handling of noise complaints. If, as a result of the review, it appears that Clauses 2 to 9 of the Bill have not been adopted for an area of a local authority but nevertheless those clauses should apply, these amendments will enable the Secretary of State to make an order applying those clauses to that authority's area.
  I do not think I can be more specific about our intentions than that. Everything will depend on the review and its outcome. The amendment will give the
  1984
  Government the power to do something about the review if the review shows things that should be done. At present, we have no indication that anything needs to be done that would make us need to use these powers. But if we did not have these powers we would be pretty toothless if the review said that something needed to be done.
  Baroness Hamwee: Without wishing to undermine the points I normally make about Henry VIII clauses and so on, it seems to me that the Government will not have very much scope for taking decisions as s result of this amendment. They will simply be able to bring the Act into effect for the particular local authority area. That is not very much of a response to a review. All that is doing is saying, "We disagree with X, Y or Z borough council". It is not allowing the Government any more input than that.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: One of the difficulties is that in this House we are very keen on local authorities having as much flexibility as possible. In the other place they are very keen on this being brought in as a heavy handed, mandatory Bill right now. What we are looking for is a compromise which means that those local authorities which feel the need for this power immediately will have the choice to adopt immediately. Others which are more reluctant, either on financial grounds or because they think they do not have a problem, will have the opportunity to wait and see.
  After two years there will be a review. As I understand it, it will not just suddenly say that the provisions have to be brought in nationwide. But it may be that one local authority is causing great trouble for all adjoining local authorities. I quote as a parallel car parking. When there are car parking restrictions in one borough every car moves just over the border and life becomes hell for the people living there.
  I understand that if one's life is disturbed and one lives over the borough boundary one will still be covered under the Bill. But it may be that the problem becomes so extensive because one borough, say in London, of all the boroughs is not implementing the provision while all the other London boroughs think that is wrong and that it should be London-wide. The Secretary of State would then be able to bring the matter back to Parliament.
  I discussed with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, whether or not the order should be subject to resolution of the House. While varying views came to me on that, I personally think that it should be so, because I would not like to have the Henry VIII power referred to by the noble Baroness. What is proposed gives the element of discretion. I hope that it will also be a compromise acceptable to Members of another place because the Bill is an important one and we want it to go through. I hope the Committee will agree to accept the amendment.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that this five-minute exchange has been valuable. There is no doubt that "something must be done". But, having said that, we are painfully conscious that we do not wish to

  1985
  be so heavy-handed that Parliament gives the impression that it is interfering too much with a power which a local authority needs to determine. In the first instance it will determine whether it wishes to adopt Sections 2 to 9 of the Act. I understand what the Minister has said; namely, that the review may very well throw up further evidence which may be sufficient two years after the review to show that local authorities are reluctant to do something that should be done. In that case the power to issue an order will deal with that situation.
  I was puzzled about the kind of local authority that has a problem in its area which is so obvious to the ministry that it needs to make an order of its own volition, although the local authority has not had the gumption to take the necessary steps in the first place. The local authorities and councillors I know do not need the ministry to tell them what should be done. However, I accept that there may be circumstances where that is required. I am perfectly satisfied with the explanations.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
  ("( ) A local authority may at any time revoke a resolution to apply sections 2 to 9 or to vary the definition of "night hours" applied to their area.").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which are all in my name. They are to some extent related to Amendment No. 6 which deals with the definition of "night hours". We shall come to that later. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if my point trespasses a little on the argument in support of that amendment.
  Amendment No. 2 is to allow a local authority either to revoke its resolution at any time or to vary the definition of "night hours" which it desires to apply to its area. I do not want to weary the Committee by unnecessary repetition. I believe that local discretion and flexibility are important for a power which I understood was being introduced as a supplementary power for situations where the existing powers of environmental protection are insufficient. Given that it is a supplementary power—and both noble Lords have used the expression "heavy handed"—it might be a little heavy handed to impose this power in every case, even where a local authority may regard its current powers as adequate. It may have anxieties about the powers which are currently available, but in reviewing its priorities for local expenditure it may take the view that this matter is not at the top of the list.
  We are well aware of financial stringencies. One of the anxieties rightly expressed by those involved in the local government world is the decreasing amount of discretion which local authorities have these days, given the obligations that may be imposed on them, as well as a reducing and capped expenditure.
  The exercise of these powers might be regarded by a particular local authority as worth while, but it will have to accept the expenditure involved with night hours in maintaining a Rolls-Royce service—because that is
  1986
  what this Bill provides—seven days a week for 12 months of the year. We shall come to the definition of that.
  Against that there are considerations concerning the maintenance of a given number of teachers, social workers and so forth. I dare say that the Committee will think that this is a very minor service compared with education and social services, but I do not believe that it will be cheap to run. Officers will only have to be on call; they will not necessarily have to be out on the streets every night of the year. However, they have to be available, which involves cost.
  A local authority may regard it as necessary to have more than one officer available. The point has been made to me that where considerable noise is coming from premises where perhaps a lively party is going on, a local authority official may not be very enthusiastic about braving the situation by himself. The police may co-operate. But, almost by definition, if a local authority has to be called out to deal with noise it means that the people creating it are not going to be easily persuaded that the noise should be abated. Even serving a notice on them may be something that a local authority decides requires more than one person. I would support the local authority if it felt that the security of its officers required that.
  In these amendments I am arguing that it would be appropriate to allow discretion to local authorities to enable them to assess the need for the exercise of this power as against other local needs. I beg to move.
  12.45 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: As the noble Baroness said, her amendments cover two subjects. There is, first, the question of revocation. A simple power of revocation would clearly be in immediate conflict with the Secretary of State's power to make an order that a local authority takes up. One would not want to have in a Bill a situation where the two sides begin playing ping-pong with each other, with the Secretary of State making orders and the local authority immediately cancelling them. If this has to be done it will have to be done in another fashion. Doubtless the noble Baroness will talk to my noble friend about her anxieties in this area.
  As regards hours, I am aware of the anxieties of some local authorities about applying the night noise offence legislation during the entire night-time period currently specified. Equally, others would argue that the offence should apply for a longer period; for example, during the evening when children may be studying and young children are trying to get to sleep. We believe that the current period represents an appropriate balance of interest. The 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. period covers the hours during which people are most likely to be disturbed.
  I ask the Committee also to bear in mind that one of the major anxieties expressed about existing controls over noise problems is the variation in the standard of service provided by local authorities when dealing with complaints. However, we believe that there is sufficient flexibility within the terms of the Bill for local authorities to decide the exact form of the service required to investigate complaints during particular

  1987
  hours of the night. Perhaps I may point out two particular aspects of that to the noble Baroness. Presumably, the local authority will issue guidance to its officers on how these offences should be dealt with. If they have particular anxieties about being over-zealous between 11 p.m. and midnight, that can be dealt with through that sort of guidance.
  The exact form of the response that should be available from a local authority is not specified. If the small hours of the night—that is, between 3 a.m. and 7 a.m.—generate only occasional trouble, they may be dealt with on a stand-by or fall-back basis unless or until complaints in that time slot or in a particular area of the local authority become frequent. We think that there is a lot of flexibility in the Bill which will allow local authorities to adapt their responses to the enforcement of its provisions to suit their circumstances.
  Baroness Hamwee: That is helpful. I was not suggesting that a local authority should not be zealous, and I share the concerns that were expressed on Second Reading about the problem. However, I am anxious that local authorities should not be required to be zealous in providing a service at a level that is not required.
  On the question of revocation, I too can think of people with whom I might prefer to play ping-pong—I am not sure whether that would be the Secretary of State—at any given time, but assuming that the amendment which the Committee has just agreed remains in the Bill, can the Minister explain the position with regard to revocation? Is an order once made an order for ever?
  Lord Lucas: I presume that once an order has been made, the local authority has adopted the provisions of the Bill and I see nothing in the Bill which allows a local authority to shed its responsibilities once accepted. I believe that that is one of the points that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has made.
  Baroness Hamwee: Yes, and it is a point worth reinforcing. Having decided to apply the service, a local authority may find itself required to continue to provide that service when its provision may not be necessary—demographics alone may mean that the situation has changed—even to the point where the Secretary of State, had he determined the situation 10 years on, would have determined that it was not appropriate to require that local authority to bring in the power.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Baroness raises some interesting points in particular on the question of revocation. Much as we would like to have it, I do not think that at the moment anyone can foresee a noiseless society.
  The noble Baroness rightly raised the matter of financial priorities. Local authorities will always have to determine their financial priorities. However, at the outset local authorities will not be obliged to adopt the provisions of the Noise Bill. They will have the right to stand back and not adopt them. If, however, they do adopt the Bill, they must implement it thoroughly. If a local authority is worried about finance or thinks that the provisions will not be required in its area, it has the
  1988
  right not to adopt the provisions at present. The noble Baroness said that many local authorities may be satisfied with their existing powers. If that is the case, I would not expect them to adopt these provisions. However, where a local authority thinks that there is a need, it will adopt them. We are leaving local authorities with that degree of flexibility.
  This group of amendments seeks to provide a power so that local authorities may revoke a resolution to adopt the provisions and to provide a power whereby local authorities may vary the definition of "night hours" during which the offence will apply. No doubt local authorities will have to consider the circumstances in their own areas—it is right that they should do so—but if they adopt the offence, that means that they have decided that they want to maximise the opportunities to control neighbourhood noise problems. I imagine that once a local authority has adopted these provisions, its council tax payers will be reluctant to see the powers disappear because complaints about noise are constantly being made and noise can make life almost unlivable. That is why I believe that local authorities will find that their council tax payers will be reluctant to see them give up such a power.
  I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that it is important to have a more consistent approach on the question of hours of operation. It is difficult for people to know their rights if the hours are not fixed. It would be easier if people could know that "sleep time" is normally considered to be between, say, the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. and that that is the period covered by the noise provisions. Later amendments may vary those hours. However, if the hours were fixed, people would not run to the 'phone to complain at, say, 9 p.m. unless there was an element of nuisance—and those provisions will remain. People should be aware of the hours of operation. I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness suggests such a wide degree of flexibility that it might cause chaos, so I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she can withdraw it at this stage.
  Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may simply say that 9 p.m. is when people 'phone the council and that midnight is when they try to find an emergency number for the local authority. With the comment that I share the concern that has been expressed on all sides of the Committee about value for money, which was the basis for my tabling these amendments, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
  ("() An order under this section must not provide for those sections to have effect before the end of the period of three months beginning with the making of the order.").
  The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Investigation of complaints of noise from a dwelling at night]:
  Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No.7:
  Page 2, line 17, leave out from ("means") to end of line 18 and insert ("any continuous period of at least six hours but not more than eight hours, commencing not earlier than 11 p.m. and ending not later than the following 7 a.m., as may be designated by a local authority in respect of any locality").
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest. I have the honour to be the honorary chairman of Noise Council, which has a number of views about the Bill, some of which I should like to express.
  Like the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, this amendment seeks to give local authorities greater flexibility than the Bill as presently drafted suggests. The hours fixed by the Bill (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) take no account of the different noise characters of different neighbourhoods or of festivals such as New Year's Eve. At the moment the Bill prescribes the same restrictions in Soho as in a rural district.
  I suggest that the proposed hours are also inconsistent with other noise protection measures. Aircraft movements, for instance, are restricted only after 11.30 p.m. We are told that pubs are to be given longer hours. That will lead to noise not only from the pubs themselves, but in surrounding streets. There seems to be no point in placing controls on domestic noise which do not take into account other local noise sources. That can be done only if local authorities, in line with their discretion on whether to accept the proposed powers, are given a further discretion to tailor the minimum period of "night hours" to their own circumstances. If night hours are varied locally, everyone (wherever they live) will continue to be given the same basic protection under the Environmental Protection Act. The hours constituting night hours in any locality are comprised in the general effect of these clauses, namely, Clauses 1 to 9, and are required to be publicised in local newspapers by virtue of Clause 1(3). I beg to move.
  1 p.m.
  Lord Renton: One point in the amendment of my noble friend may provide further assurance. It should be borne in mind that if the local authority believes that eight hours is the required period for stopping noise, it can prescribe that.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Lord raised some interesting points, but I believe that he has failed to take into account a number of matters raised at Second Reading. He mentioned aircraft and transport. Separate controls already exist for that type of noise. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that some areas were adversely affected by that noise. But I cannot agree with the noble Lord that there is no point in dealing with domestic noise without dealing with everything else as well. Powers already exist for dealing with other forms of noise and nuisance, but domestic noise can be extremely disturbing to people.
  1990
  The noble Lord mentioned celebrations and events of that kind. This was dealt with substantially at Second Reading. When I returned home to Oxfordshire that very weekend a letter was hand-delivered to me, which was quite masterly. I will read out a brief part of it:
  "You may have noticed in the last couple of days …"
  The letter refers to activities in an adjoining garden. It goes on to say:
  "The answer is that there is not an unexpected wedding or anything like that. Much more mundane I'm afraid. I have that sobering prospect of reaching 50 this year and we have decided to fortify ourselves with a gathering of friends old and new from near and far.
  As far in some cases means 12,000 miles away"—
  the person who lives in this property is a New Zealander—"
  and as everyone will have their dancing shoes with them, we are not proposing an early finish in the small hours of Sunday morning.
  I do hope the exuberance of the band, and undoubted noise intrusion to you can be forgiven, on the grounds that such things happen only once in each of our lifetimes!"
  I felt that this letter was very appropriate in view of our debate about neighbours having a degree of tolerance for what went on at special events. But the matter goes wider than that. Clause 2(4) gives environmental health officers great discretion as to whether or not to serve a notice. They would have the right to take into account that it was New Year's Eve, a special town celebration, or something that might cause them to view the event differently. If they adopt the provisions of the Bill they have power to investigate the noise. Having investigated it, they have discretion to say that because it is, say, a 21st birthday party, others should perhaps be willing to accept it. I believe that that point is already covered.
  I pay tribute to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. I believe that that body already does a marvellous job in controlling nuisance and dealing with many other matters. This Bill will help that body in providing powers to make an objective assessment. Instead of having to prove nuisance there will be an objective measurement. While the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, raises some interesting points, I believe that they are already adequately covered. I shall read what has been said on this matter and perhaps discuss it with him further, but I hope he feels that he can withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: I hope that I do not sound like a killjoy when I say that I do not believe that the Committee should place too much reliance on a local authority looking kindly on a special occasion. No doubt it will happen. However, it would be wrong if it happened too often without consistency. I can envisage occasions when complaints may be made, even to the extent of an application for judicial review, on the basis that a local authority has distinguished inappropriately between, say, New Year's Eve celebrations and celebrations by minority ethnic groups, or groups with particular religious cultural backgrounds, who celebrate on different days of the year. It may be alleged that the local authority distinguishes between 18 year-olds and 50 year-olds and so on. As a neighbour, one may be

  1991
  charmed by an eloquent letter such as the one read out by the noble Baroness—which is a very good way of stopping somebody from complaining—but the noise emanating from events such as those can still be disturbing.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: This amendment is also technically defective. Another difficulty is that it is not clear from the amendment whether the same hours will apply in all the different parts of the local authority or whether there can be a variable six hours in each different part of the same local authority. There is a risk that this may cause confusion.
  Lord Lucas: I have little to add to what my noble friend Lady Gardner has just said, except to say that the intention behind the amendment appears to give local authorities extra flexibility. We feel that they already have that flexibility; indeed, rather more and better flexibility in their ability to control and issue guidance to their officers in enforcing the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, that guidance will have to take into account different religious festivals, local festivals and the way in which people's private parties should be treated. That appears to us to give local authorities a great deal of flexibility in enforcing the Bill, and the flexibility accorded by this amendment would be much greater.
  Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I thank my noble friend for his response to the amendment. The amendment is intended to give greater flexibility, which some of us do not believe to be adequate at the moment. In view of what the noble Lord said, and in the hope that with the review ahead all contributions during the course of the Committee stage will be noted, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("on such day or days of the week in such month or months of the year as the local authority shall have resolved.").
  The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 which provides that for the purposes of the Bill night hours are to apply on the day or days of the week and in the month or months of the year as the local authority resolves. I do not want to repeat the debates that have already taken place. I simply raise, by way of countering the argument, one matter. It has been said that certainty is not only useful but essential; in other words, that residents who are disturbed by noise should know their rights. I do not disagree with that. My amendment would not undermine certainty in each local authority area. However, in practical terms I believe that there is a limit to the importance of certainty. It is most likely that, troubled by a noisy party, a resident will call the local authority and the police but will not say, "Please will you exercise your powers under the Noise Act 1996".
  Most local authority residents I know do not talk in quite those terms. Perhaps if the problem continues they
  1992
  will understand the particular detail of the Bill and the powers relating to nuisance and so forth which the local authority may have. However, it is not a real argument to say that consistency is required in the workings of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: As I said in respect of previous amendments, we understand the kind of flexibility for which the noble Baroness is aiming. However, we believe that in practice the flexibility already in the Bill is right. The person who has a complaint to make should have the certainty of knowing that between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. he is entitled to get a local authority officer out of bed to come to listen to his complaint and see what should be done. However, the local authority has the flexibility to tell its officers that if such a complaint is made on New Year's Eve they should be nice to the complainant but tell him to go and put a pillow over his head or adopt some other course of action which can be easily defended before the electors.
  The flexibility exists for a local authority to set policies which recognise the fact that on some days of the year there is likely to be noise after midnight and that that would be usually acceptable. The discretion of the local authority officers on the scene is total. We believe that that is the right way to apply discretion to the circumstances of a particular case.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have considered the amendment most carefully but I believe that the situation would be made even more confusing. In this instance, one would not know whether it related to Monday and Tuesday, or Saturday and Sunday, or whether there was an exemption on a Friday week. People would not know where they stood as regards noise control. The situation could be so variable. It might even reach the point where people would apply to the local authority to exempt certain hours and days. The local authority might have to set up some great bureaucratic system to consider whether to give a licence for noise exemption on a certain day. I believe that the proposal goes too far. I hope that, in view of our debates, the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: It would be inconsistent to press the amendment, not having pressed the others. However, perhaps I may say to the Minister that he should be careful when giving advice such as putting a pillow over one's head because he is likely to find himself on the front page of his local newspaper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Warning notices]:
  Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 3, line 8, leave out ("emission") and insert ("generation").
  The noble Lord said: Under the Environmental Protection Act the person responsible for a nuisance can include the owner of the structure where the nuisance is occasioned, not by an unreasonable amount of noise being generated within it but because structure fails to

  1993
  provide an adequate level of sound insulation. The owner may be an absent landlord, a housing association or a local authority. The use of the words "act, default or sufferance" imports the same wide responsibility.
  Such a situation is not contemplated by the Bill, which is aimed at the generation of unreasonable noise by occupiers. I submit that the amendment makes that clear. Without it investigating officers will have to consider the contribution made by a structure to the emission of the offending noise in order to establish responsibility for it. That responsibility can be a joint one, shared by the occupier and the landlord. It could require a multiplicity of notices to be served. It could cause delay. And it provides an opportunity for legal dispute, not least if the landlord fails to pay a fixed penalty. Moreover, it leaves the tenants of local authorities in a greatly disadvantaged position since local authority enforcement officers cannot serve statutory notices upon their own employers. I beg to move.
  1.15 p.m.
  Lord Renton: Some legislation is unavoidably technical but this is not. Indeed, it will have to be obeyed by ordinary people, if there are such people. Therefore, I would have thought that we need to simplify the wording of subsection (5). The provision would be better if it read:
  "For the purposes of this group of sections, a person is responsible for noise coming from a dwelling if he is a person to whose act, default or sufferance the making of the noise is wholly or partly attributable".
  I must confess that I have not tabled amendments to that effect but I believe that the proposal is worth thinking about. We have a duty to try to make our laws as easily understood as possible by those who have to obey them.
  Baroness Hamwee: I must exercise a self-denying ordinance and allow the Committee to carry on, but I considered the matter as the noble Lord was speaking. Arguably, the clause could impose liability on the person producing and fitting materials to a part of the house which the owner expects to contain noise. If one wishes to play loud instruments or to run a small recording studio in one's home—I know people who do so—one will rely on experts to install proper sound-proofing. Where will the responsibility lie if one believes that effective sound proofing has been installed but in fact it has not?
  Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may deal with the first issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Clearly, if the fault is concerned with the building the local authority will not try to use this Act to deal with it because it is worded and structured in a way which does not make that easy or appropriate. Under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the local authority will serve an abatement notice on the owner
  1994
  of the property requiring him to upgrade the sound insulation to an appropriate level. The notice can stipulate what the level might be and a reasonable time scale for such action to be taken. That is how one would expect a local authority to deal with such a matter.
  As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, yes, on reading the part of the Bill with the benefit of his words I believe that it might be to the advantage of my noble friend Lady Gardner and the Government to look at it again without commitment. I hope that that gives my noble friend some comfort.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, presented his case clearly and well, and I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The night noise offence is intended to deal with those who, through their inconsiderate action, allow noise to be emitted from their dwellings which disturbs their neighbours. The Bill concerns itself with the noise experienced by people rather than the noise generated by people. It is a question of whether someone is suffering from the effects of the noise. I believe that the person suffering from the noise will not be worried about where it is coming from but with the noise itself. Therefore, the Bill places the emphasis on the sufferer and provides a method by which the noise can be measured in the complainant's home, which is highly significant. It seems to be slightly off the track to consider whether it is a question of the emission or generation of noise. However, I have thought about this matter and I have listened to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Renton. I had considered whether this amendment would be simple to implement because it makes clear that it refers to the person who is generating the noise rather than any fault in the building. But there are problems in relation to that. The first is the problem of parliamentary draftsmen. The word "emission" is used throughout the Bill. Therefore, although the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton make such sound sense, it may not be possible to give effect to them because, as I say, the word "emission" is used throughout the Bill.
  However, the Bill does seek to deal with the person responsible for making the noise. But there is provision already in the Bill to deal with a situation in which, if the person responsible for making the noise is not actually in the building, notice can be served on the building itself. I am not sure how that part of the Bill will fit in with this proposed change because the individual would have to be identified.
  Those aspects require further consideration and, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, we must look again at this matter. On those grounds, I hope that my noble friend Lord Elliott will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Elliott of Morpeth: On the suggestion that this useful amendment may lead to further consideration being given to the point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  1995
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Permitted level of noise]:
  Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 3, line 25, after ("within") insert ("a bedroom of').
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to attempt to deal with the measurement of noise related to the disturbance. It is extremely important for the credibility of the Bill that there should be a consistent and reasonable approach taken by local authorities in relation to its enforcement.
  Whereas permitted noise levels and measurement devices which may be used are to be specified, the Bill leaves open and quite uncertain the question of measurement locations, which, I understand, is to be left to guidance from the Department of the Environment in due course. However, it is clear that the choice of a measurement point could affect the results obtained. The Government have announced already that they intend to base their definition of excessive noise on the level determined by the World Health Organisation as necessary for the process of sleep. Therefore, it is no more than logical that measurement should be required to be made within bedrooms. Within reason, higher noise levels are tolerable for activities undertaken in other rooms.
  If the proper location for measurements is agreed accordingly, there is no reason why that should not be written into the Bill. Not to do so invites speculation that measurement points will not be prescribed; in other words, no consistency will be required in relation to measurement methods. That raises the spectre of enforcement officers scuttling round the house looking for the most advantageous measurement points or being accused by occupiers of failing to do so. In turn, that could provide grounds for legal wrangling. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: It is not only sleep that can be disturbed by noise. I dare say that there are other Members of the Committee who have had to study and work on something which requires great concentration until the early hours of the morning. I must confess that I often had to do so when I was in practice at the Bar.
  With deep respect to my noble friend, because I understand the point he makes, I believe that we should give protection to that minority of people who may have to sit up very late doing mental work which requires great concentration. If we narrow the provision to apply only to people in bedrooms, we may not achieve that purpose.
  Lord Swinfen: I am wondering what is the meaning of "bedroom". There will be occasions when someone who has suffered an injury may not be able to get up the stairs to his accustomed bedroom and may have to sleep in a living-room on the ground floor, at any rate for a temporary period; or there may be a case where people have guests staying in a house and they are allowed to sleep in a living-room on a piece of furniture
  1996
  which will convert to a bed. Therefore, one would need to define the word "bedroom" if this amendment were to be accepted.
  Lord Lucas: This is not an amendment with which we feel comfortable. We agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that other activities are undertaken within a house where the person undertaking those activities may feel entitled to do so in quiet between the hours of 11 and seven. We believe that we can rely on local authorities' discretion, the guidance that they will give and the quality of their officers to make sure that, in practice, the measurements are made in the most appropriate place in the house.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe that it would be wrong to restrict this to a bedroom. The bedroom might be tucked away in a quiet corner of the house but, because of the noise level one may not be able to enjoy normal living with friends and family or even just watching the television in another part of the house.
  My noble friend Lord Elliott said that the environmental health officer would be looking round the house trying to choose the appropriate room in which to make the measurement. I do not believe that that would happen because environmental health officers are extremely practical and used to such matters. Secondly, the complainant would have very definite views on where they were when suffering the intolerable noise. Therefore, the complainant would say, "This is the room in which I am trying to sit and read but cannot do so because of the intolerable noise".
  Another point which may have been overlooked by my noble friend Lord Elliott is that the noise must be 10 decibels above the local level of noise. This point was raised on Second Reading. A higher level of noise will be tolerated in a noisy, residential area because, as I say, the noise must be 10 decibels above the local level. Therefore, we need not worry about the consistency of measurement. I believe that this proposal would be unnecessarily restrictive. I appreciate the points made by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Swinfen which are extremely relevant. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I return to my opening phrase in moving the amendment. Measurement should be related to disturbance. But I take the points which have been made that this may be too restrictive. In consequence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to comment on this clause because it has been considered by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I must put before the Committee the comments which it made.
  I am aware that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee raised two questions about the use of such powers within the Bill. The first relates to Clause 5. The committee asked for justification for the procedure by

  1997
  which the Secretary of State is to fix the permitted level of noise and a variety of other matters for the night noise offence.
  The Bill provides that those are set by directions in writing issued by the Secretary of State. There is good reason for that approach. The measurement of noise can be a complicated and highly technical matter. As indicated by Clause 5(3), it is likely that the permitted level may need to be defined by reference to other levels of noise. That may involve taking more than one measurement; for example, we are considering setting the permitted level by reference to background noise, so that the permitted level—a level which the noise must exceed for an offence—is, say, 35 decibels, provided that the noise also exceeds the background level by 10 decibels.
  The directions may include matters involving the location and period of measurement and also mathematical calculations. It may well be necessary, especially in the early days of the operation of the provisions, to make fairly frequent changes to some of those matters in the light of experience and developments in the field of noise measurement. These may also need to be made promptly. In those circumstances, we consider that directions, rather than a statutory instrument, would be the best way of providing for those matters.
  I should like to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the schedule contained in the Control of Noise (Measurement and Registers) Regulations 1976, which is also concerned with the measurement and calculation of noise levels. Although this is not exactly equivalent, it gives an idea of the complexity of the issues involved. Experience with that order has shown that a statutory instrument is not the most appropriate means by which such technical matters are specified. In view of those remarks, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.
  Lord Renton: Although I am one of the many Members of this Chamber who are against Henry VIII clauses and giving unbridled power to Ministers to change the law, I realise that there are certain, rather narrow exceptions in which it would be undesirable to have to wait for a matter to be approved by Parliament when the circumstances really require, even experimentally, a relatively minor change to be made. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on the matter. I hope that the Committee will accept Clause 5 as it stands.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  1.30 p.m.
  Clause 8 [Fixed penalty notices]:
  Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 4, line 38, leave out ("is committing or has just") and insert ("has").
  The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 to 16. The purpose of this group of amendments is to face up to the enormous difficulty
  1998
  which could possibly be encountered by enforcement officers in a very rowdy and dangerous situation. If an offence is in the course of commission and still going on, because the noise which exceeds the permitted level is continuing, an offence has in fact already been committed. Therefore, the phrase in Clause 8(1) is a tautology.
  Taken with subsequent references to giving fixed penalty notices, the words in subsection (1)—
  "is committing or has just committed",
  are clearly intended at least to imply that a penalty notice must be served immediately. Indeed, the Bill's promoters in another place gave much publicity to "on-the-spot" fines. However, as I see it, there is no practical necessity for that, although it might be very desirable from a complainant's point of view. There is some concern that such intention could place the safety of local authority officers, who, in a sense, will already have primed offenders by the service of a warning notice, in considerable danger. At the very least, it is likely to lead to more calls for police protection for those officers. That situation could be avoided by the proposed amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: We understand that there is concern that the Bill imposes an obligation on local authorities to serve fixed penalty notices immediately and that that could place officers in physical jeopardy. However, we consider that the amendments are unnecessary; and, indeed, that they would not achieve anything different from that set out in the Bill as it stands. Perhaps I may explain. I should emphasise, first, that the decision to give fixed penalty notices is entirely at the discretion of the local authority. Therefore, where the officer considers that the offender is likely to be violent or abusive, he may well decide that prosecution is the best course. In any event, we would not expect local authorities to elect to use the fixed penalty provisions where the noise was of a serious nature, because, in most cases, the penalties imposed by the courts are likely to be more suitable.
  The deletion by the amendments of the words "is committing" [an offence] would be unfortunate. In the context of the Bill, those words are not tautologous; indeed, they make it quite clear that, where a local authority officer finds that noise above the limit is still being made, he is able there and then to give the offender a fixed penalty notice. It is important that that power should not be lost as I anticipate that, in the less serious noise cases, the giving of such a notice will have immediate effect.
  However, where it seems likely that the offender will be violent or abusive, the officer will be able to conclude that it is not reasonably practical to deliver the notice to the offender. In those circumstances, Clause 8(2)(b) will allow the notice to be given to the offender by leaving it at the premises. As I have already said, I cannot see how the amendments would alter the position in any way. My further concern is that, by allowing the notice to be issued to the offender at any unspecified time after the offence has been committed, the sense of immediate action would be lost.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I share the concerns of my noble friend the Minister about where the amendments might lead. I have two further observations to make. First, my noble friend raised the question of the immediacy of the action that the Bill would provide. I wholeheartedly endorse the points that he made in that respect. Moreover, I would argue that the service of a fixed penalty notice at the time of an offence can only serve to reinforce the connection between the offence and the penalty. I am aware that a similar point was made in another place. I believe it to be a very valid argument. An offender receiving a fixed penalty notice through the post some days or even weeks after an offence has been committed will not be prompted to make such an immediate connection between the offence and the penalty.
  I believe that the group of amendments now before us would not improve the Bill. Where there is a case of danger, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elliott, it is the practice for enforcement officers in such cases to ask a police officer to accompany them. However, as my noble friend the Minister said, there is the option of deciding to prosecute and, therefore, not face such a risk at that stage. Again, the matter was debated to a considerable degree on Second Reading. As I said, I believe that the amendments are not appropriate. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw them.
  Lord Elliott of Morpeth: Having heard the response from my noble friend the Minister and, indeed, the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Section 8: supplementary]:
  [Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Powers of entry and seizure etc.]:
  [Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Interpretation and subordinate legislation]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers also questioned the need for Clause 11 (3). I have to say that, on reflection, we agree that the subsection is unnecessary and will seek to amend it on Report. I am grateful to the Select Committee for noticing that point. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that Clause 11 should stand part, bearing in mind the fact that we shall return to the matter on Report with a view to removing Subsection (3).
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

  Sexual Offences (Incitement and Conspiracy) Bill
  1.40 p.m.
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the Bill to your Lordships. First, I wish to congratulate my honourable friend John Marshall, the Member for Hendon South, who originally introduced the measure in another place. I do not think any of your Lordships will question either the morality or the necessity for it. Care and regard for children is one of the essential marks of morality and true civilisation. The Bill also fulfils some of our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  The Bill will make it an offence to conspire, or to incite a person to commit sexual acts abroad. As your Lordships know, one of the features of the modern world is the rapidity and ease of transport. I believe it took the Emperor Hadrian three years to travel round his empire; we could do it in as many hours. Unfortunately, this particular gift, which has been to the great benefit of civilisation, has been misused by certain people. The fact is that paedophiles travel to foreign countries to abuse children sexually. Unfortunately, many of these people are British. Their activities are deplorable and rightly are not tolerated in this country. However, their activities are no less terrible if they take place overseas. We must therefore be vigilant in ensuring that effective measures are in place to make it difficult for these people to travel abroad to commit immoral and criminal acts. To put it simply, the aim of the Bill is to make it an offence for people to plan with others or to encourage others to travel abroad to have sex with children.
  Clause 1 of the Bill makes it an offence to conspire in England and Wales to commit certain sexual offences against children abroad. Conspiracy means agreement on a course of conduct. This definition of conspiracy would certainly include an arrangement between a tour operator and a client to provide travel facilities where the acknowledged purpose of the trip was the sexual abuse of children. However, it goes wider than that. Many of these people, although they make their own arrangements for travel and accommodation, nonetheless plan their trips with others of their kind before they go. Such activity may well amount to conspiracy and fall within the scope of the Bill.
  Clause 1 also sets certain conditions which must be satisfied before the conspiracy amounts to an offence under our laws. The conspiracy must lead to an act or event taking place outside the United Kingdom. This, of course, is what the Bill is all about. If the act or event contemplated takes place in this country the conspiracy is already an offence. The act or event must be an offence in the country where it is intended to take place as well as in our own country. This is the so-called dual criminality test. It is, I suggest, an important safeguard.
  We in Parliament rightly consider that it is our function to pass laws which apply in the territory of the United Kingdom. We would rightly take great exception

  2001
  if the law-making body of another country attempted to pass laws which would apply here. Equally, therefore, we must not attempt to export our laws overseas. The dual criminality test avoids that trap. The intended act must amount to conduct which falls within the scope of the sexual offences against children set out in the schedule to this Bill. The final condition is that some part of the conspiracy—but not necessarily all of the conduct which constitutes the offence—must take place in England or Wales.
  Clause 2 makes it an offence to incite another person to commit certain sexual acts against children abroad. Incitement is the act of encouraging others to do something. It could include advertising material in the case of tour operators. But, again, if two or more potential offenders are discussing where to go to indulge in their activities, any encouragement that one gave the other could well amount to incitement. Conditions are set out in Clause 2 which must be satisfied before incitement in these circumstances would amount to an offence under the provisions of the Bill. The conditions are similar to those which I described a moment ago in relation to conspiracy.
  Clause 2 also extends, for the purposes of the Bill, the scope of incitement to ensure that any incitement by means of a telephone call, fax, Internet message or similar method is deemed to take place in England and Wales if the message is received in England and Wales. Thus, if someone sent a fax to England inciting someone here to commit an offence, the originator of the fax commits an offence because the effect—the incitement—is felt here.
  Clause 3 makes supplementary provisions to those in the first two clauses. Most importantly it provides that the dual criminality test is satisfied unless the defence shows grounds that it is not, in which case the clause leaves it to the judge to decide. The clause also ensures that provisions relating to offences of incitement and conspiracy in other legislation apply to the offences created by the Bill. This ensures, for example, that provisions relating to the anonymity of victims of sexual offences apply to the provisions in the Bill.
  Clause 4 applies the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Clause 5 introduces the schedule to the Bill which sets out the conduct in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which is covered by the Bill. If the conduct intended or encouraged amounts to one of these offences, then the provisions of the Bill will apply if the other conditions are also met. The Bill is intended to protect children. Its extent is therefore limited to general sexual offences where the victims or intended victims are under the age of 16. As there is a dual criminality test, and this is the general age of consent in this country, 16 has been proposed as the limit which should apply to the provisions in the Bill.
  Clause 6 contains the Scottish provisions. These are framed slightly differently from those applying in other United Kingdom jurisdictions because of certain differences in Scots law. For instance, several of the offences caught by the Bill in Scotland are common law rather than statutory offences. However, the effect of the Bill is essentially the same in all three jurisdictions.
  2002
  Clause 7 makes the necessary provisions for commencement and extent. The offences created by the Bill are those of conspiracy and incitement. The maximum penalties for those offences are the same as those for the substantive offence which is being planned or encouraged. Thus conspiracy to rape would carry a maximum life sentence, as would conspiracy to commit intercourse with a girl under the age of 13.
  I hope that I have given a fair and accurate description of the aims, principles and contents of the Bill. I realise, as your Lordships realise, that in itself this Bill will not solve the problem of child sex tourism. That requires the will and firm action of the tourist receiving countries. But the Bill sends a warning to all those who perpetrate these acts that if they do anything in relation to their activities abroad in this country, then our authorities can and will act. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Pilkington of Oxenford.)
  1.50 p.m.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on his initiative, and the excellent way in which he has spoken to the House, clearly, precisely and, I detect, with great compassion. We also congratulate our honourable friend in another place, Mr. John Marshall, on the initiative that he has taken.
  It is a long road. It is a dreadful situation. We do not have to go abroad to find terrible scenes. The announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister of an investigation into the possibilities that little children in this country have been abused, sexually and in other ways, is a timely warning to us that there is a sad decline in morals and morality. If this Bill reaches the statute book it will be an additional weapon in the hands of the legislators and the police.
  I sat in this House when the War Crimes Bill went through this Chamber. I fully supported it. That legislation dealt not with a comparable situation but with the question of jurisdiction exercised by law enforcers in this country for crimes not committed in this country. There is an analogy.
  We should not underestimate the enormous difficulties of, first, obtaining evidence, secondly, bringing it to court and, thirdly, gaining a conviction in all the circumstances outlined. No doubt some may consider the Bill puny and ineffective. However, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, used words of great emphasis when he said that it was a warning. Offences, terrible as they are, may not be committed if the consequences in this legislation are likely to follow.
  I am conscious of the stage that we have reached in the parliamentary timetable. Therefore I shall not go into the detail of the Bill. However, we should not be inhibited from taking the opportunity to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and others in another place, that we are as one in both Houses, in all parties, and as regards every individual who can speak, in doing everything we possibly can to protect children, wherever

  2003
  they are, who may be exploited dreadfully by people over whom we have some jurisdiction and can convict of an offence.
  I congratulate the noble Lord. Anything that we on these Benches can do to speed the passage of the Bill will be done. We are grateful to the noble Lord.
  1.54 p.m.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said. I greatly appreciate the support that my noble friend Lord Pilkington of Oxenford will receive from him and his party.
  I support this Bill on behalf of the Government. First, I must congratulate my honourable friend, John Marshall, for so skilfully piloting this legislation through another place. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Pilkington of Oxenford for introducing the Bill into your Lordships' House. I should like to congratulate him on his clear explanation of the Bill's provisions.
  The Government fully support the measures contained in this Bill. They will give the police and courts an additional weapon to use against child molesters. It is a matter of deep concern to the Government that British people are involved in supporting this terrible trade—sex tourism. It is right that Parliament should enact measures which penalise preparatory acts committed in this country in support of those perverted activities abroad.
  The provisions in this Bill will supplement the other actions which the Government are taking to discourage child prostitution worldwide. For example, the Overseas Development Agency provides assistance to several non-governmental organisations which are rehabilitating street children and tackling the associated problems of prostitution, drug abuse and violence. The Government also support the valuable participation of the police service in the work of the Interpol Standing Working Party on Offences against Minors and the contribution of those officers who are working closely with their counterparts in the developing countries.
  We stand ready to extradite our own nationals to stand trial for offences committed abroad—subject to the usual safeguards which include the principle of dual criminality. We can also provide assistance to foreign authorities to help them investigate such matters.
  Some noble Lords today have urged the Government to go further than the measures contained in this Bill and take extraterritorial jurisdiction over child sex offences. I understand the desire—it has been expressed in previous debates on the subject—that we take the widest possible action against these perverted people. But the Government must ensure that any legislation which is enacted is effective. The Government are not convinced that extraterritorial jurisdiction can be implemented effectively.
  Despite those doubts, the Government are concerned to investigate all the options. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 1st February a review of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is looking at the implications for our criminal justice system of extending
  2004
  the range of offences for which such jurisdiction is taken—including an extension to cover sexual offences against children. The report of that review will be considered carefully by the Government, but I am sure that, if the review concludes that a wider jurisdiction can be enforced against child sex offenders, the Government will not be slow to act.
  The measures in this Bill represent a further weapon which can be used against child molesters. Therefore, the Government warmly welcome this Bill. We wish it, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, well during its remaining stages in this House.
  1.57 p.m.
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for those kind words, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for the support that he is able to give the Bill. I also thank the noble Earl for saying that the Government will support and encourage the Bill through the House.
  I conclude briefly. These are more than offences against the law. They are offences against the very natural law that governs the whole of human nature. Cicero said this years ago about those who offend against natural law:
  "Whoever is disobedient"—to those laws which are placed there by God— "is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment".
  We are dealing with beastly and horrible things and, therefore, it is important that the Bill is passed. It will make some effort in warning these people and in protecting children. I commend that the Bill be read a second time.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may raise this point. We are concerned, as I know the noble Lord will agree, with protecting children. However, I wonder whether he will give thought to taking action in another place. I do not refer to this Chamber. He spent a considerable time pointing out the commercial aspect. While people commit such crimes for sexual gratification, there is also commercial exploitation. Will the noble Lord say something to the House about this suggestion—that he and those who assist him on the Bill might wish to consider in parallel with the Bill finding support from the Government to ensure that people who are involved in such activities are observed and working out how that could be done? It could be helpful.
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the Government can speak to this better than I can. I am just anxious that we should expedite the Bill as quickly as possible, it being so late in the Session. I commend it to the House.
  On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  RAF Bentwaters: Sale Procedure
  2 p.m.
  Lord Bridges Lord Bridges rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the procedure adopted to sell the former RAF base at Bentwaters in Suffolk is consistent with their environmental policy, and whether similar procedures will be followed for other redundant defence property.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question standing in my name concerns a local matter which I believe raises issues of national importance. The one leads to the other and I shall start with a brief account of what happened at Bentwaters. Before doing so, I should perhaps explain that my wife and I have no personal interest at stake in the matter, beyond owning a house and garden five miles distant. We are also active members of the county branch of the CPRE, of which my wife is vice-chairman locally. She has local connections with the area going back to the period before the Second World War, and so has personal knowledge of the district before the airfield was built.
  Bentwaters was built as an RAF base during the Second World War. It and its nearby sister base at Woodbridge developed into a major centre for USAF operations to meet the demands of the cold war. At its peak, there were some 13,000 US personnel and dependants on base. Following the collapse of the Soviet empire, the Americans withdrew and the Ministry of Defence announced that it had no further use for the base, which was declared redundant.
  The base has two distinct parts flanking the A1152 which, despite its designation, is a narrow country road. The northern part is the domestic base, about 200 acres in extent. Here there are three separate areas of housing, perhaps 600 units in all, formerly leased to the Americans and now privately owned. Some of the houses are owner-occupied but many are on short-term leases through housing associations to tenants brought into the area because of housing need elsewhere, with a high rate of unemployment among them. Their plight has been made worse by the refusal of the Ministry of Defence to open up the central core of the domestic site which is for sale. The core area is intensely developed, with more houses and all the sophisticated commercial and social facilities of an American expatriate community. The new residents have had virtually no social facilities and difficult relations in the access between the several parts of the area. So there has been and will continue to be for some time a local, social problem of the Ministry's own making.
  The larger southern site, known as the technical base, is 970 acres in extent and designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The area contains a runway, workshops, aircraft shelters and hardened ammunition stores as well as other support facilities.
  Faced with the problem of what to do with this dubious asset, the Ministry's original proposal was for comprehensive development of (in effect) a new town with many more houses and extensive industrial growth, all in a rural area with poor communications. Mercifully, when that strategy was considered at county level, the
  2006
  ambition was thwarted. In January 1994, a panel of inspectors concluded that Bentwaters should not become a focus for major new development but should instead seek to re-use what could properly be re-used to create a balanced community with local job opportunities, while restoring, where possible, the land in the AONB so badly degraded by military use. The planning authority, the Suffolk Coastal District Council, then worked out a planning brief which is intended as a document of guidance, although it is perhaps capable of some manipulation.
  In the summer of 1994, the Ministry of Defence started marketing the base. Bids had to be accompanied by a detailed business plan and there were several bids submitted and openly presented. But it was a surprise in February 1995 when the successful bidder turned out to be the Maharishi Foundation which had not submitted a detailed business plan and intended to create a university of natural law, based on the practice of fundamental meditation—a practice of which some of your Lordships may have first-hand experience, if not of the levitation to which it is supposed to give rise.
  My first question to the noble Earl, of which I have given him notice, is: Why did the Ministry of Defence accept this offer without a properly researched plan, which was required from all bidders? In the event, the foundation found itself unable to produce a plan for the whole area and six months later it withdrew.
  The Ministry then resumed negotiations with the under-bidder, the Chris Parker Group—not a nationally known company. In October 1995, the CPG's revised bid was accepted. It was widely reported that the sum—never officially declared—might be as high as £16 million, as high as or higher than that previously negotiated with the lapsed bidder. That high price obliged the CPG to propose extensive development of the site, which is contrary to government policy for the AONB. So my second question to the noble Earl is whether it is correct that the high price asked from the CPG was in truth based on that discussed with the Maharishi Foundation. If so, it was most unfortunate because it made the CPG proposals difficult for the district council to accommodate for environmental reasons.
  The end of the long planning saga is now in sight. In April, the planning committee of the district council sensibly decided that the CPG plan for the domestic site raised few serious problems and agreed to it in principle. But it considered equally sensibly that the extensive development of the AONB could not be accepted as a justifiable exception to normal planning policy. The CPG responded promptly by removing the proposed holiday village of 750 chalets in the AONB, which had been described by them as providing funds for the removal of the runway and unwanted buildings, and by increasing the area zoned for industry. That was discussed yesterday by the planning committee at Woodbridge, which, while minded to approve, deferred a final decision for three weeks pending detailed agreement on some of the more important aspects.
  My complaint about this story is that the Ministry of Defence, as owner of the site, regarded sale at the highest possible price as the determining factor.
  No doubt the Treasury was egging it on. But I submit that the Government have wider responsibilities; for example, as regards the AONB, and on transport issues. The latter are a strong local concern. We are uncertain of the effect on county roads of the greatly increased traffic which the CPG's plan will entail, whether it be heavy goods vehicles, required for the removal of demolition material or bringing in construction goods, or the unknown increase in commuting into and out of the area.
  There is also the absence of any input from central government on the environmental side. Who in this transaction was the guardian of the AONB? Evidently not the Ministry of Defence. So far as I know, we in Suffolk have had little support from the DoE, or from other government departments which could have exerted pressure on the MoD to observe environmental rules.
  I have heard from English Nature, and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, whose chairman and president respectively is the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, a local resident, who greatly regrets that he cannot be in the Chamber today. In a letter to me of 11th June, English Nature points out that it is a statutory consultee in the environmental process. If requested, English Nature must provide available information in the preparation of an environmental statement to the developer. No such request was received. The letter goes on:
  "The lack of involvement of English Nature and other conservation organisations during the scoping and production of the Environmental Statement for RAF Bentwaters led to the production of a document which did not adequately cover ecological interests or issues. Consequently it was not possible to provide a definitive assessment of the impact of the proposed development on nature conservation interests. This formed one of the main grounds for objection to the proposals by English Nature".
  The Suffolk Wildlife Trust, which is an important organisation locally, says that it is delighted that your Lordships are considering this matter today and can supply information which would seem to suggest:
  "that the sale of RAF Bentwaters has not been consistent with the Government's environmental policy".
  The trust makes seven points, which I shall not repeat seriatim. The burden of its message is that the AONB is an important acidic grassland in the Sandlings, particularly for the species associated with it, such as the woodlark, which is a rare breeding bird, and that this grassland has been identified in the Biodiversity Action Plan endorsed by the Government as a "key habitat" which should be protected by local planning policies. That important fact was not brought to the attention of the planning committee by any government department. It was left to individuals and NGOs, such as the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, to fill the gap. That is a serious failure by departments at the centre. It inevitably calls into question the seriousness of the Government's intentions regarding the environment, and suggests once again that they regard money as more important than anything else.
  Regrettably, that fear is confirmed by a passage in the Government's rural White Paper which commits them to maximising the potential of redundant facilities for wealth creation and development. One of the reasons for the deferment of a decision by the district council's planning committee was the need to reach satisfactory
  2008
  arrangements with the purchaser for environmental protection. I am grateful to the council for getting the priorities right, despite the failure of government departments to do their duty.
  I suggest that this tale illustrates the Government's failure to support our environmental policy in favour of short-term considerations. So much for the Government's support for the principle of sustainable development. I suggest it should be an essential precaution in property disposals of this size and complexity for a district council to have the benefit and support of an advisory council or group which could bring together NGOs, local authorities, landscape architects and other experts, so as to supervise and provide specialised knowledge as the development proceeds, all within the framework of a strict Section 106 procedure.
  Bentwaters is now so far down the road that the council might not be able to help much at this stage. An alternative would be for the Ministry of Defence, given the pending disposal of so many important properties, to establish its own body for realising sales. It could include experts of the kind I mentioned and could work out a long-term strategy for disposal and further development of important sites. Such a scheme would also have the advantage of securing a better return to the taxpayer, who would receive a due share of the profits over time; whereas a one-off sale to the developer, as at present, means that it is he who creams off for his own benefit most of the value added.
  My final question to the noble Earl arises from a passage in the report by the inspectors after the examination in public, which states:
  "We have already indicated that the Ministry of Defence should accept some responsibility for restoration [of the AONB], albeit the issue may have broader implications for central Government". How does the Ministry of Defence intend to fulfil its obligations in that regard?
  2.14 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for bringing before your Lordships a case that is not only important in itself in local terms but is of importance also because it relates to a much more general problem which some of us have perceived for some while.
  I should start by declaring a non-interest. I do not own any land adjoining or have any interest whatever financially in this site or in any land connected with it. I say that because, as a result of some parliamentary Questions I tabled, I noticed that Mr. Chris Parker of the Chris Parker Group Ltd. referred to local people "who had vested interests". I felt that that might in some way be referring to me. I should also like to say that I have never, as far as I am aware, met Mr. Chris Parker or indeed ever seen him, so I know nothing personally about the gentleman.
  However, I have a more general interest as the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and as a member of the Suffolk Preservation Society. I therefore mind a great deal about what happens in Suffolk and I mind a great deal about what

  2009
  happens in England as well. I should like, before I come on to the specific matters connected with Bentwaters, to speak a little about the general issues involved.
  First, I do not believe that in general the Ministry of Defence has in the past been a good landlord. I should like to give one specific example—again a local one. Shortly before the National Trust took over Orford Ness, I went for a walk there. I have never seen a piece of land in a more deplorable, ill-kept condition. Had it been my land I would have sacked my agent or farm manager. It was covered with cag from years before. That, I fear, is typical of the standard of stewardship which the Ministry of Defence has shown on many occasions.
  Secondly, following from that, I believe that we need to have a fresh audit on those lands in the possession of the Ministry of Defence; such an audit has not taken place for some 20 years, since the Nugent Committee. Also, the Government should give guidance on the important issue of the disposal of lands or properties belonging to the Ministry of Defence, particularly redundant airfields, rather in the way the Government have in the past given guidance on the disposal of redundant hospitals. I suggest that the present plans of the Department of the Environment for reviewing PPG7—due to be published in draft form in July of this year—may be a good occasion for such advice to be set out.
  In support of the need for such guidance I cite a totally different case—nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence and nothing to do with Suffolk: the state of the Battersea Power Station. I was glad to have a Written Answer from my noble friend Lord Inglewood this week in which he said that,
  "The present state of Battersea Power Station is most regrettable. Bearing in mind this and other cases … the Government issued a Guidance Note for Departments on the disposal of Surplus Historic Buildings".—[Official Report, 12/6/96; col. WA 170.]
  I suggest that similar guidance is needed in respect of Ministry of Defence lands. The Minister added—this will appear relevant to what I intend to say a little later—apropos Battersea,
  "advice should, wherever possible, be taken on the financial soundness of the prospective purchaser".— [col. WA 170.]
  The Government have an obligation to take fully into account environmental factors in deciding who to sell defence lands to when they become redundant. So it is not necessarily the highest bidder who should receive the award of the contract for buying the land. The public interest is important. It is difficult to measure, but must not be neglected.
  I should like to mention what is going to be one of the biggest national issues to be debated in this country over the coming years; that is, the huge pressure for more land for housing. The Government's prediction is that by 2016 there will be an additional 4·4 million households created due largely to demographic factors. This is going to put a very considerable pressure on rural areas. It is something that we must bear in mind in deciding how and whether it can be accommodated. Obviously, it follows that as much of the development as possible should be where man has already placed
  2010
  bricks and concrete—in other words, the so-called brown land. Certainly, we must consider this housing need when it comes to the disposal of bases. Therefore, it is relevant to this argument.
  I would like now to come on to Bentwaters directly. First of all, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, refer to the interest that English Nature has taken in it, but apparently it had not been consulted earlier on. I have been rather disappointed that the Countryside Commission, of which I was a member for 12 years, has not taken a greater interest. The most recent statement I can find is a letter I dug up from my file dated 12th October 1994 apropos Bentwaters, where it says:
  "The thrust of our submission, and our continuing position, is that AONB policies were not receiving a high enough priority in planning consideration of the development proposals. There was therefore a danger that further development would be beyond that necessary and suitable for the site and the area. We asked that the balance to be struck … be tilted further towards the protection of the AONB, including some landscape restoration work on the airfield itself'.
  I am sorry that the Countryside Commission has not taken a greater role. It is the Government's watchdog on rural beauty. The whole idea of hiving off that responsibility to such an agency is that it should perform that task. I know that it feels overstretched and is withdrawing to some extent from being involved in planning issues. I regret that. I believe that if anyone is to advise government as the public interest it must be the Countryside Commission.
  Finally, I would like to say a word or two about Bentwaters. I ask the Government two questions about the Chris Parker Group, of which I know very little indeed. First of all, I would like to know what track record it has in being able to manage as big a project as it appears it may be about to embark upon. Secondly, following up the comments made by the Government about Battersea, have they taken professional independent advice on the financial soundness of the group? I have no view on that issue. I am merely asking the Government for their view.
  Local opinion has the feeling—and it may be wrong—that the main interest of the Chris Parker Group is in the exploitation of the concrete. Concrete and aggregate are valuable commodities, mined by people perfectly properly. There is a great deal of concrete at Bentwaters. There is a great deal of concrete at all airfields. Many of them were built in the early days of the war when contractors were paid for the amount of cement they used. Indeed, perhaps I may tell your Lordships that some years ago on my own land, which is some five or six miles away from Bentwaters, we were digging up some hard standings which used to have B 17s on them and selling the concrete ourselves. We have turned the area into wildlife ponds. We were fascinated to find tons and tons of cement still in hessian sacks. It had just been dumped in the bottom of the hard standings. No doubt the contractor of the day was one of those hard-faced men who did well out of the war!
  At any rate, the value of the Bentwaters concrete is clearly important, but that is not the entire value of this site. It is a sensitive and important site and, whatever happens, we must make sure that there is a

  2011
  well-balanced development there. There has already been a tendency to decant people from local housing lists on to the site, and that does not necessarily make for a balanced community and may be storing up problems for the future. To some extent, the MoD has a responsibility, and I believe it has not handled that aspect cleverly. We have to make sure that whatever happens is well thought out and sustainable. I would remind the Government that it was some years ago, during a brief period when agriculture appeared to be having a less important priority for the nation—and it is a period which in my opinion is fast vanishing—when Nicholas Ridley, the late Environment Secretary, said in a memorable phrase that, apart from anything else, we have to preserve the countryside for its own sake. That very much applies to designated areas and it certainly applies to the Suffolk coast's AONB. I hope very much that that will be the kind of priority the Government give.
  It is sometimes argued that economic interests and the creation of jobs are paramount. I would point out that the Bentwaters air base, in the Suffolk, coastal constituency of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—I live in that constituency—is not an area where there are unemployment problems. The monthly brief which shows unemployment by constituency—the latest edition came out yesterday—showed that the unemployment rate in the area is 5·1 per cent. and in ranking by constituency it is 500th from the top. Let us satisfy ourselves that we give proper regard to the environmental aspects of this important development. I look forward to being reassured on this matter by my noble friend.
  2.26 p.m.
  Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I intervene as an almost disembodied voice from the past. The case has been put with such eloquence and passion by my noble friend Lord Bridges and by—I almost said my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that I shall confine myself to the lessons to be learnt by two government departments. The wider lessons have already been drawn by my noble friend and by the noble Lord. I shall confine myself to narrower, workaday issues.
  I have a regard—almost an affection—for the Ministry of Defence going back to the time when I was in the Treasury and for two periods in my duties there, in the then jargon, "looked after" the Ministry of Defence. It happened to coincide with two defence reviews—my Lords, what's new?—and also the withdrawal from east of Suez, and in these even harder times the Ministry must regard as one of its prime objectives minimising any adverse effects on the defence budget. We should again remind ourselves that in this case most of the remaining physical assets, however deplorable their condition, were funded by the US taxpayer and not the UK taxpayer. But the other department concerned, the Department of the
  2012
  Environment, to which I owe great affection, had specific duties laid to it in the founding White Paper Cmnd. 4506. I shall quote briefly from it:
  "the new Department will be responsible for the whole range of functions which affect people's living environment. It will cover the planning of land—where people live, work, move and enjoy themselves. It will be responsible for the construction industries, including the housing programme, and for the transport industries, including public programmes of support and development for the means of transport. There is a need to associate with these functions responsibility for other major environmental matters: the preservation of amenity, the protection of the coast and countryside … It will also have the particular responsibility of ensuring that people's rights are adequately protected wherever they are affected by the proposals of their neighbours or of public authorities. Local authorities are profoundly involved in these fields".
  A bit of that—not a lot—is now out of date. But, as one of the authors of that White Paper and as a former Permanent Secretary of the department, I am a touch dismayed by the general role which the department appears to have played so far in this affair. I am not in the least underestimating its helpful intervention on at least one occasion or indeed the particular difficulty which it faces in this case. As we have been reminded, the area includes, however damaged the goods, an area of outstanding natural beauty and two designated wildlife sites, one of which is listed as an ancient woodland. It also includes people who, in the words of the White Paper, "live", meaning housing, schools, doctors; "work", meaning employment opportunities; "move", meaning transport, and "enjoy themselves", meaning some recreational facilities.
  As the noble Earl is by now aware, I am an unreconstructed product of the days before the new commercial approach to public service—there is the beginnings of an oxymoron for you: rather like certain Ministers conducting charm offensives—before the decision to transform professional public servants into pale shadows of employees in the private sector, just on the cusp of the ending of Her Majesty's Permanent Civil Service and the creation of conditions in which to give unpopular advice is hazardous and certainly before competition for bonuses and the renewal of contracts replaced co-operation for the public good.
  In those old days, frequently tempestuous and certainly not golden, with hideous memories, for example, of Crichel Down, it would have been recognised very early on that here was a hot issue affecting both the defence budget and the whole raison d'etre of the Department of the Environment. The two Secretaries of State and their senior advisers would, I fancy, have set up a small, joint task force in short order. It would have been tasked to report in a matter of weeks on a narrow range of options, which would have sought the optimum reconciliation between two conflicting aims, which my noble friend Lord Bridges described; namely, maximum money on the one hand and, on the other, the needs of the environment, including the local population. If necessary, heads would have been knocked together; local interests consulted; other interested bodies such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, consulted; the Treasury squared away and a series of agreed options put to the two Secretaries of State. Their joint preferred option would then, I fancy, have been fed

  2013
  officially into the planning process as firm guidance and thereafter it would have been jointly followed up in the marketing phase. There would have been unofficial channels open as well.
  Of course, I have grossly oversimplified. I have made it sound easy. As we all know, in practice it is complicated, difficult and rough. It takes a little time and deliberation; it takes a lot of willpower. I make no claims as to the quality of the final outcome, but it would have been reached at the end of a sensible process in which there would have been a collective government view from the start. Mutual co-operation and accommodation are the watchwords.
  Echoing again what my noble friend Lord Bridges said, but in a rather narrower way, would it not be possible to set a pattern of the sort which I have very crudely sketched out for future large disposals? Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, what about a guidance note on the disposal of defence land? I do not know, but perhaps it has all happened in this particular case. If so, I have to say that the joint departmental reach has greatly exceeded its grasp.
  Since there are so few of us here this afternoon, I take the liberty of using yet again Mr. Macmillan's favoured quotation:
  "Quiet calm deliberation disentangles every knot".
  2.35 p.m.
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, all land in this country forms part of the national heritage, and of course more specifically for the local community in which it is situated. The land for these airfields—I refer particularly to Bentwaters and to Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire—was taken out of the local community cheaply at a time of grave national emergency for the defence of the realm and it has served this country well through the First and Second World Wars and then the Cold War. It is surely not inequitable that those same communities should have at least a say in the use of those lands now that the requirement for their use in the national interest has passed.
  In that respect, the situation in respect of the defence estate is basically different from that of a straightforward development of land, as my noble friend Lord Bridges reminded us. That was recognised first by the First Report on the Defence Estate from the Select Committee on Defence in another place. I should like to give three short quotations from that report. The first states:
  "We would strongly deprecate central targets for reduction in the estate, including rigid targets from property sales, which puts undue emphasis on a once-off capital gain as against longer-term savings".
  The second states:
  "A simple search for capital receipts does not in every case secure for the community the best long term return, however expressed: the rule requiring the best possible return must therefore be applied with due acknowledgement of potential non-cash gains to the community".
  The third states—and this is the nub:
  "The defence estate is not the same as private land, in that it came into National stewardship for a very particular purpose".
  2014
  I have one more quotation. This comes from page 58 of the White Paper on rural England and relates to defence. It states:
  "we will ensure that decisions on disposal and re-use take account of policies for regeneration and land use for the local area".
  We have had the benefit of a most expert account of the relationship of two departments, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence. There is a certain ambiguity in the light of that remark in the White Paper in that the same firm which advised the Secretary of State for the Environment is now advising the North Oxford Consortium.
  The procedure for the subsequent development of defence lands is basically different from that of private lands where at least there is an established procedure for planning inquiries. In the case of the MoD lands, it appears to have been confined to little more than an advertisement by estate agents followed by awards of tenders. We have heard details of those so far.
  Perhaps I may speak about Upper Heyford. I have to say with regret from these Benches that the experience of local interest groups, certainly in Oxfordshire, is that in dealing with the ministry they perceive that the somewhat authoritarian departmental ethos palpably so necessary in the national interest over the past 50 years—in the post-Soviet Union era—still persists in times when it is quite inappropriately, and I suggest improperly, insensitive to local views.
  What are those local views? In the case of Upper Heyford, we find the hostility of no fewer than 23 parish councils adjacent to the property, representing the whole of the district councils of Cherwell and West Oxford. They are unanimous in their view that as against the 7,500 houses for 20,000 people proposed by the consortium, a maximum of 1,000 houses should be built. The Oxfordshire County Council is of the view that the roads infrastructure represents a truly horrendous problem and all seem to be united in the fear that the proposed development will lead to an urban ribbon development between Banbury and Bicester. What alternative suggestions will the local authorities seek to put forward? The first is a proposal for some sound and potentially profitable light industrial development, which is very much called for in that particular district. A car fleet maintenance company employing 500 people (most of whom were made redundant after the departure of the Americans) has a relationship with the local community that is a model of its kind. The company has made it clear that it is considering moving to France because of the refusal of the ministry to grant leases of more than five years.
  I remind your Lordships that these airfields are by their very nature not totally brown sites. There are substantial amounts of green agricultural land lying between buildings which is extensively used for grazing. As I speak, a substantial crop of sileage is being taken off Upper Heyford. Imaginative light industrial development would lie well with this and it would, incidentally, provide huge benefits to the local community in that its commercial vehicles would be confined to designated routes as opposed to the unrestricted use by private cars from a town the size of Bicester.

  2015
  I see the priorities as the following. Either these lands are developed to the maximum benefit of the national taxpayer or they are used for a purpose more sensitive to the local communities, from which they were taken in exceptional circumstances. Is it only to be the taxpayer and the developer who will benefit and not the local community? I suggest that the procedures for reaching the decision are and have been arbitrary in the extreme, and it is to this that I urge my noble friend the Minister to give the most urgent consideration.
  2.41 p.m.
  Lord Chorley: My Lords, all noble Lords will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Bridges for enabling the House to discuss the important issue of redundant defence property. I suggest that there is nothing like a practical case such as the RAF base at Bentwaters to sharpen one's focus on the general issues. It is not very satisfactory that one should have to debate an issue such as this on a Friday afternoon. It is not a trivial issue, not least because the Bentwaters case is not an isolated one. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, most of my remarks will be directed to the remarkably similar case of the huge former American base at Upper Heyford near Banbury.
  We have witnessed the extraordinary cases of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, and the proposal to dispose of Admiralty Arch. For obvious reasons, those have evoked a huge public outcry. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to Orford Ness. I did not intend to refer to Orford Ness, but since it has been mentioned I should immediately declare an interest as chairman of the National Trust, which acquired it from the Ministry of Defence. What the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, says is absolutely correct. It was left in the most appalling condition. But the position is somewhat worse than that. It was sold to the National Trust, with a good deal of taxpayers' money from the Department of the Environment, on the basis that most of the pollutants—mainly asbestos—had been cleared up. Having received an, albeit oral, assurance that it had been cleaned up, I was told yesterday that the trust will have to spend approximately £100,000 to remove what still remains—not just asbestos but other rather dangerous and nasty toxic chemicals. I did not particularly want to deal with that case because I wish to keep off National Trust territory.
  The cases involving large air force bases in the countryside are in their different ways just as worrying. There are common worrying features—an almost paranoid desire to push through sales with little or no public discussion or regard to local opinion and little consideration of the wider countryside, nature conservation, planning and the circumstances in which the sites were acquired and all, so far as I can tell, with the overt aim of extracting the highest possible cash value for private development with all the dangers to quality and design.
  As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, these places were acquired by compulsory purchase at a moment of grave national crisis. They tend to be on relatively open, high, desolate plateaux because, after all, that is what makes a good airfield. Why should we
  2016
  suppose that they are suitable for residential or light industrial development? There is no reason why that should be the case. Whether in landscape or general planning terms, they are not. The process by which it is being done reminds one of the Crichel Down case. I suggest that something of a moral issue is involved.
  Since the war dozens of RAF airfields all over the country have been disposed of. However, in most cases they have reverted broadly to what they were, which is agriculture. Why suddenly this change of attitude? The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested that it would be suitable for PPG7 to deal with the matter. He had some authoritative support from my noble friend Lord Bancroft, with which I agree.
  One would like to know more of the genesis of the references in last autumn's White Paper on rural England. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to page 58 but there are also references on page 131 to the use of land for housing. There are fine words about consulting the local community and so forth and it is easy to see that in the remote vastness of Marsham Street Towers it appeared to be so sensible. In the words of the White Paper:
  "Before building on greenfield sites the full potential of derelict and degraded land should be exploited".
  "Exploit" is a rather emotive word. But what about the scale of development, the landscape and the planning context? One simply cannot generalise in this way. Moreover, what about the way in which the proposals are being tackled? It would appear that the maximum pressure is applied to the local authority to agree to dense and quite unsuitable development.
  I turn to Upper Heyford. I shall try not to repeat what has been said. The MoD selected a consortium of well known housing developers. Their proposal was to build 7,500 houses and, for all I know, it still is. That is the equivalent of a small county town to be set on a treeless plateau. The consultation draft of the county structure plan suggested 5,000 houses. But even 1,000 houses, one-seventh of the original notion, is not really appropriate in this quiet Oxfordshire countryside of the Cherwell Valley, an area of local conservation.
  In the case of Upper Heyford, there is an additional consideration because the base abuts on to one of the most important 18th century landscaped gardens in England; indeed, historically, in Europe. One of the greatest contributions this country has made to European civilisation is the 18th century development of the notion of the landscape garden. It was a unique concept and began at Rousham, where the work of William Kent reigns supreme. I believe that it is the only work of William Kent which has survived completely without being altered by Capability Brown. Historically, it is very important. Rousham was the forerunner of the great landscape gardens at Stowe, Fountains, Stourhead, Blenheim and so forth. That is not my personal opinion. It is the opinion of, for example, Sir Angus Stirling, the former director-general of the National Trust, and internationally of the International Council on Monuments and Sites. Moreover, Rousham remains one of the best preserved of those landscape gardens, thanks to the efforts of the family which owns it. Its setting is quite crucial. All that is to be put at risk.

  2017
  So far as I can make out, there has been no environmental impact assessment—that is, there is no publicly available environmental impact assessment. There are other wider issues. For example, it has been estimated that the new town would involve no fewer than 55,000 vehicle movements per day in the quiet Cherwell Valley on small country roads.
  The proponents of the development argue that that would not be the case; that the town would be, as it were, self-contained. On the other hand, a recent independent study of a housing estate in nearby Bicester showed that the average worker there travels 180 miles per week by car. In other words, he goes outside the development for his work. That is far and away above the average for a normal country town. That is without taking account of the lorries and heavy vehicles.
  Where will it all end? I suggest that, if this proposal goes ahead, it will end by going beyond what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman said. He said that it would create a corridor between Oxford and Bicester. I suggest that it would go all the way along the Cherwell Valley and create an urban sprawl all the way to Banbury. Is that what we want to see? How can it possibly be argued that that is consistent with the Government's policy of sustainable development or the spirit of the White Paper? In these cases, whether it be Bentwaters or Upper Heyford, we need a thorough and open process of consultation and study. Both the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Bancroft suggested something on similar lines.
  Why is there this stampede? Why is there this hurry when we are about to make irreversible decisions in relation to important landscape? Is it only quick cash values which matter? We talk enthusiastically about the peace dividend. Is this how we wish to spend it? I hope not.
  2.52 p.m.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in speaking from these Benches on a subject which is part of my normal brief—the countryside and conservation—I am speaking also on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who is very sorry that he cannot be here today because he had to go to Brussels on parliamentary business. But he is obviously greatly concerned, partly because of his defence responsibilities and partly because of the correspondence which we have received from the local Liberal Democrat group on the Suffolk Coastal District Council.
  Also, I have been asked to say a few words about Upper Heyford by my noble friend Lady Robson who again is unfortunately unable to be here today. The whole question of Upper Heyford has been fairly well aired through the speeches of noble Lords. However, I believe that the points coming to light, which I wish to underline, are the same in both cases. It is clearly in respect of the Suffolk case that we are asking for a detailed response from the Government. Equally, the Question relates to similar procedures being followed for other redundant defence property.
  2018
  In common with other noble Lords who have spoken, I suggest that there are two glaring issues which stand out. The first is the lack of consultation with local inhabitants, and the second is the lack of transparency in the procedures. The leader of the local Liberal Democrat Group in Suffolk, Councillor Christine Block, has written to say:
  "It seems to us that this is a planning matter with far reaching implications. Under the circumstances we feel we should know more than the Ministry of Defence seems prepared to tell us".
  Then, she goes on to say:
  "We understand that a new contract with the MoD has been exchanged; we do not know if the price has been reduced/re-negotiated. We do not know who the financial backers are for all or any of the proposed development … We have been able to discover almost nothing about the Chris Parker Group. I believe his last company went bankrupt. I believe he 'has done some work' for the MoD … No one in the demolition business in this country appears to know anything about him or his company".
  It is quite clear that the local authorities are finding it very difficult to deal with the problem, which very much affects both them and their electors, in a situation where the Ministry of Defence is not producing answers that are necessary; or, indeed, exposing the whole process, as it surely should be, to the same kind of examination which would happen if it was not coming from the Ministry of Defence and was a simple planning matter.
  With regard to Upper Heyford, the situation is very much the same. The North Oxford Consortium (a combination of three housebuilders) has been chosen without any public consultation by the MoD, using the commercial property branch of Savills estate agency. As a result, plans have been produced which, as we heard today, have generated considerable opposition. We have heard about the local parishes which object; we have heard about the National Trust and English Heritage which have written, opposing the plans put forward by the consortium; and there is major county council opposition to the plan because of the absurd cost of providing an adequate transport network for a development of the size suggested.
  We have to ask if land acquired in this particular way is really the property of the MoD to dispose of in the way that best suits it and the Treasury. The answer given by noble Lords in the various speeches which have been given today is surely, emphatically no. There is a much more general interest to be consulted. There are very real principles about how we treat our countryside and how we deal with matters like the area of outstanding natural beauty in Suffolk; or, indeed, the particular areas and pieces of land that were drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
  I feel that we are due to receive not only an answer from the Government as to the particular situation regarding both developments, but also, I hope—if we do not get it from them today, I suggest that we go on trying to get it—a commitment by the Ministry of Defence that, when dealing with disposals of land in the future, it will undertake a radically different attitude to such disposals than that which it has taken to date or as regards the two particular cases.
  3 p.m.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, I wish to start by paying a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and indeed to his wife, Lady Bridges, for their commitment on this matter and for their concern, which I am sure is shared throughout the House.
  First, I underline the national context. The Department of the Environment estimates that there will be 4·4 million more households in England in 2016 than in 1991. If this estimate were to become a target, and building and planning policies remain unchanged, by 2016 an area of countryside larger than Greater London could be lost to urbanisation. This has huge implications for traffic growth. Rural traffic is already predicted to grow faster than urban traffic by at least 130 per cent., and perhaps by as much as 270 per cent. by 2025.
  For any of us who cares about the quality of life within the British Isles this has all the potential of a nightmare as our all too limited remaining countryside is raped. Where will any of us have the space to relax, to walk, to regenerate, to write verse, to paint, to breathe or to think creatively? The abandonment of nature—one of our precious assets—could well be seen in history as national vandalism of the kind we deplore in the behaviour of lager louts and street hooligans. But against that we of course all have to consider carefully the significance of the need for homes and jobs—two other vital hallmarks of a decent society.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has posed searching questions as regards Bentwaters. We shall want to hear convincing replies from the Minister. For my part I wish to emphasise what seem to me to be three key questions which have implications for national policy.
  First, what relative weighting have the Government given to the need for employment, jobs, recreation, homes and environmental protection in this case, including the restoration of countryside of outstanding natural beauty? Secondly, how exactly, and why did the Government come to accept the subsequently abortive offer of the Maharishi Foundation? Was not the determining factor in reality that the land must go at all costs to the highest bidder? Thirdly, what has been the nature of the Government's relationship with the local authority? Have they been sensitively and co-operatively looking together at the various possibilities and how they could best help with the most sensible solution, or have they been somewhat domineering and manipulative, pressing their preferred options?
  There are, of course, other significant questions arising from the Bentwaters sale which might usefully be underlined. How far are the Government satisfied that the current purchaser has the resources to see through his aspirations to their fulfilment, or how great is the danger of his selling on before fulfilment? That question quickly brings us to whether a sufficiently tight legal agreement has been formulated which would place firm conditions on the future use of the land. Is it remotely conceivable that, as things stand, the site could even end up as an airfield once again? What would be the environmental implications of that? We also need to
  2020
  know whether the MoD is contributing—as I understand was recommended by the inspector and agreed by it—to restoration of the technical site and, if not, why not?
  As I say, to these and other questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, we need firm answers, free from prevarication or evasiveness. What is clear is that it has all been an unhappy, messy saga with tears, hopes, disappointments, frustrations, muddle, anxiety and general confusion. That is in no way an acceptable model for the future. It is a saga literally on the doorstep of the Secretary of State for the Environment; a fact which should, frankly, keep him awake at nights.
  To return to the national dimensions, in its report on the defence estate, the Defence Committee in the other place recommended that the MoD and the Department of the Environment should press urgently ahead with general planning guidance on re-use of MoD sites. The Defence Committee drew attention to the strategic policy guidance which had been formulated on the sale of National Health Service estate and argued that MoD sites should be treated on at least an equal basis. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has of course referred to that. The Defence Committee also argued that there should be a formal obligation on the MoD to notify the appropriate authorities and major voluntary conservation bodies of possible disposal of sites of special scientific interest and other land of equivalent interest to facilitate environmental protection and that rights of first refusal should be given to those purchasers most evidently capable of preserving the natural heritage.
  The sale of Bentwaters seems to me to have been a conspicuous illustration that little of this has happened. Why, my Lords, why? That is the question which must be addressed. We are dealing with what is in part an area of outstanding natural beauty, with two designated country wildlife sites, including ancient woodland. Why has the concern and guidance of the Department of the Environment been so sadly lacking?
  My wife and I are glad to be subscribers to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is the respected chairman. We see the CPRE as in the frontline of the stand for a civilised nation. As regards the wider dimensions of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, stretching way beyond Bentwaters to the MoD estate as a whole, the council makes several highly sensible recommendations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has already referred but which bear repetition.
  First, the redevelopment and re-use of redundant military bases should be consistent with wider land use and environmental policies such as reducing rural land-take for development and reducing the need to travel. Secondly, a comprehensive environmental audit should be undertaken of the defence estate to update that carried out by the Nugent Committee more than 20 years ago and provide a strategic context for considering individual development schemes. Thirdly, specific national planning guidance should be issued to guide the redevelopment of redundant military bases similar to that issued by the Department of the Environment in 1987 to guide the redevelopment of redundant hospitals in the green belt.

  2021
  Fourthly, adequate procedures should be established for the disposal of military land to ensure that land of environmental value is not damaged if environmentally acceptable owners or uses can be identified. Fifthly, the sale of defence land should not necessarily be to the highest bidder and should reflect the wider public interest in the future use of the site, including environmental considerations.
  The council goes on to suggest that, when considering options for reuse,
  "it is essential to distinguish between military development that has only been allowed because it was in the national defence interest and that which might in other circumstances also have been in an acceptable location for other development. Much more restrictive planning criteria should apply to the former sites and a leading option should be their return to agricultural or another appropriate 'soft' end use".
  At times this afternoon I have wondered whether this was turning into a debate about Upper Heyford. Of course, Upper Heyford raises serious considerations. For a moment I should like to dwell on some of the wider issues arising from the remarks by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
  In relation to housing, the Council for the Protection of Rural England argues that the following questions should be addressed before considering redundant military bases as appropriate for new settlement. Is the level of housing development proposed in the structure plan as a whole acceptable, or is the government housing requirement set out in regional planning guidance too high? Is a new settlement being considered as an escape valve for a few thousand houses which cannot easily be located elsewhere, and, if so, should the option of reducing the overall housing requirement be considered? Is a new settlement the best practical environmental option for locating new housing development? What about the sites in urban areas or those in and around existing settlements? The Government's planning policy statement on housing states that new settlement should be considered only when,
  "the alternative of expansion of towns or villages would represent a less satisfactory method of providing land for new housing that is needed".
  What evidence has the local authority produced to show that a new settlement is the best practical environmental option? Is there a strategic environmental impact assessment of the plan, its housing policies and the different locations where houses might be put?
  What is the impact on the countryside of imposing an entirely new settlement pattern on an area where the existing settlements have grown organically through time? What guarantees are there that the pressure for housing development on green fields around existing towns and villages will be reduced just because a new settlement is proposed? PPG3 states that new settlements need to be considered alongside,
  "policies of restraint to protect the rejected alternative locations from development pressure".
  2022
  What will stop the new settlement from becoming a growth poll, fuelling further development and in-migration? Are claims about the self-sufficiency of the new settlement really justified? For example, will the new residents really work and shop in the new settlement itself? Are the numbers of houses proposed likely significantly to have an impact on the overall housing requirements?
  What guarantees are being provided that the development will be well designed and provide a wide range of community facilities, affordable housing and infrastructure? PPG3 states,
  "the opportunity to start a new settlement will be rare and should not be wasted".
  In addition, there is also the evidence which indicates that commercial sites in the countryside too often result in people driving from towns to work in the country, thereby aggravating traffic problems, when there are suitable sites for the commercial development in the towns themselves. This is not to deny the need for more local employment opportunity in small enterprises in some traditional villages, allowing sensitively converted barns to be used for workshops rather than for second homes.
  It would be helpful to know the Government's thinking on the principles enshrined in these questions, both in relation to Bentwaters and in terms of wider strategic thinking on the MoD estate or, indeed, other areas of Crown land that may become surplus and where wider public interests than profit alone should be taken into account.
  The greatest challenge to government in a decent society is how they strike a dynamic and civilised compromise between the discipline and drive of the market and necessary intervention for the common good. If the common good in our crowded islands demands anything, it surely demands that the sordid clutter of urban jungles, concrete motorways and too often vulgar ribbon development spawned across the country is balanced by the joy and priceless value of well preserved open space. We must have room to breathe. We must make rational judgments that will stand the test of time. In surplus defence land there is an opportunity to work towards the right balance. The Minister is a very civilised man. We look to him for clear answers on the calamitous saga of Bentwaters and for reassurance on the MoD's general policy for the future.
  Lessons must be learnt and applied to future sales. As Dryden so well put it:
  "How blest is he who leads a country life
  Unvexed with anxious cares and void of strife!
  Who studying civil peace, and shunning civil rage,
  Enjoyed his youth, and now enjoys his age".
  Not a bad thought, my Lords, for the last business on a Friday afternoon.
  3.12 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, this has been a useful short debate and I am grateful to the noble

  2023
  Lord, Lord Bridges, and all noble Lords who have spoken on a matter which is naturally of great concern to those who live in the vicinity of Bentwaters.
  As the size of our Armed Forces has reduced in the aftermath of the Cold War, so has the need for some of the establishments and installations which were required to accommodate and support them. The resulting disposals programme would have been substantial in its own right, but the decision of our American allies to follow a similar course of action has led to further significant properties being identified for disposal, of which Bentwaters is one. In many ways, Bentwaters typifies the difficulties which we face in disposing of surplus sites. The size of the site, at over 1,000 acres, would not be a problem if it were simply open land but an airforce base is far more than that. Bentwaters includes some 2 million square feet of technical buildings. It has 22 hardened aircraft shelters and associated runways. There are also some 68 married quarters on the site and, in common with other American bases, modern amenities including a community centre, theatre, health centre and shopping facilities. The base is served by its own private utilities, including water and sewerage.
  The Americans' intention to withdraw from Bentwaters was announced on 26th August 1992, with the withdrawal to be completed by 30th September 1993. A working group was set up in September 1992 to consider the options for the future of the site. Bentwaters, together with its sister base at Woodbridge, was home to some 13,500 service personnel and civilian employees and their families. The effect of closure on the local community was expected to be significant and economic regeneration was one of the key considerations. While there are some 600 privately owned houses at Rendlesham Park and Watersfield Park adjoining the base, it is some way from any major conurbation. That inevitably also influenced decisions on the way ahead.
  The working group comprised officials from my department, the Suffolk Coastal District Council as the local planning authority, Suffolk County Council and the Department of the Environment's regional office in Bedford. In September 1993, an examination in public was held to consider changes to the Suffolk County Council's structure plan. That was used as a public forum for the expression and crystallisation of the ideas formulated by the working group. The findings of the review, which became available on 25th January 1994, were the subject of further detailed liaison, and a revised draft planning brief was broadly agreed in June 1994. That was substantially ratified and formally incorporated within the local plan and county structure plan in September 1994.
  From that, noble Lords will see that detailed consultation took place with a view to obtaining the broadest measure of agreement on the future of Bentwaters when it passed out of Government ownership. I make a point of saying that, because some noble Lords suggested that the MoD had been fairly indifferent to the future of the site and had not acted as responsibly as perhaps it should have done. I reject that.
  2024
  I must add that environmental concerns, including the fact that much of the site lies in an area of outstanding natural beauty, are not strictly a matter for my department. They would be a matter for the local planning authority, which would no doubt take account of national planning guidance in considering what re-use might be acceptable. The AONB designation does not prevent development taking place. Rather, it requires that it be carried out in a sympathetic and acceptable way. The AONB is protected in the planning brief. It is worth noting that much of the existing infrastructure at Bentwaters was in place when the AONB designation was conferred.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that English Nature was not properly consulted. English Nature is a statutory consultee, and my advice is that it was consulted by the local authority.
  The base was formally placed on the market in June 1994, with expressions of interest invited by 2nd September. Those expressions of interest were assessed on the basis of compatibility with the planning brief. They were assessed, too, on their overall viability and the availability of financial backing. As noble Lords will be aware, that process led to the selection of the Maharishi Foundation as the prospective purchaser, with its proposal to establish an educational facility with a related science and business park.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked why the offer from the Maharishi Foundation was accepted without our having seen a full business plan. In fact, there were detailed plans for the site. It is true that they were not in the form of a commercial business plan, but that is not particularly significant. The foundation is not a commercial organisation. What mattered was that it had proper ideas for the site which appeared viable and which were consistent with the planning brief, and that it had the means to pay at the end of the day.
  The foundation's proposal was not welcomed in some quarters. But at the end of the day the deal was not finalised because it proved impossible to reach agreement on some elements of the sale. The exact nature of the unresolved issues is commercially confidential between my department and the foundation. I am sure that noble Lords will understand if I do not comment further.
  It was accordingly decided, in July 1995, to discuss the possibility of sale with one of the underbidders. In September 1995, heads of terms were agreed with the Chris Parker Group of Companies. That provided for Mr. Parker to obtain planning permission for the site before completion of the contract. Again, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will understand why I cannot disclose details of the purchase consideration. What I can say is that the often quoted figure of £16 million is considerably wide of the mark.
  My noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked whether we were satisfied that the Chris Parker Group was financially sound enough to carry through the transaction. The answer is that we have made thorough and extensive inquiries and are wholly satisfied—as satisfied as we can possibly be—that the necessary financial resources are available to complete the purchase.

  2025
  The details of the planning application submitted by the Chris Parker Group are not a matter for my department. However, Mr. Parker was aware of the agreed planning brief and the environmental context in which any planning application would be considered. I understand that the planning application included 750 holiday chalets, subsequently reduced to 550, a business and technology park, a leisure park, golf course, gun club, water sports centre, equestrian centre and wildlife country park.
  In rejecting the application on 18th April, the planning committee of the Suffolk Coastal District Council referred, among other things, to the scale of the leisure development, the possible environmental impact of the creation of the lakes and the potential impact of the loss of acid grassland on local wildlife. Quite clearly, the local authority has taken environmental issues into consideration in determining that planning application. Whether or not they have struck the right balance between those matters and the interests of the local communities in bringing the facilities back into use and creating new employment is open to debate. Local press reports suggest that some residents strongly supported the application and were unhappy with the outcome. Others expressed concern at the impact of the redevelopment proposals on the local road network and on nearby villages.
  I understand that the Chris Parker Group submitted a revised application which was considered yesterday. I am advised that the planning committee resolved to defer the decision until a meeting of the full planning committee on 4th July. But I remain confident that Bentwaters will soon become the centre for a thriving community, while preserving the local environment. That is the kind of balance to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in particular referred.
  A number of noble Lords suggested that the MoD had not acted responsibly in this matter. I believe, on the contrary, that the MoD has acted wholly responsibly. We placed the property on the market to see what price the market would be prepared to pay and on what conditions. We have not tried to drive the price up, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, seemed to suggest. We adhered totally to the planning process; we consulted widely; we agreed many conditions in the planning brief and we looked after the site for nearly three years at considerable cost.
  In the end we have a duty to obtain the best price for the taxpayer. Of course, we must approach that objective in a responsible fashion. I have sought to demonstrate that we have done just that. To suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman appeared to do, that we should somehow subordinate the taxpayers' interests to a subjective set of considerations which might run contrary to the needs and wishes of local people or which might ultimately prove unviable, is quite wrong.
  The noble Lord, Lord Judd, dwelt with some emphasis on his view that restoration and reclamation of land in AONBs should be a priority. As I understand it, the Chris Parker Group's proposals incorporate ideas
  2026
  for land reclamation. But the real point is that the MoD does not have a monopoly on good ideas. It does not and should not dictate the future uses of sites. That is the role of the local planning process.
  Perhaps I can turn away for a moment from the specifics of Bentwaters. I should like to deal with the wider issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in his Question.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords,—
  Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me. We are running up against the time deadline and, with respect to him, I cannot give way.
  As I said earlier, environmental considerations are a matter for the local planning department. It would not be possible for my department to say how a site is used once we have sold it and have no further legal interest in it. However, for most larger sites it is normal either to sell the property with the benefit of a planning brief or to seek planning permission for redevelopment prior to the sale. That approach means not only that my department's financial interests are secured, but also that a purchaser has the best available information on what redevelopment may be permitted.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said that the future use of a site like Bentwaters should depend on liaison at the centre between the DoE and the Ministry of Defence. With respect, I wonder whether he realises the implications of that. It is worth making the point that the planning process is deliberately a local one. Local interests are protected by the local planning authority. What the noble Lord suggests is a centralisation of that process. I do not believe that that is helpful. The full planning advice is provided by the DoE through the Government Office for the Eastern Region in this instance, and what we seek to bring about and what is appropriate, I suggest, is local implementation of a national policy. That is what has happened and is happening at Bentwaters.
  The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman spoke specifically about RAF Upper Heyford. I have some material here which I would have given had we not been running up against the clock. I will write to them about that. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Marlesford that the MoD was a poor steward of the land it occupies. I do not know how many defence sites my noble friend has knowledge of. I suspect it is quite a few in his role as head of the CPRE. I can only tell him that the care taken by the MoD in looking after its estate is the subject of constant praise from statutory bodies, voluntary bodies and individuals. I will put my noble friend on the mailing list of the MoD environmental magazine Sanctuary, which this year celebrates its 25th anniversary. It is almost true to say that wherever MoD training land is found there is a rare species of animal or a rare species of plant. With all respect to my noble friend, I believe that he was wholly wrong in what he said in delivering the strictures that he did about MoD stewardship of the land.
  One other consideration is the possibility of contamination on sites which are to be sold. It is my department's long-standing policy to arrange for the

  2027
  removal of any unexploded ordnance and any contamination by radiological, bacteriological or microbiological materials. That is because the expertise to deal with these materials is not widely available. However, it is for a purchaser to resolve with the local planning authority what remediation may be required to permit the commercial use of a site.
  In April of this year my department introduced a new policy requiring land quality statements for all properties passed for disposal after that date. I believe that this is a useful step forward.
  Coming back full circle to Bentwaters, I am not aware that there is any suggestion that problems of contamination exist there. The problems are therefore
  2028
  the more straightforward ones of how to balance the economic needs of the community with the desire to preserve the beauty of the countryside. I would be tempted to refer to "unspoilt beauty", but that would be far from the truth, as the countryside of East Anglia as elsewhere has been changed by man over the millennia. In recent generations, defence needs led to the creation of a number of air bases, not all of which are now required. New uses must be found for these sites and I believe that in the interests of all concerned a satisfactory solution is now in prospect to secure the future of Bentwaters.
  House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past three o'clock.

  Beef Export Ban: EU Procedures
  Beef Export Ban: EU Procedures
  Wild Bird Cover Set-Aside Option
  Wild Bird Cover Set-Aside Option
  Liberian Civil War and Flag of Convenience Vessels
  Liberian Civil War and Flag of Convenience Vessels