My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and some other Western creditors have received a request from the Government of Poland for some additional short-term financial assistance in addition to the debt rescheduling and new commercial credits which we have already provided. We and our partners are giving consideration to this request.

My Lords, while thanking the Minister may I ask whether in present circumstances there is not a need to increase the stability of the Polish Government? Has the Minister noted the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday that Poland is faced with economic catastrophe, and may this not undermine the stability of its Government? May I ask one thing more? While one appreciates the need for delicacy in Western aid, would it not be possible to prevent reaction by allocating any aid specifically to the purpose of paying interest charges on debts to the West? Might that not lead to co-operation rather than confrontation?

My Lords, of course the Polish debts go wider than just interest charges on debts already incurred; for example, capital repayments are now due. However, we shall certainly do what we can within the limits of our resources. To follow the earlier supplementary of the noble Lord, we would of course want to stop short of interfering in Poland's internal affairs.

My Lords, if I have read the Question aright, how is my noble friend in a position to answer in this Parliament for an application made to the EEC?

My Lords, the application to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, refers was in fact made to individual members of the EEC, including the United Kingdom, and that is why I was able to give the answer I did.

My Lords, may we thank the noble Lord for his Answer in which he said that this request was being considered? We noticed that there was no reference to it in the Summit communiqué. We fully understand the delicacy of the situation and we are grateful to the Government for considering it.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the council will concentrate first on identifying the needs in each country, and then encourage funding for projects from all possible sources. In the United Nations system we expect to contribute to such projects chiefly through what we put into the United Nations Development Programme. This provides each country with money to meet its national priorities for technical co-operation from the whole system. We shall also be ready to consider within the limits of our resources requests from individual countries for aid for sound projects identified by the council.

My Lords, while appreciating that Answer, may I ask the Minister this: Does not the UNESCO constitution involve the assurance of the free flow of information and ideals across frontiers? Is it not the case that, in addition to UNESCO, only seven countries have decided to make contributions for this purpose? Does not the fact that the only two western countries are the Netherlands and France mean that the third world may feel a further rebuff to the unfortunate dialogue that has taken place over the last seven years?

My Lords, yes; of course UNESCO is concerned with the free flow of information. Regarding the last supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, the information I have is that the Netherlands, India, Mexico and Iraq have already pledged to make money available to the fund and several other countries, including France and Norway, have said they hope to contribute. Other potential donors have argued strongly that the IPGC should not be a financing body.

My Lords, would the Minister agree that, in view of the grossly distorted views put out by a good deal—not all—of the Western press about the third world, it is very necessary to encourage third world communications not just among third world countries but to the West as well? Although I know that the noble Lord has not yet had time to consider this, will he bring to the attention of his noble and right honourable friends the Zimbabwean News Agency, which has been set up this week, and consider that as one of the projects which might very well qualify for the aid he is promising?

My Lords, I am obviously unable to give any commitment to any particular project, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will understand; but I most certainly agree with him that communications and the free flow of information are absolutely vital.

My Lords, would the Government consider making it a matter of high priority to disseminate full information about the facts of world poverty and hunger, which are so lamentably unknown in most of the advanced countries of the world?

My Lords, public relations is always a problem, but we will certainly see that we do our best.

My Lords, while I think the whole House understands the rather unfortunate background to the whole UNESCO discussions on communications, it still remains an extremely important subject. Could the Government bear in mind the importance of the relations between North and South which will arise at the Mexico conference, and help to smooth some of the difficulties along this path before then?

Yes, my Lords. The noble Baroness is, of course, quite right and we shall do everything we can to further this aim at the Mexico conference.

My Lords, would it not be advisable not to use the expression "third world" in this connection? Nobody seems to know exactly what it means. It comprises highly developed and extremely undeveloped countries.

Yes, my Lords. Snap phrases seem to be all the rage and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on this.

My Lords, in view of the concern that there is on the question of communications, have the Government any reason to justify the proposed cuts in the external services of the BBC? Will there be an opportunity for this matter to be discussed in this House, in view of the considerable concern in all sections of it?

My Lords, that is rather wide of the original Question. But noble Lords will have an opportunity to question the Government on this matter on Tuesday, because there is a Question down by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Rule 42(4) of the Prison Rules 1964 gives a governor discretion to deliver to the prisoner or to return an article which is sent to him. The use of official typewriters is regulated by the system of privileges prescribed under Rule 4 of the 1964 Rules. For security reasons a prisoner is only allowed to have limited access to a typewriter under proper staff supervision.

My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for all his answers, even that one, may I ask him whether he is aware that, according to my information, the governor of the prison recommended that this prisoner should have a typewriter, and that permission was refused by the Home Office, which I am afraid must mean the noble Lord?

My Lords, I was not aware that the governor had expressed that view, but the situation is this. Mr. O'Doherty is in the highest security category, Category A. He is not allowed to have a typewriter in his cell, as staff resources do not permit adequate supervision at that prison.

My Lords, would the noble Lord explain what possible harm could come to anybody if he had this typewriter?

Yes, my Lords. There could be security implications in people using a typewriter unsupervised.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this establishment I have no cell in which to use my typewriter, not even a share of a desk? Could he consider come reallocation of privileges, or use his influence to that effect, so that noble Lords who are absentees, of however ancient lineage, are not given priority over working Peers newly arrived?

My Lords, the noble Lord must pursue his case through the usual channels.

My Lords, is the regulation in connection with typewriters in cells a new regulation, or has it been in force for some time through successive Governments?

No, my Lords. It has been in force for some time. The rule is set out in what is called a Circular Instruction dated 1976. It was Circular Instruction 5 of 1976, and that sets out in detail the interpretation of the rule.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, under the convention, the European Commission on Human Rights does not take a decision. Such decisions are a matter for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe or the European Court of Human Rights. In those cases where the United Kingdom has been declared to have been in breach of the convention, appropriate measures have been taken which are designed to prevent similar breaches.

My Lords, while being grateful to the noble Lord, even for that extraordinarily evasive Answer, may I ask whether he can give us some indication of what measures have been taken, because those who are interested in these matters have not been able to discover any?

Yes, my Lords, certainly. There have been four decisions by the Court concerning breaches by the United Kingdom. There was the Golder case relating to prison rules, where the rules have since been modified; there was the Tyrer case which related to birching in the Isle of Man, and the Isle of Man court has been made aware that the European Court had held birching to be a violation; there was the Sunday Times thalidomide case, following which legislation is currently before Parliament; and there was the Irish State case, relating to tortures or ill-treatment, where administrative action to prevent a recurrence has been put in hand.

My Lords, was not the Minister's Answer rather disingenuous, in that the Commission may not arrive at decisions, but it does express opinions? Did not the Commission express the opinion, in the case of Golder and others, that restrictions on prisoners' correspondence were not justified under Article 8(2) of the convention, and that, in particular, prisoners ought to be allowed to correspond freely with their legal advisers? Since the report of the Commission appeared nine months ago, what steps have the Government taken to facilitate correspondence between prisoners and their advisers? And does not the noble Lord consider it a particularly grievous violation of the convention, that they should continue to interfere with correspondence between prisoners and their advisers, when the Home Office and its agents are a party to the litigation?

My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, following the Golder case, which related to correspondence between a prisoner and his legal advisers, the prison rules have been changed.

My Lords, is it the case that the Home Office is preventing prisoners from taking proceedings in court and taking the initial steps to achieve that?

My Lords, the Question that I was asked related to the European Commission, and I answered in connection with the case of Mr. Golder, that the prison rules have been modified. I think that the point put to me by the noble and learned Lord goes rather wide of that.

My Lords, if I may say so it is a relevant question. What is the position following the Silver case, if the noble Lord has immediate information about that?

My Lords, the Silver case is currently still before the court and therefore I cannot comment on it.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which is in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for having acceded to the suggestions made in discussions and having arrived at a satisfactory conclusion.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 24, at end insert ("and wherever practicable shall, whenever a new pedestrian crossing or crossing of similar purpose is being constructed or laid out, provide ramps constructed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings BS 5810:1979 or such other code as the Secretary of State may prescribe.")

My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. Kerbs are a great hindrance to people in wheelchairs and one day if I do not turn up in your Lordships' House it may be because I have met with an accident on one of these kerbs.

My Lords, we have of course discussed this matter very fully at an earlier stage of this Bill and I think I should make it plain to the House, as we are now on the Report stage, that this is the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. It is not for the Government but for her to determine what amendments she is or is not prepared to accept, and I hope that before the House makes up its mind on this point she will make her own position quite clear on what is recognised as a very important Private Member's Bill which the Government, as I think she and her noble friends will agree, have already improved in three important respects. The Government are gladly doing this because it is a Bill which makes a considerable contribution in the International Year of Disabled People. The Government have given it time, we support it and wish to see it improved, and that is why we have tabled these major amendments which I think are welcomed from all sides of the House.

As I have said, we debated this particular amendment at considerable length. I must tell the noble Baroness now what I have said to her privately: that I have taken advice on this matter and that advice is that it is not acceptable. But I do not think she needs to take that in quite the way it sounds. It is actually unnecessary because what she is asking for is the sort of thing that local authorities can do and in fact do in any event. She is asking that where a new pedestrian crossing is being constructed or laid out, ramps should be provided which are in accordance with a code of practice. These are the sort of matters which a local authority will consider. Therefore, I hope very much that she will accept that her amendment is unnecessary, because what she is asking for can in fact be done now. I think it is very important for the House to recognise that point. The Government are indeed quite prepared to encourage highway authorities to provide ramps wherever they can at new crossings, and we believe that in fact this would meet the objective of this amendment and therefore it becomes unnecessary.

The noble Baroness raised a quite separate point about the circular which will accompany the Bill and I should like to repeat an assurance, which I have already given, that of course the Government wish this Bill to be implemented, not only in law but in spirit. Therefore, the circular will indicate the sort of points which have been discussed. I cannot say that every single point raised by the noble Baroness will be put in precisely those words, but I can assure your Lordships that we want the Bill to work, we want the points that have been raised to be taken into account by local authorities, and we shall of course look carefully at what has been said in the House. We have given an assurance that we shall consult, as always, on circulars, not only the local authorities, which would be quite proper, but also other organisations, which would be very unusual. In the light of these assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I, by leave, ask her whether she can at least indicate whether the circular, as in the Scottish Bill, might make the question of access around buildings a material consideration for granting planning consent, because access outside the building as well as inside the building is equally important?

My Lords, by leave of the House, because we are on Report stage, of course we want the circular which accompanies this Bill for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland to be similar to the provisions in the Scottish circular, and I hope that will be done.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much and I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my amendment.

moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 7, line 29, at end insert ("providing always that the bodies shall be independent of the persons undertaking the provision of the said buildings or premises and shall in no way be connected by pecuniary or any other interest in either the provision or the use of the said buildings or premises".")

My Lords, may I briefly support this amendment. It does seem eminently reasonable as it allows time to decide who the bodies will be and merely ensures that there will be independent judges.

My Lords, I, of course, appreciate the motives and the reasons which have led the noble Viscount to put down this amendment. The body which is to adjudicate in cases where the developer does not propose to follow the BSI code of practice needs to have the confidence of the public. If it is not independent of the developer, that confidence may be harder to gain. I hope the noble Viscount will recognise that there are a number of criteria which have to be borne in mind when the Secretary of State comes to make regulations prescribing the bodies. Independence is clearly one of them. Expertise is another. Some of these criteria, of course, may in fact be in conflict and the Secretary of State will need to form a very clear judgment taking into account the views of all parties who will need to be consulted. I would think that to amend the Bill in this way would be very much to tie his hands.

What we have offered to do is to have wide consultation over the question of the prescribed bodies. We certainly could not write something into the Bill before we had discussed the matter with local authorities because clearly they are very much involved, and it would be a very unusual procedure, and one which I think would be most unwelcome to them, to introduce it into a Bill at this stage. We have also offered to consult with voluntary organisations over this matter. Just as we have offered full consultation in Scotland it would be appropriate and right that we should have full consultation in England and Wales. It would make it even more difficult if as a result of consultations in Scotland one issue was decided there which was rather different from any decision we might reach in this country.

So I believe it is better to leave the situation as it is and not to include this amendment in the Bill. I see what the noble Viscount wants to do. This, after all, is the kind of point that can be taken into account during the consultation period. I would hope the noble Viscount would recognise that he does not lose it by not writing it in. On the contrary, he will be able to make his points during the consultation period and these are all matters that can be considered before the prescribed body is decided. I hope in these circumstances the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness for what she has said. She has got vast experience concerning local authorities. I think it has been useful to have the debate on these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for what she has said on them. I hope my noble friend Lord Ingleby will withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, before the noble Viscount withdraws the amendment, as I think he is about to do, I know very well that this is a point upon which he feels strongly. I should like to put it on record that I and my noble friends on these Benches also feel strongly that this is a very important point. I listened most carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in reply. It did seem to me that what she said to your Lordships in effect meant that she and her colleagues do in fact accept the spirit underlying this particular amendment, and everything conceivable will be done to bring about this state of affairs. If my understanding of what the noble Baroness said is correct, I am sure the noble Viscount will be correct in withdrawing his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for what he has said and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 8, line 14, after ("the") insert ("Physically").

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should like to thank all noble Lords for the help they have given in improving this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. Time is getting short and there is a good deal of pressure on your Lordships' House. Therefore, it is important that this Bill gets back to another place. This is the reason why we are taking the two stages together.

There is, I know, much more that many of your Lordships, including myself, would like to have seen in this Bill. We know in a time of recession that the Government have been put in an embarrassing position, but there were a few points that would have improved this Bill and not cost extra money, which the Government have not been able to accept for some unknown reason. I hope that by the time the Government have taken advice from interested bodies outside your Lordships' House they may be able to put them into the circular.

We do not want to see the wrong thing done through lack of advice and guidance. Your Lordships have heard during the passage of this Bill of a specially adapted lavatory for diabled people being built down 19 steps, and lavatories signed with the wheelchair sign but blocked off on each side with fixed rails thus stopping anyone in a wheelchair from using it. I have heard of a ramped kerb on one side of a road at a crossing and not the other, with the person in a wheelchair stuck in the road unable to jump up the high kerb.

I am sorry that the Government have not been able to accept that it would be more desirable to include the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings, BS 5810:1979 as well as the Design Note 18 relating to educational buildings. I should have thought that to have both written in and to have the choice of flexibility would have been wiser.

I hope very much indeed that this Bill will provide better access for disabled people to buildings of all sorts. I should have felt happier at this stage if there had been sanctions written in. It is no good having more legislation which is meant to help disabled people but with no method of seeing that this is carried out. I realise, however, that time is needed to get this right. The Government have shown that this is necessary by increasing the fine to £200 for abuse of the orange badge scheme. This seems sensible and I welcome it. I hope also that a satisfactory and workable solution will be found to the matter of which the prescribed bodies will be.

I welcome the tightening up of the abuse of parking places for disabled people. I only wish we could have had something in this Bill giving disabled people some hope of being able to park in central London. I am pleased that the blind have been included in this Bill and I should like to thank your Lordships—especially the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—for help in changing the rule of your Lordships' House which did not allow guide dogs into the Gallery to accompany blind persons. At the Committee stage of this Bill a blind lady who represented one of the associations wanted to listen to the proceedings but she could not do so because she was not allowed to have her guide dog with her. The lady should be in your Lordships' House today with her dog. I only hope that the attitude towards disabled people outside your Lordships' House is as good as it is inside your Lordships' House.

I must thank Mr. Daffyd Wigley, the Member of Parliament for Caernarvon, and all the other Members of Parliament who have supported this Bill, As I said before, there is need for legislation in this Year of the Disabled. I cannot say that this Bill is really what we would have liked to send back to the other place, but I do not blame the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I think I can say that if the noble Baroness had been able to, I am sure she would have given us more. If the country improves I hope that in time this Bill can be built upon and this legislation strengthened. The time has come for this Bill to go back to the other place and I hope that your Lordships will send it on its way. I beg to move.

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her piloting of this Bill on behalf of, shall I say, the "wheelchair commandos"—because they are a very aggressive bunch of people and I do not blame them in their attempts to get something done. There is something unique about this Bill; it went through the other place and all the other stages without any comment, but your Lordships have not only had to debate the Bill but have also had to insert major amendments with Government assistance. It is now going back to the other place. There is a degree of risk, which is worrying me. I have given my views to the noble Baroness because I know what the Commons can be like so far as time is concerned. The noble Baroness and her friends have one great asset on their side and that is the Government's willingness—so obviously displayed—to see this Bill through.

I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on the efforts she has made to improve the Bill, and I should like to congratulate the Government for giving great facilities. So far as the change of rule affecting guide dogs is concerned, this is very welcome. I can assure your Lordships that I have met this animal; he is extremely well behaved and will no doubt be an asset to your Lordships' Chamber so far as his conduct is concerned. I am very pleased indeed that this Bill has reached its final stages and I hope that my colleagues in the Commons will do everything possible to speed its progress.

My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a moment, but I should like to say from these Benches that we all of us are very pleased indeed that this Bill is making further progress. We regard it as another very welcome step along a road—although the end of that road is still a long way away. There is a great deal more to be done on behalf of the disabled before we arrive at the kind of conditions which I believe we all hope to achieve ultimately. While thanking all those noble Lords and Baronesses who have played such an indefatigable and admirable role in assisting the progress of this Bill through your Lordships' House, I should like to place on record my personal appreciation of the sympathetic hearing which the Government have given to this Bill. I should perhaps like to qualify that by saying I rather regret, although I understand, the Government's reluctance to do anything which would circumscribe the freedom of local authorities. The Government have said that they must not do anything which would interfere with the autonomy of local government, although it seems to me that other Government departments have sometimes been ready to interfere in local government so far as certain financial matters are concerned.

Over and over again, in debating this Bill, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others that this is something that should be done and which local government could do—and we hope it is something local government will do. All I would add is that I hope that those words, spoken by the noble Baroness and others on behalf of the Government, will be brought to the attention of local authorities over and over again during the coming years. I am quite sure that voluntary bodies—many of whom do wonderful and indefatigable work on behalf of the disabled—will make absolutely sure that no local authority in this country is unaware of the obligations which the Government have clearly stated local authorities now have towards the disabled. To those words I can only add that I am delighted that this Bill is to make further progress.

My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench in congratulating the noble Baroness in charge of the Bill and thanking the Government for what they have done. I rise to draw attention to a consideration which I hope the Government will keep in mind when preparing circulars in consultation with those responsible for the administration of the Bill. It concerns a danger affecting disabled people who are not so disabled that they require a wheelchair but who are not entirely mobile. The danger is that they may suffer a fall. At an earlier stage I drew attention to the danger posed by stairs and steps which have no handrails. Since then I have been taking note of the numerous places in this building and elsewhere where there are steps without handrails. This is a point of major importance. I myself should be relatively mobile, instead of being in the advanced state of physical disintegration and decay in which your Lordships now see me, if I had not suffered any falls. I suffered a considerable number of those falls because there were no handrails. Other things can be done to guard against the danger of falls and I hope that the Government will bear the point in mind.

My Lords, I should just like to say a word about access officers. This point arose in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, but has not actually arisen here. As your Lordships may know, in Scotland all but two local authorities have designated access officers. I feel it is very important that there should be a person on every local authority with responsibility for access problems. I should like to quote from what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, when he addressed your Lordships' House on 9th June (Official Report Col 128):

"I have been able to establish that all but two of the local authorities which exercise planning and building control functions have responded to the recommendation from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities either by designating access officers or identifying a point of contact on access questions. In general those designated are staff of building control departments who are versed in the skills of reading plans and drawings and well qualified to take a view on questions relating to access for disabled people. The main value of this arrangement, it seems to me, lies in the fact that there is now in each of the local authorities in question a single readily available source of advice on access problems."

I hope very much that when the English local authorities are consulted by the noble Baroness, they will be able to follow the very good example which has been set by Scotland.

I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for the information which she gave in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, confirming that in due course the fine on an able-bodied person for parking on a space reserved for disabled drivers will be increased to £200 when the general scale of fines is increased. I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that assurance and also for urging this Bill through your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her efforts on behalf of the blind. I have recently been registered as a blind person and I know how much has already been done to help us. Before that I was doctor for St. Dunstan's for many years and I was on their governing body for 20 years or more. I knew Lord Fraser very well.

I have been amazed at how much help I have already received from the local authorities and the local blind associations in the way of talking books, talking clocks, apparatus in the bathroom, handles to hold on to. I should like to put in a plea for very close co-operation between all the people who are helping the blind people now, because there are a great many people doing it, but they are not all working together.

My Lords, I can be extremely brief. I think we have achieved a great deal in this Bill in relation to access. It is extremely welcome, and I should like to thank the Minister for her additions to the Bill. I am only disappointed that educational buildings have been treated differently. Others have spoken already about this, but I should like to underline what my noble friend Lady Masham said about the code of practice not relating to educational buildings, and just put on record the dismay of organisations concerned with the disabled at this omission. However, I feel that very much can be done if the proposed circular is a really strong one. I thank all noble Lords for their help too, and congratulate my noble friend on what has been achieved during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I am very glad that the Bill has now reached its Third Reading in your Lordships' House and that it seems virtually certain to reach the statute book by the end of this parliamentary Session. When it was first brought to your Lordships' House it was a useful and worthwhile Bill, but there is no doubt that it has been strengthened during its passage through your Lordships' House, and I think it makes a real contribution to the International Year of Disabled People.

I personally have been very happy to be able to put down the Government amendments adding to the Bill in two major ways: one strengthening the requirements laid on building developers to provide access for the disabled, and the other tightening up on abuses of the orange badge scheme. Of course the provisions of the Bill have been extended to Northern Ireland. I have been very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, throughout the proceedings, and also of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.

I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, feels that this is a real contribution. I might say to her that the reason why many of the amendments which the Government have not felt able to accept has not been lack of money; they have raised constitutional points: points about what one can achieve in a Private Member's Bill; points about consultation with local authorities; points about consultation with voluntary organisations. These are matters that one needs to consider very carefully, because she and her colleagues, I am sure, will recognise that anything that one can achieve with consent, co-operation, and with willingness will be achieved much more easily and readily than anything which requires a duty backed up by penalties to enforce it.

I hope that as a result of this Bill public interest again will be increased on providing access for buildings, not only in agreement with the terms of this Bill but by making quite sure that all the kinds of points that have been raised are taken into account. I will confirm yet again on the question of the circular that we promise to give advice in the circular on the extent to which local planning authorities may use their planning powers to ensure that access into a building is suitable for use by disabled people. Advice on that point has also been offered by the Scottish Office so far as Scotland is concerned, and representations have been received on the draft circular published by the Scottish Office, which was placed in the Library of the House. These representations will be taken into account.

The advice in the circular will also cover the question of circulation around and between buildings—for example, betweeen buildings and car parks. I also undertook during the Second Reading debate to consider how we might advise local authorities on their arrangements for staffing in connection with the access provisions of the 1970 Act, and their new obligation to draw the attention of developers to them. Such advice could conveniently be included in the circular explaining the Bill's provisions.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I congratulate those who have put a great deal of hard work and research into steering this Bill through your Lordships' House, and making sure that it is as useful and as practical as possible. I am sure we are all grateful for the work that has been put into it by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I hope that they will feel at the end that this is a valuable contribution to helping the disabled.

My Lords, it falls on me once more to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in anticipation for a very good circular, which I am sure the Government will do their best to produce with the help of interested bodies outside your Lordships' House. I should just like especially to thank the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, for bringing up one of the most important points perhaps about this whole Bill, that having the correct facilities prevents disability; and we who are severely disabled know only too well that if disability can be prevented so much the better for everybody.

I should like to say how very sorry I am to have heard that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, has been registered as a blind person. He has, as your Lordships will know, given great service to the community as a highly respected doctor. I am very pleased to hear that he is getting help from blind associations. I should like to say that voluntary associations throughout the country do a splendid job, and it is very important that they and the Government co-operate together, and this, I think and hope, will be the case in regard to this Bill. I therefore beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I will speak both to this amendment and to No. 50, the consequential amendment in Schedule 1. In earlier prints of the Bill, we had failed to notice that Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 already contains a paragraph 4A, inserted by paragraph 24 of Schedule 15 to the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. The new paragraph being inserted by this Bill must therefore become paragraph 4B. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, may I perhaps say at this stage, to help the House, that when we come to them, I intend to move Amendments Nos. 25 to 46 en bloc as these are the Scottish equivalents of the English amendments which we shall by then have discussed.

Speaking to Amendment No. 2, this is a technical amendment required to clarify the legal position of the county planning authority acting as mineral planning authority. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and at the same time speak briefly to Amendment No. 7. Section 27 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 imposes requirements relating to the notification of planning applications to owners and agricultural tenants. Doubts have arisen about how these requirements should be operated and their practicability in the case of applications relating to underground mining, where the workings may extend under several square miles of land. We have concluded that in such cases it is unreasonable to expect the applicant to serve individual notices on every landowner who may be affected, and that the posting of public notices in every parish or community within which any part of the land is situated is a reasonable alternative procedure. The amendment makes provision for this alternative procedure to be followed in the case of planning applications for underground mining operations. I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their said amendment. The main purpose of Clause 4 of the Bill is to ensure that the owners of mineral rights know about minerals planning applications which may affect them. However, we consider that there are some mineral rights for which this kind of individual notification is not required and the purpose of the original subsections 1 C and 1D was to provide a procedure for an order to be made requiring notification to be given to the owners of these excluded minerals or minerals planning applications in cases where they wished to be so notified.

The provisions have been criticised on the ground that an applicant for planning permission might not be aware that such an order had been made. We accept this criticism, and this amendment seeks to delete subsections 1C and 1D entirely. At Committee stage in this House, my noble friend Lord Mottistone moved a virtually identical amendment, and at that time I gladly undertook to consider the matter to see whether we could meet his point, while ensuring that the essential requirements could be met in some other way. We have concluded that they can, and we are now proposing to amend the General Development Order to provide for the planning authority to consult the owners of excluded minerals in cases where the owners have requested such consultation. I should add that the owners of excluded minerals are content with the new procedure which we have in mind. I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for this amendment and, indeed, there will be many others. If he will forgive me, I shall not thank him each time. However, we are deeply grateful for the amendments, like this one to which he has referred, in which proposals that were made in this House have at last found their way into the Bill.

My Lords, this is a technical drafting amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 49 as well as this one. These amendments transfer the definition of forestry from the schedule to the after-care provisions in Clause 5. I understand that they have been promoted by the private forestry sector and that they are acceptable to the Forestry Commission. As far as the purposes of this Bill are concerned, the amendments will not affect these in any way and I therefore beg to move.

My Lords, in moving the last amendment I was also speaking to Amendment No. 8. Therefore, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. At Report stage in this House, my noble friend Lord Mottistone asked me whether a planned sequence of consented operations was legal under the existing provisions of Section 41 of the 1971 Act, and if not whether the Government would consider an appropriate amendment of the law. At that time I undertook to consider this point, while rejecting my noble friend's arguments to display Section 41 altogether in relation to mineral working. I hope that my noble friend will feel that this amendment will be helpful. I beg to move.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 together. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are purely drafting amendments. Doubts had been expressed about the clarity of the existing text, in particular whether some of the subsections in part duplicated each other. This clause is therefore redrafted in a clearer and more succinct way.

Amendment No. 12 introduces three new subsections. Subsection (5) is purely a redraft of the original provision. The subsection is presented in a clearer and more succinct way. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendments.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together. Concern was expressed in this House, and also in another place, about the power which Clause 9 would give to a mineral planning authority to make an order prohibiting further mineral working at a site where working has ceased for two years. At Third Reading in this House, I repeated my earlier promise to consider whether prohibition orders should be limited to abandoned workings.

It has always been our intention that this power should be used only where the resumption of working is unlikely and these amendments make it clear that an order can be made only in these circumstances. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. A prohibition order under Clause 9 may impose requirements for the purpose of removing or alleviating any injury to amenity. The amendment excludes from the definition of injury to amenity, damage caused by mining subsidence. We have received representations from the National Coal Board that the provisions of this section should not be applied to mining subsidence as in the case of coal such damage is covered by other legislation. The Government have accepted this argument and therefore I beg to move.

My Lords, this amendment is a consequence of earlier amendments here. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together. They relate to numbers 13 and 14 which I moved earlier, and which the House has accepted. Members of the House will recall that this earlier amendment made it clear that a prohibition order can be made only where mineral working at a site is not likely to be resumed.

The purpose of these present amendments is to reinforce this distinction between prohibition and suspension orders, by stating that a suspension order can be made only where a resumption of working is likely. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.

My Lords, this amendment merely deletes some inappropriate wording. There is no longer any provision in subsection (6) relating to suspension orders. The phrase is therefore not meaningful and should be deleted. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20, and with the agreement of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 21 because that is the substantive amendment; the other is really a paving amendment. When this Bill left this House—and on the whole I think that it had a very happy passage through this House—I think that we all on both sides, including the Minister, who was extremely reasonable and helpful all through the Bill, felt that we had sent it to another place in a very good condition. Most of the amendments that have been made today, with the exception of the ones that I am speaking to at the moment, and also one further on, have really been to tighten up the legislation so that it will be possible to introduce the very positive procedures which were envisaged. However, I am very gravely disturbed about the fundamental changes which have now been made to the Bill in another place, and I must say that they have been made to the great disadvantage of the Bill. I refer to the whole question of compensation which, when the Bill went to the other place, was to be contained in regulations and not in the primary legislation.

Perhaps I may quote what the Minister said on Second Reading at col. 501 of Hansard of 22nd January when he was referring to Clauses 11 to 16. He then said:

"At present, if a local planning authority makes an order modifying a planning permission for mineral working, then the operator is entitled to compensation for any abortive expenditure, loss or damage incurred. The Stevens Committee recommended that operators should not be automatically entitled to claim compensation for loss resulting from modifications made as a result of a review, and in discussion with the industry on this recommendation there was a measure of agreement that the operator should bear a reasonable amount of the loss or damage in each case. The difficulty is, of course, in deciding what is reasonable. The basic principle we have in mind, is that for each mine or quarry, a threshold should be set in relation to its annual output and expected life".

In the interests of brevity, I shall leave out the next couple of sentences. The Minister then went on to say—I think very rightly:

"The setting of such a threshold is a difficult exercise, and indeed different thresholds may be needed for mining and quarrying and for different types of order. My department issued a consultation paper on this in September last year, and responses are still being considered".

I hope that the House will note this particular sentence:

"Because of the complexity of the issue, we do not believe that it would be right to include the details of the threshold in this Bill, but instead we are proposing a power in Clause 15 to make regulations which will provide when compensation is to be payable—that is, what should be the threshold, and the basis on which compensation is to be assessed when the threshold is passed. In addition, by making this the subject of regulations, a measure of flexibility will be provided, so that the formulae can be updated from time to time. However, the Government recognise the vital importance of the compensation provisions to both the industry and local authorities, and therefore it is proposed that the regulations should not come into operation until they have been approved by your Lordships' House and in the other place.

Further, in winding up that debate on Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred to some of the points that had been raised about the proposed regulations in relation to compensation. Here I think that I should make the point that I and others were concerned that by the time we reached the Third Reading of the Bill and the Bill was passed, we should have had a chance to see the regulations. The noble Earl repeated what the Minister had said earlier about the consultation paper being issued to local authorities, and at col. 530 he reiterated:

"The formula is likely to be both complex and detailed and is, therefore, not really suited to primary legislation. Equally important, the formula is likely to need to be changed from time to time—in other words to be updated—and regulations provide a certain flexibility in this regard which primary legislation certainly does not. We do not want to impose too great a burden on either industry or mineral planning authorities. Nevertheless, because of the importance of the regulations, they will be subject to the procedures of an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses".

I then made an intervention on this, but it was concerned with having a sight of the original regulations and I made it quite clear that I was not at this point talking about the future.

The position is that the Bill has been returned to us with almost a new clause which now puts into the primary legislation—and this is a complete legislative somersault—what was to be left to regulations, that is, the percentage on which the compensation will be based. As regards the operators, the prescribed percentage shall not be more than 10 per cent. In our discussions—and I must apologise that I do not have the reference with me at the moment—it was said that the percentage for the operators should not be more than 20 per cent.; in fact, in another place on Third Reading of the Bill a right honourable Member on the Front Bench, Mr. Gordon Oakes, then said that it was generally accepted that the top figure would be 20 per cent.

My objection to this is on two bases. First, I object that this has now gone into the primary legislation. It is not only contrary to the views expressed on these Benches—and as I understood it at the time, I thought that there was agreement from the Liberal Benches as well—but also that the figure has now been made very much lower for the operators and, once again, a great deal of extra financial liability will be put on local authorities. This is very bad and extremely dangerous. It means that local authorities—which we know perfectly well are being squeezed all the way round all the time—will be left with an enormous price tag to pick up or, indeed, may not be able to do it at all. It also means—and this does not apply only to the large operators—that because some of the smaller operators will do a minimum and may not even fulfil the quota that has been set for them, there will be an enormous amount that local authorities will have to do and will be literally unable to do.

As this whole Bill is of such tremendous importance for environment and the extraction of minerals—and I think it was mentioned many times on both sides of the House that this is the first time since 1947 that we have had a Bill of this sort—we are extremely concerned. This was an extremely good co-operative exercise from both sides of the House in trying to get this Bill right. The Bill introduces some new concepts and procedures about which there is little experience, and the local authority associations will meet departmental officials to try to map their way through what is, in many aspects, unknown territory. The local authority associations—particularly the AMA—have expressed very deep misgivings about the new 10 per cent. ceiling introduced by the Government and, I am quite certain, introduced as a result of the pressure brought to bear by the CBI on Members of Parliament. They are, of course, quite entitled—I am not saying that they are not—to bring any amount of pressure to bear, but I am objecting to the fact that the House should have given in and responded to the pressure in this way, and turned upside down what, in fact, was said not only, by this side of the House but by the Minister, who made a very reasonable case which was entirely the opposite of what is now in front of us.

As we are all trying to make this Bill work and to improve conditions on sites with very old permissions, surely it would be far better to discuss the compensation mechanism—we have now been told by two Ministers in this House that it is very complex; we are all aware of that, and it still needs discussion—and finally, to bring it before the House in the form of regulations.

That is why I move this Motion instead of simply deleting the 10 per cent. and putting in 20 per cent. I think that this is by far the best way to do it. Then, it only needs to be done by order in the regulations. We do not need to have any more legislation if it is felt that those percentages should be changed. If we set the ceiling in the legislation, then, as your Lordships will realise, it will be very difficult indeed to make suitable amendments to the Act—much more difficult than to amend the regulations.

I repeat without apology that the idea of a ceiling in the Bill was resisted in this House originally. I know that the Minister is very reasonable and was as anxious as I was to get a really good piece of legislation through in this field. I hope that he will accept this Motion which puts the Bill back exactly as it was when it left this House.

I have received very strong representations not only from the AMA but from individual authorities where there are mining operations, that the limitation on the payment of compensation by local authorities will be further diluted because compensation will always be payable if a new condition should,

"in any way restrict the total quantity of minerals to be extracted".

With such an amendment, one wonders whether there will be any circumstances in which the local authority does not have to pay compensation. Although I have not moved today an amendment to delete another Commons amendment, the provision in the Bill which is set out in Amendment No. 23 does tie in with this to some extent. It means that any condition which restricted the output on any one individual day would attract full compensation. This will put more and more pressure on local authorities. In addition, they will be squeezed for cash. Because of this I am concerned that it will not be done at all. I very much hope that the Minister will accept that it is now not too late in the day to put what he originally wanted back into the Bill and therefore to return it to the form it was in when it left your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

My Lords, when this Bill first came to your Lordships' House, it was the result of a firmly established compromise which the Government had reached between the pressures of two well-recognised and thoroughly respectable groups, the environmentalists on the one side and the mine-owners on the other. We on these Benches, like the majority of your Lordships' House, thoroughly approved of the work which had been done behind the scenes to produce an extremely good Bill and an agreed step forward in this particular field. It was on that basis that my colleagues on these Benches and I helped the Government to repel any amendments which were put forward by either side. All this work having been put into the compromise, we thought that it should go forward. Therefore, we consider that it is a great pity that, having gone to another place, the Government have given way on this point.

We could start arguing from scratch the various cases for one percentage or another or one length of time between reviews and another. Indeed, my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Penhaligon, said in Committee that he would have preferred to have 20 per cent. but also 10 years for review, and between reviews. This afternoon that particular option is not in front of us. We are back to the choice as to whether we should stick to what was in the original package and which we in this House supported in good faith, or whether we should say that there is a sufficient motive on the part of the Government to change it. Quite frankly, we do not think that there is such a good motive. We do not believe that the Government either in another place or here have justified their situation. For that reason, we support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.

My Lords, I am speaking also, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on Amendment No. 21, which I think is absolutely relevant to this issue. When this Bill was first debated in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Mansfield and I were both pressed to describe the Government's compensation proposals in some detail and, indeed, to include some of the parameters in the Bill itself. Following further discussions with the industry and with the local authority associations, this amendment, 21, was put forward and accepted in another place so that a framework for the regulations on compensation which the Secretary of State is empowered to make under Clause 15 is set out in the clause itself. The compensation arrangements are probably the most complex part of the Bill, and they are also fundamental to its operation. Because of this and because of the noble Baroness's Motion, it would be right to take a few minutes to go over it in some detail and to explain what we have in mind.

Let me begin with the Stevens Committee. After dealing with the need to impose new and up-to-date working conditions on mineral operations which commenced many years ago, at a time when circumstances and standards were different, the committee went on to point out that compensation is normally payable under planning legislation when established rights are altered in this way. The committee recommended that, because of the special characteristics of mineral working, the industry should accept reasonable additional costs arising from changes in conditions, and that compensation should not be paid unless the costs incurred by the operator were substantial. Essentially what we shall be seeking to do in the regulations is to define these words "reasonable" and "substantial" in a more precise way.

Our approach is similar to the one suggested by the committee itself and on which I elaborated at an earlier stage of this Bill in this House. We believe that the amount of compensation which the operator is required to forgo should be related in some way to the value of his mine or quarry. At the same time, we want to avoid the need for an individual valuation in each case. We have concluded that a rough and ready assessment of notional value can be arrived at by a calculation which involves the two elements set out in subsection (2C) of the amendment.

The first of these elements is the annual value of the right to win and work minerals at the site concerned. As the Stevens Committee point out, an annual value of this nature is already used in the preparation of the valuation lists and so forms the basis of rating assessments. It is not, of course, as simple as that. I am told that it is likely to be necessary for the regulations to set out at least five different ways of arriving at the annual value from the figure in the valuation list, depending on the nature of the undertaking concerned. Another complication is that valuation lists get out of date—the current list, I am told, came into force in 1973—so the figure arrived at needs to be updated in some way. We have it in mind to start by using an updating factor of four, and then to make provision in the regulations for some form of automatic updating.

The second element in the calculation is a capitalisation factor, to take account of the estimated future life of the working. This will be set out in the regulations in the form of a simple scale table and we propose to base this scale on 8¼ per cent. single rate tables.

As I have said, these elements, when multiplied together, provide a rough and ready assessment of the notional value of the mine or quarry. Having considered very carefully the strong arguments put to us by the industry, we have concluded that it would be right to set out in the Bill itself that compensation for an order under Sections 45 or 51 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 should be reduced by no more than 10 per cent. of this sum, subject to a minimum reduction to be set out in the regulations. The minimum figure we currently have in mind is £2,500.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has pointed out, some of these elements have altered since we last discussed them at the Report stage of the Bill. At that time I said that we were considering abandoning a tapered threshold which had been criticised as unfair to small businesses. This has been done. The maximum percentage of the notional value by which compensation may be reduced has been changed as a result of discussions with affected parties and in another place. But the updating factor to be applied to the figure derived from the rating list has also been increased from 2.5 to 4, and the minimum figure by which compensation is to be reduced has been updated.

What is this new arrangement likely to mean in monetary terms? We have applied this calculation to a 10 per cent. sample of all mineral working heredita- ments, with the following results. For the 25 per cent. of sites at the bottom end of the scale, compenstion would be reduced by between £2,500 and £4,000. Other reductions are likely to be: the next 15 per cent. of sites, £4,000 to £8,000; the next 20 per cent., £8,000 to £20,000; the next 20 per cent., £20,000 to £40,000; and the 10 per cent. of sites at the top end of the scale, £40,000 to £100,000. In total, the effect of the changes is to reduce the industry's maximum potential contribution by approximately 20 per cent. We do not regard that as too high a price to pay for their wholehearted co-operation. I should again emphasise that this is on the basis of our current thinking. The amendment put down in another place would enable us to use different updating or capitalisation factors, but it does limit the reduction in compensation to 10 per cent. of the assessment of the amount arrived at in this way.

I know that the industry attach great importance to this limitation. Equally, I know that the local authorities will be disappointed by it. I find it fruitless to argue about this 10 per cent. figure; I believe the question your Lordships should ask is whether the likely reductions derived from our 10 per cent. sample will enable the Bill to operate in a manner which is fair to both sides, and I believe it will. I realise that local authorities will say, as the noble Baroness has, that little can be achieved for £4,000, and I have to accept that it may not enable them to achieve all that they would like. But the evidence available to us suggests that, out of the 35 per cent. of sites included in this lowest band, two-thirds are owned by small, individual operators who cannot afford to forgo more than this level of compensation. I do not believe it would be right to set the compensation threshold at a level that would drive them out of business. Nor, of course, would it achieve anything in terms of environmental improvement.

On the other hand, the industry may consider that we are still asking too much. However, they accepted the basic principle of reduced compensation at the time of the Stevens Report and I hope they are not now going to go back on that. If the industry want long-life permissions, they must accept some obligations to keep environmental standards up to date. I would find it difficult to believe that they cannot find the kind of sums which I have mentioned. After all, as my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General for Scotland pointed out in another place, national income from mining and quarrying in 1978 was £4,467 million.

Our consultations, which have been going on since last August, suggest that the approach we are adopting is generally welcomed; the argument is about the figures. We shall be continuing our consultations on a number of detailed points, including the right basis for compensation when prohibition and suspension orders are made. The difficulty here is that quarries where working has ceased do not have a rateable value in respect of the minerals. But I hope your Lordships will consider that the amendment provides the kind of framework for the compensation regulations which they were seeking when the Bill was first discussed here.

Throughout the Bill we have tried time and again to find a balance; we have tried to get it right between those interested in the conservation aspects, those concerned about the impact on local authorities and those parts of the industry with problems which they raised, and, by and large, as we have gone through, we have somehow reached compromises which in the main seem to have satisfied most people. It is an unusual Bill—certainly it is to me; it is one of nine with which I have been involved in one way or another—and it is interesting in that I think I am correct in saying it is the only one on which, even on anything substantive, there was not a single Division in another place. I believe that is right—that is what I have been informed—and certainly we have not had a Division in your Lordships' House; which is not to say there should not be one on this amendment, if the noble Baroness feels she must press it.

I repeat that what we have been trying to do all along is to get a balance and do what we think is fairest for all concerned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, reminded us, this is the first Bill for some time affecting the industry and we have been anxious to secure one which would make a significant contribution to the whole problem, and in my view it does that. Inevitably, of course, some will be disappointed by what we have achieved, but on balance I believe it is a splendid Bill and in my view the compensation part of it should not present the problem which I know the noble Baroness feels it does.

My Lords, the House will be aware that in this matter I have been advised by the CBI, so noble Lords will expect me to talk in terms of their thinking. The amendment is welcomed by industry and by the mining industry in particular. The clause as originally drafted gave to any Secretary of State in effect the right to require any operator to write a blank cheque every five years. It was obviously essential that the basic parameters of the compensation formula needed to be inserted in the Bill so that industry had some idea of what it was being asked to pay, and my noble friend has just given us some useful figures to show just what that might be.

However, it became clear during the prolonged consultations, which have gone on for nearly a year—between the department, local authorities, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the National Coal Board, the mining industry (that is, the private enterprise mining industry) and no doubt many others—that the local authorities would press for the whole burden of the loss and damage arising from amendments to mineral planning conditions to fall on the industry, although the Stevens Report recommended, as my noble friend said earlier, merely a contribution from industry to such costs.

It is clear that since the Bill left this House the Government have acknowledged the necessity for mineral operators to be able to plan well ahead; this need extends to finance as well as to operational planning, and I remember making that point strongly in Committee and at later stages in this House. The search for a satisfactory formula has been long and hard and the Government are to be congratulated on devising the formula in this amendment which does something to alleviate the acute and well-founded concern of the mining industry.

To take up a few points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, she referred us back to what the Minister said on Second Reading in this place. That, of course, was before we had any of the argumentation in this House, let alone any of the argumentation in the other place, and I applaud the fact that consequent on the splendid opportunity I had to contribute to this we shifted the Government in their thinking, and my colleagues in another place totally shifted them on this issue. That shows that the Government are wise and understanding and have appreciated that they need to get the proper balance.

The noble Baroness then made the point: poor old local authorities; they will have to bear not the whole cost but more than they thought they would. I ask the noble Baroness to remember that roughly half the rate income of all local authorities comes from unenfranchised business rates, and of course mineral operators pay their share of that just like anyone else. So it is not entirely reasonable to suggest that the local authorities—as it was clear they were hoping to do—should be entirely freed from the burden of having to make a contribution, on which the amendment now puts a limit. I hope therefore, if it comes to a vote, that my noble friends, and indeed the whole House including the Liberals, will vote "Not-Content".

I take it, my Lords, that when I press the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will not be a Teller on my side. It might be convenient if I dealt first with some of the points he made, before coming to the Minister's remarks. Lord Mottistone referred to "the splendid opportunities" he had had in your Lordships' House and to some remarks made on Second Reading. It was in order to save the time of the House that I did not go through some of the other points that were made and the other splendid opportunities which the noble Lord took and which, I am glad to say, were not at all successful in this House. In fact, we did not give way to pressure in this House, as unfortunately they did in another place, and that is exactly the beginning and end of it. It is a very sad tale. The noble Lord spoke about the poor, old local authorities and the business rates. The poor, old local authorities are being so squeezed by the present Secretary of State that they do not know where to turn, and even the business rates will not help them very much.

I thought that the Minister made as good a case as he could in trying to defend the indefensible. I sympathise with him; Ministers often have to undertake this wretched task. As a Minister one has to do a somersault in regard to what one said earlier and often over what one originally believed. One has to be convinced that the exact opposite is now right. I say to the Minister that he was absolutely right in what he was earlier arguing all through the progress of the Bill in this House, and the balance that was then achieved between us was entirely correct.

It is not true to say that there would have been an unfair burden on the operators and too little a burden on the local authorities. I repeat again the point that one of the problems involved does not always concern the big firms, which on the whole are extremely efficient in clearing up, and which have a sense of the environ- ment and of the quality of life. On the smaller sites, that are not usually run by the big firms, many improvements need to be made while operations are going on or when they are finished. Therefore, the contribution that has to be made in those instances simply must be higher. In these circumstances the rate of 10 per cent. is really ludicrous. Many of the local authorities, which pick up the tab afterwards—and I repeat this point without apology—will not be able to implement provisions. The contribution from the operators—the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, omitted to mention this—will be extremely low. In their contribution they can include the overheads of the whole scheme, and so they will get a very good deal out of it.

There are two points involved here, one about the figures, and the other about the matter being included in the regulations. As I explained earlier, I think that we should go back to the regulations because that would make much move sense merely than deleting 10 per cent. and inserting 20 per cent. The Minister said that figures become out-of-date. That is absolutely true, and that is why it makes much more sense to have the regulations. The Stevens Committee recommended 20 per cent. as a kind of base, and even that was not considered a great and outrageous burden on the industry. I did not move any amendment proposing that the operator should meet a third of the cost.

The Minister said that he considered that what is being proposed was fair to both sides. It is not fair to both sides. But whether it is fair to certain vested interests, be they environmental interests or business interests, is not really the crucial point. The importance of the balance is what it does to the whole country, to our countryside, to industry, and to the entire environment. That is why it would be such a tragedy if the Bill were to become an Act of Parliament in its present state. If that were to happen, if I am not successful in my Motion, which I intend to press, there will be a detrimental and devastating effect on the whole environment. I find the situation quite tragic, because I agree with the Minister that throughout the passage of the Bill we all felt that we were finding the right balance, that we were doing the right thing by the operators, while at the same time we were protecting and safeguarding the environment. I do not think that I can add anything to those remarks, and I intend to press my Motion.

My Lords, I feel that the noble Baroness spoiled her case by exaggeration at the end of her remarks when she said that if the Bill goes through as it is, it will have a tragic effect on the whole of the environment. My goodness! I look at the minuscule importance of this aspect in the context of the Bill as a whole. I look at what the whole Bill is setting out to achieve. The noble Baroness herself said that it is the first time since 1947 that such action is being taken. The Administration which she supported had all those years to do something about it, but did nothing. Now we have come along with an entire Bill which up to the present everyone has said represents a fine advance on what exists. At last someone is taking up the recommendations of the Stevens Committee. We have heard about the figures and the difference between the 10 per cent. and the 20 per cent. But consider the margin, my Lords, and do the sums. In some large cases there will be some significance, but that will not be so in most cases, as I illustrated. To say that the proposal would have a tragic impact on the whole of the country's environment destroys the entire validity of the noble Baroness's case, certainly so far as I am concerned.

My Lords, I feel that, with the leave of the House, I really must answer the noble Lord. First, I said that it could affect the whole environment. It is perfectly true that this is the first Bill of its type since 1947. I am not saying that earlier Governments should not have introduced something else; of course they should have done. But if we are to have new legislation, why on earth should we not have it in the best possible way, as it was when it earlier left this House? Any measure that would have a destructive effect on the environment and which we knowingly bring into force through legislation is to be deprecated, no matter how small or how large it is. I do not think that we can get any further on the argument, and I hope that the House will support my Motion.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 together, since the first one is merely a paving amendment for the second. The main purpose of the new Section 178C in Clause 15 is to provide that the modified compensation arrangements for which provision is made earlier in the clause shall not apply to modifications of certain fundamental aspects of a minerals planning permission, such as the size of area to be worked or the rate or depth of working, all of which affect the total quantity of minerals to be extracted. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 and 23.

My Lords, this is a technical amendment which is required to cover claims relating to compensation under Sections 237 and 238 of the 1971 Act, which includes claims under regulations relating to the National Coal Board. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 25 to 46 are to be taken en bloc.

My Lords, these are the Scottish equivalents of the English amendments discussed. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 46 en bloc.

My Lords, Schedule 1 now contains an amendment to the Local Government Act 1972. A reference to the Act must therefore now be included in this clause. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.

My Lords, this is a consequential amendment relating to Amendment No. 12. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.

My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

My Lords, this amendment fixes a maximum penalty for offences under this Act of £1,000 or other sum fixed by order to take account of changes in the value of money. The recent Magistrates' Court Act 1980 necessitates this technical amendment. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.

My Lords, this is the Scottish equivalent of Amendment No. 49, and is purely technical. I beg to move.

My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

I should like to say that I have had an extremely helpful letter from the noble Earl, Lord Avon, responding to a number of the points that I raised at Second Reading. It seems to me that it would be helpful, given the pace at which we are taking this legislation, for me to mention briefly the points which the noble Earl has written to me about. There are one or two points on which I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for further clarification; because if I do not put these on the record now I do not think that any of those who are interested in the Bill will have a chance to know what the Government have said until it becomes an Act, when it may, from their point of view, be too late. But I think the Government's assurances have been helpful and I am grateful to the noble Earl and his advisers for responding so quickly. I know that they have been under a number of competing pressures about the contents of this legislation.

On Clause 2(2), the noble Earl's letter said that the Government's understanding was that the points I had mentioned—that is, veterinary advice and security of enclosures—were covered by the requirement to specify the arrangements for the animals' accommodation, maintenance and wellbeing but this may need to be spelled out in the Secretary of State's guidance. This was one point where I thought the noble Earl had gone nearly all the way to meet me, but I would have been happier if he had said that this would be spelled out in the Secretary of State's guidance because the access to veterinary advice and the security of enclosures seem to me to be so important that their not being mentioned in Clause 2(2) may be taken as being significant unless they are spelt out in the guidance. What the noble Earl said to me on Second Reading about Clause 9 seemed to make it clear that these issues would be spelt out in the Secretary of State's guidance. I hope that he may feel on reflection that the words "may need to be" in his letter are not clear and could he modified to "will be" particularly in the light of what he said on Second Reading. Perhaps he might reflect on that before next week.

I should like to stick to the words which I said on Second Reading as recorded in Hansard of 29 June 1981 at column 55. I quote:

"We intend to draw widely on the existing expertise and indeed on the existing codes of practice produced by the Zoo Federation and the NZA in laying down guidelines and standards to ensure, not only that licensing authorities and zoo operators know what standards the zoo needs to achieve in order to get a licence, but also what sort of best practice it should strive to emulate …".

I went on to say:

"We know that the zoo organisations themselves have had difficulty in agreeing detailed specifications for enclosures and barriers and we recognise that in some cases requirements will have to be general and flexible".

I went on later to say:

"I can confirm that the Secretary of State's standards will require that animals shall be kept in suitable enclosures and groups, that they should be adequately and suitably fed and provided with proper veterinary treatment and that standards will also cover procedures for dealing with dead animals, the disposing of surplus animals and transporting animals as well as setting up standard procedures for record keeping".

That goes further than my letter. If I could leave it at that I should be happy.

I am grateful to the noble Earl.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 4, leave out ("or continuance").

In laying down conditions for zoos that are legal now without any conditions we must give the zoos time to comply with the laid-down conditions. Ministers both in this House and in another place have said that this will be done by issuing licences (except in very bad cases) with conditions giving time for compliance. I asked my noble friend on Second Reading to assure me that he would ask the local authorities (and his own list) to ensure that the zoos had ample time to comply. The question of "continuance" is a case in point. Existing local pressure for a zoo to close will be strengthened by this Bill even though one must keep in mind that the Secretary of State must be consulted before a licence is refused. Perhaps the complaint about continuance is justified; perhaps not—and probably the complaints about nuisance already have other avenues. Whatever the merits of the case, I would again ask the Minister to ensure that the guidance he will give to the local authorities will be to give zoos time to meet justifiable complaints.

There is one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Fisher, and his zoo friends have had a number of meetings with the responsible Ministers of both Houses and at these meetings have secured a number of improvements in the Bill. They are due the congratulations and thanks of all of us. Where a matter could be more appropriately dealt with by administrative means, they have secured satisfactory undertakings not only from the Front Bench but also at meetings at the Ministry. These undertakings are important, as so much of the Bill rests on administrative action on the advice of the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord raised four points in his six amendments. They will ensure that the undertakings are on the record to meet the administratively important points raised. I have consulted my noble friend and, by arrangement with him, I will ask him on the Motions on relevant clauses that the clause stand part, to repeat all the other assurances already given. I will raise points in Clauses 5, 9, points on Clause 10 not covered by my noble friend's amendments and other points on Clauses 11 and 14. In this way, the assurances given by Ministers inside and outside Parliament will be in one print of the Official Report and readily available for all concerned.

If I may respond to the two amendments to which my noble friend Lord Fisher spoke, the Government do not think it sensible to take the words "or continuance" out of Clause 4 because a local authority would then be obliged to give a licence to an existing zoo even if they were satisfied that the zoo's operation was injurious to public health and safety. I also think it is right that local people should be able to make representations in respect of existing zoos if they are genuinely concerned about its effects on their health and safety. Having said that, the Government do not anticipate that local authorities are going to refuse licences because of petty complaints if the inspectors' report recommends that a licence should be granted.

The guidance the Government intend to issue to local authorities if this Bill be enacted will stress that licences should be refused only if there is not prospect of a zoo's being brought up to an acceptable standard within a reasonable period of time. In the event of an operator being likely to lose his licence for failing to comply with conditions for, say, lack of finance, the zoo could be sold to a would-be purchaser who would of course have to undertake to comply with those conditions before the council would transfer the licence. I hope that my noble friend will not press these amendments today but will rest on the Government's assurances.

I should like to thank the noble Earl for those assurances. The zoo industry will be very happy to accept them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I want to put on record the point which the noble Earl made to me in his letter about whose representations would be considered when an application for a licence was made to a local authority. I was concerned that national animal welfare organisations might not be covered by Clause 3(2)(d) which talks about a national institution concerned with the operation of zoos. The noble Earl in his letter has told me that the guidance to local authorities will indicate that representations from responsible animal welfare organisations ought to be taken into account under subsection (2)(d), which was the one that I asked him about on Second Reading, or subsection (2)(f) which is a more general subsection which I can see would cover a responsible animal welfare organisation. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 3, line 36, at end insert ("and is prohibited by the court which convicted him from keeping animals").

The Government have considered further the proposal put forward in another place by the honourable Member for Bristol North-West (Mr. Colvin), to amend Clause 4 as now proposed by my noble friend Lord Fisher. We have concluded that it is too restrictive. It would mean that a licence could not be refused to someone who had, for example, shown a flagrant disregard for the provisions of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. However, the Government intend that the guidance to be issued will indicate the type of offences that we consider to be incompatible with the proper conduct of a zoo and which would justify refusal of a licence, and we shall be taking into account any representations made by the zoo organisations on this point. The guidance will also point out that local authorities should be guided in their decisions by the reports of the inspectors on the standards of management now obtaining in the zoo. I hope that with this assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I agree with what the noble Earl has said about the undesirability of this amendment which would be too restrictive. For example, it would be very unlikely that somebody who stole Golden Eagle chicks, kept them in the back garden and was caught, would be ordered by the court not to keep animals in captivity. That would not be their normal practice or course of business. Nevertheless, all of us would agree that somebody who was guilty of such a serious offence of taking protected birds from the wild should not be employed in a zoo or be responsible for running one. I imagine there is no difference between anybody on that. The amendment would make that impossible. I hope that the noble Lord, having heard the Government's explanation, will withdraw the amendment.

My worry was in the other direction: that the Bill, as drafted, gives discretion to local authorities when somebody has been convicted of an offence under one of these Acts of Parliament to allow them nevertheless to go on working for or running a zoo. The noble Earl again very kindly wrote to me about this. I take the point that it is possible to have a technical infringement of one of these Acts of Parliament. For example, there are a number of things under the Wildlife and Countryside Bill which will require collections to be registered and it is quite possible that somebody would omit to do that through ignorance of the law as much as anything else. Nevertheless, they would be guilty of an offence. In those circumstances, I can see that it would be very restrictive if they were then prohibited from working in a zoo or managing one.

I hope that the Government will give me two further assurances. First, that as well as quite properly listening to representations from those involved in managing zoos when they come to draw up their guidance on this issue, they will take into account representations from other interests. I am sure that those organisations, such as the RSPB and the RSPCA, who are responsible for first of all discovering offences and secondly prosecuting people under a number of these Acts, would welcome some consultation with the Government. After all, at the moment those two Royal societies are the main enforcement agencies of a number of these Acts of Parliament, particularly those dealing with wild animals.

The second point that I hope the Government will hear in mind is that the discretion given to local authorities should apply to technical offences. In the letter to me the noble Earl said that there could be a conviction for an offence under the enactments listed which might be of a minor or technical nature. That should not automatically deprive a zoo operator of a licence or put him out of business. That is fine if the Government are going to think in terms of minor or technical offences. I hope that the noble Earl will confirm that and also that he will be open to representations from the two Royal societies which I have mentioned who are responsible for enforcing much of this legislation at the moment.

The Government will be taking into account any representations made and when drawing up guidelines they may well try to involve the two bodies he mentioned. On the second point, I do not think that I can go further than say that the Government will take into account what has been said today, and when they are producing the guidance on offences they will obviously take the minor ones into account.

Naturally the zoo people support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in his feeling that these Acts should be strongly administered and that wildlife should be protected. I was thinking of the difficulties of running a zoo where there may be 30 or 40 keepers and somebody does something in his spare time and gets caught or has something in the past which one is unaware of. Then one might have a zoo closed because one finds oneself employing somebody who has done wrong. I welcome the assurances given by my noble friend. I am particularly pleased that he is going to consult the zoo people in drawing up guidelines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Could my noble friend confirm the assurance that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on Second Reading that the provisions in Clause 5(3) regarding escapes, records and insurance, would be included in the licence conditions?

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and others asked during Second Reading whether the conditions listed in subsection (3) would be mandatory. My understanding is that the local authority is not obliged to impose such conditions, but if it does, the zoo would be obliged to comply with them. I agree that it is sensible that all licences should include conditions about safety precautions, records and insurance against liability for damage, and we shall be covering these points in the Secretary of State's conditions under subsection (5).

I should just like to say that that entirely meets the point I was making on Second Reading. I am very grateful to the noble Earl.

Can my noble friend confirm that the usual notes of guidance to be issued to the local authority will, in the case of this Bill, be discussed with the zoo bodies, the National Federation and the National, as well as those referred to in Clause 9, and that he will satisfy himself that proper directions are given regarding the disposal of carcases?

Clause 9 provides for the Secretary of State to specify standards of modern zoo practice. I indicated during the Second Reading debate what kind of things the standards would cover and I in fact quoted from col. 55 of Hansard during the Second Reading debate earlier. That covers the disposal of dead animals. I should like to stress again that we shall be consulting the zoo industry with a view to producing both a minimum list of requirements that zoos must comply with in order to obtain a licence, and guidance on best practice, before the zoo licensing is brought into effect.

Just so that we can have this on the record, because I am sure it is the Government's intention, may I ask the noble Earl also to confirm that this guidance will be available in draft to the national organisations concerned with animal welfare, who obviously have a major interest in questions of, for example, suitable enclosures, veterinary advice and so on? They have been involved in the past, of course, in drawing up codes of this sort, for both farm animals and other animals in captivity, and I am sure they will have a serious and sensible contribution to make when the Government are drawing up this code of practice.

As a practical zoo man, I find myself in difficulties here because we are talking about guidance to local authorities—with which I entirely agree—but this clause refers to a code of practice. That is a different thing, because a code of practice is what zoo directors "sell" each other as to how they should go about running good zoos, while guidance is something for the local authorities. Then on top of that there will shortly be the guidelines from the Health and Safety Executive. We are dealing with that at the moment; so there will be, as it were, three sets of guidelines. I do not know exactly which ones we are going to have. Are we each going to have the three different documents? I do not object to it, but I must point out that there are three different documents.

Clause 9 deals with the Secretary of State's standards, and he is going to put down some specific standards which I think we now all agree the zoo industry will be consulted over. They will be very much based on the codes of practice which we have now. He is also going to produce guidance for the councils. This will obviously be something which one might say is to be put into layman's English. On all these stages, of course, the bodies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will be consulted and, although I cannot promise they will be shown the draft, I hope they will be there before the draft and agree it at that stage. It is the intention to produce the most full and comprehensive guidelines for the local councils as well as the Secretary of State's standards for zoos to look towards.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 7, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("appointed") and insert ("one").

In speaking to these two amendments, the Government do not think it is reasonable to restrict the local authority's inspectors to one vet in all cases. Local authorities should be able to satisfy themselves that a zoo is properly conducted and that the facilities provided for the public are adequate, as well as to the care and treatment given to the animals. However, I sympathise with the view that inspections should not impose unnecessary costs on zoos. The Bill has already been amended to provide that small zoos may, at their own request, be inspected by a smaller inspection team than that proposed by the local authority where the Secretary of State considers this appropriate. The guidance to be issued to local authorities will stress the importance of keeping down the costs of inspection and suggest that in many cases it will be sufficient for the local authority to send only one inspector who must, under the present terms of the Bill, be a vet. I must again stress, as I did a moment or two ago, the importance we attach to the Secretary of State's standards and guidance notes which will be prepared in full consultation with the industry before the measure is brought into force.

I am very grateful to hear what my noble friend has said. He has answered a question that I was going to ask him to confirm.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, and personally would have preferred to see the numbers kept down, for obvious reasons, both on costs and on the efficiency of the inspections. Secondly, I would have preferred to see a majority of the inspection team coming from the Secretary of State's list, as they would under this amendment. I think that was something which a number of interested people would have preferred to see, but I think that the noble Earl has gone really as far as he can in meeting that worry; and I have no doubt that local authorities, conscious as they are of pressures on them at the moment, are more than likely in almost every case simply to nominate a vet, as the noble Earl has suggested, and as they are perfectly free to do under the Bill as drafted. So I would hope that we could leave it as it stands.

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for stressing the costs, because naturally the zoos are most worried about what these inspections are going to cost. With the assurances that have been made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Perhaps I may just again raise something which I raised on Second Reading and which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has kindly confirmed for me. I raised the question about the keeping of records, which is mentioned in Clause 10(5) where the inspectors may, having inspected a zoo, give advice on the keeping of records. I wanted to be sure that zoos would be obliged to keep records, because the inspectors can call for them and ask for them; but it is not entirely clear from the Bill as drafted that all zoos will be obliged to keep such records. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said at col. 58 of the Second Reading debate that he could assure me that the Secretary of State would ensure that these are in fact incorporated—that is, the question of records will be incorporated—and the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has since written to me, confirming that that is also the Government's understanding of the position. I simply want to put that assurance on the record, and I am sure it will be very widely welcomed.

My noble friend has already given that assurance, in my recollection. I asked specifically for it.

I should like to ask my noble friend to confirm—and this is probably the most worrying part of the whole Bill—that he will draw the attention of local authorities to the fact that they should make every effort to satisfy themselves, whether by 'phone, by informal visit or in some other way, that a complaint has valid ground before taking action on it.

I am happy to assure my noble friend Lord Craigton that the guidance to be issued to local authorities by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will suggest that they should make informal inquiries to satisfy themselves that a complaint is valid before undertaking a special inspection.

moved Amendment No. 6:

After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

The effect of this new clause would be that the local authority would have to send to the zoo copies of all the representations it receives, no matter how trivial and whether or not the local authority has any intention of acting upon them. I think this is unnecessary and undesirable, and likely to involve the local authority and the zoo in additional expense. The Government also have to consider the possibility that the local authority might be required to pass over to the zoo material which is libellous and may form the basis for legal proceedings.

The Government certainly agree that zoo operators ought to receive copies of reports of inspections. Clause 10 already provides that they will be sent copies of reports made under Clause 10, and I can assure noble Lords that we shall be asking local authorities to ensure that zoo operators receive copies of reports made after Clause 11 and 12 inspections.

The Government sympathise with the concern of zoo operators that they may be refused a licence or subjected to a special inspection because of representations which are kept secret from them and which may be either malicious or cranky. However, any representations made under Clause 3 will have to be weighed under Clause 4(1) against the report of the Secretary of State's inspectors, and any refusal must be accompanied by a written statement of the grounds for refusal. Under Clause 11, the local authority is required to communicate to the zoo operator the purpose and scope of a special inspection. We shall also be asking local authorities to see whether complaints and problems can be resolved by an informal telephone call or visit. This underlines the assurance that I gave my noble friend on Clause 11.

Local authorities have enormous experience of dealing with malicious and eccentric complaints, and I am sure we can rely on them not to put the livelihood of zoo operators at risk because of groundless accusations. Once again, these are matters which will be fully covered in the guidance which the Secretary of State will prepare before the measure is brought into effect. I hope that, with this added assurance, my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendment.

My noble friend is very kind and I take the spirit of his assurance. We have dashed around from one clause to another in that short speech, and I am not entirely clear that he has covered the point that I am making here. I think that it was covered in the final paragraph, in which he said that local authorities are well-versed in dealing with mischievous complaints, and that the guidelines will ask them to be the friends of zoos and try to protect them from such complaints. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

There are two important points here. First, will my noble friend confirm that he will draw the attention of local authorities to the fact that under Clause 5 every applicant will pay the cost of his application, if it is decided that the Act does not apply to him? Secondly, will he confirm that he will lay down guidelines in general terms about the type of collection that will be exempted, provided, of course, that the animals are well cared for and also that the animals are not considered to be wild?

I also want to raise one point with the noble Earl about Clause 14. I expressed some concern on Second Reading about the dispensation which was provided for under Clause 14. The noble Earl wrote to me about this, and I should like to quote from his letter and then ask him one question about what he said. The noble Earl wrote to me:

"We are not proposing blanket exemptions"—

that is, under Clause 14.

"The Secretary of State's guidance will indicate the sort of criteria that would make any collection a possible candidate for exemption from inspection or licensing requirements, but each case will be considered on its merits. I am not persuaded at this stage that there should be an inspection in every case by the Secretary of State's inspector. This could be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But I certainly envisage that any recommendation for exemption will have to be supported by a vet".

That was extremely helpful and went almost all the way to meeting my concern about this clause and the exemptions provided under it.

The only point on which I should like to press the noble Earl is the very last sentence of his letter when he says that the Government envisage that,

"any recommendation for exemption will have to be supported by a vet".

Am I to take it that that would be a vet acting for the local authority, or one from the Secretary of State's list, or could that be a vet acting on behalf of the zoo itself? It seems to me that if a zoo is to be exempted from the provisions of this Bill, it is important that there should be some independent veterinary advice rather than the zoo's own vet supporting the application, with that, without any further inspection or visit to the zoo, itself being sufficient. If the noble Earl can assure me that the vet whom he has mentioned in his letter—which, as I said, was very helpful—will be either one acting for the local authority or one from the Secretary of State's list, I am sure that that will go all the way to satisfying anybody who is worried about the exemptions provided under the clause.

First, in answer to my noble friend Lord Craigton, I am happy to assure him that the guidance to be issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will indicate the criteria by which we will judge a small collection to be suitable for exemption from inspection or licensing requirements. We shall also include criteria for those animals which are not considered wild.

I would emphasise that we are not considering blanket exemptions, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just underlined, as each case will need to be treated on its merits. The guidance will also indicate that the costs of dealing with applications which lead to dispensations should be charged to the applicants, and will not fall on the zoos for which no dispensation is made.

If I may turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, he is indeed thinking along the very same lines as we are. At the moment, it is the department's consideration that the zoo vet will not be allowed to make such reports, as he has suggested. The finalising of this will take place during the discussions about the guidelines. But, as I said, the noble Lord is thinking as we are.

May I ask my noble friend one other question? As regards the costs of local authorities, will he confirm that they will be told not to add any departmental charge in relation to the administration of the Bill by them, unless extra people are involved for that purpose?

I should certainly like to be able to give that assurance to my noble friend, but I do not think I can order them about that matter. I think that I can advise them, and I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have that in mind.