My Lords, at a convenient moment after 11 a.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on biotechnology. It is likely that the Statement will be taken after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, in the first debate.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Perhaps I may start by reminding noble Lords of my interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, whom I am delighted to see in his place. I should also like to thank Mr. Ollard, from the Public Bills Office; John Godfrey and Paul Amis, from West Sussex County Council; Ray Woolmore and Lynette Leeson, from the Countryside Agency, and our Sussex Downs officer, Martin Beaton, for the great help that they have given me in the preparation of this Bill. The hard work has been theirs. The errors of omission and commission have been mine.

Bill Bryson, in his well-received book on his last walking tour round England, wrote of his movement out of Broadway, that lovely town in the Cotswolds, on to the Cotswold Way. He wrote as follows:

"The view from the top over the broad Vale of Evesham was, as always from such points, sensational—gently undulating trapezoids of farmland rolling off to a haze of distant wooded hills. Britain still has more landscape that looks like an illustration from a children's story book than any other country I know—a remarkable achievement in such a densely crowded and industrially minded little island … It is easy to forget, in a landscape so timeless and fetching, so companionably rooted to an ancient past, how easily it is lost. The panorama before me incorporated electricity pylons, scattered housing estates and the distant sunny glints of cash and carry warehouses".

Those sentences are in a sense a paradigm of the difficulties as regards some AONBs today, where necessary social and economic growth has to run parallel with necessary conservation.

The rationale for this Bill is that the national parks Act of 1949 designated areas of outstanding natural beauty but it left no one responsible for their management or funding. Consequently, over the past 50 years voluntary ad hoc bodies have sprung up which are concerned, and properly so, with their local AONB. Of those, we, the Sussex Downs board, are probably the most formal: a joint committee formed seven years ago by the local authorities and the Countryside Commission. Our original brief was for six years. Thanks to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that was extended for another three. But even in that time our funding from the Countryside Commission was reduced and that of the local authorities was held at the old level. The board of which I am chairman will expire in April 2001.

Such short-term voluntary arrangements cannot be suitable for the positive and constructive development of landscape management. Working as we do with local farmers, for example, to remove 50 year-old scrub from a chalk escarpment, help them return it to grass, re-introduce South Downs sheep, get an ESA grant in the process, and perhaps a stewardship grant for access, requires a long-term view, a long-term plan and long-term funding.

I came to the conclusion that the present legislation was inadequate. I decided to introduce a Bill that confirmed the landscape qualities of national parks and AONBs as equivalent and that the policies for their protection against inappropriate development were in place. I have built on clauses drafted by the Countryside Agency which it placed before government more than a year ago. So far—and I know that the noble Baroness who is to reply will bear this in mind—neither we nor the agency have received any positive response. We had a promise, first, of a reply "very soon"; then a reply of "soon"; and my most recent letter from Mr. Meacher, the Environment Minister—a friendly letter—assures me that these matters are receiving "continuing consideration".

My Bill has three prime objectives. The first is to enable—that word is important—the establishment of statutory conservation boards. But that is done on an "opt-in" basis. It is not compulsory. It happens where the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the elected local authorities recommend to the Secretary of State that they want this done. It will be done on an à la carte basis; each will be considered on its merits, each individual conservation board perhaps having somewhat different powers and composition appropriate to its area. That is a point that is not fully understood in the briefing put out by the National Farmers' Union.

The second objective is to provide secure funding from central and local government. The third and most complex is to strengthen the protection given by the planning system. The second point, which is very important, is dealt with in Clause 3 of the Bill. New Section 88D gives the AONB conservation board the same legal powers relating to funding as those that apply to national parks. Subsection (1) gives AONB conservation boards the power to levy local authorities for their contribution. Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State power to make a grant.

In practice, I believe that a conservation board will follow the same procedures as a national park and will prepare a five-year corporate financial plan. That plan will be approved by the Secretary of State of the Department of the Environment, who will also approve the authority's budget annually. In approving the budget the Secretary of State will determine the level of grant to be provided by the Government, which is currently 75 per cent. in the case of a national park, and the local authorities will provide the balance of funding. The AONB conservation board will have power to levy the local authorities for the balance of 25 per cent.

Dealing with the third point, planning is covered in detail in new Section 88C. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into all of the detail at this moment, but I hope that we shall do so at Committee stage. In general terms every conservation board will prepare an AONB management plan, and I certainly envisage public consultation in that process. Under Clause 4 the conservation board will be a statutory consultee in relation to development plans for AONBs but it will not be the sole planning authority. I suggest that this lies at the heart of the difference between super-conservation boards—a term that has become used in the local press in Sussex—and national parks. They are the sole planning authority. I believe that it would be not only a remote but an inefficient, expensive and unpopular bureaucracy if the South Downs AONB, which stretches nearly 100 miles from Winchester to Eastbourne and covers 16 local authorities, was the sole body responsible for development control throughout that area, where the 16 other local authorities would remain responsible for development in their particular areas not within the AONB. I believe that that would be an extraordinary additional piece of bureaucracy.

The same comment applies to the Chilterns AONB, which has four counties, and the Cotswold AONB, which has five counties and two unitary authorities in it. But the statutory consultee on development matters would be of vital importance in defending areas from major development threats, such as the plan to build 1,150 new homes in an AONB near High Wycombe. The statutory management plan would be of use in containing and managing pressures of tourism on famous and popular Cotswold villages and walking routes such as the Cotswold Way which I mentioned at the beginning.

Finally on planning matters, new Section 77(3A) in Clause 4 in effect requires the Secretary of State to call in a planning application if the conservation board decides, in view of its significance, to refer it to the Secretary of State. From experience with my board, I consider that to be necessary and that is why I put it in the Bill. But I appreciate that it is a step too far in the thinking of some local authorities. I hope therefore that it will be considered in detail at Committee stage, although I would welcome amendments.

The Bill has brought general support from a number of organisations and public bodies, for example the English Sports Council, the Association of AONBs and, in my own area, the Society of Sussex Downsmen. Others have criticised it. There are those who very firmly believe that at least in the case of the South Downs a national park is necessary and that the Bill does not go far enough because it is not the sole planning authority at development control level. Others, for example the CLA, may think that it goes too far.

Perhaps this means that my Bill has got it about right, but from my experience of the conservation board I say to those who fear that it goes too far that we are not a distant, remote imposing body. For example, we work with farmers only when they want us to find positive solutions to land management problems.

We seek opportunities for more quiet enjoyment of the Downs, for example by promoting our scheme Take Your Bus For a Walk through leaflets distributed in places like Brighton. We are rooted in the local authorities, not imposed on top of them. For example, 24 of the 36 members of my board come from local authorities. But our experience has shown the need for greater co-ordination of planning and management policies in a multi-authority AONB, and that can be done only by new legislation. This is a probing Bill and its purpose is not only to put forward a format for super-conservation boards but also to get the Government to reveal their intentions. I very much hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will be able to give us a hint of that.

The current position of AONBs was very well summed up in the words of the Countryside Agency in one of its leaflets:

"Perhaps most vulnerable of all are not the wild high places but the gentle smaller scale landscapes of England and Wales, hedgerows, spinneys and bluebell woods: heath, marsh and meadows".

That is us. What will the Government do? I hope that we shall hear something about that today.

Finally, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that if there is no time for a major countryside Bill in the 1999–2000 Session, as we are now being told by the spin doctors, why not introduce a short, specialised protected areas Bill dealing just with the AONBs and the sites of special scientific interest? It would be an important step forward for our environment in the new millennium. As a former Chief Whip I should do my utmost to see that it received all-party support.

My Lords, the next time your Lordships re-read John Keats' long poem, Endymion, perhaps I may invite you to give special attention to the opening lines, where he writes,

"A thing of beauty is a joy for ever: Its loveliness increases; it will never Pass into nothingness",

because with all respect to the great poet, that is rubbish, is it not? A thing of beauty, especially a beautiful landscape, will rapidly deteriorate into a wreck, an eyesore or a tip unless it is guarded, defended and saved harmless by those who care about beauty in our environment and protect landscapes from inappropriate industrial and commercial exploitation. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does just that. I welcome it, and I hope that the whole House will welcome it and give it a fair wind.

I declare, proudly, a long-term non-financial interest as one of the vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks which for half a century has worked to protect our countryside from everything that might harm it. There is no conflict of any kind between the national parks and the areas of outstanding natural beauty. They were indeed begotten together in the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and each was given such standards, status and safeguards as seemed at that time appropriate to them. AONBs were generally smaller and more numerous, but there was not, is not and never will be any sense of the national parks being first-class citizens and the AONBs second-class citizens. I cannot emphasise too strongly that AONBs and national parks have developed contentedly side by side for 50 years without envy, hatred, malice or any uncharitableness.

For reasons which no doubt at the time seemed sufficient, the 1949 Act failed to make anyone statutorily responsible for AONBs. Unlike the national parks they have no guaranteed source of funding. The welcome Bill of the noble, Lord Renton, proposes that local authorities should have a legal responsibility for the conservation and management of AONBs, which they might, if they wish, discharge through formally constituted conservation boards. This is good. The Bill also places on local authorities a duty to contribute to their cost. This is better. And it gives the Secretary of State power to contribute as well. This is best of all. The CNF' welcomes these proposals, and looks forward to working with the new conservation boards, which can make a considerable contribution to safeguarding the countryside.

But lest it should ever be thought that the sun is shining, God's in his heaven and all's right with the world, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to a few matters in which I consider that this excellent Bill is still capable of improvement. The most important is probably the omission, to which the Country Landowners' Association has drawn attention, of any mention of the social and economic characteristics of the AONBs. People live and work there. Economic and social considerations need to be just as much in the foreground in AONBs as in any other rural areas. Perhaps the Bill might be improved if it were to include a duty on local authorities and conservation boards to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities in AONBs, on the model of Section 62 of the 1995 Environment Act.

Might it not also be wise to reconsider the Bill's proposal that conservation boards should have compulsory purchase powers? Local authorities already have considerable powers in that area, and it is always a sensitive and contentious issue. I find myself agreeing with the CLA that no convincing case has yet been made for such a power, and the time is not ripe for doing something which it is not clearly necessary to do. It would be a work of supererogation, like over-egging the pudding, or taking a steam hammer to split a dried pea.

It might also improve the Bill if there were to be proper provision on the face of the Bill for public consultation over the proposed management plans. To do so would add a pleasing touch of transparency to the process, and encourage as many interested people as possible to participate in the consideration of matters which, in many cases, would be sharply relevant to their concerns.

AONBs have unquestionably proved their value since 1949, and the Bill of the noble Lord. Lord Renton, recognises their achievement. But, in the AONB nest, there is still one huge cuckoo, one anomaly, which has never been satisfactorily resolved. The noble Lord referred to it, and so shall I. Unfortunately, the Bill is sadly silent on the question of the South Downs.

The two adjacent areas, East Hampshire and the Sussex Downs, were first proposed as a national park as long ago as 1929 by the CPRE. It was 30 years later that East Hampshire was granted AONB status, and a further four years elapsed before the Sussex Downs made the grade. Yet in 1947 the Hobhouse Report had recommended national park status for the South Downs., and the Council for National Parks supported that recommendation then, and has continued to support it consistently and unwaveringly ever since. We have done so for three reasons. First, the South Downs have been subjected for decades to unrelenting development pressure on a par with that experienced by any one of the national parks, most of which lie in upland areas and, further away from major conurbations. One has only to mention Twyford Down and the titanic struggle over the major road scheme there to realise the difficulties that have had to be faced. The demands on space made by the ever-expanding coastal towns have eaten up swathes of downs, and "as we speak" there are proposals to establish a major development in a disused chalk quarry. It is the serious, informed opinion of the South Downs Campaign Group that AONB status has done nothing to protect the downs from these developments. I quote from one of its submissions which states:

"All Planning decisions affecting the South Downs have remained in the hands of thirteen (now twelve) different local authorities, each with its own priorities and agendas".

Secondly, in size, extent and complexity of administration the South Downs cover an area of 1,375 square kilometres, which is almost the same as the Brecon Beacons and larger than four of the existing national parks. It is estimated that there are 32 million leisure visits to the South Downs every year, while the most visited of the national parks, the Peak District (and I declare an interest there because I live in it) has 22 million visits per year.

Thirdly, for the past 49 years it has been generally talked of in and around the South Downs as if it were a national park. Very many people think that it is. Only those who have to administer and defend it know (all too painfully) that it is not. In 1959, the then Minister for Town and Country Planning said:

"Now at last we shall be able to see that the mountains of Snowdonia, the lakes and the waters of the Broads, the moors and dales of the Peak, the South Downs and the tors of the West County belong to the people as a right and not as a concession".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/59; col. 1493.]

It is somewhat rhetorical, perhaps a bit Old Labour, but it makes the point.

If it were possible, we should like to see the South Downs AONBs excepted from the Bill in some way. It is surely not beyond the wit of man or the wisdom of a parliamentary draftsman to redesignate the South Downs as a national park. They need that defence. As we read in PPG7, which I am sure is never far from your Lordships' bedsides, the Government regard national park designation as conferring the highest status of protection as far as landscape and scenic beauty are concerned.

Finally, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether in winding up she can enlighten me by telling me and your Lordships how many AONBs there are in England. The Countryside Agency, the new statutory body with responsibility for advising government on issues relating to the environmental, economic and social well-being of the English countryside, states boldly, baldly and confidently that there are 37 AONBs in England. On the other hand, the Country Landowners' Association informs me in writing that there are currently 40 in England and Wales; 35 wholly in England, four wholly in Wales and one on the border in the Wye Valley. Somewhere, somehow someone has lost two AONBs. Perhaps I may adopt and adapt the words of Mr. Oscar Wilde: to lose one AONB may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry on instigating this general debate on AONBs on the back of his Bill. I have a great interest in the subject because in a previous incarnation in another place I represented parts of two national parks and part of one area of outstanding natural beauty.

I begin by referring to the entertaining speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I wrote down his comment that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have existed without malice for all these years. However, I invite him to come to the north of England. I have been criticised by my former constituents for being much too friendly to national parks and their organisations; I have also been criticised by national park authorities for having on occasions been extremely rude about them. I always describe the two national parks, part of which I represented, as the Lake District National Park, which was on the whole tolerated by the people who lived in it, and the Yorkshire Dales National Park. which was generally loathed by the people who lived in it. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that he might reconsider his comments. I have always tried to encourage those who manage national parks to create a better feeling among the people who live in them.

My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry referred at the end of his speech to the fact that he is a former Chief Whip. I hope that he will not mind that, having fulfilled a similar role, I begin by commenting on the parliamentary procedures for Bills of this kind. He will know that, given the rules in another place, his Bill can get on to the statute book only if no one says a single word on the subject and the whole Bill goes through another place entirely on the nod. I do not want to debate how many national parks and AONBs we have—let us settle for 40—but there must be many Members of another place who have a great interest in the subject. Frankly, they will not allow the Bill to go through without a single word being spoken.

Five or six years ago a Bill was introduced in this House dealing with the administration of the national parks. As I was the Member of Parliament representing parts of two, I made it clear that I was not going to have that Bill go through another place without saying a single word. The same will apply to this Bill. It may be that our procedures need to be examined, but that is a different matter. There is a concern that many people do not recognise the procedural niceties and assume that the Bill is a serious contender for legislation this year. Of course, it is not.

Secondly, I turn to AONBs in general and return to a point I made earlier with regard to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that there was no malice about them. I remember when a new AONB was proposed in my constituency in Cumbria at the top end of the Eden Valley. There was massive opposition not only from the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU, but from a whole raft of local organisations. It took a great deal of negotiation and trimming of the legislation and the area defined in order to obtain widespread agreement. To try to impose new rules on the countryside, which will probably be onerous on the people who live in there is not sensible, given the current major crisis in the farming industry, particularly in areas where the land is not of the best quality. The greatest difficulties are being experienced in those areas at the moment.

I do not want to speak for too long, but I should like to turn to a number of matters in the Bill. As A.P. Herbert said on one occasion, I know nothing about agriculture. Although I am a farmer and a former Minister of Agriculture, I am afraid that I have no knowledge whatever of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board or much knowledge about the area it covers. However, I am particularly concerned about the Bill and the reaction that it has brought from the Country Landowners' Association, of which I am a member. am also a member of the National Farmers Union.

I am especially concerned about the association's principal anxiety, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. It states:

"We strongly suggest that the Bill should include a duty on local authorities and conservation boards to foster the economic and social wellbeing of local community in the AONBs".

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that that should be included in the Bill. He made a very constructive comment because there is a great lack of understanding among the urban population in Britain that the countryside is the workplace of a huge number of people and should therefore be respected.

I turn to another issue which is important and which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris: the great objection of the Country Landowners' Association to the suggestion that compulsory purchase powers should be made available to the boards. I first came to this building 35 years ago, to the other place, and I remember being enthusiastic about compulsory powers for boards of this kind. I remember a previous Labour government introducing the rural development boards. I also remember the North Pennines Rural Development Board, in my old constituency, being given such powers. I remember making speeches when the board was first formed, suggesting that that may be a good thing in certain circumstances.

However, I have totally changed my mind. I see no need for, and I see no great advantage in, powers of compulsory purchase being given to such boards and organisations. I believe that at all costs that provision must be removed from the Bill. I am strongly opposed to it altogether.

In opening the debate, my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry talked about the landscapes of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty being equivalent. In some ways, that is true. However, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is to follow me and the other day I heard him make a speech in which he implied that private ownership of land, whether in areas like these or elsewhere, was not a good thing and that it was, to use the current "in" phrase of the new Government, the "people's land". I believe that is the view that he was trying to convey, and I reject that view absolutely.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. On that point, I think he misheard me. I do not regard the landscapes of AONBs and national parks as equivalent. I was asking that in law they should be clearly given equivalent protection, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, took up and agreed with. I believe that there should be equivalent protection in law, but I do not believe that in terms of scenic value or remoteness or population they are equivalent.

My Lords, I was about to turn to that point and say that I do not agree with that view. I believe that areas of outstanding natural beauty should have considerably looser protection than the national parks which are our prime scenic, cultural and environmental honey-pots. I do not agree that the AONBs should have equivalent powers of protection.

On that rather unhappy note, I think that I have said enough. I believe that is the first time for a long time that my noble friend, Lord Renton and I have disagreed. I simply question whether there is any great point in moving into Committee on this Bill. To have a general debate on AONBs is extremely useful, but to make amendments to a Bill which, clearly, will never get on to the statute book may be a waste of everybody's time.

My Lords, I congratulate my old, personal friend—not my political friend—the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, on introducing this Bill, even though I am a little puzzled by it. I wonder whether it is a Bill about how we should run AONBs in future or whether it is a Bill about the Sussex Downs. Perhaps it falls between the two.

The noble Lord has a particular interest in the South Downs. In so far as the Bill is about the South Downs, it is suitable that he should introduce it. His very title comes from the Downs. Most noble Lords who will speak today on the South Downs part of the Bill will probably know Rudyard Kipling's mnemonic about them. I do not believe that this is one of his best poems, although he was, in my view, a great poet. The poem states:

"The Weald is good, the Downs are best—I'll give you the run of 'em, East to West. Beachy Head and Winddoor Hill, They were once and they are still. Firle, Mount Caburn and Mount Harry Go back as far as sums'll carry".

Then it lists the various Downs ending with the words:

"And when you end on the Hampshire side—Butser's old as Time and Tide. The Downs are sheep, the Weald is corn, You be glad you are Sussex born!"

Noble Lords who are Sussex born may be glad of the fact, but I am afraid that it is no longer true that "the Downs are sheep" and "the Weald is corn".

I declare an interest in that I also am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks, along with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and other noble Lords who will speak in the debate. Two areas that it has been suggested may become, over a period of time, national parks, are the New Forest and the South Downs. I am the first to suggest that the New Forest is not suitable to become an orthodox national park. The historical and common land arrangements are too complex. However, I see no reason why the South Downs should riot be a straightforward national park. I speak, not with the advice of or on behalf of the Council for National Parks, but merely as someone who has taken a great interest in them.

However, granted that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, decided to be more ambitious and to provide a framework for AONBs as a whole, I wish the Bill well, although I doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has suggested, that it will be allowed to live very long. I disagree with him about it going into Committee. In Committee I believe that we would be able to work out a large number of problems which need to be worked out, whatever happens in regard to future AONBS or future national parks. It would be time well spent, and rather more well spent than some time recently spent in your Lordship's House.

In the meantime, I agree with those who have said that we must try to improve the Bill. I am quite interested in the idea of the representation of owners on boards, as happens in the Broads. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, quoted my remarks about ownership of land. Let me make my position quite clear. The land belongs to God, and under God to the Queen. As it belongs to the Queen, it belongs to the community and I believe that individual ownership comes below that in the hierarchy. Owners are really stewards rather than owners.

I too query the power to acquire land compulsorily. I have not heard that being defended and I do not have the faintest idea why it is in the Bill. II: does not seem to me to be necessary.

It is good that we are discussing the AONB s and the Sussex Downs as I am most fond of them. I hope that we shall go on to discuss the Bill in Committee, but in the meantime, I give the Bill a limited and slightly puzzled welcome.

My Lords, I must declare an interest. I live in a area of outstanding natural beauty and, like my noble friend Lord Jopling, in another place I represented a major part of one of the most successful areas of outstanding natural beauty in the country, the Lincolnshire wolds. In that area there is an efficient farming community, the excellent diversification of redundant farm buildings and the co-operation of all the Conservative controlled local authorities in the area.

Whatever concern we may express about the Bill, I am certain that we shall all want to pay a sincere tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for the work that he has done on the Sussex Downs. It is that excellent work that has made everybody want to proceed further. I suggest that when the noble Baroness winds up the debate she could lay to rest a lot of the concerns expressed today if she said that the necessary finance will be made available so that the current arrangement of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board can continue to be run as it has so successfully been run.

The difficulty with this Bill is that it extends what has been a success as a local measure to all areas of outstanding natural beauty and not just to the Sussex Downs. Some noble Lords may have had the opportunity to read the June edition of Field with its comment that the old threat of nationalisation of the ownership of land seems to have been replaced by,

"a gradual move to actual nationalisation of the use of land".

Forty-four per cent of all the land in England and Wales is now covered by one of the following: there are 40 AONBs: there are SSSIs; there are nitrate vulnerable zones; there are green belts, national parks and the land owned by the National Trust. And that is not all. There are some exciting new entrants coming into this field: special protection areas are just around the corner along with special areas of conservation.

And the awful thing is that countryside officers in various guises now outnumber farmers, farm workers and foresters. The offending officers do not understand the "living landscape approach" under which the English countryside has developed. I see that reflected in Clause 1 of the Bill in which it takes powers,

"safeguarding such areas from intrusive development".

What constitutes "intrusive"? It is a presumption against change and it does not serve the rural community. Diversification is the way that the countryside is going to develop and I believe that this Bill does not give sufficient consideration to the economic and social attributes that must function in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

We must get away from this chocolate box approach to the English landscape. People have to manage farms and forests. In that area, we have to have manufacturing and service industries. The diversification of activities is what keeps an area of outstanding natural beauty alive.

Many of us will want to table a large number of amendments to this Bill. It is important that, as it is a probing measure, my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry realises that we will want to discuss in depth a duty on the boards to foster economic and social welfare; representation on the boards for owners and land managers; and, as my noble friend Lord Jopling said, we will certainly press for the removal of the compulsory purchase powers. I do not know why they are in this Bill. They are quite unnecessary. We will also be expressing grave concern about this jurisdiction over adjacent areas.

I see a case for over 20 amendments to this Bill. I hope that in considering it my noble friend Lord Renton will realise that we need a great deal more time in the various stages. Perhaps with that warning, the newly fledged Countryside Commission may well want to pause and not encourage one of its most favourite children to rush forward for this well-meaning and unnecessary legislation. The sensible voluntary approach can still work, if only those who have to administer the system know that they cannot just rush to Westminster and legislate about things.

My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Statement is as follows:

"Biotechnology is an important and exciting area of scientific advance which offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life. In healthcare, biotechnology has already helped to develop better treatments for diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, heart disease and diabetes. It is also helping the environment through techniques such as bioremediation, which assisted the clean-up of beaches following the 'Sea Empress' oil spill in December 1996. In agriculture, genetic modification has the potential to produce food more efficiently, which is more nutritious, tastes better and uses fewer pesticides. This is just the start.

"There are many real and exciting benefits and potential benefits. But this is new technology and the risks must be rigorously assessed. The Government recognise the considerable public concern about the safety of genetically modified food and crops. Our overriding duty is to protect the public and the environment. We must continue to ensure that the controls we have in place are sound and that they command public confidence.

"That is why the Prime Minister established a new Cabinet Committee on biotechnology last autumn. It is why the first decision of the committee in December was to carry out a review of the regulatory framework to ensure it was rigorous, as transparent as possible and able to cope with so fast-moving a technology. We invited a wide range of interested bodies to give us their views, including the Select Committees of this House.

"It is also why we thought it essential to seek the views of the public through the public consultation on the biosciences. It is why we commissioned a report from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser on the public health implications of genetically modified food. All three reports are published today.

"My colleagues, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Food Safety, have also been in discussion with the industry over the past year to ensure that the cultivation of genetically modified crops in this country is effectively managed. We are today also endorsing guidelines for the cultivation of these crops.

"The review has found that the existing system of careful, case-by-case assessment of new biotechnology products and processes is an essential component of our regulatory system. But there are persuasive arguments for strengthening the system by adding new strategic commissions to take a broader, long-term view of developments in the technology.

"We will therefore set up two new advisory bodies: the Human Genetics Commission which will advise us on applications of biotechnology in healthcare and the impact of human genetics on our lives; and the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission which will cover the use of biotechnology in agriculture and its environmental effects. Working alongside the Food Standards Agency, which will soon take on responsibility for genetically modified foods, these new bodies will have wide-ranging remits, advising Ministers on likely future developments in the technology and addressing broader issues such as ethical considerations.

"The members of the new commissions will be drawn from a broad range of interests: those with expertise of consumer issues and ethics, for example, will sit alongside scientists. The commissions will also consult widely with the public and stakeholders when carrying out their work.

"One of the main findings of our consultation exercises was that the regulatory system should be made more transparent. We agree, and our report published today includes guidelines on transparency which all committees involved in biotechnology, including the new commissions, will be required to follow. We are confident that with these changes we will have a system for regulating biotechnology which is rigorous and open and which will safeguard the public interest.

"In their report on genetically modified foods and public health the Chief Medical Officer (Professor Liam Donaldson) and the Chief Scientific Adviser (Sir Robert May) conclude:

'Many of the issues raised by foods resulting from genetic modification arc equally applicable to foods produced by conventional means'.

They go on:

"There is no current evidence to suggest that the genetically modified technologies used to produce food are inherently harmful'.

They further report:

'We are reassured by the precautionary nature and rigour of the current procedures used to assess the safety of individual genetically modified foods'.

"They emphasise that there is a need to keep a close watch on developments and to continue to fund research to improve scientific understanding in this area. Both the Government and our advisory committees will continue to do this. They encourage us to take moves to improve the openness of the regulatory procedures to public scrutiny. This we are doing today.

"They recommend that consideration should be given to the establishment of a national surveillance unit to monitor population health aspects of genetically modified and other types of novel foods. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is already discussing how this might be done. The Ministerial committee will review progress on this in the autumn.

"The Government have been working with environmentalists and the biotechnology industry to ensure that the first farm-scale plantings of genetically modified crops in Britain are carefully managed. That is why we have embarked on a programme of evaluations which are being rigorously undertaken to secure thorough and reliable evidence on whether or not they cause damage to the environment. Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment.

"Today, the industry group, SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops), has published a package of measures which will ensure that proper care is taken when the crops are grown on the farm. We welcome this important, step forward.

"These are tough rules—and they are underpinned by legally binding contracts. There will be an independent system of enforcement and audit. Some have said we should have legislated in this area. This would inevitably have taken much longer than our voluntary approach.

"However, we think these guidelines could well form the basis of future legislation—and we will he working with the industry and our European partners to take this forward.

"The Science and Technology Select Committee said this week we need an informed public debate in this area. It condemned some media treatment of the subject. It called for more openness and transparency—for more information to be provided to the public which is accurate and objective. We agree. The measures we have announced today are intended to achieve this. But we need to establish the debate on a firm basis.

"The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser firmly believe there is no current evidence to suggest that genetic modification technologies used to produce food are inherently harmful. The Science and Technology Committee came to the same view. The Royal Society this week convincingly dismissed the results of some recent research on potatoes—and the misinterpretation of it—as wholly misleading. And there is no evidence to suggest that any GM foods on sale in this country are harmful.

"The Government welcome open, rational, well-informed debate. That is the best way to safeguard the public interest. Regrettably, some political, media and other treatment of these issues has not served the public well.

"Biotechnology undoubtedly has the potential to improve our quality of life in very many ways. It is government's responsibility to encourage this potential. But we will not do so at the risk to public health and the environment. This duty is at the heart of today's announcement."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. It is a pity that it has been made on a Friday as this matter is of very considerable interest for many Members of this House who could not be here today. Biotechnology and its application to human food has become an increasingly important concern to the public over the past six months. So we very much welcome the Statement and the various documents and reports that have been issued with it.

We shall judge the Statement by three criteria. Will the measures announced protect the British people against any possible threat to human health? Will they protect the British environment against any possible damage from genetically modified crops? Will they restore confidence in the integrity of the Government's approach to these matters and assure the general public that future decisions are taken openly, with health and the environment given priority at all times over considerations of commerce and politics?

Bearing in mind those criteria, does the Minister accept that there is a risk that certain genetically modified crops could upset or even destroy the balance of nature? Does the Minister recognise that there is now an overwhelming case for an absolute ban on all commercial planting of genetically modified crops until research into their impact has been completed?

It is of course very difficult to say how long such research will take because, if there is no impact discernible, at some stage a decision will have to be taken that there has been no impact and that therefore it is safe to proceed. Will the Minister say how likely it is that such a position will have been reached in under three years? How will the Government regulate the planting of trial crops in the future? How will it be possible to ensure that genetically modified pollen is not blown by the wind or spread by the bees all over the countryside to the detriment of organic and, indeed, non-organic farms? If such contamination does take place, will there be compensation for any farmer whose business may be compromised or, indeed, ruined?

Does the Minister agree with his colleague, the environment Minister, who said yesterday that if evidence were available in Britain of threats to biodiversity, such as that posed in America by genetically modified maize to the Monarch butterfly, certain genetically modified crops might have to be banned outright?

Does the Minister recognise that in spite of today's reassurances, some consumers will undoubtedly want to avoid eating foods which have genetically modified components?

We shall study the accompanying documents and reports with great care and hope that they will help to restore public confidence. As the Statement says, biotechnology offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life. Those opportunities must not be thrown away, but at the same time absolute priority must be given to considerations of human health and the welfare of the environment. If the Government follow those criteria, they will of course be supported by these Benches.

My Lords, we welcome this Statement. I do not object to the Statement being made on a Friday. The sooner that matters of this nature get into the public domain, the better. Only this week the Select Committee on Science and Technology said that an informed public debate in this area is vital. The media's treatment of the matter has aroused concern. That will abate only when the public has available properly researched reports. We cannot blame the public. A BMA report stated recently that the adverse effects of genetically modified organisms are likely to be irreversible and that as we cannot yet know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or human health, the precautionary principle should apply. The report went on to say that the antibiotic resistance that could be caused by GMOs is one of the major public health threats that we face in the 21st century.

The media do not help. It is reported that the Government's most senior scientist has contradicted the Prime Minister's policy with a call for a four-year ban on the commercial release of GMOs.

No one can dispute that we need scientific advances which will improve the quality of life but once in a while, we face adversity. Public opinion is often shaped by such events. That does not mean that we could not or should not look for advances in science which would bring lasting benefits to many of our people who look to scientists for solutions. It is for those reasons that we welcome also the additional safeguards that the Minister has announced today. We welcome the establishment of the human genetics commission which will help to promote an informed debate on the use of biotechnology in healthcare and the impact of human genetics on our lives.

We welcome too the establishment of an agricultural and environmental biotechnical commission which will help us to hold a rational debate on the use of biotechnology in agriculture and the environment. That is tied up with the Food Standards Authority and is certainly a way forward.

We need a number of assurances. We want the two commissions and the Food Standards Authority to ensure that they not only address matters of concern but produce frequent reports with full scientific evidence on their areas of responsibility which the public can study.

On page eight the Statement talks about the unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop not being permitted. Does that mean that non-commercial cultivation could continue? Should not restriction apply to all cultivation? We also want to see international agreement on the mandatory segregation of genetically modified crops. The Government need to be far more active on this issue. We want a Food Standards Agency with powers to regulate genetically modified products. All meetings of related advisory bodies should be open to the public.

European Union member states should have the right to opt out of the growing and importing of genetically modified crops without fear of retaliation. The big businesses behind genetically modified crops are American multinational companies, and any refusal of such produce could result in a bigger trade war than that over bananas.

We want clear labelling of all food produce that is genetically grown, and no commercially grown genetically modified crops should be permitted before 2003, when government funded research is due to end. Farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops must be completed before any commercial planting.

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to my Statement. I am also grateful for the acknowledgement given to biotechnology's huge potential to improve our quality of life, and for the endorsement of our approach, which is that, while we have a responsibility to encourage its potential. we shall not do so if there is a risk to public health or the environment.

The noble Lord, Lord Luke, effectively posed the Government three tests. First, will the measures protect human health adequately? Secondly, will they protect the environment? And, thirdly, will these measures restore public confidence? I believe that the answer to each test is "yes". Measures are in place that involve a case-by-case consideration before food and novel food processes are used which will provide some adequate protection. In addition, we have introduced the two new commissions. We have also indicated the role that the Food Standards Agency will play. Case-by-case consideration will be given to environmental matters and., once more, the commissions will be involved in that.

In the measures taken today, we have sought to respond to public concerns. We believe that one of the most important aspects will prove to be the extent to which there is a transparent process through which the public can see that appropriate measures, which protect the environment and public health, are taken.

The Statement makes clear that the Government have been working with environmentalists and with the biotechnology industry to ensure that the first farm-scale plantings of genetically modified food crops in Britain are carefully managed. The report by the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer endorses the continuation of those trials. Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment. I believe that that meets the concern raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, sought three assurances. First, he sought an assurance that the new commissions would be transparent in their proceedings. He asked that regular reports should be given on their activities. It is not appropriate for me to read the document in full, but the report published today entitled The Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology sets out in paragraph 51 a series of steps that it is intended that both the commissions and the advisory committees will take in order to be more transparent. I believe that that meets the majority of concerns raised by the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to commercial cultivation, and I hope that I have met that point. He also wanted mandatory separation of genetically modified crops and organic or other crops. We have talked to the industry, and we are satisfied that the farm-scale trials have been conducted in accordance with good practice. I hope that I have dealt with all the concerns raised.

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government's important announcement which in many respects endorses some of the most important conclusions of the report on genetic modification recently produced by the European Communities Select Committee, which was published earlier this year, and is due to be debated next week.

I particularly welcome the announcement about the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission which will have a broader remit and membership than any of the existing advisory committees. It was just such a committee for which the Royal Society called and for which we, in our report called, and I very much welcome it.

I also welcome the Government's firm stand in resisting calls for a blanket moratorium for a predetermined number of years on all growing of genetic modified crops. Permission to grow commercially should surely depend on the outcome of the current field trials. Those field trials should he allowed to take place, and it cannot be known in advance for how long they will need to continue.

I have some questions in relation to the new commissions. Is there any significance in the choice of the word "commission" rather than "committee"? What balance will the Government aim for between lay and scientific membership? To which Ministry will they report? Will it be to a Cabinet subcommittee? Will they be able to commission research?

My Lords. I am grateful for the welcome given to my Statement. I pay tribute to the Select Committee's work. The material that we have published today comes to conclusions that are very similar to those of the Select Committee. The bodies are called commissions because they are to take a more strategic look at these issues than committees would do. Committees would be more concerned with a case-by-case consideration of food and planting issues. I think that that explains the difference.

The commissions will be able to commission research. I was asked about the breakdown between lay and scientific members. All sorts of people will be represented: lay members, members concerned with ethics, scientists, providers, and so on. I cannot give a precise breakdown. The Human Genetics Commission will report to health Ministers and the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission will report to the Minister in the Cabinet Office.

My Lords, I add my welcome to that given by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and to the tribute paid by the Minister to the Select Committee's work. The Royal Society and the Select Committee recommended an overarching body to oversee all the regulators. I am not clear whether the Minister's proposals are in line with the wishes of the Royal Society and the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister can assure me on that.

My Lords, I am aware that the Select Committee suggested one overarching body. However, I do not think that we came to the same conclusion on that recommendation. Biotechnology can be used in a wide range of sectors. We thought that it would be too much for a single, overarching body to manage. That is why we suggested two commissions. It seemed to be the best way of providing the strategic leadership required.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that one of the problems has been the failure of the firms that are working in this field to promote the good which they are doing? Is he aware that we are discussing this problem 26 years after an Act was passed concerning plant breeders' rights? Is he further aware that in the first year the Act was on the statute book a very new, high-yielding, disease-resistant winter barley was launched on the market? The source from which it was said to come was seeds that were found on the hem of a dead nun's dress in Bulgaria. Can the noble and learned Lord imagine a more soothing way of calming the public's fears about genetically modified seed?

My Lords, I can think of no more soothing way. The debate on genetically modified foods has rightly focused, and focused almost exclusively, on the negative aspects. There has been no widescale debate about the benefits to medicine, to the environment and to the third world which can come from the development of this science. When I say "development", I mean development. A good deal of development needs to be done. What we should not do is take steps which prevent that development taking place and, as a result, cause great disbenefit to the quality of life not just in the first world but also in the third world.

My Lords, how does the noble and learned Lord square with what he has just said the concerns arising from this example: on the one hand, the threat of peanuts in so many foods that are inadequately labelled to those who have allergies; and, on the other hand, the future ability of genetically modified peanuts to remove from the peanut the organism causing the allergy?

My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Viscount in relation to the problem of the peanut.

My Lords, what precautions will be put in place to prevent during the experimental period pollen from genetically modified crops that may damage the environment getting out of those plots and into the rest of the landscape round about the experimental area?

My Lords, one of the main issues in relation to that question is the distance between the farm-scale trials and the ordinary farming activity going on elsewhere. That would be the main aspect of protection.

My Lords, I realise from what the Minister said that the advisory committee will contain a wide range of experts. On the environmental issues, I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the advice they are given by English Nature, which so far is somewhat concerned about the possible environmental impact of genetically modified crops.

My Lords, the Government intend to take the best advice on all of these issues and pay appropriate regard to it.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is a less hysterical group of people in the community who are concerned about this issue? They accept all the points made by my noble friend Lord Kimball about the benefits in terms of feeding the people of the world, the medical benefits and many others. However, at the same time, they are worried that whole species of the life chain may disappear as a result of growing these crops or that there may be disruption of the environment to the extent that the price to be paid for those benefits is too high. These questions need to be resolved. For that reason I believe that what the noble and learned Lord appears to be saying in the Statement is right. We should not go forward to commercial production until we know that biodiversity will not be upset.

The Statement says:

"Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment".

Why is the qualification of "unrestricted" there? If it read:

"Commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment",

that would be unequivocal. Can I take it from the noble and learned Lord that restricted commercial cultivation could take place? Can I have an assurance that no commercial cultivation will take place until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment?

My Lords, I have already said that field-scale and farm-scale trials are going on. The results of those farm-scale trials will have to be looked at. Once the results of those farm-scale trials have been looked at, appropriate measures will have to be determined. It would be wrong to restrict ourselves in any way as to what those measures should be. In effect, the noble Baroness is asking me to define whether it will be all or nothing. I cannot say.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Statement and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I am left perplexed about why my honourable friend in another place submitted himself this morning to a difficult interview when he had some very good things to say which he obviously could not say in advance of making his Statement. But that is another matter.

We have to accept that there is widespread misunderstanding about what is taking place. That is not helped by the press, but I suppose that the press was not very much better informed than many of us. Public anxiety is understandable. The latest story that I have heard—I have no means of knowing whether it is accurate—is that a company is beginning to look at what contribution to this science funnel web spiders and scorpions can make. That is bound to worry people. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether any thought has been given to elevating the controls and so on in this area on an international basis.

I ask that for two reasons. First, in many respects, it seems that the United States is significantly ahead, certainly in using GM seeds. Secondly, my noble and learned friend did not mention the economic consequences of this technology, which need to be examined on an international basis. It has often been said that it will help third-world countries. It will not help them if they cannot keep the seed after each crop to grow the next crop and it may not help them if part of the environmental effects in their countries—in South America and Africa—are to interfere with other important crops through contamination. I am puzzled as to why further experiments are not carried out under more controlled conditions. A great many vegetables are today grown in tunnels. I have been to at least two or three extremely good butterfly farms. Thinking of the issue of the Monarch, it would have been perfectly possible to have discovered that in what I would call laboratory conditions.

I conclude by asking the Minister to indicate whether the safety element of food will extend to the volume of that food consumed over a period of time as well as to the short-term consequences.

My Lords, with regard to safety, all aspects will have to be considered, including the amount of genetically modified food that may be eaten and what its consequences may be. The noble Lord asked about the international aspects. As I said in the Statement, we shall be working not just with industry but also with our European partners. I think that the noble Lord had in mind the wider international aspects. We must consider scientific advice and scientific research, from wherever in the world it comes.

My Lords, we return to another equally important aspect of the environment. I warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, on his initiative. I assume that it has the support of the Countryside Agency since it so closely follows the model clauses that its predecessor body, the Countryside Commission, published last year.

I too have an interest: I am a vice president of the Council for National Parks and I also live in a national park. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made quite clear the Council for National Parks' position on the South Downs and national park status. On this occasion I do not wish to enter into debate on that subject. My remarks today are purely personal.

I should add that the National Trust, which is a substantial landowner in almost every AONB, also supports this Bill. Although I suspect that it would tend to favour national park status for the South Downs, I pass that by.

A few years ago, when I was chairman of the National Trust, we were involved with others in an unsuccessful battle to prevent the erection of a wind turbine. The site chosen by the developer was almost on the edge of the Cotswold escarpment overlooking the Vale of Gloucester. The creature that was erected is about as big as the Clock Tower of Big Ben. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, introduced the subject, he quoted from Bill Bryson on the Vale of Evesham; he might equally well have been as horror-struck as I was in looking over into the Vale of Gloucester. On the other side, it was literally yards—between here and the Throne—from a National Trust property, which was why we objected. There were also other properties. If ever there was a case of a prime site in one of England's prime AONBs being desecrated, that was surely it. One might have been forgiven if one had not felt that the site selected was deliberately chosen to show the contempt that some developers have for that statutory designation.

I was, and I remain, staggered that we can allow huge industrial structures to be built on land designated by statute (even though the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, does not agree) as having equal landscape quality to that of national parks; nor is that an isolated instance. Noble Lords will have their own examples. There is already one wind turbine in the Forest of Bowland AONB. A huge wind farm of 34 turbines in the North Pennines AONB has recently been turned down by the Minister, I am glad to say—all the more power to his elbow—but a judicial review is being sought. There is the dualling of the A.303 through the Blackdown Hills; there is the case of the Twyford Down desecration; and there is the case of the future use of RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk, on which I suspect my noble friend Lord Bridges will touch. And so it goes on.

We really must do something to make the protection work, for which Parliament so wisely legislated 50 years ago. This year we are rightly celebrating the 50th anniversary of that Act. On the national parks front the Act has worked well; just think of the developments that would have occurred in our national parks without that Act. Let us not forget that the Act also introduced the concept of AONB designation for fine landscapes in identical terms to national parks. The only difference was that the national parks designation included the promoting of opportunities for understanding and enjoyment. But the AONB status has for us in the event been the very poor relation. It is therefore fitting and appropriate that in this jubilee year the Bill seeks to do something about the problem, or at least to draw it to our attention.

The weakness of the 1949 Act, as we have already been told, and I will therefore not labour the point, is that it did not give the planning authorities the duty to promote the conservation of those areas. With the benefit of hindsight that may now seem obvious. We all know the threats that have emerged and I have mentioned some of them. We discuss them frequently in this House and they are discussed in the Countryside Commission's excellent report of last year, Protecting our Finest Countryside.

We cannot legislate against every kind of landscape threat—for example, certain agricultural practices—but we can surely put the AONBs on a more positive footing. The Bill, I suggest, does this in the main by picking up the model clauses of the Countryside Commission's document. I will skip over some of the detail. One of the main features of the Bill which attracts me is in encouraging the Government to set up conservation boards and in giving such boards a degree of statutory status. The model is the Sussex Downs Conservation Board which, as we know, is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and of course sitting next to me is his predecessor, my noble friend Lord Nathan.

The noble Lord has taken us through the details clause by clause. I should like to comment on four points: first, the planning. This in a sense lies at the heart of the conservation board issue. The need for a coherent approach to planning, for a management plan, in each AONB, is manifest and the purposes are warmly applauded. Equally (if not more) important is making a conservation board a statutory consultee, which the noble Lord explained. The only question is: does this go far enough? The noble Lord said that, on the one hand, there are people who want more and there are people who want less. There is a balance to be struck there. For example, should the conservation board have the right of veto over planning approvals or should it have the right to insist on "call in"? That is something we should perhaps discuss when we get to Committee stage. I should be particularly interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness the Minister.

A second point in relation to planning is the status of a conservation board management plan. In effect, how does it relate in legal or process terms to structure and local plans and the new development plan system? I am not a planner and I should like some guidance.

Secondly, there is the composition of the conservation board. I welcome the power given to the Secretary of State to appoint independent members. I should like to know whether the Government envisage that this would be done, roughly speaking, on a national park basis, which would seem to be the most appropriate.

Thirdly, I welcome the proposed powers of ownership and acquisition of land. On the whole, I am against compulsory acquisition powers.

Fourthly, I know and welcome the power of a conservation board to make levies to local councils and similarly for the Secretary of State to make grants. In other words, the AONB conservation boards will be put on the same footing as the national parks, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. The funding will be crucial and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. Without funding the board would be a dead duck—it may be a dead duck anyway, but when we do something it does need to be funded.

I very much hope that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind, the more so because there is no certainty that there will be a countryside Bill in the next Session. Even if this Bill should fail—and I note the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling—I think it will have proved to be a useful exercise, a dummy run if you like, for government legislation. Many of us will remember, and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, indirectly referred to it, how useful the noble Lord, Lord Norrie's, Bill was on national parks administration. It paved the way for the 1995 national parks provisions in the Environment Act of that year and it teased out many difficult issues. I suggest that this Bill can perform a very useful function in that respect too. I welcome the Bill.

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that because of the addition of the Statement to today's business, it is conceivable that I might not be able to stay until the end of the debate. In which case, I sincerely apologise to the House, to my noble friend and to the Minister. I shall, of course, read the Hansard report of the conclusion of the debate if I am not able to be here.

In declaring my interest, which in a sense is fairly relevant to the substance of the Bill, I should perhaps point out that I was for 12 years a member of the Countryside Commission and a member for eight years of the Rural Development Commission. As your Lordships know, those two have been amalgamated into the Countryside Agency. Therefore, I am extremely conscious of the point that you must not separate the protection of rural beauty from the fact that people have to work and earn their living in rural areas. To me that is axiomatic. In the days when I served on the Rural Development Commission, a policy was adopted specifically so that there should be a cross-membership to bring both commissions together. Now they are together I should also declare my chairmanship, until last year, of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I am currently one of its vice presidents. I am a farmer in Suffolk and also president of the Suffolk Preservation Society.

What we ought to get clear, and clearer than has perhaps come through at present, is the relationship between national parks and AONBs. I should like to read from what I regard as the ex cathedra statement of government policy going back 50 years—as far as I am aware, it has never been changed—from the Countryside Agency's brief statement on the matter:

"AONBs are the equal of our National Parks in terms of their landscape quality. They should enjoy the same level of protection".

I regard that as being a statement of the statutory position following the designation of these areas. What we are talking about in this Bill is not the desirability of protecting AONBs, but the method by which they should be protected, whether or not we need a new form and another level of bureaucracy.

Although AONBs are in no sense, as I have just suggested, the ugly sisters of national parks, they are certainly the poor sisters. For the past 50 years, although considerable funds have always been made available for national parks, funds have not in general been made available for AONBs. That is an important point to remember.

Moreover, I start from the premise that you cannot rely on local authorities to protect landscape if they are just left on their own; it simply does not happen. Local authorities responsible for a particular piece of landscape should take into account their obligation to protect it. In the days when planning was a function of county councils rather than district councils—a change in the planning system which took place in the early seventies—there was more likelihood that the broader picture of conservation would be taken account of by county councils. Therefore, especially when an AONB is divided among a number of local authority areas, as many of them are, it is particularly helpful that there should be some sort of a body to take the responsibility for at least sifting through the planning process when it applies to AONBs, and certainly trying to take into account the statutory obligation to protect these very precious areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned the Bentwaters controversy in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, on the edge of which I live. That is certainly a good example. The developer has proposed a regional airport—it is extremely doubtful whether Britain needs another regional airport; certainly not in the South-East—and seems to have been able to persuade the officers of the Suffolk coastal district council that it is perfectly proper for such an airport to be situated in the middle of that particular AONB. In my opinion, the council did not begin to take into account the environmental dimension to this development application. If we had a different form of body which was responsible for this stewardship and protection, I believe that we would get a lot further.

I am not saying—indeed, I have never said—that these areas should become national parks. There is a difference. I do not believe that the national park model is necessarily right for all AONBs. When I was on the Countryside Commission, we realised the lacuna in protection which there was at that time for the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and started to consider what to do about it. We decided not to make them a national park. I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it would not be appropriate to make the New Forest into a national park.

Therefore, in the case of the Broads, we came up with the proposal of giving the area its own protection body. It also had its own Act of Parliament. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that there can be great opposition to some of these things. I know very well that there was huge opposition—that is not an understatement—to the establishment of the Broads authority. In fact, I had to go round trying to persuade people that it was a reasonable proposal. It is now working very well and is very popular. That is very much a case of combining the economic with the conservation. The biggest single occupation in the Broads is tourism—boats and all that. This had to be brought together with conservation. I strongly believe that we need new structures for such a purpose.

However, I am not sure whether my noble friend's Bill, on which he should be very much congratulated for bringing forward, is exactly the right way to do it. I certainly would go along with some of the suggestions that have been made as regards amendments which might be needed in Committee. In my opinion, it would be well worth while pursuing the matter further. I do not know whether, ultimately, what we are doing is acting as pathfinders for the Government to bring in a Bill to do the things that we decide we need, or whether we can carry it further through the Private Member's process.

I was a little puzzled by something that my noble friend Lord Jopling said, though no doubt the Minister will give us a view on it. I thought I understood my noble friend to say that a Bill originating here could not even be discussed in another place. I may be wrong on that, but that would certainly surprise me. If it is the case, I would agree with him entirely that our procedures need to be changed because that vitiates the whole working together of the two Houses which should be a central part of a bicameral legislature.

At any rate, I do not want to go further now other than to say that I welcome the Bill. I think, intrinsically, that it is right and that it would provide a new protection for very precious areas of our country. We must, by one means or another, fill the administrative gap which exists for such protection.

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kimball for what he said. I am delighted that he has come back to the Chamber to take his place so that he may hear my thanks to him for his kind remarks. I am extremely grateful to him. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for his kind words.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is no longer in his place. I say that because it seems to me that the National Parks Bill, with which I was to some extent connected and which was introduced into this House by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, was an experience which might conceivably be repeated in this case. It had the great merit of being considered in this House; it was considered in Committee and was approved by your Lordships. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, mentioned, it did not get any further, but it was incorporated in large measure as it left this House into the environment legislation of 1995. It seems to me that the discussion we could have both in Committee and today about this Bill may serve a useful purpose to the same end.

This is an important and timely Bill. It provides the framework for administration of areas of outstanding natural beauty which is presently lacking. As has been said, my experience derives from the privilege of being the chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board from virtually its beginning in 1992 for over five years until I was succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, in October 1997. The experience I had is relevant to my support for the main purposes of this Bill. I thought it might be of interest to your Lordships.

The board was constituted by an agreement between the 13 local authorities within which the AONB lies and the Countryside Commission, as it then was. Although named the Sussex Downs AONB, about one-third of its nearly 400 square miles lie in the weald to the north. In view of the discussion which has taken place, I thought it might be relevant to your Lordships if I refer briefly to the objects of the board as set out in that agreement. I shall not read it at length but it starts with the prime objective:

"to protect, conserve and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of AONB".

Subject to that overriding requirement, the second object is:

"to promote the quiet informal enjoyment of it by the general public".

The third objective has been the subject of some comment elsewhere. It is:

"generally to promote sustainable forms of economic and social development especially working with farmers and landowners to encourage land management which supports the two objectives above".

In that context the board has been active—I have been particularly interested in that activity—in the promotion of coppicing, which has made a considerable economic contribution in its initial stages and I am certain will continue to do so. Other economic activities are also being promoted by the board.

I return to the history of the board. East and West Sussex County Councils transferred their countryside management responsibilities to the board and undertook to provide funding of around £600,000 per annum to the board to be matched by the Countryside Commission. The agreement was to be reviewed after six years. This period expired on 31st March 1998, from which time interim arrangements have been in force to continue for a maximum of three years; that is, until 31st March 2001. The agreement worked well and I believe that the board was considered a success. The 13 local authorities and the Countryside Commission worked together harmoniously and I was particularly proud of the fact that over the five years of my chairmanship we never had a row! However, from an early stage—a couple of years after we started—we gave thought to the precarious nature of our arrangements in the long term: changes in local authorities over the years might lead to a desire for withdrawal or cessation of funding which might bring the whole enterprise to an end.

I emphasise that, although during those five years we had local authority reorganisation resulting in radical alteration to East Sussex and the creation of Brighton and Hove unitary authority, adjustments were made to accommodate these changes in a harmonious manner, to the great credit of those concerned in difficult circumstances. The local authorities were also under much financial pressure during this period and yet they sustained and in some cases increased their financial contribution from 1st April 1998 to compensate for the reduction in funding from the Countryside Commission. But we foresaw from an early date that these uncertainties rendered long-term policies for the AONB difficult to implement, as well as appropriate staff arrangements. What was needed was a greater measure of security as to the existence of the board and its funding. This was the basis of our discussions internally and in due course with the Countryside Commission.

The board instituted a consultation and held a major conference on its future which resolved that the board should continue in its present form, reinforced generally on the lines of the provisions of this Bill. Subsequently the Department of the Environment instigated a further conference on the future of the board which was implemented by the Countryside Commission. The outcome was the same. We were of course aware that the Countryside Commission's prime interest was to innovate and promote new ventures rather than to provide ongoing funding for successful enterprises. After all, we had been the beneficiaries of its support for new ventures and had absorbed much of its available funds. That is why we got in touch with the Department of the Environment to secure funding direct from it on some more permanent basis.

We therefore envisaged that legislation was required for the benefit of AONBs generally, enabling the Secretary of State to establish arrangements appropriate to different AONBs—particularly where these were situated within a number of local authorities—and to provide for funding, both by local authorities and national resources, on a basis giving the security required. In addition to the Sussex Downs AONB—with which the Countryside Commission was keen to combine East Hampshire AONB—there are perhaps three other AONBs falling within this description. This Bill enables this aim to be fulfilled and is its main purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has given it much time and thought and it is he who has achieved this result. There are provisions relating to planning and other matters which clearly require detailed examination in Committee. I shall look forward to that discussion, but it is for another day.

I end by emphasising the great merit of leaving local authorities to create structures they consider beneficial, such as they did in the case of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. After all, they are the representatives of the people living within their areas. Such actions enhance and enlarge local authorities. However, AONBs are not only local but a national heritage enjoyed by those living far from them. The board had, according to estimates made by a university team, some 32 million visits in a year. That is why national resources as well as local funds are needed. This Bill enables this to be done without utilising the provisions relating to national parks imposed upon the area, thus diminishing rather than enhancing local representative authorities. I very much hope that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships.

My Lords, I believe that it will be easier for me—and probably the best thing to do—if I start by saying rather simply that from our house there is a fine view of a substantial part of the South Downs. For much of my life I farmed in the low weald just below the clowns, which is a completely different kind of countryside from the downs themselves. The contrast between the two is amazing. However, one field that I farmed came within the Sussex Downs AONB. I explain that quite simply by way of declaring an interest.

Of course, like most residents I have an interest in preserving my view of the downs. I am also a member of the CLA and the NFU. I am well aware of the importance of maintaining the economic viability of the area. I am really a local observer of what has happened in the area. Within the view that I described earlier, just within the AONB—two miles away—lies the house of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. Everyone locally is immensely grateful to him for being willing to serve as the chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. They are also grateful to the previous chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—my university contemporary and friend—who has just spoken. There is no doubt that he did very well indeed when leading the board in its initial stages. He should also be congratulated on his skill in persuading my noble friend to succeed him as chairman. I am not sure how relaxing a sinecure he may have suggested it was.

It is no surprise that my noble friend Lord Renton has found it necessary to introduce the Bill. The Countryside Commission—now the Countryside Agency—has made us aware that legislation on this matter is needed and that the matter is getting more pressingly urgent. That urgency springs from the serious need to put the Sussex Downs Conservation Board on a firmer footing, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said. As far as concerns myself and several other noble Lords who are in attendance today, the Bill has a somewhat local flavour. It concerns us first and foremost because there are not many conservation boards looking after AONBs; primarily, there is our board and the Norfolk Broads board.

The South Downs dominate our area—their striking beauty is admired far and wide—and the increasing pressure upon them as a result of a major population increase produced the need, first, for designation and, subsequently, for the formation of the voluntary conservation board. As a local observer who lives just outside the area of the downs, I can report that the board has done an awful lot of good. There have been no rows; it has been popular; and there is a universal view that something very closely along the same lines should continue but that its funding must be made more secure.

I trust that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that it will do no good to go beyond Second Reading. It is very important that we try to get the Bill into better shape now and that it goes on to Committee stage. The Bill may well be incorporated in other legislation in due course.

Nevertheless, the Bill needs modification. Many of the points about modification have already been mentioned, but perhaps I may say a little more in support of them. There is no mention in the Bill of a responsibility to have regard for the rural economy. That is a matter of great importance. A conservation board should have regard for the rural economy in order to preserve the good will of the people who live and work in its area and to encourage them to help. There is no doubt that they will help; after all, it concerns their homes and their environment too.

I should perhaps also raise the question of representation on the conservation boards. There is no provision in the Bill for direct representation by owners and other land managers. I believe that there should be. The Norfolk Broads board set a precedent in that respect. It has such representation.

I am doubtful about the powers in relation to land. I have no particular objection if the board needs to own land, but I do have an objection to the board having compulsory powers. I believe that it wants compulsory powers because there are areas on the downs which do not belong to anyone and it wishes to gain control over those. That is fine as far as it goes, but it is a cumbersome tool with which to purchase land. One should bear in mind that the purpose of the Bill is that other AONBs might want to adopt the same proceedings. I do not think that such a widespread power is necessary or should be given. After all, local authorities have that power—and local authorities are appointed, not elected, bodies.

I have not formed a definite view of Clause 4. I have heard the comment that the powers in the clause could well be unnecessary as local authorities broadly, already have them. I shall need to consider the clause further. However, I should like to comment specifically on Clause 4(2), paragraph (b) of which relates to the power over adjacent areas. I do not think that that is an acceptable power to give to a conservation board. Perhaps I may explain. The view from our windows is over the South Downs ESA; superimposed on that is the South Downs AONB. The AONB is a larger area and provides the buffer that protects the ESA. I do not want anything in the Bill that would enable conservation boards effectively to increase the size of AONB areas. They should be designated in the way they always have been and not altered in that way.

I should like to stress particularly the kind of spirit necessary when a board is established in an AONB. It is most important that the matter is decided by local popular will. Only in that way will the local population carry a board forward well and with the enthusiasm that helps so significantly. I am anxious to ensure that the Bill does that.

My Lords, I commend the way in which my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has introduced both his Bill and the debate. I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

We support the need for AONB legislation, which would provide for better management of AONBs. Indeed, the CNP signed the Wildlife and Countryside Link AONB paper. Better resources and management of AONBs raise the environmental stakes in the countryside generally and assist with the protection of national parks.

However, the area of the South Downs, which is currently an AONB, is a special case and its future could be compromised by dealing with it in this context. The current context is one of overwhelming support for national park status for the South Downs. A 1998 national opinion poll for the Ramblers Association demonstrated that, nationally, 77 per cent of those questioned felt that the South Downs should be designated a national park. A petition of 21,000 names in support of national park status for the South Downs has recently been submitted to the House of Commons. The Government have a manifesto commitment to designate more areas of countryside as national parks.

As early as 1947, when the Hobhouse Committee was formed, calls were made for the South Downs to be designated a national park. The level of public support for national park status for the South Downs is overwhelming and is on a par with the popular calls in the 1950s for the first 10 national parks to be designated. In today's world of competing priorities, it would be hard to replicate such grass-roots support for other countryside initiatives. The South Downs has been a missing piece of the jigsaw of the national parks family ever since the Hobhouse report of 1947 included it in its list of prospective national parks. Research has indicated that there is no popular opinion, either historical or current, that is pushing for national park status for any other area of outstanding natural beauty.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I shall not intervene at any great length, but before he leaves this question perhaps I may point out to him that, so far as the Sussex Downs are concerned, every elected local authority is represented on the board of which I am chairman. They are all opposed to national park status—and they represent their electors—with the possible exception of Brighton and Hove. All the other elected local authorities do not believe that the Sussex Downs are suitable for national park status.

My Lords, it is always easy to find fault.

There appears to be a 50 per cent chance that a countryside Bill will be included in this year's Queen's Speech, unless, of course, the Minister can announce today an improvement on those odds. At present, AONB proposals are likely to be included in a broad-based countryside Bill that also includes clauses to protect sites of special scientific interest and to deliver the Government's access commitments discussed during the debate introduced last Wednesday by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.

If a countryside Bill is not included this year, waiting until next year would be a very high-risk strategy. That is because next year is likely to be the last Queen's Speech of the Parliament, and the Session could be curtailed by a general election. It would require much effort to secure manifesto commitments to ensure the same content of countryside legislation in the next Parliament. Therefore, there are several uncertainties as to whether or not this Parliament will produce countryside legislation. The South Downs cannot afford to wait because of the pressures it is under from development and recreation. The crucial difference between AONBs and national parks is the legal power that national parks have to manage recreation and "to promote opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding of the special qualities of the area". That is of vital importance where the visitor numbers are so high and where there are major threats from commercial tourist complexes.

Whichever way you look at it, national parks enjoy a higher status of protection than AONBs. National park status using existing legislation—that is, the Environment Act 1995 and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949—provides a ready made solution that would deliver exactly what the downs need in terms of protection, status, guaranteed funding and a permanent body with planning powers.

As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, the Sussex Downs and East Hampshire AONB covers an area that is almost exactly the same as the Brecon Beacons National Park, and it is larger than four other existing national parks. So the South Downs meet the criteria of the national park, and would benefit from the legal framework for linking recreation and conservation known as the Sandford principle.

The South Downs is an exceptional area, both in terms of landscape quality and the pressure that it is under, particularly from development. Those are important drivers in the need for the downs to be designated a national park and do not exist to the same degree in other areas of outstanding natural beauty. That uniqueness is one of the reasons why the Sussex Downs Conservation Board was created. A national park authority would produce an holistic, strategic vision for the area.

My Lords, I am delighted to support the measures being promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. When he was in the other place he represented the mid-Sussex constituency where I live. I shall not say whether or not I voted for him. His interest in areas of outstanding natural beauty is well known. His work as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board is much valued by all those who live in the area and who visit the downs.

I am often asked why I live in Sussex. The answer, apart from helping to make the county multi-racial, is the sheer joy I get from living in the vicinity of the Sussex Downs. When I was introduced into this House—I see that my noble friend Lord McNally who sponsored me at that time is present—I chose as part of my title Waltham Brooks, which nestles in the foothills of the Sussex Downs surrounded by Amberley on the one side and Pulborough on the other.

Not only Members of this House, but all those who are concerned with the preservation of the natural beauty of our countryside, welcome the Bill's proposals. At present, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board is the only such board in the country set up by joint agreement between local authorities and the Countryside Commission. If it is an example of what can be achieved in just one area of the country, it is right that we should support this measure, which could assist other such areas when it is enacted.

The one aspect of this country that is valued by most visitors is the natural beauty of our countryside. No matter which corner of the world one visits, the beauty of our land is always a talking-point. We should all be remembered for ensuring that future generations not only enjoy but also preserve that which is unique in our land. It is a legacy of which we can all be proud. The Bill helps towards that end.

No one can disagree fundamentally with any measures which call for stronger protection and better management of the areas of outstanding natural beauty. If here is a clear objective in the Bill, it is to conserve and enhance. It places the AONBs on the same plane as the provisions enjoyed by the national parks. Further, it is right that it puts an obligation on all planning authorities, at whichever level they operate, to promote the conservation and management of AONBs.

I particularly welcome the statutory basis on which the conservation boards would be established. The power to acquire land by agreement or compulsory orders is important. It is one way in which we can ensure that planning processes do not allow the gradual erosion of AONBs. The fact that the board would have statutory powers to make compulsory purchase orders would deter the increasing tendency to encroach on such land. The bottom line of what the noble Lord proposes in his Bill is to ensure that AONBs are equal to our national parks in terms of their landscape quality. They should receive no less protection than national parks.

Of course, a long-term study of the relationship between AONBs and national parks is necessary. But in the short term the Sussex Downs Conservation Board has demonstrated what can be done. I support this measure.

My Lords, I am a landowner and land manager, living and working in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Therefore, I am grateful for this opportunity to place on record some of the views which matter to me and which have an increasing importance in the governance of this country; namely, the countryside, its make-up, appearance and development, and the control of the lives of those who live and work there by those who often do not live and work there.

AONBs were defined and given protection as long ago as 1949. That does not seem to have been a very good year for statistics, but the population of England and Wales in 1951 was 44 million. Twenty-five years later that figure had risen to 52 million. Over the same period the number of private dwellings rose from 12 million to 24 million. In 1949 in the UK as a whole there were approximately 2.1 million private cars, while in 1997 there were 21.7 million.

In the face of these facts—a rise of nearly 2.0 per cent in the population but almost double the number of houses and a ten-fold increase in cars—it is surely appropriate that we continually monitor the protection that is afforded to the most beautiful parts of our country. However, I am loathe to add to the multiplication tables by approving a further increase, this time in the number of unelected, unaccountable and possibly unqualified people sitting on committees and wielding great power.

Our countryside has evolved over centuries and most of the beautiful bits are thanks to small numbers of people who live and work in a rural environment. Together they built the villages which sell our calendars worldwide and designed and developed the spar towns and medieval towns. For the most part they co-operated in the slow change from forest land and wild places to the cultivated and cared for landscape of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is surely remiss that apparently representatives of these people who have been so successful are not necessarily to be included in the suggested new area boards.

We have had compulsory purchase for a long time but departments, councils and so on which wish to exercise their rights have had to show just cause. What "just cause" could an area conservation board cite for buying land? Would it be one field, one view, an entire wood or even a village or small town? No landscape maintains itself. Our cliffs erode and ultimately fall into the sea; our mountains erode and slowly change shape; woods become overgrown and subject to devastation by high winds and mini-hurricanes; fields revert to nature and become the embrace of brambles, dandelions and nettles. The contribution of the land manager—the farmer, estate owner or public parks superintendent—must not be ignored, but in this Bill that contribution is ignored totally.

The Government have recently begun to issue revised planning guidance for consultation. In PPG 12, dealing with development plans, it is made quite clear that local authorities have a duty to,

"take environmental considerations comprehensively and consistently into account [through] the need to sustain the character and diversity of the countryside".

The document goes on to refer to the,

"conservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats and species".

This Bill would, however, give to area conservation boards the power to disagree with one or more local authorities and refer them directly to the Minister. There are 40 AONBs, although I am told that at the present moment two cannot be found.

Many of those AONBs cover the jurisdiction of 10 or more local authorities. Will the Minister welcome this gratuitous addition to his workload? However, the powers of these new boards will not stop there. We are told that if an application for planning permission is likely to affect any land in or adjacent to land that is covered by one of these boards, the local authority must refer it to the board and then take into account what the board says. How adjacent is "adjacent"? Will it affect buildings, roads, roundabouts or bridges? Perhaps it might be stretched to cover electricity pylons and mobile phone towers, but that is probably too much to hope for.

I have already said that it is appropriate continually to monitor the protection offered by an AONB, but I submit that area conservation boards, particularly as set out in this Bill, are too draconian a measure. Over the past six months in your Lordships' House we have had at least four opportunities to consider the hardships being visited upon those who rely on the countryside for their sustenance. Let us not add to their burden by setting over them bodies that will tell them not only what to do but what not to do and will demand payment for the privilege, in that,

"a conservation body shall have power to issue levies to the councils".

Instead, I suggest that local authorities be given the power to protect AONBs, the responsibility for carrying out that protection and the duty to ensure that they do it in a manner which is consistent with the reasonable requirements of those who live and work in these areas. I also suggest that where an AONB covers multiple local authorities, it be given the power to appoint an advisory body to assist a representative committee in its deliberations. I would hope that that body would include local experts such as land managers.

Finally, I notice that there is some agreement that it would be better if perhaps the Sussex Downs Conservation Board continued in its present or a similar format rather than tried to make a vehicle like an AONB fit its requirements.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put a question. Would he prefer a conservation board or national park for an AONB? In the South Downs we would prefer a conservation board.

My Lords, having listened to the contributions of various noble Lords, it is probable that we have 40 AONBs whose demands are very varied. It may well be that great areas like the Sussex Downs should have purpose-built boards to deal with the problems specific to them rather than have the creation of one almighty body to deal with one area which is not appropriate to others. As a result, draconian powers would be given that were not appropriate to perhaps 39 other such areas.

My Lords, yesterday evening in order to prepare for this debate I climbed to the top of Mount Caburn, which is part of the Sussex Downs behind my house, in order to inspect a wonderful colony of burnt-tip orchids which are very good this year. Having done so, I looked across the Ouse valley and espied the proud escarpment called Mount Harry. Your Lordships will realise that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, is not only a noble neighbour but, I hope, a noble friend (if I am allowed to address him thus from where I stand).

I must declare an interest in that my family estate is in the AONB in the Sussex South Downs. I strongly reciprocate the words of my noble kinsman Lord Monk Bretton in congratulating the Sussex Conservation Board on all that it has done under the former chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Nathan and the present chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.

In addition to owning part of the AONB, for the past 20 years I have been the estate manager. Therefore, I have experienced the conflicts of interest and difficulties of managing an estate in an AONB. First, there is the conflict of interest related to transport. I totally understand that transport policy does not come under the auspices of the conservation board either as it exists now or as contemplated under the Bill. But there is a serious conflict between those who live in the AONB and want to enjoy it and those who want to get there. One of the reasons, but not the only one, that we are so against the idea of a national park is that designating the Sussex Downs in that way will bring in far more traffic than the county can possibly cope with.

There is a second conflict. In the village that my estate owns is a chalk pit whose use is almost ended. The local authority responsible for waste disposal keeps its eye on empty holes. There is a conflict between the local authority and everyone else. My personal conflict is that my trustees in London can see a large cheque arriving, and I can see an overripe tomato from a villager being aimed at my face.

The third conflict is between agriculture and those who want to anticipate the right to roam. I cannot stress enough how important it is to keep agriculture happy in the South Downs. I am proud of the fact that it was a steward of a previous Lord Hampden in the 18th century, John Ellman, who perfected the breed of South Downs sheep which has been responsible over generations for keeping the Sussex sward in the beautiful state it is at present.

If one keeps politics out of the right to roam, there is no problem. I have lived there for 20 years and no person enjoying a walk on the downs has ever caused a problem. There was a mass trespass on my land last summer. A group of 40 people, having failed to breach the ha-ha at the Glyndebourne Festival visited me. I am sorry to say that all they managed to find was a Portaloo left from a wedding the previous evening. They relieved their frustrations in the Portaloo.

There is a possible conflict between the conservationists or the environmentalists seeking to look after the downs, and those wishing to pursue some form of leisure thereon. I mentioned the orchids earlier. They are part of an SSSI looked after by English Nature. There is also a heavy demand for paragliding over the same site. When hang-gliding started, it was a minority sport; and as the equipment was heavy, only strong men could climb the hill and use it. Now, paragliding is very much a developing sport and the conservation board is concerned about how we can control it.

A more terrifying leisure pursuit may be coming our way. I was telephoned a fortnight ago by London Weekend Television asking to do a documentary on a piece of my land which a man had identified as a perfect place to get into a spherical object and bounce down a hill. I gather that that pursuit is quite popular in California. The idea of spherical objects bouncing down hills, knocking sheep out of the way, and crushing the orchids and the cowslips is too horrific to contemplate.

I thought it right to give the House some idea of what it is like to run an estate in an AONB. I welcome the Bill and wish it all success.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for bringing forward this debate which will discuss the technical details he proposes to strengthen the South Downs Conservation Board's powers to protect and manage areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The downs are, and have been, under threat from a combination of over-exploitation for leisure pursuits, urban development and inappropriate farming practices. In my opinion, in recent years these dangers have been kept under a reasonable and viable level by the board. Other noble Lords have spoken in favour of the board. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Addison that there could be a better way of managing the South Downs.

I declare an interest as our family have both farmed and let out tenancies on areas of the downland in question for 500 years. I should like also to mention the very considerable contribution that my late father, who was a Member of your Lordships' House for 60 years, played in conserving the South Downs between the wars. At that time there were no conservation boards of any description in existence. In 1934, he headed a private debate in this House to prevent Brighton Corporation's proposal for a race track; and, although his Motion was not carried, the fact that he initiated the debate alerted the county councils to the threats of development. The councils then made arrangements with the local landowners which resulted, according to the local county archivist, in 80 per cent of local downland being protected.

Noble Lords are aware that the threats to AONBs are as real today as then. They comprise new patterns of agriculture and woodland management, greater development pressure, and changing patterns of recreation. The realisation that no individuals could control that was apparent in the late 1940s when the possibility of national park status was discussed. One of the reasons for its rejection—I believe that it pertains today—was the fact that the downs are economically farmed and not "wilderness". Nevertheless, quite correctly, the AONB status was declared in 1966.

It is academic to discuss how the South Downs Conservation Board came into existence. It is more pertinent to describe the exemplary manner in which it carried out its duties, together with the input of 11 regional authorities. This team has been responsible for pursuing a policy which balances the need for conservation and sensitive agricultural use, and has gained the confidence of farmers and landowners, as well as all the visitors who come to enjoy the beauty of the landscape.

Thirty million visitors walk the South Downs Way, and all benefit from the outwardly invisible, but inwardly effective, control that the South Downs Conservation Board employs. The degree of respect shown by those people to the landscape which is unspoilt but close enough to London and other large towns to be accessible, has been achieved without the imposition of notices or signs in a low-key manner, which enhances the enjoyment of visitor arid resident alike. This is very much to the credit of the board.

The details that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, proposes appear to the layman technical arid unnecessary. On the contrary, in practice, these are only a logical development of the Countryside Commission's own recommendation in its pamphlet of 1998. The most vital of these issues is the agreement of permanent funding beyond the year 2001 coming direct from funding from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, rather than via the Countryside Commission. Secondly, the provision that disagreements between local authorities and the board would entail automatic referral would meet the objections of those critics of the South Downs Conservation Board who consider that their present powers to prevent development are less than those enjoyed by the status of "national park".

In short, those provisions would allow the continuance of the exemplary work which the South Downs Conservation Board achieves and, without giving the board carte-blanche authority, would enable it to continue its considerable but unobtrusive role in perpetuity for the benefit of all of us who love this particular part of England. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, succeeds.

My Lords, I put my name down to speak today because I have an interest in the Bill from my viewpoint as Opposition spokesman for tourism. I have taken the opportunity to speak from the Back Benches as we may do in opposition on a departmental issue that is outwith our own area of direct responsibility. I see few advantages of being in Opposition, but this is at least one of them.

I believe that my noble friend's Bill is defective in at least one respect. I believe that it should take account of the interests of those who live and work in AONBs, the role that they play in the conservation of those areas, and the need for economic activity in those areas. At present it does not seem to do so, as several noble Lords have pointed out today.

In its briefing, the CLA pointed out that,

"The Bill as drafted focuses on conservation and development control without recognising that successful conservation depends upon profitable economic activity and viable rural communities".

Social and economic considerations need to be just as much to the fore in areas of outstanding natural beauty as in other rural areas. Of course I support the importance of recognising the landscape value of these areas and ensuring that it is taken fully into account in planning policy decisions.

I note that the NFU favours a "living landscape" approach whereby sensitively designed farm diversification enterprises can proceed as well as routine agricultural developments. I endorse that viewpoint.

Farmers today are facing the worst crisis in British agriculture for about 60 years. When I was Opposition spokesman for agriculture last year I became keenly aware that tourism is indeed a vital source of income for farmers amid the industry's continuing crisis.

Gina Woodcraft of Farm Tourism 2000 says that letting a bed was once merely "pin money" for the farmer's wife. She says that now it is becoming a major part of farm income. The Government have made it clear that farmers must diversify in order to survive the changes which will be wrought by Agenda 2000.

Farmers already face enough obstacles when they try to diversify. I hope that, in responding to the debate, my noble friend can assure me that this Bill will not add to those obstacles.

The Deloitte & Touche Visitor Attraction Survey 1996–97 revealed that the biggest percentage growth was that registered for farm visits. Farm Tourism 2000 recently produced a survey sponsored by the EU, MAFF and the West Country Tourist Board. It reported that tourists who take B&B breaks on farms say that for them the traditional elements for agriculture are the most important reason for their visit. Farm visitors want proximity to livestock; they want to experience the "real" countryside, complete with the smell of manure and muddy fields and tracks. So the reason why tourists wish to visit farms can itself preserve the farm landscape.

Today, I should like to draw attention to three examples of best practice of farm tourism and to seek an assurance from my noble friend that the passage of this Bill would not in any way hinder the development of such businesses in areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am grateful to the Enterprise Agency for West Devon for its assistance. It has given me examples of two best practice farm tourism enterprises in its area.

The first is a 120 acre sheep/beef farm in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme at Jacobstowe. It has nine bedrooms and a camping barn which sleeps 16. It has grown from virtually nothing and is a thriving business. It has an ETB 3 Crowns—the Government are changing it from a tourist board to a tourist council—which is a highly commended award and it is AA listed. It even has its own website in this IT age. Currently it employs two full-time and up to 12 part-time employees throughout the year. The Enterprise Agency states that:

"Tourism has been the salvation of Higher Cadham Farm".

The second example is a more modest business; that of Little Bidlake Farm at Bridestowe. It is a working dairy/beef farm which is family run. It takes four to five guests. That income is vital to their survival.

Those two businesses perhaps represent what is considered by the public to be the traditional type of farm holiday, a family break. But farm tourism can take many forms and be valuable in social as well as economic terms. Rural Britain is another country if you are an inner-city child who has never seen a cow. Noble Lords may have read of the charitable trust Farms for City Children. It was established by Clare and Michael Morpurgo in 1972. It aims to relieve the poverty of experience of young children from inner-city areas by providing them with a chance to take part actively and purposefully in the working life of a farm and conservation of the countryside.

The trust has three centres and the example I should like to describe is that at Nethercott Farm, Devon. It is a typical commercial Devon mixed farm with a herd of milking cows, a large flock of breeding ewes, pigs, poultry and horses. Its crops include barley, hay and silage. It is farmed by the brothers Graham and David Ward on a farm business tenancy. Already, plans are afoot to change to organic farming. The farms involve teachers and their children in the day-to-day running of the farm, providing a minimum of four hours tuition and activities each day. It is good for the children and it is also good for the farm.

Farms for City Children has a policy of setting its level of charges per child as low as possible in order to ensure that as many children as possible can attend. The other costs are made up by fundraising and occasional donations from local authorities. Farms for City Children has just been awarded a 1999 Education Extra Certificate of Distinction in recognition of the innovation and excellence of its out of school hours learning provision. The children live, eat, work and play together. The emphasis is placed on co-operation, teamwork and building confidence. I am told that they enjoy their week of what they call "muck and magic".

Are those three examples the kind of ventures which would have a place on land affected by the Bill? Other noble Lords will be able to refer to other types of business. I have kept in mind my responsibilities as spokesman for tourism.

I also have in mind an amendment to the Bill which I believe would improve it. It has been mentioned by other noble Lords today. It was mentioned by the Country Landowners' Association. Unlike other noble Lords, I have no interest to declare. I belong neither to the CLA nor the NFU, and unlike other noble Lords I do not benefit from a wonderful view from my window. I am indeed a townie who benefits from enjoying the countryside in what I hope is a responsible manner.

The CLA briefing suggests that, as a minimum, local authorities and conservation boards in relation to AONBs should be required to have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities in the areas affected. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to accept that amendment at the Committee stage.

Growth is not incompatible with environmental issues. As regards the prosperity of rural areas, the key is to provide the environmental needs of most urban people. It is important that we do not become so restrictive in our use of land that planning will not be granted for businesses which are good for farmers, tourists, the local community and society as a whole.

My Lords, I am not a vice-president of the Council for National Parks, but I am extremely happy to support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. In my experience, the protection currently afforded to AONBs by existing legislation has been shown to be insufficient. I know the Sussex Downs pretty well, but my concern is for the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, which I know much more intimately. Our AONB includes important areas of surviving sandlings, wonderful tidal estuaries, small rivers and bird reserves of international importance at Minsmere and Havergate Island. It also happens to include Snape Maltings, a concert hall with an incomparable acoustic which is host to a wide range of music and musical education. Quiet tourism is increasingly the main economic activity of the area.

All that is under threat from the proposal to create a civil airport with a disconcertingly large potential for growth on the site of a redundant USAF base. I refer to Bentwaters. I have spoken on this subject previously in your Lordships' House and shall refer to it only briefly in relation to this Bill.

The airport started life as a small RAF fighter base at the end of the Second World War. It is remote from any road or railway or centre of population. That was convenient for the original base, and it remains little changed. In 1969, the AONB was formally designated and the airbase was subsequently much expanded by the building of hardened aircraft and ammunition shelters in a NATO programme to provide accommodation for units of the USAF. Hundreds of houses were built on an adjacent site and were still being built when the Americans left at the end of the Gulf War.

After some havering, the MoD decided that there was no further military use for the base. That was more than six years ago. After three attempts, the base was sold to a foreign businessman for a sum believed to approach £10 million. I wonder why the amount and terms of such sales of public property are not announced. That has never been disclosed. Apparently, the buyer is mainly interested in turning his investment into a regular income stream and is anxious to promote as much civil aviation on the site as he can persuade the public authorities to accept.

The Countryside Commission, the Government's own agency, with particular interest in the AONBs and responsibility for them, has issued some formal advice. Its considered and consistent view has been that development of a site necessary for national defence should never be the basis for future development planning. Redundant sites should be fully decommissioned and cleared, unless there is a national need for their continued use in developed form. The commission says that future use should be determined on the objectives of good conservation management and public access. It also states—this is the heart of the matter—that:

"when military land is declared surplus, it must lose its status of `national need' and should be treated in accordance with the Government's Policy Planning Guidance 7 and local development plans".

In a separate publication, the commission says that:

"the Government should insist on a return to greenfield status of the disused military base at RAF Bentwaters in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB".

That is from the Government's own responsible agency. We await the report of the recent local planning inquiry, to which those remarks were delivered, and the Government's reaction to it.

As I see it, the difficulty is how the national policy planning guidance is implemented in practice by a district council in a rural area encountering that major policy problem for the first time. The council is subject to local pressures, particularly relating to employment and to the desire for development as such. As people think that a large local airport would, as they explain it, "put Suffolk on the map", there are tendencies to diverge from the national guidance, formulated with a quite different set of local priorities. For their part, the Government genuinely believe in a "plan-led system", which delegates detailed policies to elected local authorities.

Not surprisingly, the result is a mismatch between policy formation at the centre and its local execution. An added complication may be the difficulty which a local council may experience in handling a wealthy foreign entrepreneur with access to firms of professional advisers in this country, skilled at bending, or at least interpreting, the planning rules.

It is clear to me that the system is not working as it should, particularly in relation to Policy Planning Guidance 7. In that case, no proof has been offered—as PPG7 requires—of the existence of a national need for this airport; nor has any serious effort been made to investigate alternative sites, of which there are some. The apparent unwillingness of the department to become engaged seems particularly regrettable and is leading to unfortunate consequences. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will be able to address that basic difficulty.

I believe I have said enough to indicate why I support the Bill in principle. The AONBs need greater protection and more resources in order to improve their management. Recently, in our AONB, I understand that the committee was obliged to cancel one of its twice-yearly meetings as the necessary funding had not been received from the county council. The Government's intentions may be good, but the means are scanty and the current result falls well short of what is desirable and necessary. I do not necessarily say that this Bill would solve all the problems that I have mentioned, but at least it addresses the difficulty, which I understand.

I had thought of concluding these brief remarks with some friendly advice to the noble Baroness who is to reply. However, on reflection, I realise that that may be the most dangerous form of advice for her to receive. So, in my closing words, I shall speak in the form of a friendly warning. Do the Government realise that if they allow the airport to go ahead they may be guilty of breaching the terms of the Ramsar Convention? Part of the site is designated under the Ramsar Convention. I am reliably informed that the heathland adjacent to the airport is about to be designated as an SPA and, therefore, there is the risk that the Government could end up in the European Court.

I have thought long and hard about the attitude of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—and not, I hope, unsympathetically. It seems to me that it can be summed up in the phrase "watch and pray", or perhaps just "pray". I do not for a moment wish to minimise the power of prayer, but I believe that rather more is required on this occasion. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to approach this Bill in a positive way and to strengthen it, if they feel that that is necessary, in order to meet some of the deficiencies that I have pointed out.

My Lords, I too want to thank my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry for introducing this Bill and at least giving us the opportunity of discussing AONBs and their future.

I must declare an interest in that at the moment I live in a rented house on an AONB and I am attempting to build a house on an AONB. I can assure noble Lords that I have encountered the full rigours of the local planning powers. They do a very persuasive job. We have had our disagreements, but I am delighted to say that we have finally come to a satisfactory conclusion.

I wholly support the principle of improving the conservation status of AONBs. Indeed, I wholly approve of the principle of supporting the wider countryside. It undoubtedly has suffered over the years, largely due to unsympathetic support in various subsidy forms. None the less, we have much to do to redress some of the difficulties of the past.

Whereas I entirely share my noble friend's enthusiasm to protect and enhance AONBs, I am far from convinced that the methods suggested in the Bill are the right way forward. My noble friend Lord Marlesford was right when he said that it is a question of determining how best those objectives can be carried forward. I entirely agree with him. However, I differ from my noble friend in the fact that I believe that the local authorities should at the very least be given the opportunity of seeing whether they are capable of carrying out any further duties imposed upon them as far as AONBs are concerned. It would be quite wrong to impose a new board without giving the status quo a chance to see whether it can work effectively. I believe that it can.

Clauses 1 and 2 impose a duty upon local authorities to have regard to the need to conserve and advance the natural beauty of AONBs. I have no problems with that, but it is easy to say that by having a further designation, a further committee or a further board, somehow we shall resolve the problems of land management and nature conservation. In reality, it does not work like that.

As I have said, having seen at first hand the stringent control exercised by local planning authorities, I seriously question whether they need any extra encouragement or support. At the end of the day, I would have thought that the Government's guidance through PPG7, if drafted correctly, should be able to direct local authorities to deal with those problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made reference to PPG7. He asked whether any of your Lordships had a copy next to your bed. No, I do not have a copy next to my bed, but I have one in another appropriate room in my house.

With regard to the remainder of the Bill, I cannot support my noble friend. The prospect of yet another tier of bureaucracy being imposed on the countryside fills me with dread. Like my noble friend Lord Jopling, I live in the north of England, I have lived in a national park and I have experienced all the difficulties to which my noble friend referred. Such matters are not as easy as many noble Lords believe. The problems that local people have to incur when dealing with the various tiers of bureaucracy at times are most frustrating and difficult. Furthermore, they impose additional costs, burdens on the taxpayer, more red tape and, for those living and working in the countryside, even further delays in decision-making.

There is little doubt that in rural Britain at the moment we are at a watershed. Although farming is always likely to be a major economic force in most rural areas, it is unlikely to have the dominant role that it had in the past. There is plenty of evidence of that today. Landholders of all descriptions will have to diversify more and more and sensible and imaginative use will have to be made of redundant buildings.

Planning policies will be vital in ensuring that new enterprises develop and the rural economy is stimulated. That needs to be embraced enthusiastically and sympathetically and with real expertise. I acknowledge that in many cases in local areas that expertise is perhaps not as rounded as it should be. That needs to be addressed, but it does not require a whole new tier of bureaucracy in order to do that.

Yesterday I read a report in The Times that the Government are to encourage the development of run-down barns and farm outbuildings for light industrial use. That is a major change in policy and I welcome it. I am sure other noble Lords will agree that it is a sad sight to see redundant barns collapsing in the countryside without being put to any constructive use. I congratulate the Government on taking that positive step.

The difficulty is that there are already far too many delays and petty details getting in the way of progress. I cannot accept that yet another body on a further 13 per cent of land in England and Wales could possibly help. It can only hinder. In fact, if the Bill were to go on to the statute book there would be yet another body because I see that there will be an advisory council to advise the conservation board. Where will it stop?

My noble friend Lord Kimball gave us an illustration of all the various designations there are in the countryside. But on top of all those designations, in addition to local councils, we have the new regional development councils, the Ministry of Agriculture, the DETR, the Environmental Agency, English Nature, the Countryside Agency, English Heritage: all of those bodies have to have their say; they must all be consulted. As a result the process of getting anything done is cumbersome.

No one believes more than I do in the well-being of rural Britain. I despair at times at the demise of some of our most precious habitats and their associated species. But the dead hand of bureaucracy is in no way a remedy to overcome these problems. Of course there must be controls. Of course there must be site designations. But along with controls there should be incentives, and a lot more of them. English Nature, for example, has done some excellent work through positive management schemes with farmers and landowners, and the Countryside Stewardship scheme, although suffering a few problems at the moment, has great potential. And, of course, environmentally sensitive areas, which were introduced by my noble friend Lord Jopling when he was Minister for Agriculture, have been a huge success. This is the way we should be trying to develop the improvement of the countryside—not by imposing boards and councils but positive environmental schemes administered by those many bodies that already exist.

Far too much of our rural resources are going into administration. If we could take those resources and streamline them, the system would improve and we would have practical conservation schemes which would be implemented on the ground. That is the way to make progress and to start redressing the balance in the countryside in favour of environmental objectives, maintaining landscapes and promoting jobs.

I support the principle of improving the status of AONBs but I believe that we already have the mechanisms in place to do that. I should add that, if this Bill were to go further, it would have to include an equal status for the economic and social well-being of local communities, as identified already by a number of noble Lords. We managed to get it into the National Parks Bill in 1995. If it is good enough for the national parks, it is good enough for AONBs.

In conclusion, I cannot support my noble friend to the extent that I should have liked. But I hope he will accept my criticisms in good faith coming from someone who wishes only the best for the countryside. My noble friend once said that farmers are becoming disenfranchised by red tape. That is an apt way of describing the situation in which we find ourselves; I do not wish to see it get any worse.

My Lords, I welcome the spirit of this Bill. There is no doubt that areas of outstanding natural beauty need further protection. I do not wish to trespass into the "To be or not to be" question, as I now regard it, in relation to the South Downs. There does not seem to be a consensus even locally over whether it should be considered for national park status, so far be it from me as an outsider to comment on that.

However, above my village I can see three different AONBs—the Quantocks, the Mendips and the Black Down Hills. They are all extremely different from each other and are all, no doubt as are all AONBs mentioned today, equally worthy of protection. But the solutions for each one are very different. Where the Bill succeeds is in the spirit of further protection. As many noble Lords mentioned today, funding will be a key issue as to whether or not those areas can expect in practical terms to be able to implement the action that will lead to that protection. I should therefore like to highlight those areas of the Bill which, if it did proceed further, need considerably more thought.

In terms of funding, it is not enough to leave it to local authorities to decide whether or not they want to contribute to the funding of their AONI3. The Minister's reply on 8th December in col. 809 was not very reassuring. I asked whether funding would be put on a more secure basis and he said that only an extra £2.5 million would be available this year through the Countryside Agency. That is very welcome, but it does nothing in terms of future security. Local development plans need to be put in place for funding to be secured. Management plans for all AONBs are absolutely essential and consultation on those plans must be very wide among those living and working in the AONBs in particular.

However, if the public are to be expected to come together in those areas and to work through a management plan which will be meaningful and implemented over a long time-scale, definite funding must be available. People will then be prepared to put in the time and effort to decide what they want to happen in an area because they will be able to see it come about.

The consultation needs to include those living and working in the area. However, nobody today has mentioned whether or not we have consulted all the various local authorities which have AONBs within their districts or counties on how they see this working. I think that two-way consultation is essential. By and large, many local authorities have done a good job for the AONBs. The boards have been mentioned, but there are other models of how the AONBs can be managed. Some areas have joint consultative committees; some have joint authority committees. There are elected representatives from the various authorities on those committees or boards. In addition, other people are co-opted who contribute substantially.

If this Bill progresses further, another change that I should like to see in the way in which a Secretary of State appoints people to the boards or committees. I do not believe it is appropriate that people are sometimes appointed who live 50 or 200 miles away from the place in question. I recognise that they are representing the national interest, but at the same time there must be a sufficient pool of people who could represent that interest living probably within the area or certainly locally enough to be a regular visitor to it and to converse with people from it on a day-to-day basis and not just when they make occasional visits to serve on the board. That change could be made for the national parks also.

The next improvement that I should like to see has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I refer to the area of social and economic well-being. That clearly has to be a part of any plan or improvement to the way in which AONBs are looked after.

I turn now to the issue of development control or "planning" as it is commonly known. I do not believe that that can be delegated to a conservation board because it cannot be divorced from other local authority issues. If the AONB board is to have a say over planning issues, it will be considering those solely on their merits without looking at all the other relevant issues. By the time we have tied in all those other issues, such as housing and tourism, we shall have another whole set of mini-local authorities.

There are far more robust models for conservation boards which work with local authorities. We have such models in my own county, for example, where development control is, in effect, delegated to the planning officer in consultation with the parish council. The matter comes back to a committee of the local authority only where there is disagreement. That not only streamlines the process, but means that the parish or town council (in this case) or, in the case of the AONB, the conservation board, has far more influence over the outcome of the planning decision. That is absolutely right. I do not believe that merely giving them the status of a statutory consultee (by enhancing their powers) will create the sort of dialogue which will move this issue forward in the best way.

While we are in the area of development control with relation to AONBs in particular, I found it a pity, when I glanced down the written list from the Audit Commission of suggested indicators that should be applied to planning decisions under the new best-value regime, that I did not see the words "sustainability" or "environment" in any of those 10 indicators. As the Minister will know, the discussion as to whether or not there should be sustainability indicator in best value is something that concerns me very much at the moment. This is a good example of where it should be introduced. When the Audit Commission draws up a list of indicators that are important in planning terms, I believe that it should include that extremely important one.

Therefore, there are a number of major issues to be addressed should the Bill progress any further. Noble Lords have mentioned a number of matters which I shall not repeat except that I wish to refer to the phrase,

"land in or adjacent to".

We cannot have something which is not quite in or out. That needs to be made clear, especially in relation to planning issues. If there is to be a higher standard, it is only fair that applicants, who are perhaps thinking of starting a business or buying a house there, should know whether it is in or out of such an area. I do not believe that we can have,

"land in or adjacent to",

even though I understand the noble Lord's reasons for including that phrase.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to tourism. Rather than simply being seen in terms of protection, this measure must be permissive in terms of enabling things to happen. However, I certainly share the nervousness of the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, about spherical balls. I was reminded of that series on television called "The Prisoner". Some of your Lordships may remember that spherical balls bounced around to keep the "Prisoner" in.

However, I welcome the spirit of the Bill. I hope that there is a Committee stage because there are many matters which we could usefully discuss then. I hope that the Government will find time for that. to be done.

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry on introducing the Bill. Noble Lords may recognise that it is not my normal brief to speak on these matters. Sadly, my noble friend Lady Byford is not able to be with us today and I stepped into the breach only late last night. It is an extremely interesting debate. I may not be alone but I am, perhaps, fairly unusual in not having an interest to declare in that I am not a resident of the Sussex Downs; nor do I live in any other AONB; nor am I a member of the CLA, the NFU, the Ramblers' Association or practically anything else which has been mentioned.

Nevertheless, the debate certainly seems to have caused some controversy this afternoon. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that it is perhaps rather too controversial for a Private Member's Bill. Therefore, I wonder, to myself only, how much further progress it will be able to make. I am aware, as will be my noble friend, of the pitfalls that can befall a Private Member's Bill in another place if it does not receive complete support from all quarters.

On these Benches, we all agree that it is important to identify and care for our AONBs. Where I suspect some differ is as regards the approach taken in caring for them. A number of noble Lords have emphasised that the protective legislation needs to be strengthened. This Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry seeks to make new provisions in relation to AONBs. It is driven by my noble friend's knowledge, care and concern for the Sussex Downs which, until now, have been overseen by their conservation board whose role is to come to an end in 18 months' time.

I understand my noble friend's desire to protect such an area, but I suspect that this Bill raises implications for other existing areas of outstanding natural beauty which have been dealt with by other noble Lords.

As I said, the board of the Sussex Downs AONB has done a good job. It feels that the best possible use should be made of its legacy, and this Bill is its attempt to enforce the lessons learnt upon everyone else. Unfortunately for the board, it is one of those situations in which no one answer is right.

The implication that the other 30 AONBs in England and Wales are somehow failing to reach the highest standards does not agree with the reports and other material which I have received. It may even be that the imposition of a new organisation will, in some areas, so disrupt established effective ways of working that their performance would be impaired. Certainly the protection afforded to AONBs is overdue for review and it is likely that greater control of both the motor car and the heavy goods vehicle will be welcomed in much of our most beautiful countryside. Moreover, planning guidelines may well need to be strengthened to recognise the need for greater flexibility in providing jobs in our more rural areas, a subject which has been debated on several occasions recently by your Lordships.

However, the Bill does not mention those practical matters. Instead, it concerns itself entirely with creating a further layer of bureaucracy and proposes that even more unelected, unaccountable officials be appointed without parliamentary scrutiny by a Secretary of State who already has vast powers. Moreover, it fails to specify the conditions under which a conservation board will be established for an AONB, although there is a hint, in Section 88B(1) and (2), that not all of them will be so embarrassed.

I am further concerned that the Bill seems to cut across the Countryside Commission's programme of land management initiatives. There are a clutch of experiments using alternative mechanisms and approaches for long-term management of the countryside. They will run for between three to five years and it is intended that some of the results will shape government policy. Most importantly, it is expected that the successful land management initiatives will result from local people and land users working together to bring about the necessary changes and benefits. A typical LMI is divided into six sectors, each of which has two or three basic objectives. The latter vary from project to project, but the six divisions are: agriculture and the environment, farm diversification and business development, skills and training, inward investment, social needs and, lastly, family farms and new entrants.

Access, conservation, planning and sustainability will all be covered more than adequately in all six. At the very least we should await the outcome of these trials before putting yet more legislation onto the statute book.

I endorse the general drift of Clause 1. Several noble Lords have emphasised that the protective legislation needs to be strengthened. Clause 3 proposes that conservation boards should have powers to levy local councils. The basic idea is anathema to me, but I am also concerned that the Bill makes no reference to how these sums will be determined. Will they be calculated under a national formula, or merely collected according to the system used by erstwhile de facto rulers of large areas of rural England? Clause 3(5) states:

"A conservation board shall have the powers of ownership and acquisition of land".

Clause 4 introduces the management of one area having the right to determine what happens outside that area. Not even the European Commission has tried that one on yet. Several noble Lords have, indeed, dealt more than adequately with the substance of this part of the Bill. However, I repeat my concern that all these provisos will inevitably cost planning applicants a great deal of money and effort. That may well be fair enough where an application is rejected, but people already live and work in these areas, and development is an essential part of conservation. Not all applications would be turned down, but I should hate to see an exodus caused by excessive costs and bureaucracy.

The Bill seeks to preserve and protect areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, I fear that it does not fully consider those who farm and work the countryside. Areas of outstanding natural beauty do not just happen, they are the result of work and care by numerous farmers, whether land managers or tenant farmers. This week, again, the dire plight of farm incomes has hit the headlines. Surely whatever the Government propose to do about our areas of outstanding natural beauty, they must recognise that our farming community is going through a dreadful crisis. Additional restrictions, bureaucracy or requirements must be kept to a minimum if our farmers are to survive in world competition.

It is crucial that those who earn their living from the countryside should not be so restricted that they are financially unable to continue to farm our land. It is they who have created, kept and looked after our areas of outstanding natural beauty. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Government intend to do, and I hope that whatever direction they take, they will appreciate that rural areas must be allowed to grow and thrive.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and, like him, I should like to express my sympathy for the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is unable to be with us today. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has been much involved in the current debate on the future of the South Downs. In his capacity as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board he is well qualified to speak on these matters. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Monk Bretton and Lord Dholakia, I pay tribute to his commitment to this cause.

The Bill's proposals clearly reflect a keen interest in the proper management not only of the Downs but of all areas of outstanding natural beauty. As has been confirmed today, there is a great range of expertise among noble Lords on many aspects of managing these beautiful areas.

I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. I was about to say that I was going to repeat the lack of interests of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, but was worried that the "s" might get left off. I, too, have no personal interests to declare but I share the interests of all in this country in the success of the work done within the areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The Government are firmly committed to protecting and enhancing our countryside. In response to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I should say that there are 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and four in Wales. I am advised that that includes the predominance of the Wye Valley being counted as in England because that is the larger part. No doubt there will be correspondence with the CLA to find the missing parts.

The same legislation, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, created both AONBs and national parks. We recognise the 50th anniversary of the Act as an important milestone. Many celebrations are taking place this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the fact that both national parks and AONBs have a high level of planning protection—the same or similar in almost every respect. But I can assure him and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that we are looking carefully to see whether any clarification is required. We note the experience they have had. It is useful to remember that the legislation recognises no distinction in the landscape quality between the two national landscape designations of national parks and AONBs. Both are regarded as equally beautiful. The difference lies in the requirement for national parks to provide significant recreational opportunities. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, they have been traditionally designated in our more remote upland areas.

The purpose of designating AONBs is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. They also play a big part in meeting the growing demand for visits to the countryside.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, referred to the issue of economic and social well-being within AONBs. Of course the interests of the local communities living or working in these areas are vitally important. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, the contributions of farmers and other landowners towards maintaining the landscape are of particular importance. There are special considerations in AONBs because of the recognition that their landscapes are of sufficient importance to have particular value to the nation as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said, we need to maintain a balance. The Government's policy towards the countryside recognises the need for living and working communities. I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that we should not foster a chocolate box approach.

My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris quoted from Keats. With regard to the countryside, it must live, evolve and change. It cannot be similar to Ode on a Grecian Urn, which reads:

"Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave, Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare".

We have to maintain the balance. While we recognise that the countryside is alive, it is not in a fixed, fossilised state. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly emphasised, we have to do this in the context of proper protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, made an important contribution about the importance of economic activities, encompassing in particular tourism and farms and the need to give families access to this facility. I join her in paying tribute to Farms For City Children.

The Government intend to do more to provide a positive approach to the management and protection of AONBs into the next century. We have already started. As a first step, we have provided the Countryside Agency with an additional £2.5 million for work in AONBs and other similar landscapes this year. This more than doubles the former Countryside Commission funds available to them and will allow a considerable degree of progress in putting in place new management plans and new programmes and in helping to attract additional expert staff. Of course we will consider carefully the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that a great deal has been achieved already through the enthusiasm and commitment of local people, by local authorities and by other local partners working together. I understand that 24 of the 37 AONBs in England currently have a management plan in place, and a great many have an AONB officer or a joint advisory committee set up by their local authorities.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the fact that AONBs are very different in size, nature and circumstance. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—and I add my tribute to the work that he did—and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, there cannot be just one way of managing them or caring for them.

The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, contributed from the perspective of someone with a particular interest in aspects of such areas. Some of these lie solely within the area of one local authority which may be best placed to co-ordinate a management programme. Others stretch over long distances, such as the Sussex Downs, with considerable numbers of local authorities involved.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to Suffolk. He referred to it very eloquently: I could close my eyes and picture the beauty of the Suffolk countryside. I know he understands that I am unable to comment on this planning application because at the moment it is sub judice.

I pay tribute to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. It was a unique experiment set up in 1992 by the Countryside Commission and the local authorities concerned to show what could be done under one model to manage and protect an AONB. It has achieved a great deal, as the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, said.

Unlike the national parks, there is no provision for a comprehensive set of powers and duties for AONBs, for dedicated statutory bodies to look after them or for an extensive system of central funding. The former Countryside Commission, now the Countryside Agency, recognised this last summer in presenting its advice to government.

Advice on the protected landscapes included proposals for the future management and funding of AONBs and consideration of possible national park status for the South Downs and the New Forest. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales has recently submitted advice on AONBs which is broadly similar to that provided by the Countryside Agency, except that it does not envisage statutory conservation boards.

The key recommendations advanced by the agency are similar in most ways to the proposals in the noble Lord's Bill. The agency's advice sought new primary legislation to strengthen the administration and management of AONBs, including a recommendation that local authorities should be required to pursue AONB objectives and to produce management plans and for all relevant authorities to have regard to the purposes of AONBs.

The Government, in considering this, have paid high regard to the advice that they have received, including the agency advice, seeking core management costs to be met by 50 per cent government grant, although Ministers have received a number of representations that central funding should be at 75 per cent, like the national parks. We will consider these points.

We have a great deal of sympathy with the overall objectives of the Bill. We share the same goal in wanting to achieve the best for the future. There are complex proposals involving significant implications for local government, the planning system, development control and financially. All these questions need to be considered properly. Ministers have been studying the advice that we have received on the options for change. I understand the impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, but there are implications which need to be carefully balanced. We want to make the right decision.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I can say that the proposed management plans require further consideration, as does the interplay as regards the system of statutory development plans. I believe that all speakers made clear that they support the Government's objective for simple and transparent procedures. We wish to ensure that planning guidance, as well as planning legislation, is clear and that the protection of AONBs is paramount within the system.

On funding of the AONBs, to which many noble Lords referred, the Government are looking carefully at whether additional central funding is warranted in addition to the extra £2.5 million. We are considering further the views of the Local Government Association on the proposals within the noble Lord's Bill which would have implications for the RSG. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I should point out that it is extremely important to note that the Government would not in any way want to accept any proposal which would take away the right of the Secretary of State to make the final decision as to whether a particular planning case should be called in.

On the question of the particular status of the South Downs, I think that noble Lords will see from today's debate that the Government are being offered a wide range of advice containing very strongly held views which are not always compatible. Indeed, as regards the conflicts that can arise, I have in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, with his reference to what happened with the Eden Valley proposal. That is a very important consideration. I give way to the noble Lord.

My Lords, I am much obliged. Before the Minister sits down, can she either confirm or deny a press report that the Government had proposals ready to deal with AONBs as a whole for a forthcoming Countryside Bill in the next Session of Parliament but that that Bill has now lost its place in the legislative programme?

:: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord expects me to comment on the preparation of the next legislative programme. The noble Lord has raised a very important point; indeed, I do not seek to minimise the issue. However, such a process is ongoing. The noble Lord will be made fully aware of the Government's view at the appropriate time.

We will consider what is the best way to secure the future for the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. As for those like the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who have only national park status in mind, we are making their views known so that they can be considered in the representations. The noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, referred to the important issue of conflict of use and transport issues. I hope that he will agree that that demonstrates the importance of a carefully thought-out strategy to protect the area for the future.

I am trying to finish my response quickly. The noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Kimball, among others, raised the issue of representation. The Government will encourage wide-ranging representation of various groups with a legitimate interest, including those owning and managing land. The noble Lords, Lord Jopling, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Chorley and Lord Monk Bretton, together with my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, among other speakers, asked about compulsory purchase powers. We would not expect such a power to be used very often and will consider whether it is at all necessary.

I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords in not being able to tell the House today of any final decision on any of these matters. Ministers intend to be in a position to make an announcement soon. Today's debate has proved extremely useful in giving a range of informed opinions for us to consider when taking advice, including the wise words of advice from the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about future procedure.

The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, referred to the detailed analysis and consideration which need to be given to Clause 4. I can say from personal experience that discussions on Clause 4 may take a long time! The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, also asked what would be included in next year's programme. The decisions remain to be taken but today's debate has provided valuable ground for that consideration to be well informed.

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate which has been interesting, illuminating arid at times controversial, but none the worse for that. I include in my thanks the Minister, even if she continues to keep me and others dangling on a thread of suspense as to when we shall see the legislation which has been promised for so long. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I speak of my sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who has been prevented from attending the debate today by family circumstances. I thank my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara for taking her place. I shall not "tweak" him about his speech, as I might have done otherwise, because I know that he inherited it only about an hour-and-a-half ago and it would not be fair to do so.

Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I intend to speak briefly and to pick up just two or three of the points that have been made in this long debate. I hope that there will be an opportunity to move amendments in Committee, which I would welcome—I shall take careful account of the points that have been made before that stage—which would enable us to consider some of the points that have been raised.

I must comment on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, as regards the 77 per cent who voted in favour of a question put by the Ramblers' Association in favour of national park status. I wish to place on record exactly what the question asked; namely,

"If the South Downs was given National Park status it would be run by an organisation whose duty would be to conserve and enhance wildlife, natural beauty and cultural heritage, and to promote opportunities for public understanding and enjoyment of the South Downs' special qualities. Do you, yourself, think the South Downs should be given National Park status or not?"

How can anyone answer no to that question? I am amazed that even 7 per cent did answer no. If ever there was a loaded question, it is that one. It is exactly the same as being asked whether one has stopped beating one's wife. I do not think that was a fair or particularly important point for the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, to make.

My noble friend Lord Rotherwick and others understandably spoke of their wish to have representation of farmers and landowners on the conservation boards that the Bill proposes. I wholly agree with that. There are farmers and landowners on our existing conservation board who are nominated by the Countryside Agency. I am sure that that practice will be continued. The Bill also provides for an advisory council. My noble friend Lord Peel views that as yet another piece of bureaucratic interference. The only reason I included that provision in the Bill was in order that there should be an opportunity for representation of more interested bodies in the working of the conservation board without having to increase the number of members of the board itself. That is the only reason I included that provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, became rather lost with regard to the number of AONBs. I am pleased that the Minister set him right. The figure is, of course, 37 in England, including the Wye Valley. The missing ones that the noble Lord sought comprise his neighbours in Wales. He will have to leave Castle Morris and find the three missing AONBs. As regards his view that the Brecon Beacons are analogous to the Sussex Downs, the best thing I can do is to invite him to spend a weekend with me. We shall walk over the Sussex Downs together and I will show the noble Lord with great pleasure just how different the Sussex Downs are.

Many other points of interest and controversy have been made. I hope that there will be a Committee stage and that noble Lords from both sides of the House will put forward amendments. The words of Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn have been quoted to us; we will have the opportunity, in the words of Milton's Paradise Lost, "To spurn delight and live laborious days", in considering the amendments in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

I regard it as both a great honour and a responsibility to sponsor the Bill, which is specifically designed to strengthen the arrangements determined by the Government to protect vulnerable children and young people from the danger of abuse or exploitation.

I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House has been shocked and dismayed by the steady stream of reports over the years which have catalogued the suffering of young people, often at the hands of those who have been entrusted with the responsibility to protect them from harm. Having been a director of social services for many years, I have no doubt not only of such practices but also of how sometimes weak and ineffective managers allow staff to leave, often with a reference, rather than confront their unacceptable behaviour. As the former Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate, I both set up inspections and reported to Ministers on serious failures to protect children.

Over the years, Ministers set up a number of inquiries into the reasons for those tragic events. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, produced a detailed and practical report in 1992 on the need for better safeguards, entitled Choosing with Care. I hope that he arrives in time to share with us his experience. My predecessor, Sir William Utting, was commissioned by the Government to produce two reports on the subject.

So, the issues are not new. But the good news is that today we have before us a positive Bill, which has been initiated and very ably piloted through another place by the Member for Stourbridge, Debra Shipley, who came top in the ballot for Private Member's Bills. I should like to pay a warm tribute to her for choosing this topic and for making such great progress through her skill and determination. We are indeed grateful to her.

It must be acknowledged that most people working with children and young people are dedicated to their task and many demonstrate daily their commitment and integrity. The challenge before us is to root out of the system the minority who are unsuitable.

The Bill cannot cover every issue, but your Lordships will know that the Government have established an inter-departmental working group and I feel sure that other matters will be included in future legislation. The Bill—on what is a complicated subject—addresses recommendations from earlier reports and will, when put into operation, afford a significant improvement on the current arrangements for safeguarding young people.

I am happy to say that when the Bill was originally placed before the House of Commons, there was a broad consensus from the outset in support of the principles it embodied. There was, however, concern over the implications it held for the rights of the individual within these proposals. There was also some concern that the Bill would not capture those individuals who had moved on after harming children, when such incidents came to light only some time afterwards. However, by Third Reading in the other place, there was a general feeling that the concerns which had been raised at Second Reading and in Committee had been comprehensively examined and fully addressed in the amendments made, with the result that the Bill had emerged considerably strengthened and improved. There was a markedly positive and co-operative—though still testing—all-party approach to the Bill, which I have every reason to believe will continue in your Lordships' House.

I now turn to the objects of the Bill. It has four main aims. The first is to place the Department of Health's current administrative "Consultancy Service Index"— which lists individuals considered unsuitable to work with children—on a statutory footing; and to require regulated organisations, and to permit other organisations, to refer such names for inclusion on the new list.

Secondly, it seeks to provide rights of appeal against inclusion on both the Department of Health list and the similar "List 99" of the Department for Education and Employment, which has always been a statutory list.

Thirdly, the Bill seeks to require regulated childcare organisations, and to permit other organisations, to check the names of anyone they propose to employ in posts involving regular contact with children against both of the departmental lists and not to employ them if listed—although in List 99 cases only if listed on certain grounds.

Fourthly, it seeks to amend Part V of the Police Act 1997 to allow the Criminal Records Bureau to act as a central access point for those applying to work with children to criminal records information, List 99 and the new Department of Health list.

These objects are realised as follows. The first group of clauses—Clauses 1–4—transform the current Department of Health consultancy index into a new statutory list, with rights of appeal against inclusion and, in certain circumstances, with the leave of the tribunal, the right to have the tribunal instead of the Secretary of State make a determination on listing.

To follow the structure of the intended proposals, it is important to bear in mind two key definitions; namely, "child care organisation" and "child care position", both of which are set out in Clause 12 of the Bill. The definition "child care organisation" in Clause 12 includes the regulated public, private and voluntary sector providers of the services concerned. "Child care position" means a position concerned with the provision of accommodation, social services and health care services to children for which any organisation—that is, not merely a "child care organisation" as defined—is responsible, and is such as to enable the holder to have regular contact with children in the course of his duties.

It is important to distinguish between regulated organisations—that is, "child care organisations" which are within the mandatory scheme of the Bill—arid other organisations, separately and differently defined in Clause 12, which are placed within the parallel permissive scheme. For example, they do not have to refer names for listing; they do not have to check proposed appointees against lists; and they are not obliged to refuse employment. In practice, it is expected that they will want to do all of those things since they will have the means of checking names more easily and efficiently available as a result of this Bill.

Turning to the detail of the Bill, Clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to keep the list, and confers discretionary powers upon him to remove names from the list.

Clause 2 specifies by whom names may be referred for inclusion; the circumstances in which reference may be made, including whether or not an employee has already left or transferred from the childcare position; and the procedure that the Secretary of State must follow in determining references. Regulated organisations—that is, those defined as "child care organisations"—"must refer" names; and other organisations, for example in the unregulated parts of the voluntary sector, "may" refer names.

Your Lordships will wish to know that Clause 2 as now drafted has been affected by two direct alterations and one indirect alteration following amendment in the other place. First, incompetence has been removed as a ground for reference of a name, with the result that misconduct is now alone the relevant ground.

Secondly, in the light of concerns over individuals abusing and moving on well before their deeds are discovered, the Bill has been extended to make the provision under Clause 2(3) for referring names when information subsequently comes to light, although at the same time making it clear that no childcare organisation will be obliged to refer a case where the incident was concluded before the commencement of the clause.

Thirdly, the indirect change is the one which, now, in Clause 4(1)(b) gives an avenue of approach to the tribunal for individuals who have been included provisionally in the list for particular lengths of time. There was understandable concern that people in that category should not be in danger of languishing for indefensible periods without the possibility of review.

Clause 3 sets out the procedure for transferring names from the existing Consultancy Service Index to the new statutory list created by Clause 1. Clause 4 provides for appeals to the tribunal against any decision of the Secretary of State to include a name permanently in the list or, with leave, against his refusal to remove a name once included.

Clauses 5 and 6 relate to the Department of Employment and Education's List 99. This is a list similar to, but not identical with, the Consultancy Service Index. The primary difference is that List 99 contains individuals entered for a greater variety of reasons, for example on medical grounds or in connection with types of misconduct unrelated to inappropriate behaviour towards children. In order to make the "one-stop shop" arrangements work, it is necessary to separate out the various grounds for inclusion so that a category may be identified which covers only unsuitability to work with children. This is achieved by the amendments in Clause 5 to the 1988 Education Reform Act. Clause 6 then goes on to amend the 1988 Act to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations giving similar rights of appeal to the new tribunal in List 99 cases as Clause 4 permits in health department cases.

Clause 7 is one of the most important clauses in the whole Bill because it prescribes what the effect of inclusion in the lists will mean. It requires childcare organisations to check both the health department list and the relevant part of List 99 before offering employment in childcare positions and to refuse to offer employment in such positions if the individual's name appears in either list. Subsection (2) makes special provision for employment agencies so that their operations are caught by the Bill's provisions.

Clause 8 enhances this protection as it paves the way for accessing both lists and criminal records simultaneously when the Criminal Records Bureau is up and running. It achieves this by inserting amendments into Part V of the Police Act 1997 which makes searches through those procedures possible to all organizations—not just regulated childcare organisations—in respect of childcare positions so that both criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates may be obtained which also include the result of searches on the two departmental lists. Until Part V of the Police Act 1997 becomes operative, Clause 13 makes it clear that organisations may access the departmental lists direct.

Clause 9 and the schedule provide for the constitution and operation of the tribunal. In particular, Clause 9(2) lists examples of the areas that the regulation-making power may be used to cover. The joint effect will be to produce a type of tribunal which is markedly independent. It is the Lord Chancellor who will appoint the president of the tribunal and all the panel members. In addition, by virtue of paragraph 8 of the schedule the tribunal is placed under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.

Clause 10 contains a power by affirmative order to extend the protections of the Bill to adults suffering from mental impairment. Although it was not feasible to hope that this Bill could include al the categories of vulnerable adults, adults in this particular group are generally acknowledged to be particularly at risk. For this reason, it is right to include the possibility of extending the Bill's scheme to benefit them.

The remaining provisions of the Bill do not require lengthy introduction. Clause 11 sets out the necessary financial provisions. Clause 12 contains the definitions. Clause 13 provides for further transitional provisions to ensure that cases referred to the Consultancy Service Index where no final decision has been taken on inclusion at the date of commencement should be treated as if they were a referral under Clause 2 of the Bill.

The implementation of the Bill is dealt with in Clause 14. As a considerable amount of preparatory work will be needed, Clause 14 does not fix a date for implementation but provides for implementation by order on different dates for different provisions. The actual arrangements will be for Ministers to progress, but I hope, as I am sure will other noble Lords, that we can expect to see them taken forward as speedily as possible.

Finally, I should confirm that apart from amendments to Part V of the Police Act 1997, which extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, the Bill otherwise extends only to England and Wales. I understand that the authorities in Scotland are considering setting up a parallel system which will require separate legislation.

No one will, I think, doubt the case for the Bill. Events in recent years have underlined how imperfect society's defences have been in relation to the abuse of vulnerable children and adults which has rightly shocked the nation. At the same time, however, as the legislature is invited to respond with measures designed to control the abuse of young people, the legislature has also to ensure that its response is properly balanced. As might be expected, the debate in another place was principally, and rightly in my view, concerned with those questions of balance. In the ways I have sought to explain, significant efforts have been made to improve the balance of the Bill and they enable me more confidently to commend it to this House.

My Lords, I cannot resist beginning with the comment that the Second Reading debate on the Protection of Children Bill has nine speakers whereas the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill had more than double that number, 20 speakers. I think that that is a slight comment on this House.

I congratulate Debra Shipley on her excellent work in guiding this Bill through another place. It involved a great deal of hard work, and five Committee days; and that is unusual for a Private Member's Bill. We are lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Laming, steering the Bill through this House. A more suitable pilot cannot be imagined. His introduction has demonstrated how ably he will conduct the Bill. His skill and knowledge came out clearly.

As vice chairman of the all-party children group, I wish to say how strongly that group supports the Bill. Having been a member of the group for a long time under the splendid leadership of Lady Faithfull, I am certain she would have been a strong supporter of the Bill.

In her Second Reading speech in another place, the present chairman of the group, Mrs. Llin Golding, explained that since 1995 she has been working for a coherent, cross-sector system to identify people unsuitable to work with children. In the past few years we have heard far too much of the maltreatment of children living away from home. There have been too many scandals. We have waited a long time for the publication of the Waterhouse report on the North Wales inquiry into the situation in Clwyd and Gwynedd. I should like to know, if possible, when we can expect that report, which I am sure will give us a good many shocks.

It is to the former government's credit that because of those scandals they commissioned Sir William Utting to write the report, People Like Us. It is on some of its recommendations that the Bill is based. This Government followed that by announcing in June 1998 that they had decided that the safeguards then in place to prevent those considered unsuitable to work with children from gaining employment with them should be strengthened and a more streamlined approach proposed. They set up,

"An Inter-departmental Working Group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children and abuse of trust".

That report was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. It was published in December 1998. The Bill has taken up a number of its recommendations. For this Bill to have had its Second Reading so soon after the publication of that report in February this year shows a commendable determination to get on with the business as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has done an admirable job in explaining the aims and content of the Bill and it is quite unnecessary for me to do the same. Indeed, it would be otiose to do so. What I should like to do is air a few anxieties. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, did that, too. What is the timing? How soon can we expect the one-stop-shop, which is so necessary and is to be provided by the Criminal Records Bureau, to be set up and operational? The Bill enables this to happen by amending in Clause 8 the Police Act 1997. But I was a little daunted to see a Home Office press notice of December 1998 announcing that a self-financing CRB, under the management of the Passport Agency, would take two years to establish. Does this mean that the Bill, although passed this summer, will not be implemented until December 2000? It would be very sad if that were so.

When we hear how inadequate the present index is, that is a worry, too. According to Utting, there are only 750 names referred by employers on the DH index and some 4,000 other names have been referred by the police. Not all police forces send the information to the DH—the figures seem low—and one wonders how far the whole country is covered.

The department checked on its records to see whether the range of authorities referring names was what might be expected and it found that two large authorities very rarely made referrals. There is a good deal of planning to be done before a really satisfactory referral system is established. It is of course right that an appeals system should be there, but no doubt regulations will have to be passed before the tribunal conducting those appeals can start work.

The Bill is not quite so comprehensive in its cover as one might wish. It is estimated that there are about 100,000 nannies working in the UK and there is no statutory register to ensure the training qualifications or appropriate vetting of these individuals. Then of course there are au pairs. But what we must appreciate is that this Bill is a very much needed start in improving the present situation. And that, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is a cause for congratulation and satisfaction. It needs our strong support. I wish this Bill a very speedy passage through this House.

I have to apologise that, owing to the number of speakers on the first debate and the Statement, I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate. I have apologised to the Minister replying and he has been very kind about it. I do not like having to leave before the end, but as I very much wanted to speak of my enthusiasm for the Bill I broke my usual good intentions.

My Lords, I rise strongly to support the Bill. I, too, offer my warm congratulations to Debra Shipley on taking it through the other place. I support the Bill as someone who for six years ran one of the largest social services departments in the country and who chaired the previous government's committee of inquiry into the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes. In 1992, that produced a report called Choosing with Care. Since 1992, I have worked closely with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in trying to progress the implementation of the recommendations set out in that report. I am delighted to be here with him today to help progress the Bill. I am sorry that I missed the beginning of his speech, but I can assure your Lordships that there is no one better equipped to take the Bill through your Lordships' House.

I have seen at first hand the serious consequences for vulnerable children of their contact with people who are completely unsuitable to look after them. One of the features of the past decade has been our growing awareness of society and our understanding of the lengths to which some men—I am afraid that it is overwhelmingly men—go to get close to children so that they can abuse them. Home Office figures show that there are well over 100,000 men with convictions for sexual offences against children. A study of 92 convicted paedophiles showed that about one third of them had abused between 10 and 400 victims each. So some paedophiles are very prolific.

Fortunately, we have tightened up the law, and its enforcement, on sex offenders in recent years. Anyone now gaoled for a sex offence must undergo supervision by probation officers and must notify changes of address to the police. However, there are still many paedophiles around who fall outside those controls because they do not have convictions or their convictions relate to a much earlier period. I am afraid that they are attracted to vulnerable children like wasps round a jam jar. That is why this Bill is so important.

Regrettably, I have found, particularly in my time in local government, reluctance by some public bodies to face up to their responsibilities when a professional person has been found to be abusing their position of trust with a young person. I have seen many cases of organisational denial when teachers, doctors and social workers have been found to have abused that trust. Too often, such people have been quietly hustled off the premises without much regard being given to where they go. As we tried to demonstrate as a committee in the Choosing with Care report, too many local authorities did not have robust enough checks in place to stop them employing someone who had been found by another employer to be totally unsuitable for work with children. An area of greatest weakness was employment agencies, where sometimes quite inadequate checks were carried out, but employers assume that full checks had been made.

I welcome the commitment of the Government to apply and enforce the principles of Choosing with Care to the recruitment and selection of staff working with any children who live away from home. I am pleased that that will be done not only in social services departments but also within many other settings such as prisons.

Many directors of social services have shown strong personal commitment to ensuring robust vetting and selection procedures for staff and other senior professionals. However, many others would do well in their particular capacities to emulate their good example. I am certainly glad that in my capacity as chairman of the Youth Justice Board I shall be able to oversee the application of tougher procedures across the juvenile secure estate.

The provisions in the Bill will plug some of the gaps that we identified in Choosing with Care, when new legislation was required. We wanted to see those employed to work with children being required to notify a central list of staff who have left in circumstances which demonstrated their unsuitability. We wanted those same employers to be required, by law, to access those lists before employing a person to work with children, whether or not they came through an employment agency. I am pleased to see that this Bill delivers those requirements and goes further by linking employer information on unsuitability far more effectively with criminal record checks.

In the past there has been a problem in the delays and difficulties of access to police checks in some parts of the country, together with the need to access separately the Department of Health consultancy index and the DFE list 99. Unfortunately, that has led to people being employed to work with children before any vetting has taken place. It has been possible, for example, for residential childcare staff to be employed through agencies and then to move on to another job before the first lot of checks have been made.

The provisions in the Bill to bring all the checks together through the new criminal records agency should close that rather glaring loophole, especially the provision in Clause 7. I do not wish to make a party political point, but I want to respond briefly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the time taken to introduce the criminal records bureau. Part V of the Police Act was not funded under the previous government's public expenditure provisions, so it has taken time to put in place the money to bring that agency into force.

As a society we have had to learn some painful lessons over the past decade or so about those who abuse children. I am afraid that there are a significant number of men who like sex with children. Many of those men are prepared to target vulnerable children and to groom them carefully for their own purposes. Some such men have been found to be in positions of professional trust. There have been mortifying episodes of men who have been seen as experts in childcare abusing children over many years. The idea that paedophiles are all sleazy characters in greasy raincoats, hanging around school playgrounds, I am afraid is a myth. If we are to protect vulnerable children from abuse by those whom they should be able to trust, we need robust legislative provisions of the kind set out in this Bill.

The Bill provides safeguards against people being labelled unfairly, with a good system of hearing appeals. But we must always remember to err on the side of those who are most vulnerable; that is, the children rather than the adults. At the end of the day, the adults can go and get another job not working with children. But the children can have their lives ruined through abuse from powerful adults in positions of trust. Children who are looked after away from home for the most part did not choose that option but were placed there by public services. They are entitled to the protection that this Bill confers. I strongly support its speedy passage.

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of this Bill, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Laming this afternoon. At the risk of over-egging the pudding, I too should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the honourable Member for Stourbridge, Debra Shipley, for using her good fortune in the Private Member's Ballot in another place to bring forward such timely and constructive proposals.

As the president of Mencap, I particularly welcome the Government's acknowledgement of the vulnerability of disabled children to all forms of abuse. Learning-disabled children are especially likely to be abused, for many reasons. They range from the very general, such as the lack of value placed on disabled children by society and the lack of choice and control which disabled children have over their own lives—to much more specific considerations, such as the fact that children with learning disabilities are three times more likely than other children to be cared for away from home. Disabled children may also face an increased exposure to medication, which has scope for misuse. They may also rely upon multiple carers, and children may face the additional problem of a very limited ability to communicate about abuse. Unlike other children, learning disabled children often cannot run and tell; they may not be able to run and they may have absolutely no speech.

The Protection of Children Bill is particularly relevant in view of disabled children's reliance upon services provided in a wide range of settings; for instance, health, education, social services, and those provided by the voluntary sector. A child with a learning disability may attend a school provided by the local education authority, go to an after-school club managed by a voluntary sector provider, during the holidays attend a play scheme run by social services, and stay once a month in a respite centre run by a health trust.

This Bill will, for the first time, safeguard against offenders moving undetected between jobs in a variety of care settings. The Bill creates a national register of offenders against children, to which employers will have a statutory duty both to contribute and consult. One would expect employers to consult existing registers in advance of recruiting childcare workers, and not to employ candidates with a history of abuse. But this Bill will strengthen the quality of the recruitment of staff who encounter children on a regular basis by making this a statutory requirement. It has, in the past, been more difficult for employers to make a contribution to such lists, particularly in cases where suspected employees resign while under investigation.

I do not want to trouble your Lordships by recounting tragic and unpalatable details of the numerous incidents of abuse which have been brought to my attention over my years at Mencap. Independent investigations such as the Longcare inquiry made public the honors of abuse against people with learning disabilities, and highlighted the frustrations experienced by families who realise that earlier allegations of abuse in other settings were never acted upon. It is sufficient, as president of Mencap, to state categorically that had this Bill been on the statute book earlier, some of the crimes committed by serial perpetrators could have been prevented. We cannot rewrite history for those who have suffered in the past, but we can seek to improve children's safety by reforming the system of checks and safeguards.

A more comprehensive register will offer more comprehensive protection for children. But the Bill also has an additional advantage in protecting the civil liberties of those who are referred on to the register. At present, there is no mechanism for challenging inclusion on either the Department of Health's Consultancy Index or the Department for Education and Employment's List 1999.

This Bill introduces a right to appeal against inclusion on either register. The protection of children inevitably has to be weighed against the civil liberties of individuals who are suspected of abuse. I believe that this Bill achieves the right balance. It errs on the side of caution by placing known abusers and those suspected of abuse on the register, but it allows a right of appeal for all.

Since the Government sought to encompass the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, there can be no laxity in these matters. The strong independent appeals procedures proposed in this Bill provide a forum for the re-examination of evidence afresh and that forum will be charged to make its own decision on the merits of a particular case. It will also be able to review the way in which departmental decisions have been reached.

This Bill is fully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides assurance that it has already been subject to detailed scrutiny on the issue of civil liberties.

This Bill is by no means all-embracing, but it provides a solid basis for the expansion of the safety of children by closing some of the current loopholes which are exploited by people who physically or sexually abuse children. The Bill improves the safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society. I therefore warmly welcome the protection this Bill will afford children with learning disabilities, and I wish it Godspeed through your Lordships' House.

My Lords, protecting children from those who would do them harm must be a priority for our Government and for every decent member of society. I am pleased to be able to contribute to the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I join noble Lords in expressing thanks to our good friend Debra Shipley for using her position in the Private Members' Ballot to bring forward this Bill, steering it through the other place and bringing it to us in its present form. It is also important to recognise the important part that the Government's positive response to this Bill has played in its passage.

The context for this Bill is that at the moment the various lists which contain the names of people who might be a risk to children are split up in various places. The "Shipley Bill", if I might call it that, is part of a multi-staged process for rationalising the system. It will consolidate "List 99" held by the DfEE and the DoH Consultancy Index and put the new index on a legal basis.

The Bill also establishes the foundations for the next stage in this process: the creation of a "one-stop-shop" access point for checks in the form of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Once that is up and running—I am told that that will be in two or three years' time—anyone who employs staff with "substantial unsupervised access" to children will be able to go to the CRB to check potential employees against the Police National Computer database of convictions. Those are the two indices.

The voluntary organisation, NCH Action for Children, with which I have an association, in common with some of the other major voluntary agencies which deal with children and young people currently, has an arrangement by which it can access such information through VOCS—the Voluntary Organisations Consultancy Index—which is funded by the DoH and run under the auspices of the NCVCCO, the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations.

One of the important features of the proposed new scheme is that all voluntary agencies will be able to use it, including small ones. That is important, especially given the Government's projected increase in childcare provision. My understanding is that once the CRB is established, VOCS will be wound up.

Until the CRB is up and running, which will not be for at least two years, the significance of the Shipley Bill is that it simply consolidates the two government indices and puts them on a proper legal footing. Those whose names are on them will be able to make representations to the Secretary of State if they believe that they should not be included on the new index.

I know that some of those in the civil liberties lobby have expressed concern about the notion that the index will include the names of people who are believed to be a risk to children yet have never been convicted of a criminal offence. As a result, it is understandable that the Bill was amended along those lines during its passage through the Commons. However, it is important that, in due course, primary legislation is passed so that it will become a criminal offence for someone to seek work with children if he has a specified conviction.

This is a good Bill and it should not be watered down any further. It is right to take into account civil liberties considerations, but the balance should not be tilted any further away from child protection concerns. I believe that the balance is about right now.

We must never forget that the provisions of the Bill are only one weapon, albeit a welcome and important one, in the battle to protect children from would-be abusers. The people whose names go on the index are a very small minority of actual abusers. There is no substitute for vigilance and intelligence-led policing to identify prospective abusers and particularly vulnerable children, and seeking to keep one from the other.

In recent years, it has often seemed that the abusers were one step ahead; that for many children, we came too late to the knowledge that many of those taken into the care of the state were preyed upon by those who had responsibility for them. Now, with the presence of paedophile rings and those who trade in children on the Internet, I fear it seems that, again, the abusers are able to be one step ahead of us. I know that the Government are considering that issue which, I believe, needs urgent attention. In other words, the answer is that we must be as creative and resourceful as they are.

Finally, although I welcome the Bill, I should also like to raise one point. Once the new consolidated index is up and running, the demand on its services seems likely to increase. It is important that sufficient resources are invested in staff to make sure that that demand is met. I seek an assurance from the Minister that that will be the case. I welcome the Bill and I thank Debra Shipley for introducing it.

My Lords, I commence by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the excellent way in which he introduced the Bill today. I too offer my congratulations to Debra Shipley not only on her good fortune in winning first place in the ballot but also on her good sense of priority in her choice of subject matter for the Bill. The valuable work of the noble Lord and Debra Shipley is an important step forward in the protection of children.

In view of the expertise of many Members of your Lordships' House on this subject, expertise evidenced by the speeches already made, I was diffident about whether or not to speak. But I have decided to do so because the protection of children is not just a matter for our experts. It is a duty of us all. We all have a duty of care. Therefore, I shall demonstrate my lack of expertise in this matter because we all have that duty.

This Bill concerns the vetting element in employment procedures rather than the overall process of child protection. However, it is significant because it seeks to improve the identifications of persons unsuited to work with children and to create the foundations of a one-stop shop for single channel access to all relevant information.

At present, there are various registers of interest for a potential employer concerned about eliminating from employment with children those with a record which demonstrates their unsuitability. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, outlined the detail of those various registers with great clarity.

The mixture of statutory and non-statutory registers and criminal records is clearly an inadequate response to the view that society is obliged to protect its children. This Bill seeks to remedy that inadequacy.

In that fragmented situation, the dangers that exist and continue to exist are self-evident. Principal among those is that a child molester or abuser can slip through the extremely inadequate net, gain employment with children and then, from a position of trust, abuse the most vulnerable and innocent in our society—its children. Commenting on the Bill when it was in another place, the chief executive of the Children's Society said:

"It is crazy to leave the protection of children to chance. We need rigorous checks by law".

That is what the Bill seeks to do.

Childcare organisations will, under the terms of the Bill, have a mandatory duty to vet prospective employees for childcare positions. Even organisations that fall outside the definition of "childcare organisations" will be able to vet both employees and, importantly, volunteers. All these bodies should refer names of abusers to the list. Fundamental to the protection of children is the element of a strong, mandatory framework of vetting and, equally important—which the Bill addresses—is the right of appeal to an independent tribunal to challenge inclusion on the list by those who believe that it is not justified.

The Bill puts the Department of Health Consultancy Service Index on a statutory basis. It requires checks to be made, and childcare organisations are required not to employ listed persons. The Bill requires regulated bodies to refer names for inclusion on the new list, and amends Part V of the Police Act 1997 to allow eventually the Criminal Records Bureau to act as the central access point for all data, be they criminal records, List 99, or the new Department of Health list.

The Bill deserves our attention and support. In supporting it, we shall be taking an important step forward in giving protection to those who need and deserve it, and those who are all too frequently denied it—our children. I give the Bill my warm support.

My Lords, I should like to be brief and to speak as a young person who works with young vulnerable people. I am grateful to the Government for the Bill. I wish that it had been around before. It is very welcome now, and I hope that it makes speedy progress through this House.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and its sponsor in another place on bringing forward the Bill. I support the Bill and those questions that I ask seek simply to ensure, where possible, that its mechanisms work as well as possible.

As has been said, the Bill received necessary improvements in another place in order to provide sufficient and proper safeguards for those who are, or may be placed on the new lists. Strictly speaking this is not a government Bill and so it does not require a statement of compatibility under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which was recently enacted. Perhaps that represents something of a lacuna in the case of a Private Member's Bill which has government support.

We had assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that he is satisfied that the Bill fully complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. Most of us would think that that is at least as good as a statement of compatibility by any Minister. However, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government regard the Bill as compatible with the European convention.

Although we should not look uncritically at those aspects of the Bill in Committee, we should also be satisfied that the Bill operates as effectively as it should do. It will only truly live up to its title as a Bill to protect children if it allows as wide a range as possible of employers and others access to information about as many people as possible who are reasonably thought to be a risk to children. That means looking at how the lists are to be compiled, what use can be made of them, and by whom. I prefer not to use the expression "one stop shop". It may be useful but it tends to suggest nothing more than mere consumer convenience, and to understate the necessity for a single point of reference as just part of the attack on the serious problem described by noble Lords.

This Bill is not confined to dealing with paedophiles. It sensibly adopts the wide meaning of "harm" in the Children Act 1989. However, child sexual abuse is the main problem with which it will have to deal. Inevitably, child sexual abuse is an under-reported crime. In the course of a fairly grubby career in family law, I suspect that I have met rather more paedophiles than most people. They are devious and manipulative and they can be plausible and skilled at self-justification. Paragraph 13.23 of the Utting Report correctly pointed out that people who wish to exploit children, particularly career abusers, will seek out weak points in any system, wherever they occur. So I welcome the extension of this Bill to cover people supplied by employment agencies, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

As noted in the Utting Report, agency work can provide cover and opportunity for abusers. It is not unusual for people to be on the books of several agencies at the same time, and sometimes the agencies concerned may not have a strong incentive to report suspected misconduct. At Paragraph 14.6 the Utting Report also noted the confusion as to who is responsible for requesting checks in the case of agency staff. I therefore hope also that the amendments to the Employment Agencies Act 1973 proposed in the current Employment Relations Bill have been drafted with this Bill in mind.

The point about agency staff is just one aspect of the need to ensure that the Bill covers as many potential employees as reasonably possible. The definition of "employment" in Clause 12 is wide enough to cover volunteers and those who might claim to be self-employed. But I rather wish that that extended meaning received more prominence and that one did not have to get to the interpretation clause at the end of the Bill before that point was made clear.

I am not clear that the definitions of "childcare organisation" and "childcare position" are wide enough to cover the provision of transport for children; for example, by coach companies running school buses. I was recently in a case in which a school bus driver befriended and "groomed" adolescent girls, to use the jargon, in order to have a sexual relationship with at least two of them as soon as their 16th birthdays were reached. One of the girls, vulnerable and immature, had two children by this man before she was 18 and the resulting care proceedings in respect of those children were very sad. I should like to be reassured, if it is possible to be so, that drivers of coaches technically employed by independent contractors could be covered by the provisions of the Bill.

Another technical question relates to the circumstances in which people might be referred for inclusion on the lists. Clause 2 commendably covers a wide range of situations but it probably does not include either the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract of an employee or the decision not to re-use a particular agency worker when the organisation concerned has good reasons not to do so.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides that childcare organisations shall refer certain individuals and Clause 7 provides that such organisations shall ascertain whether those they wish to employ are included on the lists. Although those obligations are stated in mandatory terms, the Bill does not appear to state any sanctions. Under Clause 2, other organisations have an option rather than a mandatory obligation to refer individuals. Although conscientious organisations will welcome the Bill, other organisations, perhaps tempted to cut corners through pressures of time or money, may need incentives to use this new system. In any event, it is a system which will require to be publicised to ensure that it works to best effect.

Clause 14 limits most of the Bill to England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, mentioned that there is or will be a parallel system to run in Scotland. That rather mystified me. It suggested a parallel system running alongside but not actually merging with this new system. It does not need me to say that paedophiles in particular are no respecters of national boundaries. Therefore one would ask, will there in fact be a United Kingdom-wide single point of reference and database? Will an organisation in England or Wales seeking information about an individual know that the answer to the inquiry covers anything which may be recorded in Scotland or Northern Ireland? Similarly, will those who inquire in Scotland and Northern Ireland be assured that the search will extend to all lists throughout the United Kingdom, and indeed the British Isles? I say "the British Isles" because I recall a case in which the paedophile concerned started his career in the Channel Isles. Will responsible childcare organisations, including schools, outside the United Kingdom, which are proposing to offer employment to someone from Britain have access to the information on the lists?

Will local authority social services departments concerned with childcare cases, and also family court welfare officers and guardians ad litem, have access? Quite often in such cases a mother involved in proceedings concerning her child or children will start a relationship with a new male partner who she puts forward to the court or authorities as a reliable potential step-parent. Normally the court welfare officer or social services will do a criminal record search. In a case I was recently involved in, a convicted paedophile sought out children by forming relationships with their mothers or women in the extended family by using dating agencies to meet these women. In the subsequent care proceedings he was discovered to be a so called "Schedule 1 offender", that is, under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and a very real menace. Will a court welfare officer be able to search not just for criminal records but also for the wider category of information to be entered on these lists?

I ask how long it will be before this Bill, when enacted, will become fully operational. I know that that concerns other noble Lords. Is the computer technology in place? When it is operational, will the system work quickly? The Utting report noted that credit organisations can check a person's creditworthiness almost instantly, by way of contrast to the time it can take to discover a criminal record—although I accept that that has recently improved.

The same questions as to timing apply to Clause 10. There is a similar need to protect older people with mental impairment. In several cases involving residential homes I have seen employers who have taken on unsuitable staff failing to notice obvious inconsistencies or unexplained gaps in the CVs provided by job applicants, or failing to take up references which turned out to be bogus or worthless. Such employers are often reluctant to recognise or admit that they could or should have been more careful. That reminds us that this Bill, although potentially most valuable, is only part of the attack on abuse. It serves to reinforce the ultimate duty of care resting with employers and employment agencies and the duty to adopt rigorous employment practices.

My Lords, may I, first, add my name to the burgeoning membership of the Lord Laming appreciation society by congratulating him on having introduced this Bill and on the exemplary way in which he did so. Congratulations are also most certainly due to the honourable Member for Stourbridge in another place.

Having listened to the debate, I am in no doubt that this is a Bill that commands a very wide measure of cross-party support. I should like to take the opportunity of saying at the outset that from these Benches we welcome it warmly. As has been emphasised by a number of noble Lords, it is a measure that aims to tackle what for all of us has been a shameful and wholly unacceptable feature of our national life; namely, the absence of an adequate vetting procedure to prevent unsuitable and dangerous individuals from working with children.

This subject was examined in depth by the inter-departmental working group that reported last December. The study took its cue, at least in part, from the conclusions of the review chaired by Sir William Utting and commissioned by the previous government, which recommended a whole range of improvements in the safeguards for children living away from home.

The need for such improvements should not be doubted. Other noble Lords have expressed their feelings on this issue more eloquently than I can. I do not think that we could seriously have contemplated carrying on exactly as we were, in the face of the most appalling succession of scandals involving the abuse of youngsters in children's homes and schools by members of staff whose previous records had remained undiscovered for long periods of time. There are many tens of thousands of such individuals and often they have been able to move around from job to job with complete freedom and impunity.

This Bill seeks to put a stop to that. As has been said, no Act of Parliament will be able to prevent child abuse altogether. Indeed, this measure attempts to tackle only part of the problem, bearing in mind that a high proportion of child abuse takes place not in the workplace but in the home. Nor should any new system of centralised record keeping be seen as a substitute for the normal processes of checking and reference taking that any prospective employer needs to undertake. But a co-ordinated, national system of employee vetting, such as is envisaged here, must surely play a key part in any government-led initiative to protect children.

The difficulty in framing a Bill of this kind is the balance that it strikes between protecting children and protecting individual civil liberties. There are a number of issues on that theme that, no doubt, we shall wish to explore in Committee. I think we need to bear in mind constantly that the creation of statutory blacklists, however desirable the underlying motive, brings with it the potential for injustice. One of the fundamental freedoms of our society is the freedom of being allowed to do the work that you want to do. We remove that freedom from a man or woman only in the most compelling of circumstances; and in a way which, as far as possible, safeguards their remaining civil liberties. I am quite certain that it is not part of this Bill's purpose to stigmatise a group of people or to make those people permanently unemployable in any possible sphere of work. Its aim is to protect children.

I hope, because of that, that each of us in his bones resists instinctively the notion of a statutory blacklist that is compiled by an administrative rather than a judicial process. That of course is the notion enshrined in this Bill. Despite those natural instincts, I am in this case wholly persuaded that it is right to proceed along that path; not simply for the compelling reasons of which we are all aware, but because of the checks and balances incorporated into this Bill designed to minimise the risk of injustice. Chief among these is the provision for an appeal against inclusion on either List 99 or the Consultancy Service Index. The independent appeal tribunal, quite separate from the executive, is a most important innovation.

Another welcome safeguard is the statutory limit on the length of time that someone's name can remain on the provisional list without that person having access to the tribunal. It is important, too, that access to the list is confined to those organisations with a legitimate need to know. My understanding is that these will consist only of those childcare organisations defined in the Bill, and other recognised businesses, whether incorporated or not. But it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this issue when he comes to speak.

I should also be grateful if the Minister would reassure me, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that, in the opinion of the Government, the Bill complies fully with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given the quasi-judicial nature of the proposed appeal mechanism, I would very much hope and expect that it does; but the issues are perhaps not completely straightforward.

One puzzle that I have is the apparent difference in emphasis between this Bill and the conclusions of the inter-departmental working group, which reported last December. The whole tenor of the group's report, it seemed to me, was to favour a system that was essentially voluntary and permissive; for example, in paragraph 5.32 the group says that it may not always be necessary for a prospective employer to check the list; and in paragraph 5.14 it thinks it is right for the decision on employment to rest with the employer in the light of the information provided by the check. In other words, it was not a case of saying that the inclusion of someone's name on either list should be an automatic bar to that person being employed—which is the stipulation in Clause 7(1) of the Bill. More generally the group specifically recommends at paragraph 4.6 a voluntary system apart from,

"a few areas which are required under existing provisions to make certain checks".

As I say, I do not dissent from the thrust of the Bill as drafted but it is unclear to me why there has been this change of mind on the part of the Government.

One feature of the Bill that to me is less than satisfactory is the absence of any new criminal offence, as recommended by the interdepartmental group, of knowingly applying for or accepting work with children when deemed unsuitable for such work. Will the noble Lord, Lord Laming, comment on that and on the fact that the Bill includes no sanctions on childcare organisations that fail to comply with its provisions'? What sanctions are already available that could be deployed if required?

On a more practical note, can the Minister say when the Government intend to set up the Criminal Records Bureau? Can he also say how long it is likely to take for the Bill to come into force, assuming that it is enacted? In that context I am not at all clear how the Government see this Bill interrelating with their wider programme of social care reforms. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.

It would be helpful too if we were to hear a little more about how the one-stop shop is intended to work, particularly during the period prior to the setting up of the Criminal Records Bureau. It is not entirely clear from my reading of the Bill whether, for example. a request by a school or LEA for a check against List 99 will automatically elicit a check against the other lists as well, including the lists that we understand will be established in Scotland; nor how it will be possible for that school to establish—in the absence of the Criminal Records Bureau—whether the individual concerned has a criminal record. Similarly I take it that only the relevant sections of List 99 will be checked in response to a request from, say, a childcare organisation that wishes to access that list and the Consultancy Service Index. In other words, am I correct in understanding that the proposal is not simply for a one-stop shop as ordinarily understood but for an automatic, comprehensive check against each list?

The concerns that I have on the Bill, which in the context of the whole are relatively minor, fall into two camps; the first being whether it contains all that it needs to in order to ensure that the safeguards for children work as intended; and the second being whether the safeguards for individuals are as secure and comprehensive as they ought to be. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will say that he has not closed his mind to the possibility of some improvements to the Bill if the case for them is convincingly made. Knowing him as I do, I would be surprised if he did not take that approach. The objective that we must all want to achieve is to create legislation that is durable and that commands general support. Bearing in mind the sensitivity of the issues which the Bill addresses, in my respectful opinion that objective can be achieved only by our focusing hard on the consequences that may flow from each part of the Bill and on ensuring that we are satisfied with them. I look forward to our further debates on these matters with much interest and to the speedy passage of the Bill through the House.

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on his initiative in bringing this Bill forward. As I believe all noble Lords will know, he has a long and distinguished career in the field of social services. I can think of no one in your Lordships' House who is more appropriate to bring this Bill forward. Like other noble Lords I wish to acknowledge the initiative of my honourable friend Debra Shipley MP. I am glad that she has been able to listen to our debate this afternoon.

We are all aware of the history in this country of official reports gathering dust on shelves. It is good that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was able not only to speak in the debate but to encourage us to see through the implementation of one of the very important areas discussed in his report.

There is no doubt that this is a very important Bill. It aims to make significant advances in the way in which our society seeks to protect its most vulnerable members. My noble friends Lord Tomlinson and Lord Warner very much made that point. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made the point that we need to keep carefully in mind the particular vulnerability of children with disabilities and learning difficulties as we take the Bill through its various stages in your Lordships' House.

It has been evident from the tone of the debate that your Lordships are fully seized of the Bill's significance and that there is a significant and perhaps unanimous degree of all-party support for the aims of the Bill. Understandably, there is also a very proper and welcome concern that the means should not ride roughshod over the rights of those individuals who might be identified for inclusion on either of the departmental lists, with all the consequences that can flow from such listing. As so often with legislation of this kind, the question is how best to strike the right balance, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The need to be persuaded that it has been struck is there even where, as in this case, we are dealing with the very emotive subject of protecting children. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that our deliberations in Committee will be an appropriate point to tease out some of those issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has already given a very full explanation of the contents of the Bill. It will not be necessary for me to repeat what he has said. It is clear that he is concerned to ensure that the Bill's strong measures are matched by strong protections. No one will doubt that the changes made in the other place, which were described by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, have improved the balance of the Bill and have gone the distance to satisfy the doubts expressed in Committee.

I can confirm that the changes have been equally welcomed by the Government. The burden of administrating the Bill's proposals will fall upon the Government. It is no part of the Government's wish that the aims of the Bill should have doubt cast upon them because of well-founded reservations about the means by which those aims are to be achieved. That is one of the main reasons why we have been keeping a close eye on the human rights implications of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the matter of the European Convention on Human Rights. I shall now deal with that issue. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, since this is a Private Member's Bill, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply; that is, there is no statutory requirement for it to be accompanied with a statement about compliance with the Convention. On the other hand, I appreciate that the House would expect some clear expression of view from the Government. On that basis, I am glad to be able to say that the Government believe that the Bill is fully compliant with the European Convention.

One of the key elements in the Bill is the provision for appeals against being placed on either Department of Health or Department for Education and Employment lists. It may be easy to underestimate just how far the Bill improves the present situation, in which, although both lists have been in existence for a long time, there has never in either case been any system of appeal, let alone to an entirely independent tribunal. For the very first time, it will become possible for people placed on the list to appeal against listing to an independent body appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Nor will the tribunal be concerned simply with looking again at what was before the Secretary of State when he made his decision. Rather, its task will be to examine the evidence afresh from the beginning so as to make its own decision. Subject only to appeal to the High Court on a point of law, the tribunal's decision will be final. Your Lordships may agree that that is as great a degree of independence for a tribunal as is necessary.

The House may also consider it helpful that the tribunal will, by virtue of the final paragraph of the schedule to the Bill, be subject to the oversight of the Council on Tribunals—a body whose own independence and the experience it has built up over a number of years have established it as one of the indispensable influences in raising and maintaining high procedural standards in tribunals generally.

A number of noble Lords asked about the Government's intention concerning the implementation of the Bill's proposals if the Bill is, as I very much hope, successful in this House. Although, as I have already said, the Government welcome the burdens placed upon them by this Bill, they are not light ones or ones that are easily discharged.

Setting up an entirely new tribunal will require the drawing up of the substantial detailed regulations forecast, not only in Clause 9 but also in respect of the Education Reform Act pursuant to Clause 6. In addition, the Lord Chancellor will be charged with making important appointments of legally qualified and other people with relevant experience to operate the tribunal. Elsewhere, not only will the Department of Health have to institute a new list under new rules, but it will also have to examine the 900 names on the present consultancy service index for possible transfer to that new list. Granted the right of appeal that will be available to individuals in these circumstances, it is evident that the tribunal will need to be up and running before the provisions of Clause 7 can be introduced. The one-stop shop itself cannot, of course, function until the criminal records bureau becomes operational.

On that basis, I hope it will be understood that it is not practicable at this juncture to give any firm estimate of when implementation can reasonably be expected. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested, one of the key practical issues in relation to the bureau relates to the need for appropriate IT services. In addition, a number of statutory orders will need to be made before the bureau can come into operation. There will also need to be consultation with various employers and other organisations to draw up codes of practice under the Act. That said, I know that colleagues in the government departments principally concerned are glad that the prospect of this project has been advanced by the Bill's promoters, and they will be determined to grasp the opportunity to gather in its benefits as soon as they can. We hope that the criminal records bureau will be in place by the end of the year 2000, with the one-stop shop being brought into operation at the same time. As regards the new Department of Health list, we hope that it will be operational by summer 2000.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about the organisations that would come to be covered by the Bill's provisions. As the House will know, for the purposes of the Bill a "child care organisation" is an organisation whose activities are in some way controlled or regulated by statute. So that definition would cover all local authority social services functions relating to children; all children's homes, whether local authority, voluntary or private; adoption and fostering services; nursing homes or mental nursing homes accommodating children; registered child minders; and NHS trusts providing certain services to children.

Other organisations which are not subject to statutory control but which provide services for children, such as the Scouts, the Cadet Force and youth clubs, while not being covered by the mandatory provisions of the Bill, will be able to refer names and carry out checks on a voluntary basis. I may add that they will be urged, in guidance to be issued later by the Department of Health, to do so and not to employ anyone whose name is on the list.

The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked when we can expect publication of the North Wales inquiry. That is a matter for the independent inquiry. However, my understanding is that publication is expected in the next few months.

The noble Baroness also suggested that this Bill is not completely comprehensive. That is absolutely right. It has to be seen as a building block. She mentioned issues to do with nannies and nanny agencies. It is true that nannies are not regulated under the Children Act 1989. The Government do not support the introduction of a national register for nannies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the VOCS. She is absolutely right. That will be wound up when the one-stop shop is up and running simply because it will no longer be needed. The noble Baroness also asked for an assurance that sufficient resources would be made available to ensure that the new arrangements worked satisfactorily. As to the bureau, it will be self-financing. The Government have given a firm commitment to provide sufficient resources overall to make the Bill work well. As to the Department of Health, the additional manpower costs associated with increased activity within the department will be absorbed within current provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about the position of bus and taxi drivers. I refer him to DfEE regulations made last year which may be relevant. Parts of those regulations embrace staff employed by contractors and volunteers. The effect is that, if a school or local education authority contracts with a bus or taxi firm to provide transport for pupils, a check must be made of the drivers used by the company to ensure that they are not on the DfEE List 99. I hope that that meets his point.

The noble Lord also asked about Scotland and the British Isles generally. The interdepartmental working group to which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred is looking primarily at the establishment of an integrated scheme of protection for children in England and Wales. While I take the point made by the noble Lord, it will be considering the wider application of such a scheme to Scotland and Northern Ireland and will make recommendations on those issues. Representatives from Scotland and Northern Ireland are members of the working party, but we shall ensure that the noble Lord's points are put to them and considered. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, also asked about court welfare officers and whether they could check step-parents. They cannot. Step-parents would not fall within the employment definition in the Bill.

No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will wish to respond to other points that have been made. Perhaps I may finish by picking up the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about how the one-stop shop would work. When someone applies to work with children, the employer will ask for checks to be carried out on List 99 and the DH list. The certificate issued which is to be sent to both the employer and applicant will record whether or not the applicant is included on either list.

In conclusion, it has been clear from the debate and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that the Bill cannot cover every issue. But your Lordships are aware that the interdepartmental working group is considering many of the issues that have been raised, and certainly there is the potential to address them in future legislation. This Bill is both a desirable and necessary measure. I end by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on bringing forward the Bill, which I hope will commend itself to the House.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for this most interesting, instructive and very encouraging debate on this important Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his very helpful response to the many points raised during the debate. I shall attempt to respond to a number of the points helpfully made by your Lordships. My experience in your Lordships' House is such that the very generous remarks made about me during the debate, however well intended, may prove to be ill founded. However, I shall do my best.

I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for her indication of support for the Bill from the All-Party Children Group. I regard that as of great importance. I have been impressed by the support for the Bill from agencies outside Parliament involved in the provision of services for children. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to such agencies.

It is a complicated but important Bill. Therefore, I am sure that noble Lords will understand that, once enacted, it will be necessary for the department to produce detailed regulation and guidance. That will take some time. It will clarify in detail some of the definitions to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred.

Earlier I expressed the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would arrive in time for the debate. I am grateful that he was able to be present to give us the benefit of his great experience, in particular as regards his excellent work on the report, Choosing with Care, which enabled the Bill to be better informed and therefore likely to be more effective. The noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Meston, referred to our growing understanding of the lengths to which some men will go to get close to children in order to abuse them. It is a salutary lesson. It is important that none of us is complacent. We need to recognise that somehow abusers always find ways to get round the existing safeguards. That is why we need to keep the matter under review, to learn from experience and to put that experience into practice. The continuing work on the subject of the inter-departmental working group is of great importance.

I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, drew attention to the inclusion of employment agencies. With all his experience, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made a helpful contribution on why mental impairment has been included. The noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Tomlinson, helpfully drew attention to the safeguards included. Several noble Lords drew attention to the need for balance in protecting the rights of individuals. The Bill is a considerable improvement not only as regards the protection of children, but also the rights of people who may be referred. A number of safeguards in the Bill are not currently in operation. It is important to recognise the balance achieved in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, drew attention to the need to consider making it a criminal offence for those on the list to apply for a post involving care for children. It is comforting to know that that is a matter which continues to be addressed by the inter-departmental working party. I have no doubt that we shall return to that issue.

I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the staffing of the bureau. From the information I have received, I believe that the bureau will be substantially staffed. The commitment to make a success of this measure is so great that if it proves necessary to reconsider the matter I have no doubt that that will be undertaken.

I support strongly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, to which I attach tremendous importance: that the protection of children from abuse is the responsibility of us all. The Government have a duty to set in place the framework. The Bill aims to achieve that. However, the responsibility remains with us all.

I took seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the reference to the one-stop-shop perhaps underestimating the important meaning of this one point of reference. That is important because the Bill is intended to ensure that the provision of the information which is available to all organisations which have responsibility for providing services for children will be both efficient and effective. We ought not in any way to give the impression that it is simply a routine checking procedure.

It is also important to emphasise that checking, important though it is, does not reduce the responsibility, duty and accountability that is placed upon management not only to follow the procedures, but also to be vigilant and courageous in challenging inappropriate behaviour in people's work with children.

For the first time, the Bill eliminates confusion about who is responsible for the checking in that it places the responsibility quite clearly upon the organisation, in particular if it is a statutory organisation. Furthermore, it provides non-statutory organisations which corporately provide services for children with a clear and efficient way of carrying out the checks.

It is clear that the duty to consult the list is covered by other legislation. I refer in particular to the responsibility which the Children Act places on all statutory organisations to promote the welfare of children. They cannot achieve that unless they fulfil their duties to employ people who are suitable and not to employ people who are unsuitable.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a number of important points, including a justifiable and concerned point about blacklists. As I have indicated, the point is well taken by the introduction in the Bill of safeguards which are not currently in operation. I hope that that will provide an assurance.

It is true that no sanctions against childcare organisations are incorporated in the Bill. However, under other legislation, statutory bodies clearly have responsibilities. These issues will continue to be reviewed by the inter-departmental working party.

Finally, I emphasise to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the information provided will be that which is relevant to the person's suitability to work with children. That is one of the important safeguards provided in the Bill.

This has been an encouraging experience for me. It has also been an important learning experience. If I have failed to respond to important points made by your Lordships, I hope that I will be excused and allowed to do better next time. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy in coming to the House to move the regulations in person and also for the luminous clarity with which he presented the case.

I enjoyed his remarks about what is called "plain English". In large measure, his attempts have been successful. But since he is not particularly restricted by the argument "but we have always done it this way", will he look again at the acrostic method of arrangement which is used for setting out the order of the different parts of the regulation? Occasionally, that makes it more difficult to follow than it should be.

I am grateful to him also for his observations on what is called "one month". While the previous occupant of the Woolsack operated under the motto "never on Sunday", I believe that this occupant of the Woolsack operates under the maxim "never in February", the shortest month which allows the least time for lodging an appeal.

I shall not detain the House long on the substance. The matter was debated exhaustively during the passage of the Bill. I say only that I sometimes wish the Government would use some other word for describing their general programme than "modernisation". I have listened to too many estate agents to hear that word without a double-take.

One point which was made by my honourable friend Mr. Webb on the regulations, to which the noble and learned Lord has responded in part, was about the time limit of one month. I am interested in the further question as to when the clock starts to run on that one month. Under regulation 9(2), it starts to run from the despatch of the notice of the decision. I am particularly glad to see in regulation 28 that that notification must include reasons for the decision. That takes some account of the debates in the House because without reasons, one cannot know whether one has ground for lodging an appeal.

I understand that there is almost infinite discretion on special reasons. It would be interesting to know a little more about the circumstances of those who may be regularly employed. It is possible that some trouble may be saved if, in regulation 9(2), the specification were not to be the despatch of the notification but its receipt. That will require a system of recorded delivery. But it would catch instantly those people who are suffering from severe mental illness, in a coma after a car crash or otherwise obviously unable to respond. Therefore, in the course of creating some extra cost, it may also create some extra saving by eliminating a good deal of what would then become unnecessary argument. I hope that that point commends itself to the Government.

With that one observation, I welcome the general structure of what is here before us.

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, makes several important points admirably briefly. I will certainly consider everything that he said. I shall do the best I can to respond now, but I may write to him further.

When I came across the concept of a month, my first reaction was that a month is of variable duration. Therefore the concept of one month could be regarded as odd. Months vary in duration. The saying goes,

"Thirty days hath September, April, June and November; All the rest have thirty-one, excepting February alone, and that has twenty-eight days clear".

As I recall, in a leap year it has 29. I also asked myself why a concept that involves variable time instead of a specific number of days is being used. It is quite right to say that it means that, according to the accident of the month in which one finds oneself, the period of time is either longer or shorter. Why is it not irrational? It is certainly possible to maintain that it is irrational. Indeed, I have given the reasons why it is irrational. But the answer is convenience for ordinary people.

If the period begins on the 15th of the month, it ends on the 14th of the next month. If it begins on the 20th of the month, it ends on the 19th of the next month. It is an easy rule of thumb and, frankly, I do not much care whether, from a purist point of view, it really represents a month. It will work.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, expressed hostility to the word "modernisation". I hope that this Government will be remembered as a great reforming and modernising government. However, I called my Bill the Access to Justice Bill and not the modernisation of justice Bill. Mention was also made of the desirability of reasoned decisions. It is a principle of sound justice and good administration that reasons be given.

The concept of special reasons found in the regulations has also been mentioned. I shall resist the blandishment to offer a definition of "special reasons" beyond saying that they are those which do not arise in the generality of cases, and the discretion is untrammelled. I note the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the trigger date should not be the date of the dispatch, but the receipt of notification, and I will write to him on that point.

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this matter of a month. What is a month after 31st January?

My Lords, a month after 31st January has got to be 27th February.

My Lords, the 27th?

My Lords, yes.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].

My Lords, I should like to give an unreserved welcome to these regulations. They are an amendment to an amendment—a necessary and a useful one. I thank my honourable friend Mr. Rendel for his part in bringing this about and I should like to pay tribute to those involved in bringing about the initial process of amendment: the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, who proposed the compromise during the course of the proceedings on the Bill from which all this originates; the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for responding so warmly and so sensibly to it; and this House for discharging its duty as a revising Chamber as it should.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments and for his unreserved welcome of the amendments.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].

My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for very long, but I should like to make one brief comment. I welcome from these Benches the reduction of the relevant period from two years to one year. As the Minister will be aware, there is no particular magic in one year. From 1971 to 1975, the period was one year. From 1975 to 1979, it was six months. It then went up to one year/two years, for small and large businesses respectively.

There is significant evidence, as the Minister will be aware, particularly from the citizens advice bureaux, that quite a large proportion of the cases that come to them are from people who believe that they have been unfairly treated although they have had less than one year's employment. In the view of the citizens advice bureaux, quite a lot of those cases involve circumstances where, at the end of, let us say, three months the employee has been given a perfectly satisfactory interview with the employer, indicating that everything is going well. In those circumstances, I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will keep this under review together with the question of whether the one-year provision will in due course be lowered to six months.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. He is quite right that there is no particular magic in one year and in recalling that the period has varied considerably over the years. I have, indeed, had the benefit of a briefing from the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux which I read with great care.

I take the point that a substantial part of its caseload on employment problems, which is of course only a part of its total case load, is concerned with unfair dismissal in cases involving less than one year's employment. The noble Lord makes the valid point that the common probationary period is three months. As an employer, I always used to have a three-month probationary period, and I never had any difficulty, even when the formal legal period was two years, in using the end of the three-month period and the review at that time to achieve a relatively amicable parting of the ways if the probationary period had not worked out.

The fundamental point is that good employers will avoid complaints of unfair dismissal anyway. If they have good procedures, as 90 per cent do, there will be no problem in working a one-year period. There is an additional advantage in a one-year period, given our commitment throughout the consultations before the Fairness at Work White Paper and the preparatory work for the Employment Relations Bill and given that the one-year period has been agreed both by employees' organisations and by the CBI and the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists. We like to operate by consensus as far as we can, but I certainly can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, says, and that our minds are open to further review, not necessarily in the phrase that he used at the end of his speech, and that we intend to reduce the period as and when it may prove necessary.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this is an annual event and of course as such in this place we give it entire approval. However, there is one question that I must ask the noble Lord. It concerned the Human Rights Act and this order. Can he assure the House that in no way will discipline in the Armed Forces be affected by the Human Rights Act?

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In a private conversation that I had with him earlier, I was not quite sure of my ground. However, I am now sure and can tell him that the position is unchanged since the last time we discussed these matters.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for moving this order. I remind the House that I have an interest as I command a TA unit. I should like to identify one loophole in the 1955 Act in respect of the TA; namely, that after dismissal parade a TA soldier is not subject to military law because he is no longer on duty. That does not affect the validity or the desirability of this order, but it is possible that there could be an emergency, or some other situation, in a TA centre requiring the use of the power of command. I have never experienced such a problem, but it was drawn to my attention during a course that I took. Some cases could be referred to the civil authorities, but, first, it is not appropriate to bring military disciplinary problems to the civil police. Secondly, the civil police would be reluctant to become involved. This is obviously a matter for the quinquennial review, but I should like to put on record my intention to raise it at that time. The only possible problem is that I might not be here to do so.

My final point touches on the one raised by my noble friend Lord Burnham. Concern has recently been expressed about the summary jurisdiction arrangements in the Army Act. Those arrangements are the equivalent of a magistrates' court. A solider subject to summary jurisdiction always has the option of a court martial. However, for the maintenance of good military discipline and morale, it is necessary to have a short, "flash-to-bang" time. These cases must be resolved quickly in order to maintain morale. Therefore, I hope that we keep our summary jurisdiction arrangements as provided by the 1955 Act.

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. I must say that he is the first Member of this House from whom I have heard of a loophole in the 1955 Act. I have a magnificent brief in front of me, but it does not touch on that Act and its possible loopholes. Therefore, I undertake to the noble Earl that we in the Ministry of Defence will look into the matter with great diligence and write to him about it. If the noble Earl wants the results of our investigations put on the public record, I can arrange for that to be put in the report of the proceedings of the House.

As regards the effects of the Human Rights Act, I do not think that I can say anything in addition to what I have said on previous occasions from this Dispatch Box. I am very happy to offer the noble Earl, or any other noble Lord, a briefing on precisely what the Ministry of Defence is thinking of doing in the next review in order to facilitate matters—I think that that is the best way of putting it—to ensure that we have all our existing summary discipline procedures in place and that they are all consonant with the requirements of the Human Rights Act. I have no concerns over these matters. I hope very much that the noble Earl will be here two years from now to discuss such matters. I am grateful to him for giving us notice that he proposes to raise the subject at that time.