My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interest as an organic farmer.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government for what purpose a genetically modified variety of fodder maize, named Chardon LL, was produced; whether it has been authorised for public sale; and what tests for all aspects of safety have so far been carried out, both in this country and elsewhere.

My Lords, Chardon LL is a maize variety which has been modified to be herbicide resistant. It has all the necessary food and environmental safety approvals under European GM and novel foods legislation. However, it has not been authorised for general cultivation in the United Kingdom because it is not on our national list. Regardless of the outcome of the current listing application, agreement has been reached to ensure that there will he no commercialisation of GM varieties in the United Kingdom until the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops have been concluded. That will be in 2003 at the earliest.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Is not the real purpose of this new variety simply to sell greater quantities of herbicide? Can the Minister say what investigation has been or will be carried out into the long-term use of these herbicides, given that they are total ones and given that they may be used in the same ground year after year?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. It is important that we know more about the herbicide regime that goes with a genetically modified crop and the potential effects on biodiversity over and above the safety issues regarding human health, the environment and animal feed, all of which have been looked at. That is why the maize in question is part of farm-scale evaluations which are looking at exactly those issues. However, I would say that herbicide tolerance is not necessarily a negative issue in terms of pesticide usage or biodiversity. If one looks, for example, at sugar beet, the potential of having one application of a herbicide to which the crop is tolerant rather than five to keep the crop clean throughout the growing year has benefits. People should be aware of those factors as well as the potential risks.

My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the labelling regime for genetically modified fodder is adequate? There is a concern that, inadvertently, some organic farmers may be compromising their position because GM fodder is not well enough labelled. Can she explain to the House what the regime is and how she will ensure that it is properly carried out in the future?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that at the moment the labelling regime for animal feed is not satisfactory. It is an occupied area of European legislation. We have been working actively within Europe in order to get proper labelling of, yes, GM materials within animal feed, but also animal feed overall. The labelling regime has not been satisfactory in the past. We have made progress in terms of labelling requirements for human food. We are now moving on and there is progress within Europe in terms of achieving a regime that enables people to make appropriate choices. This is the important point. People, whether they are farmers or end-user consumers, should have information on which to base their own choices.

My Lords, if the Government do not intend to commercialise any GM crop growing until after the farm-scale evaluations have been concluded in 2003, why is an appeal currently taking place about the T25 maize in order to add it to the national seed list? I thought that the appeal was the final stage in a process which would then result, if the appeal was turned down, in the product being added to the list. Is a two-speed process going on here?

My Lords, it is a quite complicated process. National listing, which is currently being considered in regard to the T25 Chardon LL maize, is not an assessment of GM environmental or health safety. Nothing can be nationally list trialed unless it has a part B consent and nothing can be nationally listed unless it has a part C consent. National listing is essentially a consumer protection measure for farmers. On the basis of the trials that have taken place about whether the crop is distinct and has use for cultivation, Ministers recommended it for listing. At the moment a hearing is going on. That is not the end of the process because there is a potential for an appeal to a tribunal. But regardless of all that, there will be no commercialisation of the crop because of the agreement that has been reached with the companies, including the one which produces this maize.

My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister a little further along the lines of the trials. As she indicated in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, it will not be possible to plant this crop commercially until 2003. We on these Benches support those trials. Has the recent court case involving Lord Melchett caused any additional difficulties regarding the government trials of GM crops?

My Lords, the case did not set any precedent. It was decided by a jury on the facts of that particular case. The farmers involved in the trials to whom I have spoken are still anxious to participate because they see exactly the potential benefits to which I alluded when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. However, they are concerned about the degree of intimidation and vandalism that go on when people are indulging in a perfectly legitimate and legal activity about which it is in all our interests to find the scientific evidence. We are certainly looking at ways in which we can give additional support and protection to those farmers.

My Lords, perhaps I may welcome the Minister's extremely balanced reply to the original Question as regards GM crops and the impact on herbicides. Will the Government continue to be guided by reason? Furthermore, on the question of safety, are the Government aware that, at the close of the OECD conference in February—which was attended by over 400 world experts along with a strong representation from the various environmental pressure groups—the chairman asked whether anyone present had any evidence whatever of any damage or danger to health from GM crops? That question was greeted with absolute silence. Will the Government resist any influence coming from newspapers more concerned with sensationalist headlines or from pressure groups more concerned with publicity and its effect on membership numbers than with looking at evidence, reason or common sense?

My Lords, we would all vote for evidence, reason and common sense. I can certainly give a commitment that the Government will continue to base their policies in this area on science and, as the noble Lord suggested, to point out that the safety assessments for GM foods in particular are far more rigorous and demand a far higher level of detail than is the case for many of the foods which all of us consume every day.

My Lords, will the Government examine two particular risks related to the Chardon variety of maize fodder? The first concerns the transference of herbicide resistance via wild oats to other cereals. The second concerns the transference of the antibiotic factor via cows to milk for human consumption.

My Lords, those are exactly the kinds of issues that are of concern to the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment. It supervises the granting of release consents for any GM materials in this country before such products can be tested and put to trials. Furthermore, this particular product has been granted a marketing consent throughout Europe, which demonstrates that it has been subjected to a further level of trials. Those are precisely the kinds of issues that are rigorously assessed.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any independent research has been undertaken into the time taken for the relevant herbicides to degrade in the soil or on the plants? The noble Baroness will know from the letter that I wrote to her that it has been found that organophosphates do not degrade as quickly as was first thought. I have asked specifically about independent research because I know that the research relied upon for licensing purposes is that undertaken by the manufacturers—research undertaken in a laboratory at standard temperatures rather than in the field.

My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Countess as regards the specific research material that is available. However, one wrinkle that I did not point out earlier in my explanation of the approval process—I thought that the procedure was already very complicated to explain—is that these crops need to be given specific pesticide approvals. Those approvals are separately regulated and thus provide another barrier and method of assessing any effects on the environment.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the decision-making processes of the National Lottery Commission are matters for the commission rather than for Ministers. Noble Lords will know that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport last week appointed the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to the National Lottery Commission. The Secretary of State made it clear that we have every confidence that the noble Lord will be able to assist the current licensing process through to a proper and timely conclusion.

My Lords, while I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the remaining commissioners are now so discredited that they should resign? After all, a High Court judge has found them to have acted so unfairly as to amount to an abuse of power.

My Lords, we need to be absolutely clear about what the High Court judge found. Apart from his comment that he had no doubt that the commission was trying to be fair, he stated that it had kept the principle of fairness carefully in mind throughout the ITA procedure, subject to one possible hiccup. He then went on to say that there was every reason to believe that, in deciding how to proceed thereafter, the commission still intended to act with scrupulous fairness.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a distinct possibility that, if the lottery commission remains in place, a court action is liable to ensue from the loser of the final contest? This may lead to a hiatus: the lottery may have to stop and then start up again, with all that that implies—losses incurred by good causes and retailers all around the country? Can the noble Lord tell the House whether that is not now a real possibility unless the entire lottery commission resigns?

My Lords, no one can say that there is no possibility of any further court action. A great deal of money is involved, and the noble Viscount is quite right to say that one cannot rule out the possibility that a loser might go to the courts. However, I do not think that that follows from any criticism of individual lottery commissioners.

My Lords, even though I am surrounded by the current and past chairmen of the lottery commission, I have the temerity to ask the Minister why the Government do not say farewell to the lottery commission, to Camelot and to the People's Lottery and appoint a government agency culled from the best management brains of the current operator and the putative operator? They could pay Civil Service salaries, which would be taken from the tax levied by the Government on the lottery, and pass over all the management charges—which are enormous—to good causes.

My Lords, the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago that he recognised, with hindsight, that perhaps the Government were not best qualified to run visitor attractions. I rather think that the same may apply to a lottery. Running a lottery requires a great deal of specialised knowledge which, historically and throughout the world, has been available only from firms and consortia of firms within the private sector.

My Lords, while lottery funding for big projects always catches the headlines, National Lottery help for small charities can be crucially important to their success. Can my noble friend assure them today that, notwithstanding recent wrangling, any changeover will be, as it were, seamless and on time?

My Lords, the Government are confident that we shall bring the current licensing process to a conclusion in time for there not to be a interregnum. Camelot has indicated that if there were to be a delay it would use its best endeavours to cover any intervening period. My noble friend is entirely right: some 71,000 projects have benefited from the almost £10 billion available from the National Lottery, many of which were the kind of small projects to which my noble friend refers.

My Lords, I speak as a former chairman of a statutory commission. Does the Minister agree that every statutory commission is conscious of the dangers of a judicial review? Does he further agree that no statutory commission reaches a decision without the full support of its whole membership? In my experience, the chairman of a statutory commission never makes a decision on his or her own. In view of that, should we draw a pleasant gloss over this situation and say that there has been unfairness? If I and my colleagues had been faced with a judgment such as this while I was chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, we would have resigned. Does the Minister feel that it is an indictment of statutory commissions that they should hang on like limpets on a rock?

My Lords, I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said about his own responsibilities. Clearly under the law enacted by the previous government and by this Government, the responsibility of the members of the commission is not a matter for Ministers. I do not accuse any noble Lords—still less the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—of bias on this matter, but it seems to me that much of the press comment has been very sexist. It has been based on the fact that three of the commissioners are women who are being accused of lacking business experience. That is not only untrue but sexist.

My Lords, I think that the Minister has just flown a kite. His reply was not up to his usual standard. Will the new chairman be acting properly if he let it be known privately to members of the commission that he would like their resignations? Would he be entitled to do so?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will have seen the interview with the Secretary of State in an article in the Independent on Sunday yesterday, in which he made it clear that membership of the commission is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but that if the noble Lord, Lord Burns, felt inclined to make recommendations to him about the membership of the commission, he would be guided by the noble Lord.

My Lords, does the Minister see a valid line to be drawn between the chairman of the commission and those members who have not followed her example and resigned?

I do not know, my Lords. I do not know the way in which the commission reached its decision. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, gave testimony of the way in which one commission acted, but I have no knowledge of the internal decision-making processes of the National Lottery Commission.

My Lords, will my noble friend ask those responsible to look at the allegations that the lottery basically is a tax on the working class for the benefits and pleasures of the middle class?

My Lords, I have heard my noble friend's accusations on a number of occasions and I have tried to answer his question; but it is virtually an unknowable statistic. We know where the money for the National Lottery comes from; we know by social class who buys the tickets; but it is impossible to say where the money goes to in terms of social class.

My Lords, do not some of the origins of the present mess lie in the fiction with which the Conservative government approached the lottery—namely, that it was different from gambling and therefore needed a different regulator and a different department looking after it? Can the Minister assure the House that, as he starts on his task, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will take advice from the Gaming Board and the Home Office, where there is expertise about selecting proper people to run gambling?

My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to stand between the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there is no evidence that women doctors in the National Health Service are more or less productive than their male counterparts. There is no doubt about the crucial role that women play in the health service, and their contribution is widely recognised.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Does he agree that the recent claim made by Philip Hammond, a Conservative spokesperson on health, that women doctors are less productive than their male counterparts during their careers in the NHS should be strongly refuted? I have received a number of irate telephone calls about this statement from colleagues, women doctors in the health service and from my own union, the medical practitioners section of MSF. Does my noble friend further agree that such statements are particularly unhelpful at a time when both the Government and the Royal College of Surgeons are attempting to attract more women doctors into the service?

My Lords, my noble friend is right to refer to the words of Mr Hammond. He was certainly less than sensitive in using the words,

"you will get less work out of those females".

Not much sign there of inclusivity and not much encouragement to women doctors in the health service.

My Lords, before anyone misattributes an argument to a member of the Opposition—a perfectly daft argument as it has been expressed, I have to say—would it not be wise to check what is the actual argument? Is the Minister aware that the issue is not whether women consultants are less efficient than men—which is an absurd suggestion—but whether, for the purposes of workforce planning, due allowance should be made for the fact that far more women consultants than men work part-time? Have the Government taken account of that?

My Lords, nevertheless, Mr Hammond could have chosen his words more wisely. On the noble Earl's substantive point, yes, we do take account in our workforce planning processes of the increasing trend among doctors of both sexes to work part-time and to take career breaks.

My Lords, is the Minister willing to set targets to increase the number of women surgeons, as proposed by Mr Barry Jackson, president of the Royal College of Surgeons? Does the Minister agree that flexible working patterns in the NHS would help male as well as female staff, their families and the service as a whole? Does he feel, as I do, that there are echoes of another century—perhaps not even the last one—in Mr Hammond's comments?

My Lords, I agree that flexible working has to be an important human resource policy for the National Health Service as a whole, whether for doctors or any other group of NHS staff. We have made it abundantly clear to every NHS employer that we expect it to deliver flexible working. My understanding is that in September this year the president of the Royal College of Surgeons set a target for increasing the number of women in the profession from 5 per cent to 10 per cent over the next five years and to 20 per cent over the next 10 years. We very much support that proposal. I also understand that the Royal College of Physicians is reviewing the data on women in medicine to ensure that women doctors have equal opportunities in all branches of medicine—an approach that we strongly support and encourage.

My Lords, my noble friend mentioned flexible working. As the NHS is the largest employer in the country, will the Minister tell the House what progress is being made on other forms of family-friendly employment policies, such as elder care, childcare and so on, so that neither women nor men with family responsibilities will be disadvantaged?

My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Government are carrying out a review on how working parents can be given more choices in balancing their responsibilities at home and at work. It includes such issues as maternity pay and leave, paternal leave, flexible working, skills re-entry and keeping in touch, and childcare. Nothing has been ruled out at this stage. In that context, we want the National Health Service to be a model employer. We want it to ensure appropriate support and career breaks for employees, enabling them to return to the health service and providing appropriate training and support when they are able to do so.

My Lords, will the Minister address the situation of young women GPs with small children who find that the person on whom they rely for help is ill and therefore unable to attend, which means that they have to cancel surgery or take the children with them? Has the National Health Service given any thought to providing emergency help in such situations in order to free up doctors so that they can carry out their health service duties?

My Lords, the example given by the noble Baroness is one with which women in many walks of life are familiar. Certainly, we need to ensure that the National Health Service is as flexible as possible. There are particular challenges when it comes to GP practices where there may be a small number of principals and where such an incident can cause problems. The development of personal medical services is providing much more flexibility in the way in which GPs are employed—for example, through the use of salaried GPs and other methods.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that in these days of movement towards equality, taking time off for domestic responsibilities is likely to be more equally divided between men and women and that, therefore, the arguments about workforce planning mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, are increasingly likely to apply not to the employment of women but to the employment of people?

My Lords, I could not agree more. There are undoubtedly the beginnings of an indication that male doctors, too, seek career breaks and that they sometimes seek to reduce their full-time commitment to a part-time one. Our workforce planning needs to take account of changes in terms of NHS employment and changes in society in order to make sure that the right number of people are trained. I am confident that the extra number of training places in our medical schools brought into being by this Government, and those that will be brought into being over the next few years, will take account of that and will enable us to increase the workforce.

My Lords, sitting in this Chamber as one does, day in, day out, I am constantly amazed at the way in which problems have arisen on or after 1st May 1997! I wonder whether my noble friend can help me on this point. The noble Baroness opposite raised an issue about what happens to the children if one of the parents is away. No doubt when the Government came in they inherited a set of detailed proposals left by the party opposite on how to deal with this difficult human and industrial problem. Will my noble friend share with us the details that were left to him?

He should he so lucky!

My Lords, the party opposite does seem to be suffering from a severe illness. It is known as collective and selective amnesia.

My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House a question of which I have given notice. I regret to have to do so because it shows a certain breakdown in the usual channels. However, it is on a matter that needs a wider airing in the Chamber; therefore, I crave the indulgence of the House.

As is now widely known, a summit of the European Union took place this weekend in Biarritz. It is normal at this time in the afternoon on the first sitting day after such a summit for the Government Chief Whip to rise and announce a Statement. On this occasion the Government Chief Whip has stayed firmly in his seat.

That is no surprise. Late on Friday afternoon, when we suggested that there would be a Statement today, the Government told us that there would not be. This morning we were told that the Government had had second thoughts: there would be a Statement to Parliament but it would be a written, not an oral, Statement. The Government have, therefore, accepted that Parliament should be informed about what happened in Biarritz. But what is not acceptable is that they have offered a Statement in a manner that allows for no debate and no response either from the Opposition or from the many Back-Benchers represented here this afternoon. There is no opportunity for a wider debate between now and the end of the Session because the Government's programme is so packed.

On examining recent precedents I discovered that, following interim European Council meetings over the past 18 months, there was a Statement: in March 1999, in October 1999 and in March this year. On all those occasions the Government said that the events of the summit had been a resounding success for the United Kingdom. Are we to believe that on this occasion the summit has not been a triumphant success for the United Kingdom? Does that explain the lack of a Statement on this occasion; or is it because the other place is not currently sitting? If that is the reason, is it not a disgrace that the Government cannot be bothered to come and give an oral Statement to the House of Parliament that is sitting?

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has, since this House returned at the end of September, behaved in an exemplary fashion as regards Statements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made a Statement on the Dome; the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, made a Statement on the fuel crisis; and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has kept us regularly informed on international events. But on this crucial matter of national interest the Government seem to be rather coy. This weekend vital matters were raised on QMV, on the charter of fundamental rights and no doubt on the Middle East.

Will the noble Baroness tell us why no oral Statement has been offered this afternoon? Is this a change of policy; or is it another example of sidelining Parliament in general and this House in particular? Will she say whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss these matters before the Nice summit later this year?

My Lords, I intervene briefly on behalf of these Benches to say that we are very much in agreement with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Apart from the normal areas that the interim conference is expected to discuss, there was a great deal of discussion about the Middle East. It might have been unreasonable to request a further Statement today in view of the fact that we had one last week, but bearing in mind the role of the Foreign Secretary and the reports that were no doubt given at Biarritz of his experience in the matter, I should have thought that it would have been a courtesy to the House to have had a Statement. It might have been quite an effort on the part of the Government, but it was an effort that they should have made to give some report on the matter.

I am especially concerned about a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as regards what would have happened if the House of Commons had been sitting. Had the other place been sitting, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Prime Minister would have chosen not to make a Statement. That Statement would then have been repeated in this Chamber. I very much hope that we are not second-class citizens in that respect and that we have not been denied a Statement today which would have been made if the other place were sitting.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising these points. As both noble Lords said, the Government have been extremely "forthcoming", which is perhaps the right word, in the past three weeks about the number of Statements that have been made to your Lordships, even though the other place has not been sitting. I believe there have been four Statements and one reply to a Private Notice Question. Therefore, the issues about the status of this House, and the importance that the Government see in reporting to Parliament through this House, have been adequately dealt with.

I turn to the point about the European Councils. As the House will be aware, it has been the practice for the heads of government to have these informal meetings as a precursor to the formal, full European Council meetings. But they do not usually result in either decisions being taken or in communiqués being agreed or published. That was the nature of the meeting in Biarritz last week. In general, successive governments have not made oral Statements about such meetings; indeed, they are different from the European Council meetings. For example, following similar informal summits in Formentor in 1995, in Dublin in 1996, in Noordwijk in 1997 and in Poertshach in 1998, no oral Statement was made. Therefore, the Government do not consider it necessary to make an oral Statement today.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is slightly misinformed. It was always intended that we should report back to Parliament by means of a Written Answer, tabled in both Houses. Noble Lords will see from the back of the current version of the Minute that a Question to that end was tabled on Friday by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. That Question will be answered by the Government in written form today. If substantive issues emerge from the Middle East summit taking place at the moment, I believe that it has been made clear that a Statement will be made on that outcome.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is a slightly wider issue here as regards some of us on these Benches? Noble Lords on the Cross Benches are now formally recognised as an element in this House, but we are unique in that we are not part of the usual channels and have no party machine. Therefore, it is important to noble Lords on these Benches—some of whom have mentioned this fact—that issues such as this should also provide us with an opportunity to participate in the discussions that others have available to them.

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point, but it is not directly relevant to the issue under discussion. As he said, the Cross Benchers are not members of the usual channels and, therefore, that is a wider issue regarding the organisation of this House which he may want to raise in an appropriate and slightly different form.

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that the anxieties expressed so far are shared on this side of the House. These matters are very serious. The agenda at Biarritz included the charter of fundamental freedoms, among other things, and we should have an interim report on the proceedings. I do not know whether my noble friend has sufficient influence with her colleagues on the issue, but perhaps she could get them to understand that it is not just a question of minor matters; indeed, the future of this country and the effectiveness of this Parliament are also involved. When heads of government meet, we expect to have a Statement thereafter.

My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern about some of the issues that were discussed in Biarritz. However, with his very deep knowledge of European matters and the way in which the European Councils are organised, he will be aware that informal meetings such as the one held last weekend in Biarritz do not have conclusions or take formal decisions. Therefore, although his concerns are completely legitimate, I suspect that my noble friend's concerns are not necessarily appropriately applied to this particular meeting. As I said, this was not a meeting where the sort of far-reaching decisions about which he is rightly anxious were taken.

My Lords, there appeared to be a major difference of opinion on the status of some of the proceedings of the Community between our Prime Minister and the leaders of other countries. That is a matter of concern to your Lordships and to the country. Can the noble Baroness promise the House an opportunity to debate the Written Answer when it has been published?

My Lords, the noble Lord is tempting me to incur the wrath of my noble friend the Chief Whip and, indeed, the usual channels in previewing any business decisions about the future of the House.

My Lords, if it would assist, I should be very happy for the noble Lord the Chief Whip to answer my question.

My Lords, is it not a little more serious than the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would have us believe? Surely decisions were taken at Biarritz which cannot and will not conceivably be reversed at Nice. I have with me a copy of the final press conference of the presidency of the council of Biarritz—the so-called "informal council". I regret to say that it is written only in French. I shall not trouble your Lordships with my less than first-rate French, but it says in the clearest possible terms that the chiefs of state have unanimously agreed the project of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Indeed, the President of the Council, President Chirac of France, goes further and says that,

"this is an ambitious political test, which consecrates principles that often go further than those that have already been enunciated elsewhere".

My question to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is this. Does she think that there is the slightest conceivable chance that any of this will be reversed at Nice, bearing in mind that the record of the European Union is a one-way ratchet in all of these matters; indeed, it always has been and always will be?

My Lords, I could not possibly enter into the detail of that discussion, especially not in French because I suspect that my French would be less good than that of the noble Lord. However, I should point out again that this meeting was an informal council. The Government and their predecessors have taken most seriously the importance of reporting to Parliament on substantive decisions taken in the European Union, but it has not been the custom for Parliament to debate the outcomes of such informal councils. As I said earlier in response to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers, these substantive decisions are not taken at such informal councils. There are, therefore, no decisions to be reported; and, indeed, there was no communiqué to be discussed in this instance, except the informal notes to which the noble Lord has access.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer my question as to whether she thinks that the decision on the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be reversed at Nice or whether it will stand as agreed in Biarritz?

My Lords, I am sorry; I obviously did not make myself clear enough. The decision on the universal charter will be taken at Nice.

My Lords, however informal the noble Baroness believes the meeting at Biarritz to have been, there are, nevertheless, considerable differences of opinion about the status of the fundamental rights charter. Although decisions were not taken at Biarritz, commitments to signing at Nice were in fact made. Therefore, it is important for the people of this country to know the exact status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the degree to which our Prime Minister is right to say that it is merely declaratory and has no other impact on the way in which our judges will determine law in this country. We also need to know whether M Chirac, or some of the other heads of state, are right in what they say. I think that the least we in this country should be offered is democratic, parliamentary discussion before any decision is taken finally at Nice.

My Lords, the noble Baroness suggests that it is my interpretation that this is an informal summit.

Oh!

My Lords, I did, indeed, say that, because that is the status of the preliminary meeting before the full Council takes place. As I said in my original reply to the Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that follows a procedure which has been long established over the past decade and a half; namely, that informal preliminary meetings take place which act as a precursor to the full European Council. The informal summit is not an invention of mine; that is the precise term which is used. The noble Baroness mentioned the Prime Minister's attitude. As the Prime Minister has made clear—I have heard my noble friend Lady Scotland repeat this on several occasions in your Lordships' House when the point has arisen—the text which was considered simply constitutes a declaration. The noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House may disagree with that but that does not detract from his view.

My Lords, having listened to everything that the noble Baroness has said, are we right to conclude that, left to herself, she would almost certainly have made a Statement today, albeit on this informal matter, and that therefore she has been under irresistible pressure from elsewhere to abrogate the rights of your Lordships' House?

No, my Lords, that is not the case.

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

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Schedule 8 [Sites of special scientific interest]:

moved Amendment No. 478:

Page 96, line 30, at end insert—

("(3A) Conditions relating to an assent under subsection (3) may require the authority, where reasonably practicable and not involving excessive costs, to restore any damage to the notified interest caused by the operation or where practicable, to provide alternative habitats on land not included in a site of special scientific interest.").

In response to the noble Baroness's comments on Amendment No. 478, perhaps I can start by speaking to government Amendments Nos. 479, 480 and 481. As the noble Baroness recognised, these also concern the restoration of SSSIs where a public body has carried out an operation in exercise of its functions and has complied with the requirements in the proposed new Section 28F of the 1981 Act to notify the agency and take account of its advice.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill includes a duty on public bodies, when carrying out any of their functions where this may affect an SSSI, to,

"take reasonable steps … to further the conservation and enhancement of the … features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest".

I hope that that answers one of the points raised by the noble Baroness.

When planning to undertake specific operations which are likely to damage a site of special scientific interest (whether on the site, or on other land, but where the operation may have a damaging effect on the special features), the public body is required under new Section 28F to inform the conservation agency. The agency then has the opportunity to advise on whether the operation should be carried out. In this event it can impose conditions requiring the operation to be carried out in a way that causes the least damage to the features. It may also advise on post-operation restoration. Where the agency has not assented to the operations, the public body may still carry them out but must do so in such a way as to give rise to as little damage as is reasonably practicable.

Government Amendments Nos. 479 to 481 make clear that where a public body undertakes operations to which the conservation agency has not indicated its assent and which are likely to cause damage to the SSSI, it is required to restore the special features that have suffered damage. It is an offence for the public body not to restore the site, so far as this is reasonably practicable. The test of practicability would be for the courts, but we would normally expect it to include some assessment of cost. A public body could not be expected to undertake restoration works which were excessively expensive. I believe that that deals with another point raised by the noble Baroness. All public bodies will be expected to seek to minimise the effect of their operations upon SSSIs from the perspective of the public interest both in the conservation of these special sites and in minimising costs to the public purse should damage occur.

Amendment No. 478, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seeks to achieve a similar position but goes further in relation to a requirement for the provision of alternative habitats. We do not consider this justified. The Committee may know that under the habitats regulations relating to sites of international importance such as SPAs (special protection areas) and SACs (special areas of conservation), there is a requirement in certain circumstances for the Secretary of State to secure "compensatory measures". These would not always require the provision of alternative habitats. In any event, we believe it appropriate to maintain a distinction between international and European sites, which attract the highest levels of protection, and sites of national importance. I should nevertheless point out that in England and Wales, international sites will cover nearly 70 per cent by area of the SSSI series. I believe that the government amendments fully deliver the commitment we gave in another place. I therefore ask that Amendment No. 478 is not pressed.

On this occasion I support the government amendments, in particular Amendment No. 481 which mentions restoring a site to its "former condition"; namely, its condition at the time agreement was given to an operation being carried out rather than imposing an additional requirement to restore the site to another condition. The noble Baroness nods her head; I assume therefore that I have correctly understood the position.

As regards Amendment No. 478, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I am not sure whether this means that in future the new Section 28E authorities would only be given approval for their work if it were reasonably practicable and did not involve excessive costs. I am not sure whether the amendment adds to the existing regulations and whether it precludes some work that is currently undertaken being done in the future.

I do not believe that the amendment would preclude that. The main difference is this: if the costs of restoring the site are prohibitive but the work has to be done, an alternative habitat must be provided.

Between now and Report stage, will the Minister consider whether it would be acceptable for the conservation bodies to require an alternative habitat to be provided for SSSIs not covered by international agreements?

I have no reason to believe that any further consideration would produce the response that the noble Baroness seeks. I undertake to consider all the points raised during debate but do not hold out the hope that that can be interpreted as meaning that the Government will respond in any way. It is difficult. Offering to read and listen carefully to arguments has a special meaning in your Lordships' House which usually indicates that the Government are minded to respond positively. I do not think that I can say that.

It is important for the Committee to note that under new Section 28M(3) it is an offence for an authority to fail reasonably to restore, and it may be fined up to £20,000.

I thank the Minister for her reply. I appreciate that fact. However, as drafted, the Bill may cause statutory bodies to increase the costs so that they are excessive. Then they have to do nothing; they do not even have to provide an alternative.

I shall consider the point carefully before returning to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendments Nos. 479 to 481:

Page 96, line 36, leave out ("requirement") and insert ("requirements").

Page 96, line 49, leave out ("requirement is") and insert ("requirements are—

(a)")

Page 96, line 54, at end insert ("; and

(b) that the authority restore the site to its former condition, so far as is reasonably practicable, if any such damage does occur.").

moved Amendment No. 482:

Page 96, line 54, at end insert—

("( ) Where the Council concludes, on reasonable terms, that they cannot assent to the proposed operations (with or without conditions), they may require that the section 28E authority seek authorisation by a planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.").

In the case cited by the noble Baroness, there would be an appeal to the Secretary of State. English Nature can apply for a Section 28 order on the SSSI. The Secretary of State will determine that, usually very speedily.

Underlying the amendment is a principle which it is valuable to explore but this is not the right amendment for that debate. In many cases the relationship between English Nature and the Section 28 authorities is excellent. Much is achieved by collaboration and cooperation. In circumstances of downright disagreement, a system is needed to resolve it. I do not believe that the proposal would work. It implies that the planning system would deal with issues which currently are not subject to, and would not helpfully be dealt with by, planning considerations. However, there is a point here which the noble Baroness rightly raises.

Would the system suggested by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale work?

I recognise that there is a point underlying the amendment which goes further than the amendment itself. The idea of requiring a public body or statutory undertaker to seek authorisation through an application for planning permission would not work or achieve the objectives. The modern system of land use planning has established principles. They were established in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and they are based on the idea of an operation constituting development and then being subject to the planning regime. The amendment would say that "non-development activities" might be treated as though they were development.

The planning system is not structured to consider applications for non-development activities. How could a local planning authority consider such an application? It could not consider an operation that falls outside the definition of "development" and outside the scope of the planning system against, for example, development policies in local development plans and other material considerations. We do not propose in this part of the Bill to change the well-established definition of "development". Indeed, we would not do so in this Bill.

I acknowledge that public bodies, including statutory undertakers, may benefit from consents granted under their own enabling legislation and other permitted development rights; that is, operations that constitute "development" but for which an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not required.

These consents and the regime for permitted development rights ensure that statutory undertakers are equipped to carry out their functions—their statutory duties. In exceptional circumstances, a local planning authority may consider that planning control should apply to permitted development. In these circumstances—I believe that these are the exceptional circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred—it is open to the local planning authority to make and submit to the Secretary of State an order under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 seeking to remove the particular development right and requiring an application for planning permission. I am not sure whether that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about a reference to the Secretary of State.

The Bill as drafted requires for the first time that the conservation agency is fully involved in the consideration and exercise of such consents. I stress the totally new provision of new Section 28F to which my noble friend Lady Farrington spoke in debate on the last group of amendments: the public body, in carrying out operations, must do so in such a way as to cause as little damage as reasonably practicable; and the public body must restore the land to its former condition so far as practicable. However, there must be a balance of interests. We have ensured that if such operations are imperative, the conservation agency retains a full opportunity to advise the public body on the operation and the best way to carry it out.

We are firmly committed to sustainable development. That involves carefully weighing all the issues, particularly the benefits to the public. In some cases, the duty of a statutory undertaker may need to override the nature conservation interest. The procedures allow for that. We have never sought to imply that SSSIs must be inviolable. Of course there will be difficult decisions, but we are talking about exceptional circumstances only. I expect statutory undertakers to work constructively with the agencies to ensure that their work is carried out without compromising the nature conservation interest. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has just made clear, the conservation agencies have good working relationships with public bodies and constantly seek to develop them further. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will not press the amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, helpfully pointed out that the underlying principle of the amendment was important and was not currently met in the Bill but that this was not the right vehicle to implement it. I accept that and shall go away and look at the issue further. Perhaps my local authority background is coming out too strongly. I should like to discuss the issue further with the noble Baroness. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 483 to 483B not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 483C:

Page 97, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Perhaps I may make two brief points. First, with regard to Amendment No. 485, it is my understanding that, prior to the serving of a management scheme, there will have been full discussions with all the parties concerned in pursuit of a voluntary scheme. It is probably not necessary to go through all that again. Certainly, all parties concerned will be well aware of what is being proposed.

My second comment is in relation to Amendment No. 486. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, admitted, we have covered this ground. It is perfectly clear that the power which he seeks is already available to the councils. Therefore, I cannot see the need for the amendment.

I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. So far as concerns Amendment No. 485, I am quite certain that she is right and that the proper consultation process will, indeed, go through. If that is not the case, then clearly it should be, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that.

I believe that my noble friend's Amendment No. 484, which would remove the words "if they think fit", would cause considerable difficulties for English Nature. Having to go back through every single site of special scientific interest would place an enormous and onerous task on that body. Having had the pleasure of serving on the council of English Nature and knowing how long such things take, we could be talking about many years. Therefore, I suspect that the Minister will reject the amendment robustly and, on this particular occasion, I would agree with him. However, I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shakes his head.

My other point is that, if we are to remove the words "if they think fit", surely the whole of the SSSI would have to be brought into the management plan and not only, as the Bill stands at present, that part of it which is available to English Nature and CCW.

I endorse the point made by my noble friend Lady Nicol. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that his Amendment No. 486 may be too restrictive. The authority should be able to seek the advice of the people he mentioned. However, in some areas it should also be possible to contact for advice local organisations or individuals who are involved in conservation. As an example, I can think of a man in my own area who, until he died last year, knew more about botany in our county than anyone else. He was actually a dentist. He was not an expert in land management; nor was he involved in forestry or farming, although he knew a great deal about the subjects.

However, if there is to be a right to seek advice from farmers, foresters and land managers, the same right should also exist to contact individuals who are knowledgeable about a particular area. It is important to obtain their advice as well, as it may be more valuable than that which is forthcoming from people with expertise in the areas mentioned in the amendment.

I believe that we are getting into a bit of a muddle. After all, the ecology of an area depends entirely on the farming methods of that area. Therefore, if English Nature quite rightly wants to prevent a new activity taking place, this is the right way to go about it. Unfortunately, in some parts of the country—my own in the south west being one, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will be able to confirm—the staff of English Nature are not always as sensitive and as diplomatic as they might be. They give the impression to farmers that they are trying to turn back the clock and produce a different, older ecology than that for which they are enforcing SSSI status.

I wish to make two brief comments about this group of amendments. The first may be of help to the Committee with regard to management schemes. I believe that we should be clear that under the Bill management schemes will be quite a long way down the road. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was right to say that management is important to SSSIs. However, management schemes come into play only if there has been a failure to gain voluntary agreement. Indeed, voluntary agreement is by far the most common solution in relation to the management of SSSIs. Therefore, I hope that it will be seen that management schemes will be required only where there is a failure to agree.

I also want to make a point regarding the management of SSSIs being due entirely to the farming regime. A large number of SSSIs are dependent on farming management but a large number are also dependent on a whole variety of land uses—not least development use, the activities of statutory undertakers of water companies, and a variety of different activities other than farming. Therefore, although farming is extremely important, I should not want to say that the responsibility for SSSIs lies entirely with farmers. It is true that, in terms of operations on SSSIs, at present agriculture is by far the most damaging practice.

I can perhaps see a reason for further consideration of Amendment No. 485 because, although management schemes are a fairly long way down the road, it is reasonable that the "Council shall consult" the owners before such schemes are drafted. However, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, whether it is the intention of Amendment No. 483C that English Nature should consult on every site, including those that are satisfactory.

I do not want to undermine the importance of management schemes, although, as my noble friend Lady Young said, they are a long way down the road. The vast majority of SSSIs are dealt with by voluntary agreements rather than by management schemes as provided for in the Bill. However, they make an important contribution to the new scheme for SSSIs. They increase the emphasis on securing positive management, which will ensure that the site is in favourable condition.

However, it has generally been made clear in the debate that we cannot accept Amendment No. 483C, which would require management schemes in every case by inserting "shall" instead of "may". It may not always be necessary or desirable to have a management scheme on every site, whether the site is for farming practice or for the other uses to which my noble friend Lady Young referred. Indeed, a geological site which is simply a rock face may need no active management at all. Therefore, we have left the agency with the option to decide whether it considers it fit to impose a management scheme. To that extent, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.

However, I was prepared, and am prepared, to accept Amendment No. 484, although the noble Earl, Lord Peel thinks those words should be retained. I am advised that the words "if they think fit" merely add emphasis to the permissive nature of the word "may". On reflection, it does not seem to us that those words are necessary. It does not mean that that could be applied only to the whole of an SSSI. It could apply to a part of an SSSI.

There is a slight complication in that the words "if they think fit" occur in two other places and they must be taken out on Report. But I am prepared to agree to Amendment No. 484.

The fundamental point about Amendment No. 482 is that there may already be voluntary agreements and the scheme may be unnecessary. If a land manager considers that a formal management scheme would be helpful, he should approach the conservation agency with a view to opening discussions.

I turn now to Amendment No. 485 which deals with consultation. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has correctly interpreted the Bill and that is confirmed by what my noble friend Lady Nicol said. The Bill already requires a full and open consultative process—that is in Section 28H(3). The relevant owners must be consulted about the scheme before the notice is served. That acknowledges the value of their expertise and ensures that they have the opportunity to influence the drafting of the scheme to reflect their views on the appropriate management of the land.

But they will be given a further opportunity to make representations once the notice has been served, and that is in Section 28H(7). I do not see what Amendment No. 485 adds to that process. We have deliberately taken full account of land managers' views at all stages.

As regards Amendment No. 486, it is already open to the agency, where it considers it needs to draw on sources of expertise which are not available among its staff or council members, to seek specialist advice from elsewhere, including the appropriate use of consultants. I say that in the widest possible sense. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there may well be local expertise which is not available to the agency, although it has expertise at national and local level. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy that there may be people of whom one would never think whose expertise may be valuable. However, I should not write dentists into the Bill to take account of that point.

In any event, that power includes advice on land management and that is made clear in Section 132(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We shall encourage that practice wherever it is necessary and helpful. The agencies will ensure that staff dealing with SSSIs have the necessary training and access to guidance and good practice.

I turn now to Amendment No. 487. I acknowledge that the list of information which is given in the amendment is useful. But much of it will already have been available separately to landowners or occupiers, some of it, although not all of it, in the notification procedure. To repeat it here would simply burden them with more paperwork and give rise to complaints.

The management scheme is intended to be a clear, detailed and workable scheme for management of the land. It is put forward in the interests of building positive partnerships so that everybody is aware of how the nature conservation interests may best be conserved. It may include clarification of the operations which may damage some or all of the site, particularly where it addresses a single landholding within a larger SSSI and it may usefully cover consents for activities which the land manager may undertake.

I believe sincerely that the provisions in the Bill go far enough to ensure that the land management scheme can be effective and not overburdensome.

The Minister says that statutory management schemes are a long way down the road and that voluntary schemes will be the norm. He indicated that the statutory schemes will come into force only when it is not possible to reach agreement. I can understand that.

But will the Minister tell the Committee what proportion of the acreage or hectarage of SSSIs the Government anticipate will be involved in statutory schemes? They must have thought about that because of the costs involved and so on. I should just like a picture of what will be the impact of the statutory schemes. Can he give the Committee any information in relation to that?

The short answer is as little as possible in terms of acreage and as few as possible in terms of the number of sites. We need that provision because there are occasions when voluntary agreements cannot be reached. It will be a measure of success of that part of the Bill that there should be as few as possible. However, it is not wise for me to anticipate exactly how many there will be.

I accept the explanations and comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the Minister on Amendment No. 483C. I am delighted that there is such a strong emphasis on voluntary agreements.

I thank the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 484. As regards Amendment No. 485, I apologise if I have misinterpreted the Bill to some extent. I shall read it again. In general, I accept the Minister's explanations in relation to Amendment No. 486. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 484:

Page 97, line 33, leave out (", if they think fit,").

moved Amendment No. 488:

Page 99, line 3, after ("agreement") insert ("under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act").

I am slightly confused as to the intent of Amendment No. 490. I thought I understood it when I read it, but now that the noble Lord has spoken to it I am more confused. Perhaps I may describe the circumstances in which a management notice would be served and in which the costs of carrying out the works that had not been carried out by the owner and occupier would be sought from him.

Under the Bill there would be notification, consultation and eventually confirmation with regard to SSSIs. There would then be considerable discussion about reaching a voluntary management agreement. In the absence of an agreement being reached voluntarily, a management scheme would be drawn up and consulted upon. Eventually, if the management scheme was not accepted and work that was required was not carried out, a management notice would be served, giving a clear indication of the work needing to be carried out. If the work was still not carried out, action would be taken to seek the costs of such work, as the Bill describes.

One has to go a long way down the road before reaching that point. The number of owners and occupiers who would come into that category would be small. If such an owner or occupier did not agree with the management scheme, he could appeal. The circumstances described are of someone having gone through a number of stages, with consultation at each stage and with an eventual right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and still saying, "I am sorry; I will not do what the site now urgently requires and which has been agreed by a whole variety of bodies, including (potentially) the Secretary of State". We are talking about extreme circumstances. If I were not in your Lordships' House, I might use a word I sometimes use about a small number of people who come into that category!

I believe that it would be slightly unreasonable if the amount that was reclaimed from such an owner or occupier were to be offset by the amount of a management payment that he would have received if he had agreed to the management agreement. I believe that accepting this amendment would encourage the small proportion of owners and occupiers—the few bad apples—who give a bad name to the majority of landowners who work well with the conservation bodies and who really care about the conservation of their land, to behave as badly as they like until they finally run out of road. I urge the Minister to reject the amendment.

My noble friend Lady Young has done half my job for me. It is clear that the procedures covered by this new section are end-of-the-line procedures. A management notice will be used in only exceptional circumstances. The agency will already have entered into discussions with the land manager about the appropriate management of the conservation interest; it will have discussed the con tent of a scheme; it will have served the management scheme with a further opportunity for the and manager to comment; and it must have offered to enter into a management agreement on reasonable terms. Only then may it serve a management notice if it has not been possible to reach such an agreement. Given that lengthy and clear process, which allows the opportunity for landowners and land managers to make representations throughout, let us now focus on what the appropriate formulation should be when such a situation arises.

If Amendment No. 488 were agreed to, we would have to deal with a situation where the agency will have offered an agreement using its existing powers under Section 15 of the Countryside Act or Section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. They have no other powers in relation to agreements with owners and occupiers. In the majority of cases where work must be undertaken, the agreement will include the offer of a financial sum.

In relation to Amendment No. 490, I can assure the noble Lord that where the agency has subsequently served a management notice which is not complied with and, exceptionally, uses its powers to enter land, carry out work, and recharge its costs to the land manager, the amount to be recovered should indeed exclude any amount which had been offered under the management agreement for the work to be carried out. That is a matter for guidance rather than for the Bill itself.

Ministers are required to issue guidance on the terms of agreements and already we have issued for consultation a draft of Financial Guidelines on Management Agreements. A similar draft has been issued for Wales. Having taken account of the comments received, and having regard to matters raised in debates on this Bill, we shall issue final guidance once Part III of the Act comes into force. We have also issued a consultation paper on the terms of guidance to the agencies—Sites of Special Scientific Interest: encouraging positive partnerships—in which the issue addressed by Amendment No. 490 is covered in paragraph 51.

On the matter of the "reasonableness" of a management notice, which is covered by Amendment No. 489, as my noble friend said, that may be tested by appeal to the Secretary of State. That appeal would not be on the rather narrow grounds identified by the noble Lord, but on the grounds that the agency could not reasonably have reached its decision, which involves both process and substance. That is a standard procedure and more or less a standard form of words in legislation; for example, comparable references appear in planning legislation and in relation to enforcement notices issued by a planning authority, which must state the matters that appear to that authority to be included, such as those in relation to listed buildings. Likewise, such a provision appears in environmental legislation, where action may be taken where the enforcing authority "is of the opinion". In each case the body taking action must decide what appears to it to be reasonable. That is the situation here. There are ample precedents for that approach. There is also an appropriate means to test that decision, should an appeal be made.

Therefore, I hope that that is sufficient reassurance for the noble Lord that the rights of landowners and occupiers would be fully and appropriately protected in this almost last-resort procedure and covered by these provisions in the Bill, and that he will not press his amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, though I do not believe that the amendment would have provoked any owners to do what she suggested. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 489 and 490 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 491:

Page 99, line 33, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lands Tribunal").

I support my noble friend's amendment. There is no doubt about the significance and importance of the management agreements and the notices that go with them, not only from the point of view of the duties of English Nature and CCW, but also from the point of view of the person who has responsibility for managing the land. The management agreements and notices that follow could have a serious impact on the way the land is managed and how those responsible respond.

It is essential that appeals are heard in a thoroughly independent way. If the Secretary of State (or his appointee) is under a duty to conserve and enhance, as the Bill describes, how can he possibly be independent? And how can he be put in charge of the appeal procedure? Common justice alone, notwithstanding the human rights aspect, should ensure that Amendment No. 491 is accepted or considered seriously.

I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply in relation to this human rights issue. I listened carefully to the arguments. Nobody would feel it was fair for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to decide whether or not a farmer could continue with his normal way of earning a living, despite the fact that he was doing damage. Equally, it would not be fair for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do it. At the end of the day, conflicting interests arise in relation to these decisions.

I do not know what the answer is. But the "fair trial" point is extremely interesting. The whole subject interests me because it is cropping up in so many areas. It is not an exaggeration to say that this may turn into an issue. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

It is difficult to try to include the Lands Tribunal in the process because it was set up to deal with different issues—for instance, those between landlords and tenants—and therefore its membership may not be suitable. We are trying to ensure that the appeals are fair and that the public interest is adequately represented. I should be concerned if judges were involved because the process would then become very expensive and bound up with the courts.

We on these Benches understand concerns that the same department should not be judge and jury. An appeals procedure can adequately involve the Government through the inspectorate process and therefore I would resist any move towards including the Lands Tribunal in particular. I fear that it would represent only one section of the interests in the appeal.

The noble Baroness acknowledged the fact that there needs to be independence in the procedure and then went on to say that it was important that it should be independent and that the public interest should be represented. However, in order for the system to be thoroughly independent it must be able to represent not only the public interest but also the interest of those responsible for managing the land.

The noble Baroness may be right in saying that the Lands Tribunal is the wrong vehicle, but I wonder whether she acknowledges the principle that it should be someone other than the Secretary of State or his representative within the department.

I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain which Secretary of State will be involved. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wondered whether it would be MAFF or the Department of the Environment. Transport and the Regions and how they would tie in with equally difficult and contentious issues relating to development and control. Those are as controversial and difficult for owners of land and as difficult to resolve in the public interest as are the kind of issues which will be raised in respect of this legislation. There are not adequate procedures in place at present.

My noble friend has highlighted a problem but I suspect that the solution proposed in the amendment may not be the right one. However, it is axiomatic that while one can have a review of a decision from within a hierarchy, an appeal against a decision cannot be fairly heard within that same hierarchy. Let us face it, in this context "Secretary of State" is another name for an official employed by him.

The noble Baroness mentioned the inspectorate, but in almost all cases an appeal against, say, a planning refusal by a local authority is made to a wholly separate and independent inspectorate which is not part of the local authority and in a sense cannot be said to be under the direct command of the Secretary of State.

The Minister must come forward with a solution—although perhaps not today—otherwise an element of unfairness will undermine many of the purposes of the Bill, which many of us support.

It is important to put this interesting debate in context. These amendments address the situation in which the conservation agency has served a management notice requiring the owner or occupier to take specific actions to conserve the SSSI, who then has the right to appeal against that notice.

We have discussed the role of management schemes, but the management notice is an important new tool for the agencies in pursuing the aim of ensuring that all SSSIs are brought into positive management scheme. But it is carefully targeted. It can be used only where there is a management scheme. The scheme will not have been made without preliminary discussions with those who work the land to ensure that what is included is reasonable and practicable. Furthermore, there is a right of appeal against the notice to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly for Wales. I shall turn to that point in a moment.

The Secretary of State is an abstract concept. In legislation, there is only one Secretary of State; he is not described as "Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions" or anything else in case the names of departments change. However, one of the ways the Government are described in legislation is "Secretary of State". Incidentally, he is always referred to as "he". When in Opposition, I once tabled amendments to refer to the Secretary of State as "it" on the ground that that was less sexist. I did not get very far, although I am assured that it is done in Oregon.

The Secretary of State, that abstract concept, is well used to balancing the many different statutory duties under which he works and is required to reach decisions. It is intended that the appeals procedures should be speedy and effective—that takes up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—and that they should reduce unnecessary formality and keep cost and delay to a minimum. That is in everyone's interest. Such procedures will also allow for full and fair consideration of all the points raised by the conservation agencies and by owners and occupiers appealing against notices.

I do not doubt that as a court of law—and it is equivalent to a court of law—the Lands Tribunal provides an excellent service in the determination of issues relating to land law and valuation, which is the expertise of the Lands Tribunal and not the kind of considerations we are debating. But I do not believe that the body is appropriate for this type of appeal.

We envisage that planning inspectors in the Planning Inspectorate, whose independence was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will normally be used in the determination of these appeals. In the vision statement, the Planning Inspectorate has reiterated the aim that the inspectorate should be,

"the prime source of impartial expertise for resolving disputes about the use of land, natural resources and the environment".

It already does that, not only in judgments between one individual or organisation and another but, for example, in relation to conservation orders. They are closely comparable to the kind of appeals we are debating and the inspectorate should be ideal for the purpose. Inspectors chosen to hear the cases will have appropriate qualifications which enable them to understand and report on the issues raised. They will provide a report to the Secretary of State, who will issue his decision.

I was asked, as I have been on many occasions, about the European Convention on Human Rights. The position of planning inspectors was specifically examined by the European Court of Human Rights in the Bryan case in 1996. While the court established that a planning inspector is not an independent tribunal, planing legislation provides a means of challenging the decision in the High Court. The ECHR also found the scope of judicial review to be sufficient for the purpose of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am satisfied that determination by the Secretary of State fulfils the requirements under the Human Rights Act for a fair and impartial hearing.

As to the contents of the appeal, raised by Amendment No. 492, the management notice can only be served where an owner or occupier is not giving effect to a management scheme. It would be wholly unfair if the land manager could be required to take action without knowing beforehand what action he might be required to take. He will already have had several opportunities to influence the content of the management scheme, in particular under the consultation provisions in new Section 28H(3). I can assure the Committee that the agencies' staff will listen carefully to the views of those who live on or work the land. We covered that point in our debates on Amendment No. 483C.

Since the work specified in the notice must be work required to ensure the land is managed in accordance with the scheme, it is implicit that any appeal against the notice may address issues concerning whether the scheme is reasonable to the extent that the scheme is reflected in the management notice. If the appeal is allowed and the notice has no effect because the Secretary of State takes the view that the work is unreasonable or unnecessary, I would expect English Nature to look again at the management scheme and consider how it should be amended. That point was raised under new Section 28H(11) of the Bill which enables it to modify or cancel a scheme.

I hope that that deals with the points raised in the amendments.

I must confess to some disappointment with the Minister's reply. Unsurprisingly, he is obedient to the instructions contained in his brief—I am not sure whether it is instruction or advice—and is at least content to go along with the proposal that the appeal should go to the Secretary of State.

It may well be that the Lands Tribunal is not the proper forum before which such an appeal is heard. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on the fact that not everybody shares the confidence of the authors of this Bill. There are worries that those who have designed the scheme are out of sympathy with the needs of the countryside. Those who take that view, of whom I am one, are unlikely to be happy with the notion that, the department having decided something, the Secretary of State is the one who, with the advice of those who have made the decision, hears the appeal. The department, which is a very difficult body to divide up into little pieces, will be on the side of the decision unless something has manifestly gone wrong.

I hope the Minister accepts that there is real dissatisfaction with the situation. It does not matter to me whether the Secretary of State is he, she or it, or the Minister has an attachment which limits his area of operation. I do not accept that the judgment and wisdom of Secretaries of State is always as immaculate as government supporters like to believe.

I am sorry to hear those comments, particularly in the light of their source. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who was a Minister in charge of a major part of what is now the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, knows perfectly well the way in which legislation is formulated and how those on the Government Front Bench debate it. The noble Lord also knows perfectly well that in briefing meetings before the matter comes before the House of Lords, Ministers satisfy themselves that the arguments they put forward are not just plausible but convincing and right.

In view of the noble Lord's reference to my past, when I played a part in the great spongy heap then known as the "Department of the Environment" seeds of doubt began to be sown in my mind, and they have since flourished.

There is more joy in heaven when one sinner repenteth. Long may the noble Lord maintain his seeds of doubt! We have a job to do and we carry it out to the best of our ability. I have set out the reasons why we believe that the Planning Inspectorate is sufficiently independent for the purposes of these appeals. I also believe I have shown that when there was a direct challenge to the independence of the inspectorate the European Court of Human Rights found that the scope for judicial review was sufficient. Therefore, the planning legislation provides adequate means to challenge a decision in the High Court. I do not know that I can add to that.

Can the Minister tell the Committee who employs planning inspectors? If the employer is technically the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions are any of the inspectors on temporary contracts?

The taxpayer employs planning inspectors. I do not believe that the inspectors are on temporary contracts, but if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Baroness.

I did not hear the response of the Minister. Who employs them?

We pay for them as taxpayers. The employer is technically the accounting officer, but I do not believe that it matters.

Who is responsible for making the appointment? Surely, under the European Convention on Human Rights it does matter.

That is a different question from who employs them. As to their appointment, they are appointed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

We have had an interesting debate. While I accept the Minister's observations about Amendment No. 492 and the content of any appeal, to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, supported my point about the appellate procedure. My noble friend Lord Peyton made clear our worry, that of the NFU and, I am sure, many others. I said at the beginning of my remarks about this group of amendments that essentially Amendment No. 491 was a probing amendment to test the Government's view on the procedure. On that basis, I do not seek the opinion of the Committee. However, we shall return to this issue. We expect the Government to take another look at it, particularly bearing in mind that, as I understand it, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to which the Minister referred was as long ago as 1996. These matters move on fairly quickly and one wonders where one is now.

We shall table another amendment at Report stage to deal with this matter. We hope that the Government will give the matter further thought and perhaps table their own amendment, which will save us from moving ours. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 492 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 493:

Page 101, line 16, leave out from ("section") to end of line 19.

I thank the Minister for her explanation of Amendment No. 493. I accept that the point is covered in another section. Perhaps I may just ask for clarification. We have had a debate about the role of Secretary of State, who is a nameless figure—he, she or it—who moves around. Which Minister will be responsible in each department?

My understanding is that "the Ministers concerned" include the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well as the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, where appropriate. But the use of the term "Minister" allows for an extension of that to "appropriate Minister" should that become relevant. I cannot foresee circumstances in which it would in this particular case. That is my understanding. Should that be wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness and place a copy of the letter in the Library, particularly for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who is listening very carefully.

I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I think that the word she is looking for is "convenience". The Secretary of State concerned will be decided according to the convenience of the Government.

I am quite sure that the Government always seeks to do things conveniently, but never inappropriately.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 494:

Page 101, line 21, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Ministers").

moved Amendment No. 495:

Page 101, line 30, after ("agreement") insert ("under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act").

I rise to support my noble friend on these amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 496 and 497ZA. With regard to Amendment No. 496, I agree with my noble friend that compulsory purchase should be very much a last resort. If we are to have nationalisation by the Government, or by a quango appointed by the Government, it should be very much a last-ditch performance. Therefore, a reasonable offer should have been made beforehand by the council. I am one of those in a minority, compared to noble Lords on the other side, who still believe that the private ownership of land is the best way to preserve the flora and fauna of our countryside. If that can be managed in partnership with appropriate management agreements, that is far better than compulsory purchase.

Amendment No. 497ZA is, as my noble friend has rightly said, the Crichel Down principle. That is engraved in every surveyor's heart as an important principle. I see the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, nodding. Perhaps it is already covered under other sections. I hope that he will be able to confirm that that is the case.

Given the contention that compulsory orders always engender, we are grateful to the Conservative Front Bench for putting down these amendments in order that the position may be clarified in principle. Although we are not sure that all the amendments are entirely necessary, we feel that they are helpful in ensuring that the situation is just and fair.

Perhaps I may start by confirming that we fully accept the spirit of the amendments, although we think, as I shall show, that they are already provided for. Secondly, we agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Compulsory purchase orders are a matter of last resort. I say that not because of any philosophical views we may hold about public or private ownership of land, and why there should be public or private ownership of land, but because compulsory purchase is expensive and takes a long time and one does not do it unless one has to. Having said that, I want to attempt to show that the amendments are not necessary.

Amendment No. 495 deals with the actions which the agency should take prior to considering the compulsory acquisition of land. The only powers that the agency has to enter into these agreements are indeed those under Section 16 of the 1949 Act and Section 15 of the 1960 Act. But there is no need for the clause to repeat them. It is a fact of legislation, as any lawyer will confirm. It does not need to go on the face of the Bill.

Turning to Amendment No. 496, I am also clear that the matter of good practice where the agency fails to secure an agreement and remains deeply concerned about the condition of an SSSI is that it will try to negotiate voluntary purchase of the land. The agency sets aside a small amount of its grant-in-aid to support land purchase by voluntary conservation organisations. Compulsory purchase is an expensive and over-lengthy process. It would be inappropriate for public bodies to enter that process lightly, although in some cases, as is generally recognised, it may be the only option.

Amendment No. 497 suggests that the actions o f the agency in determining what to do on or with the land which it has acquired also need to be constrained in statute. We have heard reference to the difference between new Section 28L and the wording of Clause 66(3), which introduces new Section 15A of the Countryside Act. In contrast to the provisions we are discussing, one of the situations with which Clause 66(3) deals is where the agency may seek to acquire land outside a site of special scientific interest where the actions on that land are having a damaging effect on those special features. However, new Section 28L, which is the subject of this amendment, is different. This compulsory purchase power arises only where the agency is unable to secure the management of the land. Reference to "management" in the context of new Sections 28H to 28J relating to the satisfactory management of SSSIs follows the reference to "management schemes" which are for the conservation or restoration of species or habitats. So "management", as referred to in new Section 28L(4)(a) and (b), will be interpreted in the same way—manage to conserve or restore the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features of the SSSI—and could not be used for income-earning activities or high-priced development. Therefore, I do not think that Amendment No. 497 is necessary.

I turn to Amendment No. 497ZA. It seems unlikely that land in an SSSI purchased compulsorily will no longer be needed in future for that purpose. But a major disaster or catastrophe could occur so that the land at some point is no longer of SSSI quality. If that were the case, and there was no prospect of the special interest being restored, we would expect a public body to follow normal practice and offer the land back to the original owner or his heirs for purchase. That does not go quite as far as the Crichel Down commitment for which noble Lords asked me, but the question of whether the Crichel Down rules should be statutorily applied to bodies such as the conservation agencies forms part of a government review of compulsory purchase and compensation. A policy paper on that matter is due in the new year. We do not think it would be appropriate to amend this legislation pending a decision on whether the rules should be statutorily applied more widely.

To sum up, the statutory requirement of the Crichel Down rules does not at the moment apply to the agencies, but we would expect a public body to follow that normal practice and offer the land back.

I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Luke, enough reassurance to enable him not to press the amendment.

I regret to say that I am not very reassured by the Minister's answer to Amendment No. 497ZA. I did not like the word "expect" when he said that he would "expect" the agency to offer back the land. I would want a stronger commitment than that. I am worried about the review of compulsory purchase as a whole. It would seem sensible that all conservation bodies and other bodies that acquire land compulsorily should be under a formal duty to offer it back, either to the previous owner or his heirs.

I wrote down precisely the same words as my noble friend Lord Caithness; namely, "we would expect" that the Crichel Down rules would be followed. I do not think that that is strong enough. I am very alarmed indeed by the Minister's use of those words. I am also alarmed that new guidelines covering the Crichel Down arrangements may come out within the next few months. I am filled with foreboding about that. I am old enough to remember all the fuss over the Crichel Down affair and the situation which emerged when the father of my noble friend Lord Crathorne was in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture and resigned because of the Crichel Down arrangements. It was the actions of the Official Opposition in another place which led to the resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale. I am horrified to think that something may happen to erode those rules.

I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be satisfied with the Minister's explanation on Amendment No. 497ZA. I shall not be in the least disappointed if my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the Committee on the matter because, in view of the Minister's words, I think it is time to fire a warning shot.

When I started my career as a young officer in the Ministry of Agriculture two sets of principles had to be respected—the principles of Magna Carta and the principles of the Crichel Down case. Therefore, I am sympathetic to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is important that we should not allow a situation to arise where government and ministries are bound by the Crichel Down rules following that case. But the creation of more and more agencies, which is what is happening, means that the rules risk being diluted or even not respected outside government. I realise that there will be a review but I think that we need a fairly firm commitment in this case that the Crichel Down rules will be respected if land which has been compulsorily purchased is after all disposed of by an agency.

The Government have got themselves into a slight timetable muddle. Unfortunately, the review will be published after the Bill is enacted. If that were not the case, I presume that the Government would take account in this legislation of the results of that review. Therefore, between now and Report, the Government should find some way of ensuring that, if the review decides that the Crichel Down rules should have some statutory backing, the Bill can be amended to give effect to that.

I should like to make two points in response to the contributions from the last few speakers. First, I should not want Members of the Committee to get the wrong idea about the review. It will not review the Crichel Down rules as applied to government. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, used the word "erosion" while the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, mentioned "dilution". There is no question of any erosion or dilution of the Crichel Down rules. The review will concern whether the Crichel Down rules should be statutorily applied to bodies such as the conservation agencies; namely, whether those rules should be statutorily applied more widely than they are at present. It will be failsafe so far as concerns the Crichel Down rules themselves.

Secondly, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I do not think that it would ever he appropriate for myself or any other Minister to attempt to anticipate the eventual results of a review and further to make advance commitments as regards the Government's response. However, it is of course a matter of common sense that, if the review recommended that the Crichel Down rules should be extended statutorily to the conservation agencies and if the Government agreed with that view, then the Government would seek legislative means of achieving that.

Can the noble Lord enlighten us on what possible justification there can be for the principle that if the Crichel Down rules apply to the Government they should not equally apply to a government-appointed agency? Is there any argument on this point or is this merely a fact of the passage of time?

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a related question. I understand that the Crichel Down rules refer explicitly to agricultural land. Land being held by a conservation agency perhaps might not fall into that category. Is it possible for the Minister to clarify that point?

All these issues will form parts of the subject matter of the review. It is the case that the Crichel Down rules have already been extended beyond agricultural land, but, as I have said, the review will consider all such matters.

This has been an extremely interesting debate. I am happy with the Government's replies to Amendments Nos. 495, 496 and 497.

However, as regards Amendment No. 497ZA, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in favour of seeking a rather more solid commitment from the Government on this point. I take note of the Minister's words as regards the review which is to take place in January—I believe the Minister confirmed that—but the review itself does not solve the problem. As the Minister rightly pointed out, we do not know what will be the result of the review. The question of limiting compulsory purchase to a measure of last resort is extremely important. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that, as the result of a compulsory purchase, the previous owner should receive a proper commitment if there is any diminution in the quality of the land—although that may or may not happen.

I am sorry to intervene, but I do not know what the noble Lord intends to do with his amendments. To my mind, we have not yet received an adequate response to Amendment No. 497ZA. That amendment seeks to ensure that the former owner will have first refusal to purchase the land. I am not sure whether I have heard on what terms such a first refusal would be granted. However, if the noble Lord intends to return to this matter at a later stage, perhaps it can be dealt with then.

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 495.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 496 and 497 not moved.]

As I have already indicated, I am not at all happy with the response given by the Minister. I beg leave to test the opinion of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 499:

Page 103, line 2, at end insert—

moved Amendment No. 500:

Page 103, line 3, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—

("2.—(1) Section 29 (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(b), after "features" there is inserted "notified as being of special interest".

(3) Omit subsection (2).

(4) In subsection (3), omit "Subject to subsection (4),".

(5) Omit subsections (4), (5), (6), (7) and (10).

(6) After subsection (11) there is inserted—

"(12) This section does not apply to owners and occupiers of land which is a site of special scientific interest.".").

The first paragraph of Schedule 8 begins,

"For section 28 of the 1981 Act",

and there follow paragraphs relating to that section. In paragraph 2, Section 29 has been orphaned from its parent Act and the Act is not mentioned. I shall never be able to understand parliamentary drafting, but I wonder whether that is an omission. All the other paragraphs refer to the Act to which they apply.

The Government have been concerned to deal with issues of damage to SSSIs, whatever the source. We are aware that incidents of damage by persons other than owners and occupiers of land—so-called "third parties"—have arisen, and although they are by no means the most serious threat to the condition of SSSIs, nevertheless, where it occurs, damage can be serious. Nor has it always been easy for landowners to address problems, even where activities which are damaging the special features of the site are taking place without permission on their land, and causing problems.

We have already confirmed, in connection with Part I of the Bill, that normal access by walkers should not damage sites, but Clause 24 (power to make a direction) allows action to be taken to exclude or restrict access if there is likely to be a problem, as advised by the conservation agencies.

We took full soundings from a wide range of groups before deciding to include in the Bill a specific new provision. This creates an immediate offence of intentional or reckless damage to the features by reason of which the SSSI is of special interest; and following the debate in Committee in another place this was extended to include intentional or reckless disturbance to any fauna of special interest. This is modelled on the offence which already applies in relation to ancient monuments and significantly improves the protection afforded to SSSIs. It will allow the agencies to take immediate action against activities causing damage, or disturbing any special fauna—which includes birds. It carries with it a significant maximum fine of up to £20,000 in the magistrates' court; and where a person is found guilty of an offence, the court may make an order requiring restoration of the site to its former condition.

These measures are accompanied by changes to road traffic legislation, which will improve and strengthen the powers of the police to act against unauthorised use of land by vehicles. There are also existing powers in relation to prosecution for criminal damage: for example, court action was successfully taken recently where a third party was convicted of arson on a heathland SSSI that was important for smooth snakes and nesting nightjars.

We believe that, taken together, this is a significant but proportionate response to problems arising on SSSIs. However, I have noted the strong points that have been made and we are prepared to consider whether by-laws, which are the standard approach to avoiding damage by the public and are specifically designed for that purpose, would be appropriate in this case. Powers to make by-laws already apply in relation to European sites and national nature reserves and, if absolutely necessary on further reflection, this is an option we are prepared to consider.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised a question in relation to Section 29 of the 1981 Act. Section 29 of the 1981 Act will cease to have effect. I hope that that is clear. It is the best that I can do in the circumstances. If there is a lack of clarity, I hold myself responsible and I shall, of course, write to the noble Duke.

I thank the Minister for her reply. If it is the Government's intention to return on Report to the point about the by-law, perhaps any proposal might cover the points that I made. Our intention is to cover in the simplest way possible serial vexatious activity by lots of individuals. I shall reflect on the Minister's suggestion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 501 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 502:

Page 103, line 17, after ("operations") insert ("which are reasonable, practicable and necessary").

I am doubtful that there is any need to make specific reference to the consideration of these factors. I am confident that a court, when considering the operations that might be required under a restoration order, would fully consider what was reasonable, practicable or necessary. The provision in the Bill as drafted is in the same terms as Section 31 of the 1981 Act, which has generally operated satisfactorily for many years.

Under the Bill as drafted, the court would retain its discretion to consider, within the context of the facts of each case, the extent of the operations that might be appropriate under a restoration order. I should also point out that Section 31(4) of the 1981 Act, which will apply, enables the court to discharge or vary a restoration order where there has been a change of circumstances which has made compliance with the restoration order impracticable or impossible. So there is no need for this reference to be on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 503:

moved Amendments Nos. 504 to 508:

Page 103, line 28, at end insert—

("( ) In subsection (2), after "district planning authority" insert "and, in sections 28 to 28B, shall also be construed in accordance with section 28(11);".").

Page 103, line 33, at end insert—

("(d) extended under section 28AA(2), or

(e) extended with modifications by virtue of section 28AA(7),").

Page 103, line 34, leave out ("in subsection (1), and in sections 28 to 28M,").

Page 103, line 36, leave out from first ("as") to end of line and insert ("thus altered").

Page 103, line 36, at end insert—

("( ) References to a notification under section 28(1) or 28(5)(b), or to a local land charge existing by virtue of section 28(9), shall be construed in accordance with section 28AB(9).").

moved Amendment No. 509:

Page 42, line 37, at end insert—

("( ) Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings relating to sites of special scientific interest) (which makes transitional provisions and savings relating to the coming into force of section 66) has effect.").

I thank the Minister for going through such a big group of amendments. In fact, it is so big, it is difficult to respond to it.

I appreciate that point. If any Member of the Committee wishes to write to me when they have considered the group, I shall endeavour to reply as quickly as possible. I appreciate the complex inter-relationship that is involved. As I say, if Members of the Committee wish to write to me, I shall be only too happy to respond.

My comments were not intended as a criticism; I stated a fact. I have several queries with regard to the noble Baroness's response. I shall read Hansard and return to the matter. The measures have a number of implications which I am anxious not to overlook. As the noble Baroness is aware, some of my subsequent amendments comprise probing amendments to these measures. I was glad to hear her clarify that a landowner or land manager of an SSSI who wishes to modify it will be given three years in which to do so but after that time will be able to resubmit his application. As I say, because of the length of the Minister's response, I think that it is much better that I return to the matter at a later stage.

We are discussing Amendment No. 515, are we not?

All of the amendments in the group.

It seems to me to be appropriate to make some comments at this stage. I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on staying awake during her speech which, through no fault of hers, was not full of interest. It was a terrible recital to have to make. I felt some sympathy for the noble Baroness. However, I have to tell her that not even the charm and good manners with which she normally speaks in this Chamber could invest that material with any charm, although that was not her fault.

As I understand it, the whole of this schedule is now up for discussion. I should like to be told if I am wrong. Putting it as civilly as I can, I think that it is a fairly revolting monster which was heaved at Parliament as an afterthought. I always find it rather objectionable when Ministers, some of whom are possessed with extremely bad ideas, come to this Chamber and— on this occasion—empty their slop pail all over the statute book. It makes a nasty, disagreeable mess. I do not think that any amount of tidying up of which this Chamber is capable will be adequate.

The first point I want to make on this monster schedule is the following. How much prior consultation has there been with the army of people who are concerned in some way or other with sites of special scientific interest? I do not believe that there has been any great amount of consultation. As I understand the measure, it is designed to create bodies and powers and to pass about the powers in a rather high-handed fashion. I hope that the Minister will tell me immediately if he thinks that I have in any way misunderstood the situation. As I see it, this constitutes the major opportunity for us to discuss the schedule in detail. I seek guidance on that. But it seems to me that it would be wrong if we were expected to accept it in the form of an amendment and then say no more. I ask the Minister for guidance on this matter.

I apologise if my concentration made my delivery rather pedantic.

It had nothing to do with the delivery; it was the material that was at fault.

We issued a consultation paper in September 1998. The issues covered in the transitional provisions which the group of amendments encompass take forward the matters that were raised. Although the technical procedure for achieving the objective of this group of amendments is necessarily complex—for which I apologise—the issue is a simple one; namely, how to equate the existing provisions with the provisions in the Bill during the interim period before the Bill is enacted.

The other important point to place on record is that there has been extensive discussion on the SSSI provisions with the National Assembly for Wales, including the extent of the transfer of functions. The Assembly fully supports the proposed arrangements. I apologise again for the detail of the means of achieving what is a necessary, short-term transitional objective.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 510:

After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—