House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Jun 1995

Column 971

No. 177, in page 74, leave out lines 16 to 23 and insert-- `(3) A person acting in a relevant capacity--

(a) shall not thereby be personally liable, under this Part, to bear the whole or any part of the cost of doing any thing by way of remediation, unless that thing is to any extent referable to substances whose presence in, on or under the contaminated land in question is a result of any act done or omission made by him which it was unreasonable for a person acting in that capacity to do or make; and

(b) shall not thereby be guilty of an offence under or by virtue of section 78L above unless the requirement which has not been complied with is a requirement to do some particular thing for which he is personally liable to bear the whole or any part of the cost. (3A) In subsection (3) above, "person acting in a relevant capacity" means--

(a) a person acting as an insolvency practitioner, within the meaning of section 388 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (including that section as it applies in relation to an insolvent partnership by virtue of any order made under section 421 of that Act);

(b) the official receiver acting in a capacity in which he would regarded as acting as an insolvency practitioner within the meaning of section 388 of the Insolvency Act 1986 if subsection (5) of that section were disregarded;

(c) the official receiver acting as receiver or manager; (d) a person acting as a special manager under section 177 or 370 of the Insolvency Act 1986;

(e) the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985);

(f) a person acting as a receiver or receiver and manager-- (i) under or by virtue of any enactment; or

(ii) by virtue of his appointment as such by an order of a court or by any other instrument.'.

No. 178, in page 75, line 7, after `78F(4)' insert `or (5)'.-- [Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 57

Abandoned mines: England and Wales

Amendments made: No. 182, in page 76, line 30, leave out `includes--' and insert--

`(A) subject to paragraph (B) below, includes--'.

No. 183, in page 76, line 45, at end insert `but

(B) does not include--

(i) any disclaimer under section 178 or 315 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power of liquidator, or trustee of a bankrupt's estate, to disclaim onerous property) by the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity; or

(ii) the abandonment of any rights, interests or liabilities by the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985);'.

No. 184, in page 76, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 77.

No. 185, in page 77, line 11, at end insert--

` "acting in a compulsory capacity", in the case of the official receiver, means acting as--

(a) liquidator of a company;

(b) receiver or manager of a bankrupt's estate, pursuant to section 287 of the Insolvency Act 1986;

(d) liquidator of an insolvent partnership;

(e) trustee of an insolvent partnership;

(f) trustee, or receiver or manager, of the insolvent estate of a deceased person.'

Column 972

No. 186, in page 77, line 12, at end insert- -

` "the official receiver" has the same meaning as it has in the Insolvency Act 1986 by virtue of section 399(1) of that Act;'. No. 187, in page 77, line 31, leave out `(2)' and insert `(1)'. No. 188, in page 77, line 43, at end insert--

`(4A) Where the operator of a mine is--

(a) the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity, or (b) the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985),

he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above by reason of any failure to give the notice required by subsection (1) above if, as soon as reasonably practicable (whether before or after the abandonment), he gives to the Agency notice of the abandonment or proposed abandonment, containing such information as may be prescribed.'.

No. 189, in page 77, line 43, at end insert--

`(4B) Where a person gives notice under subsection (1), (4)(b) or (4A) above, he shall publish prescribed particulars of, or relating to, the notice in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality where the mine is situated.'.-- [Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 58

Abandoned mines: Scotland--

Amendments made: No. 214, in page 78, line 36, leave out `includes--' and insert--

`(A) subject to paragraph (B) below, includes--'.

No. 215, in page 79, line 3, at end insert `but

(B) does not include--

(a) the abandonment of any rights, interests or liabilities by the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985); or

(b) any disclaimer under section 178 or 315 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power of liquidator, or trustee of bankrupt's estate, to disclaim onerous property) by the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity;'.

No. 216, in page 79, leave out lines 5 to 14.

No. 217, in page 79, line 16, after `requires' insert--

` "acting in a compulsory capacity", in the case of the official receiver, means acting as--

(a) liquidator of a company;

(b) receiver or manager of a bankrupt's estate, pursuant to section 287 of the Insolvency Act 1986;

(d) liquidator of an insolvent partnership;

(e) trustee of an insolvent partnership;

(f) trustee, or receiver or manager, of the insolvent estate of a deceased person;

"the official receiver" has the same meaning as it has in the Insolvency Act 1986 by virtue of section 399(1) of that Act;'. No. 218, in page 79, line 32, leave out `(2)' and insert `(1)'. No. 219, in page 79, line 44, at end insert--

`(4A) Where the operator of a mine is--

(a) the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985); or

(b) the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity, he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above by reason of any failure to give the notice required by subsection (1) above if, as soon as is reasonably practicable (whether before or after the abandonment), he gives to SEPA notice of the abandonment or proposed abandonment, containing such information as may be prescribed.

Column 973

(4B) Where a person gives notice under subsection (1), (4)(b) or (4A) above, he shall publish prescribed particulars of, or relating to, the notice in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality where the mine is situated.'.-- [Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 59

Amendments to sections 89 and 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991

Amendments made: No. 190, in page 80, line 22, at end insert `former'.

No. 191, in page 81, line 12, at end insert `former'.-- [Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 60

Purposes of National Parks

Mr. Atkins: I beg to move amendment No. 193, in page 81, line 35, leave out `quiet enjoyment and understanding' and insert `understanding and enjoyment'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 267, in page 81, line 37, at end insert--

`(1A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section "quiet enjoyment" means enjoyment in ways which are not likely to disturb the tranquillity, or otherwise detract from the special qualities, of the areas in question; but no person shall be under a duty to prevent, reduce or restrict noise in any such area by reason only of the reference in that paragraph to the promotion of opportunities for the quiet enjoyment of those areas.".'

Government amendments Nos. 194 and 195.

Mr. Atkins: I am tempted to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on racing through that lot of amendments. We just about kept up with you, one way or another.

I preface my remarks on this aspect of the Bill by saying that, following the amendment that appeared in another place, which inserted the word "quiet" to give the effect of "quiet enjoyment" of national parks, we spent a considerable amount of time discussing that proposal in Committee. I understand and appreciate the considerable interest that was expressed in another place about the issue. Many views were expressed not only by those with an interest in the national parks but by those who were interested from a legal point of view. The Law Lords and others, for example, argued about whether the issue was well defined by use of the word "quiet". I must say that I was, initially, sympathetic to the points made, but hon. Members know that some concern was expressed about exactly what "quiet" meant. Many hon. Members will be aware that, although the notional attraction of the word "quiet" in the context of quiet enjoyment of the parks has some appeal, plenty of noisy things go on in those parks, not least industry. I know, for example, that there is quite a lot of quarrying for slate in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The same applies in other hon. Members' constituencies, and they appreciate that such quarrying occasionally involves the use of explosives and a lot of noise of one form or another.

As I said in Committee, I was most impressed by the problems that were put to me by the Royal Automobile Club. Hon. Members will know that, as a former sports

Column 974

Minister, I am only too well aware of the importance of the main RAC rally, which attracts more people, numerically, in terms of participation and support, than almost any other sporting event in the United Kingdom. The RAC also licenses a number of other rallies around the country, all of which are conducted to a high standard and are much loved and enjoyed by many people.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: Not for the moment.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh.

Mr. Atkins: I will give way, but not for a moment.

It is also the case that many people, who understand and appreciate rallying, were concerned about the amendment passed in another place, regardless of politics. That was not a party political point. Representatives of the RAC visited me and said that they were unhappy with the implications of the definition of "quiet enjoyment". Therefore we went away, as the House and the Committee know, to try to find an amendment that defined "quiet". We had considerable difficulty and, when we approached the Committee with the amendment that I proposed, it was obvious that Members were unhappy with the definition that I came up with. I remember hon. Members expressing that unease for several reasons, as a result of which, and subsequent to which, I received a fair amount of correspondence and many telephone calls and other communications from organisations that were worried, of which I have mentioned but one. Again we went away, as I promised to do in Committee, to find a way of defining "quiet". The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has been sitting there waiting to intervene, and I want to give her an opportunity to do so.

Mrs. Campbell: I want to pick up the arguments that the Minister made earlier about noisy activity, because he must be aware that promoting "quiet enjoyment" is in no way the same thing as banning noisy activity. I do not understand why he used those examples in relation to that amendment, unless he is confused about those two issues.

Mr. Atkins: There is no confusion. Many people believe that "quiet" means what they think that it means--to keep noise down--and that the enjoyment of national parks means cutting down noise in one form or another. Enough people were worried about that for me to need to consider carefully whether the amendment that I was then proposing in Committee would solve the problem.

I remind Opposition Members--I am sure that Conservative Members do not need reminding--that a Law Lord said, following the passing of the amendment adding "quiet" to "enjoyment", that that was bad law, that it was capable of misinterpretation or many interpretations and that an amendment was required to define what "quiet" meant. We tried. We considered it carefully, and my officials and Parliamentary Counsel struggled to find ways and means whereby we could assuage the anxieties that were expressed to me by a variety of organisations as well as Conservative colleagues in the House and in another place. In those circumstances, we tried extremely hard and, before Report, I considered several variations on many amendments. We even nearly reached the stage of tabling one, but grave anxieties continued to be expressed to me

Column 975

by the motor sports industry. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale came to visit me. He wears many hats, one of which is his love of motor sports, as well as representing one national park and living in another.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is saying that he wants the legislation to be perfectly clear and not have two meanings.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is unusually succinct and he makes the argument extremely well.

I was demonstrating that we tried extremely hard to find a way of defining "quiet" and, in the final analysis, were unable to do so. It seemed to me that, in the circumstances, the best thing to do was to revert to what was the case when the Bill was presented in another place. That is why the amendment is tabled in the terms in which it is.

I hope that the Bill will be acceptable to all the people who made genuine and strongly felt representations to me about the inability to be sure that "quiet enjoyment" as it presently is in the Bill means what it says, and about what a threat it may pose, if it does, to those people. I do not believe that withdrawing the word "quiet" will cause the anxiety that many Opposition Members may say that it will do. It will certainly revert to the position that pertained before, and I hope that my right hon and hon. Friends will understand that and be able to explain satisfactorily to their constituents what we have tried to do in the amendment.

8.15 pm

Mr. Morley: If the Minister could not find a definition of "quiet enjoyment", he did not try very hard. To try to help him, we have tabled amendment No. 267, which gives a definition of "quiet enjoyment". I suspect that the Minister may well have seen those words before, and he may well have recognised that they meet some of the points that he made in terms of defining what that phrase means. Although I am sure that Law Lords have their uses, they are not always absolutely right. I know that the Council for the Protection of Rural England has examined the legal definition of "quiet enjoyment" as it applies to such things as tenancy agreements, of which the Minister will be well aware, and that should not be a problem in the way that it is worded in the Bill.

Opposition Members strongly oppose those amendments which remove "quiet enjoyment" from the Bill. One of the keystones of the Edwards committee report, which was widely welcomed and widely consulted, was the implementation of the words "quiet enjoyment" in providing a framework for what national parks should be about.

In January 1992, in their response to the Edwards committee, the Government said:

"The Government also welcomes the proposed references to quiet enjoyment and understanding as having special relevance to the National Parks."

It is interesting that that welcome in 1992 appeared to have cooled by the time that the Bill was presented, and that that definition was put in the Bill only when there

Column 976

was a vote on that issue in another place. It shows that one cannot trust what the Government say in their responses to committees such as that.

On 26 May 1995, the Secretary of State for the Environment, speaking to the national park authorities conference in Keswick, said that he was optimistic that the phrase "quiet enjoyment" would remain in the Bill with a positive definition. As we have seen, no positive definition has been forthcoming, and what there was, was withdrawn by the Minister in Committee. It shows that, when it comes to it, one cannot trust what the Government say, and many people will have taken note of that during the passage of the Bill.

We strongly protest that those amendments were tabled only two working days before Report, giving very little time for response by the many organisations which have a legitimate interest in the national parks and that part of the Bill.

In Committee, as the Minister outlined in moving the amendments, he claimed that the problem was definition. In Committee, we had a considerable discussion about that, with all sorts of what I can only describe as nonsense about what those words "quiet enjoyment" would prohibit. We heard that they would prevent chain saws being used in forestry; we even heard that they would prevent camouflaged soldiers popping out of bushes, on the grounds that that might interfere with people's enjoyment. The person who mentioned that did not say what enjoyment that activity might interrupt. We have also heard about the RAC rally and other motor sports and the worries of people who take part in those.

Of course those people are right to have worries. They are right to explore what that phrase means. However, there is no reason why the Minister could not provide ministerial guidance to the national parks about the implementation of the legislation. Events such as rallies, which can be intrusive on occasions, have been managed successfully by organisations such as the Countryside Commission, and by the National Trust, which has written to express its grave concern about that withdrawal.

The National Trust has said that it understands that "quiet enjoyment" does not preclude certain activities taking place, but should be taken to mean that national parks should not have the statutory duty of promoting those activities. Indeed, the trust, while emphasising quiet and unobtrusive enjoyment on its properties, accommodates and manages intrusive activities as well where appropriate. Having said that, however, it recommends that activities that are inappropriate to the purpose of national parks should be subject to some form of restriction.

That appears a reasonable and responsible approach to the issue. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept that and deal with it in terms of that guidance. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), it was made clear in Committee that the words "promoting quiet enjoyment" would not give the national park authorities any new or extra powers to go out and stop any activity. They would only have to work within the existing laws and powers that they have at present. There is nothing new about that.

Although we believe that guidance can be provided without a statutory definition, we have offered the Government an amendment, using a definition that we know was originally proposed in another place.

Column 977

It is a tragedy that the Government are trying to break the cross-party consensus that welcomed the Edwards report. We remind the Government that the Dower report--which set up the framework for national parks in 1945--said:

"Those who come to National Parks should be such as wish to enjoy and cherish the beauty and quietude of unspoilt country and to take their recreation, active or passive, in ways that do not impair the beauty or quietude, nor spoil the enjoyment of them by others". The Edwards committee adopted those admirable and important principles in its report and in the concept of promoting quiet enjoyment which remains on the face of the Bill.

In a hot and noisy House of Commons, with a pervading atmosphere of fevered speculation about the Conservative party leadership election, I would have thought that protecting precious quiet areas would be attractive to the Government. Instead, the Government ignore consensus, go back on their word and offend millions who live and work in national parks and millions more who support organisations such as the National Trust and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and the countryside and conservation bodies--including the Government's own statutory adviser, the Countryside Commission--and refuse to protect those precious principles. If the Government cannot accept our amendments, we will oppose their amendments and hope that the other place takes note of the debate and attempts to replace the measures in the Bill so as to protect the principle of quiet enjoyment. It has a right and a responsibility to do that, and the vast majority of people in the country expect it to be done.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle (Lincoln): This is an important amendment. There has been considerable debate about the issue and about the meaning of the word "quiet" during the Committee stage and even before that. I understand the Government's predicament. What is important is not necessarily the words in the Bill, but what happens in the national parks. We must consider how we will preserve for the future the quality of national parks and the traditional activities that take place within them.

We all know that rallies have been held in national parks and that grouse shooting certainly goes on in some parks, which helps to maintain the habitat of the moorland. I have been informed by the National Trust that it organises certain pre-arranged noisy activities which it feels it is able to manage in the national park environment. The Government face a genuine problem because it may be argued that none of those activities could be described as "quiet", even though they have been held in national parks for a long time. We must decide how to retain the quality of national parks while allowing traditional activities to continue. It is extremely difficult to define the word "quiet" in those circumstances, so perhaps we should look for another solution. We should not be hidebound by that word, but we must look for some way of preserving the quiet atmosphere in national parks.

The National Trust has suggested that traditional

activities--although they may be noisy--should be accepted and that new activities that are very obtrusive should be excluded. My hon. Friend does not necessarily

Column 978

need to defend those traditional activities, but he must address how to control the really obtrusive and intolerable activities which destroy the quality of national parks and which prevent people from enjoying the parks. There must be some means of doing that. Therefore, when he replies to the debate, I ask my hon. Friend to explain how he plans to stop the truly intolerable activities that destroy the special qualities of our valued national parks.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I am disappointed at the way in which the Government appear to be backing away from the issue. Everyone recognises that many noisy activities take place in the countryside, and I do not think that anyone who has been promoting the clause wants to stop them occurring. Some natural phenomena are pretty noisy. If one is a short distance from a waterfall, one can hardly hear oneself think. When lambs are separated from the ewes in the late summer, the noise of the animals calling to each other can be very loud indeed. A whole series of traditional customs, such as morris dancing, are noisy activities. None of the organisations that support the insertion of the clause in the Bill objects to such activities. Those groups are not trying to get at motor sports or water-skiing. They make it absolutely clear that they recognise that such activities have gone on in many areas for a long time and that they do not want them to stop as a result of the legislation. They wish to emphasise the role and duty of national parks; they are concerned with promotion.

I hope that the Government will examine the issue again. When the legislation goes back to the House of Lords, I hope that the Government will not spend so much time worrying about defining "quiet", but will instead put more emphasis on the word "promote". According to my interpretation of the clause, national parks have a duty to encourage those activities which may be conducted quietly in the countryside. The national parks should promote, encourage and facilitate those activities. They should certainly not ban them. The Government can get out of the present difficulty by putting the emphasis on defining "promoting and encouraging" activities. It will be very sad if the Government drop the clause. Some organisations are worried that certain activities may be banned rather than promoted, and there is a danger that, if the clause is excluded from the Bill, some people will ask the national parks to encourage noisy and disruptive activities. That would be a disastrous message to send to the community.

I plead with the Government, even at this late stage, to try to solve the problem. They should put the emphasis not on trying to define "quiet"--I understand the problems in that regard--but on defining the word "promote", which is what most people are concerned about. A primary duty of national parks should be encouraging the development of quiet enjoyment rather than being concerned with banning this or that. I do not believe that banning activities will work; we must achieve our aim through persuasion.

I believe that many people who are involved in noisy sports should look at ways of doing them more quietly. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) may laugh, but quieter boats have been developed for water skiing. It is in everyone's interest to look for ways to reduce noise levels. However, I do not believe that our efforts should lead to bans because bans

Next Section

Home Page