Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Lang : I propose to say something about clause 11 shortly. I understand the anxiety of the RSPB and of others. As the clause stands, it is virtually unworkable. The hon. Gentleman referred to about 1,300 SSSIs. If they were to be reviewed within the five years that is required by the clause, one SSSI would have to be reviewed on every working day for the first five years. The House will appreciate that such a prospect makes the clause unworkable in its present form.
The organisation will undertake its wider nature conservation responsibilities with its sister agencies in England and Wales through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and it will work within the standards, procedures, and protocols agreed by the JNCC.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : In the light of the Secretary of State's earlier comment about the organisation not being responsible for structure plans and for planning generally, how does he view designation--which is being conducted on a massive scale in parts of the highlands--as fitting in with local authority planning? There is no doubt that the two have clashed, particularly in respect of afforestation in the north.
Mr. Lang : I expect Scottish Natural Heritage to work much closer to the ground because of the dispersal of its offices. It will have 18 area offices and four regional offices, whose staff will work much more closely on a consultative and co-operative basis with local authorities, landowners and others. I anticipate that the organisation's whole tone will be very different from that sometimes perceived in the handling of such matters in the past.
Mr. Dalyell : Although Dr. O'Connor's appointment is welcome, can the Secretary of State say something about the location of the JNCC and its work programme?
Mr. Lang : I cannot do so, because the work of the JNCC does not fall within my area of responsibility. However, I emphasise that the committee will have an important role to play, and its overview will be of considerable benefit to Scottish Natural Heritage. It is my intention, and that of Magnus Magnusson, that Scottish
Column 628
Natural Heritage will operate in a wider context, and that it will be in tune with broader national and international consideration of conservation matters.As to landscape protection, the Government are committed to continuing conservation of the finest Scottish landscapes. How that will be achieved in the longer term is a matter of debate in Scotland at present. The Countryside Commission for Scotland produced a report on the conservation and management of our mountain areas, and it contains many valuable ideas aimed at securing sustainable uses of the land. It makes particular suggestions for ways of building partnerships at local level, through the establishment of land management forums.
I listened with interest to the debate on the Commission's proposals to establish four national parks. No clear consensus is emerging. In Wester Ross, there is strong antipathy to such a designation. There is no enthusiasm in the Ben Nevis/Glencoe area, considerable ambivalence concerning a national park for the Cairngorms, and only apparent support for a Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Given those responses and in the absence of the commission's response to consultation, I cannot yet make any decisions on the proposals for special areas and for the mountain areas more generally. However, I shall be interested to hear the outcome of the consultation process undertaken by the Countryside Commission for Scotland.
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : As the Secretary of State knows, I have a great interest in Loch Lomond, but he mentioned that there is only "apparent" support for a national park there. That does not agree with the information that I have been given. If I convey that information to the Secretary of State, will it influence his deliberations?
Mr. Lang : If the hon. Gentleman has information of that kind, I hope that he has already passed it to the Countryside Commission for Scotland, as part of its consultation process. I would certainly be interested to receive a copy of that information. It is worth emphasising that the interests of Loch Lomond are considerably different from those of Wester Ross, the Cairngorms, or other parts of Scotland.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Given the uncertainty of Scottish national opinion on national parks, when does the Secretary of State expect to reach a conclusion on that issue? Those who have been involved in the consultation process deserve an early answer.
Mr. Lang : I agree, and I hope to reach a conclusion soon. However, I am slightly in the hands of the Countryside Commission, which is assessing the outcome of its consultation process. I am sure that it will note the hon. Lady's comments, and mine.
It is essential that Scottish Natural Heritage has all the tools for the job that we are giving it to do. Existing designations are confined either to landscape or to nature conservation. At present, there is no integrated designation. Therefore, we intend to table an amendment to the Bill in Committee to enable natural heritage areas to be established. A single designation for the benefit of areas of the highest natural heritage interest will be an essential tool if the new body is to approach the management of
Column 629
such areas in a positive and integrated manner, in partnership with all the relevant interests of owners, occupiers and communities.Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : There is a great deal of confusion, in my experience, when one talks to interested bodies about how a natural heritage area will fit into the general pattern, and how it relates to the consideration--I put it no higher than that--of the national parks' proposition. Could the Secretary of State say a word or two more specifically about the remit of a natural heritage area? For example, will there be a body to implement the integrated planning, to which he has referred, in these schemes? Does he think that the scheme will preclude national parks?
Mr. Lang : That is an interesting question, which can perhaps be developed in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman is right to focus attention on it, because it is a new concept. I certainly agree with the implied comment in his question that there are so many different forms of designation that it is difficult for the layman to find his way around them.
Essentially, the building blocks are sites of special scientific interest in the case of the Nature Conservancy Council and national scenic areas in the case of the Countryside Commission. The natural heritage will be one form of designation which will combine the two. It will not replace an SSSI, but an NHA might easily be a substantial area, in which resources and other forms of designation might be focused.
A natural heritage area might be of a size and nature that meant that it covered an area which might otherwise be considered for designation as a national park. If I were to pronounce any more on that, I would prejudge the outcome of my decision on national parks. These matters might be more fully explored in Committee.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Mr. Andrew Welsh.
Mr. Dalyell : What is the Secretary of State and the Government's attitude towards appeal against SSSI designation?
Mr. Speaker : Actually, I called Mr. Andrew Welsh, but would the Secretary of State care to answer that question first?
Mr. Lang : I hope that I shall be able to answer both questions, but I have not heard the one from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).
As regards SSSIs and the right of appeal, their Lordships in another place gave close attention to that matter and have amended the Bill. We shall express our views on that matter in Committee-- [Hon. Members :-- "Come on."] I shall have something more to say about it later in my speech.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : Does the Minister agree that the people most affected, who have to live in national heritage areas or parks, should be heard? Can he guarantee that there will be maximum local input from people in such areas about when and how such decisions are taken? He mentioned sustainable growth : would he define exactly what he means by that? Also will he insert
Column 630
a definition of that concept--which we all support--in the Bill so that we have on record what the Government mean when they talk about encouraging the agency to support sustainable growth?Mr. Lang : I was not quite clear about the nature of the hon. Gentleman's concern in the first part of his question. However, I expect consultation to be a strong and recurring feature of all the activities of Scottish Natural Heritage. I believe that it is central to carrying out its remit properly that there is consultation with interested parties and local bodies when it fulfils its responsibility for conserving and developing the natural heritage. Sustainability is a concept which has been developed for a number of years, and is at the centre of the Government's environmental policy. The concept is that the environment should be so regarded and maintained that it does not erode or degrade, and is handed on to future generations in the same condition or possibly enhanced and developed. Therefore, no operation should be allowed to take place which would damage the environment without restoring or replenishing the damage.
As I have said, I have dwelt at some length on the principles and expected practice which should result from the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage ; but I should explain how we expect the Bill to achieve its purposes. Part I provides for the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage, which will have the full range of powers currently given to the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, but, with the wider definition of the natural heritage and the abolition of the concept of countryside, it will operate throughout Scotland.
Let me underline the general aims and purposes set out in clause 1. The first is to secure the conservation of the natural heritage--that is, species and habitat, areas of geological and physiographical significance and areas of natural beauty and amenity. The second is to secure the enhancement of our natural heritage ; the third is to foster understanding of that heritage by increasing the degree of interest and the level of knowledge of everyone who currently has an interest. Fourthly, the new body will be able to provide--either by its own hand or through supporting others--facilities and access for the enjoyment of Scotland's natural heritage.
Finally--this is of overriding importance--we have a duty to ensure that, in its own actions and in influencing the actions of others, Scottish Natural Heritage seeks to secure the sustainablility of activities affecting the natural heritage, and hence that of the natural heritage itself. Schedule 1 makes provision for the constitution and proceedings of the body.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : The Bill states that expenditure on the body will be roughly equivalent to the amount spent on its predecessors. Can the Secretary of State specify the amount that the Government are prepared to put into it if it is to be really effective, and can he tell us whether he envisages an annual review of the amount to be made available to it? As we progress, additional money may be required.
Mr. Lang : It is certainly important that the body should be fully and adequately funded. This year, the combined
Column 631
budgets of the two existing bodies will exceed £26 million : I think that that has been generally recognised as a substantial and fully adequate budget.I can also confirm that the budget for the new body will be reviewed annually, under the public expenditure round. For that reason, I cannot give the hon. Lady a specific figure for 1992-93 ; clearly, however, the figure that we have established in the opening year--which is very important for the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland--lends credence to our commitment.
Mr. Dalyell : The Secretary of State said, understandably, that his fifth point was of "overriding importance", but is it really compatible with the Lords amendment? I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the Government's attitude to that amendment ; some of us think that it wrecks the Bill completely.
Mr. Lang : I have already told the House that the Lords amendment about a review and appeal in relation to SSSIs is unworkable in its present form, and will have to be revised. We are still considering the precise nature of the revision, which will emerge in Committee.
Mr. Dalyell : So the Government are not rejecting the amendment?
Mr. Lang : As I have told the hon. Gentleman, we are rejecting it in its present form. I will make the Government's position clear later.
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : It is important to clarify the position here and now : this is the kernel of the debate. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that it would be utterly irresponsible to bring the body into being while in any way accepting the wrecking amendments tabled in the House of Lords. Will he assure us that not only the letter, but the substance and the spirit, of the amendments in clause 11 will be rejected? There is no point in bringing Scottish Natural Heritage into existence if the right hon. Gentleman is going to lie down in front of the landowning lobby at the first hurdle and give anything approaching the powers suggested in clause 11.
Mr. Lang : I can assure the House that there is no question of our "lying down" in front of the landowning lobby. We are trying to achieve a proper balance in a new body that is fully committed and fully empowered to carry out its remit to preserve and enhance Scotland's natural heritage.
I have already explained that clause 11 is at present flawed and unworkable. I could give a number of precise details, but those are essentially Committee points. We shall have an opportunity to debate our proposed amendments in Committee ; I can tell the House no more than that at this stage.
Mr. Dewar : I note that the Secretary of State is reluctant to be more forthcoming, but I hope that I can tempt him to be a little more helpful.
When I hear a Minister say that an amendment is flawed, I assume that technical amendments, adjustments and perhaps shifts of emphasis might make it acceptable. If I interpret correctly the views of my hon. Friends, the feeling on this side of the House is that it is not a question of the amendment's being flawed but of its being, in principle, unacceptable. It is regarded as a wrecking
Column 632
amendment. That is an important distinction. We want the kernel of the amendment to be rejected, since, as the Secretary of State argued, it would make the work of Scottish Natural Heritage almost impossible.Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : Before my right hon. Friend replies, I hope that he will permit me to say that it is absolutely essential that any site of special scientific interest should be designated as such for purely scientific reasons. Therefore, one cannot reach a layman's decision--yes or no. Due to the new regional structure, with very much closer management of the areas concerned, I believe that there will be much more discussion between the owners of SSSIs and Scottish Natural Heritage so that questions can be resolved amicably without the need to go to appeal.
Mr. Lang : I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I tried to make that point earlier, when I said that, in future, there should not be the same problems as have been encountered in the past. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) by saying that, apart from the clause being technically flawed, it runs counter to the Government's declared and long-established policy since 1981. It would be a fairly substantial matter if the Government were to contemplate changing that policy. We should not enter lightly into such discussions. That is why we are giving close consideration to the matter now. However, I assure the House that, well ahead of the appropriate moment in Committee, we shall make our position absolutely clear.
Mr. Maclennan : When the Secretary of State reviews the clause, I hope the he will not overlook the overriding concern that was manifested in another place : that this is a question not of landlords versus crofters, or any such primitive instinct, but of lack of accountability in designation which has led to large tracts of the north of Scotland being designated as sites of special scientific interest, to the detriment of any form of development. Those decisions have been regarded as highly controversial. The provisions of the new clause seem to be widely welcomed, at least throughout the highlands and islands of Scotland.
Mr. Lang : I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. His intervention underlines the fact that these are not black and white issues, but are complex and diverse. That makes it all the more important, therefore, to consider the matter again.
Clause 2 sets out the general functions of Scottish Natural Heritage. I draw the attention of the House to the advisory functions of SNH. The new body will have a significant role in advising me and any other Minister on policies concerning Scotland's natural heritage. It will also have a more general advisory role on the natural heritage which should result in greater appreciation and understanding of its use and management.
In support of these advisory roles, Scottish Natural Heritage will have an important research function. We expect it to be carried out, as the subsection suggests, largely through an externally commissioned programme. Much of SNH's work will be with others. Our intention is that there should be close working with the private and voluntary sectors, which have a vital role to play in the protection, conservation, enjoyment and understanding of the natural heritage.
Column 633
Clause 3 sets out what is commonly known as the balancing duty--in other words, the matters that SNH should take into account, where appropriate, when it is fulfilling its general aims and purposes. SNH cannot work in a vacuum from those whose activities affect the natural heritage in various ways, or from those who are affected by the need to protect and conserve the natural heritage. The essence of the balancing clause, therefore, is that SNH should take account of the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry, the need for social and economic development and the interests of local communities. We are committed, following consideration in another place, to reviewing the precise wording of the clause. Again, that can usefully be done in Committee.Clause 4 and schedule 2 provide for amendment of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other nature conservation legislation to allow for the responsibilities of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland to be undertaken by Scottish Natural Heritage. They allow the SNH to perform its nature conservation functions on exactly the same basis as the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : Presumably there will still be a co-ordinating committee to link with bodies in England and Wales. Will the Committee meet at Peterborough or north of the border and elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lang : My hon. Friend may not have been able to be present when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised that point. It is not a matter on which I am able to pronounce at the moment. The joint committee is not my direct responsibility, but my hon. Friend's anxiety on that point will have been noted.
Clause 5 widens the scope of powers already available to the Countryside Commission for development projects or schemes. That has proved to be a very worthwhile power to establish demonstration projects and experiments aimed at enhancing the environment. A right of appeal was inserted in another place against development projects or schemes, but we consider that that reflects a misunderstanding of the fact that SNH will not be able to undertake development projects or schemes without the consent of the landowner. We shall wish to return to that matter in Committee.
Clause 6 deals with powers of entry for the purpose of surveying land and provides various safeguards for landowners and occupiers, including compensation for any damage caused. Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State power to pay grant to Scottish Natural Heritage. Clause 8 empowers Scottish Natural Heritage to give grants or loans for projects that will benefit the natural heritage and to set down appropriate conditions.
Clauses 9 to 13 provide various miscellaneous provisions to support the functions of Scottish Natural Heritage and the dissolution of the predecessor bodies.
Mr. Dalyell : Clauses 8 to 13 raise a substantial question. What are the Government doing to improve the designation of marine nature reserves? Only two have been developed. To one who considered the 1981 legislation in Committee, that is profoundly disappointing--one point at least on which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H.
Column 634
Monro) might agree. Can nothing be done under those clauses or anywhere else in the Bill to improve the MNR procedure?Mr. Lang : The hon. Gentleman is on to a fair point. On the designation of marine nature reserves or other appropriate protection areas --for example, marine conservation areas or preferred coastal conservation zones--perhaps less attention has been given to such matters in the past than is appropriate. I believe that the merging of the Countryside Commission with the Nature Conservancy Council into Scottish Natural Heritage will create a body that will more effectively be able to take a proper overview of those matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that consideration is currently being given to the possible designation of Loch Sween in Argyll as a possible marine SSSI under the marine nature reserve provisions. Designation is by the Secretary of State, obviously on advice. That is a matter on which I cannot pronounce any further at present, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand. In addition to all the provisions that I have mentioned, and as previously indicated, we intend to bring forward amendments in Committee for two purposes. First, we intend to seek amendment to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 to allow the Red Deer Commission, where there is damage to the natural heritage, to exercise the same powers that it already has in relation to deer causing damage to farming and forestry. Secondly, we shall also seek approval, as I have already said, for a power to the Secretary of State to designate natural heritage areas.
I now refer briefly to part II of the Bill which contains the provisions on irrigation. Those provisions are designed to ensure that there is effective control over those abstractions which can severely damage the quality or quantity of water in our rivers and lochs and underground waters. They are modest measures designed to improve the effectiveness and widen the scope of the present legislation contained in the Spray Irrigation Act 1964. We have wanted to enact those measures for some time.
The thrust of the changes is to meet a long-standing commitment to replace with workable legislation an Act which has been on the statute book for 26 years but has, in practice, proved virtually inoperable. It is vital to maintain the quality and quantity of our water. We must ensure that rivers and streams do not dry up or become so reduced that there is a severe adverse effect on aquatic life and on the ability of a river to dilute and absorb pollution.
Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) : When he referred to the designation of natural heritage areas, the Secretary of State said that he could probably say more to enlighten us on just exactly what they should be.
Mr. Lang : In answer to a supplementary question, I explained some of our thinking. I also said that we intended to table an amendment in Committee on natural heritage areas. Until we do so, it would be best to keep my powder dry, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman's close interest and look forward to further expanding on our thinking in Committee.
The measures in part III deal with the supply of water during times of drought. They will replace existing provisions in the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 with provisions already available in England and Wales under
Column 635
the Water Act 1989. The central change is that the new provisions will allow authorities more flexibility in meeting any deficiencies in supply due to exceptional shortage of rain.Contrary to popular belief, Scotland sometimes suffers from just such a problem. In the particularly dry year of 1984 which affected much of the country, rainfall was only 40 per cent. of the average between April and August. This shortage had a marked detrimental effect on rivers and the flora and fauna which they sustain. Flows were seriously affected and reservoir levels dropped.
There are also more localised drought problems from time to time. Last year, for example, drought orders were made in both the Fife and the Borders regions.
While it is true to say that authorities have coped well in the past, the lessons learned have brought widespread agreement that a more flexible regime for those who have to deal with the problem is needed. These new provisions will also make water management in such situations consistent throughout Great Britain.
We are also taking the opportunity of the Bill to make several minor amendments to existing water legislation. They are, first, to make specific provision on control of water pollution to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations giving effect to international and EC obligations ; secondly, we shall amend the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 to ensure that river purification boards are consulted by water authorities in pursuance of some of their responsibilities under the Act ; thirdly, the Bill will supplement powers to make regulations under the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 ; lastly, we intend to modify the membership arrangements for river purification boards.
Mr. Dalyell : Does the Secretary of State accept that what he calls fairly minor regulations raise questions of staffing? At first sight, these so-called minor regulations require a good deal of staff, as do many of the other proposed measures. What is the position on chronic understaffing? In many of the briefings and discussions that we have had, it has been stressed that staffing is a real problem when implementing the measures. Before the Secretary of State finishes his speech, will he say something about the shortage of staff?
Mr. Lang : The hon. Gentleman will know from the front of the Bill the effect that it will have on public service manpower. Some additional staff will be required by the new body to ensure that it can address the Government's priorities for Scotland's natural heritage. We anticipate a staff of 450 in total. That will be an increase on the previous number of staff. Indeed, an increase of 140 staff is already in train as a result of the transfer from Peterborough to Scotland of Nature Conservancy Council
responsibilities. We do not envisage any substantial direct increases in staff to arise from water considerations.
The establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage illustrates both our commitment to the work of the predecessor bodies and the need for an integrated approach in future. More importantly, it clearly signals our commitment to the unique and priceless natural heritage of Scotland, which is the envy of all who visit Scotland and the pride of all of us who live there. It truly represents our inheritance from the past--the land and landscape and the flora and fauna bequeathed by nature, and all the changes which have occured to them as a result of the activities or our predecessors.
Column 636
We must not be complacent, if we are to bequeath our inheritance to future generations in a way which will sustain their well-being. That can be achieved only if we manage our resources, both natural and human, with great care. We cannot afford to allow activities which undermine the natural resource base so that it is not usable in the longer term. However, that does not mean putting a stop to all economic activity in the countryside. Far from it : our policy is based on the encouragement of environmentally sensitive and sustainable use of our natural heritage and the encouragement of economic activity which sustains and even strengthens and enhances its environment.Scottish Natural Heritage has a focal role to play in achieving those aims. That is why we brought together nature and landscape conservation and recreational access and enjoyment functions. That will make possible the integrated approach to which I referred. As I have already said, SNH cannot carry out the task on its own. It must seek out and cultivate a range of partners to achieve our wider objectives. It will seek to develop initiatives with local communities, landowners and other local interests. It will work jointly with Government Departments and public bodies and seek to stimulate the work of the voluntary sector. We have given it all the powers in the Bill that it requires to undertake this task. Later this year, I shall make decisions about the funding of the new body and the appointment of board members to support Magnus Magnusson. I shall consider proposals for the location, organisational structure and staffing of the new body.
We are the custodians of our heritage. We hold it in trust. We have a tremendous opportunity now to build a positive partnership which will sustain our heritage for future generations. I hope that both sides of the House will support this approach and welcome the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.40 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : In a narrow sense, this is a Bill which we should cherish. It is the one and only Bill produced by the Scottish Office this parliamentary Session. It is a modest return for, presumably, a great deal of thought and effort. We should perhaps be grateful for that, considering the damage done in previous years by the current Scottish Office team.
This is an important Bill and we shall take it seriously in Committee. It deals with an area of policy which, unfortunately, may lend itself to rhetoric. Inevitably, sometimes the rhetoric sounds a little empty in the abstract. I take as an example of that the introduction by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to "Scotland's Natural Heritage" in which he said :
"We must improve understanding, increase awareness, promote co-operation and find ways of allowing our rural communities to grow and prosper by managing natural resources wisely and well." We are also against sin and in favour of better weather. There is something unexceptionable about those sentiments, but I am not sure that they advance the cause of conservation greatly. Passages of the Secretary of State's speech, when reread at leisure by anyone who has the temerity to do so, might fall into the same category. We are being offered a new framework--Scottish Natural Heritage. According to the Secretary of State, it
Column 637
will translate into more effective action. We want more effective action and a better, more enduring framework than has been possible in the past. There have been arguments about whether this is the right starting point. We have had our complaints, particularly that the early proposals were ill digested and lacked specification. That is still partly true.For some splendid generalisations, I can do no better than go back to the original discussion document, "Scotland's Natural Heritage", which is a rather pleasant, moss green colour and has a stag at bay on its front cover. It told us about the end of the ice age and the demise of the wolf, and a great deal about
"the mountain plateaux with a ptarmigan and other arctic-alpine fauna and flora, the native woodlands with capercaillie, Scottish crossbill, pine marten and wild cat, the peatland flows' with their concentration of rare waders golden eagles, the machair grasslands the last haven in Britain of the corncrake".
That took up a great deal of the five pages which were to be the blueprint for the future. I say with no sarcasm that I got the impression that they might have been written by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). At least we have advanced some way since then. There has not been much consultation, although some of the claims about that have been fanciful. A written answer on 11 July 1989 to a question from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) gave a list of the various voluntary conservation bodies and groups which supported the Government's proposals. I was astonished when I read their representations to discover that many were not in favour. Some specifically did not comment because they had been told that the essential scheme was not open for consultation ; only how it was to be implemented. Therefore, they passed no words on it. There were great difficulties in those early stages.
Since then we have had the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and we are now at stage two. I want to make it clear on behalf of Labour Members that we have no intention of dividing the House against the Bill. We have not even tabled an amendment in our name. We are interested in clearing up a large number of ambiguities and focusing on the essentials in Committee. Our interest is in making a success of Scottish Natural Heritage when it comes into being. I am sure that the whole House will be united on that.
Mr. Dalyell : My hon. Friend said that we have no intention of dividing the House. Indeed, that was agreed by everybody before the debate began, but the Secretary of State's attitude to the fundamental Lords amendments has put a rather different complexion on that. Some of us, naturally in consultation with our colleagues, would like to leave open the question of a Division, because the goods put forward are different from what we thought we were being offered.
Mr. Dewar : I certainly intend to return to the Lords amendments and I hear what my hon. Friend said. I hasten to assure him that anything I may say does not necessarily bind him. I have long recognised that as a fact, even if it is not necessarily the theory. No doubt we can discuss this during the debate, but I take his serious point about what the Secretary of State said.
Column 638
The Bill is concise, with only 13 clauses, but because of that it sketches the situation only briefly and inevitably raises many questions which I should like to draw to the attention of the House. Perhaps I may do so with the promise, not the threat, that we shall want to return to those issues in Committee.There has been a great deal of comment about the word "sustainable" in clause 1(1). I think that every hon. Member has received representations about it. I welcome the concept, but it is difficult to define. In another place Lord Strathclyde--I notice that these days we are being invited on television to get to know and love that gentleman as "Tom Strathclyde"-- said that "sustainable" meant securing the inheritance of future generations, but his attempts to define it beyond that were not helpful. It is easy to comprehend what sustainable means for forestry or fishing policy, but beyond those rather obvious examples it becomes less clear.
We shall try to return to that in Committee, although I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that anyone who comes up with something approaching a definition would have to be a latter-day Wittgenstein, so we shall see what emerges. Even if we cannot define the term, we should get a rather better view from the Government than has been possible so far of their intention. That is a matter of some importance.
My second point will come as no surprise to those who have been following the debate. It relates to the remit of SNH. There is an absence of any duty to encourage access to recreation in the countryside. Several bodies whose views I respect have put that to us. I recognise that there is always a possibility of saying that that is encompassed in the purpose of the SNH
"to foster understanding and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural heritage of Scotland".
It is a matter not only of emphasis, but of symbolic importance, and certainly it has caused some concern.
There have been suggestions, for example, that there is a difference of approach built on the different remits of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland on this matter. That may be worthy of consideration. As the House will not be surprised to hear, we have also been approached by the Scottish Sports Council. It takes the view, as does the Countryside Commission for Scotland, that a reference specifically to access and recreation should be included. The Scottish Sports Council news release states :
"However, the Council believes that the access and recreation role currently carried out by the Commission will not be as effective after a merger with the Nature Conservancy Council."
I hope that that is not so. It would be an argument against the merger altogether. It is important in giving reassurance against those fears for a specific remit on access and recreation to be included. Again, we shall return to that in Committee.
Other balancing considerations must be taken up by Scottish Natural Heritage, one of which is the lack of reference to archaeological heritage. That consideration may not arise often and I mention it only in passing, but it is worth further thought. Perhaps the Minister--I presume that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will be in charge of the Committee on a day -to-day basis--will bear that in mind when considering the amendments.
I shall now deal with the Lords amendments, which are becoming increasingly contentious. As I understand it,
Next Section
| Home Page |