House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Feb 1991

Column 639

there are two, not just one. The first relates to the general power that has been given to SNH in clause 5. In another place they added subsections (4) and (5) to clause 5. They did so, it seems, due to a somewhat excitable--I hope that not one will resent the term--view of the way in which the new body might operate and of the likely relevance of the powers defined in clause 5. They permit the SNH to "prepare proposals with respect to any area for a development project or scheme which is designed to achieve the conservation or enhancement of or which fosters understanding or enjoyment of the natural heritage of Scotland."

That was seen by a number of their Lordships as a new and threatening departure from the legal framework with which we are familiar. Perhaps my colleagues noticed some of the more racy international metaphors used to describe that threat. I am thinking in particular of Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, who went a mile on the issue during the debates. I was also interested in the views of the Baroness Strange, a lady with whom I am not familiar. She concluded that clause 5 was, as drafted, of all the horrific prospects, a breach of the declaration of Arbroath. That suggestion seemed to be taken surprisingly seriously by the Minister, but perhaps it gives a flavour of the exchanges.

I undertook some in-depth research and looked up Baroness Strange in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion". I found that she is the author of the important works "Lalage in Love", "Love from Belinda" and "Creatures Great and Small", which is perhaps more relevant. I asked the Library to produce those seminal texts for my consideration, but, unfortunately, I am left to imagine what delights must be included. In any event, the House should join me in assuring Baroness Strange that the declaration of Arbroath--or the declaration of independence in Arbroath, which is how she referred to it-- would not be affected by the Bill.

The Lords amendments are intended to make clause 5 unworkable. In effect, the Secretary of State acknowledged that. I have considered the legal forms in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 and other legislation and the phrases contained in clause 5 are very familiar and have been used before. I do not believe that the fears expressed can be defended. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to excise the amendments, which were added under a misapprehension. The situation resulting from clause 11 is even more serious. There have already been exchanges on this issue. There is no doubt that, if the clause remains as drafted and inserted by another place, it will tie up resources, as the Minister agreed. It will undermine the credibility of SNH in its early and formative period.

I am told that there are more than 1,200 sites of special scientific interest in Scotland--one colleague says that there are 1, 300 and I am prepared to come and go on the odd 100. Annexe D of the Government paper, "Scotland's Natural Heritage : The Way Ahead", implies the formidable task of a review of every one of those SSSIs in the first five years of SNH. There have been representations against that by every body that has bothered to comment on the Bill, whether it be the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Rural Forum or the Scottish Wildlife Trust. They have written to me to implore wholeheartedly that the clause be removed from the Bill. In any event the clause is based on a misunderstanding. Clearly, an SSSI is a notification of the scientific value of

Column 640

a particular area. It is not in itself the imposition of a prohibition order. It is an obligation on a landlord to consult the present Nature Conservancy Council and, in future, SNH during consideration of potentially damaging operations. The process goes on to produce the possibility of a voluntary management agreement to preserve the scientific interest of the area.

I am told--I unashamedly admit that these figures came from the World Wide Fund for Nature--that, in the NCC's north-west Scotland area, there are some 330 SSSIs, involving about 2,500 landholders. Many SSSIs cross different areas of ownership. There are about 60 current management agreements and about 25 under negotiation. In other words, the vast majority do not reach the point where there is a need to think in terms of a current management agreement. A landowner has the right to refuse to sign a management agreement if he is dissatisfied with the compensation offered, but, given the number of SSSIs in that area, that has not happened once in the past 10 years.

The clause, as drafted, would create considerable difficulties. I recognise that the Secretary of State wishes, rather quaintly, to keep his powder dry, but I should have thought that, by this stage, we should have been given a clear suggestion of the Government's intention. The difficulty is that he has agreed, by implication at least, and sometimes explicitly, with all the criticisms. He has conceded that the Bill will be practically unworkable, especially if clause 11 survives, but, oddly, he holds back from saying that it should go and that the Government will not accept the spirit of the amendments.

At the end of the debate, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be a little more forthcoming and explain the situation. After all, in another place the amendments were passed rather quickly. It was unusual, because the Labour party voted with Ministers yet still managed to lose. The payroll vote bit the dust in no uncertain fashion. I presume that Ministers knew what they were doing when they stood against the wrath of the landowning interests on the basis of the merits of the proposition. The Minister should have the courage of Tom Strathclyde and, in this rather gentler climate, fall in with the worries and anxieties that have been expressed not just here but throughout the conservation world and to me. I hope that we shall hear more from the Minister before the end of the debate. I give way to the voice of dissent.

Mr. Maclennan : The process of designation, which has been the subject of amendment to clause 11, may concern designation of a scientific nature alone, but it is challenged not only on scientific grounds by people who have no means of carrying the debate further as the law stands, but on the grounds of the economic consequences of designation. The absence of accountability in existing law is unacceptable and it is that with which the other place tried to deal. The hon. Gentleman tried to press the Secretary of State to be more forthcoming about his view of that problem. The hon. Gentleman might choose this opportunity to be forthcoming about the Labour party's awareness of the problem that the other place was facing up to. Perhaps their Lordships did not have the right answer, but I should like to know what view the Labour party takes. The law as it stands is not working to the

Column 641

satisfaction of those people--crofters, farmers, landowners, foresters and many others--who have a much greater interest then do some of the bodies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Dewar : I understand the vehemence with which the hon. Gentleman makes his point. It is not clear to me how the Liberal peers voted. Perhaps they voted in favour of clause 11. No doubt the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who speaks for her party on these issues, will make it clear whether she is in favour of retaining clause 11. I shall be very surprised if it turns out to be so, but no doubt we shall have the matter clarified shortly. I have explained that an SSSI, as I understand it, implies scientific value.

If one of the potentially damaging operations is proposed, the landholder has an obligation to consult. However, even at that stage, the operation can be stopped only by management agreement with the landlord. In such cases it is always necessary to strike a balance. No doubt the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), by virtue of his constituency interest, is aware of the report "Management Agreements for Nature Conservation in Scotland", issued by Aberdeen university in 1990. That document certainly drew attention to the need for better consultation.

We are setting up a new devolved structure, involving regional and area provision, which is being pioneered by the NCC in its interregnum Scottish year. On the basis of advice that I received recently, I am of the opinion that the problems are not as insurmountable or as jagged as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The representations that have been made to me, from a remarkable range of people, have certainly persuaded me that clause 11 is wrong. I am sorry if the Liberal party intends to vote in support of the clause, but that seems to be the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I await clarification.

Sir Hector Monro : I do not know all the Liberal Democratic peers intimately, but it seems to me that three of them voted in favour of clause 11, and one against.

Mr. Dewar : That does not surprise me. The intervention that we just heard clearly shows a great deal of support for the clause. Many Scottish peers--Lord Thurso in particular--were prominent in the debate.

Having taken some time to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point, as it is important, I want to move on and probe for a few minutes another very important matter. The Secretary of State referred to it, but I found his attitude unsatisfactory. I refer to the natural heritage areas--a very substantial issue and a matter of some mystery to many of us. I understand that amendments are to be tabled. I have made earnest inquiries among interested parties and I have been told repeatedly that no one knows what a natural heritage area is, or how it fits into the great scheme of things. It is with no sarcasm that I say that it seems to have been spirited up, as there was not even the suspicion of its appearance during the consultative process. It comes at a very odd time.

The Scottish Countryside Commission's document "The Mountain Areas of Scotland" proposes the creation of four national parks. One of these is in the Cairngorms. I believe that we are in danger of ending up with a hopelessly cluttered situation that no reasonable person

Column 642

could be expected to understand. I am told-- perhaps it is only rumour, or I may be under a misapprehension--that the flow country, which is certainly of interest to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and the Cairngorms are likely early candidates for natural heritage status.

Indeed, Cairngorm is almost certainly an early candidate. The Government, for reasons of prestige, are attempting to have that area designated as a world heritage site. We know that it is also potentially a national park and, on top of all that, Mr. Magnus Magnusson's working party is examining future strategies for the management of the Cairngorms under what appear to be very comprehensive terms of reference. We now have layer upon layer upon layer, and it beggars the imagination to discover where definition and authority lie.

There are some questions to which we shall expect answers in Committee and in this regard we shall no doubt be joined by Conservative Members. How do natural heritage agencies relate to national parks? Does the one preclude the other? What will be the remit of a natural heritage agency? Is there a management body at all, or is it merely a question of designation, which will be implemented by some other, as yet unknown, body? If so, will that be a national park? If not, who?

If the natural heritage area is going to set out a programme of management, that programme will have to be implemented either by the area itself--in which case, the national park is precluded--or by some competitor for the responsibility. If there is to be a body, who will be represented on it? What will be its relationship to SNH? What powers of last resort, if any, will it have? It should be clear to the Minister that a large number of legitimate questions must be answered. It is proper that those questions be raised in this debate and in Committee.

"Scottish Environment News" in November 1990 quotes the Under-Secretary of State as having said :

"A common theme in the CCS's recent report on mountain areas is the need for an integrated strategy. The Cairngorm Working party might serve as a prototype for bringing together relevant interested parties to create similar strategies for other parts of Scotland." I am not clear about the meaning of that. It seems to suggest that there will be working parties in other areas. But it suggests also that this working party will operate very much on the themes set out in the Countryside Commission's document on mountain areas. That simply adds to the general confusion and the pattern of overlapping responsibilities that we appear to be facing. It is an unsatisfactory situation, which the Minister will have to try to clear up, so that the layman may have some chance of understanding not only the Government's intentions but likely developments on the ground over the next year or two.

The debate on national parks still has some way to go. I realise that the results of the consultations have not yet been published. The Countryside Commission hope that they will be available to the Secretary of State some time in March and I hope that they will be made available to a wider audience very shortly thereafter. It seems that there is a case for considering together the Scottish heritage area concept and the national park concept. I have some sympathy with a point that has been put to me forcefully ; that, to use a cliche of the Government, unless they are considered together, we shall not have a level playing field.

Column 643

There is a danger that implementation of the natural heritage area will prejudice further debate on the national park proposal. I welcome the Scottish Countryside Commission's proposals. Here is a case that has strength and that must be examined very closely. The idea that there should be an over-arching body looking at the problems of sensitive areas, where several local authorities and many conservation bodies and groups have an interest, is sensible. It is, of course, important that there be strong links with the communities concerned. It is important that the creation of a national park should not be seen as a means of sealing off an area, choking development and leaving communities in a state of suspended animation.

The Secretary of State made it clear that that was not his intention. If we go further down this road, we must make it very clear to the people who live in these areas. Many of them live in large communities, such as Fort William, which is included in the Ben Nevis/Glencoe/Black Mount area and is part of the community zoned within that proposed national park. It is the main centre of population in Lochaber.

If we are to have national parks, we must take the opportunity of balancing conservation and development, forestry and agriculture, and tourism and recreation more successfully than in the past. I welcome the fact that the Countryside Commission is proposing that two thirds of the board should come from local authority members and one third should be appointed by the Secretary of State. The emphasis on locally elected members is probably wise and would reassure those who fear a rigidly imposed structure from outside the area.

I firmly believe that consultation is a key issue. I was interested that the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) contained a reference to marine reserves. Judging by the correspondence that I have received, it is clear that, however good the Loch Sween proposal may be--perhaps it has captured the imagination of those who live on the shores of Loch Sween, but not in the way that the proposers would wish--there are lessons to be learnt. I am sure that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will want to raise that matter later.

The debate on the national parks should be joined. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) may wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to put forcefully the case for the Loch Lomond area. That is a special case, for which there are strong arguments because two district-- two regional--councils are involved. The area is under particular pressure because of its geography and its ease of access from heavily populated districts. I know that many of the local authorities are particularly attracted by grant structures that might meet 85 per cent. of expenditure-- there is nothing dishonourable about that. As a countryside park, it does much worse than that, and I see that the grant structure is a pressing incentive.

There are many views on the subject. The World Wild Fund for Nature is cautious and has doubts, the World Conservation Union is enthusiastic, and there is a range of opinions in between. We want a constructive debate held in a flexible, sensible spirit, that recognises the sensitivities which arise. We must look carefully at the results of the consultation which may not be as hostile as the Secretary of State hinted when he gave his summary of local reaction. I promise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my colleagues will return to the subject in Committee.

Column 644

I shall wrap up my argument by quickly covering one or two important issues. Such debates always contain issues that should be, but are not, on the agenda. I do not know whether we shall manage to include everything we want in Committee. It would be a pity if there were no debate on the Crown Estate commissioners and their role, particularly in connection with fish farming. The 1990 report of the Select Committee on Agriculture said that the Crown Estates commissioners had at least 709 sites for salmon and shellfish farms, of which 698 were in Scotland. Clearly, the commissioners' power is considerable. There are problems with the dominance of large companies, the tying-up of good sites on long leases and how to get local people and capital involved. There have undoubtedly been great problems with consultation.

We believe that there should be planning control over fish farm sites. That subject may arise during further discussion on the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and others involved will anticipate my saying that forestry is another matter of great concern in terms of achieving the right balance in conservation. Planting has declined considerably since the change in tax concessions. I am told--I do not know whether the figures are accurate--that planting has declined from 27,000 to 12,000 hectares annually, but the Government target, which has not changed, remains at 3,000 hectares per annum. The theory is that unfortunate planting can be controlled by witholding grants, and that power is open to the Forestry Commission. However, I am advised that there is still significant planting without grants and there remains the question of whether the Forestry Commission is the right organisation to impose controls. An extension of the present planning control system should be studied closely and my hon. Friends will want to put forward arguments on that subject.

The Secretary of State said that Scottish National Heritage will have a major task, and for once I believe him. It is an important organisation. I should declare that I have had the opportunity of talking to some of the staff recently. Change is always unsettling, even if it brings new challenges. Magnus Magnusson's appointment will be widely welcomed, although I am not sure whether he is as big in bridge-building as the Secretary of State would have us believe. It is important that the board is appointed quickly and that a chief executive is in post, so that decisions can be taken reasonably rapidly. The basic principles of integration must be thought out. For example, it is not for me to express a personal preference on the siting of the headquarters, but following my occasional visits to Battleby I feel that it could be a persuasive contender because of its geography and facilities. I recognise that there are plenty of other places that I have not seen, and there must be considerations unknown to me, but I have always been impressed by what Battleby has to offer.

I recognise, too, that guarantees have been given to the staff about job security and about protection from predators, but there is still a great deal of work to be done. The Secretary of State may be able to confirm that the Ernst and Young report on the "Analysis of the Operational Options" in connection with SNH is now available in the Library. It contains much important information that we shall wish to assess in Committee.

I am afraid that resources are inevitably a key factor. The current budget for the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland is £19.6 million, and for the Countryside

Column 645

Commission for Scotland, £6.5 million, which squares roughly with the global total mentioned by the Secretary of State.

I am not happy that the Bill's explanatory memorandum states that we are to have a combined budget

"only slightly more than the sum of expenditure on the predecessor bodies."

I hope that it is in real terms, because if it is only slightly more in cash terms, it may not take account of inflation. Undoubtedly, there will be the additional expenses of setting up the devolved machinery and the inevitable costs of integration and amalgamation. I hope that we shall not undergo the sort of disappointing experiences that we had with the setting up of a different organisation, Scottish Enterprise, where, in real terms, we are not even receiving the standstill budget that we were promised on many occasions.

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : Does the hon. Gentleman propose that more money should be spent on those two organisations in future?

Mr. Dewar : I am saying that, if we give them increased responsibility and substantially increased costs of amalgamation that will eat into the money that they have for their central purposes, we must consider their position sympathetically. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who has sat through the debate with great patience, would be the first to agree. I suspect that it may be noticed that he has been drafted on to the Committee, on which I commiserate with him, but I look forward to his contributions in this debate.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Dumfries will undoubtedly be on the Committee--he cannot escape and I know that he has a great deal of expertise to offer as a member of the national Nature Conservancy Council in recent years. The hon. Member for Wyre will be one of the--to use an ugly term--"outlanders" serving on the Committee. I hope that, for all that, he will take a constructive part, not simply as the chorus in unison as the Whips instruct when there are Divisions.

Mr. Mans : How can the hon. Gentleman say that?

Mr. Dewar : I am delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he would be incapable of such a spineless approach.

I have detained the House long enough. There are undoubtedly sensitive issues at stake. Subtle and often conflicting pressures arise. The Opposition's only wish is to get the Bill right and try to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage gets off to a sound start and provides an effective framework for the future.

5.19 pm

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : I am full of enthusiasm for the Bill and warmly thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for introducing it, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for his comments. I shall pick up the hon. Gentleman's two major criticisms of clauses 5 and 11, but I was pleased by his overall approach to what looks like being a constructive and interesting Committee stage.

Column 646

Those who read, and the luckier ones who listened, to the speech by Magnus Magnusson to a forum on Skye on 2 February will have been uplifted by what he said. He brilliantly set out an agenda for Scottish Natural Heritage, and his hopes, aspirations and determination to carry through a wide remit.

Magnus Magnusson was full of positive thinking on how the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland would be welded together in a year's time, and how each had much to give each other. The future holds no bounds. I should like to quote the distinguished director of the NCC for Scotland, Dr. John Francis, who has been supportive in the consultative and legislative period. He said :

"Conservation will ride on the crest of a wave."

That is true, and although few hon. Members are present, we are laying down legislation of which all of us will be proud in the future.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to my involvement in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and since then as a member of the Nature Conservancy Council. I am confident that we are taking an important step forward, because we have the will, the resources and the vision. It is up to us in Scotland to prepare the rightful destiny for our conservation, wildlife and heritage. That contrasts with the rather negative thinking of the NCC in Peterborough when this original concept was introduced. It found difficulty with many solutions, but the majority of council members welcomed the devolution of the NCC to England, Wales and Scotland. Two important steps were taken that removed many of the original doubts, the first of which was the introduction of the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Frederick Holliday ; nobody could have been more involved in conservation than him, besides being a distinguished scientist. The second step was to overcome the criticism that there would be inadequate resources.

We should consider the Government's response to that criticism. For England, Wales and Scotland in 1990-91, £45 million was given to the Nature Conservancy Council, whereas, for 1991-92, the Government have announced that England will receive £32.4 million, Scotland £19 million, Wales £14.5 milion and the residuary body, which is tying up the loose ends, £1 million, making a total of £67 million, and £1 million for the pension fund. In real terms, £22 million extra will be spent on nature conservation, which is far more than most of the voluntary organisations, and certainly the Nature Conservancy Council, thought that the Government would give in this financial year, bearing in mind the fact that the economic situation is not as easy as we should like.

During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill, I was surprised that the Opposition were so opposed to the devolution of the three nature conservancy councils. I am glad that they have been converted to common sense and see the way forward. Rightly, the issue of staff was frequently raised in debates on the devolution of the three NCCs. However, they were reassured by Ministers, and rightly so, because we need more staff. I acknowledge that some staff might experience inconvenience in moving from one area to another, but I am sure that they will feel part of a significant whole.

Column 647

Mr. Dalyell : Is the hon. Gentleman confident that he can persuade his Government of the need to give money to pay the new staff whom he says are needed?

Sir Hector Monro : As the hon. Gentleman knows, they are civil servants, and their pay is agreed between the Government and the civil service. They are on the payroll of the Government. The staff are in place, are enjoying their work and are looking forward with confidence.

I have been a long-term advocate of devolving the three NCCs, and I welcomed the publication of "Scotland's Natural Heritage : The Way Ahead" in 1989. I have always felt that, if anything needs a local touch, it is nature conservation, but that that was not being achieved when the NCC was based in Peterborough. It lacked credibility as one saw when one spoke to people in Caithness and Sutherland. Scotland will have its own scientific team, which will have the opportunity of using the immense resources of the Scottish universities to help with conservation and research. Whether it be based in Edinburgh, Battleby or wherever--I should hate to lose Battleby or our offices in Edinburgh--it will be a first-class step forward.

I must emphasise the quality of the chairmen of the three NCCs. Magnus Magnusson, the Earl of Cranbrook, who is one of the greatest authorities on the environment and the habitat, Michael Griffiths of the NCC of Wales and Fred Holliday of the JNCC would not have come forward if they were not confident that they would have the resources, teamwork and vision to proceed with the Government's proposals. I am glad that the rearguard action is now tailing off and that the new councils are settling down under their new chairmen and believe that the way ahead is all clear for conservation and the habitat. The opponents, or the last ditch, one might say, were in the other place. We have already heard about its debates on clause 11 and clause 5. The debate on clause 11 was on a procedural issue, because it had got into a bit of nonsense over it all and had to debate the wrong amendment in order to debate something at all. It then passed it without understanding the consequences.

It would be nonsense to re-notify all the sites of special scientific interest in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow knows, that was one of the early tasks of the NCC after the 1981 Act, and it has only just been completed after eight years of work. One's mind boggles at the thought of what the other place could impose on Scotland's natural heritage.

I see the point, made clearly by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that an SSSI is the subject of a scientific judgment and that, under the legislation, that judgment is not open to appeal. Many people would, of course, like to object. There are three matters to be considered. First, the judgment has to be scientific. Secondly, under our new regional structure we shall have four regions and many district offices. Thirdly, there will be new regional boards with local chairmen and local members and they will be able to explain to the owners of SSSIs exactly what they are trying to do and set out the scientific reasons. Such reasons must always be the test. Local consultations conducted by distinguished people will take the sting out of the matter. I am pleased at the membership of the new north-west region.

There will be deep argument in Committee about whether to have some sort of appeals body. It could well be on the lines of a regional advisory committee which

Column 648

deals with forestry. Such a committee consists of nine people, some of whom are appointed, and contains foresters, people from local authorities and those with an interest in the environment, and decides whether a planting grant is appropriate. Something along those lines, but not a judicial or statutory appeal body, could advise an owner on whether he had a case.

We need to deal with the officialdom of what is known in the SSSI world as the PDO, the potentially damaging operation. There are 25 or perhaps 50 things that one cannot do with one's own SSSI. People who look at that list tend to go into orbit and say, "This will ruin my estate for ever." However, when the prohibitions are looked at one by one, it will be seen that the NCC would allow about 99 per cent. of them. I appreciate Magnus Magnusson's view that the PDO system should be changed to a more friendly nomenclature--for example, "operations requiring consultation". That would go some way towards removing some of the present objections.

An area structure of four main regions with many regional offices is important. At the moment, the NCC in the west of Scotland is based on Loch Lomond. That covers the whole of Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway and is rather remote, even though there is an area office in Dalbeattie. To strengthen the NCC in Scotland, we will need more officers in Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Argyllshire. We must also keep a close watch on the island of Rhum, which is the jewel in the crown of the Nature Conservancy Council.

There is much to be pleased about. The Research and Development Board for Science will be based in Scotland, either in Edinburgh or Battleby. It will be under the chairmanship of Professor Dunnett and should do a great deal, especially to educate Scottish children about the importance of the Scottish environment.

The Countryside Commission for Scotland is under the excellent chairmanship of Roger Carr. One cannot speak about that commission without mentioning Jean Balfour who was chairman for 10 years and did a great deal to bring the Commission to life. The commission is only half the age of the NCC and could not be expected to have as much experience. However, it has completed much good work, including work on the southern upland way, which is known to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and has produced a book entitled "The Mountain Areas of Scotland" which will be one of our bibles in Committee. The book and its photographs of the magnificent landscape that we are setting out to protect show what the Bill is all about. The arguments about national parks are interesting, but I have the feeling that the wrong conclusion has been reached. When I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment one of my responsibilities was looking after the national parks and I do not think that a bureaucratic set-up on top of Scotland's own structure will sit comfortably in our land. That is worth a great deal of consideration in Committee.

The Committee will have much to discuss about marine nature reserves, a subject that is close to the heart of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. There is extreme difficulty in getting agreement among the many organisations involved in marine reserves. That is why there are only two--one in England and one in Wales. The Loch Sween project has been shuffling along for a long time. I sail on that loch and sometimes anchor my boat near where I think I might get

Column 649

a bottle of Drambuie. It is a beautiful place, except for the caravan sites on its shore, which are an eyesore. The problem is not on or under the water.

The Committee will discuss country traditions and, I hope, the importance to rural economies of country sports that bring so much money to them. We could look at the many problems such as the geese on Isla, a subject which is of interest to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). There are increasing stocks of barnacle and whitefront geese, but we never seem to find long-term answers to the problems.

There were lengthy debates in the other place about red deer. The Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 and the one that I put through the House in 1982 deal with that subject. We must strengthen the Red Deer Commission. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garscadden does not seem to agree. We must insist that Scottish Natural Heritage consults formally and statutorily with the Red Deer Commission. There must be some joint policy for red deer in Scotland. The Red Deer Commission has a great fund of knowledge, but it has had no way of getting its policies implemented in Scotland. That is the key point. We should not leave the matter to the NCC for Scotland. I am not at all happy about the policies on red deer followed by the NCC for Scotland, and I formally opposed them.

Mr. Dewar : I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to have some coherent policy on red deer. There are enormous arguments about the cull and the excess of hinds. Do we need the Red Deer Commission, or could the matter be taken over by Scottish Natural Heritage?

Sir Hector Monro : In that context, the composition of SNH is important. One needs people who have a feel for deer and who know something about them. Managing deer forests in Scotland to the best advantage has a long tradition. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are too many hinds and far too few stags. We must have a massive hind cull. That is not easy, because the day is short in the highlands, especially in the western highlands, and there is little time to go out and shoot hinds in January or thereabouts when the stalkers are doing their best. We must work on that.

The record of the NCC on red deer has not been good and that may be due to the lack of practical knowledge. Rhum has the finest deer herd in Scotland ; a policy of no culling, which was about to be started, would have destroyed the quality of the herd. The exception is the sanctuary area, where Professor Clutton-Brock runs so much good research with Fiona Guinness. Fortunately, we have changed the no cull policy.

I have not been the least bit happy with the issue of Craig Meagaidh, where we have wrongly made the habitat and the establishment of trees and vegetation of far greater importance than the deer, the herd of which has been dramatically reduced in number--I might even say that it had been slaughtered. That has immediate repercussions on the deer forests round about. We must look at them collectively, and that is why we must give much more importance to the Red Deer Commission and the formal relationship between it and SNH. We must get deer herd

Column 650

management in Scotland right, bringing in the owners and those who know something about the management of deer forests.

Mr. Maclennan : I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the Red Deer Commission and its role. Does not that example show that part of the difficulty that we face in bringing together all these different interests is that there is no ultimately truthful scientific view about what is the right thing to do? We are seeking to reconcile different interests, and if decision making is left in the hands of one body, instead of having a scientific answer, one has a value judgment.

Sir Hector Monro : The hon. Gentleman is probably right. It is a value judgment, and there are not scientific arguments. There are so many problems such as fencing, the Forestry Commission and even the price of venison, which varies significantly, depending on the price in the continental market and the development of farmed deer in Scotland. Despite this host of problems, as red deer mean so much to Scotland, we must make management of the herds a high priority. In Committee, we shall be looking at the marine nature reserves, nature conservation SSSIs and the Cairngorms, and all the problems that we have had there with tourist development. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, we shall want to look into the defintion and practical application of the proposed world heritage designation, of the Cairngorms. If we have too many different designations, we shall devalue them all. Nobody will know where we are.

The key issue is maintenance and development of the magnificent quality of our landscape. We must think in terms of environmentally sensitive areas, which are funded by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland rather than the environment side of the Scottish Office. This is an important way forward, and we should look towards developing environmentally sensitive areas in more parts of Scotland, so that those areas can receive management agreements, which are helpful when farming is going through such a difficult economic period, particularly in the hills. I cannot thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State enough for his announcement today of the significant increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance for the current year.

The other place was right to highlight the importance of economic development. Scotland's scenic beauty is also its workshop, and we must not forget those who live there all the year round in favour of concentrating on the tourists. This will inevitably mean that we shall deal with planning in Committee--a complicated issue in itself. I may raise parochial matters about the River Esk and the River Liddel, which pass through my constituency and which, for some incongruous reason, are managed through England because the mouth is in England, although 90 per cent. of the rivers are in Scotland. I hope that it will be in order for me to table an amendment to reverse this impossible situation.

The Bill has been framed with first-class intentions. We must keep in our hands during our debates, if we are strong enough to hold it up, the large White Paper "This Common Inheritance", which sets out the Government's overall objectives for the next decade, and it was published in the autumn. Together with the Bill, it makes Scotland's

Column 651

future look bright. Those of us who serve on the Committee will feel it a privilege to play a part in Scotland's future.

5.45 pm

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : I take exception to the title of the Bill. We are setting up not a natural heritage but an organisation to protect our natural heritage. That may be a grammatical point, but we should get things right in the first instance. The Bill is about conservation.

I regret that the Bill has no provision for national parks. A brief general enabling clause giving Scottish Natural Heritage permissive powers to make recommendations for national parks, subject to regulations, should be included in the Bill. This follows from the Countryside Commission report of December 1990 entitled "The mountain areas of Scotland". As the Secretary of State said, the report recommends the establishment of four national parks in Scotland--the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area, Ben Nevis and Glencoe, and Black Mount and Wester Ross. England has seven national parks and Wales has three, all or which have done well over the past 40 years. Sadly, Scotland has no national parks, and after 40 years, it is time for us to catch up. The English and Welsh authorities refer to their national parks as jewels in their crowns, and the same would be true of any Scottish national park.

I know that the Government intend to seek world heritage listing for the Cairngorms and that a working party has been set up under Magnus Magnusson to advise the Secretary of State on the longer-term management of that area. In the other place, Lord Strathclyde said that it was not the Government's desire to pre-empt the possibility of the area becoming a national park. Those to whom I have spoken who have been associated in my area are suspicious about this move. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

The House of Lords did not debate the concept of national parks, but a major debate is developing in Scotland. Three of the four areas that the Countryside Commission for Scotland recommended should become national parks are much bigger and more remote than English national parks. However, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area has more in common with the Lake district and Snowdonia. I realise that the debate on the national parks is not homogenous, so I shall make the case for the Loch Lomond area.

We need national parks because many more people come to the mountain areas. That certainly applies to the Loch Lomond area. We are only a stone's throw from Glasgow and many tourists come from there. It is a delicate area of outstanding beauty with wonderful landscapes and wildlife and recreational facilities, but sadly, we do not have the infrastructure and resources to cope with it. As long ago as 1945, the Government set up a committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Douglas Ramsay, to consider the establishment of national parks. The committee recommended that five national parks should be established in Scotland, including one at Loch Lomond. The case for the establishment of national parks in Scotland has thus been urged on Governments of all complexions for almost 50 years. The pressures on the area that I represent in part are intense. For example, the pressure created by visitors is greater there than anywhere else in Scotland, while the

Column 652

facilities and services are largely inadequate or substandard. It is estimated that more than £100 million worth of development is under way, or at the planning stage. That must be recognised by the Government generally and by the Secretary of State for Scotland specifically. The uniqueness of Loch Lomond must also be recognised. Fundamental changes are taking place in agricultural and forestry policies in the Loch Lomond area which could have far-reaching implications for local communities as well as for landscape, wildlife and recreational resources. We need a mechanism capable of focusing on such issues which is both comprehensive and co-ordinated and which would prepare and implement policies leading to the sound use and development of the area in the long term. At present, there is a fragmented approach. For example, four local authorities are involved in the planning and management of the present Loch Lomond regional park area, and there would be five such authorities under the proposed arrangement. Single interest agencies, such as those responsible for agriculture, forestry, tourism, wildlife and conservation, work within limited remits, although they are assuming increasingly overlapping responsibilities.

The authority responsible for regional parks attempts to adopt a comprehensive approach to the conservation and use of the Loch Lomond area, but its powers and resources are limited. Its ability to provide a lead in the co-ordination of policies is weak. For example, the authority is dependent on a minute of agreement which was entered into voluntarily by the four constituent authorities and could be disbanded at any moment.

There are minimum requirements if the area is to be adequately protected and if its recreational and economic potential sensibly realised in the local and national interests. First, there should be a clear statutory remit to guide planning and management policies which would recognise the need to realise recreational opportunities and to promote the economic and social interests of local communities while giving priority to conservation interests if significant conflicts arise between the desired objectives.

Secondly, there should be a statutorily based mechanism--a park authority-- with responsibility for developing comprehensive planning and management policies for the conservation and recreational use of the area and to promote the interests of local communities. Clearly, local communities suffer if their considerations are not adequately taken into account.

Thirdly, there should be a statutory requirement that the majority of members of the managing authority be composed of locally elected representatives. The Secretary of State has said that he will devolve powers ; let us therefore devolve powers in the most meaningful way by having elected representatives from the area so that the voice of the local community is heard and heeded and its wishes implemented. There is room, however, for the Secretary of State to reflect the national interest and to appoint members accordingly. That would ensure that a wide range of relevant experience, expertise and interest is represented on the authority.

There is no doubt that all that we are discussing requires money. If I remember rightly, the report of the Countryside Commission for Scotland estimated that the cost of four national parks would be £7.1 million, and that the Loch Lomond park would cost £2.1 million. The cost of the four parks would be well below the existing levels of

Column 653

grant that are made available to the English and Welsh national parks. It seems to me and to many others who have considered these matters that we are talking of quite a bargain.

Concern has been expressed about the different levels of support and warmth for the proposals before us. I realise that in some areas there is a divergence of view, but the principle of national park designation for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs has the strong support of the four constituent authorities which would be responsible for setting up the Loch Lomond park authority--Strathclyde and Central regional councils and Dumbarton and Stirling district councils. The two regional councils and the districts are ready to accept a national park. Dumbarton district council strongly supports the principle of delegation but has expressed reservations about the transfer of local planning powers to a new national park authority. The great issue has been resolved, however, and I submit that there is widespread support in my constituency for a Loch Lomond national park. I shall be happy to provide the Secretary of State with more evidence and information on that support. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would welcome any information that I was able to give him.

The circumstances in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs area are different in many material respects from those which apply in the other national park areas--the Cairngorms, Ben Nevis and Wester Ross. It is to be hoped that decisions taken in those areas will not be permitted to frustrate the long- held ambitions to establish a national park in the area that I represent in part. There was a case for a national park in the area 50 years ago, and I do not think that that case has diminished over the years. The requirement for a mechanism with a specific remit to focus on and seek to resolve the problems and opportunities to be found in a special part of Scotland is far more urgent today than it was in 1945. The proposals of the Countryside Commission for Scotland for national park designation would satisfy that requirement.

The proposals of the Countryside Commission for Scotland are based on a thorough scientific and social study. The commission has identified the Scottish mountain areas which are not most urgently in need of protection. The urgency that protection be afforded to them is as great in the area that I represent in part as it is elsewhere. The chairman of the Loch Lomond park authority, Councillor Duncan Mills, has said :

"It is ironic--

in terms of funding--

"that the national parks in England and Wales attract 75 per cent. grant aid from central government funds for all approved expenditure, while our expected contribution represents 30 per cent. of our commitments. I find this situation unsatisfactory knowing the quality of the landscape and the wild life resource of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and also the urgent need for sound management."

In a letter to the Secretary of State of 15 January, Councillor Mills reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the concern expressed by members of the park authority that the opportunity may be lost to take early action to establish a Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park if decisions are not taken now. He said :

"No doubt you will be aware of the longstanding desire by the local authorities concerned with Loch Lomond to see the area designated a National Park. The public consultation exercise which has followed publication of the Mountain

Next Section

Home Page