| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 665
an interest. I and almost everyone else who involved in leisure and recreation aviation and military aviation judged, first, that the airway was not required, and secondly, that it was in the wrong place. It took me six years to have it moved, but I succeeded in doing so, because the experts were wrong. We must always keep in mind when passing legislation the possibility that the experts are wrong. As I said, I support the paragraph which I read out, but if the scientific criteria are so good, the NCC will not have any difficulty with an appeals procedure.I have declared one interest. Another matter in which I have a considerable interest is caravanning. I have spent much of my adult life caravanning. I began as a young man, because it was the only way in which I could afford to take my young children off on the type of holiday they thought they should have. We grew to love caravanning. It has a particular appeal because of the freedom it gives. Anyone who began caravanning 40 years ago, as I did, and has compared it with caravanning today will recognise and acknowledge the tremendous improvements that have taken place in caravan sites and parks throughout the United Kingdom and Europe, and certainly in north America and Australia, where I have camped in caravans. Many of the improvements have been brought about by the demands of the customers and the commercial pressures applied by them.
The people who live in the countryside--the landowners, farmers, crofters and those who are involved in supplying leisure and recreational facilities --have an interest in maintaining the quality of their environment. They do not wish to destroy it, because if they did so no one would visit it. It is as simple as that. They have a vested interest in maintaining the quality and value of the environment, whether for skiing, sailing or any of the other many lovely recreational activities of which we have an abundance in Scotland.
We should recognise that one thing that we have in substantial quantity in Scotland is land. We still have huge areas of what could best be described as wilderness. There are advantages in developing the wilderness into recreational areas. There are those who argue that we should leave the wilderness as it is, but on that basis we would not have a chairlift in Glen Shee or the lovely sailing facilities which we have on so many of our lochs. We would not have walks and hill climbs and all the other facilities, such as hang gliding, which did not exist a few years ago.
Yet all those facilities provide opportunities for the leisure and recreational use of the countryside. When one is putting on the statute book legislation which deals with conservation, I repeat that there must be a balance. Conservation does not mean leaving things as they were from the beginning of time. That could well mean that we should be legislating to do nothing. At the end of the day, we would restrict various activities.
I often think of the facilities which were provided in my constituency by the Victorians. They planted trees so that pheasants could be bred. Dry stone walls were built for obvious reasons--to maintain the livestock and keep them in. The walls were put there not by God but by man. If man is required to change things which man has put there, there must be a logical debate about it and a balance. We
Column 666
cannot simply fossilise things as they are now. We must recognise and acknowledge that change is not necessarily all bad, any more than it is necessarily all good.No one argues that merging the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland is not a good step. We may debate some of the detail but we welcome it. I wish to put in a bid for the new headquarters to be located at Battleby, in my constituency, where the facilities are superb. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister is not listening. There cannot be better facilities anywhere. I hope that the new body will be established at Battleby. The new body can be assured of the support of the local Member of Parliament. Indeed, it will have the support of two local Members.
The powers in the Bill to allow the abstraction of water for irrigation purposes and to control it under a simplified procedure are long overdue. Often, an area suffering from drought is almost cheek by jowl with another suffering from floods, so there must be something wrong with mankind's management of the environmental processes. Therefore, I welcome the measure.
I also welcome the powers to bring the water authorities' handling of deficiencies in supply in times of drought into line with that for England and Wales. I am fortunate to live in an area where the bulk of domestic and commercial water comes from splendid reservoirs built before the second world war. Those reservoirs supply the bulk of the needs of Tayside, and we are grateful that that is so. Other parts of Scotland are not so well provided for, and we must recognise that. On 20 July 1990, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), when launching the proposals for Scottish Natural Heritage in Edinburgh, said :
"its watchwords will be partnership, positive action, decentalised decision making and sound management advice."
I hope that, when we have finished with the Bill, it will lead to just that. As hon. Members have pointed out, there were problems with the early proposals, and it would be unwise not to recognise that. The new agency's aims will be to achieve a balance between the need for access to the countryside and the need to protect it. We must look carefully at planning, particularly for housing. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the weekend about rural housing. I hope that Scottish Homes, which has been looking into this matter, will bear in mind the need for low-cost housing to be developed in rural areas. We do not want to prevent people, whoever they may be, from coming. We want everyone to come, and we welcome them. We must ensure that, if someone can afford an inflated price for a property, the local community and its children who want to work and live there should not lose the opportunity to have a home. Certainly in Aberfeldy, there is plenty of work, but not nearly enough houses. We can look into that. The new body must play a major role in determining policies on land use and land management. What matters is the use of land and how it is managed, not who owns it. I do not care if the laird from the Labour party owns a substantial part of Scotland. It worries me not, because this particular laird is a good land user and manages it effectively. It does not matter who he is, where he is or what his background is. We must not include in the Bill doctrinaire impediments to the use or management of
Column 667
land. In my experience, it is dangerous to theorise too much about matters which are better dealt with by practical people.We must ensure that the development that takes place is sustainable ; we should not get involved in any development that is not. The development must also be in tune with the wider needs of conservation. Some hon. Members may think from what I have said so far that I am not keen on conservation. I am, but I am even keener on ensuring that my constituents do not have their livelihoods and futures put at risk because some individuals believe that they know best how land should be used.
There will be a great deal of agreement across the Committee on that. Plenty of Members who represent rural constituencies will probably serve on the Committee, which is no bad thing. Just as I recognise that I may not be the best person to talk about the needs of an inner-city area, so I sometimes think that I listen to people who do not know much about the needs of the more remote parts of my constituency.
The Government's record on spending money on environmental services is good. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that money was being given to one of Scotland's better known lairds. I do not care if money goes to lairds, provided that it is used effectively. It is not who is getting money, but the use to which money is put which matters. The Government's recent spending on conservation and water schemes has been commendable. That is not to say that future demands will not be still greater. There will always be a need to improve water services.
I mentioned an SSSI which affects my constituency. There are different pressures and demands in my constituency. For example, there is the need to extract barytes, which are the essential mineral for drilling oil in the North sea. We are fortunate in north Tayside in having huge deposits of the mineral. I say "fortunate", because it is good for the United Kingdom's economy that it happens to be strategically placed and relatively close to the oil drilling in the North sea.
On the other hand, that extraction creates problems locally. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be aware of my long-standing interest in this. Huge articulated vehicles, loaded up with logs and barytes, undoubtedly cause problems on our narrow country roads. We must look carefully at the impact that that has on the local community, as well as the economic needs of the nation. Attitudes to major roads, for example the A9, need to be substantially changed in the light of the extraction of barytes and the carriage of timber, so that my constituents and I are satisfied, the needs of economic activity in the North sea are met and the views of Her Majesty's Government are accommodated.
I welcome the farm woodland proposals. They have gone well, certainly in my constituency. I am not opposed to tree planting. I find it disturbing when trees are planted without consideration of the needs of the local area, such as natural views. As a large part of my constituency was covered by the Caledonian forest, if it was as it used to be, it would be largely trees. When conservationists come to me, as they do, I ask them what period of the land's history they wish to conserve. It is important that conservationists should tell us that.
We must balance the needs and economic demands of today with opportunities for people who live in the country to make a viable living, with opportunities for
Column 668
those who wish to use it for leisure and recreational purposes. My earlier comments will show that I am fully in favour of that. The new body will have huge responsibilities and will have to balance all those conflicting demands.In Committee, I hope that those of us who represent rural constituencies and who are constantly trying to balance the demands and pressures will be listened to and that our views will be those that emerge from the Committee.
7.9 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : I shall begin by correcting the false impression that may have been given by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). He suggested that the Labour party was opposed to the principle of devolution in environmental matters. Clearly, that is not so. If it were, we should be opposing the Bill, but we are not. The hon. Gentleman referred to our position last year on the Environmental Protection Bill. I served on the Committee considering that Bill and during its passage we made it clear that we did not oppose devolution of the Nature Conservancy Council. However, we were concerned that any future body set up to cover Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom should properly take into account its wider responsibilities in the European Community. That was our emphasis throughout the passage of the Bill and our concern was shared by many other bodies and groups.
The new agency will not relate only to the United Kingdom or to the wider environmental picture in Europe but downwards, so to speak, to the local communities and regions of Scotland. It is natural that much of today's debate has concentrated on the set of relationships which the new agency must develop with local communities on whose lifestyles and means of earning a living, the agency's decisions will have a profound effect. It is natural that many of the comments of hon. Members of all parties have focused on that set of relationships.
There has been much discussion about the fate of clause 11, the existence of SSSIs, the reaction that they have caused in local communities, especially over the past decade, and the Government's proposal for a new designation, which they referred to as a natural heritage area. This is not a simple issue. It can be argued that clause 11 is a wrecking clause and must therefore be removed. It would be a mistake, however, to think that everyone who voted for clause 11 in another place or that everyone here who has sought to find some merit in the principles that they perceive to be behind it approaches it with the same point of view.
Some of those in another place wished to wreck the Bill. Others wished merely to retain their private landowning interests, privileges and powers without having those powers intruded upon in any way by the wider public interest. Others--I include the Liberal Democrats--expressed reservations about the SSSIs and the way in which the NCC has designated them. Many people have genuine concerns which are echoed throughout the highlands and islands and, certainly, in my constituency.
Although clause 11 must be removed, because the idea of a complete review of SSSIs is absurd and unworkable--especially within a specific time scale- -we need to reconsider the role of SSSIs in conservation in Scotland. I hope that the new agency will do that. There is a need to
Column 669
review the use and designation of SSSIs. I hope that my use of the word "review" is not taken to suggest that I am in favour of clause 11 ; I am not.It has been said that there are about 1,300 SSSIs. One must wonder whether the designation and selection of specific sites in such profusion is the correct way in which to approach conservation in Scotland. I argue not that SSSIs are too stringent or strict in their application but that they may be too narrow or restricted. In 1984 the NCC issued a statement entitled "Nature Conservation in Great Britain". It said that the value of conservation was not just scientific but educational, recreational, aesthetic and inspirational. I fear that concentrating purely on countless hundreds of SSIs has led even the NCC to neglect all those other elements. It has focused too narrowly on the scientific side of conservation and neglected the educational, recreational, aesthetic and inspirational aspects which it had said were equally important.
We must reconsider the role of SSSIs, not according to a timetable or to wreck the Bill, and certainly not to placate landowning interests, but to discover whether they are the best way to advance conservation in Scotland. To some extent, the very name "SSSI" is undesirable. One of the merits of the Bill, as claimed by the Government and supported by the Liberal Democrats' spokesperson, is that we could start with a clean slate--that it would be a good idea to start with a new name for the agency. It might be a good idea to start with a new name for SSSIs.
I fear that the name is guaranteed to alienate the ordinary public, especially those who live in the local community. They naturally dislike the image conjured up of their culture, society and villages being put under the microscope of a white-coated scientist. It would be appropriate to take the opportunity offered by this fresh start to consider renaming SSSIs "natural heritage sites" to fit in with natural heritage areas about which the Government have been talking. That term would perhaps carry wider connotations than the SSSIs previously focused upon.
We must find a name that will begin to embrace a wider philosophy of conservation--a name that will not focus simply on the scientific value of preserving the sites, but will take into account various other elements, which, in the context of Scotland's natural heritage, are of equal importance. The agency could usefully undertake that job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that there seems to be a growth of overlapping designations concerning conservation in Scotland. The agency might usefully look at the whole spread of designations with a view to rationalising or co-ordinating them. For example, they might be strengthened for the national scenic areas and expanded for environmentally sensitive areas. Indeed, environmentally sensitive areas were not mentioned by my hon. Friend. As the Minister will acknowledge, those areas are handled by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. None the less, they obviously impinge on environmental matters. The very fact that environmentally sensitive areas come under another department shows how complex and baroque the system of environmental designation has become.
Column 670
I hope that, in reviewing the current set of designations and the purely scientific focus of SSSIs, the agency will begin to develop a strategy that sees conservation not just as relating to designated sites--little islands of natural purity, almost cut off from the rest of the rural world--but as an integral part of the approach to the discharge of our responsibilities for the entire Scottish countryside. Our understanding of conservation and of heritage must become deeper and wider. We must develop a heritage philosophy that embraces not just natural heritage but language, such as Gaelic, the music and culture of the highlands and islands, and so on. My second point relates to another matter that has come up in this debate--the use of the phrase "sustainable development". There is a lack of clarity about the meaning of "sustainable development". It is not clear how it might be applied in the Scottish countryside. I hope that, however the Government eventually define the phrase, it will not be mere tokenism. I hope that the concept will not be used just to embrace the individual SSSIs, nature reserves and scenic areas that the new agency inherits. I hope that the philosophy of sustainable development will signal a new attitude towards the whole of our natural heritage throughout rural Scotland.Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of the difficulty of balancing conservation with other interests--development and leisure. Skiing and caravanning have been mentioned. Clause 3 makes provision for the new agency to take into account the needs of those involved in agriculture, fishing and so on. To my mind, instead of trying to balance development and conservation, we should try to find ways of integrating the two, so that they might work hand in hand to a greater extent. We need a serious and concentrated effort to address current practices in agriculture, crofting, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture--all with the aim of achieving sustainable development. The case should be obvious to anyone who has looked at what has happened in the fisheries industry in recent years. The crisis in the industry is due precisely to the failure to apply a philosophy of sustainable development in that area of economic activity. There will be a revival of the fisheries only when development and conservation are seen to be working hand in hand. The same is true of every other economic activity undertaken in rural areas--whether in fishing, aquaculture, tourism, oil, or in the mineral extraction in the Minches off the west coast of Scotland which is envisaged in the very near future. Before even embarking on the development of any of these economic activities, we must try to match them with the philosophy of sustainable development. That is a huge and absolutely critical task that must be undertaken if we are genuinely to move away from the narrow, scientifically focused approach to conservation that has been adopted in recent years. A new agency, almost, is needed to carry out the task. Indeed, in a paper submitted to the Scottish Office by the World Wide Fund for Nature, Simon Pepper recommends setting up a new rural resources commission, which would try to undertake the task of integrating conservation and development in Scottish rural areas. So far as I know, the Government have not responded to that submission. I doubt whether there is much prospect of our getting such a new commission, but I hope that, if we cannot have a new agency to carry out this central task, the new natural
Column 671
heritage agency will set up a committee to examine the issue and to apply rigorously the approach of sustainable development throughout the Scottish countryside.My final point follows naturally from the two previous ones. It is one that has been mentioned by several Conservative Members. Behind this entire debate is the land question. We cannot talk about sustainable development or about conservation without talking also about the use and abuse of Scotland's fundamental rural resource--land. When we talk about land, we must inevitably consider land ownership. All I want to do at this stage is to flag the issue as being still important and to make two specific proposals, which I hope will be pursued at the later stages of the Bill.
The first is that there should be an end to all secret management agreements between public agencies, including the new heritage agencies, and private landowning interests, regarding SSSIs, nature reserves or any other designated sites. The World Wide Fund for Nature has also said that the last publicly available management plan in respect of the Cairngorms nature reserve expired in 1969 and that, since then, there has been no public access to management agreements between the public agencies and the private landowning interests. That is absolutely intolerable and it should not be allowed to continue. That is a simple but worthwhile change that the Bill could be used to pursue.
My second specific suggestion is that all land sales and purchases over a minimum size in the highlands and islands should, in future, be subject to an environmental order and a review by the natural heritage agency before they are allowed to proceed. Conservative Members may not take to that suggestion initially, but I ask them to keep an open mind and to consider it as we deliberate the Bill--after all, the principle is not new. Industrial takeovers and purchases are monitored by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to ensure that they do not diminish competition in industry, but rather enhance it. Therefore, why not monitor large transfers and takeovers of estate lands in the highlands and islands to assess whether they contribute to, or detract from, conservation and the enhancement of our natural heritage? Such a move would cost the taxpayer very little and would be worth while for the new agency, or a committee of the agency specifically set up for that purpose, to undertake. It would provide great gains to the public and the national interest, not least in helping to puncture some of the feverish and speculative activity in land sales in the Scottish highlands and islands.
Finally, a thread that has been running through the debate has been the issue of the new site for the headquarters of natural heritage agency. I have no interest in the matter--I am certainly not about to propose my constituency as a suitable site. However, I acknowledge the Minister's comments about the wish to devolve to the affected regions as much as possible of the administration of the agency's activities. I am sure that the Minister is already aware that the region of Scotland that will be by far the most affected by conservation groups and the new agency is the highlands and islands. Therefore, I strongly urge him to consider a site there. To my mind, the most appropriate place would be the fastest-growing town in Scotland in the past decade--Inverness. We must begin to devolve administrative structures to regional level. Let us
Column 672
not stop at devolution from Peterborough to Edinburgh, but continue it further and take it right into the highlands and islands. 7.32 pmMr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). We had many happy moments in Standing Committee of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and, during that time, many of us were impressed by the hon. Gentleman's arguments, his logic and, above all, his common sense. I particularly agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks on SSSIs--or "triple SIs", as the hon. Gentleman calls them. There are roughly 1 million hectares designated as SSSIs which is about 10 per cent. of the total land surface. There has been considerable controversy over the designation of some of those SSSIs. I shall not repeat some of the examples given in another place by a number of our noble Friends who spoke on Second Reading, but there have obviously been examples in which SSSIs have been imposed with too little sensitivity, too hurriedly, and without enough consultation.
The Secretary of State said that he would consider the way in which SSSIs are implemented in the future, but did not say whether he would look at existing SSSIs and whether there was any possibility of reviewing their terms and conditions. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with that matter when he winds up. Although I support the Bill, many people will agree that it is long overdue. It is important to bring nature conservation down to a grass-roots level. It is only sad that we are not introducing a similar Bill for England. I support the idea of making such a logical move, which is apparently widely supported. Indeed, I have looked long and hard for people with arguments against it or ill words to say about it, and I have found very few.
I particularly approve of the approach taken by various local authorities, which recognise that they have a role to play under the new structure and appear to be looking forward to it. Certainly, the old system, whereby the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland delivered nature conservation from its headquarters in Peterborough--a location not far from my constituency, but very remote from the constituencies of many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members--meant that it could not do a proper job. The idea of an integrated approach to bring together the two main organisations makes a lot of sense. I welcome the appointment of Magnus Magnusson as chairman. I hope that his appointment will be bolstered by the appointments of many other able council members. Will the Minister consider that?
Having read carefully some of the speeches made in another place, and having listened to much of the debate this evening, I am concerned about a document that has been published recently entitled "The Mountain Areas of Scotland," on conservation and management. The Secretary of State and the Shadow Secretary of State both mentioned that document, as did several hon. Members. It may be a worthy document in some respects, but I am worried about some of the statements in it, which appear to be pretty hostile to the farming community and the way in which it has managed its affairs over the years.
The document states :
Column 673
"A sense of injury about land tenure continues in the Highlands today."The document also suggests draconian new powers when it says : "To manage land and co-ordinate other land-controlling organisations ; to impose their management orders as a last resort ; to purchase land, compulsorily where necessary ; to introduce byelaws to control nuisances ; and to enter into management agreement to secure access."
Mr. Wilson : I should like some clarification before we proceed further. The hon. Gentleman quotes the document as saying that a sense of injury persists in the highlands about land tenure today. Is he saying that that is an inaccurate statement of the position?
Mr. Bellingham : I did not say that the statement was inaccurate, but I do not like its tone. It implies that the farmers, crofters and landowners have not done their stuff in terms of managing the local environment. I believe that they have, and that there is no need for draconian powers.
Mr. Wilson : The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the statement. I am sure that the sense of injury referred to derives not from the activities of farmers or crofters, but from those of people who are rather better known to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bellingham : We shall debate those matters further in Committee. The general tone of the document and the way in which it suggests a form of interventionism would not appeal to the Minister.
Mr. Bill Walker : My hon. Friend should not pay too much attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), because he has a pathological hatred of landowners. I speak on behalf of the landowners in my constituency. They are good landowners, who practice good husbandry of the land and have good relations with the people who work for and with them.
Mr. Bellingham : I am grateful for that intervention. There is no doubt that the vast majority of Scottish landowners manage their estates with considerable ability and ingenuity. Furthermore, they look after the people who work for them and ensure that the rural economy is maintained better than it would be if they did not take such an approach.
Criticism is made in "The Mountain Areas of Scotland" of the way in which landowners have constructed tracks and roads across properties and have managed their forestry, red deer population and public access. I have been fortunate enough to spend much time holidaying and travelling around Scotland, particularly the Western Isles and the west coast of Scotland. I agree with those criticisms to some extent, but in the main they are not justified. The way in which the majority of farmers and landowners have managed the uplands compares favourably with the way in which the uplands of England have been managed.
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : The hon. Gentleman is saying, and few people will disagree with him, that the majority of landowners and estate owners are responsible and sensitive. Nevertheless, he must accept that a minority have built roads across the landscape, particularly in the Cairngorms, and absentee
Column 674
landlords have not entered into management agreements on sensitive and important habitats. Those people represent a small minority, but there must be power to deal with them. How can the hon. Gentleman criticise that?Mr. Bellingham : I appreciate that it is a small minority, but the suggestion is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The majority of wayward landowners who have abnegated their responsibilities are slowly being brought to heel, and many existing powers are being enhanced without the new suggested structure, which will be extremely bureaucratic. The hon. Member for Garscadden spoke in detail about the problems facing the red deer population in Scotland. I am not an expert, but a possible way forward would be to repeal the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 to allow the reintroduction in the highlands of the wolf and wild boar. I know that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has been critical of the landed community, but if he is prepared to assist in repealing that Act, it would bring in much-needed extra revenue by increasing sporting activities, and every year an average of 10 lairds would be eaten. I am sure that he would go along with that.
We have problems with the suburban fox. One of the disadvantages of my scheme might be the emergence of the suburban wolf, or packs of them. The advantage is that it would inject new urgency into the Government's rough sleeping initiative, which many feel is long overdue.
The wild boar could easily be reintroduced in the highlands. Scottish Natural Heritage could make a priority of a study into the reintroduction of the wild boar--I see the hon. Member for Western Isles nodding--and the feasibility of reintroducing the wolf. The main reason why both animals have become extinct is the removal of natural forestry and woodland in Britain. Since 1919, there has been a considerable increase in afforestation north and south of the border. I do not see why those two animals could not be reintroduced into their natural environment, bringing back important revenue to upland areas and adding to the natural heritage.
Mr. Wilson : On an experimental basis, will the hon. Gentleman consider the reintroduction of the wolf to north-west Norfolk before its reintroduction to the highlands?
Mr. Bellingham : I must be fair to the hon. Gentleman. Norfolk is not a well-wooded area, and it is heavily populated. I can envisage some landowners in Norfolk welcoming the return of the wolf and wild boar. One landowner who farms not far from King's Lynn and who owns the biggest estate in my constituency--I cannot mention her name in the House--would welcome the return of the wild boar because it would add to the list of animals that can be hunted. However, the obvious place to make these reintroductions would be the highlands. I am pleased that it appears that I have the support of the hon. Member for Western Isles.
The farming and landowning community in Scotland has been criticised for insensitive afforestation, particularly of certain straths and glens, which has damaged the environment and river catchment areas. It is only fair to examine the role of the Forestry Commission, which has sometimes set a bad example. Until recently, its grant regime militated against the planting of hard woods. I join the hon. Member for Garscadden in looking forward to a much more responsible planting regime and more
Column 675
emphasis being placed on hardwoods, oaks, poplars, birches and other woods more in keeping with Scotland's natural heritage. The afforestation of glens had damaged fisheries. Fisheries on the River Oykell and River Brora have been adversely affected by afforestation carried out by the Forestry Commission. The run-off has been greatly enhanced, so in heavy rain the river rises more quickly and bursts its banks, but it goes down quickly. Migratory fish come too fast up the river when it is in spate, with the result that fisheries are adversely affected, which in turn has a damaging effect on rural economies.I know that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North will agree with that, because he is aware of the importance of fisheries to the local economy and of the fact that a rod-caught salmon is worth probably £150 to the rural economy, whereas a salmon caught in a net is probably worth the going rate in Aberdeen fish market. I know that, up to a point, poaching is acceptable in Scotland, but what is not acceptable any more is the degree of commercial netting of estuaries. It goes without saying that some of the worst offenders are the owners of riparian fisheries.
Mr. Wilson : I am obliged for the opportunity to dissociate myself from what I was assumed to agree with. The netting of salmon is an ancient and honourable rural occupation in Scotland. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman added the caveat that much of the most ruthless commercial netting is done by riparian owners, who will hound and persecute a local person who is netting a few salmon but at the same time net salmon illegally and in huge quantities to make large profits for themselves. We both know of an estate on the island of Lewis that is more guilty perhaps than any.
Mr. Bellingham : I shall not comment on that estate, in case I am not asked back there to fish.
Riparian owners have carried out excessive netting in some Scottish rivers. Some fishery owners rightly protect their fishing and will do what they can to prevent poaching. However, there are exceptions because some riparian landowners engage in commercial netting. The worst possible example is to be found on the Tay, where the riparian owners of two major salmon fisheries, both of them lucrative and sought after, are among the biggest commercial netters on the Tay. That is totally unacceptable.
We must address the problem of the Northumberland drift net fishery. Drift net fishing is illegal in Scotland, and if we are to combat it, especially off the west coast of Scotland, we must tackle the wanton destruction of fish stocks by large commercial poachers. Poaching for the pot for local people may be acceptable, but totally unacceptable is the increase of poaching using long monofilament drift nets. Last summer, a couple of trawlers were apprehended which between them had 10 miles of monofilament drift net. It is difficult for us to criticise that while we condone the Northumberland drift net fishery. I shall not go into too much detail on that, but we know that it takes many fish every year. Livelihoods depend on it, but many more depend on wild salmon running up Scottish rivers. I wish the new body well and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that it takes an urgent look at the relationship between fisheries, the rural economy and the part played by wild migratory fish in the natural heritage.
Column 676
I also urge him to ensure that such a study encompasses fish farms and the demise of sea trout off the west coast of Scotland and the Western Isles.There is plenty of anecdotal evidence pointing to appalling reductions in the runs of sea trout. Two examples are Loch Maree and the River Gruinard where large runs of sea trout have dropped to virtually zero. That has had an appalling effect on local hotels, the local economy and tourism. One possible explanation is the big increase in salmon farming and the placing of salmon cages in the mouths of rivers that are used by migratory sea trout. No one seems to know the exact cause of the demise. However, we do know that salmon farms have the potential for creating disease and for distorting local marine ecosystems. There is plenty of evidence showing the extent to which that has happened in Norway. I urge the Minister to look carefully at this matter and to persuade the new body to include it in a report on fishing. Migratory fish do not just contribute to the economy but are a part of the natural heritage. That is enough about fishing. I welcome the Bill's provisions about irrigation. There is a need for wider control of the use of water for irrigation throughout this country. Arguably, there is less need for such control in Scotland, and the structure that the Bill seeks to introduce would fit happily into East Anglia, parts of which have excessive irrigation from small watercourses. That irrigation continues even after drought orders, when most rivers are running low.
Last summer in my constituency, the National Rivers Authority applied to abstract water from the greensand layer--that is, from below groundwater level, to try to ensure a greater flow in the River Nar at West Acre. One way to solve such a problem is to reduce irrigation. I urge the water plcs and the NRA to consider pressing for England and Wales to have the legislative structure of this Scottish Bill. I welcome the Bill, but it is a pity that we will not have a similar one for England and Wales.
Some hon. Members have said that people who own and farm and play a part in Scotland's environment are but temporary custodians of that part of our national heritage. Scotland is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. I have been fortunate enough to travel around most countries in Europe, and for outstanding natural beauty, Scotland is way ahead of all of them. It is fitting that we should play a part in a Bill that will help to protect that natural heritage and will make it easier for the temporary tenants and custodians better to manage the environment. I am pleased to support the Bill. 7.56 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : It is grotesque for the House to be discussing this subject, important though it is to us all, when we should have an opportunity to discuss the Gulf and the bombing of Basra. I have been lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate on the Gulf tomorrow night. When one thinks of the issues that are involved, one asks how we can spend six hours on this measure and make do with an Adjournment debate on the Gulf. I do not understand the priorities. However, I shall leave the matter there.
I express genuine concern about the opening speech. I had imagined that, as soon as the matter of the Lords amendment was raised, the Minister would give an easy and unequivocal undertaking to try to reverse it. That
Column 677
would have had the support of the Opposition. When two of us on the Back Benchers and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pressed the Secretary of State for Scotland, his answer was very different. He said that something would come forward but not "in that form". I invite the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to tell me whether I have misunderstood in any way. Is he prepared to say exactly what the Government think about the Lords amendment? He does not seem very happy about it.The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : My right hon. Friend made it clear that the clause is unacceptable and technically defective. I shall speak about that in my winding-up speech.
Mr. Dalyell : That is exactly what troubles me. The Minister speaks of "some technical flaw" and says that it is not technically all right, but this is a matter of principle--it is central to the Bill. I shall have to talk to my hon. Friends, but I am tempted to vote against the Bill, because it is not what we were presented with or what we thought we were coming to discuss when we arrived here at 3.30.
I shall briefly go over the facts as I understand them. On the evening of 22 January, a group of Peers consisting of mainly of Scots succeeded in forcing through an amendment to the Bill that would effectively undo all the work on sites of special scientific interest in Scotland undertaken since the enactment of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There is no doubt about that. I served on the Committee which examined the Bill which became that Act, and this change is a torpedo amidships. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who knows a lot about these matters and the legislation pertaining to them, is nodding his head in agreement.
The changes to the Bill will make any new nature conservation work in Scotland subject to a veto by local landed interests. Do the Government deny that? I do not think that they do. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who is a lawyer, and who could take a different point of view, does not dispute it. Such work would be subject to a veto.
The change would open up the prospect of the boundaries of SSSIs in Scotland being redrawn at the behest of large landowners. That is precisely what conservationists feared when the abolition of the NCC was announced in July 1989.
Mr. Maclennan : The hon. Gentleman gave the misleading impression that I accepted his interpretation of clause 9. However, I see no way in which the unravelling of the designations that have already been made would flow from it. "Review" does not necessarily mean withdrawal of SSSI status. Nor does the proposal that there should be a local inquiry mean that the other place or any other landed interest would have a right of veto. The hon. Gentleman is giving a tendentious and rather dubious interpretation of the effect of clause 9.
Mr. Dalyell : I should like the Minister to comment on the hon. Gentleman's view. It is quite possible that he is right and my interpretation is wrong, but it is a view held by the trade union side of the NCC. Other people have
Column 678
interpreted it in the same way as I have, including Dr. Derek Ratcliffe, who was the chief scientist at Peterborough."But Government, both then and during the whole of 1990, constantly denied any intention to water down the NCC's powers when the new country agencies were established, saying that the changes were purely administrative. The amendments to the Bill however are very radical indeed and actually undermine the whole basis of the 1981 act in its application to Scotland. Their significance can hardly be overstated."
That is the trade union view and, I gather, one taken on legal advice.
The Government opposed both the crucial amendments, but although the Government spokesman condemned them in strong terms--such as "idiotic", "wasteful", "inefficient", "costly" and "technically flawed"--they were agreed to. The question asked by many of the staff is therefore this : was it a conspiracy or just a cock-up? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question.
The second issue is the extraordinary personal nature of the abuse heaped on the NCC staff by various peers in the debate. I read the debate and I was shocked by what was said.
Mr. Dalyell : My hon. Friend agrees with me. The staff in Scotland were caricatured as powerless puppets of the evil string-pullers in Peterborough. That was the view of Lord Dundee and Lord Taylor. Lord Grimond said that they were blindly "obstinate", mistaken and "pig-headed". Lord Burton spoke as though they were little better than clueless morons who had designated sites without knowing why and without even having visited them. That is bad. I could go through quotes from other peers, but suffice it to say that the facts were contorted. My concern is not so much that the peers made these statements : it is that the Minister did not refute them. When I invited the Secretary of State to do so, while he praised the staff, he did not refute those statements. The Government should stick up for their employees.
I have a specific question, for which I take responsibility. May we have the clear, categorical, unambiguous, uneconomical with the truth assurance that no one in the Scottish Office, either Minister or civil servant, had anything to do with the Pearson amendment? There was not, was there, any discussion with Lord Pearson about the amendment?
Mr. Maclennan : I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but in this matter of attitudes to civil servants, he is expressing views which are not consistent with his earlier expression of opinion. For example, in the case of the former head of the civil service, Lord Armstrong, the hon. Gentleman never called on the former Prime Minister to support Lord Armstrong when the hon. Gentleman considered that he was wrong. Similarly, he never called on the former Prime Minister to support Mr. Bernard Ingham when he thought that Mr. Ingham was wrong. Many people feel that some of the civil servants employed by the NCC have been extremely insensitive and, although the language used by Members in another place is sometimes colourful, as it was in that debate, there is at least as much feeling behind those remarks as there has been behind remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made about other civil servants on other occasions.
Column 679
Mr. Dalyell : I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the former Prime Minister's press secretary. I had better not be diverted.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : Nobody could have had a conversation along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests, because it would have been contrary to Government policy.
Mr. Dalyell : In that case, is that an assurance that no such discussions with Lord Pearson took place? If it is, I will accept it.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : Lord Pearson sent me the amendments shortly before the debate, but I had no discussions with him about them.
Mr. Dalyell : Then I shall continue with Lord Pearson, who appeared to invite any member of the Nature Conservancy Council staff in Scotland who intended to work for Scottish Natural Heritage, and who was committed to the principles embodied in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, either to abandon that commitment or to resign. Lord Dundee and Lord Taylor of Gryfe both represented NCC staff in Scotland as mere pawns in a game controlled by political grandmasters in Peterborough, a distortion of reality--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from the Official Report?
Mr. Dalyell : I am quoting from a letter written to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the staff side of the NCC on 31 January 1991.
| Next Section
| Home Page |