House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Feb 1991

Madam Deputy Speaker : That is permissible, but I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would paraphrase to some extent and not quote quite so much from the letter.

Mr. Dalyell : Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House by quoting at length. I think that the general point has been made.

Mr. Morley : Apart from the insults that were levelled at members of the NCC by those in another place, some of their Lordships' comments were extremely inaccurate. It was alleged that the NCC had declared that certain sites were sites of special scientific interest for no reason, or for reasons of which it was not aware. Such assertions were complete and utter nonsense. One Member of another place talked about a site being declared an SSSI because of mysterious circles in a field. That and many other assertions were rubbish. We should understand that some people pick up these statements and take them to be true when they are merely allegations without foundation. They merely represent the blind prejudice that is directed towards a public body that is doing its job.

Mr. Dalyell : My hon. Friend's intervention reflects the fact that some decent people who work for the Government service and who have given their lives to that service are extremely angry about the way in which they have been treated. I, too, am angry because I know some of the people concerned. I shall use just one more quotation. It comes from the letter of 28 January from Dr. Derek Ratcliffe, which was addressed to the Secretary of State. The third paragraph ends as follows :

Column 680

"Some of the remarks about scientists and staff at the NCC, made under the protection of parliamentary privilege, are openly insulting to people who cannot reply. They deserve an apology."

Will that apology be forthcoming?

I concede that in a sense it is not for Ministers to make the apology, other than in one respect. Would they have preferred their colleague, who is a Minister in the other place, to be a little more robust in defence of the staff of the NCC? I hope that that issue will be settled today as I would not want it to pervade, in rather bad blood, discussion on the Bill. It is something that had better be ironed out soon. It is a potential cancer. The Under-Secretary of State, who is a sensitive man and one who is concerned about people, had better give his attention to what has happened and try to iron out the real difficulties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe and others have referred.

I have time for just one other point. During the passage of the 1981 Act, there was considerable discussion of marine nature reserves. Some of us have been concerned that it has taken so long to establish what we believe is a worthwhile aspect of their work. I give the Minister warning that, if I am a member of the Committee which considers the Bill, I shall wish to pursue the proposal for a United Kingdom coastal zone management plan, which Dr. Gubbay and others have put forward. They and I regard such a plan as extremely important.

I am aware that there are others who wish to contribute to the debate, but I make no apology for trying to get out of the way the ambiguity--to use a generalised term--about what has happened. I should have made a different speech if the Secretary of State had replied differently to my original question.

8.14 pm

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : I shall be brief, as I have only a few remarks to make on the Bill, which follows on naturally from the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I was fortunate to be a member of the Committee which considered that measure and it examined the Nature Conservancy Councils and the Countryside Commission at some length. It is good that there seems to be more agreement about this Bill than there was in the debates on the Environmental Protection Bill, which led to the splitting up of the NCC among the three countries of the United Kingdom.

One objective of the 1990 Act which I welcomed especially was the introduction of better regulation to encourage the protection of the environment. More specifically, it was designed to ensure that that regulation was at the right level. On the one hand, we had the strengthening of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the introduction of integrated pollution control. On the other, the Bill considerably increased powers for local authorities to deal with the better clearing up of litter, for example. A regulation under the 1990 Act to that effect is coming into force this week and I am sure that that measure will be welcomed by everyone.

The provisions in the 1990 measure that were designed to protect the countryside were probably the most controversial parts of it. There were lively debates on whether the work done by the NCC at Peterborough was right. Hon. Members debated whether the NCC was too remote from what was taking place at ground level, or whether, as a result of a centralised, bureaucratic

Column 681

structure, a more overall view could be taken of the protection of the environment throughout the British isles. The result of those debates was the splitting up of the NCC.

We now see the second phase of that discussion and the ensuing decision, the coming together of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. I believe that it is clearly the way in which we should proceed. The level of regulation is about right, but it is always difficult to reconcile the needs of the professionals when it comes to protecting the environment with those of the people who live in the regions, especially when they are remote from the centre.

We see plenty of examples of that elsewhere, most notably in planning. For example, the Council for the Protection of Rural England rightly wants to ensure that measures associated with new housing estates, new roads and new infrastructure projects do not destroy the countryside. Local people see the need for certain measures to be implemented, only to find that their wishes are thwarted by national or even Europewide bodies, which override their wishes. It is important that we involve people locally as much as possible. The structure that is being created by the Bill will work in the right way. If we are to secure the proper protection and improvement of our environment, we must involve those who live in the areas concerned.

I read with interest some of the remarks in the debate in another place. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, some of the language was most colourful. That showed the tremendous interest of those in another place in matters associated with the environment. Their Lordships may not always agree with various people's points of view, but their language shows

Mr. Morley : I do not necessarily disagree with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he agree with me, however, that some of their Lordships, and especially Lord Burton, who is a landowner, were acting in a way which in local government would be considered corrupt? Lord Burton was tabling amendments to benefit himself--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman should be careful with his language, as he well knows, when referring to Members in another place.

Mr. Morley : I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am choosing my words very carefully in making the point that, in local government, such behaviour would be considered totally corrupt. The peers in question took that action in their own interests--not for the sake of nature conservation or the wider community, which includes those like myself who do not live in Scotland, but respect and appreciate its heritage. The hon. Gentleman must share my concern about the future.

Mr. Mans : The hon. Gentleman makes his own point. I prefer not to comment on any speech made in another place, but at least the debate showed that interest in, and concern about, the environment exists at all levels. Although some right hon. and hon. Members may not

Column 682

hold the same view as some of their Lordships, the fact that the environment can be the subject of lively debate in another place must be a good thing.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) feels strongly about some issues and I respect him for that. I know that he did not favour the original proposals, but I am uncertain of his views on the Bill now before us. Perhaps it moves more in the direction he wants, but I shall not comment further on what was said in another place.

Regulation and the involvement of the community is vital in protecting the environment, and alienation of local people from regulating organisations can only have an unsatisfactory outcome, with some distance being created between those responsible for enforcing the regulations and those who will, in many cases, suffer as a consequence.

The Bill encourages greater involvement between the voluntary and private sectors, local communities and academic and research institutes which will be of great benefit in developing a better environment. It should also help to create among the staff themselves a better understanding and awareness of the wide range of local needs and attitudes. The Bill builds effectively on the results already achieved by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, by bringing together two important institutions and making them more effective in tackling matters of concern to not only people in Scotland but those, like myself, who live in England but often visit Scotland. In that regard, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who has detailed knowledge of the fishing industry and of the position in Scotland--

Mr. Wilson : For the hon. Gentleman to claim that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has detailed knowledge of the Scottish fishing industry is curious. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North- West has detailed knowledge only of the sporting estates of the western isles and highlands. I am sure that he would claim no more. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) is confused if he imagines that Conservative Members who hold forth on the sporting estates of Scotland are authorities on that country and its people.

Mr. Mans : I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I should have used the words "sport fishing." I made that mistake because, as I have a port in my constituency, I often speak about the relationship between the English and Scottish fishing industries. However, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, my hon. Friend was speaking only about sport fishing.

I believe that we have reached the stage at which we have got environmental protection in Scotland just about right. The Bill goes in a direction that I would like to be followed in respect of Wales and England. Much attention has been paid to the Scottish environment, and rightly so, but I hope that the measures that will flow from the Bill will progressively be adopted for England and Wales as well. 8.24 pm

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), in a thoughtful speech, pointed up the consensus that has been reached in respect of the Bill. I welcome the creation of an overall Scottish body that will bring greater integration to the task of environmental

Column 683

protection in Scotland. However, I am disappointed with the Bill's powers and remits. A great opportunity has been lost to create a fully financed and empowered Scottish environmental protection agency instead of the natural heritage agency for which the Bill provides. The two are not the same.

One of the Bill's glaring flaws is clause 11, which concerns sites of special scientific interest. The Minister admitted that clause 11 is flawed and said that it will be revised. He should go further and remove it altogether. Sites of special scientific interest are a key element in the United Kingdom's conservation strategy, providing the primary mechanism for protecting species and maintaining biodiversity. SSSI status serves as notification of scientific value, but it is not a designation conferring prohibition powers. The only obligation on the landholder is to consult if certain operations listed as potentially damaging are being considered. Thereafter, it provides an opportunity to influence the landholder by means of a voluntary management agreement, supported by compensation based on profit forgone.

The system has its weaknesses. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and other hon. Members referred to them--but clause 11 is a blunderbuss that will create more problems than it seeks to solve. The costs and bureaucracy involved in the series of reviews and public inquiries for which clause 11 provides would be enormous, and would undoubtedly hogtie the new agency in its formative years. If Scottish Natural Heritage is to operate properly, it must be given every resource and opportunity to consider the wider issues of protecting and improving the Scottish environment. The Minister's promise to reconsider clause 11 must be backed with genuine alterations--although I should prefer it to be deleted altogether, given that the existing system could be improved by making minor alterations, rather than by major surgery.

I welcome the Government's commitment to the concept of sustainable resources. It has a considerable pedigree and is aimed at establishing a broader base for Scottish conservation--beyond the narrow protection provided by specialist interests and aesthetic values. That concept is designed to meet present needs, without jeopardising the interests of future generations. The concept of sustainable resources embraces the view that conservation is the basis of sound development, by using resources that can be replaced and restocked.

Bearing in mind the global importance of that concept, its central position in the Government's approach to the Bill and the immense value of legislation in improving awareness and altering attitudes, why is it that sustainable resources are not included as a definition in the Bill? The Government should produce definitions that reflect the practical implications of sustainability, the preservation of biological diversity, the protection of natural ecosystems and the sustainable use of resources. I want the Government to lay down that definition because the Bill will be an immense influence on the way that Scottish Natural Heritage nurtures and improves the Scottish environment.

Mr. Maclennan : I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the long heritage of the word "sustainable". Does he agree that that does not always resolve difficulties where there are genuine conflicts of interest? For example, in the case of extractive industries such as marble--which is

Column 684

about to be quarried in my constituency--I cannot see how they can be described as sustainable. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that marble should not be quarried in Scotland?

Mr. Welsh : I am quite clear in my mind what I mean by sustainable resources--those resources capable of being sustained. However, when I consider the overview of the environment in Scotland, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. No Government have produced a proper overview taking into account how to subdivide or allocate resources between such competing interests. The Government's approach is bitty. There are too many individual clashes here and there and they do not fit into a scheme which would allow such competition to be properly resolved within an overall plan for the Scottish economy, once these decisions are taken.

Will the collective insight and brains of the Scottish Office reconsider this issue, because a clear definition of sustainable resources would be massively important for directing the efforts of everyone involved towards producing the sort of Scottish environment described by the Government in the document "The Way Ahead"? Will the Government consider balancing duties? It has been normal practice to give conservation agencies advisory powers only and to require Ministers, Departments and executive agencies to operate under the balancing duties contained in the relevant legislation. The wording of existing legislation refers only to aesthetic qualities, yet a prime function of the Bill is to introduce new aspects of conservation to deal with the sustainable use of natural resources, as a primary duty of SNH.

The Government have chosen the phrase "sustainable resources" ; the wording of the present balancing duties will have to be updated so that that new obligation is also imposed on Departments and agencies directly responsible for the use of resources in forestry, agriculture, fisheries, red deer and tourism. Why cannot the Bill be more specific about the Government's duties with regard to conservation? Why is no positive obligation placed on specific Ministries connected with land use? In his winding up speech, will the Under-Secretary say whether the Government will introduce a clear definition?

I am disappointed that the Government seem to want to restrict and predetermine Scottish Natural Heritage's attitude to land access and usage. It would be a mistake to imagine that there is only one solution to every problem throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, and it would be a mistake not to tailor solutions to suit different needs in different parts of the country. There are areas where there should be absolutely no development whatsoever, areas where there should be limited development and areas where development should be positively encouraged to help their economy and society. Scottish Natural Heritage should be sufficiently flexible and sensitive to local needs to allow for such diversity. Indeed, no environmental agency worthy of the name would seek to duck issues such as nuclear dumping, or the need to balance the requirement of people who earn a living from the land and the need to conserve the beauty of the countryside.

SNH must take full account of the views of all local communities involved when it takes decisions. An environmental agency should take account not merely of land but, by definition, of people and their cultural and other needs.

Column 685

The problem is that SNH will be a quango--it is a Government creature. It is nominated by the Secretary of State and, because it is a quango, it is essential that accountability for decision- making links it with the wishes of the local community. I should like a more democratic structure for SNH than the Government are prepared to allow. Because it is a quango, its decisions must be sensitive to the wishes of local populations and take them fully into account. No hon. Member has mentioned the Bill's impact on European directives on the environment. I wonder whether a clause should be added to the Bill to develop expertise in European Community law as it affects the environment. There is nothing of that nature in the Bill at present. In future, SNH will be more and more affected by developments in Europe, as we all shall be. Has the Minister thought of that? Will some means be provided to consider developments in European law and directives from the European Community?

A major weakness in the Government's approach to the environment is that it seems to have no overall direction. The current approach towards a large, but definitely finite, national asset is bitty. There has never been a national land use survey, but that should be the first step towards intelligent and national policies for the environment. That failure has led to a host of problems over local conflicts between conservationists and developers because no overall strategy exists. For example, there is no national skiing policy for Scotland ; there are merely skiing guidelines. Yet there is massive and continuing development of skiing, mountaineering, hill walking and associated activities. The problem will not go away and the only way to tackle these issues in a logical and sensible fashion is through an overall land use strategy combining commercial, leisure and conservation needs.

The Bill is disappointing, but it is probably all that we are likely to get, and it is to be hoped that it will be much improved in Committee.

8.36 pm

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : One of the most interesting aspects of the Bill and of tonight's debate is that, considering the anger and annoyance portrayed by many organisations and individuals, including many Opposition Members, about the Government's original proposals, the fact that we are discussing the Bill in such a spirit of near-unanimity--except on matters of detail--does credit to the way in which we have progressed. Hon. Members have recognised that the Government's position was right. While we can debate many issues for long hours in the House, and most hon. Members would agree that if the Government get it wrong it can be put right at a later date, that does not necessarily apply to the environment. Once we get a decision wrong, it may be wrong for ever and a day afterwards. Consensus is more important for environmental issues than for others.

It is essential that the Under-Secretary should make it clear that the Government will resist any attempt by Scottish Natural Heritage to become the poodle of any special interest. The Government's reaction to clause 11 will be indicative of their intent. If the Bill and SNH are to fulfil the role that we hope, it must be totally even-handed

Column 686

in its approach to all the organisations, individuals and problems with which it will have to deal. It will have to recognise that the landscape of Scotland, like all landscapes, is constantly changing. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), and I slightly resent his insinuation that one has to live in Scotland to care about it. The hon. Gentleman suggests that that was not the impression that he wished to give. That was my impression, but I accept his withdrawal. Perhaps I am too sensitive, but, as one who spends a vast amount of time in Scotland and has a family there, I am second to none in my love and concern for the landscape of that country.

SNH will have to recognise that not only landscapes but rural communities change. A sad aspect of many members of the conservation movement is that they want to freeze-frame communities or landscapes. That simply is not possible : it has never happened in the history of the world, and it never will happen. Communities are a dynamic, constantly evolving organism, which lives, declines, expands and contracts ; and such changes will continue for ever.

SNH will also have to resist the more starry-eyed

conservationists--resist, that is, not only any attempt to freeze-frame the environment, but what may superficially appear to be wonderful environmental care. In theory, it may be an excellent idea to stop killing red deer because it is wrong ; in practice, however, that leads to a superfluous population and an attendant weakening of the stock, with many animals dying of starvation and other ailments. I therefore welcome the extension of the powers of the Red Deer Commission.

I have spoken in the House before about forestry. I agree with many hon. Members on both sides of the House that what has happened in Scotland has been to the detriment of both the landscape and the image of the forestry industry ; we should recognise, however, that modern forestry practice has ways of tailoring forestry much more closely to the landscape, using contours in the planning of forests, and soil types in deciding which trees to plant in various areas. It has ways of ameliorating the worst effects of forestry planting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out, much of Scotland was once afforested, albeit in an entirely different way and with a different species of tree from the one that is now so common in that country. We must recognise that there is a role for forestry in Scotland, and SNH will play an important role in judging the suitability of terrains for planting. I share the concerns of the Select Committee on Agriculture : I hope that we shall look more carefully at how we can improve our forestry planting. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) rightly referred to the tremendous drop in planting, which bodes ill for the long-term future.

I do not wish to detain the House ; I know that other hon. Members wish to comment on this important Bill--an essential Bill, which will mean a great deal to the heritage, landscape and conservation of Scotland. All hon. Members, whatever part of the United Kingdom they represent, should be proud to be associated with it.

Column 687

8.44 pm

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : I found the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) sympathetic, and I certainly do not quarrel wth his right to comment on the Bill. He mentioned the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture. Let me simply say that we have a constitutional problem in Scotland ; we have no Select Committee on Scottish affairs, and we have therefore been unable to consider the issues in the necessary detail. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that there should be such a Committee--and, indeed, that it would be far better for legislation such as this, which applies exclusively to Scotland, to be dealt with in a directly elected Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Welsh : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson : No ; there is not much time left.

The debate, rightly, has concentrated heavily on clause 11 and their Lordships' debate on it, I must say that the House of Lords has not shown itself in a particularly positive light on this occasion. We have heard the old chestnut that Members of the House of Lords represent no one but themselves, and represent their constituents very well ; they appear to have tried to do that on this occasion. I accept what the Liberal Democrats have said about the need for consultation, and perhaps an appeals procedure, to deal with the designation of new SSSIs. There is, however, a world of difference between that and wiping the map clean of SSSIs and starting all over again, which would be the crazy effect of the Lords amendment. It is rather alarming to reflect that, such is the power of highlands landowners in the House of Lords, that they can out-vote the combined whipping efforts of Government and official Opposition, which is what happened in this instance.

I do not quite understand how these people can think that they are addressing a genuine fear about a genuine problem--a malign imposition on crofters, farmers and landowners anywhere in Scotland. I have represented a largely rural Scottish constituency for 12 years. For five years, I was Member of Parliament for the two counties of Berwickshire and East Lothian ; for the past seven years I have represented East Lothian--again, a largely rural area covering much of the south side of the firth of Forth and, now, only the north face of the Lammermuir hills. I have never heard a single complaint from a farmer or landowner about difficulties arising from the designation of an SSSI, and I do not know what all the fuss is about. Perhaps I should have declared an interest. I am a farmer myself, and the only SSSI adjacent to the land that I farm is the River Tweed. I wish that it were a rather higher grade of SSSI, because it would then be possible to control water skiing activities and water scooters, which are making a lot of noise and stirring up the river. I do not want to downgrade that SSSI ; I think that it should be upgraded. I hope that the amendment tabled rather maliciously in the other place will be treated with the contempt that it deserves. I welcome the amalgamation of the Scottish Nature Conservancy Council with the Countryside Commission for Scotland--not least because I do not think that many people knew the difference between them anyway. The

Column 688

amalgamation will clarify the issue, and, I hope, draw together the various strands of policy about management of the countryside. I do not know whether I shall be fortunate enough to be a member of the Standing Committee ; no doubt the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East will be--[ Hon. Members-- : "South- East."] I am sorry--South-East. Everyone who influences anything in the House nowadays seems to represent the south-east. He will probably be a member of the Committee, but a good many mere Scots on the Opposition Benches, such as myself, will not have that opportunity. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee will produce some thoughtful guidelines for SNH, under its totally independent Icelandic chairmanship. I have considerable doubts about the principle of national parks, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I take very seriously the fears that have been expressed about the risk of overloading the so- called honeypot areas with visitors : I feel that all rural Scotland should be treated as a national asset and should be safeguarded--primarily for the benefit of those who live and work there, but also for that of the rest of Scotland's population and, indeed, the tourist industry, which is so important to us.

There must be a radical review of the whole theme of agricultural support policy, and I think that it should be part of this debate. The time has come to incorporate in the system of agricultural support ways of encouraging farmers to look after their land that are not only good for food production, but good for the landscape and for other rural industries, including tourism. We have begun to do that in environmentally sensitive areas that have already been designated. The theme could usefully be expanded.

I wish Scottish Natural Heritage well. We need to establish a partnership between it and local authorities in Scotland. Conservation must be balanced with sensitive development in rural areas. I cannot resist taking this opportunity to refer to a highly controversial issue in my constituency. I realise that the Minister cannot comment on what I am about to say, for reasons that both he and I know.

It is proposed that there should be a major development in the countryside of East Lothian. My constituents and I strongly support the redevelopment and the preservation of the listed building on the Archerfield estate. We would support a change of use from farmland to recreation. However, it must be sensitive. We need to attract more visitors to the area and to improve the local economy. The controversy is over whether the package should be financed by means of a substantial private housing development. Both local and national debate is needed on how best sensitively to promote economic development in rural areas.

Part II deals with irrigation and part III with drought. The two are related. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to the problems on the Tay. There is no Scottish legislation to control the abstraction of water from rivers. We have a problem with the River Tyne in my constituency. It runs almost dry in the summer because so much water is taken out of it to irrigate farmland. That causes problems for anglers and others. I welcome the fact that the Bill will make it possible to control river flows in areas subject to such a risk.

I hope that the Bill will provide a basis for sound legislation to protect Scotland's natural environment. It

Column 689

would have been better if it could have been considered in a Scottish Parliament rather than here, but, I hope that this Parliament will make a good job of it.

8.52 pm

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) : I am happy to associate myself with the Labour party's view : that the Bill presents an important opportunity to contribute positively to the framing of laws that will make the conservation of Scotland's natural heritage as effective as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, it would have been much nicer to have discussed the Bill at home in Scotland, in a directly elected Scottish Assembly.

I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) but I am disappointed that he omitted to say anything about Scotch whisky. That is part of our heritage. He is the chairperson of the all-party Scotch whisky group. I noticed that he managed to mention covertly that he had anchored in Loch Sween in order to buy a bottle of Drambuie. In doing so, he mentioned the Isle of Rhum and Fiona Guinness. He therefore managed to get Drambuie, rum and Guinness into his speech, which I suppose was helpful.

The work of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was invaluable, in that it gave Members of Parliament the opportunity to travel throughout Scotland. I saw many rural areas that I would not otherwise have visited. I hope that the Select Committee will be reconstituted as soon as possible. Its work on Scottish affairs was invaluable.

I vividly recall standing on the Isle of Eigg watching the sun shine on the Isle of Rhum. It brought out its vivid colours. It was the finest view I had ever seen in Scotland. I cannot describe in words what the Isle of Rhum looks like, but it is an incredible part of Scotland. I want it preserved, but not simply for people to stand on the Isle of Eigg and view it. I want people to be able to live on the Isle of Rhum, because there is work there for them to do. People must go to live there, not just for conservation purposes. I want crofters to return to the island and make a living for themselves. Other work must also be available for people on the Isle of Rhum and on other Scottish islands.

Opposition Members are rightly concerned about clause 11. I do not understand the Minister's coyness and hesitancy. He said that the clause was technically incorrect. Technical questions ought not to concern us. What concerns us is the morality of the clause. I hope that the Minister will say unequivocally that the Government intend to remove it from the Bill. We do not want it tampered or tinkered with. It must be removed.

Our briefings make it clear that the review of the SSSI appeals procedure is inappropriate. Between 1,000 and 1,300 sites have already been designated. To review the designation of those sites would take five years. I should be horrified if I were to be told that that was the reason for the inclusion of the clause in the other place. I hope that the Government will do their duty to the people of Scotland and remove the clause.

No one has told the House how the natural heritage areas will fit into the overall plan. We do not know whether they will be part of or excluded from the national parks. I am concerned about the concepts of national

Column 690

parks. National parks should be protected, but, at the same time, should be developed for people to live in and work the land ; we should not have simply a protected wilderness. There may be parts of Scotland that we wish to retain as protected wildernesses, but we shall certainly not retain the whole north-west of Scotland as a protected wilderness. We want people to live in those areas and to have a decent life there.

Time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak. We will have a much more earnest discussion of the matter in Committee.

8.58 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I am grateful to intervene briefly at the end of the debate, to which I have listened with great interest because of the extent to which there has been agreement at least about some of the purposes of the Bill and the recognition that the Bill is an attempt to resolve a difficult problem. The promotion of the appreciation of our national heritage in Scotland has been tackled with effectiveness by the Government. I welcome the Bill. It marks a possible new beginning in Scotland. Therefore, my comments about a possible improvement should be seen against that background.

Throughout the debates on these subjects since 1981 there has been a failure to recognise that there cannot be an absolute scientific criterion for assessing what piece of land should be protected from all development. The scientific criteria that are advanced from time to time are the product of the judgment of individuals who have no doubt carefully considered such matters and who bring to their judgment good faith and a background of knowledge. They have examined other countries and they mostly have training in the natural sciences but, in the last analysis, they bring to that judgment a subjective view of what is important. People should pay attention to that view, but they should not treat it as absolute.

I draw an analogy from another sphere which involves our important heritage --the way in which the Government deal with the possible export of cultural artefacts, paintings and so on. A committee reviews their importance and considers whether to recommend to the Government that there should be a ban on their export. Those who make that judgment are very skilled, they have a great knowledge, and their advice is certainly worth listening to, but they do not take the decision not to lose to our heritage those great works of art--it is taken by a Minister of the Crown, who can ban export to give others the opportunity to seek to acquire the works. The analogy is not exact, but it is relevant that there is a democratic procedure for dealing with works of art that are part of our heritage but that such a procedure is missing in consideration of our natural heritage. That is a defect.

It was to remedy that defect that the House of Lords introduced clause 11. However badly constructed the clause was, it sought to introduce a democratic procedure. That was not initiated by the fact that it came from the other place. As it happens, we do not have in the House of Lords many representatives of the crofting community who could speak on such issues, but if there were elected crofters in the upper House I do not think that their voices would have been very different.

Crofters have complained to me about the insensitivity of officials of the Nature Conservancy Council. Crofters

Column 691

have come to me and said, "Do you know that we have had people telling us that the grazings committee has already approved this measure and that we, as members of the grazings committee, should withdraw our objection to allow the proposed designation of an SSSI to go through unchallenged?" I have had representations from small farmers, smallholders, large landowners, and from people of all condition about the absence of a democratic stop to allow the consideration of whether something is appropriate. Sometimes that has worked.

There was a case in west Halladale in Sutherland in my constituency, when the crofters objected. The common grazings committee objected. It was interesting that, when it reached a compromise solution and accepted part of the crofters' case, the Nature Conservancy Council did not concede the point because the ground was not scientifically important or that potentially it could not be designated as an SSSI.

Mr. Dewar : It was a small adjustment.

Mr. Maclennan : As the hon. Gentleman says, it was a tiny adjustment. If the NCC was considering the matter simply according to scientific criteria and not on the basis of the impact, the size is irrelevant. I believe that often the judgments reached are not made on the basis of scientific criteria. At least in my constituency, there is no doubt that the NCC has, perhaps understandably, designated areas where there are proposals to afforest.

Mr. Dewar : I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that the closing speeches will start shortly. I would understand his point more completely if I were satisfied that, once an area had been designated an SSSI, an outside body, whether the NCC or any other, had the power to tell landowners that they could not do something. Such bodies can say that they do not want a landowner to do something and if the landowner agrees to abide by their suggestions they can pay compensation for his forbearance, but if the landowner simply says, "To hell with that--I am going to go ahead," the existence of the SSSI will not stop him. That seems to be the weakness in the indignation about the right of appeal.

Mr. Maclennan : I am glad to have the opportunity to explain why there is such indignation. The practical consequence of designation is that it becomes impossible to go ahead and afforest if the afforestation depends upon the payment of grant. To crofters and smallholders, afforestation is simply impossible to contemplate without the payment of grant. In my constituency, a practice is developing whereby anyone who is interested in afforestation applies to the Forestry Commission, which then asks the NCC whether it has any interest in the piece of land. If the NCC says yes, the Forestry Commission will tell the landowner that it is not prepared to make a payment. The NCC does not even need to designate the area. It does not matter, for example, that the regional advisory committee of the Forestry Commission has advised that the area is suitable for afforestation. The last word lies with the NCC.

That is not the right way to approach the matter. There should be a balancing of interests. We already have several bodies. We have the Red Deer Commission, the Crofters Commission, the Forestry Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and now we shall have Scottish Natural Heritage in its place. If all land use interests are

Column 692

subordinated to the view of Scottish Natural Heritage and its decisions are not appellable, it will be viewed with as much disfavour as the NCC was viewed in Scotland. I hope that that will not be so.

The letter which Magnus Magnusson wrote to Lord Strathclyde, a copy of which is available to hon. Members, does not convince me that Magnus Magnusson proposes a system which would allow an appeal against a proposed designation. He certainly intends to set up some sub-committees and a scientific committee to consider proposals, but in the last analysis the decision will remain with the new body, Scottish Natural Heritage.

However widely the community interest may be affected, I fear that there will be no stop in the way of SNH. That would indeed be a pity. It is a difficult problem for the Government, the Opposition and, indeed, the whole House to resolve how we are to bring into the deliberations some democratic mechanism for checking the final designation. We need to resolve that problem, because otherwise that body will not enjoy the confidence which I hope that it will have. 9.9 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : In some ways I feel as though we should be beginning the debate rather than drawing it to a close. The speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was extremely interesting. He raised a detailed difficulty which is well known to those of us who have dealt with highlands and islands affairs. I regret that he will not be a member of the Standing Committee to carry on these discussions. Nevertheless, I hope and expect the Committee to address the matter in as much detail and with as much careful analysis as he did. At the end of the day, his conclusion on clause 11 is wrong, but the spirit of what he said was interesting.

I welcome the creation of this agency and I endorse much of what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said. I, too, approach this with a fair degree of enthusiasm. This is a new chapter and it provides a tremendous chance for the slate to be wiped clean and for attitudes to develop afresh in areas of Scotland where the relationship between conservationists and land users has not always been particularly happy. It is a real opportunity for a fresh start. Like the hon. Gentleman, I thought that the speech that Magnus Magnusson made on Skye in which he set out his vision for Scottish Natural Heritage was encouraging and stimulating. I have no doubt that, as the script continues to be written, the new body will develop and flourish within the framework that we shall lay down in this legislation.

It is essential to clarify clauses 5 and 11 early on. I do not want to make too much of this. If we have been slightly misled by an omission from the Secretary of State's opening speech and if at an early stage in Committee the Government say that this is much ado about nothing and that they will maintain the position taken by Lord Strathclyde when the amendments were first moved, that is fine by me. I do not want to set hares running unnecessarily. Nevertheless, it is necessary for that to be said more unequivocally than it has been said tonight. I rather suspect that the Government are beginning to hedge their bets and that some sort of bogus compromise will be produced in the next few weeks.

Column 693

Many hon. Members have referred to what the amendments would do, but it is important to note what they say. I shall deal first with the amendment moved by Lady Saltoun of Abernethy in respect of clause 5. She successfully proposed that any proposal for a site of special scientific interest by Scottish Natural Heritage should have to be given in writing to owners and occupiers of the land concerned and to the local planning authority, and then there would be an appeals procedure to the Secretary of State, the details of which would be brought to the House. In what I regard as an additional piece of cheek, or the icing on the cake, subsection (3B) of the amendment states :

"Any statutory instrument made under subsection (3A) above shall be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament." That is a nice little circular ploy. The House of Lords tables an amendment to create an appeals procedure, motivated, as was made clear in the voting lists, by landowners' dislike--I put it no more strongly--of the Nature Conservancy Council and SSSIs. The procedure provides that, every time an SSSI is designated, it must go to the Secretary of State. Then, if they do not like the result, there is a further stage in the proceedings in that the matter would have to return not only to this House, but to the House of Lords, where precisely the people who put the procedure in place, for the motivation that we all understand, would have the power of veto. I do not see for one moment how anyone can take such a proposition seriously.

I was interested to note from Lady Saltoun's remarks the horror with which she viewed the proposals. I could not do her justice if I did not quote--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. It is not in order to quote a Member of the House of Lords other than a Minister.

Mr. Wilson : I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall paraphrase what she said. She said that to create a body such as Scottish Natural Heritage without there being a right of appeal against its diktats was unacceptable, undemocratic and worthy only of regimes such as Saddam Hussein's. As a flight of rhetorical fancy, that takes a bit of beating.

The Bill has been discussed in another place by charabanc-loads of highland landowners who came down to push through their vested interests, but they then complain that the legislation that they are considering is undemocratic and unacceptable and that such practice is comparable to Saddam Hussein. I do not know how he elects the members of his Parliament, but I know a little about how Lady Saltoun of Abernethy comes to be here. In 1445 one of her forebears, Sir Laurence Abernethy, was created Lord Saltoun. Anyone who has not stood for election between 1445 and 1990 and still has a season ticket to what, in absurd theory, is the upper legislative Chamber in the land, has a bit of a brass neck to talk about democracy. For the interest of the House, during my important researches, I found that the arms of Lady Saltoun of Abernethy include an ostrich holding in its beak a horseshoe proper, doubtless protected under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill.

Next Section

Home Page