Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1991/jun/06/natural-heritage-scotland-bill-hl
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:39:06+00:00

Document:
§ 1.Clause 3, page 2, line 35, at beginning insert '(1) Subject to subsection (2) below,'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. With the permission of the House I shall also speak to Amendment No. 3.
The effect of the amendments is to disapply paragraphs (b) to (e) of Scottish Natural Heritage's balancing duty in relation to the special nature conservation functions described in paragraphs (b) to (e) of Section 133(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which are carried out not by SNH on its own 747 but by SNH with English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales through the Joint Nature Conservancy Council.
Those functions concern the provision of advice to government on policies for nature conservation for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain; the provision of advice and dissemination of knowledge to any persons about such nature conservation; the establishment of common standards throughout Great Britain for the monitoring of and research into nature conservation; and the commissioning or support of research relevant to those matters. The only balancing duty which is impose I on NCCS and the England and Wales bodies in relation to those functions is contained in Section 131(2) of the Environmental Protection Act and is broadly similar to that in paragraph (a) of Clause 3(1), requiring those bodies to take appropriate account of actual or possible ecological changes. The end result of the amendments is therefore the same as is achieved for England and Wales by Section 131(2) of the 1990 Act.
It may be noted that the remaining elements of the Clause 3 balancing duty are disapplied in relation to paragraphs (b) to (e) of Section 133(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, but not to paragraph (a). That is because the special functions mentioned in paragraph (a) are subject to an additional balancing duty under Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, requiring the English and Welsh bodies to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas. As that corresponds broadly to the most significant aspects of the rest of the Clause 3 duty it was considered inappropriate also to disapply paragraphs (b) to (f) of Clause 3(1) to this paragraph.
As I have already indicated, the amendments achieve the important effect of putting SNH's relationship to the JNCC on exactly the same footing as the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland at present, the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales. It has been an important government commitment throughout the re-organisation of nature conservation agencies that the relationship between the country agencies and the JNCC would be the same. The amendments contribute to fulfilling that commitment.
There has been some doubt about the effect of the amendments on the balancing duty placed on SNH by Clause 3 I can assure your Lordships that they will have no discernible effect on SNH's balancing duty. Whenever SNH itself is discharging any of its functions, the balancing duty under Clause 3 will come into operation. I hope that it is quite clear that nothing in the present amendments detracts from that.
There has been some suggestion that the amendments have some relevance to the implementation of European Community legislation. I can give a categorical assurance that that is not the case.
As I explained, the amendments relate to the functions discharged through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. That committee is concerned with uniformity of standards and criteria throughout Great Britain and therefore the members 748 appointed by each of the three sponsor bodies need to act on the same basis and bring to bear the same considerations. The amendments to Clause 3 are designed to achieve that in the case of SNH. Noble Lords should bear in mind that the JNCC is purely an advisory body. It does not have executive functions and therefore its deliberations cannot directly affect anyone's land or interests. It will be for SNH to decide whether to accept any advice offered to it by the JNCC. If SNH decides to implement advice from the JNCC, the Clause 3 balancing duty then comes fully into operation.
I apologise for being lengthy in my submission, but I hope that that clarifies any lingering doubts that noble Lords may have. I hope that the House will agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. I and 3.
§ () the interests of owners and occupiers of land, and'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Clause 3 lays a duty upon SNH in exercising its functions to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of a number of other factors which interact with the natural heritage of Scotland. The clause has been described as SNH's "balancing duty". The amendment adds to the list of factors the need to conserve sites and landscapes of archaeologycal or historical interest and the interests of owners and occupiers of land.
In making the first of these amendments, we were mindful of the debate on this subject which took place during the Third Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House. The landscape that we see around us today is the product of a close relationship between man and his environment over many thousands of years. The conservation and protection of the natural landscape and the conservation and protection of the archaeological record must inevitably proceed in parallel. That is the reason for the first part of this amendment.
The second part of the amendment is designed to ensure that the interests of owners and occupiers of land, who will be major partners with SNH in conserving and enhancing the natural heritage, are fully taken into account.
Your Lordships will recall that we accepted the amendment put down by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, that SNH should take appropriate account of the interests of local communities. Nevertheless, the definition of communities is not an easy one, as became clear during Third Reading in this House. We therefore decided that some clarification was appropriate as, on reflection, we were not entirely convinced that "communities" fully embraced owners and occupiers. 749 We also believe that, without taking the interests of owners and occupiers of land as well as the interests of local communities into account, SNH would not be able to perform its statutory functions properly or effectively.
It will be for SNH to judge in each case what the balance should be between the different factors set out in the clause. Also, as I hope that the House will appreciate, the duty on SNH is expressed in terms of taking appropriate account of those various factors. They cannot override the primary aims.
I should emphasise that these amendments, and those others that we have agreed to for SNH's balancing duty, underline our commitment that SNH will work co-operatively and in partnership with all relevant interests. It will take steps to understand the interests and needs of those partners and the activities that they pursue, and ensure that that influences the way in which it undertakes its functions.
My Lords, since we last discussed the matter I have thought a great deal about what might constitute a local community. I can give two examples. The rather wide-flung inhabitants of upper Deeside above Braemar might constitute a local community. I do not know whether any noble Lords are familiar with the township of Elphin in Sutherland, near Assynt. That again might constitute a local community.
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to go a little further. He has been generous in explaining the new provisions and we appreciate it. However, I take it that landscapes of archaeological interest refer not only to the immediate landscape in which the object of archaeological interest lies, but to the neighbourhood. I have a case in mind in which a broch has been severely damaged in many people's view, not by anything done to it or its immediate neighbourhood, but by the creation of a large car park fairly adjacent to it and the road thereto. The damage has been done, I regret to say, by a public body which is supposed to look after our interests and our beauty spots. I take it that in future such a development in the neighbourhood but not in the immediate vicinity of the object of archaeological interest would be liable to scrutiny by a national heritage body.
§ '(2) Paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1) above shall not apply as regards any function exercised by SNH in pursuance of any of paragraphs (b) to (e) of section 133(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (special functions to be exercised through the joint committee).'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3 to which I have already spoken.
My Lords, perhaps I may make a technical point regarding the fact that the amendment refers to paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1). As I understand it, paragraph (d) relates to the need to conserve sites of archaeological and historical interest; paragraph (e) relates to the interests of owners and occupiers; and paragraph (f) relates to the interests of local communities. Is the amendment correct when it refers to paragraphs (b) to (d) or should it be paragraphs (b) to (f)?
My Lords, I do not think that there is a drafting error. I hear what my noble friend says, but I am sure that that point will be taken care of.
§ 4 Clause 4, page 3, line 1, leave out '132(3) and 133' and insert 'and 132(3)'.
§ and in discharging its nature conservation functions, SNH shall have regard to any advice given to it by the joint committee under the said subsection (3).'.
§ 6 Page 3, leave out lines 15 to 17.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 en bloc.
These amendments are technical ones. They are designed to put beyond doubt the ability of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to advise SNH on any matter arising in connection with SNH's nature conservation functions which, in the committee's opinion, relate to nature conservation for Great Britain as a whole, or nature conservation outside Great Britain. The amendments also provide that SNH shall have regard to any such advice given to it by the committee. They are part of the undertaking, to which I have already referred, that the relationship of SNH towards nature conservation legislation should be on exactly the same footing as that of NCCS and the England and Wales councils.
751 Perhaps I may return to the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. It is currently a matter of printing and it will become paragraphs (b) to (f). I hope that that clarifies the matter and I am sorry that I was less clear earlier.
My Lords, on the point made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, is it not normal practice at this stage of a Bill for the paragraph lettering to be left to be sorted out later? This matter will arise later in our proceedings. It does not matter whether it is (a), (b), (f) or (g) because it will be sorted out later. That is the procedure that we normally observe.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that useful information. I was not fully aware of the procedure, but everyone is now happy that the correct procedure will be adhered to.
My Lords, in fact I asked the question reasonably seriously because it seems to me to make quite a difference whether paragraph (f) is the last one and whether we were talking about paragraphs (b) to (d). It would seem to me to be more than a trivial issue.
§ 7 Clause 5, page 4, leave out lines 1 to 8.
§ ("(4) Where SNH has prepared a proposal for a development project or scheme for any area which involves the compulsory acquisition of land under subsection (6)(a) below, a compulsory purchase order for that purpose shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the owner of the land and has not been withdrawn.
§ (5) In subsection (4) above "owner" shall have the same meaning as in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.").
§ Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7, but do propose the amendment set out in the Marshalled List in lieu thereof.
§ The noble Lord said: In my view the Commons amendment is acceptable in so far as it removes the right of appeal against development schemes or projects. For the reasons that I gave in debate on Third Reading in this House, such a right of appeal is unnecessary. However, we consider that, in addition to removing the right of appeal, it is appropriate to take steps to meet the concerns that have been expressed about the scope of SNH's compulsory purchase power under Clause 5.
§ My proposal is, therefore, that compulsory purchase orders made by the Secretary of State under Clause 5 should be subject to special parliamentary procedure. The effect of this would be that, in addition to the normal legal and financial constraints, which 752 SNH would need to overcome, and as well as convincing the Secretary of State that it had a good case for wishing to purchase the land compulsorily, the making of a compulsory purchase order by the Secretary of State would by no means be the end of the story. Where the owner had objected to the compulsory purchase of his land, special parliamentary procedure would then be invoked. As your Lordships may know, this would be an additional and very substantial hurdle.
§ Under this procedure, a compulsory purchase order is of no effect until it has been laid before Parliament and has been brought into operation in accordance with the special procedure Acts. Petitions may be presented against the compulsory purchase order and either House may resolve that the order should be annulled. The most notable use of the procedure at present is that it is used to safeguard National Trust land. My amendment would therefore give the landowner the same degree of protection in relation to his land being compulsorily purchased by SNH as the National Trust in general has against any compulsory acquisition. Indeed, the definition of "owner" which we have used here is wide enough to include tenants under a lease which has more than three years to run.
§ The practical effect of my amendment would be that even if the Secretary of State agreed with SNH that a compulsory purchase order should be made, Parliament's approval would also be required via these very complicated procedures. In my view, this is more than adequate to curb any excessive or inappropriate use of these powers by SNH.
§ I remind those who feel that we may have gone too far with this amendment and effectively neutralised the compulsory purchase power of what I said when we discussed the scope of Clause 5 on Third Reading.
§ Clause 5 is essentially a re-enactment of a provision which already exists in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. In most instances where the Countryside Commission for Scotland has used the power the agreement of the landowner has been very easy to obtain since the land concerned has generally been of little value and not in any gainful use. We expect that pattern to continue. It is also unlikely that SNH would wish to pursue a project where the landowner does not consent. It is therefore extremely unlikely that SNH would ever wish to use its compulsory purchase powers, and indeed CCS has made no use of them in over 20 years. Resort to compulsory purchase in such cases would go against the whole basis of co-operation and partnership which we wish to see SNH establish.
§ The addition of the special parliamentary procedure to SNH's compulsory purchase powers will serve as a reminder to SNH that if it wishes to invoke its compulsory purchase powers it needs to be completely convinced of the overwhelming importance of the project or scheme. That seems to us to strike a satisfactory balance between the interest of the landowner and SNH's powers in relation to development projects or schemes.
§ It may be asked why we do not simply remove the compulsory purchase power from this clause. I agree that in many respects that would be the simplest 753 solution. But that avenue is not open to us because of the stage which the Bill has reached. We can look only at amendments made by the other place. The compulsory purchase power in Clause 5 was not amended in the other place and therefore it is beyond our power at this stage to touch it.
§ With that explanation, I commend Amendment No. 7A.
My Lords, the defect in Clause 5 is that Scottish National Heritage may prefer proposals for development projects for schemes which fulfil the criteria set out in Clause 5 (1) and (2) but there is no provision for testing the appropriateness of the project or scheme. Yet if the landowner objects it may form the basis for compulsory acquisition of his property.
I withdrew an amendment which I had tabled and which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has overtaken.
I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this amendment and for all the trouble that he has taken over it. If necessary, I shall support it in the Division Lobby and I hope that other noble Lords will also do so.
My Lords, this is a new amendment which I have seen only today and I simply wish to clarify a point. I accept that there will be advantage from introducing the special parliamentary procedure, which the Government have decided to do in cases of this kind. But in the past any compulsory purchase procedure in Scotland which involved a compulsory purchase order has provided, as part of the system, for an appeal to the Secretary of State. At an earlier stage in this Bill I inquired whether that principle still existed in Scottish legislation; namely, that there can be no compulsory purchase without the possibility of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I want to make sure that that situation still exists and that introducing the special parliamentary procedure is an addition and does not detract from the fact that compulsory purchase enables an objector in the last resort to go the Secretary of State.
My Lords, compulsory purchase is a fairly drastic remedy in order to achieve a public purpose. It is one which under the law has for years been subject to fairly stringent safeguards to protect 754 the interests of those who would be affected by that compulsory purchase. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, it is unlikely that in the circumstances envisaged here there would be compulsory purchase. It is just something up the sleeve of authority in case it should be needed.
However, we should record, as the noble Lady said, that to make it subject to special parliamentary procedure is a very important additional safeguard in addition to those that exist under the present law. Therefore, I too feel that the Government have done right in this matter.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and in particular the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, whose original amendment has been overturned by the other place. The introduction of the special parliamentary procedure seems to offer the best means of addressing the fears expressed both in this House and in another place about the use that SNH might make of its compulsory purchase provisions in relation to these schemes —given, of course, that we cannot just leave the power.
Perhaps I may just say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, that he is absolutely correct. With compulsory power, part of the procedure is that one has to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. That is still maintained.
§ '. —(1) Where it appears to SNH, after consultation with such persons as it thinks fit, that an area is of outstanding value to the natural heritage of Scotland, and that special protection measures are appropriate for it, it may recommend to the Secretary of State that the area be designated as a Natural Heritage Area.
§ (2) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (I) above he may designate the area by a direction under this subsection as a Natural Heritage Area.
§ (3) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make a direction under subsection (2) above he shall publish notice of the proposal in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the proposed areas.
§ (4) Before making a direction under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall consider any representations received by him about the proposal within six weeks of the date which is the later of the dates on which the publication under subsection (3) above of notice relating to the proposal occurs.
§ (5) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under subsection (2) above he shall publish notice of the designation in the Edinburgh Gazette and in a least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the Area.
§ (6) Where it appears to SNH, after consultation with such persons as it thinks fit, that it is no longer appropriate that an area which has been designated as a Natural Heritage Area or any part of it should continue to be so designated it may recommend to the Secretary of State that the designation be cancelled or, as the case may be, varied.
§ (7) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (6) above he may, by a direction under this subsection, cancel or, as the case may be, vary the designation of the Natural Heritage Area; and subsections (3) to (5) above shall apply to a direction proposed to be made under this subsection as they apply to a direction proposed to be made under subsection (2) above, and for the purposes of such application the reference in subsection (3) to the proposed area shall be construed as a reference to the Area.
§ (9) Notwithstanding the repeal by section 26 of and Schedule 11 to this Act of subsections (1) and (2) of the said section 262C or the amendment by this section of subsections (3) and (4) of that section, any area which, at the date of such repeal, was designated as a National Scenic Area shall continue to be so designated and, until such designation is cancelled by a direction under the said section 262C, the provisions of that section shall continue to have effect in relation to the area as if they had not been repealed or, as the case may be, amended.'.
I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. In moving Amendment No. 8 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 41.
I should point out that your Lordships will now have had the opportunity to read our consultation paper on natural heritage areas which sets out in detail our present thinking on the way in which the new mechanism might operate. Again I apologise if I am somewhat lengthy in explaining what this provision achieves.
The introduction of NHAs is based on the fact that at present no unified approach exists to deal with both nature and landscape conservation, and to provide for access and enjoyment. The merger of the two statutory bodies concerned with nature conservation on the one hand, and landscape protection and enjoyment on the other, is based on a comprehensive approach to the management of Scotland's areas of natural heritage significance. This new mechanism is an essential part of that approach and is based on the voluntary principle which underlies our attitude towards conservation.
Natural heritage areas are not, in essence, a new form of designation. They follow the precedent of existing national scenic areas. As the consultation paper makes clear, the only statutory effect of designation is to ensure that planning authorities would have to take account of the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and the appearance of a natural heritage area when exercising their functions under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. Our intention, therefore, with NHAs can be summarised as follows.
First, both the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Government have been concerned for some time about the effectiveness of national scenic areas as a means of influencing development which has an impact on landscape. Secondly, at the same time your Lordships, as well as many others including the former Nature Conservancy Council, have questioned whether SSSIs are the most appropriate means of safeguarding large areas of high nature conservation value, in particular in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Thirdly, we wish to involve, under the tried and tested voluntary 756 principle, all relevant local interests in discussion and decision about the use and management of the natural heritage. Building on that, we anticipate the SNH will influence through consultation the way that the land and other resources within natural heritage areas are used and managed. Finally, we want to ensure that SNH, recognising that it cannot operate to full effect over the whole of Scotland, focuses its resources and statutory tools on the key areas of Scotland.
Overall, therefore, we regard the real importance of NHAs and the mechanisms which SNH will apply, both statutory and non-statutory, in those areas to tie in their use as a natural heritage management tool rather than as simply a designation which has legal effect in planning matters. As it is based on consultation both prior to designation and in the implementation of any management statement approved by the Secretary of State, then I hope your Lordships will, for example, like the Scottish Landowners' Federation, look favourably on our proposals. The details have yet to be worked out. That is why we have widely circulated a consultation paper with a three and a half months consultation period to provide an opportunity for all those interests to help in the evolution of the proposals so that SNH will have the opportunity to take them forward at an early date. On that basis I beg to move.
My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 8A, 8C and 8D which concern the same matter have been grouped with Amendment No. 8B. It may be simpler for the House if I move Amendment No. 8A, and speak to Amendments Nos. 8C and 8D now and Amendment No. 8B later.
The reason for the amendments is that much trouble and misunderstanding has arisen in the past over the designation, for example, of national scenic areas. The owners of the land in the early years were not notified but were expected to have read the Edinburgh Gazette and such other newspapers in which the Secretary of State saw fit to advertise. I do not know whether anyone other than lawyers reads the Edinburgh Gazette. I certainly do not. If it were in order for me to ask those noble Lords who read the Edinburgh Gazette to raise their hands, I very much doubt whether I should see a great many hands. A person has only to be away for a week or two to miss an announcement in the press.
I therefore tabled amendments to require the Secretary of State to notify owners and occupiers in writing. I was then told that, as natural heritage areas would be very large, possibly containing whole villages and parts of towns, to notify every owner or occupier might be a task that the Secretary of State would not wish to undertake. It might even be impossible.
757 I still believe that he should undertake the task, whether or not he likes it. However, out of the kindness of my heart I tried to find less onerous ways to meet the objective of notifying individual people whose lives and livelihoods would be most seriously affected. Eventually, I tabled the amendments before your Lordships requiring the Secretary of State to notify anyone in the area who is obliged under Section 78, as amended, of the Agriculture Act 1947 to submit a return.
The Government cannot argue that there would be any difficulty. They must have an up-to-date list of people who are required to submit a return every year. Virtually anyone who makes his living off the land will fall into that category. They are the people whose need to be kept informed is the greatest. That is the story which underlies Amendments Nos. 8A and 8D. Amendment No. 8C is consequential.
I am advised that there is no such legal term as "owner" in Scots law and that the term should be heritable proprietor. Perhaps the Minister will comment when he replies. I beg to move.
My Lords, I hope that I am in order in speaking to Amendment No. 8 since it is grouped with Amendment No. 8A. I wish to address most of my remarks to Amendment No. 8.
The Minister referred to the consultation paper issued by the Scottish Office in March of this year. It was a very comprehensive document on which organisations were invited to give their views by 30th June 1991. My first question to the Minister is this. Why was it necessary to go ahead with this proposal before receiving the views of all those organisations concerned? Does not the fact that the Government have gone ahead without hearing what the organisations had to say show almost contempt for their views? After all, there might not have been a single organisation in favour of what the Minister put forward.
As it happens, many organisations have expressed their disquiet with the amendment. In particular the Scottish Council for National Parks is convinced that the natural heritage areas scheme is intended to pre-empt the creation of more national parks. The council argues that there are certain mountain areas where national parks would be more appropriate. National parks allow and require the involvement of local people in a way that the NHAs will not. The council's view is shared by the National Trust for Scotland, Countryside Link, the British Mountaineering Council, the Scottish Scenic Trust and the Ramblers' Association for Scotland.
Furthermore, when the Government published their proposals for Scottish Natural Heritage in 1990 they stated: The Government will look to SNH to review its inherited range of countryside designations". They further stated: The Government will wish to consider with SNH what changes to the system of land-use designations might be appropriate". 758 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is anxious that SNH will now be under an obligation to set up NHAs irrespective of the results of such reviews.
My further questions to the Minister are these. Will the Government give an undertaking not to proceed with the identification and designation of NHAs until SNH has become properly established and has reviewed the range of countryside and land use designations as promised in their 1990 consultation paper?
Secondly, why have the Government precluded the results of public consultation over NHAs by including this clause in the Bill? Why have these measures been introduced before the Government have responded to the national parks debate which is in full swing? It appears that the Government's reliance on a purely voluntary approach to securing good conservation in NHAs is not borne out by experience to date. Safeguarding SSSIs depends on both legal provisions and management payments because financial pressures restrict landowners' freedom to take positive measures for conservation.
I wish to ask several more questions. What new financial incentives will NHAs provide to help owners and occupiers to pursue sustainable land use on their land? Will the Government be providing SNH with additional funding to carry out the promised review of countryside and land use designations and, indeed, to implement any changes which may be found desirable as a result of that review? I apologise for the number of questions but I understand that I can have only one bite at the cherry. I hope that the answers will be forthcoming. The proposed NHAs appear to be a useful tool. Only the timing and the background are being questioned.
My Lords, I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who spoke so eloquently, that throughout Scotland there is no agreement about the way in which national parks operate and the particular structure involved. If there were such an agreement that people wished to have implemented, I should be pressing the Government to go ahead with it at this time. However, I do not believe that there is an agreement. People have not yet thought the issue through sufficiently to know what they want. In the meantime it is right that the Government should proceed in the manner that is proposed in order to provide the necessary protection. That is the point that we have reached in Scotland.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggests in Amendment No. 8A that people should receive notice in writing if under Section 78 of the Agriculture Act they are obliged to submit a return. Comparatively few people are obliged to submit a return under that Act: so what about everyone else who has an interest in the matter? It is not a good idea to limit the provision to people who must submit a return under the Agriculture Act. Many people could be away. Many people do not read a newspaper and, as the noble Lady said, readership of the Edinburgh Gazette is somewhat limited. It is important that the newspapers should advertise properly. Throughout Scotland local newspapers are widely read; indeed, my 759 local newspaper covers 88 per cent. of the population. It is not difficult to transmit such news through the press. I should be sorry to see only people with that particular interest being required to be notified in writing,. It is unfair to everyone else.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, makes a valid point. Nevertheless, I support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in her Amendment No. 8A. It may be slightly invidious to give rights to certain classes of people who will be affected while not giving similar rights to others. On the other hand, there is a constant argument that while some people will benefit others will not and at the end of the day no one will benefit.
The amendment draws attention to the fact —which I shall not labour because I have already drawn attention to it —that small landowners in Scotland attach the greatest importance to every half acre of their land; that is not to mention the large landowners. They are suspicious of designations and I believe that the provision will go some way towards reassuring them. The process of preservation in Scotland depends on carrying the landowners with us and not antagonising them. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the amendment, although I agree that it might be improved. However, that is true of life in general.
I have no intention of opposing the Government: they are well intentioned and the matter has been lucidly explained. However, I am most suspicious of the division of Scotland into areas of land which are of importance and of particular beauty and those which are not. It is a changing issue and one of individual judgment as to what is beautiful. It is not long ago that the Highlands of Scotland were regarded as an unpleasant desert to be avoided at all costs. We then had the advocates of the old Caledonian forests, the wetlands and so forth. The fact is that all the land in Scotland is of immense importance to the Scots. Areas which are not unanimously thought to be beautiful are considered to be beautiful by local inhabitants. I regard the area of Orkney in which I live to be of particular beauty although that might not be a unanimous opinion. I am nervous of the whole procedure. I believe that we should protect all the land and not pick and choose, pay attention to passing fads and place decisions in the hands of bureaucrats.
The clause has a valuable subsection —that is subsection (6) —because the whole provision can be abolished. I understand that if the provision appears to be unnecessary it will be open to the SNH to recommend that it is wiped out and something else tried. I have no intention of opposing the clause but I believe that your Lordships should be wary of creating all over Scotland SSSIs, areas of special scenic beauty, areas of this and areas of that, coming under different bodies.
I received a lengthy and extremely interesting letter from the Secretary of State for which I am most grateful. At the end of the day the point remains that in order to work the machinery of the Bill one must be a trained lawyer. Most crofters are not trained lawyers 760 and are not in touch with such people. They do not have offices or secretaries. There is a danger of clogging up the workings of the Scottish Highlands and lowlands with the regulations of various bodies and all kinds of procedures. Although they are well intentioned they may in the end defeat the object by making it impossible for local people to make a livelihood. The fundamental point is that there must be people in the Highlands and all over the countryside in Scotland who can make a go of their land. That is by far the most important problem that now faces us.
My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on the relevant observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in respect of Amendment No. 8. It must be understood that national parks have not existed hitherto as a concept or have been part of legislation in Scotland as distinct from England and Wales. The subject is new and it is not one that can be introduced in the last stages of a Bill of this kind.
However, that is not to say that it may not be introduced. The fact that it has never been part of Scottish legislation in the past does not mean that it may not be considered for the future. I am not trying to close the door to that. However, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, it is a subject of much controversy and discussion in Scotland at present. It should not be a matter for this Bill.
Without wishing to enter on one side or other of the controversy, though I shall follow it with interest, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the proposals for NHAs in Amendment No. 8 will not mean that the possibility of national parks is ruled out if, at some time in the future, that was agreed in Scotland to be the best way forward. The main point I wish to make is that it is not widely known that there are no national parks in Scotland and they have never been part of our system.
My Lords, I was very impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about national parks. Recently I read the report of the review panel on national parks in England and Wales under the chairmanship of Professor Ron Edwards. My impression from that admirable report was that, by and large, they are working very well in England and Wales. As I understand it, all this was sparked off by a report by the Countryside Commission for Scotland on the mountain areas of Scotland which urged that there should be national parks in Scotland to manage the four mountain and loch areas suffering most from strong and conflicting land use pressures.
I should have thought that there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said. One should not include a reference to national parks in this Bill but, by the same token, I believe that it is wrong to put in the clause about natural heritage areas because they are widely perceived as the Government's preferred alternative to national parks. I do not believe that they are a good alternative because, as I understand it, the view of a number of the bodies in Scotland like the National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Wildlife Countryside Link, Scottish 761 Scenic Trust, and others, is that the national heritage areas proposed in this amendment would be totally inadequate for those four prime areas referred to in the Countryside Commission for Scotland's report.
There is no provision for a local management structure including local people or authorities. Any action would have to be taken by Scottish Natural Heritage; though apparently with no extra staff or funding. There would be no new powers for Scottish Natural Heritage and it would be dependent entirely on voluntary co-operation. That would not be adequate to deal with the pressures for development which take place.
I am also rather anxious about the procedure which the Government are following. I have seen a copy of the letter from Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link to the Secretary of State for Scotland which states: We believe that it is most unreasonable of the Government to legislate for NHAs in advance of the consultation period and before the Government has, on its own admission, had a proper opportunity to consider the results of other crucial consultation exercises carried out in the last two years by both the Countryside Commission for Scotland…and the Countryside Commission for England and Wales". It seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for that. I hope that on consideration the Government will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Saltoun. This Bill is about protecting the countryside and the environment. Therefore, it will mainly affect landowners. This is an excellent mechanism to make sure that they are informed as to which areas are affected. I have never seen or heard of the Edinburgh Gazette even though I lived in Scotland until I was 13 and I go there regularly. The amendment is extremely sensible.
To answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the Government said that it would be impossible to inform everyone. However, to inform most of the people affected is better than informing none.
My Lords, I do not propose to become involved in the argument in relation to natural heritage areas and national parks. That has already been touched upon by my noble friend Lady Nicol and will be further referred to by my noble friend Lord Carmichael. However, I should like to follow the question of publicity.
Even lawyers do not like to buy the Edinburgh Gazette. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that only lawyers buy it. Most lawyers prefer to have no occasion to buy the Edinburgh Gazette. It is a record of those who have risen socially and those who have fallen commercially. It has very little to do with the subject matter which we are debating at present in your Lordships' House. If one walked the length and breadth of Scotland, one could not buy a copy of the Edinburgh Gazette at any newspaper shop or store. It is a useless publication for information of this sort. It has its commercial uses but that is another matter.
No doubt subsections (3) and (5) have been lifted from other legislation but we must apply this question to each particular subject. The question of natural 762 heritage areas and what should be done in relation to them is a national issue. I do not know what is the circulation of the Edinburgh Gazette, even if it had a general circulation. Subsection (3) states: the Secretary of State…shall publish notice of the proposal in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the proposed areas". Let us assume for the moment —and I do not know if there is —that there is a journal called the Auchtermuchty Gazette which is published once a week and has a circulation of 10,000. Notification is then given through a journal which people do not buy because they do not wish to see their names in it unless they have been promoted, and a local journal which has a limited circulation. I do not make this point facetiously.
In Scotland we are concerned about the number of foreigners —and for this purpose that includes English people —who are taking over the land of Scotland and owning Scotland. I do not know the present percentage of foreign ownership but I am sure that we can be given the figures. Therefore, it is pointless to advertise these proposals in the Edinburgh Gazette or the fictional Auchtermuchty Gazette. There must be proper notice given of the proposals universally, at least in Scotland. I am not pleading any particular cause but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, they should at least be published in the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman, which have a wide readership among people who have an interest in land ownership and anything affecting it.
My Lords, I believe that almost all noble Lords have made clear their feelings of unease. The belief is that somehow the Government have introduced the idea of natural heritage areas in order to offset the possibility of national parks.
From this side of the House, we have no objection to having many different ways of looking at different types of land and heritage in Scotland and having different types of legislation to protect it. I agree that there can be difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested that there are too many bodies but, on the other hand, I envisage that the introduction of national parks in Scotland would be a large measure which would apply at the most to only half a dozen areas in Scotland. Therefore, widespread and special discussion would be needed before any such areas were to be designated.
I am not in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on her suggestion that no one knows what is a national park. To some extent that is true, but there is a vague feeling on what a national park may be. However, as my honourable friend in another place, Mr. McFall, suggested —his constituency takes in part of Loch Lomond —there should be enabling powers to allow national parks to be designated. Of course he was thinking of the very real problems that exist in the Loch Lomond area where he lives and where he hears what people are saying. There is no doubt that people are worried about the land and water use around Loch Lomond. Large power boats used to go into the loch —I hope that has now stopped. The shore edge is being eaten 763 away and the area is not open to the general public. A balance is required. There is a growth of marinas and even —almost sacrilege in Scotland —a growth in the number of golf courses attached to high priced hotels, again Keeping the general public away from those areas.
I do not want to stop all of that, but there is a feeling that it is going too far. Although people in the west of Scotland, and in other parts, may not be sure what a national park is, nevertheless a number of surveys have been carried out. According to the Scottish Council for National Parks, before the Bill received its Third Reading a national opinion poll found that 84 per cent. of Scots wanted national parks. Of course I would not suggest this of the Minister, but the Scottish Council for National Parks suggested that that finding was available to him before Third Reading and he chose not to reveal it to the House during the debate. I am sure that that is unfair. He may have received the letter himself and no doubt will have an answer for it.
The consultation document that was circulated by the Minister states that NHAs are intended for areas described in terms which explicitly or implicitly include all the proposed national park areas that have been referred to in Scotland, despite the assertion made earlier by a number of people on the Government side that they were not intended as substitutes.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out that one of the difficulties of the idea of natural heritage areas would be that they would have no money of their own; they would be totally dependent on Scottish Natural Heritage which does not have the resources or the specially trained people to service such areas. The Government are relying on local volunteer, not involving, from what I understand, local authorities or any other local organisations.
Although it is too late to do anything about the matter now, there will be a feeling that this has been a substitute for something that could have been much more important. I hope that the Minister will attempt to clear up the point that the natural heritage areas will not be national parks. National parks are something that. the Government still have in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested, to be brought forward. I do not know when the Government will have the opportunity to do that. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the view that it is not a good idea at this stage of the Bill to introduce Scottish natural heritage areas.
My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, by my noble friend Lady Nicol and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, almost argued the case for waiting. She said that there is not yet enough agreement in regard to national parks. While consultation is continuing it would seem reasonable to wait until the end of June rather than hurrying the measure through.
I do not believe anybody mentioned the national opinion poll carried out before the Bill received its 764 Third Reading in another place. The poll found that 84 per cent. of Scots wanted national parks. Those figures may be challenged but 84 per cent. is a considerable number.
It seems to me that the Government are hurrying unnecessarily in attempting to bring this measure forward. I hope, along with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the Government will be willing to withdraw the amendment. It is an enabling clause. If they are not willing to withdraw it perhaps they will at least give some sort of assurance that nothing more will be done about these areas until after the consultation period.
It is significant that so many of the bodies in Scotland who are interested in the matter —the Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link, the National Trust and the Ramblers' Association for Scotland —are extremely suspicious of what the Government are doing. I hope that the Minister will take a generous view; that he will listen to what is being said in this House, and that he will do as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word about national parks in Scotland. They cannot be compared with national parks in England. The noble lady said that 84 per cent. of Scots want national parks in Scotland. No doubt that is so, and it may be a very good thing. However, one must realise that Scotland has far more rare wildlife, especially in regard to birds in the Highlands of Scotland, than England. Somebody said "rubbish". I do not agree.
Before national parks are introduced in Scotland, there must be far more properly educated and knowledgeable park wardens who can ensure that the crowds do not come over the hills in their hundreds. If they do there will soon be no wildlife in the Highlands. That is a point that should be taken into account.
I support Amendment No. 8. I believe that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, spoke a lot of sense.
My Lords, I support the Government on this amendment. The Loch Lomond area mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is a special area. It is unique in the whole of Scotland and comes under considerable pressure. It certainly needs some protection. I should have thought that natural heritage areas were a step in the right direction. With a little luck they may help that area.
I can think of areas in the Highlands which are coming under substantial pressure and yet have not been mentioned in the possible four areas of designation for national parks. The national park situation is not suitable for most of Scotland, though Loch Lomond needs special consideration.
The noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite mentioned the Auchtermuchty Gazette. I think he was referring to the Sunday Post, which always refers to Auchtermuchty.
My Lords, we seem to have strayed from the narrow confines of the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, into a slightly more general debate on the clause. Therefore, I hope that it will be 765 in order to emphasise what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. What resources will support the natural heritage areas? When one reads the consultation paper one is forced to the conclusion that it is a marvellous talking shop for absolutely everything except producing money to help preserve those areas. When the Minister replies I hope that he will make it perfectly clear that the setting up of a natural heritage area does not rule out the possibility of the well tried and successful system of management agreements under Section 16 of the 1949 Act. In many cases that has helped to preserve the natural features of so many of these important areas.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the community of Strath Elphin on the west coast of Sutherland. I happened to have the privilege of driving through most of Sutherland last Sunday.
My Lords, I referred to Elphin.
My Lords, we will not argue about it. One can drive across the whole of Sutherland, of which a great deal may be owned by English proprietors. The only place where one finds any restriction and any offensive public notices is at the Inverpolly National Nature Reserve. There one finds that the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has put up those friendly notices about no overnight parking and no camping. There is not another single proprietor in the whole of north-west Scotland who has put up these restrictive notices. It should not be done. There is no right to enforce the restrictions. The only places where such notices are enshrined in stone are around the Inverpolly National Nature Reserve. I do not think that a good example has so far been set by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.
My Lords, I hesitate to rise and speak because I have not spoken on this Bill before. Although I am not a Scot I farm in a national park. Perhaps I can clarify one or two of the points which have been made. In principle I support the Government's amendment as amended by my noble friend Lady Saltoun. I associate myself with that amendment. As we know, the status and functions of the national parks are under review at the moment. As I understand it, the Countryside Commission for Scotland has not yet announced its views on the matter.
My experience is rather at variance with that of my noble friend Lord Moran. I find that these bodies are largely underfunded. I believe that the concept of new funding is a myth at the moment because no one has said from where the new funding is to come. The national parks appear to act as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the county councils of which they tend to form part. They proceed on the basis of a series of negative controls over what farmers, landowners and others may carry out on their own land on which they pay tax and on which they have a financial commitment. They are entitled to have reasonable use and enjoyment and produce some form of return.
766 By a public relations operation the national parks encourage the public to come along, but they do not control them. The principle behind the national parks and their relations with the public is that there should be informal public access. "Informal" is an important word in that context because it means that one can go more or less anywhere —at any rate, that is the idea —and that there should be the minimum of notices. The public do not go anywhere; they go to the places they want to visit. There are problems in the Lake District and other areas.
I do not wish to dwell on that matter in particular. I want to bring the House back to the amendment by the concept of the national parks. The national parks are far from being a perfect model. We hope that when the Countryside Commission for Scotland has pronounced on the matter and further measures have been put forward, the national parks will provide a better model for the future. I perceive a problem which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I refer to inadequate compulsion, which is what I understood her to say. I hope that she will not rise to tell me that I am wrong. She spoke about inadequate measures to achieve certain stated objectives.
My Lords, I do not recall saying that there was not enough compulsion. I believe that the noble Earl will be pleased to hear that I was complaining about there being not enough funding which is quite a different matter.
My Lords, in that case the noble Baroness and I are entirely at one because we agree that there is insufficient funding. There is a problem here. It may have been perceived and represented to the House this afternoon why the interests of the special interest groups should be considered paramount in matters of rural management in these areas. Of course they are important. It is extremely important that rare species and outstanding landscapes are preserved as important elements in our rural fabric.
Those elements have to be supported on an economic basis; they cannot be supported at vast expense to the taxpayer if he is kept out of those areas unless they are of the highest scientific value. It follows that one cannot keep people out of areas purely on the say-so of the landowner. Yet there is the element of the perfect balance here. We have the demands made by special interest groups and the public; we have supply in the form of administration by the administration authorities —land administration by landowners; and there is no pricing system to balance out the problems. That is one of the issues which is at the heart of the national parks. That is why I feel that the natural heritage areas represent a significant advance on what we have south of the Border. Therefore, I associate 767 myself with the amendment, as amended by my noble friend Lady Saltoun, and hope at the very least that the Minister will stick to his guns on this issue.
My Lords, what I was implying was that they were not a good idea if it is made impossible at a later stage to have national parks.I said that Scotland may need different ways of handling different parts of the country.
My Lords, that is very helpful. The point is that some people believe that we have gone too far in introducing NHAs and would rather have nothing at all. Some believe that we have not gone far enough and that we should' introduce national parks. I agree with my noble friend Lord Burton who thought that the NHAs were a good idea. That seems to be a good compromise. Many noble Lords have spoken this afternoon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, we have only one bite of the cherry. Therefore, if I do not answer every point it is because I simply have not picked them all up. I shall trawl Hansard to make sure that noble Lords get a reply at a later date.
I shall first deal with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. She spoke about the lack of consultation as regards the introduction of NHAs into the Bill That was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. There has been some criticism of the introduction of this clause establishing NHAs. That criticism has been based on the argument that whereas we rejected amendments to set up the national parks on the grounth that there was no clear consensus in favour of them, we have introduced NHAs when the proposal has only recently gone out for consultation and no consens is therefore exists.
These criticisms represent a radical misunderstanding of the position. The consultation paper, Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead was issued in June 1990. It contained the proposal to establish the NHA designation although the name itself had not then been coined. Only one of the 156 respondents to that consultation paper raised any objections to the concept. It was in the light of the support received then that we considered that we were quite justified in implementing such proposals in the form of the new clause to the Bill. The consultation paper which has now been issued deals with the detailed operation of the designation and not the principle of whether there should be such a designation.
While on the subject of the national parks perhaps I may deal with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and I believe also by the noble Baroness, Lady David, concerning the poll 768 on national parks and whether or not details were available before Third Reading in the other place. I can assure noble Lords that the report was published at a later date. It showed that 84 per cent. were in favour of national parks. Unfortunately, I have to tell the House that that is only part of the survey. It showed also quite clearly that there were three quite different views on the purposes of the national parks. One-third of those who were in favour considered the proposal was exclusively for the protection of those particular areas; one-third thought that it was for conservation and recreation; and a further one-third thought that it was for recreation only. I hardly think that that shows a consensus for introducing national parks in Scotland. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour is quite correct in saying that that consensus simply does not exist.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and several other noble Lords asked about the position of national parks in this Bill, and whether or not they could be introduced.
My Lords, I made it very clear that I thought that national parks could not be introduced under this Bill. I was simply asking whether the introduction of the NHAs —which we are only now considering as they were not in the Bill when it was before us before it went to the other place —will nullify the possibility of national parks later on? I am not necessarily in favour of national parks, I just want to be clear that the Government do not regard this as an alternative which would close the door to national parks later.
My Lords, I am sorry about that. I misunderstood my noble friend. He is absolutely right. Of course this does not stop the Government deciding to come forward later with national parks. However, the establishment of national parks in Scotland would involve the creation of national park authorities which would need a wide range of powers conferred on them. All these aspects of the establishment of a national park are outwith the scope of national heritage areas but would require quite separate and specific primary legislation. That is the point and our minds are not necessarily closed. We could not do so with this Bill but with a later Bill.
My Lords, I am still not quite clear. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that national heritage areas will not be included in national parks and that national park boundaries will have to be considered later. Are we quite sure, if we do not know where the national parks might be, that the national heritage areas might not be some obstacle?
My Lords, perhaps I may explain to the noble Baroness that in this particular clause we are simply dealing with the proposal that SNH will be able to set up national heritage areas. That has nothing to do with national parks because there are no national parks in Scotland and there is no proposal to put forward national parks. If at some later date a proposal is approved by Parliament to set up national parks, then at that time the boundaries of NHAs can 769 be examined to see whether or not they should be changed in order to allow the formulation of national parks.
Perhaps I may deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Kimball, and others, on management agreements under the 1967 Act. This Bill amends the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967; Section 49A of which deals with management agreements. The power to enter into such voluntary agreements has been available to the Countryside Commission for Scotland for some time, but it has not been used. The section as amended by this Bill will be available to Scottish Natural Heritage. We envisage it will use that process in relation to natural heritage areas, at least as a means of targeting resources in areas of greatest need and of highest value. The degree of resources which SNH devotes to such agreements will be for SNH to decide.
That leads me on to the whole issue of finance and the amount of funding that will be available. That is a matter which many noble Lords opposite raised, including the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who had an interesting insight into the situation in England, and that is appreciated.
Scottish Natural Heritage will be funded fully in accordance with its functions. Within that funding it will need to determine its own priorities and it will need to decide what proportion of its grant aid to commit to NHAs or any other part of its functions. That is the point of funding. There will always be disagreement on funding, but that is determined in terms of overall government expenditure.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 8A, 8C and 8D in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There has been some support around the House from the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Erroll, and, to some extent, from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who pointed out some of the problems in the amendment, which I also intend to do. I have some sympathy with the intention of these amendments. Our intention in dealing with the establishment of NH As is that all those within the area concerned should have the fullest opportunity to comment on the proposals. All relevant interests including, very importantly, those who earn their living from the land in the area, would be involved in any development concerning the management of the area before the proposal is even put before the Secretary of State. We had a somewhat similar discussion about the notification of owners and occupiers in relation to the power of entry of Scottish Natural Heritage. I was able on that occasion to agree to the proposals put forward by the noble Lady. I regret that I shall not be able to do so on this particular amendment.
The noble Lady has explained the rationale behind her amendment regarding those to whom the Secretary of State should give notice that he proposes to make, or has made, a direction designating an area as an NHA. I regret to tell the noble Lady that I do not think that Section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947 is a solid base on which to build this amendment. That section of the Act does not oblige the Secretary of State to ask for returns to be submitted. It only 770 empowers him to do so. He may not always make use of the power. No obligation to submit a return exists until the Secretary of State serves notice under subsection (1) of the provision.
There is also a risk that designation of an NHA could be invalidated if SNH failed to give notice to just one owner in the area. The provision for advertisement strikes me as being the most practical way of drawing the matter to the attention of all those with an interest. Advertising will not be just in the Edinburgh Gazette: it will be in the local paper and possibly in the national papers as well. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy informed us, some local papers can have as much as 80 per cent. saturation in their area.
All the people in an area —farmers, crofters, landowners or anyone else —will be aware that Scottish Natural Heritage is working up an NHA proposal since SNH would consult owners and occupiers and all other interests in the area before submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State. It is in the light of that quite specific and very extensive consultation by SNH that further notification by the Secretary of State seems unnecessary. As I have indicated, there are also practical difficulties in accommodating the amendment which the noble Lady has proposed. I hope that she will agree not to press her amendment.
My Lords, we have had a very interesting discussion about the Government's new clause and about my amendments. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that she thought that the number of people affected by my amendment was far too limited. I entirely agree with her. It was tabled for the reasons I gave and I thought that it would take care of the interests of those most affected. However, it was not my ideal amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, gave us some very interesting information about the Edinburgh Gazette which I very much enjoyed. I understand that the Edinburgh Gazette is available in the Library of another place but is not available in the Library here.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, pointed out to me in my ignorance that Elphin and Strath Elphin are one and the same place. I can only say that I think that Elphin is a very much prettier name for it.
I come back to the amendment and to what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said. It is important that the Secretary of State should advertise in the national press as well as in local papers. What the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said is absolutely true. Although the local papers are as a rule read very carefully from cover to cover by at least 80 per cent. of the local population, there are people who do not read them. The national press should be automatically used for advertising.
I am satisfied with the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment No. 8A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, by leave, withdrawn.
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8B. Experience has shown that six weeks would be a very short time indeed to allow for the making of representations about proposals to designate a natural heritage area. That is especially so at certain times of the year, such as, for example, over the Christmas and New Year holidays which now seem to last for at least three weeks, and during the summer holidays, and indeed at any time when it may be necessary to take professional advice before making representations. It is curious how often the Government or a quango give notice at the end of July of a proposal about which representations are invited and must be received within six weeks or two months. At that time of year, when so many people are on holiday, it is impossible to get one's act together in such a short time as six weeks. Twelve weeks would be a very much more realistic time limit to impose. I beg to move.
My Lords, I do not want to surprise the House too much but I am delighted to be able to tell the noble Lady that I entirely agree that a longer period for the receipt of representations is reasonable. I am grateful to her for bringing this matter forward in the shape of this amendment. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we see the wisdom of this proposal in developing such ideas. I am happy to accept her suggestion of three months instead of six weeks and to support Amendment No. 8B.
My Lords, it is a rare event in this House for the amendment of a humble Cross-Bencher to be accepted, just as it stands, warts and all. June 6th will be a red letter day for me from now on. I heartily thank the noble Lord for accepting it and I am sure that he will thereby have earned the gratitude of many.
§ On Question, Amendment No. 8B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 8, agreed to.
§ On Question, Amendment No. 8, as amended, agreed to.
§ 9 Clause 6, page 5, line 19, after 'Office', insert 'of the Inland Revenue Department'.
§ 10 Clause 10, page 8, line 19, leave out '4(4)' and insert '4(5)'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 en bloc. In speaking to these amendments I should like to speak also to other similar amendments, which are all of a minor and technica nature; namely, Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, 37 to 40 and 42. I do not feel that it is necessary at this stage to detain your Lordships with explanations of these amendments since they quite genuinely are of a drafting or consequential nature and are of no great substance in themselves.
§ 11 Clause 11, page 8, line 21, leave out Clause 11.
§ (" . —(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee (in this 1section referred to as "the Committee") which shall have the function of giving advice to SNH on such matters concerning areas of special scientific interest as are specified in this section.
§ it shall refer the matter to the Committee.
§ (7) SNH shall not confirm a notification to which subsection (5) above applies or come to a decision on representations to which subsection (6) above applies without having received and considered the advice of the Committee on the matter; and in any case where a matter has been referred to the Committee SNH shall send a copy of the Committee's advice to any owner or occupier who has made objections or representations at the time when it notifies the owner or occupier of the confirmation of a notification or, as the case may be, its decision on the matter.
§ (8) Where representations are made to SNH in respect of a notification relating to any land in circumstances other than 773 those mentioned in subsection (5) or (6) above, SNH shall refer the representations to the Committee where not less than 10 years have elapsed from whichever is the later of the date of the notification or the date of any earlier representations made in respect of the notification.").
§ Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11, but do propose the amendment set out in the Marshalled List in lieu thereof.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in proposing the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11B to 11D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, since it is more convenient to consider all these amendments together. Clause 11 of the Bill has had a rather chequered history. It was inserted on Third Reading after a Division. I pointed out on that occasion the flaws and drawbacks of the clause but the amendment was approved, although, as my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch acknowledged, that approval gives your Lordships' House a chance to look at anything decided in another place regarding the amendment.
§ The other place, of course, decided that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. It is fair to point out that that was a unanimous decision of the Standing Committee considering the Bill. There was also considerable opposition to the clause from a wide range of Scottish opinion. I am aware that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has listened to the criticisms of the effect of the clause and has been concerned to hear it described in some quarters as a wrecking amendment. That is not a description the Government ever used, but we certainly argued that Clause 11 would be such an onerous burden and a diversionary activity that it would be doubtful if SNH could devote much effort to its other duties during its first five years of existence.
§ There is, however, a much more fundamental reason for our opposition to the clause, and one which remains in spite of the modifications I have mentioned. The establishment of a right of appeal to the Secretary of State would be a departure from the provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As that legislation embodies not only the SSSI procedures but gives effect to our commitment to nature conservation under both international treaties and EC directives, any departure from that legislation on a purely Scottish basis could call into question our commitment to those obligations, and could lead to the risk of challenge in, for example, the European Court of Justice.
§ At the risk of trying noble Lords' patience, I should like to set out once again the reasons why there is no need for a right of appeal against a notification. There appears to be a lack of recognition that there is already a right of representation against notification of an SSSI and a form of appeal to the Secretary of State against the confirmation of potentially damaging operations. The existing system provides a statutory right of representation against notification of an SSSI. This is perhaps the most crucial stage of the whole process, and owners and occupiers, the Secretary of State and local planning authorities have four months in which to make representations. SNH must within 774 nine months of the notification decide whether to confirm it, withdraw it or modify it in some way. Notification of an SSSI in itself places no restraints on owners or occupiers of land. It simply means that any proposed changes to the use or management of land should be cleared first with SNH.
§ I should also point out that a form of statutory appeal already exists under the nature conservation order system, whereby the Secretary of State is the final arbiter of the significance of the site. Owners and occupiers can, in the last resort, only be stopped from a particular activity which would damage the scientific interest of a site by the making of a nature conservation order. SNH has to convince the Secretary of State that an order should be made. If objections are made to the order, a public local inquiry or hearing is then held and the ultimate decision of whether or not to confirm the order is for the Secretary of State, not SNH. If the Secretary of State does not reach a final decision within nine months, the site ceases to be protected. Given the existing statutory provision and the improved procedures for the hearing of representations at the initial stage, and the form of statutory appeal embodied in the nature conservation order mechanism, there are adequate safeguards to the position of owners and occupiers, and I am not persuaded of the need for a review and right of appeal on existing SSSIs.
§ I have suggested to NCCS that it should issue a clear and coherent code of guidance on SSSI procedures, so that owners and occupiers and all other interests understand precisely what their statutory rights are in relation to SSSIs. The code will be as comprehensive as possible, while retaining the utmost clarity. I am sure this initiative, which will be inherited by SNH, will meet with your Lordships' approval.
§ I should now like to turn to the guts of the amendment which stands in my name. We have produced this new clause in an attempt to balance, on the one hand, the legitimate worries expressed by owners and occupiers of land about the role of SNH in SSSI notification with, on the other, our commitment to the SSSI system, particularly as set out in Sections 28 and 29 of the 1981 Act. The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to appoint a committee of people of relevant scientific qualifications and expertise who would be independent of SNH. That independence is guaranteed by the provision in subsection (2) which excludes the appointment to the committee of any member of SNH or a member of any committee appointed by SNH. The constitutional part of the new clause has deliberately been drafted in general terms to allow for maximum flexibility to respond to circumstances.
§ Subsection (5) deals with new SSSIs, and in effect provides that if an owner or occupier objects to the notification, and SNH cannot persuade him to withdraw his objection, SNH has an absolute duty to refer the matter to the committee for advice. The procedural arrangements for the committee will be such that the Secretary of State can ensure that the committee makes its advice available in time for SNH to reach a decision within the nine months allowed by the 1981 Act. Subsection (6) deals with existing SSSIs, 775 and these are in general subject to a somewhat different procedure. In both subsections (5) and (6) the objection must relate to the scientific interest of the site, but in subsection (6) SNH is given six months to try to persuade the owner or occupier to withdraw his objection. This is in keeping with our intention that SNH should be a sensitive and responsive body seeking co-operation wherever possible. The grounds for referral to the committee were deliberately restricted to the scientific criteria as this is the only basis on which SNH can notify an SSSI.
§ If the representations have not been withdrawn within six months, SNH must refer the matter to the advisory committee. The subsection distinguishes two different categories of existing SSSI. In cases where objections or representations were made at the time of the original notification, representations can be made to SNH as soon as it is established. For other cases, that is where no objections were expressed in the first place, at least 10 years must have elapsed from the date of notification. It is of course the case that an owner or occupier could make representations to SNH about a designation at any time: the 10-year period Tlates only to referral of representations to the independent committee. In whatever circumstances the matter has been referred to the committee, subsection (7) makes it clear that SNH cannot reach a decision until it has received and considered the committee's advice. A copy of that advice must also be sent to the objector when SNH notifies its final decision on the case.
§ Subsection (8) introduces a 10-year cycle for objections for all SSSIs, once they have been dealt with under the provisions of either subsection (5) or (6). We believe this is an essential feature of the new clause, since otherwise SNH could be asked to refer the same SSSI to the committee almost continuously. Ten years seems a reasonable period, particularly when it is borne in mind that SNH will constantly monitor the scientific interest of the site during that period Inder the general workings of the 1981 Act.
§ As I have indicated, subsection (8) establishes a 10-year cycle for referral of further representations to the committee. This means, in the case of new SSSIs notified by SNH, if no representations about the scientific basis for notification are made initially, any made 10 years after notification will be referred to the committee. If the owner or occupier does make representations at the time of notification —which is the situation covered by subsection (5) —they are similarly entitled to have further representations referred to the committee 10 years later.
§ As for existing SSSIs, if no representations were made originally at notification, subsection (6) (b) of the new clause allows for referral of representations to the committee 10 years after the date of notification. Under subsection (8) a further period of 10 years must elapse from the date of those representations under subsection (6) (b) before the matter can come before the committee again. If representations were made to NCC or NCCS at the time of notification, subsection (6) (a) provides for immediate referral to the committee of representations made to SNH. Subsection (8) allows for another referral to the 776 committee 10 years later. In each case, once representations have been referred in accordance with subsection (8), further representations may be referred at 10-yearly intervals thereafter.
§ I am aware that the last couple of minutes have been quite complicated. The endeavour is to try to set down the arrangements whereby people who have existing SSSIs will be able to know whether they can bring their particular case forward to the scientific advisory committee. That is simply to show that what I think exists in the Bill actually does so.
§ I should like to turn now to my noble friend Lord Pearson's Amendments 11B, 11C and 11D. There is no need to grant a right of referral in relation to a potentially damaging operation since the 1981 Act makes perfectly satisfactory provision for dealing with PDOs. SNH can, of course, consent to a PDO being carried out. If not, the SSSI notification cannot prevent the PDO being carried out. It is at most a delaying mechanism to allow time for negotiation between the owner or occupier and SNH. After a specified period, four months, the owner or occupier can carry out the PDO if he has not entered into a management agreement with SNH. If he does enter into a management agreement, he would be compensated for forgoing the PDO.
§ It would not be appropriate to refer PDOs under Section 28(4) (b) of the 1981 Act to the committee. PDOs are best handled by SNH, when considering a specific proposal from an owner to carry out particular activities covered by the PDOs. SNH can then assess in practical terms whether the operation would, in fact, damage the scientific interest, or whether some modification to the proposal would avoid such damage. The committee, on the other hand, would be asked to decide in the abstract whether the operation would be damaging. That is putting an impossible task on this new committee. Moreover, if the operation did not have the potential to be damaging in at least some circumstances, it would not have been included on the list. The committee could therefore only confirm the original list.
§ It should also be borne in mind that the owner or occupier does have an opportunity to question the list of PDOs applying to his land, although not in the context of notification of the site as an SSSI. If after the end of the four month period no management agreement is entered into and the owner or occupier is still proposing to carry out a PDO against the wishes of SNH, SNH may ask the Secretary of State to make a nature conservation order under Section 29 of the Act. If any objections are made to the order, a local inquiry is held and it is the Secretary of State, not SNH, who must decide whether the order should continue in force in its original or in an amended form, or whether it should be revoked. Amendment may for instance limit the area covered by the order, or may alter the list of PDOs specified in the order. There is therefore in our view no need to provide for review of the PDOs at an earlier stage when these appeal procedures independent of SNH already exist. The opportunity for independent appraisal of the scientific case for notification is in general for what many 777 Members of your Lordships' House asked when they spoke on Report and on Third Reading, but it does not —and I make this abundantly clear —override the statutory duty of SNH to notify sites under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
What the Government are bringing forward today is a substantial concession, but it does not undermine our continuing commitment to the SSSI procedures laid down in the 1981 and 1985 Acts. I commend the Government's amendment to your Lordships, and ask you to support it rather than the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
§ 11B★ Subsection (5), line 6, leave out ("reason specified in the notification in pursuance of subsection (4)(a)") and insert ("reason or operations specified in the notification in pursuance of subsection (4)").
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 11C. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 11D.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendment because it proposes to allow appeals on scientific grounds to his new proposed committee. It is an enormous improvement to the Bill. My noble friend's amendment would allow appeals to the proposed new advisory committee on grounds purely of the scientific interest of the site in question. These amendments would also allow appeals to the same committee against the restrictions on land use which will be applied by SNH in order not to damage that scientific value.
I regret the suspicion and controversy which have been growing recently over these and related issues. The conflict appears to arise between those who own and work their land and those who wish to protect it or enjoy it for other reasons. I say that the conflict appears to arise because I wonder whether it is as acute as our powerful conservation lobbies and much of the media would have us believe. I hope to show that the amendments, if agreed to, would improve the nature conservation of the sites in question. At the same time, they would do much to alleviate a perceived injustice to owners and occupiers of land which remains in the Bill, despite the welcome improvements proposed by my noble friend in the rest of his new Clause 11.
I shall deal with the injustice first and then the nature conservation interest. An injustice remains, even under my noble friend's new clause, because an owner or occupier cannot appeal to the proposed new advisory committee against the restrictions placed on his land use by SNH. He can appeal only against SNH's view of the scientific importance of the site in question.
Perhaps I may offer your Lordships a simple example: a small farmer is told by SNH that it has discovered some rare thistles in his fields. SNH 778 proposes to designate the fields as a site of special scientific interest and to prevent the farmer forthwith from grazing his cows there. As my noble friend's amendment is presently drafted, the farmer would be able to question the rarity of the thistles with the new committee, but he could not point out to the committee that in his view cows do not eat thistles and that they should therefore be allowed to graze the fields.
The committee would not be free to agree or disagree officially as to whether cows eat thistles. It could only confirm or deny the rarity of the thistles. Assuming that the committee agrees with SNH that the thistles are rare enough to merit SSSI designation, the farmer will be left facing the existing procedure for deciding what activities or operations are potentially damaging to the site.
I maintain that forcing a small farmer, or anyone else, through that procedure without appeal is unjust. My noble friend has explained admirably the procedure for dealing with potentially damaging operations. Our only difference is that he called it "perfectly satisfactory". I need not trouble your Lordships with another detailed explanation because the long and the short of it is that cows can be prevented from grazing a field for at least nine months while SNH attempts to negotiate a management agreement, perhaps a nature conservation order is issued, and the prospect looms of a public inquiry, leading possibly to compulsory purchase.
The smaller the farmer, the greater the injustice is likely to be of forcing him through that procedure. The smaller the farmer, the less likely he is to want to face up to the time-wasting bureaucracy involved, and the more likely he is merely to give in to the demands of this powerful body (SNH). I am afraid that it is not good enough to pretend that his interests are adequately protected because he can be offered compensation under the management agreement procedure. We all know how slowly grinds the bureaucracy, and how long it can take to deliver such a thing. Examples have been given in your Lordships' House of distressing cases in precisely that area. Anyway, what does a farmer do with his cows for a minimum of nine months? If he cannot graze them, does he have to sell them? The potential for injustice still exists in the clause, which these amendments do much to remove.
I turn now to the conservation interest. I return, if I may, to the small farmer and his rare thistles. Let us suppose that the farmer agrees with SNH that the thistles are rare, but let us also suppose that he knows a great deal about thistles, however rare, and how they interact with cows. I hope that I shall be forgiven for suggesting that as a farmer he is likely to have that knowledge. In the farmer's opinion, the thistles would be encouraged by cows grazing the fields where they grow. Why should he not be able to take that view to my noble friend's new scientific committee? There must be many such examples, and there are likely to be many more in future. I say that because farming and land use are changing rapidly just now.
The farmers' and landowners' life is not easy at the moment. They need to find new activities and new 779 ways of supplementing their income. Some of those will be beneficial to the special scientific interest and some will no doubt be damaging. I am afraid that it seems 3ensible to refer those activities to my noble friend's new scientific committee. There can surely be no doubt that if that committee is competent to confirm the scientific interest, it must also be capable of judging what will or will not damage that interest. If it knows enough about the thistles to declare them a great rarity, its opinion must also be valuable as to whether cows eat them or avoid them and, for example, whet her cows' manure is helpful or harmful to their regeneration.
I recommend the amendments to your Lordships, both to alleviate the present injustice, which, I repeat, is at its worst for the smallest among us, and to enhance the nature conservation functions of SNH.
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he kindly tell the House whether he or his immediate family have any interest in any land which is SSSI, or PSSI in Scotland?
My Lords, I should confirm to your Lordships, as I declared during the earlier Series oldebates in your Lordships' House, that I own land which is subject to an SSSI. It is land which the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has said cattle should not graze. Recently on national radio Mr. Aubrey Manning (I do not remember of which conservation body he is chairman) agreed that he thought that cows would be an advantage to the land in question because they would graze the molinia grass which is rapidly becoming the cancer of the West Highlands. I can assure my noble friend that my interest in that issue is not such as to sway my view about what I have just said and what I propose. I beg to move.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his new clause. It greatly improves the original provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has raised an extremely important point and I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it. If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right in what he says, the commit tee can consider the scientific importance of the thistle —to continue the example —but it is unable to comment on the means of protecting it. That cannot be right. If it is right that that is in the Bill, the Minister should alter it. I hope that he will answer the point.
A further question concerns what staff or resources the committee will have. Will it depend upon the SNH for staff? Will it have funds with which it could commission a small inquiry or research project into certain subjects? It seems to me desirable that, although I am against a large staff, we should know the position. If the committee is dependent on the SNH the landowner would not be certain that it was not prejudiced by the information it receives. It is reasonable that the committee should have some funds or staff, though small, which should be entirely independent of the SNH, as, indeed, the committee is.
780 Can the Minister assure us that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, are unjustified or else accept his or a similar amendment? If he will tell us that the staff of the committee as well as its members will be independent, then we shall have gone a considerable way, if not the whole way, towards meeting the original objections to this part of the Bill.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has raised the extremely important point of resources. Even if that question is answered, we have not yet reached the right solution. I am the part-time, non-executive chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council for England, now called English Nature. I have an important connection with Scottish Natural Heritage through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee by which we exercise our special functions.
As your Lordships know, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 divided the former Nature Conservancy Council into three new organisations plus the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is important to emphasise that these are three new organisations. They are approaching the subject of nature conservation in the United Kingdom in a new way, with new measures which are not uniform with those of the old Nature Conservancy Council and which represent different and interesting approaches in each country.
During the debates on the Environmental Protection Act and again on this Bill and today, my noble friend the Minister has given reassurances that the separation of the old Nature Conservancy Council will not alter the ground rules of strict equality of duty and function between the county councils in regard to nature conservation. That was repeated this afternoon when my noble friend the Minister, if I heard him aright, added that in his view any departure from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would make the Government vulnerable to indictment before the European courts. In the debate on 3rd December 1990 at col. 55 of the Official Report, he said: The Government have repeatedly stated, especially during the course of debates in this House and during the progress of the Environmental Protection Act, that they are not prepared to contemplate any change to the statutory procedures for site notification… and that the Government cannot change the provisions for SSSIs laid down in the 1981 Act in a Scottish Bill as these are Great Britain measures". Following the introduction of the new Clause 11 which was inserted in this House by my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland (which will become Scottish Natural Heritage) Mr. Magnus Magnusson, undertook a review of the internal procedures for notifying SSSIs. He announced the new arrangements which he proposed to follow in Scotland.
The revised procedures in Scotland enable disputes over SSSI notification to be referred first to the regional board. In Scotland they have chosen a dispersed model and, as we know, are setting up four regional boards. If the dispute cannot be settled at the 781 regional level, it is to be referred to the full council of Scottish Natural Heritage. That body may and will seek advice where it chooses.
These arrangements were made widely known and were welcomed by the Secretary of State when he said in February that: This decision underlines the Government's continuing commitment to the SSI system, as the essential mechanism for ensuring the protection of areas that are unique, representative sites of scientific interest for plants, animals and earth science features… It follows that I do not intend to support the case for a statutory right of appeal". We received today a complicated and lengthy clause introduced by my noble friend at the last minute, giving us little time to look at it, but nonetheless clear enough. A moment ago, my noble friend Lord Pearson recognised that it allows the right of appeal in certain cases. If it were not for that, I recognise that it would not receive the support of a large part of the House. It is a substantial concession, as my noble friend the Minister said. In my view, the system would positively invite appeals and repeated appeals on a decadal basis.
The system of appeal that is being set up overrides the present duty of the successor body to the Nature Conservancy Council to exercise its judgment; to express its opinion in law in the national interest; to identify sites of special scientific interest; to notify and ultimately to confirm them after the due process has been gone through. I shall deal with that later.
As the non-executive chairman of English Nature, I am naturally concerned that we should remain on parity and that when we operate together to the common rules of identifying SSSIs, as laid down by the 1981 Act, the three country agencies should operate on a level basis.
In April I spoke about my concerns to Mr. Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, the convener of the Scottish Landowners Federation. He assured me at the time that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, did not have the backing of that federation. What he subsequently published in a letter in the magazine The Field, in response to the article by my noble friend Lord Pearson, leads me to believe that this was then his opinion. He looked to the Government to put it right in the Commons, as they did, as my noble friend said, by unanimous decision.
It is widely claimed that there is no appeal. It is true that there is no direct appeal system to notification under the 1981 Act. However, because it has been the duty of the Nature Conservancy Council and is the duty of its successors to exercise their opinions, the councils have been specially selected and appointed by Government in order to fulfil this function. I am proud to say that, as the result of the appointments by the Secretary of State, in England there is a council covering a wide range of backgrounds and skills; people whose views I shall value and do value highly; who, corporately, can exercise their opinions and can reach the right conclusion.
The decision to notify, as my noble friend said from the Front Bench, sets up a negotiating process. During this process, objections are discussed; there is face-to-face discussion between members of the staff 782 and the objector. If I may say so, frankly, the story about the thistles is ludicrous. I accept that, under the heading of potentially damaging operations, (PDOs) the grazing of cows must be listed. This is a constant difficulty that we face. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, does not appear to have heard of the consent system which is widely used in England and by which these cases are normally resolved. The process leading up to confirmation allows for negotiation and discussion with objectors and for consents to be agreed.
My noble friend also emphasised that the Secretary of State exercises the right of appeal if a nature conservation order mechanism under Section 29 is put in place. Moreover, he might have added that if any activity, other than those concerning PDOs— that is to say, activities involving planning consent, for example — is brought into operation, the Secretary of State is again the ultimate appeal, through the planning process.
The proposal to set up an independent committee supersedes, overrides and denigrates the scientific capabilities of the council of Scottish Natural Heritage. That proposal reduces the council's powers to exercise its opinion. I must ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether this amendment is the way to show the Secretary of State's confidence in his appointment of Mr. Magnus Magnusson as chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage. Is it the way to support his careful and well thought out reforms of the present system? Does it sustain the confidence of the central council and regional boards? My view is that it totally undermines the standing of Scottish Natural Heritage's regional boards and of its full council. Their capacity to make scientific judgments is openly questioned.
I agree that we in English Nature are highly concerned about these issues. We recognise that SSSI notification can and does impinge on one of the most delicate areas of human sensitivity; namely, the rights of ownership and the management of land. We have debated and agreed upon the most careful procedures by which we shall exercise our opinions. We in English Nature shall work in partnership with owners and occupiers of land. We wish to review the ways in which management grants are provided and we intend to work together in the national interest to conserve the natural heritage of England.
We have debated and agreed upon the most careful procedure by which the council of English Nature shall exercise its statutory duty to notify SSSIs. Today I received an assurance from the Department of the Environment that there is no intention to introduce arrangements in England that are similar to those now proposed for Scotland. That in itself emphasises that there is a difference and that the two country agencies will not be operating on a level playing field.
This is a government amendment and my next point may be an irregular one to make. However, I hope that my noble friend concurs with my judgment that the House of Commons got it right in deleting this clause. I hope his amendment will also be withdrawn.
My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who has so much more experience of this matter than I. Having listened 783 to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I am even more confused about the provisions of this clause than I was hitherto. That is unusual as the noble Lord usually manages to throw light on whatever matter he is presen Ling. I have looked again at the clause but it still appears to me that subsections (5) and (6) allow for a review of SSSIs on scientific grounds and that subsection (8) allows for a review on non-scientific grounds. If that is the case, the clause goes back on everything the Government have said about resisting a review. I believe that the noble Lord repeated that assurance today. Some clarification, at best, is needed on that point.
As regards setting up the separate committee, I note that the cost of that will fall squarely on SNH, apparently without any extra money being made available for that purpose. I believe that matter is mentioned in subsection (2). The press release given by the Secretary of State for Scotland to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has already referred, and the publication of a letter by Sir Magnus Magnusson show that Scottish Natural Heritage was undertaking a review of its procedures which would enable a second opinion to be given almost independently of SNH. It seems to me that Sir Magnus, in a letter which he sent to my noble friend Lord Carmichael in May, went out of his way to reassure those who were worried about the provisions of SNH that he was going to meet all their concerns. The letter states: I intend to focus more effort on the procedures prior to notification of the scientific interest in an area. You will be aware that under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 pre-notification discussions were, shall we say, discouraged". That point is arguable, but I know that it is voiced. The letter continues: Nevertheless, in Scotland, our staff have been tacitly allowed to exercise their discretion in this area, and so far with excellent and constructive results. From now on, NCCS staff will provide owners and occupiers with an indication of whether changes in the management of land are required to safeguard the scientific interest of the site". Sir Magnus explains in detail in his letter how that will occur. However, I shall not weary the House by quoting at length from the letter. I am sure the Minister has seen the letter and Sir Magnus sets out in it a useful procedure for meeting a great number of the objections which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has made.
I shall not make all the points I intended to make as I believe that the noble Earl has covered most of them. However, I must say that I am left with the impression that the movers of the amendment to the Government's amendment, and those who persuaded the Government to insert Clause 11, have the intention of shackling and impoverishing the new SNH before it is even born so that it cannot in any way inconvenience those landholders who wish to exploit their holdings without being hindered by inconvenient thoughts of preserving Scotland's wonderful natural heritage. I hope that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not be accepted. I beg the Government not to insist on inserting Clause 11 in the Bill.
My Lords, I was not too pleased with the way in which this matter was discussed in the Chamber on the previous occasion. It was more the style of the debate than what was actually said that displeased me. Today the style of the debate is much more constructive and more realistic. When Sir Magnus Magnusson came to the House and met Scottish Peers— I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was present on that occasion— by no means all of those Peers took the view that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, takes of this issue. Many of us were simply anxious that the procedures were such that someone who had a problem in this area could obtain an opinion other than that of Scottish Natural Heritage. I have been involved in quangos for many years and I know what wonderful defence mechanisms they can evolve as time goes on to deal with awkward situations.
Sir Magnus explained the role of the scientific committee to us and he explained that that committee would be able to provide a separate opinion. However, he added that Scottish Natural Heritage would appoint that committee. That appeared to me to be rather a pity— I am sure a number of others who were present felt the same way— as the scientific committee was not therefore an external body to which one could have recourse. Now the Government have moved in the direction of making that committee independent. That seemed to me to be the main issue that was at stake in that meeting. I am pleased that that has happened. I had hoped that there might be some other way but it is not realistic to think that there is. It is different from what is happening in England, but the difference is only minor. I think that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is unduly worried about that difference. I believe that the system will work in very much the same way in Scotland and that there will not be injustice in this respect.
I should like to address a few words to my noble friend Lord Pearson. I do not know whether the animals in the field are his and whether he farms the field, but in Scotland in a field of thistles which has cows in it from time to time the grass grows very unevenly, not because of the thistles but due to the cows, and one has to top the field with a grass mower. That does not do the thistles any good; but if one leaves the thistles there soon there will be no room for the cows.
My noble friend's example was very amusing. It made his point very clearly, but it was not a very good example. A committee of scientists would not know about what my noble friend called the operation; namely, the farming of the field. They would not know that the field had to be topped with a grass mower. They would probably agree the application, and soon there would no longer be any thistles. Therefore, that particular example is not a sound one.
My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend for clarification on one point on which there has been some confusion; namely, the difference between notification of an SSSI and a 785 nature conservation order in relation to the procedures which existed under the former NCC and those proposed in the original Bill for the SNH.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has described in detail the procedures introduced under the 1981 Act which were applied by the former NCC. They deal with the notification and designation of an SSSI, which within the NCC's structure have been dealt with under the terms of the 1981 Act. My noble friend explained that there was no appeal to the Minister or other outside body, but that matters were considered very carefully by the Council.
That procedure related to designation. In the case of proposed operations by an owner or occupier, when the SNH, or previously the NCC, considers that the operation would cause damage to the purpose of the SSSI a conservation order can be made by the Secretary of State. There is the possibility of an appeal to the Secretary of State by an objector. It should be made clear that, for example, if a farmer wants to undertake operations to which the SNH objects, the land can be made the subject of a nature conservation order. That could then lead to an appeal to the Secretary of State who makes the order in the first place.
I should like to have clarification that that is the situation; that there is no appeal outside the SNH in the notification procedure but that there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State on questions of operations which can be carried out in an SSSI.
The letter from Sir Magnus Magnusson setting out his refined procedure is available in the Library, and I hope that it has been seen by all who have taken part in the debate. It has been widely circulated. Sir Magnus has gone to great trouble to indicate how the system will operate in Scotland in future in relation to notification and designation. My noble friend Lady Carnegy and I both heard him when he came to the House and spoke on the subject at some length and answered our questions. That is a great advance. It should go a long way to meeting the difficulties and distrust that have arisen in some parts of Scotland. I and other noble Lords have spoken at some length on the matter in previous debates, not only in relation to this Bill but also a year or so ago on the United Kingdom Bill which is now an Act.
I did not think that the amendment agreed in this House, which was deleted in the other place and which is now being proposed in substitution for the Government's proposal, was correct or necessary when it was originally moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson. I opposed it. I said at the time that the other place would throw it out for various reasons which I shall not go into again, and I was not surprised that it was rejected.
I feel that with this amendment my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the Government have gone as far as they possibly can with the procedures, keeping procedures uniform within the United Kingdom. I do not believe that noble Lords should try to add additional items at this stage. The Government have gone a long way. I believe that the combination of the new procedures within Scotland— which will be dealt 786 with much nearer the point of contact with owners and occupiers— and the Government's proposed advisory committee is as far as we should go without upsetting the procedure about which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is worried. I hope that the House will accept the Government's new clause.
My Lords, I support Amendment No. 11A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I should like to thank him for bringing it forward. I should like to emphasise that our belief in the necessity for the advisory committee to which objections are referred to be independent of SNH does not imply any lack of confidence in the sensitive direction of the chairman-designate of SNH. I want to emphasise that very strongly. It merely implies recognition of the fact that none of us is immortal. We are legislating for a time when a future chairman and committee of SNH might be tempted to act rather less sensitively than I am sure the present chairman designate will act, and a right of appeal to an independent committee might therefore be necessary to prevent injustice.
In relation to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself, it is a pity that it will not be possible for potentially damaging operations under subsection (4) (b) of Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to be referred to the independent advisory committee. I should have thought that the committee's expertise would be such as to make it uniquely qualified to make decisions where any dispute arose as to whether any particular operation would be likely to be damaging.
My Lords, I should begin by saying how sorry I am to have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I sit on the council of English Nature and he is my chairman. It therefore grieves me somewhat to have to disagree with him on this particular occasion.
I should also declare an interest in that on my own land in the North I have four SSSIs. The procedures have worked well, the designations have been fully accepted, as have the PDOs. However, that does not mean that I do not know of other cases which have gone wrong. It is principally for that reason that I support the Government's amendment, which I should like to speak to now before moving on to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson.
There seems to be some divergence of opinion as to what Sir Magnus Magnusson has said. It is my impression that at a meeting in this House recently he made it quite clear that he was not averse to a system incorporating the introduction of an advisory committee.
We have heard constant reference to an appeal system. As I understand it, this is not an appeal system. It is simply a second opinion. Quite frankly, if SNH is to carry out its duties effectively and well it should have nothing to worry about. There is nothing in the amendment that would prevent SNH from carrying out its statutory duties for nature conservation. I can assure your Lordships that, if I thought 787 that that was the case, I should not support the amendment. I believe that to be of ultimate importance.
Another prerequisite for my supporting such an amendment is that the advisory committee should consist of individuals with sufficient scientific qualifications. The Government appear to have satisfied that criterion from what I have seen. I should like to add one point to which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred. It is important that the advisory committee should, when assessing such claims, work along the lines of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for the three country agencies. That is fundamental; otherwise, we might find the advisory committee working to a different set of criteria than those of the three country agencies. However, basically I can see no reason why a site designation should not be accepted if the scientific criteria were sound. Surely that is the basis.
Those people who oppose the amendment must assume that all designation of sites to date has been 100 per cent. okay. I cannot believe that that is true. There must have been cases of sites having been designated incorrectly in one form or another. The advisory committee is simply there to scrutinise and to ensure that that happens as little as possible.
My noble friend Lord Pearson referred to the cost factor for small farmers. That is an extremely important point. If an SSSI designation is put on a large landowner, he no doubt has the resources to go to a separate scientific body, such as a university, to obtain an opinion, but the small farmer does not have the resources. It is not only a question of finance; he probably does not know where to go. The system at least enables him quite simply and cost-effectively to challenge the designation of an SSSI. I cannot see why anyone should be averse to that basic principle. I dare say that the compensation payments received for operations forgone under the system work well, but there is little doubt that in certain cases capital values depreciate simply because there is a designation. We must also consider that factor. I therefore heartily support the amendment of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I shall now move on to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson, which I support because it seems illogical that we should have a system under which the advisory body examines the designation of an SSSI. It should also incorporate any operational activities that are likely to be presented in the PDO list.
Generally speaking, owners and occupiers accept the important role of the conservation agencies and of site designation, but the restriction of operations, particularly at this time of agricultural uncertainty to which my noble friend referred, deeply concerns many farmers. The compensation system has worked well, particularly among those farmers who are struggling. When a site designation is made and compensation is paid, it is extremely welcome.
Reference has been made to one other factor; namely, the approach that Mr. Magnusson and his team have so far made in Scotland and the introduction of regional boards and what I believe will be called the scientific research and development 788 committee. That step is undoubtedly to be welcomed. It is a major step forward and I congratulate Mr. Magnusson on it, but the measures are not statutory. What happens if another chairman in the future decides to repeal the measures? The case for referring matters to the advisory committee then becomes even stronger.
However, as I said at the outset, if I thought that the system would undermine the pursuit of sensible conservation policies, I would not support it. but I firmly believe that it enhances those measures and that we shall see a better balance in the future.
My Lords, I did not take part in the earlier discussion of the amendment in this House because I do not live in Scotland and I thought that the matter could perhaps be left to those noble Lords who live there. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I was not happy about what happened there because it seemed to me all too easy that it would look to people outside as though a group— in this case, Scottish landowners— was using the House to promote its interests. I noted what the Government said then. They were resolute in opposing the amendment, although they were overridden. I was glad to see that the amendment that we passed was overturned in the other place.
I thought that the Government would continue to stand firm when the Commons amendments came back to us, but they have now introduced this amendment which the Minister described as a substantial concession. The highly respected environmental correspondent in the Daily Telegraph, Mr. Charles Clover, describes it in today's paper in the following terms: The move is a huge concession to land-owning peers who have criticised the stringency of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act". It was only the other day that the Government set up those three new nature conservation bodies for England, Scotland and Wales. Some of us were unhappy about that, but it happened and we welcomed the appointment of the three distinguished chairmen of the new councils and thought that they would be allowed to get on with the job in the way described by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, with a new approach to nature conservation. It is extraordinary that the Government should now, as a concession to criticism of the Scottish Council, propose the appointment of a committee which is to second-guess the Scottish Council's decisions on the designation or preservation of SSSIs. That would be appropriate only if one regarded the brand new Scottish Council under Mr. Magnus Magnusson as a kind of rogue elephant. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, regards it as such. He wrote in The Field last month: I am afraid that the new institution now looks likely to reflect the worst instincts of its component parts: socialist control (from the Countryside Commission for Scotland) and narrow-minded science (from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland)". He went on to talk about officials of the Department of the Environment showing: a disturbing enthusiasm for environmental ideals which spring from left-wing European green movements". I read that with some surprise. I was glad that Mr. Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, convener of the 789 Scottish Landowners Federation, took issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in a subsequent letter to The Field already referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
I should like to ask the Minister one question about the new body; namely, whether it will follow the guidelines on SSSI criteria drawn up by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I do not believe that he made clear what will be the relationship of the new body to the joint committee. That will be fundamental to the whole issue of nature conservation in Great Britain.
I should like to say a very brief word about Wales, which is where I live. I should also declare a slight interest in that my wife has a small wood near our home. It is an SSSI concerning which we have had a very happy relationship with the Countryside Council for Wales. I know that the new chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, Mr. Michael Griffith, was worried about the amendment that was passed in this House. He told me that it would place the new Countryside Council for Wales in an almost impossible position. He writes: We should have to put the bulk of our resources into reviewing SSSI and therefore we would get very little else done". That was written before the government amendment was introduced. I had a word with Mr. Griffith today and informed him of the latest situation. He told me that he fully shared the concerns so eloquently expressed today by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Above all he is aware that there is a great deal for the new councils to do in the way of nature conservation. He wants them to get on and not to be bogged down in bureaucratic detail. He wants them to be free to deal with the real job of conserving nature. I think that that is absolutely right.
I hope very much that the Government will think again about this proposal. I realise that at the moment it is confined to Scotland. But, for the reasons expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, it is a worrying development. There would be great concern if anything like this procedure were to be introduced into England or particularly into Wales.
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I find it amazing that in a democracy we can set up a non-elected body with absolutely no chance to have a second opinion. The people who are "pro" having an autocratic body whose opinions cannot be questioned are mistaking the number of objections that there will be.
The only part of Scotland that I own is a house and 30 acres of cliff which happen to be an SSSI. About eight years ago I received a paper through the post which told me that it was an SSSI. I was told that there were various things that I could not do with it. There are also three fishermen's cottages on the land: presumably, they are also SSSIs. I did not worry about the piece of paper and I put it aside. I certainly was not notified in advance. I was not given a chance to consult, appeal or do anything of that kind. I was 790 simply told that my land was an SSSI. I am not particularly worried. I am very happy that it is an SSSI. I do not do anything to damage it. About 14 car loads of Aberdonians come out in the summer at weekends to try to damage it, but there is nothing that I can do about that. If the Government would like to stop them perhaps they could. We have been trying to stop them for about 20 years. My mother started the attempt that long ago. I cannot see why noble Lords are worried about there being an appeal.
On the same grounds I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I cannot understand what is wrong with having the PDOs reviewed at the same time. Some SSSIs involve small farmers— small people without funds. Cash flow is vital to a small farmer. Although there is a right of appeal against the PDOs, it can take time and banks these days are only too willing to foreclose. It does not take long for a small farmer to go bust.
I should have thought that it would be only sensible to have the operations reviewed, if it seemed wise to the committee, at the same time as the designation of the SSSI. On those grounds I note that there are moves to stop legal aid for the early stages of certain legal actions. I should think that that would further inhibit farmers and prevent them doing anything about it. Both sets of amendments are extremely sensible. I support them.
My Lords, all noble Lords who, at an earlier stage of the Bill, were concerned about sites of special scientific interest will be extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for having introduced these proposals. He referred to the fact that doing so has constituted quite a bit of difficulty. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in referring to thistles, let us infer that the matter is also a prickly one.
With regard to the two aspects of appeals arising from the designation of SSSIs and potentially damaging operations, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun in their suggestions regarding the latter. I ask my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, now that he has this new system on board, whether within it he can think of some way at an early stage to encourage the views and respect the insight of the farmer and the man who directly knows his land, whenever potentially damaging operations may be an issue.
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Dundee in sincerely thanking my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for putting forward this amendment. I thank also my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for their persistence in pointing out the need for change in this part of the Bill.
I cannot understand the objections from some SNH and NCC members. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Peel, who apparently was a colleague of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, voice completely different and, I think, correct views. When the amendment was passed in this place on Third Reading there was an outcry from certain quarters of the media 791 and quite possibly in another place as well. References were made to landowning peers interfering with conservation and so on. That is totally unjustified. Shortly after the amendments were passed, I attended meetings of the NFU and FFWAG (Farming, Forestry and Wildlife Advisory Group). The amendments were greeted with delight by big and small farmers, by foresters and indeed by many people with varying interests in land use. After all it is those who use the ground who are most important in these conservation matters. Many users have been angered by current designations of SSSIs.
I cannot speak for England. Obviously, however, there is total lack of understanding of the hostility that has been engendered by some designations in Scotland. Indeed, there was a deplorable case recently in Caithness. Such was the anger that an SSSI was deliberately set on fire. The whole site was burnt out. I am sure that we all deplore such happenings. But it shows the hostility which has been engendered, particularly in the far north.
It is necessary to convince the land user of the necessity of the designation. Most landowners will help to comply with the required protection if the need for that protection is explained to them. Most landow iers in Scotland would not want to object. They are largely conservationists. But when a designation is suddenly slapped upon them which they do not feel is justified and which they do not understand because it is not explained properly to them, one cannot be surprised that they want some sort of appeal.
There have been two mentions today of the Scottish Landov, ners Federation. I attended a meeting of the full council last Tuesday. Mr. Gordon-Duff-Pennington, who has also been mentioned today, was present at that meeting, which was generally in agreement with him. I had a telephone call yesterday to say that the SLF strongly supported the Government's amendment. However, it was slightly worried about some minor points. In particular there is anxiety about subsection (2) of the amendment which refers to, scientific qualifications and experience". I am not clear what is meant by "qualifications". Does it mean having letters after one's name or being experienced in the subject? It would be better for those with some experience of land use— possibly from the colleges of agriculture— or who knew something about the subject, to be eligible. One does not need letters after one's name to be a good gardener. I can think of many people who are experts on wild flowers but are rot necessarily qualified with a degree. I hope that "qualifications" in subsection (2) does not necessarily refer to someone who has a degree.
My Lords, I shall be brief. I am concerned about two aspects of the Government's new proposed clause. My first anxiety relates to subsection (8) to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred. Subsection (8) will allow landowners and farmers to appeal against SSSI designations on non-scientific and scientific grounds. For example, if a landowner felt that an SSSI was an inconvenience and was disinclined to discuss land management agreements with the NCC 792 in Scotland, he would be in a position to persuade the new advisory committee to remove the SSSI label from his land. I hope that my noble friend will give an assurance that any appeal or objection against SSSI notifications must be on scientific grounds. In other words, they must be based on nature conservation or geological value.
My second point relates to the Government's international obligations towards nature conservation. If land is stripped of its SSSI label but retains its scientific value, the UK Government could be in serious breach of their obligations under the international conventions. In essence, those are the Berne Convention which protects vulnerable habitats and their wildlife, the RAMSAR Convention which protects wetlands of international importance, and the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that the UK's international obligations will continue to be fulfilled.
My Lords, I have no land in Scotland, and I have no interest to declare. I shall be exceedingly brief.
My concern is twofold. First, it seems to me that it is the small farmer and not the great landowner who is assisted by the government amendment. It is not a free-ride government concession to the great landowners of Scotland. It is a plain question of due administration where one has set up a form of autocratic administration which is totally free to do as it will. That is my concern whichever side of the Border that administration occurs.
It seems to me that the Government have done totally the right thing. Having listened to the debate, I believe that the amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson is totally right. Everything that he said about the seeds of injustice — it requires no repetition— was totally right. I had made some notes. However, the reasoning in support was so eloquently and persuasively advanced by my noble friend Lord Peel that nothing more need be said.
My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. He made a powerful speech. If there is a Division I shall certainly support him and vote to agree with the Commons who deleted the clause that was inserted in this House at an earlier stage.
The Scottish Wildlife Trust states that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is a weak compromise which would not best serve the interests of nature conservation in Scotland. It adds a further unnecessary complication to the existing committee structure effectively creating a parallel body to the national SNH committee which is to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
If we follow the government amendment, we provide for a second committee appointed by the Secretary of State. The SNH, appointed by the Secretary of State, has a valuable base of scientific opinion. To add another committee on top of that seems absolutely ridiculous. It undermines everything that was promised for nature conservation in Scotland. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was present at the previous 793 discussions about what was to happen after the Nature Conservancy Council was split up. We were assured that nature conservation would be the prime consideration, as it had been with the NCC.
This provision undermines what was promised at that time. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, received so little support. Three or four people agreed with him. I hope that that will not deter him from voting at the end of the debate.
My Lords, it has been a long debate on an important subject. We all wish the Minister to clarify a number of points.
The Commons fairly decisively deleted Clause 11. However, they did not have before them the new clause which the Minister puts forward. It is therefore not a straight argument. If they had had that provision before them there might have been some reconsideration of the issue.
The longer the debate continued, the more uneasy I became. The Minister knows that I did not vote on the last occasion because I was uneasy about it. When we heard the number of pleas from the Scottish Landowners Federation for the small farmer I became worried. I wondered if I was taking the wrong view. I certainly do not wish to be associated with the Scottish Landowners Federation on such a matter. Perhaps the Minister will give an assurance that an appeal can only relate to the issue of a site of special scientific interest. Perhaps he will give us some idea of how the 10-year rule works. Is there a large backlog of people who are likely to make representations under the 10-year rule within the next period? Is there any estimate of the number of SSSIs likely to go to the special committee?
I do not believe that the committee will be second guessing the Secretary of State. The committee will have power to refer any difficult cases to the special committee when there is an obvious, although not unanimous, decision of the scientific section of the Scottish Natural Heritage.
Those questions are important to me. Everyone who has spoken on the question of the appeal procedure has been much concerned as to whether it is so narrow that it concerns only SSSIs. It would be of considerable help to have clarification.
My Lords, I knew that we would have a full debate on the subject; I have not been disappointed. I felt that the debate did not start off well when my noble friend Lord Cranbrook stated that we were denigrating Scottish Natural Heritage with the introduction of our new clause; the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that we were shackling it and impoverishing it; and, latterly, the noble Baroness, Lady David, said that we were undermining promises.
I believe that that argument is fundamentally to misunderstand what we are providing in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, and especially in this clause. The provision is about building bridges between conservation bodies and the people who need to make a living from working on the land. That element of 794 trust has been missing during the past few years under the NCC. It is why the NCC was split up; it is why we are creating a Scottish Natural Heritage; and it is why we are trying so hard to ensure that we achieve something that can go forward with pride and dignity in terms of our Scottish heritage.
I also believe that it undermines exactly what the chairman designate of the organisation has been trying to do during the past few months. He has created new arrangements. He has come to this House to talk to various peers. He has written many letters and I have commended him previously on his approach. I am not distrustful of his approach; I am simply ensuring that on the face of the Bill we have a safeguard so that people— whether they are big or small landowners, crofters, farmers or owners of holiday cottages — will feel secure in the knowledge that if their land is subject to a notification of an SSSI they will be able to obtain a second opinion.
It is only that; it is not a right of appeal. There is no obligation on the part of the scientific advisory committee to demand that SNH sticks to its opinions. SNH does not have to listen to the committee if it does not wish to do so. That is of fundamental importance and that is why the integrity of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has been maintained. I refute any suggestion that we are changing that Act and that it no longer applies on a GB basis. That is untrue. Those people who propagate that argument do themselves, this House and this Government a great disservice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, accused me, I suspect correctly, of being confusing in my approach to the amendment. Perhaps I may explain it in layman's terms. Let us suppose that a new SSSI is declared after the setting up of Scottish Natural Heritage. If after six months one disagrees with the negotiations that one has been having with that body one can bring the matter to the attention of the advisory council. If one already has an SSSI one of two things can happen. If one objected at the time of the original notification one can bring the matter forward to the advisory committee having re-opened negotiations for a further four months with Scottish Natural Heritage. However, if no objections were made at the time of the original notification one must wait 10 years before bringing the matter to the advisory committee. Likewise, once one has been to the advisory committee one cannot go back for 10 years.
What is wrong with that? The provision has been extremely well worked out and it is designed to avoid a substantial number of people coming forward to the committee in the first instance. I have great confidence in the ability of Scottish Natural Heritage to work with landowners, farmers and crofters through the new arrangements. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, there has been a substantial overrating of the number of people who will use the new procedure.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch explained at length why we should include in the procedure the PDOs, and he was supported by many noble Lords. In opening, I explained at length why I believe that the existing procedures laid out under the 795 1981 Act would suffice. A conservation order cannot be applied until it has been approved by the Secretary of State; there must then be a public inquiry or hearing; and then the Secretary of State must agree yet again. 'That is a far more substantial and real system of appeal than the light touch that we have with the advisory committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked why we did not include the sensible provision put forward by my noble friend, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That is a central question. There is an appeals procedure which works and is effective. It may be over-bureaucratic and where possible we can attempt to make it more streamlined. However, if we pass my noble friend's amendments we shall have a double appeals system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, my noble friend Lord Norrie and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked several questions about subsection (8) about which there appears to be confusion. The structure of the clause is such as to make clear that we are dealing with representations only on scientific grounds. The new committee is not on the face of it qualified to consider other grounds of representation. Subsection (8) simply sweeps up the factual circumstances which are not covered by subsections (5) and (6). It does not extend the grounds upon which representations can be made. I confirm to my noble friend Lord Norrie that in the Bill we are not in the business of breaking any international convention or of changing the integrity of the 1981 Act. That is not the effect of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about the work of the advisory committee and whether it would act on the same criteria as the JNCC. I assure your Lordships that the advisory committee will consider representations within the framework of the criteria for biological and earth science sites agreed by the three native conservation agencies operating for the JNCC. I also confirm the accuracy of the statement made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and that the description of the distinction between the notification of operations under Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, drew attention to an article p thlished in the Daily Telegraph this morning. I was surprised that he did so having heard my comments about the new clause. The article in the Daily Telegraph was filled with such atrocious inaccuracies and created a sensationalism which I believed knew no bounds that it would have been better to have left the newspaper at home than to have read it. I am convinced that the Scottish press will not report this debate in the same way as it was pre-empted by the Daily Telegraph this morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked me about the committee, whether it will be independent and who will pay for it. As a matter of administrative convenience SNH will service the committee in the sense of supplying an office, a telephone, lighting systems and so. Its expenditure will be met by SNH. Those arrangements are purely administrative and do not compromise the independence of SNH.
What really counts in terms of independence is the disqualification of all members of SNH. That is the 796 essential guarantee of independence. The members will be appointed by the Secretary of State and must be persons who are not members of SNH or any of its appointed committees. That would include regional board members. That is the way in which we aim to guarantee independence.
My Lords, do I understand that the committee will have no say in the appointment of its staff? Indeed, it will have no staff directly responsible and no funds— is that correct?
My Lords, perhaps I may explain how the committee will operate. The Government have always made it clear that they have confidence in the work of SNH and in the chairman designate— Magnus Magnusson— to bring forward new procedures which will make sure that there is a greater trust between people who live and work on the land and the conservation body (SNH). We believe that this committee must sit very rarely indeed, if at all. It is simply a last resort. On that basis it would be very silly and potentially expensive to set up a whole new quango with its own office, staff, secretaries and so on because I am sure your Lordships will know how such matters can snowball. The committee will be under the service of SNH but will be totally independent. That is guaranteed by the Secretary of State.
My Lords, in that case, will SNH be given extra funds to pay for the committee?
My Lords, it will be directly in the interests of SNH to make sure that the committee feels as comfortable as possible and also that very few cases reach it. In that event, there will be nothing to pay for. I have already dealt with the question of funds. It is not a question of new funds but a question of what SNH will do with its funds.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government are walking a middle path between conservation bodies on one side and those people who believe that conservation bodies should have as few rights as possible on the other. The Government have been successful with this clause in comforting both sides of the argument. This is not a fundamental change but, on the other hand, it allows for a second opinion.
One noble Lord talked about the real job of conserving nature. After all this, SNH can go forward with confidence and carry out that task. It can do that if we agree to the new clause. I hope that what I have said will convince noble Lords that the new clause proposed by the Government is sensible. Also, I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch are not desirable, would not work and would replace what is, in effect, a totally acceptable appeals procedure.
My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks to those noble Lords who have opposed what has been called, this evening, an appeals procedure. I am advised on what I believe to be very sound authority that nothing that we are considering 797 tonight is an appellate procedure as such. Those who oppose the second guessing mechanisms put forward by my noble friend and myself seem to rely for their opposition very much on the people who will be operating the new mechanisms.
The people who are operating the existing mechanisms in the shape of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and, in the future for Scottish Natural Heritage, Magnus Magnusson, and many other people who have been appointed to the regional boards are well known to many of us and respected by all of us. The trouble is that we are dealing with a framework of law — a framework of law which must be operated possibly in the future by people who are less well intentioned than the people who are operating it today. I believe that it is dangerous to rely purely on the people and to ignore the mechanisms which will control the people in future.
I should like to underline that any scientific theory is strengthened by taking a second opinion which confirms it. Here we are dealing with scientific theory. Having said that, I confirm that I am most grateful to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who have supported me. Of course I accept that Scottish Natural Heritage is likely to be a more sensitive agency than its predecessor, at least for some time. My noble friend's amendment will certainly produce a substantial improvement on the present situation.
I very much hope that Scottish Natural Heritage will be informed by this debate and that it will extend its new sensitivity to all those who must go down what may be the long route to a possible management agreement or even to a nature conservation order or public inquiry. With that hope and with my noble friend's assurances ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment No. 11B, as an amendment to Motion 11A, by leave, withdrawn.
My Lords, I have already spoken at length. It is perfectly clear from subsection (3) of the amendment that the committee will be paid and there will be a demand on the resources of Scottish Natural Heritage. I only know that this morning, when I spoke to Mr. Magnus Magnusson, he was distressed and upset at the government amendment. I cannot say what he would now feel, having heard the kind words of the Minister from the Front Bench and the general words of commendation and appreciation expressed to him from all sides of the Chamber.
In the House this afternoon I have heard a number of people say how outrageous it is that decisions should be taken by an unelected body. It would be proper to favour the decision taken by the elected body and to support another place. Therefore, I oppose Motion 11A.
§ On Question, Whether the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11, but do propose the amendment set out in the Marshalled List in lieu thereof?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 152; Not-Contents, 6.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Jeger, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Kirkhill, L.
Bessborough, E. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Boston of Faversham, L. Lytton, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Brigstocke, B. Macleod of Borve, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Margadale, L.
Buccleuch and Queensberry, D. Masham of Ilton, B.
Buckinghamshire, E. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Molloy, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Monkswell, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Carnock, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Norrie, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L. Orkney, E.
Colville of Culross, V. Palmer, L.
Colwyn, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Cox, B. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Portsmouth, E.
Dormand of Easington, L. Rankeillour, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Richard, L.
Erne. E. Russell of Liverpool, L.
Erroll, E. Saint Oswald, L.
Flather, B. Sefton of Garston, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Gallacher, L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Grimond, L. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Hesketh, L. [Teller.] Trumpington, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L. Ullswater, V.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Waddington, L.
White, B. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Williams of Elvel, L. Wise, L.
Wilson of Langside, L. Wyatt of Weeford, L.
(b) for the benefit of any agricultural or horticultural activity which, in itself, is carried out on a commercial basis.'.
§ 13 Page 10, leave out lines 28 to 35.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 en bloc. These amendments merely clarify what the controls in Part II of the Bill cover; that is, irrigation for commercially based agricultural and horticultural purposes.
§ 14 Clause 19, page 13, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert 'and where applications are made both by a board and by an authority in respect of the same locality, the Secretary of State may make separate drought orders in favour of the board and in favour of the authority.'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. It is a technical amendment and represents no change in policy.
§ 15 Clause 23, page 17, line 30 leave out 'the river purification authority, water authority or water development board'.
§ 16 Page 17, line 31, after 'sustained', insert 'loss or'.
§ 17 Page 17, line 32, after 'authority', insert 'or board'.
§ (c) the occupation and use of land authorised by a drought order by virtue of paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 to this Act;'.
§ 19 Page 17, line 36, after 'the' where it first occurs insert 'loss or'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 19 en bloc. With the permission of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 to 31. The amendments correct an omission from Clause 23. They extend to water authorities and water development boards the same liability for compensation as is placed on river purification authorities for any damage attributable to their exercise of rights of entry to land under Clause 23. The other amendments are consequential.
§ in line 30 and insert 'and (4) of this Act and so much of sections 4(10) and 26 of and Schedules 2, 10 and 11 to this Act'.
§ 21 Page 19, leave out lines 32 to 35.
§ 23 Schedule 7, page 38, line 47, leave out 'and (8)' and insert '(8) and (9)'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 en bloc to which I have spoken.
§ '() Before making an application for a drought order, the applicant shall consult any river purification authority or district salmon fishery board upon whom notice of the application would be required to be served under this paragraph.'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. The amendment reinstates the provision from the Water (Scotland) Act 1990 requiring consultation with the river purification authorities and district salmon fishery boards prior to the submission of an application for a drought order to the Secretary of State. It was not previously included in the Bill since the measures in Part III were intended to reflect those available in the Water Act 1989 for England and Wales.
§ 25 Schedule 8, page 39, line 27, after 'circulating", insert '(i)'.
§ 26 Page 39, line 28, after 'order', insert '; and (ii) within any locality from which, in the opinion of the applicant, an alternative supply of water is likely to be taken.'.
§ 27 Page 40, line 29, after 'place', insert '(i)'.
§ 28 Page 40, line 30, after 'order', insert '; and (ii) within the locality from which, in the opinion of the applicant, an alternative supply of water is likely to be taken'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 en bloc. These amendments add to the advertisement requirements for drought order applications in the area from which alternative supplies of water are proposed to be taken to meet deficiencies elsewhere. That is entirely appropriate so that those who have an interest in the alternative sources can have an opportunity to raise any objection.
§ 29 Schedule 9, page 41, line 41, after 'by', insert 'section 23(9) of this Act and'.
(b) by a drought order by virtue of paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 to this Act.'.
§ 31 Page 42, line 8, leave out 'paragraph 2 above' and insert 'section 23(9) of this Act'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
(c) in subsection (2) of section 46, for the words from "level 5" to "therefor" there shall be substituted the word "£ 20.000".'.
My Lords. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. Last year we took the opportunity of the Environmental Protection Act to raise the maximum fine on summary conviction for water pollution offences under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to £ 20,000 thus enabling sheriffs to take more stringent action against polluters in summary proceedings. This amendment brings the penalties for offences under the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 into line. It is therefore a further step in protecting the environment against those whose thoughtless and selfish actions can have such detrimental effects on the quality and cleanliness of our surroundings.
§ "Variation of composition of river purification boards.
§ 135A.— (1) The power to make an order under subsection (5) of section 135 of this Act includes power to vary the composition of any river purification board, in accordance with the provisions of this section, in a subsequent order.
(d) that one half of the members of the board shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with such bodies as he thinks fit, to represent the interests of persons concerned with the carrying on of agriculture, fisheries or industry in the board's area or any other interests which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, should be represented on the board.
§ (3) Such a variation order may make such transitional provisions with regard to the termination and appointment of members, including members appointed by regional or district councils, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.".'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. This amendment stems from a package of recommendations set out in the report of the first policy review of RPBs published last autumn. It will enable the distribution of members appointed to the purification board by the Secretary of State by regional and district councils to be changed. At present each is responsible for one third of the appointees. When the amendment is put into effect, which we plan to be in May 1992, my right honourable friend will appoint 50 per cent. of the members of each RPB and 25 per cent. each for the regional and district councils.
My Lords, I can see subsection (2) (c) causing some difficulty. I am a member of a purification board and this matter arose at our last meeting. It will be quite difficult for district councils to sort out which is to send a representative to the purification board. The district councils do not normally meet with each other. I am surprised that the amendment has come forward at this moment. If there is to be an alteration to local government with a single-tier authority set up or something like that, which I gather is a possibility, it seems a pity that this matter should have been brought forward when perhaps in a couple of years' time the whole arrangement will have to be changed again. It is too late to alter the amendment, but I wish to draw attention to it.
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the matter. The real point is how district councils will decide who 803 to send. It will be for them to decide. I suspect that in many areas where there are many district councils they will have to decide between themselves who is to send a representative. I expect that they will agree. Very few of them have the necessary skills. I am not anticipating any trouble.
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33A. The amendment will remove the requirement from the Secretary of State to consult with agricultural specialists and industrial interests before appointing members to the river purification boards. It will return us to the status quo in that half of the members appointed should have experience or should have shown capacity in some matter related to the functions and duties of the board. It will give the board more flexibility in deciding who they should appoint. I beg to move.
My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, wishes to ensure that the persons appointed by the Secretary of State to RPBs are useful and effective members. That is also the Government's intention. When the Secretary of State is considering potential board members he will take into account their experience and capacity in matters relating to the board's work. These matters are not necessarily tied closely to the explicit statutory duties and functions of the board, as the noble Lord's amendment might suggest. For example, experience in ecology might be useful on a board. Experience and capacity in matters widely related to the board's work are not the only possible tests of fitness for appointment. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, could preclude the appointment of someone with exceptional ability and with a real interest in the board's work simply on the grounds of lack of specific experience.
Another difficulty is that it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to make appointments without appropriate consultations with bodies which have an interest in the work of a board. I assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will continue to apply the most careful considerations as to the suitability of individual candidates for appointment by him. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
My Lords, the Chief Whip on my side of the House says that that is a fair offer. The Minister introduced the question of someone who is not specifically working in the area and who may have other duties. However, I feel that when one consults too widely one raises the expectations of people who will feel that they are able to contribute, which may turn out to be a disappointment. In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amen iment No. 33A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 33B In subsection (2)(d) of the inserted section I35A, line 5, after ("with") insert ("the promotion of Scotland's natural heritage or").
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33B. This amendment will add to those bodies which the Secretary of State must consult before appointing members to the river purification boards. It will include those bodies which represent persons who are concerned with the promotion of Scotland's national heritage. It seems fairly self-evident to me. I hope that the Minister has a helpful reply. I beg to move.
My Lords, I certainly have sympathy with the sentiment behind this amendment since the promotion of Scotland's natural heritage is the main thrust of Part I of the Bill. However, the amendment would not allow the Secretary of State any greater scope for considering candidates for appointments to boards than is already provided by the amendment made in another place. We believe that the all-embracing term "any other interests" is much more preferable as an attempt to provide an exhaustive list of relevant interests. The wording of the amendment made in another place follows in this respect the present statutory provision which has enabled the Secretary of State to appoint persons representing a very wide range of interests, including those who are concerned with natural heritage which, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is so important. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
§ Amendment No. 33B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, by leave, withdrawn.
§ "(4) The power conferred by subsection (I) of this section to make a direction shall include power, exerciseable in like manner and subject to the same conditions, to vary or revoke the direction by a subsequent direction.".'.
§ and "related right", in relation to an obligation, includes any derogation or other right to make more onerous provisions available in respect of that obligation.".'.
§ 'related right', in relation to an obligation, includes any derogation or other right to make more onerous provisions available in respect of that obligation.".'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 en bloc. These are all technical amendments designed to facilitate implementation of Community and international obligations concerning water quality.
My Lords, I should like to say a brief word about Amendment No. 36, which I am happy to welcome. Perhaps the Minister can answer one question. If he cannot answer it tonight perhaps he will write to me. Will he give an assurance that the Government will give the river purification authorities directions on how their obligations under the EC wild birds directive will be met? The need for the directive arises because under current legislation RPAs do not have a clear statutory duty to promote nature conservation and the consideration of water quality alone does not necessarily bring full benefits for flora and fauna. I hope the Minister will consider whether directions can be given in this instance.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point and I hope that I can answer her. I am also glad that she welcomes this amendment. In the case of the Community directive on the conservation of wild birds, the Government made arrangements some time ago to ensure its implementation in Scotland. The arrangements were set out in the Scottish development department's Circular 1 in 1988. Further guidance is now being prepared by the Scottish Office environment department to reflect and enhance the protection which must 806 now be accorded under the directive following a recent judgment in the European Court. This further guidance will be issued later in the year. In regard to the role of the river purification authorities, we believe their functions already provide protection for birds dependent on the aquatic environment. However, we are in any event considering very carefully, in the light of the recent consultation exercise, what might more usefully be done by the RPAs to further promote nature conservation generally. I hope that answer is to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness.
§ '() a Natural Heritage Area designated under section 6 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991;'.
§ '(1) The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.'.
§ 39 Page 46, line 29, leave out 'of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984'.
§ '(3) In section 98(1) (control of stray and other animals on roads) for the word "countryside" there shall be substituted the word "land".'.
'1972 c. 52. Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 In section 262C, subsections (1) and (2).'.
'In section 98, subsection (6).'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 en bloc, to which I have already spoken. Since this is the last group of amendments perhaps I may thank all noble Lords who have participated in today's encouraging and exciting debate.

References: § 4

§ 6

§ 7

§ 9

§ 10

§ 11

§ 11
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V.

§ 13

§ 14

§ 15

§ 16

§ 17

§ 19

§ 21

§ 23

§ 25

§ 26

§ 27

§ 28

§ 29

§ 31

§ 135

§ 33

§ 39