Clause 3.—(DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.) (Hansard, 4 July 1967)

§ Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)
I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 2, at the end to insert: 'and in the exercise of their functions in the Highland and Islands, to consult and collaborate with the Highlands and Islands Development Board'.

§ Mr. Speaker
We will discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 33, in page 59, line 1, at end insert: 'Highlands and Islands' has the same meaning as in section 8(1) of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965.

§ Mr. Campbell
In Committee, the Minister of State said that he would consider this point but at the time he raised the objection that if the Highlands Board were specified, other bodies would have to be mentioned, too, and this would lead to a great number of bodies having to be included in the Bill by name. He particularly mentioned the Nature Conservancy and the Forestry Commission.
We, too, have considered the point since the Committee discussion. We believe that if the Highlands Development Board is doing its job properly as set out 1582 in the Highlands and Islands Development Act—as we hope it will—then it is quite different in character from the other bodies, particularly the two which the Minister mentioned. The Highlands Board is unique in character and in the kind of work which we expect it to do. It will undoubtedly be considering, as part of its functions, schemes for open country in the Highlands and Islands and the use of land for recreation, no doubt, as well as for other purposes—land which is available for outdoor recreation.
We therefore consider that consultation and collaboration between the Countryside Commission and the Highlands Board is essential and that this ought to be written into the Bill. Otherwise, we fear, there may be duplication or conflicting schemes being considered. Because the Highlands Board is a very special kind of body and because the Highlands and Islands form a very special kind of area, we believe that these words should be added to the Bill.

§ Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)
I believe that the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) are well founded. We have given the Highlands Board very extensive powers and duties. One of their duties concerns land use in the Highlands. It seems to me that there will undoubtedly be considerable duplication if the Countryside Commission may enter an area without consulting the Highlands Board. We have seen in other legislation that if we do not specifically provide for something to happen, often it does not happen. There is a very good case for making it statutorily necessary that there should be consultation in the Highlands Board's area.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
The arguments against the Amendment are as they were before, and they were very strong. Both the Opposition and ourselves have had time to think about this matter, and we have certainly gone over it again. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) is not here, and I apologise for not giving credit to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in relation to the last Amendment, which was sponsored by both hon. Gentlemen. He advanced an argument reflecting particularly on our 1583 earlier argument about a water authority and pointed out that I was keen not only on consultation but on collaboration.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should specify not only consultation but collaboration, but that is covered by Clause 3(b), which reads: to encourage, assist, concert or promote the implementation of any proposals with respect to those matters made by any other person or body, being proposals which the Commission consider to be suitable;". That deals with the argument about consultation and collaboration. I was struck by that argument at the time, but I did not then recognise the full merits of Clause 3(b). That is the first answer to our discussion in Committee, and I did not then mention it.
The first of the other two arguments is that this is unnecessary because it is already included in the Bill. There is no suggestion that the Bill deliberately leaves out consultation or collaboration with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It is covered in the whole of Clause 3. The second argument is that it is not desirable, because if we include it it then becomes a reflection on other bodies. This is a serious argument. I have heard other people commenting on the fact that if we include this or any other body, we should have to include the Forestry Commission and the Nature conservancy, because they have a distinct and important part to play in this future Act. We should then have an exhaustive list of the various bodies which are concerned.
The Chairman of Study Group 9 of the Countryside Conference was the man who is now Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. At no time has he made representations to us that we must make mention of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the Bill. If anyone could be expected to want this Amendment, it would be Professor Grieve himself. However, he is content with the provision as it stands in the knowledge that, as Chairman of that Board, he and the new Chairman and members of the Countryside Commission are bound to act in the way that hon. Gentlemen opposite advocate, and I think that it is only proper that the Board and the Commission should live together.
1584 The Board is vitally concerned with land use in the Highlands, and the Commission is bound to be involved in land use generally. I accept that the Commission and the Board will have to work together amicably both at the stage of consultation and at the stage of translating that into action.
However, it is a mistake to spell it out without following it up by listing all the other bodies. That would be a very difficult and treacherous exercise upon which to embark. I have not taken the matter further because, since those concerned are content, there is no reason why we should make the Amendment. While we do not disagree with the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite in principle, we feel that we should not make the Amendment, which would add to the Bill without adding to the real work of the bodies concerned.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has exhausted his right to speak.

§ Mr. Stodart
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not addressed the House on this Amendment.

§ Dr. Mabon
It only seems that way.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am extremely sorry. Mr. Stodart.

§ Mr. Stodart
That was a disappointing reply, which fell far below the Minister of State's usual level. For him to describe the waters upon which we are trying to get him to embark as difficult and treacherous is to make very heavy weather of it. He has referred to the views of the Chairman of the Highland and Islands Development Board, but that gentleman is not immortal, and the time may come when a successor of his is no longer as acquainted with Study Group No. 9 as Professor Grieve.
The main gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's objection is that if the Highlands and Islands Development Board is mentioned, the Forestry Commission, the Nature Conservancy, the Crofters' Commission, and so on, will be furious with indignation, envy and rage because they are not mentioned. It is true that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is a unique body. Even when rural 1585 development boards are set up in England and Wales, they will not be exactly similar or have the same powers. However, can the hon. Gentleman give us any assurance that representations have been made to him along the lines that if the Highlands and Islands Development Board is mentioned, the other bodies to which I have referred will be extremely cross?

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
It is not a question of amour-propre. If one proceeds to list a number of organisations, the clear implication is that certain other organisations which are not mentioned are statutorily not required to be consulted. That is the great mistake in trying to embark upon a list. It is not the ones mentioned in the list which are blessed. It is the ones not mentioned which may be unblessed.

§ Mr. Stodart
I am not certain what amour-propre is. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better explain it to me afterwards, because I have no doubt that he knows what it is. I think that I know what the first word means.
In its admirable Report, Study Group No. 9 felt it necessary and advisable to draw attention to the fact that the very closest relationship would have to exist between the Countryside Commission and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I read the relevant extract in Committee. Being a great pioneer of non-repetition, I do not propose to read it again. However, the fact remains that the Study Group put on record the importance which it attached to a very close relationship between the two bodies.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has put up a poor defence. I do not see the difficulties and treachery which would be involved if he gave way to us. However, I must confess that I do not regard this Amendment as being any more than an improvement to the Bill. It will neither make nor break the Bill, and I do not imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) will feel inclined to divide the House.

§ Mr. George Willis (Edinburgh, East)
I was attracted to the Amendment because it seemed to express the relationship which Professor Grieve wanted to establish between the Countryside Commission 1586 and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. My hon. Friend said that Professor Grieve had made no representations to change the wording of the Bill, but has he asked Professor Grieve whet her he would like the proposed words added to it?
That is the relevant question; not whether Professor Grieve has come along to say something about what is in the Bill. I doubt whether he has even seen this Amendment. Therefore, I think that the first part of my hon. Friend's argument is quite wrong. It does not stand up to examination.
The second part of his argument does not stand up to examination, either. He says that if we put in the Highlands and Islands Development Board, we shall have to mention other bodies. But that is not true. What one does is to consult with such local planning authorities as appear to the Commission to have an interest in these matters and, without prejudice to that, in the exercise of its functions in the Highlands and Islands to consult and collaborate with the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
In other words, this drafting device is actually used in the Bill; without prejudice to the generality, something is mentioned. I cannot see that that device should not be used in this case, and that rather destroys the second argument adduced by my hon. Friend against this Amendment.
It seems to me that, on both counts, the arguments against the Amendment are not very good ones. With great respect to my hon. Friend, they seem to be very bad ones. Had I been in opposition, I have no doubt that my language would have been much stronger.
I remember discussing the relationship of the Highlands and Islands Development Board to the Commission with Professor Grieve. When I read the Amendment, it seemed to me that the proposed words put in writing exactly what he wanted, which was for the Countryside Commission to have an overall responsibility for Scotland, but that there should be collaboration between the Commission and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. If my hon. Friend is quoting Professor Grieve, he ought to quote exactly what he wants. This Amendment seems to express that.
1587 When one comes to examine the situation of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, it is different from that of any other body because of the functions with which it is charged. I should have thought that there was a case under the Highlands and Islands Development Act for spelling it out rather more clearly. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, Professor Grieve is not immortal. We do not know how the two Chairmen will get along together. We have not yet appointed the Chairman for the Countryside Commission.
The last words of the paragraph are: … to consult with such local planning authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to have an interest in those matters;". In other words, the Chairman decides. I do not know whether the words are very good or not. I was not on the Committee and I did not apply myself to them in order to devise Amendments. But, as the Commission decides, much depends on the relationship between the two chairmen.
It would, therefore, be a good idea if my hon. Friend reconsidered incorporating the Amendment into the Bill. I do not think that the words could go in as they are, but I do not think that they would require much alteration. I believe that it would be necessary to insert some words saying that the generality of the previous statement is not prejudiced, but that is for the draftsmen to decide. If that is done I can see no argument for not including the words.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I am very sorry that the Government have not welcomed the Amendment or decided that such words should be written into the Bill after all the time that they have had to reconsider the matter. The arguments have been put very succinctly, particularly by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), and I should have put the same arguments in reply to the Minister. I hope that before the Bill goes to another place the Minister will consider a form of words—we are not wedded to the form of words in the Amendment—which would add this point, together with an addition such as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East suggested if necessary.

§ Mr. Rankin
It seems to me that an unstated assumption has developed in the argument, the assumption that unless the Amendment is incorporated in the Bill the chairman of the Commission and the chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board will not work together in a co-operative frame of mind. That is a wrong attitude to take both to the Commission and to the Board, because the assumption should be quite the opposite; it should be that these two eminent persons, both with a definite function in the Highlands, will work together.
If they will only be propelled along those lines by the incorporation of the Amendment why was I treated differently from the chairman of the Commission? Is it to be assumed that because words I wanted incorporated were not incorporated I shall not now work happily with my hon. Friend in trying to carry out the purpose of the Bill? The Bill is related so closely to me that its effect comes almost to my back door. That is even closer than it will affect either the chairman of the Commission or the chairman of the Board.
I do not want to see this spirit entering the argument at this stage, and I hope that the Amendment's supporters will lift their thoughts a little higher and not base their arguments on unwarranted assumptions.

§ Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister in this matter. I think that it would be very wrong to specify the Highlands and Islands Development Board or any other organisation. There is more or less a general instruction laid down in the Clause to consult as and when it is necessary Stirling County Council, Aberdeen County Council, the Board or any other body. The obligation is upon the Commission to do so. It would be remiss of us to accept the Amendment specifically to lay down that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is an organisation apart. It has a particular function and duty to perform, just as local authorities have. A town council is entirely different from a county council, and a district council is also different. So is the Board, and so are the Forestry Commission and any other body that may be set up, such as a regional council, or perhaps a river purification board that 1589 requires to be consulted for boating purposes.
I counsel my hon. Friend to remain firm on the Clause as it is. It presupposes that all organisations with a part to play in the general development of our countryside will be consulted. Another Clause indicates quite clearly that even when planning permission has been given for the development of areas such bodies have an obligation to make all their records available to the Commission, which will look after the interests of the countryside.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that there is sufficient in the Clause to make it abundantly clear that consultation must take place with all the parties or organisations interested in the development of our countryside. I am amazed at the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) being so insistent on specifying a particular organisation when the Clause has such general and all-embracing terms.

§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)
I should like to say just a word for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), not in support of what he says but rather by way of excuse. My right hon. Friend fathered the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It is his child and naturally he wishes to see it grow and gather to itself as much as possible. I should not be surprised if we find him seeking to inject some reference to the Board into every Bill relating to Scotland. That is understandable, but it does not mean that we on this side of the House should accept these arguments, much as we respect and sympathise with my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Willis
During the past six months I have spoken once in the House, I think. I do not know how many Scottish Bills have gone through that have not once mentioned the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The point that my hon. Friend is missing is that whether he likes it or not here are two bodies with a very similar function to perform in preserving and developing the countryside, two bodies each given powers by an Act of Parliament. This creates a difficult situation of arrangements between the two.

§ Mr. Lawson
Perhaps I am to blame for this. In the past, I very much enjoyed the participation of my right hon. Friend in debates, and I have repeatedly appealed to him lately to shake himself out of it and give us the benefit of his wisdom, but, unfortunately, in shaking himself out of it he comes back on the wrong track.
With reference to the argument about uniqueness, I should have thought that any of these bodies in itself is unique. Certainly, the Crofters Commission is unique. We have only one Crofters Commission, and it has a special function. I should have thought that the Nature Conservancy was unique. I do not know of half a dozen Nature Conservancies. It is true that the Forestry Commission functions in other parts of the United Kingdom beside the Highlands, but it is a unique body. One might also refer to the Scottish Tourist Board. It is unique. It has special functions to fulfil. Were I the chairman of any of these bodies, or had I fathered any of them, I should have been pushing for them to be brought in.

§ Mr. Willis
I am astonished to find that my hon. Friend seems not to be displaying his usual keenness of thought and mind. I have always admired his analytical powers. But he does not seem to have grasped what he is talking about. None of the bodies that he has mentioned has the functions of the Countryside Commission.

§ Mr. Lawson
I could not describe the specific functions of all these bodies without going out of order. I am not arguing that they have the same functions as the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Of course, they have different functions. Here lies their uniqueness. They have several distinct functions. In the sense that they are single bodies with distinct functions, they are unique.
I am merely replying to the argument advanced from the other side of the House about uniqueness, and I say that the argument is absurd. The Bill has a full day before it, and hon. Members opposite seem to feel that they must fill in the day by advancing arguments. I had no intention of intervening until I heard the provocative speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, 1591 East (Mr. Willis). I hope that the Minister of State will stick to his guns.

§ Mr. James Davidson (Aberdeenshire, West)
I oppose the Amendment. If the Minister of State gives way on it it will put him in a very awkward position. While it would be possible to argue—it may yet be possible to do so—that the need for a Countryside Commission is questionable and that the functions might be performed by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and rural development boards elsewhere in Scotland, if we are agreed upon the setting up of a Countryside Commission it would obviously be a mistake to accept the Amendment because it would lead the Minister to having to mention every other body which might need to be consulted. I hope that the Highlands and Islands Development Board will be consulted when any measures that affect it are introduced, but the Amendment would leave the Government open to much wider questions on the whole Clause.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I am much obliged for the support which has come from both sides of the House in face of the objections raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I would remind him that Professor Grieve did not raise the point at the original meeting in May last year on the Bill. The authorship to a large extent must be credited to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East last year, when the meeting was held to discuss this matter. I think that my right hon. Friend is doing an injustice to his friend Professor Grieve when he says that Professor Grieve is unaware or appears to be unaware of the proceedings on the Bill. I know that Professor Grieve has followed the proceedings on the Bill most closely.

§ Mr. Willis
Let my hon. Friend get what I said right. I said that I did not suppose that Professor Grieve had seen these Amendments. Is my hon. Friend telling me that Professor Grieve has seen them?

§ Dr. Mabon
The Highlands and Islands Development Board has not asked to be mentioned in the Bill in relation to the Commission. The wording of the Bill is precisely the same as that in the Highlands and Islands Development Board Act. It is for that reason—

§ Mr. Willis
I know that my hon. Friend is an expert wriggler, but he cannot wriggle out of the question that I put to him. I said that he might like these words. What I asked him—he still has not answered—is whether Professor Grieve has seen these Amendments.

§ Dr. Mabon
I take the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), that we do not lay down Acts of Parliament on the say-so of any one individual. I think that it would be wrong of me to answer the question, whether or not I know the answer. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan is correct. The fact is that the Highlands and Islands Development Board as such has not requested that it should be mentioned. Even if it had, that still does not answer the major point of criticism about mentioning the Highlands and Islands Development Board and other bodies—the Crofters Commission is also a unique body in terms of the Highlands—that bodies which were not mentioned might he placed in a disadvantageous position.
My right hon. Friend dismissed that argument as of no consequence whatever. I put it to him that it was a very serious matter that was taken into account in previous discussions leading up to the Bill, quite apart from Professor Grieve or my right hon. Friend or any speeches made in the House. As the Minister in charge of the Bill here, I feel that the argument about exclusion is a decisive one in this context, and I am not prepared to recommend that we should make the Amendment. Naturally, I shall report this discussion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and it will be up to him to decide what might he done during the later stages of the Bill. For the moment I am content to join those who have said that we ought not to make the Amendment at this stage.