§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 44, leave out `, and' and insert';
( ) the interests of owners and occupiers of land, and'. Clause 3 identifies the wide range of interests that the SNH should take into account in carrying out its functions. We have been reflecting further on the wording of the paragraphs of this clause to ensure that they are both all-embracing and have sufficient clarity to enable the SNH to operate effectively. The needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry and the needs of social and economic development in Scotland or any part of Scotland cover the majority of situations. We accepted an amendment tabled in another place to the effect that the SNH should take appropriate account of the interests of local communities.
As was said in Committee, the definition of "communities" is not an easy one. We wish 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 taken fully into account. Without taking the interests of owners and occupiers of land, as well as the interests of local communities, into account, the SNH will not be able to perform its statutory functions effectively.
I emphasise that, while the amendment in no way means that SNH will be beholden to owners and occupiers of land, it will be expected, where appropriate, to take their interest into account, along with the other needs and interests set out in the clause, in carrying out its functions. It will be for SNH to judge in each case what the balance should be between the different needs and interests as set out in the clause. I hope that the House will also appreciate 1289 that SNH is expected to take only appropriate account of those various needs and interests. It cannot override its primary aims and purposes as set out in clause 1.
§ Mr. DalyellHow much consultation has taken place over this issue? I understand from Dave Morris, representing the ramblers, from Wildlife Link, from Michael Taylor and others, that there has been little consultation, and that, in any event, the consultation period was due to go on until the late summer. People are asking, in effect, "Are the Government not sufficiently interested in our views to wait until the consultation has taken place?" The Government may have their side of the story on that. If so, may we be told it? I ask because serious people who are not automatically hostile to the Government are aggrieved by what has occurred. Will the Minister clarify the position?
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI am not certain to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. There have been a number of consultation documents and we have tabled the amendment partly as a result of debates in the other place on the balance, duty and nature of the provision to ensure that it covers all necessary matters, without making it too specific, so that we shall not have to change the clause year by year. We think that we have the balance right and that it is appropriate for the amendment to be made.
§ Mr. MaclennanI welcome the amendment. It may open up the possibility of judicial review of action taken by the SNH, which is apparently in defiance of the interests of owners and occupiers of land. It may give them a locus standi in the courts. That may be a residual remedy if the SNH were to exercise its functions with little regard for some of the interests of the community, in the way in which the predecessor organisation did in the past. I believe that some people with interests in, for example, forestry and farming or in activities with some economic benefit to the community, had those interests interfered with by the predeessor organisation. They will now have access to the courts, and while that may never be necessary —I hope that disputes will be resolved amicably—the amendment could be valuable in that respect and should be supported.
§ Amendment agreed to.