HL Deb 18 December 1990 vol 524 cc787-9

(" . Part II of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Access to open country) to this Act to enable SNH to enter into access agreements or to make access orders under that Part of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 46 to 51. These amendments will extend to SNH the powers presently available only to planning authorities to enter into access agreements or make access orders. I gave your Lordships notice of the Government's intention to introduce them during the debate on the access role of the SNH in Committee. These amendments meet the commitment made by Government in the consultation paper, Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead to make such powers available to SNH.

I should make it clear that these amendments, although extensive, do not alter the substance of Part II of the 1967 Act at all. They simply extend to Scottish Natural Heritage powers currently available to planning authorities. These powers are not available to the Countryside Commission for Scotland at present and it is for this reason that I said earlier that SNH will have wider powers in relation to access than CCS has at the moment.

Overall, these amendments serve to demonstrate the Government's commitment to extend to SNH the statutory provisions for access to open country, and that this area will be an important aspect of its operations. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Dissolution of bodies]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 35: Page 7, line 48, at end insert: ("(6) Every minister, government department and public body, in exercising their functions, must take all practicable steps to ensure the preservation of biological diversity, the avoidance of damage to ecosystems and the sustainable use of resources with due regard to the advice of SNH.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the responsibilities of other agencies and departments towards the environment are covered by so-called "balancing duties" contained in the relevant legislation. However, these duties are expressed in language which many people would find to be outdated; for example, to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside". Also, these duties are expressed in a different form in different Acts, and it is time that they were drawn together and modernised to reflect statements of government policy contained in the Environment White Paper and in Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead. This is meant to be a helpful, if perhaps fussy, amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, noble Lords will recall the ground that we covered in relation to the "balancing duty" in Committee. By dint of these amendments to Section 66 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, Schedule 9, paragraph 3(7), the balancing duty provision will read: In the exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, government department and public body shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural heritage of Scotland within the meaning of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991". The duty as proposed by this amendment, while I have some sympathy with it, could not be considered at all practical, efficient or indeed feasible. To require all government departments and public bodies to operate in accordance with such a duty might require an immense amount of effort at the outset, in order that they should have any hope of operating it at all. The wording of it would not be readily understandable to a great number of individuals, and so a large staff training effort would be required for the bodies concerned. It is surely not reasonable to expect that the body should have to consider all potential indirect consequences of a particular action; some actions may precipitate a chain of events where the last event could not possibly be predicted. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that no body could be expected to guess such outcomes.

The amendment also fails to recognise that a duty in keeping with the aspirations underlying this amendment is already on the statute book. All Ministers, departments and public bodies will therefore have such aspirations in mind in carrying out their functions. I therefore doubt the need for such a wide-ranging and indeterminate duty to be placed on all the parties.

Therefore, there is no practical basis for this amendment to operate on and I accordingly trust that the noble Lord will withdraw it. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may think that I am being too damning. But we have looked carefully at the amendment. I have some sympathy with it, but it just will not work.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, as the Minister replied, I began to realise how difficult it would be for him to accept the amendment. He then began to say that what is proposed in the amendment is being done already. He should look at his brief and recognise that there are contradictions in what he said. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 36: Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause: