§ 4.18 p.m.
§ Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
§
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert:
("(h) the power to convene meetings of the representatives of any interests where, in its opinion, discussions are needed to allow it to pursue its general aims and purposes as mentioned in section 1(1) above;").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is a probing amendment. Much play is made in Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead of the need for discussion and communication to deal with the conflicts which have beset the conservation development debate in recent years. In tabling the amendment I ask whether it is helpful to give Scottish Natural Heritage the power to convene meetings of representatives of any interests where in its opinion discussion is needed.
§ The flaw in the amendment is that it gives great power to Scottish Natural Heritage. Perhaps the Minister could suggest a word other than "power"; maybe "opportunity" or "ability". The power to summon all the other bodies together is somewhat draconian. That is a weakness of the amendment. I hope to discover from the Minister whether Scottish 752 Natural Heritage could be the organisation to pull the group together and perhaps reach a consensus. I beg to move.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, I had hoped not to see the reappearance of this amendment. We discussed it at another stage and we remain opposed to it. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me to elucidate more clearly why we do not wish to accept it, and I shall do so.
As I said previously, there is no need for a specific power for SNH in this regard. Its general power under Clause 2(1) (g) will allow it to convene this kind of meeting. It is an important power. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has accepted, the SNH will be keen to encourage partnerships with others and practically to seek to convene such meetings as are appropriate. There is no need to spell out such powers on the face of the Bill. To spell out each precise detail of SNH operations might imply that any other powers not included did not exist. That is why we have drafted Clause 2(1) (g) to cover all powers and to allow the SNH a greater degree of flexibility in its operations.
We discussed flexibility with Amendment No. 10 and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, agreed that it was necessary. It is in the light of that spirit of flexibility that I am keen not to accept the noble Lord's amendment and instead to rely on paragraph (g), which will allow the convening of such meetings.
The Earl of SelkirkMy Lords, I am not as convinced as my noble friend. What is the problem here? There is to be a small body which will take decisions affecting man. It is extremely important that this measure should be implemented with the full accord of the people concerned. Therefore it is desirable to have meetings and to say what is proposed and what the effect will be. I think that my noble friend is missing the point in not encouraging the people who have the responsibility to get together with the people concerned in the area and say "We want to do this and we want you to understand what we are doing".
If the people on the spot understand their objections will probably diminish, which will make it easier for the SNH to do its work properly. I believe that this is a useful opportunity to show that throughout there is a readiness for agreement. The danger of this opposition is that some thickheaded chap will make himself a thorough nuisance and become unpopular throughout the country. The work of the organisation will then be more difficult. However, if people are called together and told what is proposed and the reason for it, those responsible will make themselves more popular. That is of great importance to the purpose of the Bill.
§ Lord BrightmanMy Lords, I entirely endorse what the Minister said. It seems clear beyond a peradventure that the activity described in the amendment: namely—
the power to convene meetings of the representatives of any interests where, in its opinion, discussions are needed"—is within the power conferred by Clause 2(1) (g), 753the power to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions".I say with all due respect to those who take an opposite view that it seems unarguable that the terms of this amendment are not already within paragraph (g).
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, it appears that all those who have taken part in this debate, including the Minister, have the same aim; namely, that there should be an opportunity for a general discussion. The Minister said that the power is already in the Bill. I know that we discussed this matter on an earlier occasion. We have now discussed it again. Perhaps there is a possibility that this provision will be taken on board if a future conflict arises. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("may, and if so requested") and insert ("shall be consulted").
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this amendment as a life-long member of the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland. The two amendments in my name are very simple and they go together. The first asks that the Scottish Natural Heritage organisation, which we all support enthusiastically, should be included in the societies and the local authorities which are consulted when any planning applications involving special scenic areas are being discussed. Although the special areas are supposed to be under the protection of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, in practice that council has no statutory right to protect the SSSIs from damage or destruction.
§ That could be avoided if the statutory authorities were obliged to consult Scottish Natural Heritage first. That does not mean that all plans would be stopped, but those areas of special interest and beauty would be preserved. That would include recommendations involving national scenic areas, national nature reserves, environmentally sensitive areas and marine nature reserves. This amendment is intended not to prevent development in rural areas but to protect them from unnecessary and wanton development and to ensure that the new national environmental protection body is strong enough to carry out its work properly. I beg to move.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, I appreciate fully my noble friend's motives and concerns in moving this amendment. I am of the opinion that no change is needed to Clause 2(2). It repeats the present Section 8 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, except for the reference in that section to land in the countryside. We have substituted the natural heritage in keeping with the functions of the new Scottish Natural Heritage. The provision has worked well in the past on its present basis, and we see no need to alter it. The Countryside Commission for Scotland has been consulted in accordance with Section 8 and has felt able to offer advice as it saw fit.
754 Obliging the Secretary of State or a planning authority to consult SNH gives no guarantee that they will accept its advice, which is surely my noble friend's real aim. The amendment also has the disadvantage that it leaves no room for discretion. SNH would need to offer advice on all cases under the 1972 Act, even if the planning authority itself did not look favourably on a particular case. Given the number of planning applications which would affect the natural heritage as defined in the Bill, an enormous number of cases would need to be referred to SNH. The absence of any discretion under the amendment would mean that no such case, however trivial, could be excluded. I suspect that my noble friend will agree that that would be a great misapplication of resources.
On a more general point, it may reassure my noble friend if I tell her that SNH will inherit the current arrangements under which the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland are notified of planning applications of particular interest to them. In the case of NCCS, those are planning applications relating to SSSIs, which therefore includes national nature reserves, special protection areas and RAMSAR sites. In the CCS's case, certain applications relating to national scenic areas are referred to it. As I say, that will continue to be the case, and all such applications will in future be notified to Scottish Natural Heritage. I trust that in the light of those remarks my noble friend will withdraw her amendments. I hope she will understand that I have a great deal of sympathy with what she is trying to do. I feel that we have essentially covered the point that she has been trying to make.
§ Baroness Elliot of HarwoodMy Lords, I am disappointed by what my noble friend said. Can he assure me that the authority of the SNH will be great enough to enable it to stop unfortunate or bad plans which, let us say, get the support of a local authority for no particular reason or because it thinks that that is the right decision? It may be that the plan will be very destructive. I simply want the SNH to have the authority to stop a plan if needs be.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, it is difficult to give that assurance because so much depends upon the specific case. In Clause 1, we are essentially giving SNH powers to consider the natural heritage of Scotland and its sustainability. In Clause 3, SNH has to take into account various duties; for example, the needs of agriculture, of fisheries and of forestry, among other things. So that it is difficult to give my noble friend a totally categorical assurance that SNH, in all cases, will be able to stop development.
Essentially, Scottish National Heritage is an advisory body. It can advise the Secretary of State, and can advise local authorities on what their decisions should be. Obviously, no local authority will take a decision, and neither will the Secretary of State, which goes against what Scottish National Heritage has advised, unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so. That is the point that I am trying to make and I hope that my noble friend will accept that.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, is it not true that, in any case, any appeal against a development goes to the Secretary of State eventually?
§ Lord StrathclydeYes, my Lords. That in itself will give the Secretary of State an opportunity to look again at the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage, and he can make his decision in the light of that advice.
§ Baroness Elliot of HarwoodMy Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall not move the next one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
§ 4.30 p m.
§
Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. There is an error in the legislation. I am most grateful to him for pointing it out. I am also delighted to be able to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 41:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
-
cc755-87
- Report on proposed research 16,812 words, 2 divisions cc787-9
- Access to open country 875 words cc789-90
- Duties in relation to management of water resources. 803 words cc790-5
- Water Resource Management. 2,098 words cc795-801
- Schedule Access to Open Country 3,064 words