HL Deb 18 December 1990 vol 524 cc790-5

.—(1) River purification authorities shall advise the Regional Councils and Forestry Commission upon the siting of afforestation in order to protect water resources in Scotland.

(2) Where, following advice from the relevant river purification authority, the Forestry Commission intends to approve a planting grant application which will lead to a significant deterioration in water resources, the river purification authority may request, and the Forestry Commission shall comply, that the planting granting application is referred to the relevant regional forestry advisory committee and the river purification authority may make such representation as it considers desirable to the Forestry Minister.

(3) In this section "water resources" means the quantity and quality of water available for domestic, agricultural, industrial, fisheries and nature conservation uses.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee I said that this amendment was necessary in order to increase the ability of the river purification authorities to fulfil their present duties of promoting the cleanliness of rivers and conserving water resources. My noble friend the Minister responded by stating that: the Forestry Commission presently operates a very effective consultation arrangement over plans for afforestation. The effect of those arrangements is that the Forestry Commission consults the relevant local authority on every new planting scheme of any consequence". He went on to say: I should expect the local authority to seek the views of the river purification authority".—[Official Report, 3/12/90; col. 80.] He concluded by saying that the consultation arrangements are very tough.

I cannot accept that the consultation arrangements are very tough because the Forestry Commission is not required to consult directly with the river purification authorities. I have consulted three river purification authorities in quite separate areas of Scotland; namely, the Solway, the Highland and north-eastern regions. They would support the proposed amendment because in their opinion it would increase their ability to prevent the possibility of proposed forestry plantations adversely affecting water resources.

Perhaps I may give an example of where quite obviously a river purification board recognises a water quality problem associated with afforestation but has not been in a position to prevent it. The Solway purification board's annual report for 1989 reported that: In 1989 the Cree and Fleet rivers failed the PH requirement of the EC fresh water fisheries directive throughout their catchments". The report went on to say: The directive also expects authorities to make improvements to ensure that quality standards are met, but such improvements are outwith the scope of the board for this particular problem. Forestry has been implicated in the increased acidification of some upland waters, and more land is being planted in these sensitive areas". This does not suggest to me that the present liaison arrangements are always satisfactory. My discussions with other river purification boards indicated that, as well as increased acidification, increased phosphorous levels in streams due to forestry fertiliser application, increased torpidity, and in local areas effects on flow patterns and total run off, were all problems associated with forestry development.

The Minister also said in Committee: There are no problems about water resource in Scotland; there is an awful lot of it".—[Official Report, 3/12/90; col. 81.] I would accept that in many parts of Scotland high rainfall and low population density means that water shortages are infrequent. However, there are considerable differences in both rainfall pattern and the demand for water in different parts of Scotland. For example, in parts of the Grampian region on the drier east coast of Scotland, abstraction is increasing, and so also is the need for water conservation. Allowance has also to be made for exceptional conditions. Indeed, Part III of the Bill contains measures to allow for the provision of drought orders in Scotland. Despite the fact that Scotland is generally an area of high rainfall, afforestation can have significant effects on water resources, particularly by affecting water quality and flow patterns.

I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the proposed amendment as a positive contribution. I consider, as do the river purification boards I have consulted, that the proposed amendment would improve on present liaison arrangements. It would also support government acceptance that it is essential to watch for changes in land use which may damage water sources.

7 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I should like to express my support for this amendment and cast some doubt on what my noble friend the Minister said in Committee on 3rd December about the efficiency of the Forestry Commission's present consultation arrangements. I propose to do so by giving your Lordships another example of where the consultation arrangements over plans for afforestation do not seem to have had the desired effect. I am afraid that I must again declare an interest because the story concerns my own water supply and that of the small village in which I live.

By 1984 the Forestry Commission had drained and planted about half the catchment area for the burn —or stream, for those who may not be familiar with the word—which supplies our village. This burn has never run dry in living memory. It may be that that first swathe of planting would have been enough to exhaust the burn in dry weather in a few years' time when the trees have grown a bit. But we certainly did not want the Forestry Commission to drain and plant the rest of the catchment area. So I wrote to the commission in 1984 and asked it to agree that any further planting would be inappropriate. I received no satisfactory reply, and so my lawyers wrote in 1985 on behalf of myself and the village. We were told that the commission was aware of the position.

In 1985 the commission sold one of its houses in the village. The purchaser wrote to the commission in 1986 to ask for its confirmation that his water supply was not about to be removed by the commission's further planting of the catchment area. The commission replied: If and when further planting is to take place in the area, due regard will be given to the water supply and your rights to it". That is the last any of us heard until the ploughs moved in this year to drain most of the rest of the catchment area. It is now also largely planted.

My solicitors have advised me that there is nothing we can do until the water supply actually dries up. Then, if we can show that millions of trees have drunk it, we would be able to claim compensation. Even though trees are notoriously thirsty creatures when they get to about 30 feet or so, we have been advised that it may not be easy to prove the case because water flow charts of the burn in question, going back over time, do not exist, of course.

When I heard my noble friend the Minister give assurances to my noble friend Lord Mills in Committee, I thought that I had better discover how these wonderful consultation procedures had actually worked in our case—or not worked, as it would seem. I received a reply from the local Forestry Commission conservator last night. He confirms that the commission did indeed consult with the local authority. The local authority made a number of observations about the shape of the area, the species mixture of the trees, the need to keep conifers back from the burn, which is our water supply, and the desirability of planting some native broadleaves for landscaping and conservation reasons. The conser-vator assures me that subsequent planting has taken these views into account.

I do not know whether the local authority considered, or was asked to consider, or was competent to consider if it was asked to consider, whether the new planting would eventually remove our water supply in dry weather. But I can tell your Lordships that it never consulted with anyone locally at all, let alone widely.

I have to say that the burn in question has not yet quite run dry, but I would have thought that it most certainly must when the trees are a few years older. I suppose that we shall then proceed along the dreary road to seek compensation, whatever that may be. It is not easy to see how one can be compensated adequately for the removal of the water supply of an entire village, but there it is.

I know that that is a small example but I hope that it throws some doubt on whether the consultation procedures are working as well as they ought. That is why I support the amendment.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, as I mentioned when this question was raised in Committee, there is already in place a consultation procedure over plans for afforestation. The Forestry Commission is under direction of the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities on every new planting scheme of any consequence and the local authorities, in turn, consult with wider interests including RPAs where appropriate. The consultation procedure has been found to work effectively in the past and the proposal to require statutory consultation with river purification authorities seems overly bureaucratic.

However, I listened closely to what my noble friends said. I am sorry to hear about the particular problems of my noble friend Lord Pearson. In the light of that, I am willing, if my noble friends will agree to withdraw their amendment at this stage, to look more closely at the whole question of compensation. I am aware of the concerns about the effects of planting on water quality and I certainly wish to ensure that the system of consultation is as effective as possible and covers all the relevant stages of planning for, and management of, forestry development. Should it prove necessary to make any improvements to procedures, these would certainly have a high priority. In view of that commitment to my noble friends, I hope that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Mills

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments. In view of his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 [Offences by persons other than natural persons]:

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 38: Page 18, line 29, after ("of") insert ("or to be attributable to the negligence of"). On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Constitution and proceedings of Scottish Natural Heritage]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 39: Page 20, line 20, at end insert ("which shall be—

  1. (a) the conservation and enhancement of,
  2. (b) the fostering of the understanding and the facilitating of the enjoyment of, and
  3. (c) the promotion of access to and the pursuit of physical recreation in relation to,
the natural heritage of Scotland.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a brief amendment. The purpose is to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage has a clear responsibility to discharge a major function of one of its predecessor organisations; namely, the Countryside Commission for Scotland. As the Minister will be aware, it is sponsored by the Scottish Sports Council which is concerned that it may be forgotten and that the thousands of sportsmen who use the Scottish hills, land and countryside may be treated less well by the new body than was the case under the old one. I beg to move.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment do not add much to the Bill as they repeat provisions already clearly spelled out in Clause 1. Subparagraph (c) refers to access. I have already made it clear that there is no need to highlight this aspect of SNH's general aims and purposes as it is covered under the phrase "facilitating the enjoyment". The amendment is also unnecessary in the light of the extensive amendments I have tabled on access agreements and orders.

The reference to, the pursuit of physical recreation is a more subtle attempt to accommodate the wish of the Scottish Sport Council to see that subject represented on SNH. This is quite clearly ground which we covered in Committee. I do not wish to go over old ground. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [Amendment of Enactments conferring nature conservation functions]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 40: Page 24, line 20, after ("time") insert ("to time"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.