Official Report 209KB pdf
Our main item of business today concerns the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. This is our second day of consideration of the bill at stage 2. I invite members to declare any interests that they think are relevant to our discussions today.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, where they will see that I am a landowner and a member of the Scottish Landowners Federation.
I take it that nobody else has any interests to declare.
After section 3
Amendment 115, in the name of Alex Johnstone, is in a group on its own.
I lodged amendment 115, and one or two other amendments, because I want to explore some fundamental principles that we tend to overlook when legislation is passed. On amendment 115, my concern is that, under the notifications procedure, if the placing of a site of special scientific interest appears to have little impact on a landowner, consultation is considered unnecessary. I argue that matters relating to property are at all times the concern of the owner of that property and, regardless of the consequences of the proposal, the owner should be consulted in advance.
Amendment 115 confuses the role of the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the role of the Scottish Land Court. It also overlooks the fact that there are already sophisticated systems in the bill to allow objections and representations to be made whenever an SSSI is created. The existing arrangements on enlargement and denotification have been added to and improved on in the bill.
I accept much of what the minister has said, but I still believe that there is a basic principle at stake and it is one that I am prepared to put to the test in a vote.
The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 115 disagreed to.
Section 4—Site management statements
Amendment 23 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5—Enlargement of sites of special scientific interest
Amendment 24, in the name of Allan Wilson, is grouped with amendments 26 and 118.
Amendments 24 and 26 propose minor drafting changes. The purpose of section 5 is to provide a simple mechanism whereby new land that is of SSSI quality—or land that is adjacent to or contiguous with such land and essential to safeguarding the features of an existing SSSI—can be incorporated within an existing site. It provides for a proportionate and flexible system to avoid the proliferation of small sites where a larger site would be more sensible. SNH already has a clear duty to give notification of land that is of special interest and it would be undesirable to force SNH to give notification of that land as an entirely new site if it would make more sense in scientific and management terms to combine it with existing sites. Amendment 118, in the name of Alex Johnstone, would prevent that process, so I ask him not to move it.
I am concerned that land that is contiguous to a site of special scientific interest may be treated in the same way as the SSSI, without necessarily having gone through the same process that the site went through. I feel that it is important to ensure that, if that land is to be taken into the site, it should be subject to the same process, so I shall move amendment 118 when the time comes.
I understand that the expert working group on SSSI reform, which included representatives of the Scottish Landowners Federation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland, the NFU Scotland and the Scottish Crofting Foundation, agreed with the approach that the bill has taken. I, too, support that approach, which I believe to be sensible.
My view is that, if we removed section 5, as amendment 118 suggests, we would scupper a bit of the bill, but that is a matter for us to debate.
Alex Johnstone is worried about proofing designations, so to speak, but I think that his fears are misplaced, because new designations have to go through the new designation process. Deleting section 5 would remove the flexibility that I have spoken about, which has wide support.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 117, in the name of Eleanor Scott, was debated with amendment 111.
My understanding—and I am now confused between this week's meeting and last week's—was that amendment 117 was consequential on amendment 111 being accepted. Amendment 111 was voted down, so I shall not move amendment 117.
Amendment 117 not moved.
Amendment 26 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 118 moved—[Alex Johnstone].
The question is, that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 118 disagreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6—Review of operations requiring consent
Amendment 119, in the name of Alex Johnstone, is grouped with amendment 153.
My reason for lodging amendment 119 is that I believe that the criterion of the absence of an objection within the 28-day period should not be adequate and that there should be a requirement for consent to be actively pursued. I know that that could provide an opportunity for delaying tactics to be employed and I am fully aware of the concerns that the minister may have about that. However, I believe that the period of 28 days, after which consent will be assumed, is too tight and that some kind of positive consent should be sought.
It is reasonable to have a timeframe within which objections can be raised. My only concern is about whether SNH is required to ensure that the notice reaches the people whom it is intended to reach and whether SNH should be required to demonstrate that it has made reasonable attempts to reach everyone—if someone does not receive the notice, they obviously cannot respond to it.
Section 6(3) was introduced specifically to avoid a situation in which a review of operations requiring consent could be prevented by a single unreasonable objection, which is the point that Alex Johnstone has made. The problem with amendment 119—well motivated though it is—is that it would remove flexibility from the system and leave the whole process a hostage to apathy, or, for that matter, open to petty objections generated by inter-neighbour feuds or antipathy to SNH. That would not be in the interests of anybody concerned, so I ask Alex Johnstone to withdraw amendment 119 and not to move amendment 153.
The amendments raise a reasonable issue, so I will press amendment 119. Amendment 153 deals with an equivalent situation later in the bill, so I will not move it if amendment 119 is not agreed to.
Thank you for that notice. The question is, that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 119 disagreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7—Addition or modification of operations requiring consent: urgent situations
Amendment 27 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Section 9—Denotification of sites of special scientific interest
Amendment 28 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 120, in the name of Eleanor Scott, was debated with amendment 111. I remind members that amendment 120 pre-empts amendments 29 to 32, 108 and 121—if amendment 120 is agreed to, those amendments cannot be called. Amendments 29, 108 and 121 were also debated with amendment 111. Amendments 30, 31 and 32 were debated with amendment 16.
Amendment 120 is consequent on amendment 111, which was not agreed to. Members will be relieved to hear that I will not move amendment 120.
Amendment 120 not moved.
Amendments 29 to 32 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 108 and 121 not moved.
Amendment 33 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 109 not moved.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10—SSSI notifications and related notifications: procedure
Amendment 34, in the name of Allan Wilson, is grouped with amendments 35 to 37, 139 to 142, 38, 143 and 144.
The amendments are all minor technical drafting adjustments. The intention is to remove any ambiguity in relation to the use of the word "notification" and to ensure that SNH is required to give notice of all notifications relating to SSSIs by publication in the press and in such other ways as it sees fit. We are also clarifying that any notice that is published in the press must contain details of the notification, where it can be found and the period during which representations can be made.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
Amendment 35 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1
Amendments 36, 37, 139 to 142, 38 and 143 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 39, in the name of Allan Wilson, is grouped with amendments 122, 40, 132, 57, 58, 133 and 59 to 61. If amendment 39 is agreed to, amendment 122 will be pre-empted.
Amendments 39, 40 and 57 to 61 are concerned with the clarification and tidying up of the provisions in the bill that deal with objections to SSSI notifications, as well as with the independent advisory role of the Advisory Committee on SSSIs, which we have recently discussed. The advisory committee's role under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 is to advise Scottish Natural Heritage on unresolved scientific objections to SSSIs—it provides independent scientific advice to SNH in relation to objections. The process of ensuring that objections are fully evaluated is obviously important. The bill's policy intention is that the role of the advisory committee should remain unaltered. In section 21, we have sought to transfer the relevant provisions from the 1991 act into the bill. We have done that at the suggestion—dare I say it—of stakeholders.
I thank the minister for lodging amendment 39. Amendment 122 essentially takes a belt-and-braces approach in that respect. I will support amendment 39, which I believe will succeed and that consequently it will pre-empt amendment 122. I also thank him for accepting the principle behind amendment 133, which is essentially the same principle. I thank the clerks for pointing out the fact that the situation was similar.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Amendments 144 and 40 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
Section 12—Exercise of functions by public bodies etc
Amendment 41, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, is grouped with amendment 110. If amendment 41 is agreed to, amendment 42, which was debated with amendment 16, will be pre-empted.
Section 12(1) states:
As Roseanna Cunningham said, both amendment 41 and amendment 110 try to do the same thing, which is to recognise that SSSIs have value in being part of a series as well as in being individual sites. Possibly, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
I have a couple of questions, partly for the minister and partly for Roseanna Cunningham. I very much support what she and Nora Radcliffe are trying to do. It is important to take a slightly wider view on SSSIs.
I favour Roseanna Cunningham's amendment 41. Contrary to what some people may think, we are always open to good ideas from whatever source. Amendment 41 suggests a good idea that fits better with the objectives of the bill than do our own provisions. That said, some of the wording in the amendment would provide us with technical difficulties, not least of which is its reference to "sites" as opposed to "features". The bill contains specific references to "features".
Roseanna?
I do not know whether you still want me to address the point or accept the minister's remarks. In effect, there is already an obligation to consult SNH over specific operations. The amendment proposes a different level of consultation that does not pre-empt the specific consultation.
You seek leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the commitments made by the minister on the record.
Yes.
Amendment 41, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 42 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 110 not moved.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Section 13—Operations by public bodies etc
Amendment 43 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14—Operations by public bodies etc: authorised operations
Amendment 44, in the name of Allan Wilson, is in a group on its own.
The discussion about this amendment is, in a way, an extension of the discussion that we have just had. We are trying to get public bodies to think about the impact that their actions could have on sites of special scientific interest. The bill already obliges public bodies to obtain written consent from SNH when they intend to carry out operations that are likely to damage an SSSI. The relevant provision is in section 13.
Amendment 44 agreed to.
Amendments 45 to 47 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15—Consent by certain regulatory authorities
Amendments 48 and 49 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16—Operations by owners or occupiers of sites of special scientific interest
Amendment 50 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Section 17—Operations by owners or occupiers of sites of special scientific interest: authorised operations
Amendments 51 and 52 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
Section 19—Offences in relation to sites of special scientific interest
Amendment 53 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 145, in the name of Nora Radcliffe, is grouped with amendments 146, 147, 54, 55 and 148.
Amendment 145 seeks to make disturbance an offence. Damaging a feature of an SSSI is an offence, but disturbance, for example of ground-nesting birds, can be damaging. Mild or transient disturbance is not necessarily a problem, but major, persistent or continuing disturbance can result in birds or animals being displaced, in birds abandoning nests or in birds or animals not breeding: such disturbance is damaging. Amendment 146 is consequential on amendment 145 and amendment 147 would qualify amendment 145 to ensure that minor disturbance that is not significantly damaging would not be treated as an offence.
I understand the motivation that Nora Radcliffe has outlined. We all agree on the importance of protecting SSSIs, which is arguably what the bill is all about. That is why the bill already contains fairly detailed provisions that make it an offence to damage the natural feature for which the SSSI was designated. Section 19 makes it an offence intentionally or recklessly to damage any natural feature that has been specified in an SSSI notification.
I listened carefully to what the minister and Nora Radcliffe said. I am concerned about how amendments 145 to 148 would interact with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. If disturbance causes damage, that should be a crime and it would be a crime under the bill as drafted. However, it is unrealistic to be more specific than that. The amendments would run contrary to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 because anyone who walks in an area in which there are birds or other fauna might disturb them, intentionally or otherwise. My genuine concern is that the amendments might allow landowners to prohibit access to sites of special scientific interest, which would run contrary to measures that the Parliament has introduced in the past.
As I understand it, the problem is not necessarily about one-off disturbances, but about repeated disturbances that might, for example, put birds off returning to their natural habitats. To pick up on Karen Gillon's point, I wonder whether the new access code should acknowledge whatever we end up with in the bill as being the new legal framework for the countryside. The right of access to the countryside is a right of responsible access. To what extent is there scope for providing information that would give people a much better handle on what kind of SSSI they are in, the features that the SSSI exists to protect and what responsible members of the public must look out for when they access such sites?
I am pleased that the minister is happy to accept the concept that disturbance should be recognised as damaging. The argument is not about the principle, but about the practical way of achieving the aim. I am happy to withdraw amendment 145 and not to move amendments 146 to 148, on the basis that it will be considered whether to introduce later in stage 2 an amendment to section 56(2) or to come back with revised amendments at stage 3. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 145.
Amendment 145, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 146 and 147 not moved.
Amendments 54 and 55 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 148 not moved.
Amendment 56 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
After section 19
Amendment 149 is in the name of Nora Radcliffe.
Amendment 149 is intended to deal with a situation in which a landowner who is being paid public money to manage land that incorporates an SSSI is convicted of a related wildlife crime. At that point, it is obvious that some sort of action should be taken, so the amendment would ensure that SNH would have to review the management agreement and would be able to use the sanctions of termination of, or amendment to, the management agreement, if that was thought to be appropriate. The amendment also specifies a reporting mechanism for any review or subsequent action.
I suppose that that begs a question: if the amendment were passed, and someone broke the agreement, who would the agreement be with?
I think that the difficulty is—
I am sorry; I will let you come back on that point later. That was just a thought off the top of my head, having read the amendments.
There are a couple of problems with amendment 149. On conviction, under section 19 of the bill or part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, SNH would be obliged to review, terminate or renegotiate the terms of a management agreement. As the purpose of such management agreements is to preserve features, it would be counterproductive to impose an additional penalty entirely at SNH's discretion.
Nora, would you like to respond to the debate and wind up?
I would like to seek clarification from the minister rather than to wind up.
That would help.
Amendment 149 is, in essence, a probing amendment. It deals with a situation that would need to be dealt with if it arose. Does the minister agree that, given that such a situation could arise, it would be useful to think about what we would do if it did?
If there was an offence, there would be a prosecution, a judicial decision and a penalty. In that case, SNH would have to review its site management in accordance with whatever decision was reached. To take that argument and then say that the site should be punished for the actions of the land manager would be perverse. Unlimited fines are available in certain circumstances and substantial cash fines are available in other circumstances. The process is subject to the law of the land. Amendment 149 is an unnecessary and unwarranted additional provision that would not meet ECHR requirements. I cannot say more than that.
Are you satisfied that existing mechanisms would prevent a situation in which we would be giving someone public money as part of a land management agreement while they were doing things that were damaging or deleterious to the site that we were paying them to manage?
Such an individual would not be getting public money if they were not complying with the terms of the management agreement. If they were involved in causing damage that might constitute an offence, it would be up to the courts to deal with that. I am satisfied that existing provisions are sufficient in that regard.
Does that help?
Yes. Thank you for your indulgence in allowing that discussion to go to and fro, because it has been helpful.
We also have land management orders that we could use to exercise—
The fact that we have had this exchange at stage 2 means that the issue has been flagged up as something to keep an eye out for when the agreements are being set up.
Amendment 149, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 20 agreed to.
Section 21—Advisory Committee on sites of special scientific interest
Amendment 132 not moved.
Amendments 57 and 58 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 133 moved—[Alex Johnstone]—and agreed to.
Amendments 59 to 61 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22—SSSI register
Amendment 123, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 124 to 127.
I will try to be brief. A register of SSSIs already exists as it is provided for in section 12 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The existing register is paper based. It has proved to be useful over the years, but technology and related expectations have moved on. We now have the opportunity to create a new and authoritative national register of SSSIs, which takes full advantage of advances in information technology and of the strengths of new digital mapping systems.
No members wish to speak to the amendments; I think that they have been generally welcomed.
Amendment 123 agreed to.
Amendments 124 to 127 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
After section 22
Amendment 62, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 62 seeks to introduce an entirely new section into the bill, so it is an addition rather than an amendment. It would require SNH to carry out a monitoring programme on the series of SSSIs and to report the results openly. Although the amendment states that the report must be annual and that some monitoring should take place every year, I am advised that the wording does not require full monitoring of every SSSI every year. In case that is an issue, I have taken advice and been told that the drafting of the amendment is not prescriptive; the monitoring requirement that the amendment proposes is no greater than the requirement currently placed on SNH.
It is generally recognised that if SNH communicated more openly with local communities, the value that those communities place on the land and the features in their area would increase. It is important that the new section should be included, as there is often some misunderstanding about SNH's activities because people have no opportunity to know exactly what the organisation is doing. At stage 1, in relation to an SSSI, we mentioned deer damage to rare trees on Arran, which is in the minister's constituency. It would be useful for the community in that area to know what is going on. That is one small example of how amendment 62 could be of benefit to the bill as a whole and to the work of SNH in particular.
I just wonder whether, given that SNH is a public body and that the intention of the amendment is information sharing and transparency, Roseanna Cunningham's proposal is not covered by provisions under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the convention, the name of which I cannot remember.
The Aarhus convention.
Needless to say, we have no problem with the intention of amendment 62. The monitoring and reporting of the condition of SSSIs is by definition important. In fact, it is already fundamental to what SNH does, both in reporting cases of direct damage and in carrying out longer-term site condition monitoring. There is no dispute between us on the idea behind the amendment.
I want to clarify Maureen Macmillan's point on freedom of information. Roseanna Cunningham's amendment does not seem to require more monitoring; it is about the reporting of the monitoring.
I referred to the report "SNH Facts and Figures 2002/2003". Chapter 17 is entitled "SSSI/Natura Site damage: cases reported during year to 31 March 2003". As a public body, SNH, like the Executive, is required to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. All I am saying is that I do not think that making statutory provision in the way that amendment 62 suggests is necessary, as all the things that it seeks to provide for are already being done.
The question that members are quietly asking is where we access information on individual sites, given that information is published annually. Is there reporting on individual sites, which is what amendment 62 seeks? Has the work been done and we have just not been able to access it? Where do we find it?
You would find it in the annual "SNH Facts and Figures" publication or by making a direct request for it. I am reliably informed that the requirement to make the information available is statutorily underpinned in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991.
Does that apply to site-by-site information?
A general requirement is imposed on SNH to report on these matters.
Right. I ask Roseanna Cunningham to reflect on what she has heard and to wind up the debate.
The discussion has been interesting in that we have heard the minister refer to information that many people might not realise is available to them. That says it all, because the minister said that SNH is making the information public "to a greater or lesser extent". The public perception is that the latter aspect of his phrase is the more accurate position. The truth of the matter is that most people do not even know where to begin to access the information.
It would be helpful if you could deal with Roseanna Cunningham's direct question, minister.
Obviously, it is not just members of the public but members of the Parliament who are not wholly up to speed with the information that is available and is published on the web. I can reassure Roseanna Cunningham that the information in the report is specific to the SSSI or Natura site in question.
You do not need to read them all; the question was on a specific point.
I hope that Roseanna Cunningham will agree that the level of detail includes areas of special protection, possible special areas of conservation and so on. Her point about why that information might not be as well disseminated locally as it could be is a good one. That is something that we would want to pursue with SNH with regard to its operational practices. I suggest that the issue is probably better raised in that way than through the provision that is proposed.
I know that that clarification was lengthy, but I think that it was pretty much to the point of Roseanna Cunningham's question. Would you like to finish your winding-up statement, Roseanna?
Yes. One point that I will make is that, in a number of areas, it is assumed that simply publishing a document on the web is sufficient. Quite clearly, that is not the case and, at the minimum, a greater attempt must be made to make the availability and existence of such documents much more widely known, particularly in those areas around which controversy arises, such as SSSIs. I am prepared to accept that that might be an operational issue, however, and so will seek leave to withdraw the amendment. Nonetheless, I hope that the minister will be able to reassure me that the situation will change.
I am happy to do so. As you can see, the tome is quite weighty. It is probably compulsive reading in the offices of environmental non-departmental public bodies and nowhere else—
I will stop you before you talk Roseanna Cunningham into pressing her amendment. I sense that we are pretty close to getting agreement on the matter. I think that members have expressed the view that a bit of care must be shown with regard to the issue once the bill has been agreed by the Parliament. I thank everyone for that detailed exchange, which has illuminated one aspect of the bill.
Amendment 62, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 23—Nature conservation orders
Amendment 134, in the name of Alex Johnstone, is grouped with amendments 135, 136, 150 and 154. If we agree to amendment 136, amendment 64 will be pre-empted.
The other amendments in the group largely follow on from amendment 134. I have lodged the amendment because section 23(3)(a) states quite clearly that the land that is referred to in section 23(1) is
Amendment 136 is the key amendment in the group. I will not go into the detail into which Alex Johnstone went, but the amendment seeks to restrict the land to which an NCO can apply. As the bill is drafted, Scottish ministers may make a nature conservation order in a variety of circumstances, which Alex Johnstone outlined.
I have a question for the minister, the answer to which depends to some extent on interpretation. The minister's reply has given me a great deal of heart, because he restricted what we are talking about to impacts on sites of special scientific interest. Is the minister sure that the power that section 23 will confer upon him will not give a free hand to designate nature conservation orders in areas that do not directly impact on sites of special scientific interest?
Yes.
Thank you for that clarification. Alex—the answer was yes.
I will be interested to read the detail of the minister's answer and to consider it at greater length. On the basis of his answer, however, I am content to seek to withdraw amendment 134 and not to move the subsequent amendments in the group. If, on reflection, I am dissatisfied with the detail of the minister's answer, I will be happy to lodge similar amendments at stage 3.
Thank you. That is a clear indication.
Amendment 134, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 63 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 135 and 136 not moved.
Amendment 64 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24—Amendment or revocation of nature conservation orders
Amendment 150 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
Schedule 2
Amendment 151, in the name of Alex Johnstone, is grouped with amendment 152.
I lodged amendments 151 and 152 in the form that I have used in order to solicit a response from the minister on the specific matter of consultation on the designation of major conservation orders. As I said when speaking to an earlier amendment, it is important that wherever possible landowners or land managers are party to the process leading to designation.
I am just getting some of my lines of response clear. We are talking about a measure that has been in being since 1981: indeed, it was introduced by a previous Government of Alex Johnstone's party. As I understand it, there is provision post imposition of an order for the reasoning behind it to be debated. Currently, about 25 orders are in operation. Consultation is laudable and I do not disagree with what Alex Johnstone said, but the impact of what he proposes would be less than laudable. That is partly because the order could be made against the very land manager, owner or occupier who is the cause of the problem.
I lodged amendments 151 and 152 because of concerns that were raised by a number of landowners and land managers who have been involved in the process as it stands and as it previously existed. I am aware that relationships between landowners and land managers and SNH have quite often been damaged by a failure to consult, or perhaps I should more appropriately say by a perceived failure to consult. I do not believe that the situation is always as black and white as some landowners and managers have suggested.
Amendment 151, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 152 and 153 not moved.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Section 26—Review of nature conservation orders
Amendment 137, in the name of Alex Johnstone, is grouped with amendments 138, 155 and 156.
The other amendments in the group largely derive from the principle that is set out in amendment 137, which is that the land owner or occupier ought to be entitled to a review of a nature conservation order where one exists. I believe that there is no provision in the bill for such a person to request such a review. Amendment 137 would introduce a requirement that a review take place within three months of such a request's being made.
A requirement is imposed on ministers in the bill to review decisions on NCOs. There is no need for amendment 137. Under the provisions of the bill, owners and occupiers can ask ministers to review NCOs at any time. Indeed, it could be argued that the three-month stipulation in amendment 137 would be less advantageous than the provision that is included in the bill.
I thank the minister for his reassurances. I will consider in greater detail the time limits given for responses to requests to revoke NCOs, but at this stage, I am content to seek leave to withdraw amendment 137.
Amendment 137, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 138 not moved.
Section 26 agreed to.
Section 27—Offences in relation to nature conservation orders
Amendment 65 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
If members look at the marshalled list, they will see that a number of amendments remain, but they are all beyond the point at which we agreed to stop today. We will come back to them.
Previous
Subordinate LegislationNext
Item in Private