---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for setting out his amendment in that excellent way. He makes the persuasive case that road safety measures are extremely important but must be implemented in a way that is sympathetic to the countryside environment. I take note of his campaign against clutter. However, I will disappoint him by resisting his call for a national duty, as he describes it. The amendment is unnecessary as there are already proper statutory protection and planning policies in place for all the countryside of good character.  For example, public bodies are already under a duty to have regard to the Habitats Directive, which provides a legal framework for the protection of special areas of conservation and certain species. There are also general duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to take reasonable steps  on the conservation of flora and fauna in sites of special scientific interest. The White  Paper, The Future of Transport, which we published in July 2004, states at page 16 that,"““there will continue to be a strong presumption against schemes that would significantly affect environmentally sensitive sites or important species  habitats or  landscapes; by keeping the environmental impacts of new and existing transport infrastructure to a minimum, ensuring that mitigation measures are implemented to a high standard””.    " The White Paper expresses strongly the opinion that we should ensure that safety measures do not significantly affect environmentally sensitive sites. There is also a requirement for certain types of project to be subject to environmental impact assessment before development consent is granted. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Lord feels that largely we are meeting his objectives, without going as far as his amendment wishes. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.