| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath: As the right hon. Gentleman said, I tabled amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52. I acknowledge that amendment No. 51 is largely covered by Government amendments Nos. 286 and 287, for which I am grateful, and that amendment No. 52 is largely covered by Government amendments Nos. 288 and 289, for which I am equally grateful.
That leaves only amendment No. 50 to be discussed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it refers to a test of significance. Why is the test of significance there? It is simply because the right hon. Gentleman told me in Committee that the amendment that I had tabled previously was insufficiently specific and would catch too many people. Because of the test of effectiveness and proportionality that he required, I introduced that qualification. However, the Minister and I are clearly working to the same ends, and I do not intend to press the amendment.
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): I am reassured by my right hon. Friend the Minister, but for the record I shall set out the basic arguments.
Amendment No. 137 would bring the Bill into line with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and make company directors, not just companies, personally liable for offences. According to the Department, more than 3,000 English and Welsh SSSIs are partially or wholly owned by commercial operations, and many more are
subject to the actions of corporations such as utility companies. Company directors would take their responsibilities towards SSSIs more seriously if they were personally liable. Under other environmental legislation, where offences are committed directors are subject to legal redress.There are case studies, including one on the acid spill in the Tees estuary in 1999. A massive spill of acid polluted Greenabella marsh, which is a roosting site for over-wintering birds and a habitat for seals. The company responsible for the chemicals is now subject to legal action by the Environment Agency. Individual directors would also be subject to action.
Had the damage occurred not as a result of pollution but as a result of mismanagement such as ploughing or building, directors would not be liable. In the case of SSSIs, directors may be less likely to consider the implications of breaking the law if they were not personally accountable. Ultimately, it is an empirical question whether there are disparities in the behaviour of companies. I have been reassured by my right hon. Friend that the Bill's provisions are sufficient and that my amendment may not be necessary. I shall keep an eye on the situation.
The purpose of amendment No. 138 was to bring SSSI prosecutions in line with species offences. In the case of such offences, prosecutions can be taken by the wildlife agencies or by third parties, with the consent of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Law Commission recommended in its 1998 report "Consents to Prosecutions" that such consents should be abolished.
Some 45 per cent. of England's 4,000 SSSIs are in an unfavourable condition, and every year hundreds suffer loss and damage. According to the information available to me, English Nature has taken only one prosecution for an SSSI offence--in May 1997--and papers were laid before the courts in four other cases. English Nature may be unwilling to take prosecutions from the wildlife agencies, which have been anxious to build positive, not punitive, relationships with landowners. There is a danger, therefore, that neglect of SSSIs could become commonplace. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I am reassured by my right hon. Friend's words.
Mr. Meacher: I believe that my hon. Friend is reaching the end of his comments and may helpfully ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Before he does so--if he does so--may I say that he is right: neglect is the major problem with SSSIs, but damage is done by commercial and other interests. I assure my hon. Friend that section 69 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 already applies a provision in relation to offences by bodies corporate in virtually the same terms as his amendment No. 137. That will apply in relation to offences under new section 28A.
What my hon. Friend seeks to achieve is already in statute. I support his view that there are insufficient prosecutions, although the number is gradually increasing, and that where convictions are secured, the penalties are not adequate to provide an effective deterrent. I support my hon. Friend, but the objective is already covered by existing statute.
Mr. Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Other parties should have the right
to take a prosecution where the wildlife agencies fail to do so. Although they have the teeth, the question is whether they will bite. I hope that we will keep a monitoring brief. When public attention is focused by the enactment of the Bill, I hope that the wildlife agencies will act through the courts to bring offenders to justice. If not, we can return to the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw, because at the head of the group is a Government amendment.
Amendments made: No. 284, in page 87, line 49, after "1990" insert--
'or permitted by a section 28E authority which has acted in accordance with section 28G'.
No. 285, in page 87, line 54, at end insert--
'(4A) If an operation needs both a planning permission and the permission of a section 28E authority, subsection (4)(a) does not provide reasonable excuse unless both have been obtained.'
No. 286, in page 88, line 5, after "interest," insert--
'or intentionally or recklessly disturbs any of those fauna,'.
No. 287, in page 88, line 6, leave out "or damaged lay" and insert--
', damaged or disturbed was'.
No. 288, in page 88, line 33, leave out--
'the land on which it was carried out'
'a site of special scientific interest'.
No. 289, in page 88, line 37, leave out from "operations" to end of line 38 and insert--
'(whether on land included in the site of special scientific interest or not) as may be so specified for the purpose of restoring the site of special scientific interest to its former condition."'.
No. 290, in page 89, line 11, at end insert--
' . In section 67 of the 1981 Act (application to Crown), after subsection (1) there is inserted--
"(1A) An interest in Crown land, other than one held by or on behalf of the Crown, may be acquired under section 28L, but only with the consent of the appropriate authority."'. --[Mr. Meacher.]
Clause 62
8.30 pm
Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 275, in page 35, line 28, at end insert--
'(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), upon receipt of a notification under subsection (1), each Council notified shall, in turn, notify--
(a) the local planning authority in whose area the wetland is situated;
(b) every owner and occupier of any of that wetland;
(c) the Environment Agency; and
(d) every relevant undertaker (within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991) and every internal drainage board (within the meaning of section 61C(1) of the Land Drainage Act 1991) whose works, operations or activities may affect the wetland.
(1B) The Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales may agree that in a case where the Secretary of State notifies both of them under subsection (1)(c), any notice under subsection (1A) is to be sent by one or the other of them (and not both), so as to avoid duplicate notices under that subsection.'.
The amendment responds to a particular point that the Opposition made in Committee. They said that we should ensure that the relevant owners and occupiers, local authorities, the Environment Agency, relevant undertakers and internal drainage boards should be properly informed of the designation of Ramsar sites.
Mr. David Heath: I do not want to put the Under-Secretary off his stride, but I want to ask a simple question. Proposed new subsection (1A)(a) mentions "the local planning authority". Should I be concerned that that is expressed in the singular? In Somerset, a site could fall under the jurisdiction of several local planning authorities.
Mr. Mullin: All planning authorities are covered. The hon. Gentleman should not be concerned; I do not like him to be concerned.
The amendment would achieve its objective by placing a duty on the conservation agencies to carry out the same procedures to inform relevant parties as those that already exist for sites of special scientific interest--and are reflected in schedule 8--when they are notified by the Secretary of State of the designation of a Ramsar site. We have used that approach, which is the same as for sites designated under the European birds and habitats directives, because the detailed information on owners and occupiers will be held by the conservation agencies in connection with SSSI notification.
Several queries were raised in Committee about Government policy on Ramsar sites. We have concluded that we should publish a policy statement to set out our commitment to the Ramsar convention and explain how it will relate in future to our obligations under the European directives and the Bill as it applies to all SSSIs. The statement is in preparation, and I hope that we shall be able to publish it later during the Bill's passage.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |