| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Meacher: In the almost certainly mistaken belief that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is searching for real information and elucidation, I shall answer his questions. First, the Bill will apply not to Northern Ireland and Scotland, but only to England and Wales. Secondly, on the question of cost,
the measure will put on a statutory basis what happens already, and will not lead to any increased public expenditure.Clause 66
Lords amendment: No. 105, in page 41, line 38, at end insert--
("( ) A notification under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (notification to local planning authorities of areas of special scientific interest) which by virtue of section 28(13) of the 1981 Act as originally enacted had effect as if given under section 28(1)(a) of that Act, shall cease to have effect.")
Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 107, 111 to 113, 133 to 135 and 238 to 268.
Mr. Meacher: These Lords amendments relate to clauses 66 to 70 in part III and to schedules 8 to 10, which together will deliver better protection for sites of special scientific interest.
The Government used the opportunity presented by the discussion in the other place to introduce amendments to enable new powers to be used within the large number of sites--there are some 5,000 in England and Wales--that have already been notified. The conservation agencies are required to prepare a statement of views about the management of the land and to bring existing SSSIs into line with the new notification procedures. Also, when a notice of intent was served in the past, but no consent was given, and no management agreement has been made, the agency has a new power to serve a stop notice, against which there is, of course, a right of appeal.
The Government also introduced provisions ensuring that full information about SSSIs may be passed on when an interest in SSSIs changes hands. We also sought and received agreement to a number of other minor and technical Lords amendments, which will ensure that the provisions for improving the procedures for notifying, protecting and managing SSSIs, which have been generally welcomed, are proportionate and workable.
We also considered arguments about the effect of the provisions on public bodies and introduced Lords amendments responding to those concerns and clarifying procedures, particularly for the restoration of an SSSI following activities by public bodies. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). Once again, we have listened to the argument and responded.
Mr. Paice: I want to discuss not Lords amendment No. 105 but Lords amendments Nos. 240 and 241--the Minister will concur that there is much similarity between them. The proposed clause heading in Lords amendment No. 240 is "Notification of additional land"; that for Lords amendment No. 241 is "Enlargement of SSSI". The wording of the amendments is very similar. I am puzzled about the nature of the difference between the two--not
the textual difference, but the difference in impact. One would add land to an SSSI, while the other would enlarge the SSSI. Those strike me as amounting to one and the same thing.Can the Minister tell us whether, in the case of Lords amendment No. 240, the additional area will be described as part of the SSSI? If so, why is that not the same as enlargement, as specified in Lords amendment No. 241? Will he also confirm that the new area will itself be of special scientific interest--that it will not just be a question of enlarging the existing SSSI, perhaps to protect it? There seems to be considerable doubt about whether the extra land described in Lords amendment No. 240 is itself of any special interest, or whether it will simply enhance the existing site.
Lords amendment No. 256 seems rather draconian. It obliges the owner of land that is included in an SSSI to notify the Nature Conservancy Council--or rather, given the point that we have reached in the Bill, English Nature--if he disposes of any interest in the land, or
- becomes aware that it is occupied by an additional or a different occupier.
- occupied by an additional or a different occupier?
Moreover, subsection (4) appears to criminalise the offence of not telling English Nature that an SSSI has been sold. That strikes me as incredibly draconian. I accept that we are talking about level 1 on the scale of fines, but we are nevertheless talking about a conviction. Surely making someone who simply neglects or omits or, indeed, forgets to tell English Nature that he has sold his land liable for a criminal conviction is incredibly heavy-handed. I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more.
New section 28R would empower English Nature to make byelaws
- for the protection of a site of special scientific interest.
- In practice bylaws have not proven to be an effective means of controlling damage, not least because rural police forces are already over-stretched.
- In this context what provision would be made to enforce these byelaws?
We believe that byelaws should not be developed unless consultation and the approval of relevant owners and occupiers is first obtained. In the absence of alternative enforcement agents, owners and occupiers are likely to be the only persons able to enforce byelaws.
9.45 pm
Many SSSIs are in relatively remote areas, and the landowner or one of his employees is most likely to come across damage or someone breaking the byelaws. How will the prosecution process proceed? Will we expect landowners and their staff to be responsible for enforcing byelaws made by English Nature? The gist of the NFU's concern is that it does not believe that byelaws will protect a site, however well meaning the intention behind them.
Of all the groups of amendments that we have discussed, this group gives me the least joy to support. Some of the amendments are good, but amendments Nos. 240 and 241 appear to duplicate each other, and three aspects of amendment No. 256 give rise to serious concerns. I am inclined to think that it is massively draconian to suggest that someone should be convicted of a crime simply for not writing a letter, which is the gist of paragraph (4) of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my concerns or at the very least explain the difference between amendments Nos. 240 and 241.
Mr. Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about amendment No. 256. It is inappropriate to bring the panoply of criminal law to bear in this case. There is another way to deal with the problem. The SSSI designation is registerable under the Land Charges Act 1972, and if it is registered for local government searches there is no need to place an onus on the landowner to notify a change. That is a more fail-safe procedure and it is straightforward and easy to implement.
Apart from that misgiving, I welcome most of the amendments. Extra protection for SSSIs is important throughout the United Kingdom. It is of special significance in Wales where 11 out of 16 SSSIs are managed for sporting purposes. We have a diverse and significant range of land that is eligible for SSSI status. It reflects the dedication of land managers, the shooting fraternity, falconers and others beyond the pressures and constraints of the agricultural economy.
Various bodies lobbied on this matter when the Bill was in the other place, and I am pleased that some progress has been made. The Countryside Alliance welcomes in particular the Government's inclusion of an amendment to exempt persons being charged for the offence of recklessly or intentionally damaging an SSSI if they have planning permission or are part of an emergency operation and the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Council for Wales have been notified as soon as possible. That sensible amendment will allow greater flexibility for land management practices. It also demonstrates an understanding that conservation aims have to be realistic and take account of local livelihood needs.
I also welcome the amendment that excludes a person from imprisonment if an offence was committed in the course of, or was incidental to, the carrying out of a lawful activity. That, too, is sensible and provides a safeguard for land managers who are going about their day-to-day activities. I utterly share the misgivings about amendment No. 256 detailed by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I suggest respectfully to the Minister the
course of action to which I have pointed, which may be preferable without placing an undue onus on any landowner.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |