Examination of witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 1999
BARONESS YOUNG
OF OLD
SCONE and DR
DEREK LANGSLOW
280. Do you believe that the Countryside Bill
and the statutory right of access is the right way forward, or
would you have preferred to see voluntary access?
(Dr Langslow) There are two parts to the Countryside
Bill. There is the bit that interests us closely, on SSSIs, and
on the whole we think those proposals are pretty good; of course
they are not exactly what we want and we do not know yet what
you and your colleagues will do to it when it reaches the House,
but we will have to wait and see. But the basic thrust of it is
right, which is to try to find a way of addressing neglect on
SSSIs. Most SSSI owners co-operate very well with us, but there
is a significant minority who do not; and one of the biggest problems
is the neglect of sites, and the proposals in the Bill will include
measures to ensure the positive management of sites and give us
new tools to do that. The second part is about access. The statutory
right of access, providing it is accompanied with responsibilities
in relation to wildlife sites, is, in our view, very positive,
because we want people to be able to enjoy the wildlife and natural
features that we have in this country. There are going to be some
sites which are very sensitive, where there may be a need for
restrictions at different times of the year, and such like, but
the basic principle is sound. And it is perhaps worth noting that
currently our National Nature Reserves all have open access and
it is only restricted either on safety grounds, we have one or
two which are very dangerous, and as Accounting Officer with Health
and Safety responsibilities I do not want people on those sites,
but that is only three or four of them, and there is a small number
of others where too many feet would actually destroy the interest;
but it is quite unusual, most of them there is no problem.
Mr Benn
281. Good morning. Were you consulted by the
Performance and Innovation Unit when they were drawing up their
Report?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) Yes, we did talk to
the Performance and Innovation Unit, not right at the early stages
of the Report but as it has been formulating, and, indeed, there
are quite a few elements of the Performance and Innovation Unit
Report that we very much approve of.
282. Could you tell us what you think of it?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) I think it is pretty
good; there are a few weasel words in it that we would just raise
the odd eyebrow at and want to see more about. We believe very
much that the agricultural development ought to be brought in
within the planning system. We look, with some caution, at the
best and most versatile land proposition, we believe that there
needs to be a focus on the environmental quality of land rather
than the agricultural quality of land, but we would not want to
see most of our best farmland bricked over, because I think that
would imply a lack of flexibility, in terms of food demand for
the future. We are slightly anxious about the proposition that
tourism and leisure becomes a single land use with agricultural
land use, because tourism and leisure can create quite major strains
on the countryside and environmental challenges and challenges
to biodiversity, so I think there needs to be some different set
of controls for tourism and leisure development rather than just
seeing it as a use that can be interchangeable with agriculture.
We are glad that the original idea that there might be a Department
of Rural Affairs appears to have dropped out in subsequent drafts.
And slight concerns about the idea that there needs to be a balance
found between local deliberative processes and national regulations;
we would not want to see that balance altered to the point where
it was difficult to fulfil the national and international biodiversity
obligations, we very much understand that involving local people
is important, but we just want to see that balance right. The
last point, I think, probably, for us, is the issue of green belt.
I think there is a lack of clear thinking generally about green
belt in this country at the moment and it is clearly a policy
area that we all need to focus on and come to some clear conclusions
about, and that is some work that we have just commissioned, in
fact. But, overall, we are pleased with the PIU. It does not actually
use the words "sustainable development" very much but
it implies it. The test, of course, will be whether really we
see that as an integrated process, where we try to produce social,
economic and environment outcomes with the same measures, or whether
we see it as a trade-off; we are very much for integration rather
than trade-off. We are looking for smart solutions that deliver
all three objectives, and, hopefully, ones that also fulfil what
we think should be the primary objective of the Rural White Paper,
and that is really to ensure that what makes the country different
from the towns, because in many cases issues are shared between
them, is the quality of its environment, so that has really got
to be at the heart of the Rural White Paper, and hopefully the
PIU work as well.
283. Would you say, therefore, on balance, that
their proposals would help or harm biodiversity, in view of what
you have just said?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) I think, with those
cautions about the areas where we would want to see more, quite
frankly, we think it is a good step in the right direction; they
have been extremely positive about the need for agricultural reform,
for example.
284. Just one other quick question. One of the
proposals relates to so-called tourist taxes; do you think, as
English Nature, that some sort of control on visits to the most
popular spots, whether by use of a pricing mechanism or some sort
of control on the number of visitors, is likely to be inevitable?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) For us, the test has
always got to be what the impact on the biodiversity interest
is, and so it needs to be site by site that we look at that; but,
obviously, if there was an issue where visitor pressure was putting
at risk the biodiversity interest, we would want to explore a
range of measures for ensuring that that pressure was either diverted
or managed in some way, and that might well be by an economic
instrument.
(Dr Langslow) I think there are some instances where
the cost that the tourism causes to an area is not properly recognised
as an external cost. I was impressed, a couple of years ago, on
holiday in North America, visiting some of the Canadian National
Parks, where you have to buy a permit to be able to enter the
Parks at all, and all that money goes into paying for the facilities
and the staff within the Park. And, it seems to me, models like
that, would be, I think, one way forward to help relieve pressure
and provide the resource to help manage the tourism demand in
those places where it is very high. It would be a charge rather
than a tax.
Chairman
285. Are not the circumstances in Britain totally
different? There would be huge numbers of people who would go
into the Lake District National Park, almost not for pleasure,
at a particular point, so it would be very difficult to charge
there, would it not?
(Dr Langslow) I am not sure, in principle, it would;
it depends how you want to do it. You can argue, of course, that
people already pay for it out of their taxes, and therefore should
not pay an additional charge; you can take a view that people
using that facility should pay something. The way the system works
in the Canadian Parks, generally speaking, is actually a car permit
rather than a person permit, and you can get one for either a
day or a week, or a month, or a year. But I think that is a possible
route forward. We are not advocating that; all I am saying is,
that is one example of a possible way forward on those things,
if it is viewed that that is necessary.
Mrs Dunwoody
286. That is not very realistic, is it, because,
in fact, if you take some of our National Parks they already have
living and working communities in them; for instance, in Wales,
you will find there is a direct clash between working farmers
in the area and the principles of the National Park? Now what
you are suggesting would have to be a two-tier system which excluded
the local population, surely?
(Dr Langslow) I am not advocating that. All I am saying
is that that, in my view, is an option which can be explored if
one wants to go down that route; we are not advocating that particular
route.
287. But, if you say it is an option, you must
have thought about it, have you not?
(Dr Langslow) Yes; but in the Canadian system they
make exemptions for residents within the Park.
288. Yes, but, because of the size and shape,
you are not comparing like with like, are you?
(Dr Langslow) No, we are not comparing like with like,
but I do not see, in principle, why that should not be done.
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) I think there are a
number of examples of ways in which you can differentiate between
residents and visitors. Some of the National Parks already operate
transport schemes to try to channel people towards `park and ride'
with bus services; and those sorts of schemes, I think, can be
made pretty sympathetic to local residents, and indeed can be
advantageous to local residents because it reduces the congestion
that they have to deal with as well. So I think there are ways
through it. It is not a heartland issue for us, to be frank, at
the moment, because, of course, being an organisation that is
primarily about biodiversity rather than managed access and recreation,
we would be advising other groups about the potential biodiversity
impacts rather than about the measures that they might adopt.
Mr Gray
289. Just very briefly, on this one. The beaches,
clearing up the beaches, the cost comes down entirely on local
people. The South West, for example, has 30 per cent of the nation's
beaches but 3 per cent of the nation's population. It is not really
your direct area of responsibility, I accept, but, nonetheless,
would not there be a problem in undue financial cost to local
people in some of the things you were describing?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) I would hesitate to
try to tackle the issue of regional variation and how variation
in the cost of services, for a whole variety of reasons, falls
on local taxpayers, for example, or ratepayers, or water charge
payers. I think it is an issue, quite frankly, which is outside
our remit.
Mrs Ellman
290. Is there a clash between economic development
and environment, in rural areas?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) There need not be, universally.
I think there are many occasions when you can produce solutions
that are good for economic development and good for the environment,
and those are particularly economic development based on the distinctive
quality of the countryside, extensive agriculture, for instance,
where we can get effective agriculture producing a crop or a food
that people want to buy and that is also okay for the countryside
and for wildlife. Some of the land-based activities, tourism based
on the local quality of the countryside, some of the added value
activities associated with extensive agriculture, like the local
processing and marketing. I think all of those can help create
a sustainable approach to exploiting the natural assets of the
countryside. There are occasions, of course, when even those could
have an impact on biodiversity and the environment, and that is
where environmental appraisal and looking at the biodiversity
impacts of both policies and plans, right at the beginning, is
a really important part, and that is why the biodiversity tests,
of whether economic development is sustainable or not, are important,
so that we can judge whether these projects are. So, really, I
suppose what we are saying is that there are examples where you
can get the benefits for the environment and for the economy,
and indeed for people and jobs, from economic development, but
that all economic development really needs to fulfil the sustainable
development principles, and, as part of the planning process,
needs to be assessed for its environmental impact and its environmental
acceptability. There are occasions when developments, which might
look initially to be fairly small-scale and environmentally benign,
you just need to look at the longer-term impacts; for example,
if we began to see more development on farm of non-farm-related
economic activities, small-scale tourism projects or light industry
projects, the issue is, further down the road, if they become
very popular, anticipating what the impact might be in terms of
transport and infrastructure necessary to support them in the
future. So I think we have just got to bear those impacts in mind,
in looking at small-scale proposals, initially. One of the things
that we would be keen to see, if the PIU proposals are adopted,
would be that agricultural land development, buildings and infrastructure
was brought into the planning system on an equal footing with
other planning and economic development activities, so that the
planning system can be used as a way of assessing the environmental
impacts as well as the social and economic benefits.
291. Are the right mechanisms there now to take
the decisions?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) Clearly, there are going
to be changes in the way in which agricultural land and buildings
are used for economic purposes for the future, and, I think, providing
we get those firmly as part of the planning system, on an equal
footing with other economic activities, that is the sort of setting
where you can make proper decisions about competing land uses
and about the environmental impact, and indeed take on board local
views and opinions, which are very important in the planning system,
as well as the national and international obligations for biodiversity
that need to be brought into the equation as well. The planning
system is a pretty good mechanism for bringing all these sometimes
conflicting points of view together and trying to come to a rational
decision.
292. Who should be taking the decisions on deciding
whether short-term economic interest is right, even if there is
long-term environmental damage?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) I would say that short-term
economic interest, at the expense of long-term environmental damage,
is pretty risky, quite frankly. If you look at what is special
about the countryside—
293. Who should be making those assessments?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) That is where the planning
system, I think, is the system that, over the last 20, 30 years,
has already been honed to, I would not call it a degree of perfection
because everybody moans about the planning system and there are
things about it that do need to be reformed, in terms of speed
and simplicity, but, nevertheless, it is probably the best forum
we have got for these competing issues to be resolved, at a local
level if they can, and, if international and national obligations
are involved, there is, of course, the opportunity for that to
be called in and a decision taken at a national level, if necessary.
Chairman
294. What about having some really sort of nasty
things into the countryside, like scrap-yards, or perhaps turning
a farm over so that you can have motor-bike scrambling over it,
or off-road vehicles; these are the sorts of things that people
actually need to do? Ought not some of those to be in the countryside?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) I think, the point that
we made earlier about not having agriculture and leisure use as
a single land use that would not require planning approval for
a change is important, because many of these activities could
have an impact on biodiversity, they would equally well have an
impact on amenity within the countryside, quite frankly. And one
of the things we have constantly stressed, in terms of the access
provisions in the Countryside Bill, is that the sorts of access
that we would want to encourage is access on foot for quiet enjoyment
of the countryside. Some of the motor-borne and rather more exuberant
countryside activities really have to be assessed, I think, under
the planning system for the impact they have on local communities
and for the impact they have on biodiversity; we cannot assume
that they are going to be benign.
Mr Gray
295. On foot and horseback?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) And horseback.
(Dr Langslow) Yes, it would be both. I think, for
us, it is important that the natural resources are used, and are
used sustainably, in these activities. And I think one of the
key things you would have to look at, in the kinds of things you
were talking about, was what are the other infrastructural impacts,
as on other transport effects, and so forth, because, if you are
bringing the people to use their motor-bikes long distances by
car, to those sites, that does not seem very sustainable. You
would be better to look for a site closer to where the people
engaging in that activity are based.
Chairman
296. Yes. I am not quite sure that my constituents
might be as keen to have them roaring around one or two of the
small bits of open space in my constituency; but, still.
(Dr Langslow) I would not be suggesting that, Mr Chairman,
but it does seem to me that, to some extent, you should have those
activities close to where the participants are, if you are looking
for a sustainable transport mode with it as well.
Mrs Dunwoody
297. But the reality is, you see, that in a
rural area such as the one just outside my constituency, where
this was suggested it was because the farmers concerned desperately
needed to diversify into something which would raise cash for
them, they were already at risk of going bankrupt, the people
who objected to the noise were two or three very wealthy urbanites,
who have got large cottages on the edges of villages, and in some
instances actually are disturbed by cockerels, so that it seems
to me you cannot have it both ways. If, on the one hand, you expect
the development of rural areas to encompass the changes that we
see all around us in society, some of the development will be
the sort of thing that you are suggesting would not be acceptable?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) I think we should make
it clear that, as the biodiversity organisation for England, our
priorities would be to ensure that the impacts on biodiversity
were acceptable.
298. Yes, but, unfortunately, people live there
as well?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) In terms of other issues,
like amenity, we would not have a view, necessarily, but we do
have a view on whether transport and infrastructure and access
to those sorts of activities would also bring with it environmental
damage, because I think that is pretty fundamental.
Mr Donohoe
299. Does the Agriculture Minister's statement
to the House of Commons on 7 December, announcing an enhanced
agri-environment package, go far enough, in your opinion?
(Baroness Young of Old Scone) We were delighted with
the announcement, but, at the same time, we want more; that is
the normal lot of an environment organisation, to say, "Thank
you, but please can we have more?".
|
