Examination of Witnesses (Questions 651
- 659)
TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2000
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP, MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
ROGER PRITCHARD
AND MR
JOHN OSMOND
Chairman
651. Ministers, can I welcome you to the session
on UK biodiversity, and ask you to identify yourselves and your
team for the record.
(Mr Meacher) I hope I am known as the
Minister for the Environment. If I could introduce on my left
Roger Pritchard who is Head of the European Wildlife Division
in DETR.
(Mr Morley) Good morning, Chairman. I am responsible
for agri-environment programmes and countryside programmes within
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On my right is
John Osmond who is our official responsible for these areas.
652. Would you like to say anything by way of
introduction, or are you happy to go straight into questions?
(Mr Meacher) I always think it is best to go the questions
so that attention is not lost whilst we wander through a prepared
statement.
Mrs Dunwoody
653. We hang upon your every word!
(Mr Meacher) Not if I have brought in a statement!
Mr Olner
654. Good morning, Minister. Given the need
for the long-term commitment to the BAPs from a range of bodies,
does it make sense to put them on a statutory footing?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, that is a central issue.
655. Is that, yes, it would?
(Mr Meacher) You have put your finger on the key issue
straight away. There are two levels at which this could be done:
first of all, the national Biodiversity Action Plan implementation
level; but, secondly, the local authority responsible for local
Biodiversity Action Plans. On the national level, we do already
of course have an international obligation under the UN Biodiversity
Convention to prepare national biodiversity strategies. We have,
in fact, already produced, speaking from memory, 391 species action
plans and 45 habitat action plans, which I think stands pretty
good comparison with any other country. On the local authority
side, let me say I have a great deal of sympathy with the objective
behind the question. The issue is: what is the best way to achieve
it? I have had lengthy discussions with the local government minister,
my colleague Hilary Armstrong, and she tells me (which I could
well believe) that I am one of a small army of ministers going
to her door requesting that there be further statutory responsibilities
placed on local authorities. The question is whether that is the
best way to do it: do you want to have a statutory responsibility
which is discrete, separate and compartmentalised for biodiversity
(which presumably means appointing half a person or one person
responsible for this); or to integrate the responsibility for
biodiversity into all other local authority plans. On that, I
do think that that is a better way. What we are proposing is:
under the Local Government Bill, there will be community strategies;
there will be statutory guidance which will require local authorities
to take full account of biodiversity in the preparation of all
of their activities within the community strategy.
656. Minister, could I say, this does seem a
little one-sided at the moment when we talk about Biodiversity
Action Plans. We seem to have the biodiversity and we have a plan
but the action seems to be missing. Surely if it is put on a statutory
basis that would ensure the action follows?
(Mr Meacher) I am very keen that it should. As I say,
I fully support the thrust behind the question. The issue is:
do you have a requirement on a local authority to take action
in this area when they have N number of other responsibilities;
and we have tried (and this is a very important consideration)
to devolve responsibility for expenditure to local authorities—they
make their own decisions about their budgets. You may give them
a statutory responsibility, but they may decide that given the
limit on resources, which is always there, their priorities are
X, Y and Z and I am afraid biodiversity does not feature, or it
features rather weakly. The reality is, I think it is much better
to say that all of your activities (whether it is with regard
to housing, planning or social services) have to take account
of the biodiversity implications. That is likely to give a far
wider breadth of application.
657. That is a very honest answer, but how does
it move forward biodiversity and all it means to future generations?
If we do not grasp the nettle and do something then the opportunity
will be lost.
(Mr Meacher) I think the answer to that is, there
are going to be community strategies if this is agreed, because
of course the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is currently
going through the Lords and will presumably come back to the Commons.
If it is agreed we have these community strategies and the proposal
I have made is implemented, we have to see how it works and I
think it will work. If you are right, and it is working rather
feebly or inadequately, then I think we are going to have to return
to the question of: do you need a statutory underpinning? I repeat,
even if we did that, I think it is very easy to think once you
have imposed a statutory obligation on a body, such as a local
authority, it will happen. The truth, I am afraid, is that that
is not so. They will plead either lack of resources, lack of personnel,
lack of support from government and it does not actually happen.
658. Given you have mentioned the lack of resources,
would you be prepared to fight your corner with Treasury to ensure
local authorities have got specific ring-fenced resources to pay
due attention to this very important thing?
(Mr Meacher) We have already done that. We have increased
the resources to English Nature. I think it is by £11 million.
659. So English Nature ought to be the statutory
body?
(Mr Meacher) English Nature is the statutory advisor
to DETR. We have increased their resources by £11 million
over the last two years—£3.3 million of which is for
biodiversity. Of course we have the Spending Review, and of course
we have made a bid for significant extra resources for the countryside.
We will have to wait and see what the Chancellor reports in two
or three weeks' time.
|
