Examination of Witnesses (Questions 740
- 759)
TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2000
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP, MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
ROGER PRITCHARD
AND MR
JOHN OSMOND
Mrs Dunwoody
740. Are you saying they are still not in agreement?
(Mr Meacher) I have not recently checked, but my understanding
is that there is now a report which is being prepared, and to
that extent must have the agreement of all the parties. I do know
that there has been an amendment of some of the initial proposals
in order to get the agreement of all sides.
Mrs Dunwoody: I think you should have a prize
for the conditional tense, Minister. I do not think I have ever
heard so many in one sentence. It is nice that we have someone
who knows how to use the English language, even to obfuscate.
Chairman
741. So if the House of Lords were more sympathetic
to hedgerows than the Legislation Committee, again, you would
not be upset?
(Mr Meacher) I would not be upset because I do seek
legislation, but I do not think it will be ready in time, and
I repeat secondary legislation, ie use of regulations, is the
way to proceed here. When we came into office, as I recall, on
30 May 1997, the hedgerow regulations left by the last Government
came into force. I condemned those in opposition as being weak.
I said that they needed to be strengthened. That is still my view.
I repeat, it has taken far longer than I expected, but we will
be coming forward with proposals substantially to strengthen those
by the end of this year.
Mr Benn
742. A number of witnesses said to us that the
National Biodiversity Network does not have enough funding to
do its job properly. Do you agree?
(Mr Meacher) It remains to be seen. I announced the
£0.25 million which is going to go to it not very long ago.
The purpose is to centralise the information collected by volunteers
all over the country, in a very fragmented and dispersed form,
using Web technology and making sure that that information is
available to hand all over the country. I think that enormously
increases the effectiveness of local Biodiversity Action Planning.
That is its purpose. The judgment my officials made was that £0.25
million is sufficient to stimulate this. If it is not, we will
have to review it further.
743. How are you going to keep it under review?
(Mr Meacher) We will certainly be looking to see whether
it is working. Governments do not give even £0.25 million
without checking on the consequences. We will give it a year to
run and then we will be asking the organisers to justify the outcomes,
the information that has been made available, and how it has been
used to get feedback from the users at local points. It will be
incorporated in the normal departmental review when we look at
expenditure regularly.
744. The local record centres are obviously
essential to the success of the commercial biodiversity network.
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
745. What does your research tell you so far
about who in the main is running those, making sure that there
are local record centres that can pull the information together?
(Mr Meacher) I have to say that it is extraordinarily
fragmented. These things are absolutely dependent on the good
will of certain volunteers, people who care passionately about
the subject and who, unpaid, give time, either in the evenings
or at weekends, to do a lot of this work, and who do record it
because of their own enthusiasm. Often that information, as I
say, is not utilised as effectively as it could be. I do not think
that is satisfactory. I think they should be assisted and supported.
I am not suggesting they could be paid. I think that is perhaps
not even desirable. It is certainly not possible. But they can
be seen to be part of a network which I think would enthuse them,
stimulate them, and make them feel that their work was valuable.
746. Given the remarks you made at the beginning
of your evidence about local authorities and the obligations placed
upon them, do you see a role for local authorities, not necessarily
running record centres themselves, but taking the lead responsibility
for ensuring that there is a network of support and that in each
of the areas that they cover arrangements are in place for local
record centres to operate?
(Mr Meacher) It could be, but I would expect voluntary
groups. If we take one, I happened to be launching the Regional
Action Plans for butterflies and moths yesterday.
Mrs Dunwoody
747. I hope they know which region they belong
to.
(Mr Meacher) They are extremely well aware of which
region they belong to and they are very committed to improving
the lepidoptera populations in their area. The point I was making
is that the butterfly conservation is a voluntary network. It
is quite small but it is quite effective. They are the ones who
are really enthused about this. They have a very limited number—I
do not know how many—of paid staff, and it tends to be those
paid staff who try to activate people in the neighbourhood. I
think they will be better able to do that through the Biodiversity
Network that we have set up. I personally believe that they are
likely to be the most effective. There are 500 local authorities.
I do not know how many, but there may be a number of those, almost
certainly a minority, who have individuals within them who are
really keyed up on this, but many will not, and it is better,
I think, to stick with the NGOs, who, by definition, are full
of active and enthused people. They are much more likely to do
a good job.
(Mr Morley) It might be worth noting as well on this
point in relation to the overall spend on the National Biodiversity
Network that while, for example, we in MAFF do not contribute
to the National Network, we do contribute to groups, for example,
on butterfly conservation—we actually give some grant aid—who
are doing work which is feeding into the National Network. We
also spend £2 million a year on biodiversity research, information
which also feeds through. There is lots of money coming in from
different areas which head towards the national coordination.
748. Where would that be published to help local
authorities? Supposing a local authority is well-meaning but has
no money, where would they find automatic access to that information
and research?
(Mr Morley) All the information that we have is published,
and we also put it on our internet site, which is accessed by
all local authorities.
Mr Gray: Point of order, Chairman. Can I be
reassured? I was surprised by the Minister's remark a moment ago,
"We will be moving on to National Biodiversity Network in
a moment." Can I be reassured that witnesses are told an
outline of what they might be asked, but they are not told the
order and all the questions?
Chairman: Can I make it absolutely clear? First
of all, we tend to give witnesses some idea of the topics that
are likely to be covered because it helps them to be prepared
for it, but I would also point out that this is the end of the
inquiry and I assume, I think rightly, that government departments
have been following the inquiry and therefore have been able to
brief Ministers on the topics which come up.
Mr Gray
749. I am content with your reassurance, Chairman.
In that case, they will all be ready to talk about invasive alien
species, by which I do not mean old Labour backbenchers. What
are you going to do to stop things like, for example, American
crayfish, which are invading the Avon in my own constituency,
and Japanese knot-weed, which we read about in the Times this
morning?
(Mr Morley) There are two issues here. One is controlling
the species coming in and the other is dealing with them in the
country. We deal with a lot of the species in MAFF, but I think
it is an issue for Michael for those coming in.
(Mr Meacher) It is a serious issue. Japanese knot-weed,
the grey squirrel, and the North American mink are good examples
of species that have done a great deal of damage to our biodiversity.
We are having a review on this early next year, a full-scale review,
building on the work of the JNCC. The JNCC has already done work
on this. I have to say that there are already powers under the
1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act under Schedule 9 to add to the
list in that schedule of species whose release should be prohibited.
That could be done through secondary legislation. It is not as
though we are powerless to act but I agree that there does need
to be further examination. It is actually a very complex issue.
The interactions are not simple. They are quite complex.
750. No further release is an easier one to
deal with, because it is quite easy for scientists to say, "We
can't let that thing out." It is more difficult for those
things which are already out there and are seriously threatening
our biodiversity. The particular one I am thinking of, because
I was shown it last week by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, is the
American crayfish, a very large crayfish, which is massively growing
throughout the United Kingdom, and the Wildlife Trust said that
so far as they were concerned, they could think of nothing that
would stop the obliteration of the British native crayfish. Something
like that would require a huge amount of money to put right.
(Mr Morley) The problem is, Chairman, that once species
are well established within the UK, there comes a point where
we have to accept it is virtually impossible to eradicate them
completely. We have that problem with mink, for example. MAFF
has spent £4 million over the years trying to eradicate escaped
animals from fur farms. It is one of the reasons, though not the
only reason, why we are bringing in the fur farming prohibition
bill, which I am sure members will want to support. On the issue
of crayfish, as I say, it is probably impossible to completely
eradicate them, but through some of our schemes, such as the objective
5b scheme, we have grant-aided river management for a variety
of biodiversity objectives, one of which is to protect our native
white-clawed crayfish. That includes both making sure the habitat
is right for them but also trapping programmes and removing the
American crayfish which threatens them with disease. The strategy
would have to be, where we have pockets of indigenous species,
to protect them to make sure that the invading species do not
threaten them. A complete eradication programme is almost impossible.
Chairman
751. So the red squirrel can just give up, can
it?
(Mr Morley) No. Again, through the Forestry Commission
we have a very detailed programme, both to protect the red squirrel
and also to control the grey squirrel as well.
Mrs Dunwoody
752. Unless you arm them, it is not going to
be very effective, is it, really?
(Mr Morley) We know from the work that we have done,
Chairman, that red squirrels prefer conifer woods and grey squirrels
prefer broadleaf, as they are a bigger, heavier animal. One of
the things that we have been doing through the Forestry Commission
has been removing some broadleaf trees in areas where there are
red squirrels because that makes it more difficult for the greys
to get established. There is also a research programme on contraceptive
feed for grey squirrels which controls the population which is
quite well advanced, although not operational.
Mr Donohoe
753. Is there not also a red squirrel strain
that is stronger than the grey squirrel somewhere in the country?
I think it is Stirlingshire.
(Mr Morley) I am not an expert on this, but I did
read a paper saying that there is a pocket of squirrels in Freshfield
nature reserve which over the years have been very well fed and
they have developed a much more robust red squirrel than a lot
of native red squirrels. There is a theory that if you have this
robust "super-squirrel", you can release it into the
areas to improve the genetic pool. How successful that will be
I do not know.
Mr Donohoe: That and all the other methods you
are talking about will be quite useful, I am sure.
Mr Gray
754. Lastly, the other side of this question
is this. There has been talk about reintroducing native species
of one sort and another. The two big examples are beavers and
even wolves. Are there not biodiversity downsides to doing that,
because, even though they were native originally, they have been
gone for a long time and they may well predate, for example, on
something else which is perfectly natural?
(Mr Meacher) One example where it has worked is the
red kite. It can work successfully.
(Mr Morley) Yes, the red kite is an example, although
there had always been a remnant population of red kites in Wales.
What is being done is to extend that by introducing it into England
and Scotland. But there are species which were completely extinct
in Britain, and the white tailed sea eagle is one of them that
has been introduced in a joint programme between the RSPB, English
Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage. I think if an animal was
part of the biodiversity in this country, the risks of reintroducing
it are obviously lower than introducing an animal that has not
been part of the biodiversity. But I quite agree that there will
be consequences, and any kind of reintroduction scheme would have
to be thought about very carefully, as indeed the beaver scheme
has been thought about very carefully. I think in some cases there
is an argument for particularly threatened species that were once
native in the UK being reintroduced. The wolf is a bit of a controversial
one, but one of my responsibilities, Chairman, is these reports
of big cats that people come across from time to time, sometimes
on a Friday night, in my experience. Nevertheless, I think there
is sufficient evidence to suggest that at the very least there
have been releases of a range of wild cats within the UK. I was
talking to a shepherd in my constituency at one of the village
shows who said that he goes and rounds up sheep in Derbyshire
to bring down to Lincolnshire for fattening, and he said, "I
come across these Manx cats up there." I said, "What
Manx cats are those?" He said, "You know, these big
cats, no tails, funny little tufts on the ear. They are really
fierce when you corner them with a dog." I do not quite know
what he is talking about there, but it is possible that you could
have a range of species which could be reintroduced in this country
with minimum impact on biodiversity, but each case would have
to be considered on its merits.
Chairman
755. Does that mean that we will get wolves
in Scunthorpe?
(Mr Morley) I think Scotland is the best place for
wolves myself actually.
Mr Olner
756. Minister, you spoke before about active
and enthused people in Biodiversity Action Plan processes. Do
you think industry have been sufficiently active and enthused
about these plans?
(Mr Meacher) Not sufficiently, but again, I express
gratitude and pay tribute to a number of champions, as we call
them. I think there are more than a dozen, but rather a small
number—it could be much larger—who have taken responsibility
for championing particular species, often connected with their
own work. Water UK took up the otter.
757. They are usually all over their advertisements
afterwards.
(Mr Morley) That is fair enough.
(Mr Meacher) Indeed. This is a display advertisement
for the wider environmental and social interests and concerns
of the company. There is something in it for them, and of course,
they often provide money and they do provide that championship.
ICI had butterflies, as I learned yesterday, the large blue. But
there are a lot of smaller creatures that are not particularly
attractive which are also taken up by companies. The fact is we
have tried to interest them and we are still trying very hard.
DETR and Earth Watch together with Round Table have published
a booklet which does tell business, if they want to read it, how
they can incorporate biodiversity into their environmental management
systems better. But I agree we need to do a lot more, and it certainly
is not sufficient.
758. But in your own words—I do not want
to misquote you but I am sure it will be on the record—"if
they want to read it." How do we ensure it? We had the CBI
here to give evidence, but they mainly focused on the aggregates
industry to the exclusion of all others. There is the leisure
industry, the supermarkets, a lot of industry that we could get
switched on to this, but how do we make it more positive?
(Mr Meacher) I think that is a question we continually
ask ourselves. We did circulate these booklets. I speak with innumerable
business gatherings where I raise this issue, whether I am talking
more widely about the environment or more specifically about biodiversity.
My officials I know certainly press industry. There is a good
deal of this material on the Website. As I say, it is in industry's
own interest. It is part of their advertising campaign to show
that they are a good corporate citizen. We want to encourage that,
but I do not think it is something that you can enforce.
Mrs Dunwoody
759. Think of the large estates of the water
companies or any other large industry. There are some industries
which control large acreages. Assuming that they are going to
have the intelligence to respond to your views is really being
a little over-optimistic, is it not? Is the Government not at
some point going to have to think of a way of saying to these
people, "You have got to do it"? There are very large
estates in private water hands, all the utilities have very large
acreages, and just to hope that they are going to catch up with
you seems to me is wildly over-optimistic.
(Mr Meacher) There are 26 or 27 water companies, of
which 10 are major ones, water and sewage. I am not sure how many
of those have a specific biodiversity commitment to a particular
species, but I think they all include biodiversity in their action
plans. I do not think you can require a company to undertake a
biodiversity responsibility. What we could do, and I have repeatedly
said I would consider it, is ask whether there should be mandatory
environmental reporting. Nearly all the best big companies already
report on what they are doing environmentally, what their environmental
impacts are in terms of climate change, wastewater consumption,
energy efficiency, etc. If we were to make it a mandatory requirement,
which I am certainly considering, we could include impacts on
biodiversity. That I think is probably the best way of dealing
with it.
|
