Draft Code of Guidance on Sites of Special Scientific Interest
|
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): I have just one or two questions to add to my hon. Friend's excellent speech. First, the Minister referred to a target of 95 per cent. of SSSIs being in good condition. What is the current position? Column Number: 011 My second point relates to section 28Q(4). The code states:
Given that, I wonder why we have stamp duty, land registration and all the other various hoops through which one needs to jump when buying or selling land. Is it sensible to put an extra burden on people selling and buying land? The River Lugg in my constituency is an SSSI. The River Lugg drainage board has expressed concern that in relation to flooding the Environment Agency is managing the river in way that is slightly detrimental to the wider benefit of the community. Perhaps the Environment Agency tends to focus on flora and fauna more than it should. That leads me to the wider problem of my constituency, which, as the Minister is well aware, comes within the responsibility of the Welsh Environment Agency. According to the explanatory memorandum, the guidance relating to English Nature will not apply to Wales. The National Assembly for Wales will issue similar, but separate, guidance. How will the Welsh Environment Agency judge SSSIs in my part of England? Will it use its own guidance, or will it have to use the guidance before the Committee? Will that cause trouble? How will people who feel that they have been unfairly dealt with appeal?
9.27 amMr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire): I am pleased to be able to ask the Minister a few questions on this important matter—although many of the issues have been raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). Of course SSSIs are important. There is a mosaic of protections throughout England, including national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, special areas of conservation, candidates for special areas of conservation, and even special protected areas for birds. It is no wonder that, from time to time, either some of the public bodies involved or the landowners who have responsibility for maintaining the special interests that are involved in the designation have difficulty comprehending all the requirements that are placed on them. SSSIs play an important role in protecting the vital and discrete importance of biological diversity in England. Very often, things that are commonplace do not seem important. I was out with a small school group one day. We walked through a wood with lots of bluebells and the group said, ''Oh, they are just bluebells,'' but Britain has one third of the entire European bluebell population, and England is an important part of that. Sometimes, things that are commonplace are important. The whole point of education should not be lost. Let me focus on paragraph 6 and the important role of members of English Nature in determining Column Number: 012 notification and management schemes when they are disputed. Members can intervene in such circumstances, and when the professional officers and the landowners are at loggerheads over a particular issue, members' skills and, to a certain extent, their objectivity are important parts of the process.I ask the Minister to ensure that landowners see all objections to notifications. If decisions are taken at English Nature board meetings, landowners should be allowed to see the process and hear the discussion. It would be helpful if they saw any information or advice given to English Nature board members before such meetings to allow them to comment on the issues raised by the professional advice. It is important to give people confidence that the process of notification and the agreement of schemes have been set up openly and transparently. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a good point about the Government's definition of sustainability. It was made clear at the Rio summit that the important aspect of sustainability is environmental sustainability, but the Government have chosen to define sustainability not only in terms of the environment, but in terms of economic and social development. I have always thought that that is a definition of convenience, because one can argue that almost anything is sustainable in terms of economic or social development. As far as SSSIs are concerned, the key issue is environment sustainability. How can we ensure that the features that led to an SSSI's notification are maintained and sustained? I have a point to make about the relationship between public bodies and the code of practice. Although public bodies have a duty to go through a process before they carry out any operation that may be detrimental to an SSSI, they do not have to take notice of any decision taken by English Nature. In my experience, public bodies are often the greatest offenders in damaging designated nature or conservation areas. Perhaps the Minister will spell out the process in greater detail before public bodies are allowed to take action that damages SSSIs. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a point about the management of commons, on which we are awaiting the second tranche of legislation. Whether or not an association manages a common, whether there must be total agreement on any particular type of management could be difficult issue for English Nature. We are coming up to the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, and in one scenario large areas of the country will be denuded of livestock, which are the key management tool for many commons. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on how English Nature would address such a scenario. I am pleased by the emphasis on partnership in the code. Progress has been made on developing better relationships with landowners and land managers over the years. I remember when the Nature Conservancy Council was known among rural people as ''the Green Gestapo'' because it used to enter land without permission. I am sure that, through training and good management, the staff involved in different Column Number: 013 public bodies have achieved huge improvements by forming better relationships with land managers and land users. If that improvement is carried forward in the code, it will lead to better safeguarding of sites of special scientific interest.
9.35 amVirginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey): I am most grateful for the opportunity to address the Committee briefly. I had many detailed points and questions, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has magnificently identified a great number so I will spare the Committee many. Since visiting what was then the Nature Conservancy Council when I was a junior Environment Minister about 15 years ago, I have taken a gentle interest in English Nature, and I applaud its activities. I welcome the code of guidance. It will make a significant difference, and I applaud the efforts made to balance the different interests. Although it might not be everyone's favourite subject, many Committee members are aware of the degree to which almost every word and sentence has to be negotiated and thought through by the different parties involved. Encouraging positive partnerships represents a substantial step forward, on which I congratulate all concerned. I speak with a particular interest, as you will know, Miss Widdecombe, because you come from my constituency, where we have some of the most magnificent landscapes and natural heritage, and many SSSIs and landscapes of national and international significance. The guidance will be closely considered by the different parties. There is anxiety that partnership has to be paid for. Waverley borough council and Surrey county council are reeling under the implications of the local authority funding allocations and are concerned that such guidance raises expectations. Once again, the Government stand accused of wishing the ends but singularly failing to deliver the means to achieve those ends. In areas such as ours where there is massive pressure for house building and real concern about Government pressure on that issue, there also is real anxiety that precious landscape including SSSIs will be eroded and that the area will be powerless to resist that without local authorities incurring significant costs. Building on the comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), I want to draw attention to the role of public bodies and the delicate balance that needs to be achieved. There are some arguments when public bodies need to make progress in areas of special designation, including SSSIs. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that, in that context, the most difficult road scheme in the country will be the Hindhead tunnel, which will go right through an SSSI. I shall not be long in this place, and I shall be very disappointed if, after 21 years, we have made no progress with the A3 Hindhead tunnel. It will destroy the local SSSI and all the wonderful landscape around it, including towns and villages. Of course, like other colleagues, I want public bodies to behave in a proper way. However, if there is a national interest in an Column Number: 014 infrastructure scheme that threatens the immediate community and the wider region through delays, I hope that there will be a reasonable, reciprocal relationship with English Nature and those concerned about the countryside.In short, the new code of practice is very encouraging, and I hope that the Minister will elaborate on some areas.
9.39 amSue Doughty (Guildford): This is the first time I have served on a Committee under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe, and it is a welcome experience. I shall not repeat many of the very useful points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. However, I would like to welcome the guidelines. Without wanting over-regulation, I agree that definition is essential, so that people understand the roles of partnerships and the opportunities available to them. The code provides some useful wording on what happens in the exceptional circumstances in which people's opportunities to ignore the requirements have to be limited. The responsibility for managing that is given to English Nature. I have one or two small concerns. I welcome the target of 95 per cent. of sites being in
That is fine, but we have often seen that when one is hovering around meeting the target number, behaviour can change. Can the Minister assure us that if we had an SSSI in poor condition on which work needed to be done and which would pull us back from the target, so that we would only meet a target of, perhaps, 94 per cent., the target would not be allowed to impact on the work needed? The possibility of meeting or failing to meet a target should not affect a decision, but how will such situations be managed? Discretion might be exercised in favour of the target rather than the site. I have a small concern about paragraph 69, which deals with action to secure positive management. So often with agencies, there are requirements to take various steps and usually an implication that the money will be found somewhere. That is especially true of the Environment Agency, which has responsibilities to get money from other organisations before it spends its own when it has heavily polluted sites that need remediation. In the case of SSSIs, if an owner has had modification or withdrawal of an existing consent, or if an owner is suffering loss as a result of a stop notice, will the necessary funding be available to English Nature to deal with the situation? How will the consequential loss to an owner be assessed? I am thinking, for example, of a scenario in which a quarry is carrying on certain activities that are creating a problem. How will we ensure that English Nature is funded to take on such responsibilities?
9.42 am
|
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 26 February 2003 |