Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 175)
THURSDAY 20 MAY 2004
SERGEANT PETER
CHARLESTON, MR
JOHN LLOYD
JONES, MS
GILL BILSBOROUGH
AND SERGEANT
IAN GUILDFORD
Q160 Paul Flynn: You think it will
disappear if global warming goes on; there will be one example
growing on the summit and that will be it.
Mr Lloyd Jones: It is an interesting
subject. That is why, as an organisation, we are now moving away
from concentrating just on designated sites to trying to raise
the general standards, and trying to provide corridors so that
species and habitats can migrate as a result of changes to local
situations.
Q161 Paul Flynn: What proportion
of the damage that is reported to you is reported by your own
officers or by members of the public?
Ms Bilsborough: A significant
number will be reported by our own staff. We have a method of
reporting damage or problems with our SSSIs through our own internal
enforcement questionnaires. We have certainly seen an increase
within our own staff; 100% increase of turnover of these forms
submitted to our headquarters staff, so I would say the majority
of cases are reported by our own people.
Q162 Paul Flynn: The secondees that
you have among the police forces seems to be a good news story
and is working very well from your point of view. You state that
your staff put through 30-40 questionnaires to the secondees for
them to forward. Are these generated from visits or calls? Are
they separate from the police?
Ms Bilsborough: They generally
would be from observations or calls when our staff have gone to
make visits or inquiries on site.
Q163 Paul Flynn: What criteria do
you use to decide if something should go through the police?
Ms Bilsborough: It would depend
on the sites you were talking about and the features on the site
and how they had been damaged. That would require that questionnaire
to be sent out. I am not aware of the actual criteria on which
that form will be filled in, but I am sure there are criteria
that our staff use.
Q164 Paul Flynn: Can you give me
some idea of what sort of supporting evidence would be given?
Ms Bilsborough: I am afraid I
am not able to give you an example. It is not in my area of work,
I am sorry.
Sergeant Charleston: Whether area
staff fill in enforcement questionnaires is a matter that is left
to their discretion. If they feel that the damage to the site
is sufficiently serious to warrant further action from CCW, that
action will follow on from the enforcement questionnaire being
completed. It does not mean every instance of damage, no matter
how minor, has to be dealt with through the enforcement process.
They have discretion very similar to those of police officers
coming across criminal offences.
Q165 Mr Thomas: Can you give us any
idea of the difficulty you have with third parties, because in
your evidence you point out the need to prove that a person knew
they were going on to an SSSI? Can you say more about that and
how you think that might be improved? Is it on the landlord's
side you need to improve that, or is it a matter of general public
awareness?
Sergeant Guildford: The problem
you have there, as you say, is raising awareness to make sure
people are aware that it is an SSSI protected site that they are
causing damage on. There are various methods and there is talk
about putting signs up, but because you are working with land-owners,
some land-owners do not want the signs on their land and create
a sort of fortress mentality; so it is very difficult to try and
work with them to get this across. Publicity is one way of getting
it across when we are looking at 4x4 problems. We try to publicise
that within the groups of 4x4 and try and notify and publicise
the SSSIs, together with the legislation that goes with them.
Q166 Mr Thomas: On the whole would
you advocate that you do it voluntarily with both land-owners
and potential users; or would you say there needs to be at least
an examination of the legislation? For example, should it be an
offence to be on an SSSI, whether you know you are committing
an offence or not? Ignorance is no defence in that regard, is
it? Are there special circumstances?
Sergeant Guildford: As an enforcement
agency, it is very difficult to prove knowledge, and I am not
sure how we address that.
Q167 Mr Thomas: Let us turn to the
4x4, illegal burning and things like this that we see happening
on our mountains every summer. We have had similar evidence from
English Nature about some of the damage that is done in this way.
Is some of the work that you have just mentioned starting to pay
off? Are you starting to see that users of the bye-ways are taking
more consideration about where they take their vehicles?
Sergeant Guildford: Yes. We have
recently had a seminar in Wales on the issue, hosted by the CCW,
and the Forestry Commission. The whole remit of the seminar was
not looking at it from CCW, the Forestry Commission and land-owners,
but to get other bodies involved such as the motor cycle union
and motor cycle bodies. So you have people who can work together
with them. We need to enforce it and say, "this is illegal;
you have to stop doing this" but we have also then got to
offer them an opportunity to go somewhere else. It is no good
saying, "you cannot do this and cannot go there"; they
have a legitimate pastime in many respects, which we need to cater
for.
Q168 Mr Thomas: Is the stick big
enough, forgetting the carrot for a second? The offences can be
quite horrendous. I have seen myself in Wales where this happens,
and my constituency has a big problem. There are difficulties,
and they are not being deterred, are they?
Sergeant Guildford: The legislation,
I would say, was enforced. The practicalities of enforcing the
legislation is the hard part of it. The legislation is on the
ground—the Road Traffic Act; it is the fact of going to
enforce that legislation where the difficulty lies.
Mr Lloyd Jones: There is another
added complication. Many of these four-wheel drive vehicles bring
significant economic gain to some of the rural towns and villages.
That is why we are saying it is not only a case of implementing
the legislation; there is the very real case of providing opportunities
for legitimate uses.
Q169 Mr Thomas: A place where they
can go with off-road vehicles, which is excellent. The other thing
that was a bit concerning in your evidence was when you said public
bodies are not treated with the same degree of culpability on
occasions under the new Countryside and Wildlife Act. Can you
say a little more about that?
Sergeant Charleston: The legislation
makes it quite clear that statutory bodies and government organisations
should be consulting with CCW in relation to work being carried
out on SSSIs or near them. We are not sure that that is happening
as regularly as it should. The fact is that there seems to be
at times—it is not made imperative that it carries on. Such
bodies do not commit offences by failing to consult. We would
like to see legislation that requires in stronger terms than at
present that the consultation is entered into.
Q170 Mr Thomas: Can you give examples
of where there has been a failure and possibly where that led
to some damage or neglect or difficulty for yourselves?
Sergeant Charleston: I would not
wish to name any particular bodies at the moment.
Q171 Mr Thomas: That was my next
question.
Sergeant Charleston: But we have
issues of cabling being put in across sites or trenching being
carried out, where, when investigated, damage has not occurred
to the designated features, but nevertheless the consultation
that the legislation requires has not been fully entered into.
Q172 Mr Thomas: Are we talking more
of public utilities rather than local authorities? Is that fair?
Sergeant Charleston: No, I would
not say that necessarily.
Q173 Mr Thomas: Local authorities
are just as bad?
Sergeant Charleston: There are
issues with government and statutory organisations.
Q174 Mr Thomas: So it is the legislation
not being clear enough and putting a firm enough duty on these
bodies to consult—is that right?
Sergeant Charleston: It is the
fact that it does not impose any penalties. I think that the legislation
is clear as to what they should do, but it does not allow for
any penalties if it does not.
Q175 Chairman: I am afraid that we
are out of the very limited time that we had available. I know
that Sue Doughty was keen to ask about liaison with other parts
of the United Kingdom, but we might write to you about that.
Mr Lloyd Jones: Thank you, Chairman.
That was one of the things we were hoping to raise. In compiling
this evidence, it was quite obvious to me that one of the big
problems here is the lack of common interpretation between Scottish
Natural Heritage, English Nature and ourselves as to the legal
definitions of simple things like "take" or "disturb".
Through the Joint Nature Conservation Council we have joint standards
of monitoring and designations. It is imperative to look at joint
systems.
Chairman: Thank you. If you would care
to elaborate on that in a short memo to us, we would be extremely
grateful.
| 
