Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 234)
THURSDAY 8 JULY 2004
MR MIKE
OXFORD
Q220 Sue Doughty: Could something
be done about hiring their services on a voluntary basis? For
example, in Surrey, where Surrey Wildlife Trust is responsible
for the management of open spaces inside Surrey, would it be possible
for borough councils within Surrey to purchase time from the ecologists,
since they already hold a lot of the information we are talking
about? Are there examples in other areas where somebody is collecting
and managing that information, and providing it, and would there
be more mileage in saying, "it is not reasonable that a small
local authority has a full-time ecologist, but we could associate
planning applications with a paid-for service provided by the
Wildlife Trust or a similar body"?
Mr Oxford: That is a solution
and it is one that is applied in some parts of the country with
some authorities. It is probably not as ideal as having somebody
full-time within the authority, just because of the status, the
profile and the presence that an ecologist working for the authority
has.
Q221 Sue Doughty: We are already
beginning to see that although we might have an ecologist on the
council, chief executives are not buying in anyway. I would love
to have an ecologist on every council, but I know they have got
to be paid for; but in terms of solutions available to councils
to really start enforcing it—
Mr Oxford: It is something that
the best-value review process would force local authorities to
think through the alternatives—they need access to ecological
expertise, and one option is in-house and another is with one
of the local organisations and perhaps a service level agreement.
We are not saying it has to be exclusively in-house, but it is
probably better when it is.
Q222 Sue Doughty: Can we move on
to the awareness of the powers that local authorities have, because
we have a problem about lack of commitment, which would seem to
be indicated by the confusion about those powers. It is quite
astonishing. We see that local authorities are not always taking
the work seriously. How can you improve the knowledge, understanding
and responsibility?
Mr Oxford: One initiative that
is underway at the moment is an action by Defra, which is looking
at establishing a performance indicator or set of performance
indicators on biodiversity for local government. It is intended
to use that indicator with the comprehensive performance assessment
process. The Audit Commission is involved in helping to develop
those performance indicators, and I suspect it is probably when
something catches the eye of the chief executive that the Audit
Commission is monitoring this and being involved; but it suddenly
elevates the whole status of an issue to something that other
people think is important, and therefore they think they should;
whereas at the moment there are so many other priorities for local
government, a lot of them driven by central government, that local
government understandably responds to where the noise is greatest.
Nobody is making a big noise about what local government can do
for nature conservation, so understandably chief executives think
it is an option.
Q223 Sue Doughty: It does seem to
be, because people seem to get the idea that they will not get
brought to book about it. I know that in my borough trees take
up root and walk at seven o'clock in the morning on a Saturday
or a Sunday, on a regular basis, when builders come in.
Mr Oxford: I know exactly what
you mean.
Q224 Sue Doughty: Nothing much seems
to happen as a result of these trees marching. We do need to move
forward. Would it be better if we could see the enforcement powers
relating to wildlife crime sitting with just one body so that
we have a body that is much stronger rather than take a diverse
approach.
Mr Oxford: That certainly has
been my problem in the past, where, if I had been made aware of
something I have been confused as to what the most appropriate
body is to take action. The Partnership Against Wildlife Crimes
has been doing a lot to bring a lot of organisations together.
In our evidence we have said that we look forward to working more
closely with them to examine how local government can play a more
effective role, and also a more effective role in partnership
at a local level, so that the key players, when something happens,
know between them who is the most appropriate person to take that
action, and what action they can take. Very often, if I am really
honest, we are not quite sure. It is a matter of better guidance
and closer working relationships that will help matters.
Q225 Paul Flynn: You mentioned the
pack that was produced by the construction industries, Working
with Wildlife—Compliance and Beyond. Is this still in
circulation?
Mr Oxford: It has only just been
published, so it is very, very current. It is a fantastic resource,
even more fantastic in that it was called for by the industry
itself. To that end, it is more frustrating when protected species,
for instance, are harmed, because the pack illustrates that there
is so much that can be done, both in terms of procedures and actions
and practice, that it would help preclude any harm being done,
either deliberately or recklessly.
Q226 Chairman: It only works if people
read it.
Mr Oxford: Yes, and I was going
to say that building regulations, to the extent that I have ever
really examined them—I know it fills shelves with prescribed
standards that the building industry has to adhere to. There are
no prescribed formal standards for wildlife protection within
the construction industry. ALGE has just recently met with the
British Standards Institute to start to explore whether some form
of British standard might take the CIRIA pack a step forward.
The CIRIA pack was very actively supported by DTI, so we hope
that in the future, if it looks as if a British standard would
be useful, Government departments like DTI, ODPM and Defra would
lend their support to that sort of initiative.
Q227 Paul Flynn: You placed a lot
of emphasis in your document on the impact made by building/construction,
and all the other evidence we have received suggests that the
building industry has long been contemptuous of the building regulations
and any other kind of rules. Do you really think there is hope
that they will take notice of this pack now; and what do you think
CIRIA might be doing to regulate the industry and make sure we
get a beneficial result?
Mr Oxford: With the larger companies,
because of market forces and good practice, they have introduced
environmental management systems that then set the scene to apply
the CIRIA pack. A lot of the larger companies are probably coming
on board, but the small and medium size companies' motivation
is lacking. A builder friend of mine was telling me that his boss
had been saying, because they had obviously been talking about
a wildlife issue on one of their sites: "Unless they make
us do it and can catch us doing it, and prosecute us, we will
carry on as we are."
Q228 Paul Flynn: Is that not the
nub of the issue, because of the price of land and the profits
to be made from building rapidly and getting into the market,
and the weakness of the regulatory system and the small fines
that are imposed; and is it not unlikely that they are ever going
to be persuaded to do this?
Mr Oxford: I think for some of
the small and medium size companies the penalties, if the criminal
courts started issuing close to the maximum penalties—they
would act as a deterrent, but obviously detection and prosecution
comes first.
Q229 Paul Flynn: The perception of
the industry is that they are only going to get slapped across
the wrist anyway.
Mr Oxford: I think that is very
true, yes. To come back to your question about the cost of doing
these sorts of things, when you see it done well and effectively,
it does not disturb the construction process to any great extent
because it is allowed for, and planned for, and actions can be
built in. This is where the link with the planning system comes
in: if it is done as part of the planning permission, then any
breach becomes a breach of planning consent and a breach of wildlife
legislation. Then the opportunities for enforcement and prosecution
are much better.
Q230 Paul Flynn: You mentioned in
your memorandum a meeting that you hosted between English Nature,
the Bat Conservation Trust, the Mammal Society and CIRIA, and
you said that while several initiatives came from the meeting,
nothing was discussed or resolved of how to tackle wildlife offences.
Why do you think the meeting was so unproductive on that issue?
Mr Oxford: We did not meet to
specifically tackle that aspect. We were at the other end in terms
of how we raise awareness amongst some of the relevant bodies,
and one of the initiatives that came out was a number of training
seminars we ran around the country for planners on protected species.
The knock-on effect of that will hopefully be that more planners
will understand their part in all of this and hopefully be more
prepared either to take action themselves, because they can understand
what they can do, or report it to other bodies that can equally
take action.
Q231 Paul Flynn: Are you planning
to convene further meetings?
Mr Oxford: I am involved in some
of the training seminars. We have one in Hull next week, one in
East Anglia at Bury St Edmond's the week after. We had one in
Newark also planned for next week, which I am expecting to be
cancelled at lunchtime today because no planners have booked,
which I suppose is another reflection of how low the priority
is within the planning system at the moment in terms of dealing
with protected species.
Q232 Chairman: Thank you for all
of that. It looks as though you are fighting a bit of a lonely
battle.
Mr Oxford: Could I say one thing,
just to emphasise the supplementary evidence that we have submitted
today? One of the problems is where local government is under
pressure to determine planning applications within eight weeks
of most applications. That compromises their ability to obtain
sufficient information to really effectively determine planning
applications to take account of protected sites and species. In
eight weeks, especially if they do not have in-house expertise,
it is very difficult for non-ecologists to identify what information
is needed and then prescribe what action should follow, and to
formulate adequate planning conditions to then control actual
works. I find it extraordinary that the Cornwall case has not
sent out ripples throughout the planning system and had far more
effect. It seems to us that the High Court ruling is that local
authorities are regularly acting unlawfully in not dealing with
protected species when they determine planning applications; but
their argument is that the performance indicator and target they
are given is the reason why they cannot. There is an inherent
conflict there, and I would hope that that is addressed fully
when new legislation and regulations are issued.
Q233 Chairman: We have not, obviously,
had a chance to read the supplementary evidence.
Mr Oxford: I know.
Q234 Chairman: That is a very important
point, and we will certainly take it on board. Thank you very
much indeed.
Mr Oxford: We have a best-seller,
with which the Association is trying to raise the issues and the
profile of all of this with local authorities. It is our vision
statement, and I would like to leave copies for bed-time reading!
Thank you.
| 
