Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
MR MIKE
OXFORD, MR
MURRAY DAVIDSON
AND MR
DAVID PAPE
22 MARCH 2004
Q60 Joan Ruddock: I was a bit surprised
when you said £1.25 million for Hampshire alone, because
the estimates you provided for all local authorities were as little
as £2.5 million, although going up to £5 million. I
was firstly going to ask you why such a big range but now I am
even more puzzled because it seems Hampshire is £1.25 million
and, Mr Oxford, you suggested another county that had a similar
spending level, so how do you arrive at the global figures?
Mr Oxford: The Association and
the LGA are both trying to catch up as quickly as we can in terms
of gathering information together, and Defra and English Nature
have played a very large part in helping us to be here today,
and in gathering information on finance. It has been very difficult
because there is no easy way to access what all local authorities
spend or to get an average, and we have been working with what
seemed to be a typical and reasonable figure that we included
in our evidence, and erred on the side of caution, I think.
Q61 Joan Ruddock: But may I suggest to
you it is bound to be more than £2.5 million if you have
already identified two authorities spending £2.5 million
between them?
Mr Oxford: Yes. In my first draft
I had something in the order of £500 per hectare per annum,
which I think probably on the Hampshire example is closer to what
they are spending, and likewise with Surrey. There is a very broad
range because some authorities like Hastings will be just seeking
to do the minimum to achieve and maintain favourable condition,
whereas Hampshire provides a much more rounded service which provides
the SSSIs interpretation, countryside management service and everything
else that goes with it, so I think there is quite a large range.
The figure we included in the evidence is more consistent with
English Nature's idea of what it costs per hectare, but I think
if you probe some of the local authority services and try and
provide best value and an additional access and resource for their
local communities, then I think it quite quickly can escalate
costs.
Q62 Joan Ruddock: You also say it does
not include employing specialist staff which clearly could be
an expense that could be quantified?
Mr Oxford: Yes, and I would think
a lot of the discrepancy between the evidence we submitted and
then the Hampshire costs are down to the fact that it does take
teams of people, and it came as quite a surprise to me last year
when I found out local authorities collectively own more SSSI
land than the RSPB or the Wildlife Trusts, two flagship conservation
organisations who have teams of people to do this. Many local
authorities are not aware of either the duty under Section 28(g)
or the PSA target and therefore do not have the teams in place.
Where the teams are in place I think it is clear it is more costly.
Q63 Joan Ruddock: So it is very likely
that the actual costs that are being imposed by the work that
is being done at the moment by the local authorities are much
higher and towards the upper end of the scale and, from the evidence
we have already heard, perhaps if they were doing all that they
ought to, they would be very much higher again?
Mr Oxford: Yes, I think they would
be.
Q64 Joan Ruddock: What level of funding
is available to local authorities managing SSSIs? Is there a global
sum that you can identify?
Mr Oxford: There are different
sources of external funding that local authorities are eligible
for, and in our evidence we did ask that there be clearer guidance
as to what the eligibility conditions are for applying for that,
and there does seem to be some inequality because some local authorities
are able to receive money to improve the condition of their SSSIs
in one region of England; they may have more difficulty in another
region in England; or another authority that has a higher proportion
of their SSSIs in favourable condition who have made a bigger
contribution to the PSA target then are not necessarily eligible
to maintain that SSSI in condition.
Q65 Joan Ruddock: But if I put down a
Parliamentary Question asking what the total sum available is,
you would think I might not get a very satisfactory answer, is
that right?
Mr Oxford: I think it would be
difficult, yes.
Mr Pape: I do not think there
is one figure. What Mike was just referring to were those sources
of funding through English Nature or Defra schemes for the physical
management. As we have discussed above and beyond the physical
management costs there are a lot of other costs in relation to
managing and providing a rounded approach to the SSSIs. At the
end of the day it comes down to the expenditure from the local
authority itself, and therefore two things: how much money the
local authority receives from government for maintaining biodiversity,
and SSSIs is just one element of that and I would say not the
most important part of local authority work but one, so it is
the degree of central funding for local authorities that is key,
and then the ability to prioritise within an individual local
authority with competing demands to allocate the resources within
the total pot that they have. So there is no magic figure but
the figure that has to be derived is an actual local authority
figure, not from external agencies.
Q66 Joan Ruddock: But in terms of the
money that is available under these various headings, there is
a suggestion I think you have made already that it may be easy
or less easy in different places and the criteria are not clear
and all the rest of it. Is there anything you want to say to us
about access to available funds, albeit the priorities have to
be set by the local authority itself?
Mr Oxford: I suppose with reform
of various external funding, as will come onstream hopefully next
year, central government with its agencies can do a lot to make
it very clear what is available to local authorities. To date
there has not been a clear message to local authorities full stop
about the PSA target, and I think there should be more targeting
of the PSA target in local authority friendly language so local
authorities understand the relevance to them of the target and
of the underlying duty. We must not forget that Section 28(g)
brings with it a duty and many authorities are not even aware
of the duty let alone the PSA target, and I think a package that
spells that out what the concerns are and the reasons for adverse
condition and what the remedies are, and then shows local government
has a lot to do here; it can do a lot; we have exemplars which
show what can be done; and there are various sources of funding
under various criteria that may be available. I do not think that
is a clear package at the moment.
Q67 Joan Ruddock: That is very helpful.
By way of encouraging local authorities, do you think that it
is possible to argue that getting money for the management of
SSSIs can contribute to other things that local authorities want
to do, such as the provision of local amenities and recreation
and that kind of thing? Is there something in it for them other
than duty?
Mr Oxford: Yes, there is a lot
of overlap with other biodiversity objectives. Many local authority
SSSIs are local nature reserves as well which is a declaration
particularly for local communities, so there is a lot of added
value that can be achieved which is what David is talking about
in terms of opportunity cost, and if you do not have that rounded
service.
Q68 Mr Jack: Following on from that,
am I understanding correctly that in the revenue support grant
there is not a line written in, if you have an SSSI, with money
that says, "This is for that purpose."?
Mr Pape: No.
Q69 Mr Jack: So there is no line in the
RSG. Just spell out the sources of money that you do have. Where
do they come from?
Mr Oxford: From what I am aware,
countryside stewardship, wildlife enhancement scheme, woodland
grant scheme—those are the primary sources that ALGE members
most often refer to. Heritage lottery funding is another source;
life funding through Europe.
Q70 Mr Jack: So am I right in saying
that the local authority has, first of all, got to identify with
its SSSIs the land it has, what needs to be done to achieve what
it may understand or may not understand are its obligations, and
then sit down and work out where it can get the resources from?
Some of it might be in a management agreement with English Nature,
and some might be from the range of sources that you have just
identified?
Mr Oxford: I think that is pretty
much right.
Q71 Mr Jack: So we have a nationally
agreed target by Defra but with no connection to the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr Oxford: Absolutely.
Q72 Mr Jack: And a lot of local authorities
who do not understand they have an obligation, and some very good
ones who are the exemplar authorities? How has this rather patchy
hit and miss situation come about, do you think?
Mr Pape: Do we know? I am not
sure if we know how it has come about but it is certainly something
that needs to be sorted. There is nothing coming from the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister in terms of comprehensive performance
assessment and any benchmarks which any local authorities have
to meet in terms of biodiversity objectives, so that is something
that has to be addressed in the whole performance assessment of
local authorities. There is nothing for the natural environment
in that type of process, so the message is not getting through
to local authorities.
Q73 Mr Jack: But this is what concerns
me because, on the one hand, I guess you have government ministers
running around saying, "This is all terribly important, you
have to hit this target", and other parts of government seemingly
unaware of this and not providing any resource, and some local
authorities by virtue of what you have said who do not know they
have a responsibility, and others who clearly have gone beyond
the basic requirements because, I presume in the case of Hampshire,
they think it is a good, proper, worthy and responsible thing
to do? I am amazed that there is so much difference.
Mr Oxford: I had a glimpse last
autumn. I attended a meeting and there was an officer on secondment
to ODPM who came to talk about the local government procurement
strategy and explained that there had been a very high level announcement
from ODPM of the importance of the strategy in a letter directly
to all chief executives, and that to my mind was the way that
ODPM could engage with local government at a very senior level
to say, "This is what we, central government, think is really
important", and I think it is part of the answer to your
question as to why we are in the patchwork we are in now. There
has been nothing centrally that I am aware of that has announced
the level of importance that local government should attach to
the PSA target, especially now we know that collectively local
government is such a big player.
Q74 Mr Jack: So here is an example of
where "joining-up" has yet to bite?
Mr Oxford: Yes.
Q75 Chairman: Has the LGA made any representations
to government, other than coming here to talk to us today in the
hope we might?
Mr Oxford: The Committee has forced
us to pull together a lot of information early this year so I
think the LGA and ALGE are both rapidly trying to catch up to
pull information together to formulate some sort of position statement
and make recommendations for a course of action, and we are just
beginning to probe that now with the evidence we have submitted
today.
Q76 Chairman: And do you feel it should
be Defra or another department which has the lead responsibility,
in terms of communicating the message to local authorities?
Mr Oxford: I do not expect it
is correct for me to ask the Committee a question but, if I can
couch the answer in that form, I suppose it needs to be from the
part of government which has the most effective ear of chief executives
and councillors and I suspect that probably means ODPM, and I
suppose one question is "How is ODPM trying to contribute
to the PSA target through its actions, policies, advice and guidance
to local government?"
Q77 Mr Jack: Does what you have just
said make a bit of a mockery of setting a PSA target in the first
place? It sounds like it is a target for the sake of having a
target where there is clearly no delivery mechanism, either in
terms of setting out parameters for local authorities, awareness
raising in terms of policy issues, or a line of finance to give
some assistance to hard-pressed authorities to meet those requirements.
Mr Oxford: Part of the answer
to that is that the information has only just been collected and
it has probably taken all of the parties by surprise that local
authorities collectively own so much SSSI land and, therefore,
could be a major player in this.
Q78 Mr Jack: But the point I am making,
and perhaps it is one we will put to the minister, is that these
PSA targets must have been set by somebody who did some kind of
analysis, because SSSIs are not new; the government of the day
has changed the law; they recognise that there is a need for improved
enforcement legislation, as you said earlier in your evidence
to do with having obligations. In other words, in the thinking
mind of government, they have been piling on the pressure to upgrade
the status of SSSIs, and yet somehow there is a blind spot.
Mr Oxford: I think the blind spot
is potentially far greater with local authorities because nobody
appreciated the SSSI land holding that they hold collectively
and, from what I can gather, the PSA target in itself as a general
target is fairly clear and justified and focused, but with local
government it has been a blind spot.
Q79 Mr Jack: Does this make it difficult
for you as local authorities to deal with other land owners in
a particular area in terms of pursuing joint strategies or simply,
if you like, to be the lead agency in stimulating interest by
all land owners who have SSSI responsibility in terms of responding
to the local challenge, because obviously it means different things
to different people in the way they can respond but sometimes
local authorities are looked upon to take a lead in an area in
matters like this, and the impression I gain is that in the less
enlightened areas that may be a very nice aspiration but is far
from reality.
Mr Oxford: Over recent years local
authorities have certainly heard the message and have responded
to the call to take a lead over biodiversity action plans, but
perhaps David and Murray are better placed to answer the question
about SSSIs.
Mr Pape: In general terms there
is a high level expectancy for local authorities to perform on
biodiversity and, within that, SSSIs. The whole biodiversity action
planning process from the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan
really focused on local authorities to lead local authority biodiversity
partnerships and, indeed, there is a partnership in most counties.
Similarly, in terms of data assembly the eyes are on local authorities
within an area, and we have community strategies with an obligation
for local authorities. At the end of the day, we are the planning
authorities; we are dealing with SSSIs each day in relation to
planning matters. So there is a high level of expectancy, a core
role for local authorities at that very broad level, but if you
then look at the mechanisms for cascading that down to individual
local authorities there is nothing in CPA assessment to say local
authorities have got to be assessed as to whether they are performing
across the board on all that, and there is no specific government
guidance or statutory duty for local authorities to perform on
biodiversity and neither is the funding there at all. So there
is a gap between this huge global expectancy and cascading the
mechanisms and statements and policy to ensure that local authorities
are either given increased resources or prioritise sufficiently
to achieve that. So there is a huge blind spot in the middle there
in terms of getting that duty firmly cascading down to the chief
executive and the decision-makers in local authorities.
Mr Davidson: If I may add, the
realpolitik is such that there might be lots of expectations but
if they do not fit local priorities set by local members and senior
officers, then those expectations rather than duties become a
very low priority and sometimes get neglected completely, and
unless there is a key officer within the local authority who can
try and champion and say, "You are expected to . . .",
and try and work with that expectation and try and push that through
the political process, then the danger is nothing happens. So
it will be the same with the PSA target; unless there is someone
there to champion that and unless there is a clear message to
say, "This is a duty from central government", then
the danger is that local authorities will not hear that message.
| 
