Examination of Witnesses (Questions 255-259)
30 NOVEMBER 2004
MR NEIL
SINDEN, MR
TOM OLIVER,
MS RUTH
CHAMBERS, MS
DONNA O'BRIEN,
MR MICHAEL
ALLEN AND
MS STEPHANIE
HILBORNE
Q255 Chairman: Can I welcome some old
friends to the Committee, Neil Sinden and Tom Oliver from CPRE,
Council for National Parks—we are very pleased you could
come—Ruth Chambers and Donna O'Brien, and, of course, The
Wildlife Trusts, Stephanie Hilborne, a particular welcome from
Nottinghamshire, and Michael Allen. Let me start by asking you,
in essence, about the three priorities for delivery strategy,
economic environment and social, which is the key one? Have they
got it right?
Mr Oliver: Sir, if I may answer
on behalf of us in the best spirit of an integrated approach to
the evidence we are giving, we strongly argue, as you will have
seen from our evidence, that the protection of the natural environment
is a quantum scale more important than the other two priorities
that are set out in the rural strategy.
Q256 Chairman: Because that provides
the landscape, the backdrop, the spatial material that the rest
springs from. Is that the argument?
Mr Oliver: Indeed; but we would
argue at a more fundamental level that all economic and social
success and happiness is founded on there being essentially a
sustainable environment.
Q257 Chairman: What is Defra's view on
this? Which are they giving priority to?
Mr Oliver: I think careful reading
of the strategy suggests that they are mindful to be more concerned
about the natural environment. The extremely welcome initiative
to set up the Integrated Agency, and their listing of the benefits
within the strategy of what that will entail suggests a strong
inclination in that regard, but I think it is incredibly important
that we, as the NGOs, amongst others, make it extremely clear
that a confusion of relatively unimportant social and economic
objectives with the fundamental protection of the natural environment
should not be made.
Q258 Mr Jack: Quickly, on the second
page of your evidence in paragraph six, you say: "We cannot
see a defensible case for the special support of enterprise across
rural England in general when much of rural England is in many
ways more prosperous than urban England." Does that not rather
drive a complete coach and horses through what we have just had
heard from the local government representatives who want to see,
amongst other things, some renewed economic activity because they
think it is important they are responsible for the local people
and translating their demands into action? Here you are saying,
"Let's preserve the whole thing in aspic. We do not want
any more economic activity"?
Mr Oliver: With respect, sir,
I would say, not at all. I do not see any conflict between their
evidence and ours. The crucial point is this. Every citizen is
due, one hopes, a reasonably equal share of opportunity and Government
initiative, and to the extent that people in the countryside require
that, that is their due and a politically wise thing to decide
to do. Our point is that within the remit of government the rural
strategy is aiming first and foremost to deliver the crucial question
of protecting the natural environment which no other part of government
specifically does. Thus it is crucial to distinguish between that
fundamental strategic importance and the known recognised but
relatively localised need for economic and social regeneration
in parts of the countryside. The new definition of "the
countryside", as published by Defra in the summer is very
useful in that regard, in showing where those small areas of very
severe deprivation are. Personally, brought up as a vicar's son
in North Devon in the early 1970s, I can speak for the need for
social deprivation to be dealt with.
Q259 David Taylor: Chairman, there is
no clarity or consensus from the evidence that we have received
about the role and status of the Integrated Agency. The CPRE (and
I declare an interest as a member) are quite right to talk about
the protection and enhancement of all aspects of natural heritage
and the securing of access to, and promoting knowledge of, that
natural heritage to a wider group of people. On the other hand,
at the other end of the table the Wildlife Trust talks about remaining
a champion for biodiversity and an independent source of advice
to government. Is there not a risk that having more duplicity
of primary objectives will lead to a confused agency lacking a
compass to steer by and the whole thing could finish up in a swamp
of confusion? That is certainly what the RSPB believe, although
I am not quoting them directly, I am summarising what I believe
their view is. Mr Oliver first and then perhaps somebody from
the Wildlife Trust?
Mr Oliver: I thoroughly agree
with the intimation you are making in the question, but I think
that our evidence and that of our colleagues has a clear solution
to this, which is to recognise very clearly the twin purposes
of the Integrated Agency and to give precedence, where the integration
of those policies requires it, to the protection of the natural
heritage. In this regard we are drawing on the wisdom of the Sandford
Principle, as set out in the Environment Act 1995 which amended
the 1949 Act. We see that clarity, if you like, of precedence
as leading to a much freer and more uninhibited pursuit of both
purposes.
Ms Hilborne: We speak as one on
that aspect of the need for the Integrated Agency to have its
primary role as being the protection of natural heritage, and
we have no differences between our organisations over that. We
feel particularly passionately looking at some of the evidence
that has gone before in this Committee that essentially this agency
is not seen as the focal point for agreeing between different
sectors upon what is the ultimate sustainable development answer
to any question. We need to have a champion for the environment,
just as we have champions for the economy and champions for certain
aspects of our societal needs.
|
