Standing Committee B
Tuesday 23 May 2000
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
New clause 18
SPECIES ACTION PLANS AND HABITAT ACTION PLANS
`.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to ensure the preparation, maintenance and revision of lists of species and habitats, in respect of which special measures shall be taken to monitor their population status in view of their vulnerability or international importance, and to determine—
(a) which species listed are priority species and require the development of Species Action Plans; and
(b) which habitats listed require the development of Habitat Action Plans.
(2) It shall be the duty of every Minister, government department, local authority and public body, so far as it is consistent with their primary functions, to further the objectives of Species Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans.'.—[Ms McCafferty.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.
4.30 pm
Question again proposed.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are considering new clause 20–Local sites—
`.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to adopt and maintain a scheme for maintaining a series of sites in their area (in this section referred to as ``local sites''), to ensure the conservation, restoration and enhancement of species, habitat, geological and geomorphological features of substantive nature conservation value.
(2) The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall from time to time give guidance with respect to the exercise of the duty of a local authority under subsection (1), a local authority shall in adopting and maintaining such a scheme, have regard to that guidance.
(3) Such guidance shall—
(a) specify standards for the identification of sites, notification of owners, occupiers and others and the provision of adequate information and advice as to the management of local sites;
(b) provide for the involvement of voluntary organisations, landowners and others in the adoption and maintenance of the scheme.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales periodically to report on the operation and effectiveness of each scheme.
(5) In the formulation and exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, government department, local authority and public body shall further the conservation, restoration and enhancement of local sites.'.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. It is always good to see another man of Kent arriving to discuss important issues, and I suspect that you will see us through our last few knockings. Our discussions will not detain us beyond one o'clock tomorrow afternoon which I think is the end of the time that we are formally allowed.
I was speaking in support of the new clause. As I said, although all hon. Members welcome moves to protect SSSIs, many of us believe that the Government should go much further to protect species outside the SSSI network. The specific point of the new clause is to provide greater underpinning of the biodiversity action planning process. I pray in aid of my argument the words used by the Government throughout our proceedings. They say that they support the intentions behind the new clause, and have made their support for such aims clear in answers given to hon. Members from all parties.
For example, during consideration of amendment No. 489, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Under-Secretary said:
The best route for dealing with the issue is to use the current biodiversity action planning process, which prescribes the action needed for each species on a case-by-case basis.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 2000; c. 720.]
That approach is precisely right. During our discussion on amendment No. 466, the Minister for the Environment told the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) that
priority species currently identified under the biodiversity action plan are those that are most at risk of population decline
He went on to say that the best route for dealing with that issue was
through the current biodiversity action planning process.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 2000; c. 733.]
Clearly, the Government recognise the importance of biodiversity action plans. Those of us who support the new clause are seeking to allow the Government to live up to their own rhetoric. The United Kingdom's ratification of the convention on biological diversity, the publication of the UK biodiversity action plan and the subsequent development of individual species and habitat action plans have set in train some recovery process for many of our most threatened species. However, the current approach to developing and delivering these biodiversity action plans requires many people to work on a voluntary and participatory basis. Such an arrangement can be appropriate, but it needs further strengthening. It is not appropriate for the entire biodiversity action planning process to be dependent on good will.
We have seen many examples of circumstances in which even that widespread good will does not add up to enough action on the ground. The most notorious one involves the Countryside Council for Wales, which has been operating with a Government budget that it regards as inadequate and has had to drop significant sections of its work load. It has, therefore, not unreasonably prioritised programmes that it has a statutory duty to perform. Consequently, biodiversity action plan work in Wales has not been a priority, so the benefits that could be gained from the process are not available. There are similar examples in England. In Yorkshire, progress on biodiversity action plans has been slow because no public body has taken the lead. I am aware that the Environment Agency is the subject of criticism. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has not been slow in chiding the agency. Many environmental groups believe that the agency in Yorkshire has been reluctant to become involved in the BAP process because it is not regarded as a priority.
One prevalent misunderstanding should be cleared up. The amendment does not make biodiversity action plans legally binding. I know that officialdom objects to the amendment because it wants BAPs to remain voluntary. The new clause underpins the process of drawing up such plans, but not the plans themselves, which would continue to be voluntary. The clause would secure the Government's financial and policy commitment to the process in the long term and therefore provide volunteers with the security that they require.
I turn to new clause 20. Although local sites may appear less important than sites where the most threatened species may be found, they are vital in allowing people convenient access to wildlife near large centres of population. I believe that the two new clauses are vital to allow a rounded approach to wildlife protection and I speak warmly in support of them.
Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough): I take this opportunity to welcome you, Mr. Gale, to the Chair.
In speaking to new clause 18, I wear my hat as chair of the all-party wildlife protection group. The underpinning of biodiversity action plans has been an important part of that group's discussions for at least the last year. It has not suddenly been thought of and tacked on at the last minute. Support for BAPs in the House can be judged by the fact that the early day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) received 91 signatures in only 10 days.
I warmly support new clause 20. I shall give a local example of how the proposed powers might have prevented damage severe to an important site in my constituency. Helpstone quarry is important for its habitat and geology. Its limestone grassland contains many nationally important flora and fauna. When it was last surveyed in 1993, the great crested newt and six nationally scarce varieties of water beetle were found there. In 1997, the site's owners planned a series of 4x4 rallies, involving thousands of vehicles each year. However, as those rallies were to be held on only nine days each year, planning permission was not required. The site was developed for those activities, which included the laying of tarmac tracks and digging up of various areas.
Peterborough City council, in consultation with the local wildlife trust could, and did, refuse planning permission for buildings and drainage. That and pressure from local residents resulted in the landowner removing that activity from the area. However, the site was re-surveyed shortly afterwards by the same surveyors who carried out the 1993 survey and it was found that no less than 75 per cent. of the habitat had been lost or destroyed. Three quarters of the area was ruined. Peterborough City council would welcome the additional powers that the clause would give it. I have great pleasure in supporting the new clauses.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I, too, welcome you, Mr. Gale, to the Chair of what might be —who knows?—one of the final sittings of the Committee. We have had a succession of Chairs, all of whom have served us extremely well. [Interruption.] I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Gale, that observing the proper courtesies of Committees cannot be described as creeping.
I support the new clause. That is not surprising as I have put my name to it. We had a short discourse on ``The Wind in the Willows'' this morning when we discussed which members of the Committee might be identified with which characters. I do not propose to re-open the debate other than to suspect that there might be stoats and weasels from the wild wood lurking around, against whom we should guard.
As the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, the new clause is significant. It has been given a substantial pre-billing. On several occasions during our discussions, the Minister noted the central importance of biodiversity action planning as a process, citing it as an answer to the issues that were raised. It is fair to say that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee share that view. We consider such planning to be a crucial aspect of the Bill and we want to ensure that the process has the statutory underpinning that it requires.
Ministers have the problem that a small majority of the members of the Committee support the new clause, as was the case regarding an earlier new clause concerning areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is not to say that they will not persuade us that there is a better way of achieving its aim. Nevertheless, the support of members of the Committee demonstrates the importance attached to the issue.
It is worth repeating the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford. No one suggests that there should be a prescriptive view of what local biodiversity action plans should contain or how they should be advanced. The value of the exercise currently is its voluntary nature and the way in which partners are brought together in a process that establishes species protection.
Whether the starting point of the process has statutory support is a matter of great concern. The United Kingdom would fail in the commitments into which it has entered under the convention on biological diversity if there were no statutory underpinning of the process. That significant point must also be made in practical terms. The partners to agreements—those wishing to see a process of protection entered into and continued—must be confident that they will continue to receive support from successive Administrations, not just the Government of the day. However, I find it hard to believe that a future Government would turn their back on the need for biodiversity.
There is a real danger that priorities of the public bodies associated with the process might change at a local level. People might have different views of the correct way in which to use the limited resources available. Only if the underpinning that the new clause would offer were provided could there be confidence that the Government and all levels of public authorities were committed to the process.
My fear is that, unless we have that confidence, we will continue to lose species and habitats that fall outside the geographically identified protected areas. The essential measures will not be taken in time and in full to protect them. Not only will that be a great shame, but it will fly in the face of non-voluntary and voluntary work throughout the country. Local conservation bodies are very much engaged in the process of local biodiversity action planning. If their work is not worthy of support at a national level—in the plainest and most evident terms, if it is not recognised in the Bill—we will be doing them a disservice. I pay tribute to local conservation bodies, which were excited by the prospect of the convention's ratification, for taking the lead.
4.45 pm
For all those reasons, the new clause is important and the Government would do well to support it. There would be no downside. The new clause could have only a positive effect. If the duty is laid down, it will be clear that we mean business when it comes to the convention on biological diversity. We are committed to the same objectives, although we might advocate different ways in which to achieve them at local level. However, at least the process is continuing and we are all committed to it.
|
