HC Deb 28 November 2000 vol 357 cc906-11

Lords amendment: No. 105, in page 41, line 38, at end insert— ("() A notification under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (notification to local planning authorities of areas of special scientific interest) which by virtue of section 28(13) of the 1981 Act as originally enacted had effect as if given under section 28(1)(a) of that Act, shall cease to have effect.")

Mr. Meacher

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 107, 111 to 113, 133 to 135 and 238 to 268.

Mr. Meacher

These Lords amendments relate to clauses 66 to 70 in part III and to schedules 8 to 10, which together will deliver better protection for sites of special scientific interest.

The Government used the opportunity presented by the discussion in the other place to introduce amendments to enable new powers to be used within the large number of sites—there are some 5,000 in England and Wales—that have already been notified. The conservation agencies are required to prepare a statement of views about the management of the land and to bring existing SSSIs into line with the new notification procedures. Also, when a notice of intent was served in the past, but no consent was given, and no management agreement has been made, the agency has a new power to serve a stop notice, against which there is, of course, a right of appeal.

The Government also introduced provisions ensuring that full information about SSSIs may be passed on when an interest in SSSIs changes hands. We also sought and received agreement to a number of other minor and technical Lords amendments, which will ensure that the provisions for improving the procedures for notifying, protecting and managing SSSIs, which have been generally welcomed, are proportionate and workable.

We also considered arguments about the effect of the provisions on public bodies and introduced Lords amendments responding to those concerns and clarifying procedures, particularly for the restoration of an SSSI following activities by public bodies. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). Once again, we have listened to the argument and responded.

Mr. Paice

I want to discuss not Lords amendment No. 105 but Lords amendments Nos. 240 and 241—the Minister will concur that there is much similarity between them. The proposed clause heading in Lords amendment No. 240 is "Notification of additional land"; that for Lords amendment No. 241 is "Enlargement of SSSI". The wording of the amendments is very similar. I am puzzled about the nature of the difference between the two—not

the textual difference, but the difference in impact. One would add land to an SSSI, while the other would enlarge the SSSI. Those strike me as amounting to one and the same thing.

Can the Minister tell us whether, in the case of Lords amendment No. 240, the additional area will be described as part of the SSSI? If so, why is that not the same as enlargement, as specified in Lords amendment No. 241? Will he also confirm that the new area will itself be of special scientific interest—that it will not just be a question of enlarging the existing SSSI, perhaps to protect it? There seems to be considerable doubt about whether the extra land described in Lords amendment No. 240 is itself of any special interest, or whether it will simply enhance the existing site.

Lords amendment No. 256 seems rather draconian. It obliges the owner of land that is included in an SSSI to notify the Nature Conservancy Council—or rather, given the point that we have reached in the Bill, English Nature—if he disposes of any interest in the land, or

becomes aware that it is occupied by an additional or a different occupier.

We must ask, what is an occupier? Does the amendment refer to land that is legally occupied by an additional or a different occupier? If the occupier lets part of the property to a fanner or a sporting syndicate, the owner will presumably know about it, and will be in a position to notify English Nature. But what if it is illegally occupied? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced the problems of illegal occupation of land by itinerants. Does that count as occupation? Must the owner notify English Nature in that event?

Moreover, subsection (4) appears to criminalise the offence of not telling English Nature that an SSSI has been sold. That strikes me as incredibly draconian. I accept that we are talking about level 1 on the scale of fines, but we are nevertheless talking about a conviction. Surely making someone who simply neglects or omits or, indeed, forgets to tell English Nature that he has sold his land liable for a criminal conviction is incredibly heavy-handed. I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more.

New section 28R would empower English Nature to make byelaws for the protection of a site of special scientific interest. The National Farmers Union contacted me today. Although it supports the amendments in principle, it is very concerned about the issue of byelaws. Its briefing states: In practice bylaws have not proven to be an effective means of controlling damage, not least because rural police forces are already over-stretched. We have heard enough about the subject today to know the strength of that statement. The NFU went on to say: In this context what provision would be made to enforce these byelaws? We believe that byelaws should not be developed unless consultation and the approval of relevant owners and occupiers is first obtained. In the absence of alternative enforcement agents, owners and occupiers are likely to be the only persons able to enforce byelaws. 9.45 pm

Many SSSIs are in relatively remote areas, and the landowner or one of his employees is most likely to come across damage or someone breaking the byelaws. How will the prosecution process proceed? Will we expect landowners and their staff to be responsible for enforcing byelaws made by English Nature? The gist of the NFU's concern is that it does not believe that byelaws will protect a site, however well meaning the intention behind them.

Of all the groups of amendments that we have discussed, this group gives me the least joy to support. Some of the amendments are good, but amendments Nos. 240 and 241 appear to duplicate each other, and three aspects of amendment No. 256 give rise to serious concerns. I am inclined to think that it is massively draconian to suggest that someone should be convicted of a crime simply for not writing a letter, which is the gist of paragraph (4) of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my concerns or at the very least explain the difference between amendments Nos. 240 and 241.

Mr. Llwyd

I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about amendment No. 256. It is inappropriate to bring the panoply of criminal law to bear in this case. There is another way to deal with the problem. The SSSI designation is registerable under the Land Charges Act 1972, and if it is registered for local government searches there is no need to place an onus on the landowner to notify a change. That is a more fail-safe procedure and it is straightforward and easy to implement.

Apart from that misgiving, I welcome most of the amendments. Extra protection for SSSIs is important throughout the United Kingdom. It is of special significance in Wales where 11 out of 16 SSSIs are managed for sporting purposes. We have a diverse and significant range of land that is eligible for SSSI status. It reflects the dedication of land managers, the shooting fraternity, falconers and others beyond the pressures and constraints of the agricultural economy.

Various bodies lobbied on this matter when the Bill was in the other place, and I am pleased that some progress has been made. The Countryside Alliance welcomes in particular the Government's inclusion of an amendment to exempt persons being charged for the offence of recklessly or intentionally damaging an SSSI if they have planning permission or are part of an emergency operation and the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Council for Wales have been notified as soon as possible. That sensible amendment will allow greater flexibility for land management practices. It also demonstrates an understanding that conservation aims have to be realistic and take account of local livelihood needs.

I also welcome the amendment that excludes a person from imprisonment if an offence was committed in the course of, or was incidental to, the carrying out of a lawful activity. That, too, is sensible and provides a safeguard for land managers who are going about their day-to-day activities. I utterly share the misgivings about amendment No. 256 detailed by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I suggest respectfully to the Minister the course of action to which I have pointed, which may be preferable without placing an undue onus on any landowner.

Mr. Forth

The group of amendments illustrates probably better than most others the difficulties in which we find ourselves due to the Government's arrogant attitude towards the legislative process and the House itself. I reckon that there are 12 pages of text in amendments Nos. 238 to 268 alone—the group of amendments within the main group—which we are being asked effectively to nod through the House at this late stage. The Government are saying to us arbitrarily that they will limit the time available for considering the amendments to 10 o'clock. There is no reason for that, but that is what the Government have said. We find ourselves with only 10 minutes to go and amendments Nos. 238 to 268 take up 12 pages of text.

I shall not attempt to wade through all those amendments because I cannot, but I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have said about amendment No. 256. Before I do so, I pause for a moment on amendment No. 240. It refers to the Nature Conservancy Council and its powers of notification. It says that it must notify the local planning authority, every owner and occupier of the "extra land" and the Secretary of State.

There is provision—the Minister touched on it in his brief remarks—for an appeal mechanism, but that is not good enough. For a bureaucracy or quango such as the Nature Conservancy Council, or any other, to have the power conferred by statute—in this case, by an amendment—simply to say, "It is all right; there is an appeal mechanism" is not good enough. The onus is then always on the hapless owner and occupier, presumably at his own expense, to seek to defend his interests, where necessary, against the depredations of the quango. It does not matter that the quango may sound warm and good and no doubt wants to do excellent work. It is still a bureaucracy and it is given extensive powers within statute—through an amendment—that must be watched closely.

The Secretary of State can look after himself. He has unlimited taxpayers' money and unlimited officials to look after him and teams of junior Ministers to support him. The local planning authority can more than ably look after itself, too. It also has taxpayers' money, officials and endless resources with which to do battle with the bureaucracy. Who is the odd person out? Surprise, surprise, it is the owner and occupier, who may be sitting on what is called extra land. He may be subject to some ghastly bureaucratic notification, feel aggrieved, seek to exercise his right to appeal, and then find that he must reach deeply into his own pocket to do so. For the Minister to say, "Do not worry, chaps; there is an appeal mechanism," is not necessarily the whole story. I hope that he might already be feeling a bit guilty about that, although it does not look as if he does.

When I come to amendment No. 256, I think that guilt would be a modest term to apply to what I hope the Minister will feel. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire drew the House's attention to the fact that there is a new set of powers—it seems that the Nature Conservancy Council is again the relevant body—where the owner of the land becomes aware that his land is occupied by an additional or a different occupier. I imagine that if the area of land is relatively small, the matter will appear fairly straightforward, although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, some of the additional or different occupiers may not be there with the consent of the owner of the land. I wonder whether that gives rise to a different or new set of circumstances.

I suppose that it is also quite likely, if the land is a reasonably extensive holding, that someone could occupy part of it without being noticed by the owner for some time. It would therefore be fairly easy for the owner to fall foul of the provisions in proposed new section 28N(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which sets out a 28-day time limit, and then fall even further foul of proposed new subsection (4), which states: A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of this section is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. That appears to me to be an extremely tough sanction facing a number of innocent people who, in certain circumstances not of their own making, and in some difficulty, may not be able to comply with the requirements of the new section. It appears straightforward enough and, no doubt, it is drafted with the best of intentions, but one can easily envisage circumstances in which individuals would find themselves severely disadvantaged by the provisions.

A heading that is found much later in the 12 pages of text—it appears at the beginning of Lords amendment No. 268, which proposes an entirely new schedule to the 1981 Act—is "After Schedule 9" and the following amendment runs to several pages. I do not have time to detain the House with a detailed examination of the amendment, which tells its own story—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Labour Members appear to find this amusing, but it is their Government who are denying the House of Commons, of which they are Members, the opportunity properly to examine pages and pages of detailed statutory requirements which have come to us from another place and which are not going to be properly examined. I have the opportunity only to flag up to the Minister for the Environment, who I hope will answer the debate properly, the provisions set out in paragraphs 19(1) and (2) of the new schedule under the heading "Compensation and grants". Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the provisions will be adequate for the purpose? Given the imbalance between the powers available to the bureaucracy and those available to individual landowners, matters such as compensation and grants become of the greatest importance.

That is even more important in connection with a provision that is almost hidden away at the end of the pages and pages of detail: our old friend "Powers of entry". Is the Minister satisfied that that provision is necessary to fulfil the objectives of this part of the Bill and that proper protection is given to individual citizens against powers of entry? Those are important questions, but we do not have the time needed to deal with them properly. I must conclude now, because of the artificial time limits that have been placed on our consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Meacher

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked some detailed questions about Lords amendments Nos. 240, 241 and 256. I shall try to answer in the time available to me.

Lords amendment No. 240 relates to minor changes to the boundaries of existing SSSIs which involve no change to the list of damaging operations for the SSSI. Owners of land proposed to be added to an SSSI may object under new subsection (4) and English Nature is obliged to consider the objection. In that case, owners of the pre-existing part of the SSSI are unaffected and so have no right to object.

By contrast, Lords amendment No. 241 relates to significant enlargements to an SSSI. In such cases, the whole area of the SSSI—that is, both the pre-existing part and the proposed addition—must together form an area that meets SSSI criteria. English Nature is likely to want to change the list of damaging operations in such cases, so all owners of both the pre-existing part and the additional land will be affected, therefore the whole procedure for making an SSSI and considering objections applies. It was English Nature which asked for the provisions, and it is happy with them.

On amendment No. 256—if I have a minute, but I shall have to cut short my remarks—I want to reassure the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and confirm that, by virtue of section 20 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, there are limits on the operation of byelaws—

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [27 November].

Lords amendment agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 281 agreed to.