HL Deb 25 October 1999 vol 606 cc6-9

2.59 p.m.

Lord Hardy of Wath

asked her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are satisfied with the present arrangements for the protection of sites of special scientific interest and what consideration is being given to securing the sites' character.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, the Government will be bringing forward legislation to ensure the better protection and management of SSSIs in England and Wales as soon as parliamentary time permits. We set out our proposals in The Government's Framework for Action on 2nd August this year. New powers to regulate potentially damaging activities and combat neglect will lead to an improvement in condition for all our SSSIs through better protection and better management.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer will be greatly welcomed? However, I hope that I may press him further. In view of the remorseless and continuing damage and the inadequate response to that damage over a long period on the part of the previous administration, will the Government urgently seek effective protection of these sites, which by their very nature are essential parts of our natural heritage?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for welcoming my Answer. At present somewhat over half of the SSSIs are in a satisfactory condition and another 15 per cent, while not being in a satisfactory condition, are improving. That still leaves over a third of SSSIs where there is a serious problem which we need to address. The Government have already allocated additional resources, for example, £6 million to English Nature in the current financial year and payments for positive management, and are taking strong measures to ensure that landowners are aware of their responsibilities in these matters. The provision which I mentioned has suggested further legislative and non-legislative measures to improve the position yet further.

Lord Hankey

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the protection of SSSIs and social, cultural or natural sites depends upon the definition and recording of significance and values and that securing values and significance within the excellent system of development control in the UK requires improvement to our systems in the UK of defining significance and value?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I think that to some extent the noble Lord suggests a different definition of SSSIs than we currently have. We are continuing to review the status of SSSIs, and indeed the number has increased significantly over recent years. As regards our wider development and planning policies, I believe that this Government have demonstrated that we have substantially included the protection of SSSIs in our general planning procedures. For example, in the area of roads policy, for which I am directly responsible, we have rightly reduced the number of SSSIs which would be affected by such developments in our own targeted programme of improvements to the transport infrastructure. The same is true of other areas of development and planning.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the overall objective of further protection for SSSIs—which I very much hope will be included in the Queen's Speech—is to protect wildlife? Does he therefore agree that in any protection measures the Government should seek to protect also the wildlife that does not depend on SSSIs but is mobile in habit, such as the skylark? Will the Minister consider rationalising our general approach to wildlife so that policy planning guidance in the planning service, for example, recognises its importance?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, in respect of the noble Baroness's first remarks, I cannot possibly anticipate the Queen's Speech and nothing that I have said hitherto should be taken as doing so. As regards wildlife, a number of proposals are before us and are in process to improve the protection of wildlife in SSSIs and beyond. The noble Baroness may know that the skylark is one of the 12 species for which we have arranged sponsorship. We may well take further action, whether legislative or non-legislative, in a number of areas.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo

My Lords, bearing in mind the large number of Ministry of Defence holdings which are SSSIs, will the Minister say whether the review will include Ministry of Defence holdings?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the ongoing assessment includes that. In total the public sector as a whole owns about 40 per cent of SSSIs, a significant number of which belong to the Ministry of Defence. I believe that in most respects the Ministry of Defence has a good record in this regard. However, all government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, are required to improve their management and husbandry of these sites.

Lord Belhaven and Stenton

My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what percentage of the land area of England and Wales is currently designated SSSI?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the figure is 7 per cent, which I understand is about a million hectares.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, obviously the Minister cannot predict the legislation in the Queen's Speech, but will there be a Bill to consider the protection of SSSIs—as the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches asked—or will there be an "overall" Bill? The prospect of an "overall" Bill is causing great concern. Will the Bill, or the principle behind it, take account of overregulation and the burden imposed on many who run SSSIs at present in difficult circumstances?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am tempted once again to anticipate the Queen's Speech. I can do so neither as regards the substance or the structure of legislation. I regret, therefore, that I cannot reply to the noble Baroness's main point further than I already have. As regards the regulatory burden, the Government are always concerned that any changes do not impose an additional regulatory burden. A large part of our approach is to help owners of such sites to improve their management rather than to impose additional burdens on them.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, as such a wide area—I think that it is a million hectares—is covered, very roughly, what is of special scientific interest as distinct from wildlife interest?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I suspect that I could send the noble Lord a list of nearly 4,000 sites, all of which differ as regards wildlife, vegetation, geology and habitat in general. There is a whole range of considerations, some of which apply to some of the sites and some to others. As the noble Lord implies, wildlife is only one such criterion.

The Earl of Iveagh

My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the success of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme as administered by MAFF which has improved the condition of SSSIs up and down the country? Will the Minister consider developing that scheme to cover 100 per cent of the country?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Earl means by covering 100 per cent of the country. Certainly I commend the efforts of my colleagues in MAFF in this respect. But of course a significant number of these sites are not on agricultural land.

Lord Elton

My Lords, given the intrinsic scientific interest of endangered species, will the noble Lord consider recommending Westminster as an SSSI?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I believe that that is business for tomorrow.