|
Jim Knight: As the amendments make minor technical revisions to the clause, it might be helpful to set out briefly what the clause is designed to do. The clause allows for the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards to take account of the environmental effect of land drainage works when making byelaws or taking a decision under those byelaws. The effect of the existing words in the byelaw-making power has been to prevent drainage bodies from taking account of the environment—in many cases obliging them to take decisions that might adversely affect environmental objectives.
A number of byelaws require those wanting to carry out various types of work, such as dredging or work on banks, to obtain the approval of the drainage body first. The drainage body may add conditions to that consent. However, the phrase
''necessary for securing the efficient working of the drainage system''
is considered to mean that an operating authority cannot refuse consent under the byelaws solely on conservation grounds, or add conditions with the aim of minimising environmental impact.
One key example cited by the Environment Agency is the extraction of gravel. In the majority of cases, the extraction of gravel has no effect on flood defence interests, so the agency cannot refuse consent; neither can it take enforcement action against those who extract without consent, because drainage is generally improved. However, the extraction of gravel has been cited as damaging to bird species and aquatic life, and detrimentally damaging to river ecology and geomorphology. A change in the byelaw provision will allow operating authorities to place conditions on such work, thereby reducing the damaging effects.
These three minor amendments to clause 90 are technical amendments to deal with what appears to be an oversight in the Water Resources Act 1991, in that the definition of drainage in section 113 of that Act does not apply to schedule 25, which is amended by clause 90. The amendments therefore apply the definition of drainage in the Act to the byelaws provisions in paragraph 5(5) of schedule 25.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 153, in clause 90, page 37, line 11, leave out from 'system' to 'on' in line 12.
No. 154, in clause 90, page 37, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) In paragraph 5(5) of that Schedule, after ''banks'', insert '', drainage''.'.—[Mr. Knight.]
Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Abolition of certain agricultural etc. committees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 308
The Chairman: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 160 to 164.
Jim Knight: If I may, I shall speak to the Government amendments at the end of my remarks.
The clause dissolves defunct DEFRA-sponsored committees—the Hill Farming Advisory Committees for England, Scotland and Wales and the statutory Consumer Committee of Great Britain and the Committee of Investigation, both of which operate on a UK basis. The Hill Farming Advisory Committees were established to advise Ministers on the exercise of their powers under the Hill Farming Act 1946. However, few of those powers are still relevant today. The main provisions relate to post-war land improvement grants or hill livestock subsidy schemes prior to the common agricultural policy. Times have changed. Those committees have not stood the test of time and it is appropriate that they should be abolished.
The amendments collectively ensure that further redundant articles from two relevant Northern Ireland orders are removed, because they would no longer be relevant once the committees in question were abolished. It is always good practice to remove such redundant legislation once it becomes clear that it will never be required again for other similar committees.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 92 to 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Minor and consequential amendments
11.45 am
Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 158, in schedule 11, page 69, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (h).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 150, 159 and 162.
Jim Knight: Amendments Nos. 158, 159 and 162 have the collective effect of removing the current duty on the planning authority under the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 to consult the Countryside Agency, which, subject to the passage of the Bill, will be Natural England, before making access agreements. That cuts out the bureaucracy and inevitable delay of consultation, as the authorities already have the necessary expertise. These are, of course, agreements, and there will be consultation in the natural course of making them. It seems sensible to take such decisions without needing to consult Natural England, so I urge hon. Members to accept the amendments.
On amendment No. 150, Great Britain has a wealth of nature reserves, which are declared in the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949. In England alone, there are 217 national nature reserves, which cover more than 87,000 hectares, and more than 1,000 local nature reserves, which cover almost 40,000 hectares. Times have changed since the original purpose of nature reserves was set out as the
Column Number: 309
preservation of their special interest features and the provision of special opportunities for study or research. They are some of the most beautiful nature conservation areas, and by far the most common reasons for visiting them are to enjoy their special qualities and for open-air recreation.
Amendment No. 150 maintains the intention behind paragraph 12 of the schedule, which is to enhance the current purpose of England's national nature reserves to more explicitly accommodate management for the general enjoyment of nature and open-air recreation. However, following consultation with the devolved Administrations and key stakeholder bodies in England, Scotland and Wales, the amendment extends that beneficial enhancement to all nature reserves, both national and local, and to such reserves in Scotland and Wales.
Finally, the amendment also sets out more clearly than the current paragraph 12 that management for that general purpose should not be at the expense of conserving the special interest features of the reserves.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing amendment No. 150, on which my own eye had alighted. I want to ask him several questions about it, because of the choice of phraseology, although I am in no way against the principle of what it seeks to do.
First, I am concerned about the use of the word ''solely'' in proposed subsection 15(1)(a) to the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949, which states:
''land managed solely for a conservation purpose'',
although proposed subsection (1)(b) refers to
''land managed not only for a conservation purpose but also for a recreational purpose''.
My concern is that if a nature reserve is not classified as having a recreational purpose—a point to which I shall return—no other use of the land is consistent with being part of a nature reserve. What about agriculture? Grazing cattle or certain primitive breeds of sheep is often part of managing nature reserves. The chalklands alongside the Devil's dyke, the old Anglo-Saxon earthwork that runs from north to south through my constituency, are all grazed by primitive breeds of sheep in order to keep the flora and the banks in the condition that we want.
Mrs. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): Would it be helpful to consider the word ''managed'' rather than the word ''solely''? Management plans for nature reserves may include selective grazing and draining to conserve their biodiversity. It is simplistic to think that conservation means simply leaving the land to grow wild. In fact, the management of land is critical to the conservation of biodiversity.
Mr. Paice: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I wholly reject the argument from some quarters that neglect equals conservation. It does not. The countryside needs to be managed, and the flora and fauna within it need to be managed.
Column Number: 310
My example was of livestock being used to manage land for nature reserves. Nevertheless, grazing livestock is an agricultural activity, and I am concerned at the phraseology. The hon. Lady is right that the phrase that is used includes ''managed''; but it says ''managed solely''. I would have preferred to see ''managed primarily'', as it would have clarified the provision. However, these are not my amendments. I challenge the Government on their choice of words, with a view to discussing them later in our proceedings, and particularly on their use of the word ''solely'' rather than ''primarily'' or something similar to ensure that other activities can take place in a nature reserve.
My second question is about proposed subsection (2)(a), which defines land managed for a conservation purpose as land
''managed for the purpose of . . . providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into''—
and so on. That is a narrow definition of conservation. I do not equate conservation with protection—there is a subtle difference—but most people would define conservation more widely than
''the study of, and research into, matters relating to the flora and fauna of Great Britain and the physical conditions in which they live, and the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area''.
In layman's language, most people would say that conservation is about protection—managing rather than neglecting—but it is about more than study and research. For most people, it is about maintaining or enhancing populations and the wider good of the community and the world in which we live, as well as about study and research.
My third question relates to the phrase ''recreational purpose'' in proposed subsection (3). Exactly what does that mean? I shall not rehearse the arguments about recreation being contradictory to conservation needs, because they are covered in other legislation. The Minister will not be surprised to hear this, as we referred to the same subject earlier in our proceedings, but I am more concerned about the implications for traditional activities, and particularly game shooting and grouse shooting. Many would argue that such activities are recreation. If he is going to say that it is the Government's intention that such things should be considered recreational, that is fine; but I would like it to be on the record.
At the outset of the Committee's proceedings, I declared my role as a trustee of the Game Conservancy Trust. Work yet to be published provides even more proof of the interrelationship between higher populations of many bird species on managed grouse moors and managed shoots than those in areas that are completely unmanaged—areas that have been allowed to become derelict, where nature is allowed to take its course.
There is a clear correlation between the objectives of conservation and the role of shooting. I am anxious to ensure that we will not exclude that interrelationship by using the recreational definition, because shooting interests involve conservation as well as pest and predator control. I would not want to see
Column Number: 311
that definition work against those interests. My concerns are not about the objective of the amendment, but about the Government's choice of phraseology. I would be glad to hear the Minister's comments.
| 
