Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I am about to tell the noble Baroness that. It is on the website, which includes details of the SSSIs, why they are important and what the condition of the site is. The noble Baroness can log on later and find that out. I thank her for her question. It is very much hoped that in some cases the parties would reach agreement but in the last analysis the courts could determine any issues that needed to be determined. That is why we think it is a practical way of looking at the issues which arise out of these amendments. The noble Baroness referred briefly to Amendment No. 302. Its aim is to expand the areas over which Natural England and, in Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales, can exercise their powers to put in place management schemes and, if necessary, enforce them through the use of management notices. This goes wider than the SSSIs; outside the SSSIs. A scheme may be made for the purpose of conserving the special interest features of a SSSI, restoring them or both. While there must be consultation with the owners and occupiers of the SSSI, the final decision as to whether the scheme is necessary and what it can contain is a matter for the conservation bodies. Where an owner or occupier is not giving effect to the scheme and the SSSI features are being inadequately conserved or restored, the conservation bodies may serve a management notice on him provided they are satisfied that it is not possible to conclude a management agreement with that individual on reasonable terms. Failure to comply with the terms of the notice is a criminal offence. Additionally, the conservation bodies may carry out the work required by the notice and recover the costs from the landowner or occupier. These are all strong positive powers introduced by Parliament in 2000 to secure the conservation of SSSIs. They are currently applicable only to owners and occupiers of the SSSI—people who have had the opportunity to make representations when the SSSI was created, have had the benefit of advice and been given the list of operations likely to harm the site’s features. They will also have had a say in the management of the site. As a registrable land charge, successors to these people will be aware of the SSSI nature of their acquisition. However, we believe that the position is very different for other landowners whose land is not within the SSSI itself—they would have acquired their interests with no prior warning or expectation that such robust restrictions or management prescriptions might be later imposed on them and their business activities by the nature conservation bodies. We believe that there are more co-operative means for securing appropriate management by land owners outside the SSSIs. The Bill already provides a power in Clause 7 for entering into management agreements with any person, on any land, for anything within the broad purpose of Natural England. SSSI agreements can already be entered into with owners and occupiers of land outside an SSSI if this is necessary for the conservation of the site. Additionally, Natural England will administer the Environmental Stewardship Scheme and experience to date is that most land managers are willing to co-operate and to enter into land management agreements. There are other factors too that will encourage or require land managers generally to raise environmental standards more widely. These include the CAP reform cross-compliance requirements and in relation to the water environment, the need to achieve the ecological standards of the Water Framework Directive. Given this continual drive towards better land management and the fact that neither English Nature, nor the Countryside Council for Wales considers such an extension to their powers is justified, I do not believe that Amendment No. 302 is necessary. The changes would give Natural England very imposing control over adjacent and possibly even more distant land owners and occupiers. We think instead that Natural England should continue to work through positive partnerships with land managers who have no immediate interest in the land holdings containing the SSSI land as it does with the majority of those within the sites. It should work collaboratively with other regulatory advisory bodies whose functions might be better suited to some of the issues arising out of the SSSIs. That is why we do not believe that Amendment No. 302 is appropriate. Lastly, perhaps I may reply to my noble friend Lord Carter and thank him for raising the important issue on our Amendment No. 301. This provision is indeed prospective rather than retrospective. It is an improvement to the existing regime and will apply to any notifications, including amendments to existing sites, made after the provision comes into force. It makes the position quite clear for the future. However, as my noble friend pointed out, the current amendment will not provide such a safeguard to existing sites, of which there are more than 4,000. It is also right that we do not expect this current suite of SSSIs significantly to increase in future and therefore the majority of the risks of legal challenge to validity are no doubt already inherent in the system. One of the perhaps few advantages we have had during the Committee stage is that it has been useful to allow us to reflect further on the issue in relation to existing sites. While we consider that in the event of any challenge there would be very strong public interest arguments to maintaining the validity of a SSSI, we agree that while we have this opportunity it would be preferable expressly to deal with the situation in relation to existing sites so that they are safeguarded as future sites will be. I would of course wish to ensure that there is clarity and certainty over whether and at what point any existing missed owners or occupiers become subject to the control regime, with the aim of ensuring that the system is fair and proportionate to all SSSI landowners and occupiers. For these reasons, careful consideration is now being given to further widening the measure if this amendment is accepted, so that it will apply to existing notifications as well as future ones. I hope that the Committee will appreciate that this raises slightly more complicated issues than the ones we are debating now. However, subject to this further consideration, may I indicate to the Committee that I hope to come back to this issue at Report. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.