| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 779
Sweeney, WalterSykes, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Thomason, Roy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter
Tracey, Richard
Tredinnick, David
Trend, Michael
Trotter, Neville
Twinn, Dr Ian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Walden, George
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Waller, Gary
Ward, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Waterson, Nigel
Watts, John
Wells, Bowen
Whitney, Ray
Whittingdale, John
Widdecombe, Ann
Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Wilkinson, John
Wilshire, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Wood, Timothy
Yeo, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. David Willetts and Dr. Liam Fox.
Column 779
Question accordingly negatived.New clause 10
Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
`. It shall be the duty of the Agency in the exercise of any of its functions to secure compliance with the requirements of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.'.-- [Mr. Morley.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 12-- Restoration orders for areas of specific scientific interest (No. 2) --
`.--In section 31 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for subsection (1) substitute--
"(1) Where--
(a) the operation in respect of which an owner or occupier of land is convicted of a second offence within five years under section 28;
(b) the operation in respect of which a person is convicted of a second offence under section 29; or
(c) the behaviour in respect of which a person is convicted of a second offence under any byelaw made under section 20 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as it applies by virtue of any enactment)
Column 780
has destroyed or damaged any of the geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land on which it was carried out was of special interest, the court by which he is convicted, in addition to dealing with him in any other way, may make an order requiring him to carry out, within such period as may be specified in the order, such operations for the purpose of restoring the land to its former condition as may be so specified.".'.Mr. Morley: New clause 10 deals with the functions of the new agency in complying with the European Union habitats directive and would write the duty to comply into the Bill.
In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that the Government accept their responsibilities and duties under international treaties and obligations such as the European habitats directive. The new clause would consolidate all the general duties that the various components of the new agency currently have under the Conservation (Natural Habitat etc.) Regulations 1994.
At present, the agency will have some functions operating under different general duties, according to whether they apply to land or tidal waters. Compliance with the requirements of the habitats directive will apply consistent standards of nature conservation above and below the high tide mark, applying both to special protection areas and to special areas of conservation. In that sense, the new clause will help the new agency to meet its duties. New clause 12 deals with the protection and restoration of sites of special scientific interest and areas of special scientific interest. SSSIs were introduced under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Sadly, however, the operation of the Act has been flawed in certain areas and there have been difficulties in protecting SSSIs. The report by Wildlife and Countryside Link, "SSSIs--A Health Check", showed that 200 to 300 SSSIs were destroyed or damaged every year. Here I should declare an interest as a vice-president of Wildlife and Countryside Link. A more recent report, the 1994 National Audit Office report "Protecting and Managing Sites of Special Scientific Interest", showed that more than 800 SSSIs had been damaged since 1987.
In this respect, the low fines available to magistrates are a problem in deterring people from damage. The National Audit Office noted that despite more than 800 sites being reported as damaged, only nine prosecutions under section 28 of the 1981 Act had been brought. In many ways, I have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulties of the various countryside agencies in implementing section 28 of the 1981 Act. It can be expensive to bring to court someone who has damaged a site of special scientific interest. It must be galling for the agencies to incur that expense and then to see the people concerned getting off with low and derisory fines. Most damage done to SSSIs is linked to planning applications and to perceived planning gain. The restoration of those sites, for which new clause 12 calls, is fair and a much more effective deterrent. Some owners of sites have deliberately damaged them because they think that it is in their interests to do so; there have been many such cases. I can recall cases of landowners spraying important meadows with herbicides to kill the plants of particular interest in them, hoping that it would make it easier to get planning permission for the site.
Ensuring that such people had to reinstate sites of special scientific interest would make them think twice about damaging them. Such a requirement would be more
Column 781
effective than the present level of fines. New clause 12 has widespread support from all conservation bodies and, indeed, from English Nature which would welcome this more effective power. I very much hope that the Minister will support the new clauses because they will give the agency a strength that it currently lacks.The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We believe that the new clause is unnecessary because regulation 3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitat etc.) Regulations already places obligations on the proposed agency and on other similar public bodies to have regard to the requirements of the EC habitats directive in the exercise of any of their functions. Hon. Members had the opportunity to debate the regulations in July last year. In addition, any specific duties placed on the National Rivers Authority by the habitat regulations will automatically become duties of the Environment Agency as a result of the transitional provisions in paragraph 218 of schedule 22.
As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) would expect, I have considerable sympathy with the intentions behind new clause 12. As my letter to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, we have put some flesh on the bones of that sympathy. New clause 12, however, would restrict the existing powers of the courts under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will agree, that is not acceptable. New clause 12 would enable the court to make a restoration order only when a person had been convicted of a second offence under section 29. At present, a restoration order is possible in relation to a first offence.
Under new clause 12, restoration orders would be available only where the geological or physiographical features of the land were destroyed or damaged, with no equivalent provision for the flora and fauna. I hope that with that understanding and in view of the intentions that I have already set out in my letter to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will feel that he can seek leave to withdraw the new clause.
Mr. Morley: I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises the importance of the subject and sympathises with our intention. It is a little strange that the Government are prepared to include on the face of the Bill subjects which could have been included in guidance, such as costs and benefits, but not such matters as the protection of SSSIs.
However, as the Minister has given certain assurances and recognises the thrust of our arguments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 13
Footpaths in national parks
`.--(1) Each National Park shall include in their annual report for each year after 1995 a list of all footpaths and bridleways which-- (i) are obstructed within their area, and
(ii) are not correctly sign-posted.
(2) The annual report shall also contain details of footpaths of which the legal status is currently under dispute, and of the progress of any discussions being held with the relevant highway authority in attempts to settle any such disputes.'.-- [Mr. Bennett.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Column 782
9.30 pmMr. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should make it clear to the House that I am a member of the Ramblers Association, and I suspect that the association would support the views that I am expressing on this occasion. We ought to recognise that footpaths and rights of way are a historic record. In many parts of the country, they are the best way to identify how people used to live, and how they moved about the countryside and carried out their activities.
Footpaths are also an important part of many people's daily lives. Footpaths are often used by individuals going to work, the shops, church or chapel, or to visit friends. It is important to remember that rights of way and footpaths are an important part of everyday life. They are also important for people who go to the countryside for recreation. Sadly, footpaths are often neglected and, in some cases, obstructed, and obstructions are sometimes caused not by neglect but by deliberate action.
The law requires that the landowner should keep all footpaths clear of obstructions and that the local authority should sign the footpath where it leaves the metal road. I welcome the fact that the Countryside Commission set targets for ensuring that those two requirements were achieved. The targets were the end of this year for all footpaths within national parks and the year 2000 for the rest of the network of footpaths. I am delighted that the Government have endorsed those targets, and in many cases they will be met. The new clause deals particularly with what happens in national parks. Seven of the national parks have agreed with the highway authority--the local authority in the area--that the park should be the agent for the right of way and footpath network. In other parks, however, the highway authority continues to carry out that activity. We argued in Committee that it would be more sensible for the responsibility in the national parks to be handed over to the national parks themselves. Sadly, the Government resisted, and the new clause is an attempt to get back to the issue.
I hope to hear the Minister say that he believes that it would be to the benefit of the national parks and those who use footpaths if the agency agreement were to be worked out in all national parks--particularly in view of the extra powers that they will have--so that all rights of way will be clear of obstructions and will be properly signed by the end of this year.
The last part of the new clause deals with a rather difficult matter. There are one or two rights of way whose legal status is still somewhat blurred, and the authority in the national park will have a duty to get those legal issues sorted out as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can confirm the Countryside Commission's target and that the Government are keen to see that target achieved throughout the country, but particularly within national parks. I hope that the Minister will also agree that it would be sensible for national parks to take over the right of way provision.
Mr. Atkins: While I understand the intention underlying new clause 13, it is not one with which we can agree. We have endorsed the target set by the Countryside Commission in 1987, in that all rights of way should be
Column 783
legally defined, properly maintained and well publicised, by 1995 in the national parks and by 2000 in the wider countryside. The response to that target has been extremely positive. Much has been achieved by the national park boards and committees working in co- operation with the relevant highway authorities. In this year's functional strategies, the English parks have reported that 90 per cent. of the network in the parks is already in an acceptable condition. Work on defining the network has been less satisfactory; nevertheless, progress has been and will continue to be made. I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will provoke the parks even further.We accept the importance of reporting on all aspects of the stewardship of the parks in the national park authorities' annual reports. I see no reason, however, for departing from the general principle that the precise contents of local authority reports are not a matter for primary legislation. We already made it clear in the draft circular published in January that we expect the new authorities to include in their reports information on their stewardship of the parks, with particular reference to matters of interest to their constituent local authorities. As well as information on more general issues of importance to those local authorities, we would expect the reports to include information on their co -operation in giving effect to the duty to foster the economic and social well-being of their local communities, and on their partnerships on rights of way.
In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman may feel constrained to seek leave to withdraw the new clause.
Mr. Bennett: I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not give a little more encouragement to those national parks and local authorities which have not entered into agreements to carry out the footpath provision to get on and do so. As we want to spend time debating rather than going through the Lobby, and in view of some of the Minister's message, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn .
New clause 14
Extension of national parks to Scotland (No. 1)
`. The Secretary of State for Scotland shall, within one year of this Act coming into force, make provision for the extension to Scotland of Parts I, II, V and VI of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.'.-- [Mrs. Fyfe.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.- -[ Mrs. Fyfe. ]
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton): I shall be brief because the Minister is aware of the concern of the Opposition and the public in Scotland about national parks. My colleague the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned national parks, but, sadly, we do not have any in Scotland, despite the fact that a number of Secretaries of State for the Environment have referred to those in England and Wales as the jewel in the crown.
Column 784
When we are in government, we shall establish a national park in Scotland. That is in the Labour party's manifesto, and we shall commence with Loch Lomond. We shall do so not merely because that is our view, but because we have consulted widely with the public in Scotland, who want national park status for the Loch Lomond area as a first step.We have been trying for national park status since 1946, when the Government set up an inquiry to consider national parks in Scotland. Here we are 50 years later and nothing else has happened. The Government asked their body, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, to consider the mountain areas of Scotland and it reported in the late 1980s with the unambiguous view that national parks should be initiated in Scotland. The Government rejected that view. Since then, the Government have prevaricated to the extent that they set up the Hutchison committee to consider Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. Hutchison did not have the remit to ask for national parks but, within his tight remit, it was obvious that he was looking for a more global solution to the problem of the management of that area. The Government's response to the Hutchison committee report was disappointing. The day after publication, the headline in The Herald read, "Trumpet of disbelief for the voluntary solution". The voluntary aspect is at the core of the issue. Very little is happening as a result of the Government's stricture that everything is voluntary.
Conservationists and environmentalists are telling us that there has been a deterioration in the Loch Lomond area and that we must have an adequate mechanism for managing it not in five or 10 years' time, but now.
The Countryside Commission's report, "The Mountain Areas of Scotland", stated that it would take £2 million for the Loch Lomond area to be granted national park status. I do not think that that is a big sum. I say that confidently, because when the Minister went to the launch of the Hutchison committee report in Drymen, the words came out of his mouth, "This could be £1 million," and apparently he did not think that that amounted to much financially. If £1 million is not very much, £2 million for the proper management and planning structure for Loch Lomond is not very much either.
I have already mentioned the voluntary principle. The Minister knows that we have been trying for years to have byelaws introduced in the Loch Lomond area. The idea has been taken up by the Loch Lomond park authority, and the byelaws have been suggested for three reasons, the first of which is that they would enhance public safety. The Minister knows that two years ago there was a fatal accident on Loch Lomond, and that the need to enhance public safety is paramount.
The second reason for the byelaws would be to reduce disturbance to especially valuable and vulnerable wildlife interests--the Minister knows our obligations under European Community directives in that respect. The third reason would be to reduce disturbance to local residents, especially those living permanently in the area. My postbag contains regular communications from people on the loch complaining to me about the disturbances. The quality of life in that area is most important, yet it is degenerating because of the Government's intransigence and inaction.
Column 785
The byelaw proposals have had the strong support of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs working party under Sir Peter Hutchison, of the sheriff principal of North Strathclyde, Sheriff Hay, when he examined the report of the fatal accident inquiry in 1994, and of the procurator fiscal service.Despite that, the Loch Lomond park authority now finds that objections have been made and a delay requested by the Scottish Sports Council. I shall not go into detail about the altercation between the Scottish Sports Council and the Loch Lomond park authority, save to say that the byelaws have been under consideration for years, yet there are now further delays because of the objections that have been raised.
Will the Minister ask the Scottish Sports Council whether the objections are genuine? If they are, can the Sports Council get together with the park authority so that the byelaws can be introduced as quickly as possible, for the sake of public safety, if for no other reason?
Following confirmation in March 1995 of Scottish Office and Scottish Natural Heritage agency funding of £345,000 over three years, the Loch Lomond park authority has recruited a small team of loch rangers, the patrol boat is due this week and the power boat registration scheme is ready to go. The authority will be able to print the byelaws and the accompanying advisory material as soon as notice of confirmation is received. But the Scottish Sports Council has caused a delay. In the interest of public safety, will the Minister contact that body and ensure that there is no further delay?
The delay has been caused by prevarication, and is due to the fundamental voluntary principle that the Government insist on preserving in relation to Loch Lomond. That is getting us nowhere fast.
For the Opposition, this is a long-standing issue, and the plan has massive public support. In September I shall call another meeting to consider progress on Loch Lomond. I shall write to the Minister and ask him to address that meeting and to consider in a positive and constructive way the planning for a way forward for the loch. If he cannot do that, can the Scottish Natural Heritage agency send a representative in connection with an environmental audit and financial planning for Loch Lomond? The situation is extremely urgent, and a management plan is needed.
Sadly, we do not have that today, but the new clause would meet the need completely. If there is to be a negative response from the Government now, please may we have a constructive approach to a management set-up for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area? By agreeing to the request in the new clause for a national park, we would indeed be looking after the jewels in Scotland's environmental crown. 9.45 pm
Mr. Galbraith: We debated these matters extensively in Committee, and the Bill greatly strengthens the powers and functions of national parks in England and Wales, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House. The Government have been complimented on the changes that they have made.
None the less, Scotland still has no national parks. Although two committees set up to look into that matter produced two reports--the Balfour report for England
Column 786
and Wales and the Ramsay report for Scotland in 1945--the recommendations of the report for England and Wales were implemented, but those for Scotland were not, partly because there was less pressure from Scotland, where the areas concerned are much more vast. In 1952, the Scottish Health Department, which was responsible for that matter, introduced plans for national parks but, again, they fell by the wayside.In 1970, the Scottish Select Committee asked that plans be brought forward for national parks but those, too, fell by the wayside. In 1988, however, the Scottish Office Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), asked the Countryside Commission to introduce plans to manage Scotland's mountainous areas. That resulted in the Countryside Commission's 1990 report on Scottish mountain areas, which proposed national parks for the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis, Glencoe, the Black Mount and probably Wester Ross. It said nothing about Knoydart, probably because nobody knows where it is. As we do not want people to know where it is, we do not want it to be made into a national park. Perhaps Skye should have been included. Wester Ross probably does not need a national park at this stage, but other areas clearly do and the most pressing of those are Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms, which the Government should deal with.
The plans were not the standard plans proposed for England and Wales, but were to be based on an amalgam of local communities and conservationists, to try to get rid of that conflict. The areas were also to be organised differently. There was to be a core mountain zone, which would be protected from any development and used only for recreation; a countryside management zone, where recreation could be developed close to the roadside; and a community zone, where visitors would be housed. Those useful plans were put out to consultation and agreed by everyone apart from the Government who, once again, introduced the voluntary principle, which has punched huge roads through Glen Feshie.
Even the Government's organisation, Scottish Natural Heritage, no longer believes in the voluntary principle. Point 38 on page 9 of its corporate plan states:
"The financial consequences of the voluntary principle are substantial and increasing . . . if it is sustained, it seems likely that it will become increasingly unaffordable, and an alternative approach may have to be sought."
Thus Scottish Natural Heritage is telling the Government that their voluntary principle is unsustainable and must be dropped. In response to a plan for the Cairngorms, in 1992 the Government introduced a world heritage site idea. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what has happened about that. Have the Government applied for that designation yet? If not, why not? A joint board was set up for the Cairngorms, which was a step forward. I recognised in Committee that that was an improvement. People were on that board who never expected to be on it and it was a fine victory for conservation. The problem is that the board had no powers.
Loch Lomond is the area that is under the most pressure and once again the Government propose a joint
| Next Section
| Home Page |