| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
OFFICE COSTS ETC. ALLOWANCES
Resolved,
Ordered,
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
I approach this debate with some reluctance, given that whatever I may say will upset one or other of the lobbies in my constituency. There is nothing in it for me. I also approach it with a measure of humility in that I am a newcomer to the affairs of the forest, but I spent a considerable amount of time this summer consulting people who are intimate with it and its problems, and that intimacy is the product not only of their own lifetimes, but of generations.
The New Forest is the most important natural heritage area in western Europe. It is vital that we preserve it. It is, to some extent, a credit to the House that it still exists and that we have preserved it over the centuries. There are, however, considerable problems.
The forest is sandwiched between the expanding port of Southampton, seeking to expand into Dibden bay, and the expanding conurbation of Bournemouth, with its plans for a much expanded airport. It is bisected by the A31 which is, to all intents and purposes, an extension of the M27-M3 motorway network, with growing volumes of traffic audible over much of the forest, particularly on the approaches to Ringwood. In addition, we have the problem of housing and the demand that that makes on the infrastructure.
Those problems are of a different order from the problems for which the legislation framed by the House was designed to solve. Those Acts attend largely to the conservation of forestry and to the rights of commoners as against the Crown.
Notwithstanding that, the regime that persists in the New Forest--by that I mean the perambulation of Crown lands and attached commons--is fundamentally sound. It provides a balance of interests. It provides for the Forestry Commission to manage the forest but to be accountable to the public through the House. We can challenge the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it is amenable to public pressure, as the current debate on the Minister's mandate has clearly shown. There are proper checks and balances. What is more, the regime affords the verderers enormous powers to thwart undesirable development. Those powers would not be available under much modern legislation.
Therefore, I do not believe that the problems withinthe perambulation of Crown lands are primarily organisational. There is, undoubtedly, an economic problem, which largely hinges on the survival of the 400 or so practising commoners. It is vital that commoning survives because it is the grazing of the commoners' stock that gives the forest its unique character. It will be interesting to see what funds may be unlocked in the future to solve many of the problems faced by the commoners. But whatever happens, I urge the Minister to ensure that the commoners are always thoroughly consulted, not just because they have an interest to protect but because they have much wisdom, stretching back over generations.
I move beyond the perambulation of Crown lands and attached commons to the problems of the wider New Forest heritage area. It is here that the pressures of the
modern world are much more intrusive. It is a vital area for the protection of the New Forest itself, because it provides a halo around the forest, insulating it from much development pressure. It is under threat. The New Forest Acts do not apply here. The writ of the verderers does not run here. It is difficult with any certainty to point to it even on the map because the boundary is subject to revision by the local planning process.
The Minister must address at least two problems with respect to the heritage area. First, he needs to review and fix the boundary and, in that regard, I would draw to his attention the interesting proposals from the Ramblers Association. Secondly, he needs to review the planning environment within that heritage area. I suggest that he amend the general permitted development order.
Whatever the Minister does must be done with some sensitivity--certainly with respect to business interests. We need jobs in Lymington and New Milton. I draw to his attention the problems faced by Lymington Precision Engineers--a successful company that is seeking to expand and provide vital jobs but which is unable to do so because of the constraints placed on the use of all the available land. Equally, there are problems faced by hauliers, who were recently banned from using forest roads. One visited me recently to say that his costs had gone up by £60,000 a year as a result, and that he was now at a competitive disadvantage compared with everyone else in the county.
It is quite proper that the county council should exercise its powers because of the special status and character of the New Forest. Equally, I believe that compensation ought to be available and I hope that some new international status may be able to unlock funds for the New Forest.
In summary, the New Forest is a unique environment, and therefore it would be inappropriate to roll it up in a solution together with the south downs. Most importantly, I urge the Minister to eschew the powers that he has under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to impose a standard national park on the New Forest. A national park, under the 1949 Act, would provide disproportionate influence to local government as against the other interests in the forest.
The Minister has a credible track record in local government and extensive experience of it. Nevertheless, local government priorities with respect to housing, tourism and traffic management are not necessarily the priorities of conservation. In that regard, I draw to the Minister's attention a letter that I received today from a constituent, who happens to be the chairman of the New Forest committee. He said:
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions should have effect:
(1) The limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Miss Anne Begg should be 1.55 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 for any quarter beginning with 1st April 1998.
(2) The limit on the additional costs allowance in relation to Miss Anne Begg should be 1.55 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) of Part C of the Resolution of the House of 13th July 1994 for any year beginning with 1st April 1998.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
That in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 30th July 1997 in the last session of Parliament, a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to review parliamentary privilege and make recommendations thereon;
That three be the Quorum of the committee;
That the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
That the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of either House, may attend the Committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive Committee papers and may give such other assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any Motion or move any Amendment or be counted in the Quorum;
That Mr. Joe Benton, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Bill Michie, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over government business on 26th February, 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th March, 16th, 23rd and 30th April, 7th, 14th and 21st May, 11th June and 23rd July 1999.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays),
That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays:
4th, 11th and 18th December 1998 and 15th, 22nd and 29th January, 5th and 12th February, 9th July and 22nd October 1999.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10 pm
"Government might impose a standard solution for administrative convenience and ignore the special characteristics of the Forest e.g. that 50 per cent. of the Heritage Area is Crown land or that commoning would not be a special purpose for the designation . . . The Forestry Commission and the Verderers would be underrepresented on a standard National Park Authority . . . Existing responsibilities are discharged effectively and display none of the confusion which existed in some National Park areas pre-designation . . . Why strip them away and add to bureaucracy?"
The letter stated that a standard solution would not address potential overlapping responsibilities. For example, the National Park Authority, Forest Enterprise, as recreational managers of the land, and the verderers would have overlapping responsibilities, and consequent muddles would have to be sorted out after the event.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |