House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Apr 1999 (pt 7)

10.52 am

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for securing this important debate. It is his second debate of this kind, and we are all extremely grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to air our views. I hope that the BBC will cover this debate. I am only sorry that it is not able to be present this morning. I understand that it is holding a seminar to discuss its funding. Perhaps that is appropriate in the circumstances.

My hon. Friend said that he did not want us to engage in Beeb-bashing. I endorse that view. It is important that we work together with the BBC, and I welcome its acknowledgement that it may have taken the wrong decision. We all welcome the new spirit of consultation. I hope that all hon. Members will respond to that consultation.

My hon. Friend said that he hoped that I would not only give the Government's position but speak personally. There is a longstanding convention that broadcasting

14 Apr 1999 : Column 159

Ministers avoid comment on programming issues, and I do not want to ignore that convention, but the BBC's governing instruments, the royal charter and agreement, which set the overall framework for its activities say specifically that the BBC shall

"undertake an appropriate process of public consultation prior to making any material change to the nature of the Home Service."

That means that the BBC has a duty to listen to the consumer.

The agreement also contains a specific programming requirement, first introduced in 1947, that the corporation

"shall transmit an impartial account day by day prepared by professional reporters of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament."

Many hon. Members have mentioned the reduction in listeners following the changes, but the figures bear repeating. The BBC says that, although the total number of hours of parliamentary coverage on Radio 4 has increased, the overall reach is down by 26 per cent., with sharp falls in audience figures for "Yesterday in Parliament", which is down 73 per cent., from 3.13 million in 1997 to 830,000 in 1998, and "The Week in Westminster", down 65 per cent. from 658,000 to 227,000.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised the change in the arrangements for regional political editors in a previous Adjournment debate. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties still have some concern about that change. As a constituency Member, I am not entirely clear who my regional political editor is.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made the point that the BBC is not there merely to chase ratings and that it has a requirement under its charter to ensure that our proceedings are properly covered. He reminded us that the charter is up for renewal in 2006, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to start the debate on that this morning.

The hon. Member for West Derbyshire(Mr. McLoughlin) mentioned the fact that "The Week in Westminster" now seems to be a vehicle for Front Benchers. Like this debate, which is very much for Back Benchers--that is why I have not sought to speak for too long--"The Week in Westminster" should be an opportunity for Back Benchers to ensure that the country can hear what they are doing on behalf of their constituents.

14 Apr 1999 : Column 160

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spoke of the broadcasting revolution that is taking place and suggested that perhaps we had not taken it into account. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is very knowledgable on the subject, rightly spoke of the importance of the BBC's duty to inform, educate and entertain--in that order--and suggested that, with the proliferation of channels, that duty was more important than ever.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): Other countries have dedicated parliamentary channels, such as C-Span in America and C-Pac in Canada, and the BBC has introduced its Parliamentary channel. Is not it a little hypocritical of us to criticise the BBC, when we can get Sky Sports on the Palace of Westminster circuit, but not the Parliamentary channel? Should we not do something about that?

Janet Anderson: I take note of that contribution.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made the point that it is almost inevitable that the BBC's audience share will reduce, and that must be taken on board. I thank him for his compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has supported the remarks of Mr. Alan Yentob, who said that quality must come before audience-chasing. Next month, my right hon. Friend and I will have meetings with the BBC's joint boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that a reduction in listeners may have been predictable but the size of the reduction was stunning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is a great supporter of the BBC. When I first took on this job, one of the first things that I learned is that, on important state occasions, people always turn to the BBC for coverage. That is, quite rightly, how the BBC is regarded.

I welcome the BBC's commitment to consult on the changes. I hope that it will hear the message that the House has sent this morning. It is a loud and clear message and I hope that the BBC will take to heart the gist--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is time for our next debate.

14 Apr 1999 : Column 161

Wildlife

11 am

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall): I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of wildlife protection and in particular the current state of many of our sites of special scientific interest--SSSIs. The debate is most relevant to my constituency. I have received a number of letters from constituents as a number of extremely important Cornish SSSIs are under threat.

SSSIs form the core of Britain's natural heritage--the so-called crown jewels--and contain a significant proportion of the remaining rare habitats and species in the United Kingdom; for example, 90 per cent. of the remaining reed beds in the UK have an SSSI designation. At the time, they were properly designated, but far too often their subsequent protection has been woeful. The protection of SSSIs is vital, not only to safeguard part of our natural heritage, but to ensure that the UK fulfils its international commitments under EU birds and habitats directives, the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance and the convention on biological diversity. Once destroyed, wildlife habitats that have sometimes taken thousands of years to evolve can never be replaced.

When such habitats disappear, so does the wildlife that depends on them. The last fragments of woods, bogs, heathlands and meadows are havens that sustain many of our threatened animals and plants. There are a number of cases of damage to SSSIs that should be brought to the Minister's attention. The Lynher estuary is an important SSSI with a total of 687 hectares in south-east Cornwall--my constituency. The area is of national importance because of its role as a major site for wintering birds. It is estimated that the site is used by 6,000 wild fowl and about 10,000 waders, and is an important roosting area for 5,000 widgeon. However, the site has been badly damaged by intrusive agricultural activities and infilling.

To take a more recent example, during the past few weeks at Rosenannon bog and downs near Bodmin in Cornwall, an SSSI has been damaged by fire and more than half of the site has been severely damaged. The site was a crucial breeding ground for bird species such as skylark and stonechat and has been partially destroyed. It is suspected that the fire was caused by arson, although we do not know yet. No prosecutions have been brought, nor could they have been, because damage to the SSSI was caused by a third party rather than by the owner or occupier.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In the early 1980s, I was a member of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill Committee in which the question of prosecutions arose. We spent 100 hours in Committee discussing these matters. From his experience, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is inadequate, or is it that the legal authorities do not bother to prosecute--or do not feel like prosecuting--under the complex regulations?

Mr. Breed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which is obviously based on his great experience. There have been no prosecutions, but I am not certain whether that is because of the inadequacy of the law or the inactivity of those prosecuting. It is a

14 Apr 1999 : Column 162

difficult matter. The evidence that needs to be obtained is part of the problem, but sometimes the prosecuting authorities consider that the degree of work and the costs involved are out of all proportion to the likelihood of obtaining a successful prosecution. Even then, the penalties that may be inflicted might not reflect the costs involved.

Surprisingly, it is not currently an offence for a third party to damage an SSSI: for example, fly tipping, which is unfortunately happening more often; the use of off-road vehicles, which is increasing in popularity; and sometimes arson, may well be illegal under other forms of legislation, but they do not currently constitute an offence of causing damage to SSSIs. There seems to be a loophole in the law that could be closed. However, even in cases where the damage is caused by the owner or occupier of the land, there is currently no way of prosecuting the offender or, more importantly, of preventing the damage from happening to the site in the first place.

On one occasion, a landowner wanted to plough an SSSI to grow flax. He sent his proposal to English Nature, but English Nature could only try to persuade that farmer not to carry out his plan. Unfortunately, he decided to plough the area regardless, causing severe damage and English Nature had no power to prevent that. Without the teeth needed to enforce protection of that site, all that English Nature could do was to sit by and watch another precious SSSI being raped for commercial interest. One of the most significant factors in that case was that of "forgone payments". Such payments are made to landowners as compensation for not carrying out an activity such as ploughing up land, as opposed to financial incentives to help landowners manage triple SSSIs positively. The compensation system must be changed to reflect what we really want--that is positive management, not passive inactivity.

The picture that I have presented of some parts of the south-west is certainly not unique. There are almost 5,000 SSSIs in England and Wales, and during the past six years there have been more than 2,000 cases of damage to those sites; 45 per cent. of all SSSIs in England are considered to be in an "unfavourable conservation status". Not only are the existing SSSIs in decline, but in England and Wales at least 46 sites have lost the SSSI status they had gained since 1981.

Every year, the Government statutory wildlife agencies publish data in reports that indicate damage to SSSIs in the previous year. On average, more than 300 sites are lost or damaged every year. SSSIs are not being protected from damage, yet they represent some of the most significant environmental sites in the UK; they are identified as "special", but are afforded little, if any, real protection to ensure that they can sustain that status.

The monitoring and gathering of data is one of the few things that the Government statutory wildlife agencies can do where SSSIs are concerned. However, there is no systematic monitoring of those sites. Information about damage is gathered only when local agency teams become aware of problems, so large amounts of damage often remain unrecorded and it is likely that the actual amount of damage will probably be much worse than the recorded figures. That situation is made even worse because conservation agency staff can inspect SSSIs only with the permission of the owner. Clearly, that must be changed if proper monitoring and early action are to be capable of implementation.

14 Apr 1999 : Column 163

Ceredigion county council was responsible for the destruction of an SSSI near Goginan, east of Aberystwyth. Reclamation work on an old mine working had been agreed within strict conditions, yet, in breach of the conditions, a fence was moved allowing additional excavations and subsequently the destruction of rare lichens. The council escaped prosecution simply because its officials entered the site and carried out the work without the written authority of the landowner. That case shows how ludicrous the current situation is, when a third party can escape prosecution in that manner. Of course, it does nothing to deter other potential offenders from damaging SSSIs.

One of the most significant threats to SSSIs is the growing problem of water abstraction and pollution. Friends of the Earth estimate that 338 sites are under threat from loss of water. About one third of SSSIs can be described as wetlands, which are clearly damaged by water shortage and pollution. The damage may not be direct. Miles upstream, water may have been polluted, diverted or extracted with the result of enormous damage to an SSSI or an important wetland.

Development and construction is another major threat, currently affecting an estimated 220 sites. Sometimes, the economic and structural needs of a region clearly warrant new development. My part of the country has just received objective 1 status, and we want real economic growth. However, the environmental costs of such projects must be considered.

I sat on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, and I believed that the environmental aspects of RDA work should be given much higher priority and should carry more weight in the planning process. Specifically, SSSIs should be given strong and measurable indicators of environmental value so that a fair balance of overall costs and benefits can be struck against the indicators of a region's economic needs before development takes place.