---

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Does she agree that, although the protection of SSSIs is a necessary precondition for the long-term improvement of the preservation of wildlife in this country, it is not the only

3 Nov 1999 : Column 232

thing that needs to be done? Does she agree that in any future wildlife legislation the importance of local nature reserves needs to be recognised? I should like to tell her about two important local reserves in my constituency, the Summerseat nature reserve and the Chesham woods area, both of which are managed by the Lancashire wildlife--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That intervention was far too long.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As a constituency Member, my concern is about peat lands, but I am fully aware that others have constituency concerns relating to areas that are missing in the framework document. Local nature reserves, which involve local people and local communities, are an important part of sustainability and ensuring a future for valuable sites as we enter the next millennium.

It will take more than Alan, Charlie and Tommy to do a "Ground Force" makeover on Hatfield moor if it endures another five years of destruction. Until recently, the accepted wisdom was that were the Government to modify old minerals permissions, they would have to compensate the extractors on a profits forgone basis. That may be why the framework document did not address the issue.

However, there are two obvious problems with that approach. First, compensation payments would require an enormous commitment from the taxpayer, possibly millions of pounds per site. Secondly, paying such compensation would send out the wrong message about the public interest in the conservation of such sites. Why should the British taxpayer compensate an American multinational for not destroying one of our best wildlife habitats at Thorne and Hatfield moors? We would not compensate them not to demolish St. Paul's cathedral, so why compensate them for not destroying a peat bog?

In June this year, Friends of the Earth obtained legal advice stating that the Government could pay compensation that recognises only costs involved, not profits lost. That was based on the premise that any such action would manifestly be acting in the public interest. What consideration has been given to that legal opinion, which represents a good way to protect a precious site that is being destroyed relentlessly in the name of a quick buck?

I should also like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government are predisposed against peat extraction. It is not like coal, which served our industry well since the industrial revolution, or aggregates, which are needed for roads and buildings. We can live without peat for horticultural use. There is no partnership to be established, no common objectives, no business development that will not ruin the unique raised mires of Thorne and Hatfield moors.

One of the many letters that I have had from constituents on the issue was from Mark Paine, a local health care professional. He said:

"For those of us that live around here and are privileged to know the Moors, the sight of our peat being taken away and sold as 'compost' to unwitting gardeners bamboozled by marketing spin cuts very deep indeed. Thorne and Hatfield Moors are places whose very existence in scientific terms truly contributes to the health of our environment, and therefore our ability to sustain healthy lives of our own."

3 Nov 1999 : Column 233

Peat wetlands are the UK equivalent of tropical rainforests: precious, under siege, irreplaceable. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take a hard look at Thorne and Hatfield moors and to listen to the concerns of my colleagues this morning about other aspects of the framework document. Please do not ignore the plight of that beleaguered SSSI site.

11.15 am

Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing a further debate on SSSIs. I hope that these debates--as she said, we have had several in the past six months--will act as a spur to the Government and will not be seen as a substitute for Government action. Protecting SSSIs adequately becomes ever more vital as each day passes. Every day, an SSSI is destroyed or damaged.

Last week, English Nature published its annual report, which showed that one third of all sites of special scientific interest are suffering continuing damage and neglect. Last year, 8,300 acres of SSSI land were actively damaged. Rob Cooke, the manager of English Nature's SSSI project, says:

"What has emerged is that 28 per cent. of the natural features of our SSSIs are in poor condition and either getting worse or not getting any better."

He continued:

"Indications are that about a third of England's SSSI area of just over two and a half million acres comes into that category".

That is the equivalent of 750,000 acres.

The report picks out Whernside in North Yorkshire, where more than half of a 9,500 acre site of bog and heathland has been devastated by overgrazing. English Nature thinks that it could be restored with the right management, but there is no legislation to ensure that. One site--Horse Field in Gilling, North Yorkshire--has been destroyed.

To prevent any further sites being totally destroyed, we need legislation in the next Queen's Speech. Baroness Young, the chairperson of English Nature, agrees. She has said:

"Changes of legislation are urgently needed to ensure that these irreplaceable sites are properly managed for their wildlife and natural features."

She went on:

"Most of these SSSIs are suffering from neglect, but without the powers to ensure that these sites are managed for wildlife, English Nature is trying to work with one hand tied behind its back. It is frustrating because many of these sites could be improved by positive management, funded through English Nature's wildlife enhancement scheme. When we cannot achieve this management through partnership"--

this is the important point--

"we need to have additional powers to ensure that damage and neglect of these sites can be tackled."

Landowners also recognise that. In response to the Government's consultation, they have said that although

"deliberate damage was rare, where it occurred there should be appropriate means of dealing with it."

Species are suffering--not just the familiar, often mentioned ones such as the dormouse and the water vole, but others such as the black redstart, one of Britain's rarest birds. The recent loss of sites in London along the

3 Nov 1999 : Column 234

Thames to development has destroyed the breeding grounds of birds, despite their being recognised in the planning process as important wildlife areas. Sadly, some of the new developments have been stimulated by the building of the millennium dome. Perhaps that is not quite the right signal for the new millennium.

English Nature is not the only organisation to back further wildlife legislation. The Wildlife and Countryside Link--which brings together 22 environmental groups--is calling for legislation. As we have heard in previous debates, nearly 350 Members of Parliament have called for legislation and signed an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). It seems that everybody is urging the forces of conservatism forward. Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) jumps up, we are talking about the forces of conservatism with a small "c".

Before the election, Labour promised greater protection for wildlife. That pledge is still in the Government's annual report, on page 79. Next to it are the words "on course". A consultation paper was issued in September 1998. Those words are of little help to sites such as Offham down or Rainham marsh, which have been damaged since May 1997, despite Labour's pledge. They are also of little help to the 11 wildflower meadows in Devon which The Daily Telegraph reported last month have been largely destroyed. For them, Labour's pledge of "greater protection for wildlife" is very much off course.

When the Government publish their next annual report, the words "on course" next to greater protection for wildlife will not be good enough; we have to see the word "done" instead. To deliver that pre-election pledge, the Government will have to legislate, and legislate well.

I wish to highlight a few issues surrounding the framework for action document. Liberal Democrats join others in welcoming what is in the paper. In legislation, such measures would go a long way towards delivering the Government's pledge, but not all the way. There are some significant omissions, some of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Don Valley. Given the difficulty in obtaining parliamentary time for such a Bill, we must make sure that we get it right first time. We cannot afford to be less than comprehensive, and then have to wait 20 years for another legislative slot.

There must be reform of the common agricultural policy, with a greater focus on positive environmental management and organic production. That must be better financial support for the management of SSSIs. This is particularly important given the state of agriculture, often described as being in crisis and often debated in this House. We need also to ensure not only that we give the powers to the new conservation agencies to protect wildlife, but that they use those powers. Government guidance and support must be strong to ensure that that happens.

We need to make sure that legislation protects not just SSSIs but other valuable wildlife sites as well. The London Wildlife Trust has told me that many rare orchids, butterflies and birds could thrive in churchyards and cemeteries across the capital if only they were given the chance. The same could apply to Wilderness island and Roundshaw downs in my constituency.

---