| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.35 am
Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this timely debate and I welcome many of her comments.
The subject of new Government action to protect our best wildlife sites has been debated several times this Session in both Houses, and an unprecedented number of hon. Members of all parties have given their support to early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) last November. I wish that they were all here today for what is perhaps our last chance to debate this issue before the Queen's Speech.
We are nearing the end of this Session and all of us here today are optimistic that the next Session will see the introduction of new and far-reaching legislation to protect our wildlife. If so, the task will then be to ensure that it is as comprehensive as possible, because there is unlikely to be another major opportunity in the foreseeable future. Some, indeed many, matters may be dealt with by other means than primary legislation--by regulations and other policy measures to benefit the condition of wildlife--but stronger legislation is essential. We cannot allow the present rate of damage and destruction of sites and loss of species to continue.
There was widespread welcome last August when the Government published their response to the consultation on sites of special scientific interest, known as the framework for action. It includes many vital proposals, such as nationally important status for all SSSIs; a duty on all public bodies to secure positive management of sites that they own or occupy; powers of entry to land for agencies such as English Nature for the purposes of surveying and monitoring and to determine whether an offence has been committed; court power to order restoration following damage; court power to impose unlimited fines; and the extension of local authority powers to refuse development on designated sites.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions--especial thanks are due to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment--has worked hard with a wide spectrum of interested groups to try to ensure that we get things right in the new legislation.
I am especially delighted that water companies have been asked to include in their business plans from next year measures to deal with the damaging effects of effluents and water abstraction, especially because the demand for water is likely to increase with the projected growth in the number of households; because my constituency is in an area of important rivers and wetland sites, including the Nene and Ouse washes; and because there is evidence that the three counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire have less wildlife per hectare than almost anywhere else in the country.
I was very glad to read in the framework that the Government recognise the need to provide adequate funding to underpin other wildlife protection measures. We know that many of the problems affecting wildlife habitats today, and SSSIs in particular, are not due to direct destruction--wilful vandalism--by development, as happened in the past. Most public bodies, landowners and farmers do not set out deliberately to damage the sites that they own or manage. The damage is more often a result of neglect, which may in turn be a result of special agricultural practices, and is often related to inadequate or inappropriate funding mechanisms.
Landowners are, and most regard themselves as, the rightful stewards of the countryside, and they need support for that role, such as financial incentives--carrots, not just sticks. There should be much more support for what are called agri-environment initiatives, including subsidies such as that for countryside stewardship, which is very popular with farmers although there is not enough money to meet the demand. I say that with the Minister listening. At present, only 3 per cent. of CAP money is spent on such schemes. The Wildlife and Countryside Link, with which I have been proud to work in recent months, reckons that figure should be 30 per cent., which would provide scope for major environmental improvements.
It should be rewarding for farmers to spend their time conserving our wildlife in the interests of us all. In any case, we cannot achieve conservation without the active involvement, support and engagement of farmers. We need copper-bottomed legislation, but we need the right incentives and funding, too.
The otherwise excellent framework document has a serious omission--as serious as that of mineral extractions highlighted at the beginning of the debate. I am especially concerned that, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, no proposals have yet been made to protect marine mammals, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises, from harassment. The seas around the United Kingdom are home to more than 20 different species of cetaceans, as those animals are collectively known.
Research conducted by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, of which we have heard today, has shown that cetaceans are threatened by accidental capture in fishing nets, chemical pollution, noise pollution and other disturbance by vessels of their habitat. Some of that, ironically, may be due to the great interest in and affection for those animals felt by many of us humans. They are known to be highly intelligent, they have often appeared to reciprocate our interest and they do not pose any threat to us. In consequence, there has been a great interest in boat-based whale and dolphin watching in recent years, and I am convinced that that requires some form of regulation with a statutory underpinning, if we are not to end up damaging or destroying the subjects of our admiration through our neglect and thoughtlessness.
Less forgivably, increasing evidence is emerging of deliberate harassment of cetaceans, especially dolphins, in coastal waters. The Sunday Times has highlighted the campaign against the use of jet skis to chase dolphins. The riders of the jet skis may mean to chase the dolphins, but not mean to hurt them. Many people think that dolphins can swim fast enough or dive deep enough to escape the vessels chasing them, but jet skis can travel at speeds of up to 70 mph whereas a dolphin's top speed is about 35 mph and it cannot keep that up for long. Also, dolphins are of course mammals and therefore have to come up to the surface to breathe every few minutes. They are especially vulnerable when they have young calves with them.
Several measures are urgently needed to provide effective protection for cetaceans in UK waters. First, powers of enforcement should be extended. At present, powers are held only by the police, but most of the offences against marine species are--not surprisingly--committed at sea where there are no police. It therefore seems common sense to give similar powers to other agencies which can enforce the provisions of existing and any new wildlife legislation. Secondly, sanctions should be increased. We need effective deterrents--sticks as well as carrots--including powers to bring prosecutions, powers of arrest and penalties for offenders.
Thirdly, the concept of recklessness should be more widely introduced into wildlife law, as in the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 which was introduced by the previous Administration. As I have said, most people do not wish or intend to harm dolphins and whales, whether they go on trips to watch them or even if they chase them on jet skis. Perhaps most people, if they understood the serious risk of harmful consequences of such actions, would stop them.
Under UK law, a person is reckless if he or she commits an act which to an ordinary prudent individual would appear to involve an obvious and serious risk, whether it is because they are thoughtless, or, having recognised the risk, they carry on regardless. I believe that where a nature conservation agency has notified that an
action is likely to harm a protected species, failure to act on that information should give rise to an offence of recklessness. Therefore, what we must do here in Parliament is to amend the existing legal protection in order to make it an offence intentionally or recklessly to disturb protected species of animals, including all cetaceans. An alternative approach would be to provide more specifically to make it an offence to harass any cetacean, combining that again with the concept of recklessness.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on introducing this debate. Unfortunately, we should point out that almost all Opposition Members have failed to turn up, let alone contribute this morning. The SSSIs are important to every constituency, and I would have thought that a better attendance from Opposition Members would have ensured a good debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I wish to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this is an Adjournment debate and the only people who must be present are the occupant of the Chair, the Minister and the hon. Lady who initiated the debate. It is not necessary for any other hon. Member to be present.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |