| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Caroline Flint: That Act, which was enacted by the Conservatives, has done nothing to stop peat extraction on the site to which I have referred and on which damage continues. The very problem that I am seeking to address is the failure of previous legislation to control peat extraction, and ultimately to put an end to it.
Mr. Green: We all accept that the 1981 Act, which updated previous legislation from the 1940s, needs itself to be updated. But the Government's framework document says that the new proposals would not wholly replace the relevant provisions of the 1981 Act. There is a tendency to say that that Act did no good at all, but that is not so.
I hope that the Government will end the damaging delay of the past two years or so. A feeling has got about that the Government always want to be green tomorrow, but not quite today. I hope that we have finally reached the stage when they will fulfil their promises.
Having said that, the Opposition agree on the ends of any new legislation affecting improvement to SSSIs. I have several questions for the Minister, and some concerns about the scope and practicalities of any Bill. First, on the scope of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) has mentioned access, which is an area of legitimate concern. The Minister will be aware of the dangers of including access provisions in the legislation. They would make a Bill more controversial, which would be likely to delay its passage, and that would be regrettable. Any proposal to extend access must not pose a threat to wildlife; most walkers and ramblers behave responsibly, but the Minister will acknowledge that it takes only one irresponsible person to damage a habitat, possibly irreversibly. I hope that such concerns will be uppermost in his mind as he prepares the Bill.
The Wildlife Trusts have made a number of good points on access, saying that a
Other bodies have raised concerns about whether access on open land will be linear only or more wide ranging. What practical measures will be taken on the control of dogs? That is a matter of great concern both to those who own farm animals and to those concerned about such issues as ground-nesting birds, because decisions on the control of dogs have the potential for directly damaging SSSIs, which would undermine the many good intentions of the Government's framework for action.
My second area of concern is the balance between partnership and enforcement. I welcome the framework's words about the Government's preference for voluntary agreements where possible. However, enforcement powers will clearly and necessarily be taken, and it would be useful to hear more details about those powers or the principles that will underlie them. When would they apply? What powers of entry on to land does the Minister envisage? How should they be enforced? The Minister will accept that the long-term management of SSSIs and other land benefits from a positive relationship between regulatory bodies and landowners. That is the best way in which to have land managed sensitively in the long term.
The right of appeal mentioned in the Government's proposals also raises some questions. The appeal would be to the Secretary of State, but when a dispute arises between a public body that reports to the Secretary of State and a private individual, the individual may not feel
that justice has been served. Have the Government considered any alternative way in which to resolve disputes?
My next area of concern is funding. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) mentioned that matter, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said that the
A significant role in the protection of wildlife--specifically SSSIs--is played by existing agri-environment schemes such as the countryside stewardship scheme. It would be interesting to know whether any expansion was envisaged for those schemes, which have proved so useful.
The next subject of anxiety lies outside the SSSIs--I refer especially to the land that adjoins them. That land should not be developed unsympathetically. The Minister will know of examples of planning developments near a protected SSSI that render it much less useful. I refer the Minister to our previous debate this morning about development in the south-east, and to yesterday's debate about greenfield sites. Many Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), welcome more development on green fields in the south-east of England because they believe that the new houses are likely to be occupied by Labour voters. I hope that the Minister will deprecate the environmental vandalism that some of his hon. Friends seem to advocate, which would adversely affect SSSIs. The argument about green fields in the south-east and in the rest of the country will continue. It has a direct bearing on this debate.
The framework for action may not provide sufficient protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty and locally designated protection zones, which were mentioned earlier. The World Wide Fund for Nature claimed that the framework did not constitute a way forward either by providing a legal basis for the biodiversity action plan or by helping the marine environment, which the hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned.
Let us consider the Natura 2000 sites. The Government have been told that they have not done well enough and their list has been sent back. The World Wide Fund for Nature believes that there should be up to 1,000 special areas of conservation under the Natura 2000 programme. Why have the Government proposed so few sites, which would be a great addition to the web of support that we can provide for wildlife and general species protection?
I am worried that the framework ignores the role of the common agricultural policy, which other hon. Members have mentioned. Any discussion must take place against the background of the current CAP's failure to pass many sensible environmental tests. The way in which land is farmed is probably the most important influence on the future environmental health of the land and the species that live on it. Agricultural practices are supremely
important. The Berlin negotiations on the future of the CAP failed in many ways: they did not help the consumer or the farmer. They also failed the environment.
The CAP must move--albeit gradually--towards a different sort of subsidy. Subsidising production alone is an out-of-date concept. It distorts the market for food and is out of date because it fails to protect the environment. I suspect that we shall have to continue to subsidise those who look after the land for the foreseeable future, but the largely urban public would be much happier to pay taxes to subsidise farmers to buy environmental goods rather than simply to subsidise production. That point did not come across in Berlin, and I hope that the Government will address it in future CAP negotiations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin):
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for initiating a good debate, to which Members on both sides of the House made thoughtful and positive contributions. People of all political persuasions are concerned about SSSIs; the extent of the support for the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) shows the strength of feeling in the House.
I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points that were made in the debate. As is often the case in such debates, I must hastily edit my contribution. Therefore, I am unlikely to reach all the points that were raised. I shall respond in writing when necessary.
The Government have a good story to tell about SSSIs and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for the opportunity to relate it. I shall deal briefly with the points that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made. The hon. Gentleman asked about the scope of the Bill. This is not the place to go into detail or to discuss the right to roam. However, any threats to SSSIs do not tend to come from ramblers.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the balance between partnership and enforcement. I agree that that is a delicate matter and that it is preferable, when possible, to have a positive relationship with the owners of the site. However, any policy must include enforcement powers if it is to be taken seriously. We shall consider that carefully.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. It always warms my heart to hear an Opposition Member demanding that more public money be spent. The Government have already allocated an extra £6.14 million to English Nature. If we decide to grant more money in due course, we look forward to the Opposition's support. The development of greenfield sites is much debated. It has some relevance to SSSIs, but we cannot consider that this morning.
The debate has focused on the protection of special sites of scientific interest. I understand that emphasis. We need to pay particular attention to the conservation of
those important sites that constitute some of our most precious areas for wildlife, harbouring rare or endangered species and providing the habitats where they can flourish. The Government have given priority to drawing up proposals that we believe will provide for better protection and management of SSSIs. They are the 5,000 or so sites in England and Wales that constitute the best areas for nature conservation and have been designated by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales as containing nationally important species and habitats.
Many SSSIs are well managed and in good condition, and I pay tribute to those owners and managers who have taken account of the environmental significance of their land, and enjoy a constructive relationship with the conservation agencies. However, we have to recognise that too many special sites are wantonly damaged, and, in many cases, they are not in good health.
"distinction must be made between access on foot for quiet enjoyment and access for other recreational pursuits that are more disruptive to wildlife".
The trusts add:
"Agencies should have the power to close (permanently or temporarily) areas or close or divert rights of way, if . . . access is having a significant affect on the wildlife or habitat."
The trusts also make the good point that there
"should be wide-ranging consultation before access to other areas of open country are agreed."
Those are sensible proposals, and it would be interesting to hear how the Minister's thinking is developing on that important aspect of any legislation.
"nature conservation agencies do not currently have enough funds to deliver the proposals"
that the Government have made. The RSPB estimates that
"£20 million is required for this in England alone"
but adds that that sum is
"insignificant when compared to the agriculture subsidies which have often led to the demise of many sites in the first place."
Can the Minister tell us whether the resource implications have been thought through?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |