| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Social Security
- That the draft Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
Companies
- That the draft Local Authority (Stocks and Bonds) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.
Companies
- That the draft Uncertificated Securities (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.
Northern Ireland
- That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
COMMITTEES
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs
- That Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson be added to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee.
Northern Ireland Affairs
- That Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and Mr. William Thompson be added to the Committee.--[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITIONS
Hunting
11.37 pm
Valerie Davey (Bristol, West): I am pleased to present the petition of Bristol Anti-Blood Sports to the House. Signatures were collected in Bristol and neighbouring constituencies and totalled 28,475. I am sure that everyone who signed the petition will have been encouraged by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today.
- The Petition of Bristol Anti-Blood Sports
Declares its total opposition to all forms of hunting with hounds.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Home Office to take urgent action to bring about the end of this so-called sport, and this unnecessary slaughter of animals.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
11.39 pm
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 420,000 decent, law-abiding, mainly country people, many of whom live in my constituency. They call on the Government to recognise the importance of tolerance in a modern society by rejecting legislation to criminalise hunting or other country activities. Such legislation would infringe the liberties of many people throughout the United Kingdom, destroy rural jobs, reduce people's income, seriously harm
the United Kingdom rural landscape, diminish rural community life and divert valuable parliamentary time from much needed Government measures to address the increasing problems that face the poor and the excluded in rural and urban constituencies.
- The Petition of Citizens of the United Kingdom
Declares that in a modern, tolerant democracy, legislation to ban fox hunting is inappropriate.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Office not to introduce such legislation.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Endangered species
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
11.40 pm
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): In 1970 there were twice as many skylarks in Britain as there are now, four times as many turtle doves and 10 times as many tree sparrows. Many of the reasons for the devastation of much of our wildlife are unknown, although agricultural intensification, decreased ploughing, fewer hedgerows, the impact of the common agricultural policy, pollution and pesticides have been cited as causes for the chronic decline of our natural heritage. The number of water voles has decreased by some 90 per cent. in the last seven years; perhaps Ratty from "The Wind in the Willows" will be extinct within 10 years.
You, Mr. Haselhurst, might ask, "Who really cares?", and I would say that many millions of people care about this issue. I am unusual in that I have been involved in environmental movements and I started a business that contributes to the continuation of the endangered loggerhead turtle by funding a hatchery. It contributes also to the protection of the endangered Lammergeyer bearded vulture. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more members than the Labour party, and the alliance of conservation groups, including Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Woodland Trust, has millions of members. Almost everyone, if asked whether they care about the future of the beloved sparrow, would say yes.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is essentially about the enjoyment of our countryside and its protection for future generations, as well as the protection of its biodiversity. Rights of access bring with them responsibilities for the protection of the countryside and indigenous species. Much has been done in biodiversity action plans, albeit on a voluntary basis, to help that process.
At the Rio summit in 1992 the biodiversity convention was signed by 150 countries, including the United Kingdom. That gave rise, in 1994, to the UK biodiversity action plan, and we now have in place 391 species plans, such as those for the water vole, the skylark, the tree sparrow and the greater horseshoe bat. There are also 45 habitat plans, such as the one for ancient hedgerows, which house endangered species. Those plans have been challenged by new CAP regulations on the size of fields that are eligible for grants. Some hedgerows are threatened but some are protected, as are lowland heathlands and upland oak woods.
That process is organised by a partnership of councils, conservationists, non-governmental organisations, the business community and well meaning members of the public. They have worked well in many cases to help to protect various species and habitats, but that is not true in all cases. Being ethnically Welsh, I have some empathy for Wales. The Countryside Council for Wales has devised 222 biodiversity action plans, but 120 of those are not being progressed because there are no funds. The simple reason for the absence of those funds is that biodiversity action plans do not have the legal status and teeth to gain the statutory priority that would provide them with that funding.
Biodiversity in Wales is obviously important to people in England and throughout the United Kingdom--we share our natural heritage and have a duty to protect it--but there is a strange situation in London. The only person in Britain with a statutory duty to protect wildlife through biodiversity action plans is the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is Mayor of London. That obligation is provided by section 352 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which says that the mayor has a statutory duty to publish a biodiversity plan for London. Therefore, he has the right to call for adequate resources to protect biodiversity in our capital against the forces of commercial development, be they retail, traffic or council economic or planning gain.
I would say, Mr. Haselhurst, that what is good enough for London should be good--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that slip twice. The correct term is Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Davies: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I suggest that what is good enough for London is good enough for the rest of the nation, in terms of biodiversity and the value that that has for us all. Indeed, that applies not only to the adult population but to my young family--daughters aged five and three--which looks with glee at sparrows and other wildlife that is perhaps endangered by pollution and pesticide. Like me, my family does not want a future in which such birds and others are systematically and chronically eliminated. However, action may not be taken on other threatened aspects of biodiversity as people are less emotionally inclined to them.
There is a system of sorts in place and we do not want to displace the voluntary and partnership system. However, I suggest that statutory underpinning would not do so. It would ensure that the means of change--largely through the voluntary and charitable sectors--could be strengthened rather than displaced. Time is running out for certain species in certain areas, cash is needed and there are glaring regional differences. I have referred to the Countryside Council for Wales, but there are many more examples of the need to take action to fulfil our international biodiversity obligations.
Part of that process constitutes the second part of the debate--recognition of local sites of particular interest and incorporating our biodiversity priorities in local authorities' planning framework. As well as some 5,000 sites of special scientific interest, there are many thousands more wildlife sites of special interest, only half of which are properly looked after. I call for a duty to be put on local authorities to establish a system of common standards by identifying such sites and taking them into account in the planning process. Such sites can benefit from agri-environmental grants, but the issue here is the public interest rather than the commercial benefit of the site owner.
London already has a voluntary wildlife site system in place and all but two London boroughs--I know something about this, having been leader of Croydon council--use a system developed by the London Ecology Unit whereby wildlife sites are adopted in the unitary development plans for individual authorities. There is an opportunity for all London to have the biodiversity action plan underpinned by such sites, among other things,
so that vulnerability to developers would be reduced. A local authority would be duty bound to take account of the impact on those sites when considering development applications. Therefore, the forces of scrutiny and public focus would help to counter-balance the enormous commercial pressure for redevelopment on sites in London. That is happening. It has been suggested that local sites should be incorporated more widely than London so that our wildlife can be preserved.I know that the Government are sympathetic to those ideas. I know that they have discussed biodiversity action plans and local sites during the Committee stage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I hope very much that, on the basis of that discussion, the discussion we are having tonight and the wider discussion throughout the British public--which, by means of extensive media, is being transmitted to millions of members of various organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds--the Government will consider tabling amendments, perhaps when we are discussing legislation from the House of Lords, aimed at protecting endangered species. I feel that this is something that the public expect and deserve--as do our many species.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |