| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brake: I speak in support of new clause 6, in my name. The Minister will know that the proposal to place biodiversity action plans on a statutory footing is a much debated subject. It has been one of the key topics of debate during the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee inquiry into biodiversity. I am sure that when he appears in front of the Select Committee, he will already have prepared and rehearsed his answer to the question whether BAPs should be put on a statutory footing.
So far, the view of the non-governmental organisations that have given evidence to the Committee is that BAPs should be provided for in legislation. The Government, however, continue to believe that they should not be. The Government's principal argument against doing so is that it would destroy existing partnerships and voluntary agreements. I do not, however, understand why legislation should necessarily have that effect.
The NGOs' argument--that biodiversity action plans are not always implemented--is more convincing. In Northumberland, for example, although the county council is pushing ahead with work on biodiversity action plans, district councils do not think that they are a priority. Across Yorkshire, progress on BAPs has been slow because no public body has taken a lead on them.
Another reason why BAPs should be provided for in legislation is that the Government are relying very heavily on them not so much to feed the world as to save it. In Committee, in replying to the debate on an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Under-Secretary of State said:
- the best route for dealing with the issue is to use the current biodiversity action planning process.--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 2000; c. 720.]
The Government are therefore relying heavily on BAPs. However, I think that they may have some unrealistic expectations about what BAPs can achieve without being provided for in legislation. There is no point in heaping responsibilities for the environment on to BAPs when, as we have heard, they are not being implemented in places such as Northumberland and Yorkshire.
I urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity provided by the new clauses.
Mr. Kidney: I recognise the wording of new clause 4, because in Committee, I moved an amendment containing the self-same wording. On that occasion, the Minister, having listened to the arguments, gave a most encouraging reply--saying not only that there should be action, but that the Government, with some time to reflect, would act. I therefore did not seek to table an amendment similar to new clause 4 or to support the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) in tabling it.
Mr. Green: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that clear. May I therefore assume that he will be supporting new clause 4 in the Lobby?
Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman would have had to wait only another 30 seconds to hear me say that--for the reasons that I have given, and such is my faith in the Minister to deliver on his word--I shall not vote for new clause 4.
A great network of systems of local wildlife sites has been established in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, that network has developed entirely in the absence of supporting legislation. Great thanks are owed to landowners, the Wildlife Trust, local authorities and others who, through their own efforts, have created the network.
I am indebted to the Wildlife Trust for providing me with some information on a survey that it is conducting, before it has completed or published the full results. The emerging results of that nationwide survey show that the Wildlife Trust is the lead partner in more than half the current systems of wildlife sites. The system is so extensive that throughout the whole country only about 10 local authority areas are not already covered by some kind of system. In total, there are more than 100 systems of wildlife sites, incorporating an astonishing 40,000 or so sites.
9.15 pm
That would not have been possible without the dedication and application of people of good will, especially among local authorities, the Wildlife Trust and landowners. Great thanks are due to landowners who co-operate and become involved in the selection, assessment and management of sites.
I am sure that all those people would agree that the protection of biodiversity outside protected areas--sites of special scientific interest, for example--is essential. Wildlife sites need to be identified and maintained at local level. They host some internationally and nationally important species and habitats, and contribute to biodiversity action plan targets.
The development of the systems that I have described has depended on voluntary effort. It is all going in the right direction--advisory services are being developed, links to agri-environmental and grant schemes are being developed, and some limited monitoring has taken place. It is exciting that so much has already been done through
voluntary partnerships. I hope that the Government keep their word and give the support necessary to ensure that that commendable effort is sustained in the long term.
Mr. Paice: I rise to speak briefly to the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), to which I have added my name. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, he put forward a similar proposal in Committee. We want to give the Government another opportunity to tell us what they are planning to do.
The Minister said in Committee:
- the Government are prepared seriously to consider placing biodiversity action plans on a statutory footing.--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 May 2000; c. 820.]
How long do the Government need to consider a number of matters? It is true that they were generous in Committee in agreeing to consider a whole range of issues that we proposed. I am the first to accept that yesterday and earlier today, the Government have moved a small number of amendments that met some of our concerns. We will cover some of the other areas on Third Reading.
This is a big issue. Local wildlife sites and the habitat action plans proposed by the Liberal Democrat party in new clause 6 are very important, and the Government should know by now what they intend to do. It is not as if they have had the opportunity to consider the matter only since the Bill's Committee stage--it came up in their documents published last year. They have been thinking about it for a long time.
It may be argued that it is unusual for my party to recommend a statutory basis instead of a voluntary approach. I am sure that the Minister would normally have pointed that out, as he did occasionally in Committee. However, this is an important pair of new clauses. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, there is no doubt that many local councils are not doing the work that we wish them to do. Not all of it is their fault; they simply do not have the resources. That is why we believe that a statutory basis would mean not only that they had an obligation to do it but that they had a far better argument when asking the Government for the extra money.
I was astonished to read that only one person in this country has any legal responsibility for ensuring that biodiversity action plans are drawn up for the long-term survival of threatened or vulnerable species. That person--God help us--is the Mayor of London.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Newts, newts.
Mr. Paice: Indeed, that will probably ensure the survival of newts, although I was not aware that they were a threatened or vulnerable species.
Mr. David Heath: What about the great crested newt?
Mr. Paice: The great crested newt is certainly a threatened and vulnerable species--it holds up many planning developments.
More seriously, if it is right for the Mayor of London to be given that statutory obligation--the Government included it in legislation--why should it not be given to every local authority?
My final point is about credibility. The Government and their supporters have tried to portray my party as looking after only the interests of landowners. However, both the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union oppose the new clauses. I make that point not because I agree with them, but to emphasise the fact that we do not always agree with them. We support the new clauses because of our real commitment to try to improve wildlife conservation both in local sites and under our national treaty obligations.
Mr. Brooke: I strike my second London note in our proceedings by speaking to the new clause so admirably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) reminded the House of the role of the Mayor of London. In an admirable Adjournment debate two nights ago, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) provided a harbinger for the Mayor's role.
I claim dual, if vicarious, credit for that development. First, I served last year on the Standing Committee dealing with the Greater London Authority Bill, whose section 352 confers that unique power on the Mayor of London. That development was encouraging, not only to members of the Committee but to people outside, because I had seen minutes by members of Wildlife and Countryside Link that indicated concern that environmental considerations were fairly low in the priorities of the regional development agencies. That is a little surprising given the fact that the RDAs and this Bill emerge from the same Department.
Secondly, I am the parliamentary vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust, and played a reasonably significant role in securing the first tranche of £125,000 from the Bridge House Estates trust fund, in the City of London in my constituency, to launch the London Wildlife Trust's own biodiversity action plan. I am delighted to say that the same City of London source provided more than £200,000 in each of the following two years, making a total of more than £500,000.
That made a significant contribution. The transition from the biological recording project to local records centres is the next stage in the creation of a sustainable, long-term picture of London's natural heritage. Work is going on to ensure that a partnership approach is pursued, involving all organisations and individuals who generate data, and who need co-ordinated information on London's wildlife. Indeed, the trust has commissioned an independent study of the issues relating to a local records centre for London. That will be vital if the Mayor of London is to fulfil the statutory duty that has been bestowed on him.
I warmly support the new clause. More than 100 plants that had never been seen before in London appeared as a result of the second world war--frequently on bomb sites--which had a broadly beneficial effect on London's habitats. However, other global forces have the potential to cause an adverse effect. That is why statutory responsibilities--not least those in the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York--should be enshrined, to ensure that a notable cause is further advanced.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |