| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Mr. Greenway: That is why I sought to raise this issue on the Adjournment. I hope that whatever the Minister may have prepared to say, he will at least give some thought to the suggestion about how we give greater protection to our most historic churches.
7 pm
Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me a few words in his Adjournment debate, and I congratulate him on raising the subject. I am also grateful for the courtesy of the Minister in allowing me to make some comments.
Some of the historic churches of North-East Bedfordshire suffer from the same problem as that described by my hon. Friend. In particular, I have been addressed on this matter by the church wardens of St. Mary's the Virgin, Stevington, to which St. Hilda's
19 Oct 2004 : Column 869
sounds similar. I have visited the church and seen the damage. It is pitiful to see what can happen to a church over long years of bat infestation. I also commend to the Minister, if he has not had a chance to see it, "Our Beleaguered Heritage", published in 2000, which is by Catherine Ward, who has made a considerable study of the problem on behalf of parish churches. I am sure that I can obtain a copy for him.
My constituents, the church wardens of St. Mary's the Virgin, Stevington, put it most clearly in a letter:
"we have for many years had a serious bat problem which is worsening. Every week the church is cleaned on Fridays and has to be swept again before morning service on Sunday because of the faeces of the bats. The woodwork and brass in this 9th century church is pitted, the tiled floor is splashed and permanently stained with urine. Even during the winter months of so called hibernation there is evidence of the bats."
"The church is not just a building, it is for the congregation who worship, take refreshments and care for it".
Naturally, my constituents are concerned for the health and welfare of those who worship there, particularly children, because the cleaning, however effective, cannot be wholly complete.
As my hon. Friend said, we have no desire to reverse the entire law relating to the protection of bats, as they are indeed one of the glories of our countryside, but there is a clear clash of interests in this corner of England's heritage. We ask simply that our historic churches, which are surely as much a part of England's glory as the bats, have a more equal voice than they have had up to now; otherwise, some of the precious heritage of which we have spoken will not only be pitted and stained but lost for ever.
7.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): May I start by congratulating both the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on bringing to our attention this serious issue, and on doing so in a constructive and balanced way?
The hon. Member for Ryedale will not be surprised, as he successfully secured this Adjournment debate, that I made it my businesses to find out a little more about some of the problems that he was addressing in his constituency in the church of St. Hilda's in Ellerburn. As he has pointed out, they have been going on for some time. The church authorities in Ellerburn have already talked to English Nature about their problem, and English Nature, which is the Government's statutory wildlife adviser, has been involved in trying to help the church minimise the problems caused by bats in that instance. It may help if I outline briefly some of the general issues behind the problems that he has mentioned.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, there are 16 species of bat in the UK, some of which have declined significantly in the past. That decline has been caused by a number of factors, including the reduction in food sources, in part, pesticide use, the loss of feeding habitats and the loss of roosts in trees and buildings. Most UK species were originally woodland bats, but as the amount of suitable woodland has declined they have
19 Oct 2004 : Column 870
adapted themselves to use man-made habitats. Churches are an ideal habitat for bats: they tend to offer little disturbance, constant temperatures and many crevices and gaps in timber that can be used for roosting.
As has been said, bats are afforded the highest level of protection under the UK's conservation legislation. Any activity resulting in the damage or destruction of a roost would be an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 unless an appropriate licence had been obtained from my Department.
Licences are free of charge. No fee is charged for the assessment, or for any site visits by DEFRA officials. Licences may be applied for, for any of the purposes stated in the 1994 regulations. They include
"imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social nature."
I think that both hon. Members would agree that attending church, particularly in rural areas, would be considered an important social activity—certainly by those who attend church.
Four species of bat are known to use St Hilda's. The presence of a sizeable maternity roost of Natterer's bats is of important conservation interest. Maternity roosts of that species are not commonly found, and English Nature believes that this is possibly the largest of the few roosts that are known in North Yorkshire.
Churches are a major repository of a wide variety of objects, both fixed and mobile, many of which are of historic and artistic interest. Far be it from me to damage further the unjustifiably negative reputation of the bat at this time of the year, but the hon. Member for Ryedale was right to point out that bats stain such objects with their faeces. Droppings and urine can cause a problem: urine can stain brass, marble and wood. Some bats are worse than others in that regard, and Natterer's bats fall into that category. I am told that there is also a problem with smell.
I understand that, in the past, English Nature has offered to pay for cleaning and covers in the church concerned, and also for deflector shields to protect important church artefacts. I am informed that those offers have not so far been taken up. My Department has advised on the licensing provisions and the system available to the church to alleviate the problem. To date no application has been received. In my view, the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned with a gap in the door would merit at least an application of the sort that I have described. There is no need for permission for such a licence from the European Union. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be a general exemption for historic churches, I do not think that that is justified at the moment. I am happy to look at it again, but until the current licensing system is tested, it would be premature to talk about changing the law.
Mr. Greenway:
The Minister has made a very constructive suggestion, but may I ask him a question? If the church made an application, presumably those who disagreed—of whom there are a number, some of them my constituents—would be able to make objections. I do not want the Minister to pre-empt decisions that he may make later, but will he reassure me
19 Oct 2004 : Column 871
that the licences can be issued, and that this is not simply a means of going through the motions and getting nowhere in the end?
Mr. Bradshaw: I can say without pre-empting any such application that I understand from the background to the case, and from what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have described as a growing problem, that this may represent a rather interesting test case. Of course there would be objections, and the Government would be obliged to take advice from statutory advisers including English Nature. I think all Members would agree, however, that laws are there to be implemented in a reasonable way. This is the first case of this kind of such seriousness that I have encountered, but I would certainly encourage the church authorities concerned to use the powers that they already have under the law before we start examining other options.
Both hon. Members mentioned the fear that the bats might pose a health risk. I can reassure them that the health risk from bat droppings is minimal, since they consist of the indigestible hard parts of insects. I am aware of the hon. Member for Ryedale's concern, reported in the local press, about the perceived health risk to human beings, including to one of his constituents, who reportedly suffered from food poisoning after attending church. I should point out that there is no known instance in the United Kingdom of diseases being transferred to humans from bat droppings, so we have no reason to believe that bat droppings in this country pose a serious risk to humans. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and his parishioners that if members of the congregation are concerned about taking communion after having possibly touched bat droppings, there is always the option of receiving the Host directly on to the tongue, rather than via the hand. That might be a sensible hygiene precaution.
My officials and I are very sympathetic to the plight of churches and the problems that they face when there is perceived conflict between their needs and those of bats. In view of the importance of St. Hilda's church to both humans and bats, we should all work together to ensure
19 Oct 2004 : Column 872
that they can co-exist. If the church officials wish to exclude bats from the main body of the church, I urge them to apply to my Department for a licence to do so.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |