HC Deb 30 July 1981 vol 9 cc1201-18

'.— (1) Every county planning authority whose area comprises the whole or any part of a National Park shall—

  1. (a) before the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the commencement date, prepare a map of the Park or the part thereof showing any areas of moor or heath the natural beauty of which it is, in the opinion of the authority, particularly important to conserve; and
  2. (b) at such intervals thereafter as they think fit (but not less than once in any year), review the particulars contained in the map and make such revisions thereof (if any) as may be requisite.

(2) The authority shall cause a map prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) to be printed, and shall cause copies thereof to be put on sale to the public at such price as the authority may determine.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a), in subsection (1)(a), before 'moor' insert 'coastline,'.

New clause 15—Order prohibiting the carrying out of operations on moor or heath.

New clause 16—Areas of moor or heath in National Parks.

New clause 42—Critical amenity areas.

Amendment No. 75, in clause 40, in page 38, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert— '(4) The said conditions are—

  1. (a) that the county planning authority have given their consent to the carrying out of the operation;
  2. (b) that the operation is carried out in accordance with an agreement under section 37 of this Act;
  3. (c) subject to subsection (4A) that three months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (3).

(4A) If before the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (4) the county planning authority offer to enter into an agreement under section 37 of this Act with the person who gave the notice under subsection (3) that paragraph shall have effect as if for the said period there were substituted—

  1. (a) where the agreement is entered into before the expiration of twelve months from the giving of the notice, the period expiring on the day on which it AS entered into;
  2. (b) in any other case, twelve months from the giving of the notice or three months from rejection of the offer to enter the agreement, whichever period last expires.'.

Mr. Monro

In Committee there was a lively debate on an Opposition amendment to require national park authorities to produce a map of those areas of moor or heath which, in their opinion, were of landscape significance by reason of their character and appearance. I explained that the national parks already had the power to produce such maps and I said that we should leave the matter to them. I sensed that the feeling of the Committee was in favour of placing the park authorities under a statutory duty. Therefore, we have tabled the new clause. The difference between the new clause and the amendment that we discussed in Committee is that we do not propose to require the national park authority to obtain the approval of the Countryside Commission. That is unnecessary. That does not mean that the Countryside Commission, and perhaps the NCC as well, will not need to be consulted in the course of preparation of each map. It is inevitable that they will be involved in the preparation. We do not feel that it is necessary to place a statutory obligation upon them.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

rose—

Mr. Monro

I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish.

Nor do we propose to require the park authority to notify each owner and occupier that a map is being prepared. Our proposition is that it should be published so that everybody is aware of its existence. We are proposing that maps should be reviewed by the authorities at least once a year to ensure that they are kept up to date.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Monro

I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene. Will he please let me make my speech? He can then intervene or make a speech if he chooses to do so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Monro

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman in Committee regularly and I have done so during debates on the Floor of the House. May I occasionally have a few moments to complete my remarks? When I have done so I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene,

I suspect that the Opposition will want to resume, as it were, the interesting and important debate that we had in Committee on the comments of Dr. Parry. I shall be glad to respond when I reply, if I have the permission of the House to do so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will the hon. Gentleman try to persuade each of the national parks to produce maps of a comparable scale so that the various maps may be compared with one another? It would seem advantageous to have maps that can be compared nationally, and not different maps from each authority, which will not be easy to compare.

Mr. Monro

That is a sound suggestion that we shall put to the national parks when we consult them. I hope that the new clause will be accepted and welcomed by the House and subsequently enacted. It would be valuable to have all the maps produced on the same scale for easy reference and to enable everyone to assimilate as easily as possible the information that they will contain.

Mr. Denis Howell

This is possibly one of the most important debates on the Bill. It proved to be so in Committee and, looking at some of the faces of old friends from Committee, in my judgment it is likely to prove to be so again.

I must immediately disappoint the Minister by saying that I have every intention not only to speak to new clause 15 but to urge the House to vote for it. That is not to suggest that we do not recognise that new clause 49 moved by the Minister is a substantial advance upon the present position.

I shall make one detailed comment which arises from what the Minister told us about new clause 49. He is placing an obligation upon national parks to prepare, but not necessarily in statute to publish, their map. There is no obligation upon them to publish the amended map which is required every 12 months. It is absolutely vital, in view of the critical and increasing loss of moorland and heathland, which is a major disaster for conservation, that if we are to accept what is to become known as the voluntary approach, which the Minister and other Conservative Members have urged upon us, we have this minimum amount of public knowledge as to the loss of those critical amenity areas made available to us, first within two years, and subsequently annually, so that a sensible and intelligent debate can take place.

In Committee we were able to produce sensational information from Dr. Parry of Birmingham university which was hitherto not known to any of us. That information was about the loss of acres of moorland in our national parks which has proved to be disastrous. Dr. Parry advises us that the annual loss of that vital heathland and moorland in our national parks amounts to 12,400 acres per year. Those are disastrous figures. Opposition Members would like firmer legislative back-up for Ministers to tackle that continuing loss. That is what our new clause is about. Nevertheless, if we are not to have it and if the Government are determined to resist it, although I cannot for the life of me see why, at least we must have the information so that year by year, as those maps are produced by every one of the national parks, we shall be able to have sensible publicity and discussion. Then the voluntary system, which must rely on public discussion and public argument influencing the attitude of landowners, farmers and everyone else, can make itself felt. That is the difference between the two sides of the House on this matter.

5.45 pm

I do not want to rehearse all the arguments about Exmoor again, but the House will know that this matter came to prominence in the previous Government when I held ministerial responsibility. Great alarm was caused by the actions of some farmers in Exmoor. I stress immediately that it was some farmers. I am glad to say that the influence of the National Farmers' Union and many farmers has been wholly to the public good in Exmoor. That tribute should be paid. It should also be said in fairness that they believe that the voluntary system will succeed in stopping the ploughing-up of those critical areas of outstanding natural beauty in Exmoor. They may be right in Exmoor. I can see that a considerable improvement has been made in Exmoor, but I stress immediately that the reason for that improvement has been the enormous amount of publicity and the public concern which has put the Exmoor problem into the spotlight.

Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)

I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman says. There has been a combination of pressure and of seeking to get the farmers in that area to concede these matters. In my experience as a farmer, I believe that we can persuade those people and that we can do it far more effectively if we do not try to clobber them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Mr. Howell

I will bear that in mind, but in a minute I shall prove that in the national parks—not Exmoor—where we have not had the publicity or the spotlight, there has been continuing deterioration. That is a vital consideration that Dr. Parry has brought to our attention. It is absolutely essential, if the voluntary system is to work, that we have the information and the opportunity for spotlighting the problems, and promoting public information and discussion. The House will probably go along with that proposition, although Opposition Members will go further and say that our fears remain. We believe that the situation is so serious, particularly in the North Yorkshire national park and in some of the others which I shall mention in a moment, that we should give the Minister back-up powers.

The situation in Exmoor came to our attention and as a result I asked Lord Porchester to do a one-man exercise in Exmoor, which was treated with some scepticism when it was announced. However, everyone came to the conclusion that he did a brilliant job in identifying the problems there and in producing ideas for a solution. The most interesting idea was the proposal that every national park should define its critical amenity area and publish two maps. One map was to be of its areas of outstanding beauty and the second was to be one of its critical amenity area. In Exmoor that would be mainly on the highlands, which reflect our national heritage and which are areas of outstanding delight to all of us who travel down there. They have remained unploughed and in their natural state virtually for centuries. Porchester produced that novel proposal. In new clause 15 and other new clauses we are saying that we should like the Porchester concept to be written statutorily into the Bill. I cannot understand why that is being resisted.

Therefore, as I said, Dr. Martin Parry's figures are alarming. In Committee we had some discussion on where the Nature Conservancy Council got its figures. At one stage the Minister got a little cross with us. I hope that he has now been able to satisfy himself that the NCC figures, which he was relying on and which he was trying to tell us were different from our figures, came from the same survey by Dr. Martin Parry in the department of geography at Birmingham university. Therefore, I hope that at any rate we can accept the figures that I am about to give as being authentic and, as far as I know, unchallenged.

The loss in the North York Moors national park since 1950 has been 44,000 acres of moorland lost to agriculture and forestry. On any showing, that represents an extraordinary and serious loss of the amenity and heritage of this country.

In the Brecon Beacons since 1950, 24,603 acres of a similar critical amenity area have been lost. In Northern Snowdonia since 1950, 12,152 acres have been lost, and in Dartmoor in the 10 years between 1960 and 1970, 6,189 acres have been lost in the way that I described. No wonder that Dr. Parry says: the signs are, then, that moorland and roughland have been shrinking throughout England and Wales—not just on Exmoor … if we calculate this loss as a proportion of the post-war area of moorland in the national parks and extrapolate that figure across the entire upland area of England and Wales the total is 370,650 acres …. In other words, Britain's moorlands are being enclosed are reclaimed at an average rate of 5,000 hectares (12,400 acres) per year! That is the annual loss. That is the size of the problem. It should be totally unacceptable to any hon. Member or any organisation charged with the maintenance of our environment.

It is not correct to say that every time we get a management agreement it automatically solves the problem—although I agree that in most cases it does. I wish to say a word about management agreements. Again, they were a concept that we inherited and accepted. We fully accepted that the farming community might be encouraged by agricultural grants to plough up land that should be retained for the nation for all time as moorland heathland. If it is the judgment of the national park, the Countryside Commission, the Minister or anyone else that to plough up the land is not in the national interest, and if the farmer would otherwise get a grant to do so, there is a case for compensatory payment. That is the principle behind the so-called management agreement, whereby the farmer or landowner undertakes on behalf of the nation to manage the land and is paid to do so. I believe that that is a good bargain for the country. It is sensible to ask a landowner or fanner to look after the land. There will be a great deal of public access to it. The scheme will no doubt provide someone with employment—perhaps in the winter months repairing fencing, paths and so on—which, again, could assist the rural economy. It would also keep the land in good access, which is the object of the exercise.

The Minister has the power to stop for a period of 12 months a farmer who intends to plough. One of our amendments would extend that period. In Committee I stated that two years seemed reasonable. The Government would not accept that, but I hope that they will accept the compromise of 18 months. The reason is simple. A farmer or landowner may wish to plough and want an agricultural grant to do so, but if the Government and everyone else believe that it is against the public interest there should be power to prevent his doing so for a period to allow the Government time to frame legislation to put before the House. I concede that 12 months is double the present period. However, if other pressures fail to work, I do not believe that 18 months or two years is too long to hold up the work so that the Government can produce legislation to deal with a case that has caused national scandal and concern. The Government would have difficulty getting legislation framed and through both Houses in 12 months.

At the heart of the matter is what we do at the end of that time with a rogue farmer or landowner who refuses to heed the advice even of the NFU or the CLA. How do we tackle that problem? In such hard cases the Government should have the necessary power, which is what new clause 15 deals with. It is inconceivable that we should allow the loss to continue at its present rate without a statutory reserve back-up power. I do not believe that such a power in any way contravenes the voluntary approach. In many walks of life we hope that people will do things with good grace and skill and in a civilised way, but we have back-up legislation with a bite to ensure that at the end of the day they do so.

Mr. Ennals

Such as the seat-belt legislation.

Mr. Howell

The seat-belt legislation is a classic case in another area. Everyone should wear seat belts. I am putting mine on at once, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I see you getting agitated.

We have agreed that that statutory back-up reserve power is necessary to deal with people who do not accept sensible advice. We are concerned about the situation at the end of the management agreement.

I turn briefly to one or two things that the Minister said in resisting the approach in Committee. On 11 June he stated: Change elsewhere has slowed down dramatically, and or. Exmoor it has come to a full stop "—[Official Report, Standing. Committee D, 11 June 1981; c. 704.] It has not even come to a full stop on Exmoor. One of the two agreements signed there—the Glenthorne agreement, which is welcome—saved 150 acres, but I am told that even there there was a loss of l00 acres of moorland as a result. Even on Exmoor the Minister's proposal has not turned into fact. I have already given the figures for other national parks, which show that he was totally misinformed—although I do not entirely blame him.

When we had the discussion, none of us had had the dramatic and sensational evidence from Dr. Parry. I hope that the Minister will tell us what assessment the Government have made of the evidence from the geography department at Birmingham university and of the figures disclosed. Dr. Parry offered to talk to Ministers, and I asked the Minister to get in touch with Birmingham university.

As we said, the North Yorkshire moors are particularly affected. On the figures that I have given and on the information that I have had this very day from Birmingham, the levelling off that the Minister believed had occurred has not occurred. There has been a continuing deterioration, no doubt mainly because of the lack of publicity about these matters. I concede that if maps are prepared and published this will ensure that some of the spotlight that was focused on Exmoor will be transferred elsewhere, with beneficial effects for other areas.

6 pm.

When this matter was debated in another place and upstairs in Committee this was probably the principal matter of concern, apart from the areas of special scientific interest. I judge that it still is. In another place, the sort of proposal that I make in new clause 15 was defeated by only six votes, by 97 to 91. At that time none of the new startling evidence from Birmingham was available. I believe that had their Lordships had that evidence when they took their decision, this clause or something similar would have been included, and the Government would be in serious difficulties in trying to have it removed.

As this new clause has to go back to another place, I can only hope that the Members there who took such a stand, right across the party spectrum, will think that it is still right—even if it is not agreed here today—in view of the information and evidence that we have produced, to have available a reserve power at the end of the day, so that if anyone decides to resist all the advice and wishes to plough up our natural and national heritage, he can be stopped from so doing.

I hope that the Government will agree with our approach. I suspect that they will not, but I hope that the House will press new clause 15 for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I congratulate the Government on introducing new clause 49, which goes a long way towards meeting the points that were made in Committee on clause 40. I believe, and probably most Conservative Members believe, that it is essential to have an up-to-date record of what is happening in the national parks, as outlined in new clause 49. The record will be kept up to date, it will have to be revised at least annually, and it will show areas of moorland or heath and how the character of the areas changes. It will be a useful addition to the armoury of those who are anxious to preserve the glorious beauty of our heath and moorland.

The report from Dr. Parry, to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) referred, and which I, too, have read, is excellent but worrying. Twelve thousand acres or more annual loss is more than anyone can accept with equanimity. I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Exmoor. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Exmoor Bill in 1979 and I thought that the Porchester report of 1979 was the answer, with its compulsory moorland conservation orders and so on. But, over the two or three years since, the voluntary procedure in Exmoor has been proven to work pretty well. I should like that procedure to continue, at any rate for the time being. Therefore, I cannot support new clause 15.

What worries me very much about the moorlands in our national parks is that they do not have to be ploughed for their character to change. As I tried to illustrate in Committee, I know of examples outside national parks where, without a plough going on the land, the whole character of an area of heathland or moorland can be changed in many ways—by, for instance, excessive overstocking for many years, which will kill the heather, or by the application of fertilisers and chemicals, which will also kill it. I know of more than one example of this being done without a man going on the land. A spray applied by helicopter over two years can kill off the foliage or heather. If that is followed a year later by helicopter application of fertiliser, followed shortly thereafter by a helicopter application of grass seed, what was a heather-covered mountain becomes in two years a grassy hillside without a machine ever going on it.

It is essential that new clause 49 should be accepted. It is an important and decisive first step that the Government have taken. Without a meticulous record being kept every year, we cannot assess for ourselves the change in the situation. I warmly congratulate the Government on what they are seeking to do.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I, too, welcome new clause 49, but I had hoped that the Government would go a little further.

It is a mistake to think that the destruction of heathland began relatively recently; it has gone on for a long time. Parliament has probably spent as long dealing with the destruction of heathland as with any other subject, going back over the Enclosure Acts of many centuries, when it was almost always a matter of enclosing heathland and converting it to agricultural uses.

A vast amount of heathland around our towns has disappeared as a result of building. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) represents an almost completely urban area, yet clearly, to judge by its name, his constituency was once one of the attractive heathlands around Birmingham. In the Manchester area many heathlands have disappeared under buildings.

Vast areas of heathland have disappeared since the 1931 land use survey, either for conversion to agricultural use or for housing estates, new schools and other buildings. I very much welcome the way in which the maps are to be produced. I hope that they will be available, so that comparisons with the 1961 survey may be made and we may have accurate information about the deterioration in the past 20 years.

A voluntary method of preserving heathland could work. Most members of the National Farmers' Union are keen that the voluntary system shall work, and we must all hope that it will, but I have grave fears that it will not. On the whole, the farmer whose family has farmed the countryside for generations is not likely—unless he is under grave economic pressure—to destroy the moorland or heathland, but there are those who are more concerned about the accounts and making a profit. Such people, who often do not have rural backgrounds, put on pressure to see every little bit of land turned to what they believe will make the biggest return in the current year or the next few years, rather than considering conservation, the protection of the land, over a period. So I fear that the voluntary system will not work, for all the words and exhortations of the NFU and farmers who care.

We shall have to look very carefully at the legislation. It has been said that it will last for 20 years. I say firmly that unless the voluntary system proves to work over the next two or three years there will be great demand in the countryside and in Parliament for new legislation. Moreover, it will not be like new clause 15 but will go much further.

It must therefore be clearly spelt out by Parliament that this is the last chance for the voluntary system of moorland and heathland conservation. If it does not work, the demand for something far tougher and more effective will be overwhelming. I therefore believe that it would be helpful to anticipate that and to accept new clause 15. If we do not, the message must be absolutely clear to anybody contemplating any further destruction of moorland or heathland that the country will not look favourably upon that and will demand far tougher measures than these.

Mr. Colin Shepherd

The House and, indeed, the farming industry in moorland areas would do well to heed the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr Bennett). The target that he has set is clear. I make one small observation about the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). If the farmers of Exmoor responded so magnificently to what one might call the searchlight of examination from an interested public and an interested Parliament, there is no reason to suppose that North Yorkshire farmers whose land comprises moorland will not respond equally vigorously. I have every confidence that they will.

I wish to ask the Minister two small questions about new clause 49. First, in drafting the new clause, have the Government had regard to local authority expenditure in the national parks? Drawing maps at least once a year will take up limited staff and financial resources available to a national parks authority which might be better spent on management agreements and so on. Have the Government consulted the Association of County Councils on this?

Secondly, if there is a need for compulsory notification orders on areas of moor and heath in line with clause 40, will Ministers use as guidelines the maps envisaged by new clause 49?

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) is right to query the cost of maps. As he knows, local authorities, and particularly county councils in the shire counties, are at present under enormous pressure from the Secretary of State for the Environment. Perhaps some of the planning fees now corning in could be allocated for this purpose.

I, too, welcome new clause 49. It is desirable that these maps should be made and I am sure that county planning authorities within national parks will be willing to prepare them. Like other Opposition Members, however, I fear that this is typical of this country in that it is too little and probably too late. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) put his finger on the cause of concern—the economic pressures on occupiers and owners of land at this time. We must face that problem.

As I am sure the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) will agree, farming is not going through a good period at present. The horticulturists demonstrated here on Monday. I do not know how they will go into the next season and start their planting. Farming generally, whether milk producing or corn growing, is not producing adequate returns. An enormous amount of money is due to banks and other finance houses. We are dealing only with national parks here, but I am sure that there will be pressure on all farmers to plough up more land to try to improve the returns. That is my fear. I understand their position. It is very sad. They do not want to do this. As has rightly been pointed out, every agriculturist wants to keep the country side and the moorlands, but they are under enormous pressure.

Therefore, if there is some way to preserve that land and to compensate farmers for not ploughing it up, it should be done now, as we shall not have another chance for some years. In any case, plans must be prepared and examined, so this will take several years. In the meantime, we may well lose a further 25,000 or 30,000 acres. I believe that things are going well on Exmoor because it had very nearly disappeared. It is now a very small national park. Thousands upon thousands of acres had already been lost. We seem to have stopped it on 'Exmoor, thank goodness, but I believe that it will continue in other areas.

This matter does not affect only national parks Not far from me, on the edge of the New Forest, a landowner was ploughing up land the other day around Bournemouth—the last known home of the Dartford warbler. That land has been moorland for centuries, vet this provision does not even cover that. Moorland is being lost outside the national parks just as much as in them. I have always supported the Porchester recommendations and the earlier countryside Bill. I believe that the Opposition are right in new clause 15. I recognise that the Government have gone some way, but I wish that they had gone that little bit further.

6.15 pm
Mr. Hardy

It is always pleasing to see changes of mind on the Government side. It is interesting to note that heaths seem more popular now among Conservative Members than two or three years ago. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) suggested, the farmers would share that view.

Farm incomes have dropped alarmingly and I regret, as doubtless some Conservative Members regret, that the media seem ill-informed about the plight of farmers. An article in The Observer last Sunday even described deep litter housing as "free range" That is an illustration of the inadequacies of the media. Farmers are in difficulties. The Government should therefore accept the obligation to sustain them so that they are not compelled by Government policy to ruin the appearance of the country.

I pay tribute to the Government for having moved some way in recent months. New clause 49 is better than nothing. I prefer new clause 16, however, because it has the advantage that it provides that any area of moor or heath may be designated for the purpose of monitoring moorland change. Owners and occupiers would then be notified both of the reasons for the inclusion of their land in the map and of operations which would damage it.

A voluntary code of conduct, including reciprocal notification and the opportunity to enter into management agreements, could then be established for those areas. That is superior to the Government's new clause 49, which will include land in the map only if the area is regarded as particularly important. That will create great confusion and possibly much local tension in the national parks concerned as people worry about whether their land is more important than that across the road. We should not exacerbate ill feeling in those localities.

I therefore hope that if the Government cannot accept the Opposition proposal, and if they insist upon new clause 49, they will give an assurance that the criteria for drawing up a map will ensure that as wide an area of moorland as; possible will be included. As a Yorkshireman, I am suspicious of the achievement on Exmoor. I agree that a large number of people deserve to be commended for a remarkable achievement, but one must consider what has happened in the past year or two. First, the Government did their utmost to persuade the local authorities there to provide money. Only when the authorities quite properly referred to Government policies and perhaps suggested that they did not receive sufficient rate support grant for these purposes did the Government cough up. As a Yorkshire Member of Parliament, therefore, I must express great anxiety. Although the Government have coughed up some money for Exmoor, I wonder whether they are willing to provide similar funding for the other national parks.

North Yorkshire has been mentioned. If we continue at the present rate, the North Yorkshire moors will cease to exist within the 1980s. There will be no further justification for printing the words "North Yorkshire moors" on any map of Britain. If they are to be saved, it is not sufficient for the Government to secure advances in the common agricultural policy or whatever to promote farm incomes. They will have to provide the same kind of funding and promote similar arrangements to those which apply in Exmoor. In North Yorkshire, however, the position is now urgent, and for that reason we must go further and have reserve powers.

I turn briefly to amendment No. 75, which, with new clause 49, would provide an improvement. Clause 40 provides no safeguards, other than imposing a one-year delay, on a farmer who carries out damaging operations on moorland. Amendment No. 75 also provides for the offer of a managment agreement to be established and for discussions to take place between the landowner and the national park authority within one year.

Although that is a useful amendment, it must be emphasised that moorland can be protected against a maverick or desperate farmer only by a reserve order-making power. Let that be a long stop or a last resort, but in the immediate future we should ensure not merely that management agreements are available but that reserve powers will be taken.

I do not believe that we should tolerate during the 1980s—indeed, within the next four or five years—the obliteration of important areas such as the North Yorkshire moors. While I welcome the Government's move, I hope that the Minister will agree that in present circumstances the Opposition's amendments are to be much preferred.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

This is the milk in the coconut. For a long time, Governments of various complexions have set targets but have failed to provide the economic resources to achieve them. The Labour Government produced "Food from Our Own Resources", which everyone agrees was a commendable statement of policy. However, it achieved very little because they never provided the funds to enable that policy to be carried out.

Similarly, when discussing conservation, we must emphasise yet again that miserable returns in agriculture will more than anything secure the rapid ploughing up of moorland and the knocking down of fences, if that is what economic interest constrains. Fewer than 20 hon. Members are now present. The dilemma in which we so often find ourselves is the degree to which public opinion wishes conservation to be carried out but never wants to pick up the bill for so doing.

The Government are right to seek the co-operation of those whose livelihood is in the countryside and in agriculture. But we must bear in mind that the spirit and intent of the Bill will come to fruition only if another branch of the Government's policy ensures that there are fair returns for those engaged in agriculture. That is specifically enjoined in sections 1 and 2 of the original 1949 Act, which most people have either never read or have forgotten.

The ruin of much of our moorland and valuable conservation areas has probably more to do with poverty than with greed. Many farmers, particularly small farmers running their farms with family labour, suffer more from miserable economic returns than from any other factor. That point needs to be repeated because it is often forgotten by those who wish to avail themselves of the pleasures of the countryside but who do not wish to pick up the bill for its conservation.

Mr. Monro

As I expected, this is one of the important debates of the day, because there has always been a fundamental difference between those who wish to proceed by voluntary agreement and those who wish to have compulsion. It is no use talking about voluntary agreement and compulsory long-stop powers, because as soon as we have any form of compulsory long-stop powers—other than the compulsory purchase powers the NCC has always had—we take away the help and assistance we have received under the existing voluntary programme.

I accept straight away that that has been a fundamental difference between us. Although I shall try to answer all the points in detail, particularly those relating to the work of Dr. Parry, I do not think that it would be advantageous—especially as we are trying to complete a large amount of business—again to argue the difference between our approach and that of the Opposition. That has already been done both in another place and in Committee.

However, I re-emphasise that the basis of our case is that the co-operation that has been achieved between the NFU, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Parks Committee in relation to Exmoor has been extremely satisfactory. Once again, I should like to record the fact that this is a helpful step forward that will be a valuable basis for the future. It would be tragic to destroy that co-operation if at this late stage we tried to reverse a policy that is seen to work.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that ground had been lost to ploughing, but I have always said that since May 1979 nothing has been lost without the approval of the National Parks Committee. I know that ground was ploughed up before then. That is why the good work of Lord Porchester was introduced into the valuable report mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as I am aware, no ground has been lost to ploughing, or as a result of a change in the use of fertiliser, since May 1979 which has not had the agreement of the National Parks Committee.

I should like to put Dr. Parry's work into perspective. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tended to use the figures direct from the New Scientist article of May this year. 'That article mentions 12,000 acres or 5,000 hectares. However, Dr. Parry makes the point that it is a highly speculative extrapolation of the figures available for the upland areas of England and Wales.

As I assured the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in Committee, my Department has been in close touch with Dr. Parry. I shall now comment on that development. My officials had valuable discussions with him, and he has agreed the record of those discussions. However, he has not approved what I am about to say as my speech was completed only recently. In any event, the figures are taken from the agreement between my Department and him.

Dr. Parry has published the report which deals in particular with the North Yorkshire moors. He has also received full data, but not completed reports, on three other national parks—Dartmoor, the Brecon Beacons and the northern part of Snowdonia.

6.30 pm

I shall deal first with the North Yorkshire moors. The report about the park shows that the rate of loss of moorland to agriculture and forestry was over 1 per cent. per annum in the 1950s and scarcely less in the period 1950–1979. In the more recent past, however, from 1974 to 1979 alone, the rate was 0.4 per cent. That is a substantial decline, but what should we read into that? Now that the Department has considered it carefully with Dr. Parry, it has advised me of one or two important things.

First, the aggregate loss includes afforestation as well as reclamation of moorland for agriculture. The afforestation rate seems to have been declining, whereas reclamation for agriculture has been on an upward trend. That means that the overall decline between 1974 and 1979 may not be a reliable indicator in this part, particularly as reclamation for agriculture is the main tendency in the future. Secondly, one is concerned with the amount of land. In 1974 this national park had 51,973 hectares of rough pasture, in Dr. Parry's terms. In 1979 it had 50,935, which is 850 hectares less for that period. Over the five years there has been a loss of 172 hectares per year. I accept that that is a significant loss which needs watching carefully. I understand that that is the point that Dr. Parry is trying to make.

Dr. Parry says that in 1979 the North Yorkshire moors still had 50,935 hectares of rough pasture and a completely untouched remaining moorland core of 47,000 hectares, or 116,000 acres, which has not improved within the last millennium.

Thirdly, Dr. Parry can distinguish in the North Yorkshire moors between the untouched moorland core and the rest of the rough grazing. In our view, that is the area that the National Parks Authority should preserve permanently. Dr. Parry says that primary reclamation of open moorland was still apparent in the park up to 1979, at about 100 hectares per year. Nevertheless, he says that the 47,000 hectares of moorland core has not been touched.

Dr. Parry's work shows that reclamation for agriculture in the North Yorkshire park is still continuing and is not, in all probability, on the decline. The national parks authorities should now concentrate, as Dr. Parry suggests, on conserving the untouched core. I recognise that that is a significant issue in the North Yorkshire moor, but I do not see it as immediately acute as it was in Exmoor when Porchester reported.

One must bear in mind the size of the North Yorkshire moors and the size of the moorland left on Exmoor, which is now 19,500 hectares on critical map 1.

Dr. Parry has not yet reached the stage of full report on the other three parks, but he has all the data. As hon. Members are interested, I shall give his figures quickly. In 1958 Dartmoor had 50,962 hectares of rough pasture In 1971 it was 48,872—a decline over the 13 years of 0.3 per cent. In the Brecon Beacons, similarly, over nine years the decline was 0.3 per cent. In the northern part of Snowdonia the annual rate was reduced to 0.1 per cent. I am not underestimating the fact that every acre is important, but I am trying to put it in the context of the total area of the national parks and not solely in the original figures mentioned in Dr. Parry's article.

I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind when they are considering the issues concerning new clause 49 that it will be beneficial for each national park to understand the important practical issues of loss of moorland. The new maps that we are introducing in connection with the Bill will have an important long-term effect. They will enable us to keep a close watch on changes year by year. If the maps are to be sold, they will be published.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for his remarks on new clause 49. I agree with him that whether it is planting trees, overstocking or the use of fertilisers, change can be dramatic. We must be prepared to watch that carefully. If a similar arrangement to that successful experiment on Exmoor can be introduced elsewhere, that will all be to the good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) asked about the cost. I appreciate that it will cost the national parks some money to provide the information, but it is important that they should have it. We must bear in mind also that the national parks have substantial help from the Government through the grants system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford also asked whether, if Ministers made a moorland notification order under clause 40, the new clause 49 maps could be used as a guide. They will be a valuable guide to the national parks for that purpose. They will be useful not only to the parks but to the farmers concerned.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) generously—he has been generous throughout the passage of the Bill—mentioned the farmers who are keen to be involved in the voluntary system. However, I accept that there are bound to be one or two who will not fall in line with the majority. We believe that our voluntary approach will encourage them to do so. The work of the NFU on this subject will be valuable.

I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that farming has had a difficult few years with rising costs perhaps going ahead of the increases in income from livestock, cereals or dairying. We do not want an additional burden on farming. That was another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Had he been on the Committee or able to join us in earlier deliberations, he would have known that we have frequently discussed provision of resources. We look forward to the planning of the Nature Conservancy Council to enable us to understand what may be required to fulfil its responsibilities, whether to the SSSIs or other aspects of conservation. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is no use saying that something should be done if we are not prepared to consider the costs, either to the nation or to the individual.

There are other amendments on the Amendment Paper covering the time scale of 18 months instead of 12, which we discussed in Committee. Whether we believe in the voluntary system, as included in the Bill and continued in new clause 49, or whether we wish to change dramatically at the last moment back to the circumstances outlined by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in new clause 15, I am confident that the policies that we have laid down and that have received such a warm welcome from those involved in agriculture, and the agreement drawn up with the CLA and the NFU, the national parks and Exmoor, are basically the way forward.

If we breach the good faith established in this regard, we may lose much more than we gain by going to compulsion. I know that the Opposition have moderated their policy substantially from the original Bill of early 1979, but basically there is still a major difference between the voluntary approach and that of compulsion.

I am confident—as are my hon. Friends—that we shall achieve what we wish and will see a continued policy in our national parks that will conserve the habitat, enhance its beauty and, in the long term, be a real credit to our nation. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support new clause 49 and reject the remainder of the propositions.

Mr. Denis Howell

I shall be brief. The Minister's reply is complacent and depressing. In my judgment, the matter needs careful thought. We should pay a tribute to Dr. Parry, and I am pleased to know that the Minister and his Department are in direct contact with him. He has told us that 12,400 acres of moorland are lost every year. The Department of the Environment has confirmed the figures today, and they give rise to a simple question. Are the proposals in the Government's new clause any guarantee that the astronomical loss will cease? I have listened to the Minister and, far from being satisfied, I am less satisfied and more depressed than I was before I heard what he had to say.

The Minister's remarks about the North Yorkshire moors and the whole content of his speech seem to suggest that, because we are talking about a large national park with a lot of land, it does not matter very much if we lose land in this critical amenity area at the rate that has been proved to us by Dr. Parry. I have never heard a more complacent and depressing approach to a national problem on this scale.

I hope that the Minister will think again before putting forward such an excuse. There is no evidence to suggest that the rate of loss in the moorlands is declining. That is not Dr. Parry's view. The Government are taking a period of four years from 1975 to 1979, and projecting on that basis. I am advised that it is statistically unsound to make major projections, on which Government policy will be based, over a time scale of four years when we are dealing with losses over 10 to 20 years.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Surely that depends on the trend.

Mr. Howell

I am happy that the hon. Lady has mentioned the trend, because there is not the slightest evidence, outside Exmoor, that since we focused attention on these problems in 1979 the trend has improved in any other national park. That is the difficulty.

I have with me the final report on the North Yorkshire moors, upon which the Minister relies. It is by Dr. Parry and his team. Messrs. Bruce and Harkness are the co-authors and should, therefore, be named. I mention that only because of the Minister's reliance on reclamation. The report states on page 37 that although there had been an increase in land reclamation in the late 1950s and early 1960s, it levelled off by the mid-1960s and was declining again in the early 1970s. The facts about reclamation do not bear out what the Minister said.

The Opposition produced a Bill in 1979 after the Porchester report. The Bill fell because of the general election, but our attitude has not changed. We believe that it is essential to have reserve back-up powers, and I do not regard such powers as compulsion. We strongly object to the Minister's claim that the choice has to be between a voluntary system and compulsion. We would pay farmers and landowners not to do things that the Government and the nation wished them not to do.

We accept the farmers' case and we wish to encourage their voluntary endeavour. About 98 per cent. of farmers and landowners would think it reasonable that the 2 per cent. of rogues who will not accept a voluntary system should be restrained if necessary.

A voluntary system will work only if there is a statutory back-up power. The Government concede that case when they agree that they should have a power to hold up such farmers for 12 months. We say that at the end of that year the occasional farmer who still refuses not to plough up moorland should not be allowed to get away with such anti-social action, which every right-thinking person would condemn, and that the Government should have the power to stop him.

The Government have not made their case, and I hope that after the next debate the House will insist on voting for new clause 15 to underline the importance of the proposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Denis Howell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should we not have taken amendment (a) to new clause 49?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

I have been in the Chair for only a short time and I was under the impression that the amendment had not been moved. If it is desired that the amendment should be moved, the necessary arrangements can be made, but I understand that that is not the wish of the House.

Mr. Howell

It is my amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I wish it to be moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move the amendment formally, he is entitled to do so.

Mr. Howell

I beg to move amendment (a), in subsection 1(a), before 'moor', insert 'coastline,'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 124.

Division No. 293] [6.49 pm
AYES
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) George, Bruce
Beith, A. J. Graham, Ted
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Bidwell, Sydney Hardy, Peter
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Buchan, Norman Haynes, Frank
Cocks, Rt Hon M (B'stol S) Homewood, William
Cryer, Bob Hooley, Frank
Cunliffe, Lawrence Howell, Rt Hon D.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Dalyell, Tam Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Deakins, Eric Kerr, Russell
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Leighton, Ronald
Dixon, Donald McCartney, Hugh
Dormand, Jack McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Douglas-Mann, Bruce McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Dubs, Alfred McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Marks, Kenneth
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
English, Michael Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Ennals, Rt Hon David Newens, Stanley
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Foulkes, George Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Prescott, John
Rooker, J. W. Welsh, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Whitehead, Phillip
Skinner, Dennis Winnick, David
Spearing, Nigel
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) Tellers for the Ayes:
Stoddart, David Mr. George Morton and
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen) Mr. James Tinn.
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
NOES
Alexander, Richard Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ancram, Michael Meyer, Sir Anthony
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Berry, Hon Anthony Moate, Roger
Biggs-Davison, John Monro, Hector
Blackburn, John Montgomery, Fergus
Body, Richard Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Bright, Graham Murphy, Christopher
Brinton, Tim Neale, Gerrard
Brooke, Hon Peter Needham, Richard
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) Neubert, Michael
Buck, Antony Newton, Tony
Cadbury, Jocelyn Normanton, Tom
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Osborn, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Chapman, Sydney Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick Pawsey, James
Cranborne, Viscount Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Dorrell, Stephen Prior, Rt Hon James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Proctor, K. Harvey
Dover, Denshore Rhodes James, Robert
Durant, Tony Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dykes, Hugh Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Farr, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Rossi, Hugh
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles Scott, Nicholas
Goodhart, Philip Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Goodlad, Alastair Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Gorst, John Shelton, William (Streatham)
Gow, Ian Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Silvester, Fred
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) Speller, Tony
Gummer, John Selwyn Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Hastings, Stephen Stainton, Keith
Hawkins, Paul Stanbrook, Ivor
Hawksley, Warren Stevens, Martin
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Stradling Thomas, J.
Hill, James Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Tebbit, Norman
Hooson, Tom Thompson, Donald
Hurd, Hon Douglas Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Townend, John (Bridlington)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine van Straubenzee, W. R.
Kershaw, Anthony Viggers, Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom Waddington, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Wakeham, John
Le Marchant, Spencer Waller, Gary
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Warren, Kenneth
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Watson, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) Wells, Bowen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Whitney, Raymond
Lyell, Nicholas Wilkinson, John
Macfarlane, Neil Williams, D.(Montgomery)
MacGregor, John Winterton, Nicholas
Major, John Wolfson, Mark
Marland, Paul Young, Sir George (Acton)
Marlow, Tony
Mates, Michael Tellers for the Noes:
Mather, Carol Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Mr. John Cope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

Forward to