§ Amendments made: No. 212, in line 5, after first 'animals' insert
'to amend the law relating to protection of certain mammals'.
§ No. 213, in line 6, leave out from 'amend' to end of line 7.—[Mr. Brooke.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified].
1.16 am§ Mr. KingI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Perhaps I might take this opportunity at the end of what has been a long consideration of the Bill to put on record my appreciation of the very real support of and the tremendous work done by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). He has nobly carried a huge load and an immense amount of detail, and he has done so with consideration and courtesy at all times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the appreciation shown by right hon. and hon. Members.
1310 I want also to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales for his part, and I am sure that no hon. Member who served on the Standing Committee would forgive me if I failed to mention the part played in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and the part that he has played today on the Treasury Bench. I also express my appreciation to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and his colleagues for the way in which they have dealt with some very complex issues. We have had our disagreements, but we have had some satisfying moments as well.
Although it is not normally done, I hope that I shall be excused if I pay tribute to the work done by the Department's officials. I do not know whether it is generally appreciated, but it has involved the section of the Department that has been dispersed, for better or worse, to Bristol. It has meant, therefore, that a number of officials have been involved in a considerable number of travelling hours, with inconvenience to their private lives, and it is right to put that on the record.
I must also pay tribute, although I do not always do so during my other speeches, to the number of outside bodies which have taken a close interest in the Bill. There has been some very active lobbying.
As the Bill comes to its Third Reading, it is one in which a considerable number of people have been involved—naturalists, ramblers, sportsmen, farmers, different landowners, and all sorts of other interests. All have provisions in the Bill which they can support. No one has got all that he wanted, and it is understandable that the various groups pressing their interests have sought to get more for themselves. But the nature of so many of the issues involved here has meant that it has been necessary to strike a balance between the competing claims——agricultural production and conservation, and the interests of the landowner and the farmer and those who wish to gain access to their land.
I like to feel that we have made a genuine attempt not just as a Government but as Houses of Parliament to strike fair balances in issues which are of great interest to our citizens. When I say that, I make no apology to right hon. and hon. Members, because they know the great interest that the Bill has aroused. Their correspondence has brought that home to them, and it demonstrates the very real interests that so many people have in the issues that we have discussed.
Within the Bill, we have encompassed greater protection for birds, animals and plants. We have outlawed measures of extreme cruelty in the trapping, decoying and other ill treatment of animals and birds.
We have taken steps to deal with the better conservation of the landscape and the better protection of natural habitat. We have sought to introduce more flexible procedures for definitive maps and public rights of way and their revision. We have introduced arrangements which, for the first time, will enable marine nature reserves to be set up in a statutory form. For the first time we have tackled the problems of the sites of special scientific interest, and we have introduced a procedure, first, of proper notification to the owners of their very existence and the actions to be taken to avoid their damage and destruction, and also a reciprocal obligation on such owners to advise the necessary authorities whether any activities or operations are being undertaken which might damage precious natural habitat.
1311 The Bill has been the outcome not of a brief parliamentary scrutiny but of more than two years of consultation, building up to this parliamentary process. It has taken up an enormous amount of time in their Lordships' House and in this House. It has incorporated improvements and advances. Moreover, it has incorporated what we have come to describe in the Bill as Sandford—the improvements in the definition of the Ministry of Agriculture's proper responsibility and concern, not merely in agricultural production, but in conservation and in ensuring that those who show proper concern for conservation get some recompense for production forgone or income lost.
We have achieved a proper understanding of the role of the advisers of ADAS in advising farmers not merely on better ways to increase production but on ways in which they can improve their income while taking into account conservation or rural economic considerations.
Inevitably, the Bill involves certain calls on the resources of the Nature Conservancy Council. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr Dalyell) asked me to say a word about resources. A number of the steps that we have taken in the Bill will add significantly to the statutory responsibilities of the NCC. We shall meet the council shortly to discuss the implications of the Bill for the council and to see how best to take into account its new responsibilities. Clearly, I cannot give any blanket undertaking to the House at this stage, but we are aware of the implications of some of those commitments, and we shall take them into account.
The Bill concerns an issue which the House rarely undertakes, and one which is of great concern to an enormous number of our fellow citizens. The Bill is not one in which we proposed the status quo and were somehow persuaded off the status quo. We proposed a number of changes, and as a result of parliamentary debate some of those changes have been modified, developed and improved in the eyes of many.
I do not wish to take credit or award credit in any particular direction. People may choose to claim credit for themselves as a result of astute parliamentary manoeuvres. I leave hon. Members to believe what they wish. Some day I shall write the true history of the process of the Bill, and it may intrigue a few Labour Members when they hear the whole story.
I am more than happy to commend the Bill to the House. Many of us have learnt a lot during it. I certainly have learnt a lot about a number of matters in which I am interested. Moreover, it has been not at all unhealthy for the workings of Government, because Government Departments have learnt a lot about working together during the necessary process of consultation and discussion. Many of those gains will not be easily lost.
The Bill is a landmark. I am delighted to know it will go through its final debate unopposed. I am pleased about the issues that it represents. The more that they command the bipartisan support of the House, the better. It is against that background, and in the belief that the Bill will make a major contribution in many areas, that I have the greatest pleasure in commending it to the House.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI congratulate the Ministers on the way in which they have piloted the Bill through its stages, 1312 and especially on meeting the Opposition on a number of points of substantial importance. We can claim more than a little credit. I do not wish to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Minister to suggest that tactical manoeuvring in Committee might have assisted him to bring the Bill to this stage. The record will speak for itself.
The Bill has shown Parliament at its best. It has produced the minimum acceptable terms on which it will be possible for both sides of the House to give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading. We wish it well. I have an awful feeling that we may be considering it again in the late autumn, but we must wait and see.
The Bill is three Bills in one. More than 1,000 amendments in both Houses have been tabled to it. The Minister properly paid tribute to his officials. As many of them are old friends of mine, and served me also, I hope that he will not object if I add my appreciation to his. He mentioned the division that was sent to Bristol. I was never in favour of that devolutionary proposal, although I am sure that it was a pleasant prospect. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object if, in the exceptional circumstances that the head of the division—Mr. Alan Leavett—will be retiring soon, I express appreciation to him and wish him well. He gave considerable service to the Labour Government, and I know he has done so for the present Government, too.
I wish to mention the Clerk who served us in Committee. He is one of our newer Clerks, but he took on an extremely involved Bill and did the job magnificently. He was of great assistance to both sides of the Committee. Those remarks may be out of order, but I ask the Clerk who is present to convey to him our appreciation.
The Government can rely upon their advisers, but the Opposition, when dealing with such a complex Bill, are in great difficulty. Specialised advice is not available to us. At some time Parliament will have to consider its procedures in that respect. I cannot for the life of me understand why there should not be access for Opposition parties to the specialised advice available to the Government within the Civil Service, as is the case in other countries. That would make for a more informed discussion. It might have saved half the time that we have spent on the Bill. It should be possible to talk to officials before we table amendments. I leave that thought with the House.
As such a facility is not available, the Opposition are left entirely with the prospect of obtaining advice from the voluntary organisations. They have been first-class in the service that they have rendered to us. They cover the spectrum of what might be regarded as the leisure industry, if that is the right term in this context. They represent the interests of millions.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has millions of members. The Friends of the Earth Ltd. has been briefing us, especially during the early stages of the Bill's consideration. The Council for National Parks and the Council for the Protection of Rural England have been represented at almost every one of our sittings. The League Against Cruel Sports was very active when we were discussing snares, where we made some progress. It has had its disappointments in other respects. The Ramblers' Association has reason to think that it has been badly treated. However, it has the satisfaction of knowing that the issues of grave concern to it and its members have been aired. The National Anglers' Council represents millions of people. The Royal Yachting Association was 1313 active when we were discussing marine preservation. The National Farmers' Union is not often praised from the Labour Benches. However, it deserves praise on this occasion. It has been extremely helpful to us, as has the Country Landowners' Association.
The Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have sent their officers to the House to be available whenever we want to meet them. One would wish to meet the members of those organisations more often. Whenever one visits the schools, as I often do, and organisations based in cities and towns, one finds a growing concern about the state of the environment and about countryside matters. That has been generated by organisations such as those to which I have referred. That is much to their credit.
This is primarily a wildlife Bill. It achieves much in that direction. However, the first part of the Bill, which lists protected species and seeks to safeguard endangered species of animals and flora and fauna, is late in getting on to the statute book having regard to our EEC commitments, which require us to enact measures of this sort. That was one of our tactical advantages. We knew that the Government had a commitment to the EEC to promote the Bill.
We have made some progress in many areas. I have mentioned sites of special scientific interest, where we have achieved reciprocal notification. We discussed moorlands earlier today and I think that the publication of maps will be a great help. The establishment of marine nature reserves is an exciting new concept. The Government did not intend to embrace all those areas when the Bill began its life in another place. However, the arguments have won the day. They have had popular support in both Houses. We are grateful that the Government have accepted them.
We still have our fears about whether the voluntary system will work. There was a feeling on both sides of the House that this is the last opportunity for us to ensure that the voluntary system works in safeguarding the national heritage of our countryside and wildlife. There is a determination on both sides of the House that if the voluntary system fails we shall deal with the matter far more rigorously.
Parliament is placing its trust in the good sense of the voluntary system operating in this area. Those of us who fear for that and wonder whether we are doing the right thing nevertheless hope that the faith which Parliament is putting in the voluntary system, particularly in our national parks and in our landowners and farmers, proves to be justified. Those of us in the Opposition who have the gravest doubts about it will be the most delighted if that faith turns out to be well placed.
One disappointment is that there is nothing in the Bill which will adequately safeguard landscape and hedgerows. We must not forget that we lost 40 per cent. of our deciduous woodlands between 1947 and 1980. We lost 120,000 miles of our hedgerows between 1946 and 1974. That is the size of the problem which we set out to deal with.
I hope very much that some of the measures which we have taken will help, but I am bound to put on record the view of the Ramblers' Association, for example, that at the end of the day the Bill is a disappointment and, with regard to part III, it will have to ensure that Parliament and members of the Government continue to be made aware of its views on the subjects of access to the countryside and 1314 the obstruction of rights of way and particularly its views about new procedures for the updating of definitive maps which it feels to be inadequate for its purpose.
Likewise, I am advised by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for National Parks that they are both convinced that the Bill does little to address the problems which are likely to be faced by Britain's wildlife and countryside in the next decade. We can only hope that their fears prove to be unfounded, but it is right that we should put those views and that sense of disappointment of responsible organisations on the record.
The biggest achievement of the Bill is that it has aroused a national awareness about environmental questions, protection and the countryside. That is vital in an era of increased leisure, which the country is bound to have to face up to. In that new awareness is the realisation that the protection of habitat is more important than the listing of species and endangered species. It is the destruction of that habitat, which I think we all now understand as a result of the debates on the Bill, to which we shall have to pay continuing attention. The Opposition will certainly do so.
We have gone for the voluntary system and for management agreement, but we have also gone for annual reports and public knowledge which will enable this to be the start, not the end, of a continuing debate, almost an annual debate, on these questions. Because we have succeeded in doing that, I believe that we are well justified in giving the Bill a Third Reading and in expressing our appreciation to the Minister of State and especially to the Under-Secretary of State. I warmly endorse the right hon. Gentleman's views in that respect and hope that the Bill soon reaches the statute book. I hope that from time to time we shall be able to return to the matters of great importance. which we have identified and highlighted for the first time in a dramatic manner which will serve the national interest.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI commend the Bill. I wish to make a few observations on clause 43, which was introduced as a new clause in Committee, so I was not able to make comments about it earlier. It concerns the national parks.
I have a strong constituency interest in the matter, representing a part of the Lake District special planning board, as I do. I welcome the provisions. They will enable the representation of district councillors on the Lake District special planning board to be increased from two to four. I sincerely believe that this is a matter of considerable constitutional importance. If the national parks are to survive and have the good will of the public, which I earnestly desire, there has to be some accommodation of the real frustrations that many who live in them undoubtedly feel.
It is difficult to describe the sense of frustration that some people have, and this is noun the hour to go into detail. However, I should like to instance one or two points. First, all reasonable people in my constituency recognise the need for bodies such as the Lake District special planning board and are the first to give it credit for the good work that it often does. Everything that I say should be taken in the light of that comment. However, many people perceive that it is utterly remote. Even rational and reasonable 1315 people who accept many of its strictures and restrictions—including myself—find sometimes that they are unable to agree with its more extreme decisions.
All government, by definition, must be restrictive and undermine the rights of some in the interests of many, and, therefore, will always disappoint some members of any society. However, the part of the Lake District in my constituency—the South Lakeland area—covers both the planning board area and its own area, which is not covered by the board and for which, of course, the district council is responsible for planning decisions. People obviously feel resentment towards the South Lakeland council over its own planning decisions, as would happen with any planning authority, but it is in no way of the same degree as the resentment that people within the national park feel on occasions against the decisions made by the board. They are both planning authorities dealing with broadly the same thing, even though, of course, matters are more restrictive within the national park, so one has to ask why. I am to be faced with a petition from one village on the edge of the national park, which intends to invite the Secretary of State to remove it from the national park and leave it in the South Lakeland council planning authority. I await the petition with interest.
I suggest that one reason for the frustration is that, when the district council is the planning authority, people can contact their district councillor. They can see him in a public house and make him feel ashamed and concerned about some of the decisions for which he is responsible. However, I am afraid that that type of contact does not exist between the board and the citizens of the area in which it is situated.
It will be argued that the county council has overall control of the special planning board and that the citizens of Cumbria in the Lake District special planning board area can contact their county councillors. However, that does not seem to work very well. In any event, in the context of the Government's policy that more planning discretion should be given to district rather than county councils, it is right that there should be this greater political representation of district councillors on the Lake District special planning board.
I have outlined an overall political problem, which I do not believe to be party political, but I must add that in the context of recent events in Cumbria there has been a superimposition of a clearly party political problem. In their wisdom, the electors of Cumbria at the recent county council elections elected a Labour county council. Prior to those elections we had from South Lakeland, of course, a representative appointed by the county council from the district council upon the board. We do not enjoy that, because the Labour county council has sought to appoint all the representatives from districts other than South Lakeland. I say nothing about the quality of the work of those councillors, but it undermines the confidence of many people in the board, bearing in mind that the South Lakeland district council therefore has no voice—until these provisions become law—in the board's deliberations, yet it comprises half the population of the national park and is concerned with half the planning applications. Therefore, it feels a great deal of frustration.
We welcome these provisions, but I do not believe that they will satisfy our hunger. We welcome them because we prefer half a loaf to nothing. Many people in the South 1316 Lakeland area contend that there should be more than four district council representatives on the planning board in order to enable an area such as South Lakeland, which comprises more than half the population of the board's area, to have possibly the right to two district councillors on the board. There might then well be an unanswerable case in equity that we should have a representative on the board's planning committee. I believe that we shall need that one day. I believe that we shall ask for another helping later, although I am happy that this provision, which I very much welcome, should be digested before we ask for more.
I ask my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to keep the problem under constant review and recognise that in due course it may be necessary to do more.
§ Mr. HardyThe hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) will forgive me if I do not take up his references to his local authorities, because I wish to be brief. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will visit their licensed premises early in the evening, since I trust that his local councillors do not spend too much time there.
The hon. Gentleman said that half a loaf was better than no bread, and I tend to share his view. But it would be churlish to make too many gestures in that direction at this hour, particularly as the speeches of both my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the Minister struck the right notes. The tributes that were paid were entirely deserved. I am sure that every member of the Committee, as well as other Members present tonight, would endorse that.
The Minister avoided striking any excessive note of self-congratulation. Many of us believe that the Government have been a little too hesitant in not allowing sufficient further strides forward.
The Bill is, of course, better than it was. It was better when it left the Lords. Perhaps we were able to sustain some of the advances that were made there. The Lords may make one or two further moves towards progress before the Bill is enacted. Monitoring will be necessary. The Minister may not have noticed the following comment in the Farmer and Stockbreeder:
Many of the concessions the Government has made may prove to be more apparent than real.That comment caused me a little concern. I hope that monitoring will establish that it may have been inaccurate.Before the Bill is enacted, the Government may have to give further consideration to clause 16. There has been a reference to questions in the European Parliament. There now seem to be grounds to suspect that the Community may well rule that clause 16 and clause 4(3) are inappropriate. The Minister deserves a holiday, and I hope that he will enjoy one. But I also hope that before the recess is over he will inform those members of the Committee who were interested in this matter of the Government's view of that Community question.
Thousands of miles of hedgerow have been lost. The one sad omission from the Bill is adequate protection for the hedgerow. The man in the street will find it astonishing that hedgerows have received inadequate attention. The first thing that he would say, if asked, would be that there has been far too great a loss of hedgerows. The parish boundary hedgerows—the sort that were described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) 1317 in the early stages of the Committee—the hedgerows of enormous antiquity, of almost Stone Age character, could have been preserved. I trust that an hon. Member who draws a high place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills next Session, or an hon. Member using the Ten-Minute Bill procedure or such other procedures as are available, will seek to introduce a Bill to provide for hedgerow preservation orders. That will give the local authority, through the planning authorities, the opportunity to designate hedgerows which deserve to be protected.
The tree preservation order is useful. A hedgerow preservation order system would be beneficial, too. I hope that before long this Government—or, I hope, one of another political complexion—will ensure that the necessary further steps will be taken in this direction. Half a loaf is better than no bread, and I believe that the tributes that have been expressed about the Bill are entirely justified. I hope that all hon. Members will echo those tributes.
§ Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) will forgive me for not pursuing his points in detail, but there may be a great deal to be said for the introduction of hedgerow preservation orders. We cannot go on for ever losing hedgerows, even though there may be a case for some degree of rationalisation in some parts of the country.
I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister about resources for the Nature Conservancy Council. Governments and Parliaments all too often will ends without willing means. In this Bill the Government have rightly preferred to follow the route of conservation by consent while improving the procedures under which SSSIs are identified and operations affecting them are in turn notified to the NCC.
However, a variety of changes and improvements have been made to the Bill so that the original financial memorandum to the Bill on Report has been overtaken by events. I believe that it envisaged an average annual expenditure of between £600,000 and £700,000 for management agreements and land acquisition. On the basis that additional responsibilities have been added, it is certain that more money will now be needed to enable the NCC to perform the duties which have been imposed upon it. Conservation by consent does not simply mean conservation on the cheap. Those days are gone. The agency of the Government which is concerned with advising landowners on conservation should be properly equipped to provide the kind of full and early response that landowners who are keen to conserve will expect.
The Bill consolidates and extends the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 and the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. It adds some totally new measures such as those already referred to for marine nature reserves. Since being established in 1973, the NCC has coped with a budget which in real terms has not increased in spite of the extra responsibilities laid upon it in 1975 and 1976. It would be unrealistic now to expect the council once more to absorb the considerable new duties that the Bill imposes upon it without some further Government help. If the Government do not give that help, if the council is not an effective body because of a lack of resources, it will be that much more difficult to achieve what the Bill sets out to do—conservation by communication, co-operation and consent.
1318 Therefore, I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and I hope that before long he will be able to make a statement to the House after he has had time to consider the Nature Conservancy Council's assessments of its requirements in the light of the new duties imposed upon it.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI join with the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in paying tribute to all the pressure groups from outside that have given us such excellent briefings. I make the point to them that this is not the end of the Bill. There is a final round for them and all our constituents who are concerned about it. The Bill has been changed so much since it left the Lords that the Lords will have to spend quite a bit of time going over it. I hope that all of the groups concerned about the Bill will see this as one last opportunity to push the Minister to provide either the concessions he was going to provide as long as he was pushed or those that he would have liked to give but for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I appeal to all those groups that have been lobbying us so hard to make one more effort to get a few more improvements made in the Bill when it goes back to the Lords.
Part 1 seems to have done a considerable amount to reduce some of the cruelty towards animals and birds, and to give protection to our plants. I suspect that one problem is that it still gives much more protection to the things considered to be attractive in the countryside and not enough protection to the less glamorous insects and algae that are still extremely important in the life chain of the countryside and that we ought to be protecting more. It still allows far too much cruelty, particularly in the types of snares used. We still have some way to go.
Everyone on the Labour Benches has stressed that it is extremely important that the voluntary system in part II should work this time. It is the last chance for it. One of the major problems about part II is that we still have vast amounts of money available to the farming community that can be used to destroy the countryside rather than conserve it. It is sad that from. the Common Market and its agricultural fund there are large amounts of money available to create butter mountains and wine lakes but very little money to conserve our own mountains, lakes and countryside generally.
In the Bill we have not altered the balance of the resources. We still have the farmer who is finding it very difficult in the marginal areas to make enough money and to have a decent standard of living for the hours he puts in. As a result, there is the temptation to damage the countryside to improve his economic situation.
I find part III profoundly disappointing, as will the ramblers and all those who go walking in the countryside and want to use footpaths. They will be coming back to this House very soon wanting much more effective legislation.
The major message that ought to go out on Third Reading is that if we want to protect our countryside it is the attitude of every person who uses it that is important. It is extremely important that everyone should treat the countryside with care and concern. Here I refer to the motorist driving through, looking at the attractions of the countryside and flicking his cigarette packet out of the window, and the walker who goes into the countryside to 1319 enjoy it but leaves behind his litter—the bottle that becomes broken or the tin that goes rusty. I have in mind the farmer contemplating tearing up the hedgerow.
All the people who use the countryside should think back to the old belief of the traditional farmer that at the end of his life he should leave his farm to succeeding generations—preferably his son—in as good heart as when he received it, or possibly even better. We should all believe that it is our duty to ensure that we leave the countryside in better heart for succeeding generations than when we received it. The countryside is one of our most precious inheritances. We must ensure that it is in good heart.
§ 2.1 am
§ Mr. Colin ShepherdEarly on, I approached the Bill with considerable misgivings, but the skilful work of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team has convinced me. The Government have put in a great deal of enterprise in bringing forward the Bill at this time and grasping so many of these difficult nettles, certainly during my exciting and stimulating period of service on the Standing Committee.
I wish to make a small but important point. Fundamentally, this is a symptom-bashing Bill. If the structure of the market, which is one of the aspects from which I have considered the Bill, were right, many of the problems with which we have been grappling would not have arisen. Basically it is lack of return in the market place for the agriculture industry that has given rise to the problems. We must take that seriously on board. We are all consumers, and we place almost intolerable burdens on the agriculture industry. We must ask ourselves why a piece of wetland which has lain idle as a natural habitat for a thousand years suddenly appears attractive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) so eloquently put it earlier this week in relation to moorland, the answer is need, not greed. That need is demonstrated by the steady pattern of falling farm incomes shown year after year in agriculture White Papers.
I illustrate the point with an example from my own constituency. A dairy farmer who 17 years ago ran 35 cows on 100 acres and made a reasonable living now has to run 130 cows on 110 acres, with all the additional strain that that involves, in order to achieve the same real income. That is a stress situation. As consumers and as Parliament we have been piling stress upon stress on the agriculture industry, as figures have shown time and again during the passage of the Bill. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, 54 per cent. of farm income now comes from grants. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) also drew attention to the massive amount of grant aid. This should all come from self-generated income. It should be investment capable of being made from the return produced by the farm itself, rather than being taken out and handed back in lump sums which are capable of creating distortions in the industry.
These are important matters. I therefore make this one plea on behalf of the agriculture industry. Let us always consider what will be the consequences of any action that we take here when looking after the interests of the land 1320 in general so that we do not step up the stress and fall into that funny syndrome which says that for every solution there is a problem.
§ 2.4 am
§ Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)From what I have heard, I must regard myself as fortunate not to have served on the Standing Committee. Nevertheless, this is a subject with which I have lived all my life. As a land agent, I have had to sit in the middle, between farmers, tenants and landlords, and I believe that from a countryman's point of view I am able to see many of the problems from two angles.
I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the major effect of the Bill on the country. It has aroused awareness. We must continue to press that because, given good will on both sides, a voluntary system is far better than a compulsory one. If rules and regulations are constantly waved in front of them, people are more likely to try to get behind them and do something harmful.
My district is 95 per cent. arable. There are few footpaths in the arable counties. To be honest, there are few bulls running about in the fields. A county such as Norfolk has a fast-growing population that comes mainly from the towns, and many such people are not aware of the way in which the countryside works. We must try to bring together farmers who are prepared to show their farms to townspeople and townspeople who appreciate the problems of the farmer.
In an arable county, many footpaths run slap through the middle of arable fields. They have been out of use for many years. When such an area was grassland, it was often the easiest way to get to the church, the pub or the school. However, those footpaths are no longer required. Schoolchildren are generally bussed and the pub has probably closed. The way to overcome this problem is to divert those footpaths round the headlands and to provide alternative walks and riding facilities wherever possible.
A long-distance walk that has been five or six years in the making is now proposed for my area. I believe that is now being considered by the Countryside Commission. I hope that it will come to my right hon. Friend's Department before long and that he will push ahead with it. It is called the Peddars Way. It will run about 100 miles southwards from the North Coast. That could relieve a lot of pressure in various parts of the counties through which it will pass, because at present many people who want to walk in the countryside must do so through arable crops, thereby causing considerable damage.
The Forestry Commission has many rules that prevent people from riding in Forestry Commission land. That is worrying, because there are few outlets for children and others to ride in arable counties, except in the Forestry Commission lands.
I totally agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). We should preserve the hedgerows down our green lanes. Until 150 years ago, Norfolk was nothing but a sheepwalk with no hedgerows. We are now returning to the same state, because hedgerows have recently been grubbed up only because modern farming methods demand larger fields. The huge and expensive machines that must be used to keep farming afloat must be used in larger fields.
The Bill will do immense good, but we shall need continuous help from all who love the countryside. We 1321 must not pick on one point and ram it home regardless of the interests of those who live in the countryside or want to walk in the countryside. I sincerely hope that I shall be able to do my bit to bring together the two groups of people who live and work in the countryside.
§ Mr. DalyellThe hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) meant well when he said that he was fortunate not to have been on the Committee because of the unconscionable time that the Committee proceedings took. Most of us on the Committee have not grudged that time, partly because it has, in the best parliamentary tradition, been a process of self-education in which many of us have learnt much from the interest groups to which tribute has been paid. I hope that those interest groups have learnt something from us about political constraints and the difficulties, of those who take part in cause politics. I hope that between the interest groups and the politicians on both sides there has been a two-way traffic in ideas.
The Minister answered my question about cash for the Nature Conservancy Council. I deeply and passionately agree with the argument made some hours ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) that we may find that planning and listening will be necessary in the future.
Within the parameters of the Bill, cash is all-important. I accept what my right hon. Friend stressed, that there is a delicate issue about whether the State should pay people for not doing things. If one follows the line of the Bill, cash for the Nature Conservancy Council is of the greatest importance.
The Minister said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that one day he would produce what he called a true history of the Bill. When he leaves office, I hope that within a year of doing so, before he has forgotten what happened, he will keep that promise. I should like to have a true history from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). If Mr. Alan Leavett were to leave the Civil Service, he might write a true history of the Bill. There is much to be said from every point of view.
I have before me details of the business for Wednesday 21 October and Thursday 22 October as announced by the Leader of the House this afternoon. It will be
Consideration of any Lords Messages which may be receivedon both those days. Without being impertinent to the other House, I make one suggestion for a Lords message that I hope will come back. I think that their Lordships should have another bite at the cherry. We owe a considerable debt to Lord Melchett, Lord Craigton and many others interested in the subject for the amount of spadework that they did before the Bill came to this place. I hope that in September or October, when they have had time to reflect on it—some of us are glad that they did not have to spatchcock their consideration of it in a hurry before the Royal wedding—they will return to it. I hope that in the messages on either the Wednesday or the Thursday when we return from the recess there will be some sort of message from the Lords on the reserve powers for the SSSIs.
§ Mr. Denis HowellAnd moorlands.
§ Mr. DalyellMy right hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the subject of moorlands. I hope that the Lords will reconsider and in the fullness of time reflect on what 1322 has been said in their Lordships' House by Lord Kennet, who has experience of these matters. He has said mea culpa in his ministerial experience in the late 1960s, that the voluntary system has been tried and tried again. If it was to be successful, some of us believe that it would already have been successful. I hope that the Lords will not think it impertinent if we suggest that they should reflect and send us a message concerning reserve powers.
§ Mr. MonroI should be less than courteous if I did not respond to the kind remarks made by hon. Members on both sides. I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for his assistance during the passage of the Bill.
At times my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services played some remarkable tunes on the procedural organ to allow us to continue discussions on marine nature reserves and SSSIs with the co-operation of the Opposition and enormously to the benefit of the Bill. By devious means, we resolved practical problems of debating amendments in the best possible way. I think that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will agree that that would never have happened on a Scottish Committee, but we have learnt what can be done in other Committees.
I join in the tributes to the assistance we have received from the staff of the House and the staff of the Department. We also value the assistance of members of the Committee, some of whom are not here tonight. Every hon. Member on the Committee played a part. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has been discreet today. He is an Opposition spokesman, but he has not been involved on Third Reading. He played his part, as did the Whips on the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe arid Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) mentioned his concern about the Lake District special planning board, and, as a not-so-distant parliamentary neighbour across the border, I also noted with some apprehension the dramatic changes in personnel after the election. I shall follow the situation with interest, but perhaps the changes that we have male in district council representation will give my hon. Friend some help in future.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) played an important part in Committee and he is concerned, as are other hon. Members, about clause 16. I believe that when the dust has settled and our friends in Europe see how we propose to move in future, all will he well. The hon. Gentleman said that an important issue throughout proceedings on the Bill was hon. Members' concern about the loss of hedgerows and how we should improve the position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and the hon. Member for West Lothian both referred to resources for the Nature Conservancy Council. That is crucial and I am sure that they will bear in mind what my right hon. Friend said in moving the Third Reading.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) deserves praise for his persistence in putting forward his views, which were not always shared even by his hon. Friends, with great good humour and a lucidity that we all envy. He was a valuable member of the Committee. I note what he said about part III, but I think that when a few enthusiastic ramblers have walked the footpaths they will 1323 see that, after all the consultations that took place before the Bill was introduced, the provisions in the measure are more constructive than the hon. Gentleman gives us credit for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) rightly raised a key issue which was never far from my mind—the profitability of agriculture, in terms not of a prosperous industry,, but of a fair return on capital. Agriculture has gone through a sticky time in recent years, and there has merely been a natural wish to try to make the most of the land that one owns or tenants. One understands that some farmers have moved ahead of the general approach on conservation and habitat which has been one of the main issues of the Bill. I much appreciated my hon. Friend's link with the National Farmers' Union. He and colleagues from Wales and Scotland have put forward most ably the farming issues.
I welcomed the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). He has practical experience of the land, both from the point of view of farming and of land agency. He was right to highlight the issue of the continuous work that lies ahead of us all in terms of education on conservation.
We should remember that we have started from a new base. We did not start from the point at which the Bill was published, because it contained many new developments when it came to the House. We have tried to keep a fair balance, whether in field sports, conservationist groups, or animal welfare. I believe that the RSPCA has not been mentioned, but I am happy to bring it in. There is also the work of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.
1324 I want to highlight the improvements that we have made concerning the SSSIs and the introduction of the MNRs. They have brought much closer the two Departments which are involved—the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The co-operation and co-ordination that we have developed will be of immense importance to whichever party is in power in the years ahead.
The words of the hon. Member for West Lothian, who has played such a prominent part throughout the Bill's proceedings, were very similar to my thoughts—that we have all learnt a great deal about one another, whether those who have helped from the outside or those of us who tried to promote the Bill from inside Parliament. After their Lordships have studied carefully what we have done, I am sure that they will realise that we have improved the good work that they did. The Bill has evolved. It has not changed dramatically, but it contains major improvements, which they will surely appreciate and welcome, such as those affecting the SSSIs and the MNRs.
I feel that their Lordships will have a peaceful two months' contemplation, thinking that they started something that has developed and grown into a thoroughly good Bill, and that they need do little more than make one or two suggestions in October. I am confident, by and large, in what the Bill will do and that we have presented a Bill to their Lordships which is very much better than the one which came to this House, and that we shall all be proud in future of our record on the habitat and agricultural conservation.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.