§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of 92 acres of Halvergate marshes which is a grade 1 listed landscape in the ownership of Mr. David Wright.
§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)Four of the five farmers who gave notice some months ago of their intention to plough parts of Halvergate marshes have now agreed not to proceed this year. The fifth, Mr. David Wright, declined to enter into a holding agreement, and the strategy committee of the Broads authority decided last week not to offer him a full management agreement, nor has it sought a direction under article 4 of the general development order. While I greatly regret that Mr. Wright has decided to start drainage operations on his land, I do not consider that the Broads authority's decision in this case seriously jeopardises the protection of the Halvergate landscape as a whole.
§ Dr. CunninghamIs the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety about our national heritage, and the fact that Halvergate marshes are a unique example of that heritage? Why did the Under-Secretary of State tell the House on 4 April that Halvergate marshes were safe for at least one year, when that clearly was not the case? He gave that reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Is it not also the case that several more farmers have notified the Broads authority of their intention to drain and plough grade 1 listed land? Does the Secretary of State agree that they decided to do that because of the common agricultural policy, and that they intend to grow cereals, much of which will go, at public expense, into intervention?
Surely those examples show that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is incapable of properly protecting our natural heritage. Will the Secretary of State agree to our frequently repeated proposal to sit down and talk with us about a Bill to plug the loopholes in the Act? Finally, will he assure the House that he will act by means of an article 4 order, or in some other way, to protect the marshes until a long-term solution can be agreed?
§ Mr. JenkinMy hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State used the words to which the hon. Gentleman referred but has since corrected himself in a further parliamentary answer. When he gave his first answer, it was hoped that it would be possible to negotiate management agreements with all five farmers. I regret that it has not proved possible in this case.
The hon. Gentleman raised the point about other farmers. He may be aware that the Broads authority received notification late last week from the Howell brothers of their intention to convert their holding of about 76 acres. I understand, however, that there is no immediate threat to plough. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the common agricultural policy and the incentives that it offers to convert grazing land to cereals. I am well aware of that. He may have taken note of the speech that I made when I launched the Nature Conservancy Council's new strategy document.
With regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has today sought to 148 get in touch with the hon. Gentleman to discuss a possible Bill to close the three-month loophole. This Government have shown a real interest for the protection of landscapes and nature conservancy special sites. It was this Government who carried through the House the Wildlife and Countryside Act after our predecessors had done nothing for the previous five years.
§ Mr. Richard Ryder (Mid-Norfolk)Is my right hon. Friend aware that a vast number of my constituents around Halvergate supported his welcome readiness to intervene in the case of Mr. Archer's land at Limpenhoe and wonder why he cannot do so in the case of Mr. Wright's land?
§ Mr. JenkinI am grateful to my hon. Friend for the recognition that I acted in the case of Limpenhoe, in response to a request from the Broads authority for an article 4 direction which would withdraw the land from the general consents of the general development order. In the case of Mr. David Wright's land, for reasons which no doubt seemed good to it, the Broads authority has not sought such a direction. In those circumstances, because an article 4 direction involves an encroachment upon the rights of ownership of the land, I have not thought it right to act on my own.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Has the Secretary of State been told that, during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in Committee, briefed by Mr. Robin Grove White and Mr. Tony Long of the Council for the Protection of Rural England when I spoke for one and a quarter hours on Halvergate —[HON. MEMBERS: "Not long enough."] That was clearly not long enough, in view of what has happened. The Department cannot say that it has not been nagged endlessly about Halvergate. I asked:
Is Halvergate now safe?The Under-Secretary replied:I can assure the hon. Member that Halvergate is safe for a year."—[Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 954.]Will the Secretary of State spell out what has happened between the time that the Under-Secretary gave that undertaking to the House—I am sure in good faith—and today, when there is a completely different explanation?
§ Mr. JenkinAt that time my hon. Friend answered the hon. Gentleman — I have already said that my hon. Friend has since corrected it in Hansard — we were optimistic that it would be possible—[Interruption.]—to negotiate management agreements for all the land. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), regrettably it has not proved possible in this case. The Broads authority decided not to offer a management agreement because of the cost involved, and it has not asked for an article 4 direction.
§ Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is but one example of the problems that arise all over the country, not least in Somerset? Bearing in mind that a farmer's livelihood depends on how he uses his land, will he see that management agreements, which are the solution to this extraordinarily difficult problem, get sufficient funding from his Department so that both sides can be properly satisfied?
§ Mr. JenkinI am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition that it is indeed the Government's policy to proceed in this complex and difficult matter by voluntary agreements wherever this is possible. The article 4 direction which I gave in the case of Mr. Archer's land at 149 Limpenhoe represented a departure from that, and one which I am perfectly prepared to justify in the particular circumstances of that case. I entirely take the point that the Wildlife and Countryside Act needs to be backed by sufficient funds so that the voluntary system can work.
§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)Is it not a fact that existing mechanisms are quite inadequate to deal with the pressure that is put on authorities like the Broads authority and the Nature Conservancy Council, in that landowners are demanding enormous sums in compensation, as a result of which some 25,000 acres of marshland are now estimated to be at risk? What discussions are taking place to rectify the situation? I realise that the Secretary of State has just announced that he intends to introduce legislation, but that will take too long. The matter is immediate. What discussions have been held?
§ Mr. JenkinThe legislation will be on the rather narrow point of the three-month loophole in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have recently received a report of an interdepartmental working party specifically on the question of trying to find a new and more satisfactory regime for the Broads, and have sought various ways of helping the Broads authority to finance landscape conservation. One interesting possibility canvassed in that report, which we are studying urgently, is an experimental scheme by the Countryside Commission to offer incentive payments to farmers who retain livestock grazing. Therefore, the matter has been under consultation for some time, and I hope to reach conclusions on this very soon.
§ Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire)Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support on the Conservative Benches for sensible strengthening of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but that underlying the problem is the fact that EEC influences are pulling in two directions, and, more specifically and immediately, that sensible intermediate proposals have come forward from the Countryside Commission and, I think, from the EEC, for a system of management for this important area of the Broads?
§ Mr. JenkinI do not disagree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said. Indeed, it is obvious to all who have studied this problem that the desire to conserve landscapes and sites of special scientific interest pulls in the opposite direction from some of the pressures under the common agricultural policy. However, I think that it is right to point out that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the first Minister who has succeeded in negotiating the first major change in the common agriculture policy, and I hope that that is a step in the right direction.
§ Mr. Ken Weetch (Ipswich)Is the Secretary of State aware that the problem under consideration in respect of this marshland is but one example of something that is happening throughout East Anglia, in that hedgerows, woodlands and other areas for wildlife are constantly disappearing? Is the Secretary of State aware that a stipulation that one pays farmers and landlords not to use land is an open invitation to blackmail the taxpayer? Will he give the House an undertaking that the entire countryside legislation will be critically reconsidered?
§ Mr. JenkinThe implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that he would move immediately to some form 150 of compulsion on this matter without question, and that is not the Government's policy. We wish, if we can—the great majority of farmers are prepared to go along with this — to have a programme of voluntary agreements in order to secure the conservation of land.
§ Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)It does not work.
§ Mr. JenkinThe hon. Gentleman shouts that it does not work. In the great majority of cases, it is working and has worked, and the vast majority of farmers who have been approached in this regard have negotiated perfectly sensible satisfactory agreements. The problem arises when, for reasons which may seem good to them, they wish to deal with their land In ways that do not involve an agreement. That is something of which we must clearly take account, and which I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West )Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is shared by people throughout Norfolk and in particular by my constituents in north-west Norfolk, where there are considerable expanses of similar marshland?
§ Mr. JenkinI am well aware of the concern in East Anglia, and of the general concern about the impact of some farming practices upon the natural landscape. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has withdrawn grants for grubbing up hedges, and I understand that there are now grants for replanting hedges. I hope that those measures will help to restore the traditional countryside. The Government are giving careful and urgent attention to the matter.
§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)If the Secretary of State is unwilling to make an article 4 direction under the general development order, does he not already have power under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to make an order which extends to the whole area, including Halvergate marshes, and does not the Minister of Agriculture have power to refuse to make discretionary grants for drainage, including the pumps? Why does not the Secretary of State use his powers under section 29 to give a year's breathing space, as we have demanded?
§ Mr. JenkinThe short answer is that the Broads authority, which is the planning authority for the area, has not asked me to do so. [Interruption.] It is all very well, but how often should Governments take matters out of the hands of those who are appointed to deal with them? [Laughter.] That is the truth of the matter.
In a suitable case, I made an order under article 4, and it was widely welcomed by those who have followed this affair.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have to have regard to the subsequent business, and a private notice question is merely an extension of Question Time.
§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A very important distinction has arisen out of the recent exchanges with the Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to a specific assurance given in the House of Commons. An assurance is something which, if it does not actually have legal 151 status, certainly has tremendous authority. All Members of the House and members of the public are greatly influenced in their conduct if any Minister gives a specific assurance. Certain trains of action may be no longer pursued, while others may take a particular direction.
A ministerial assurance is the nearest thing that there is in the House of Commons to a specific commitment. Are we to be told that a ministerial assurance given in such circumstances is no more than an expression of optimism? If that is so, the currency of ministerial statements is totally devalued and the very nature of the Government's relationship to the House and to the country is altered. I should be grateful, Sir, if you could throw some light on the matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot do that. However, I believe that the Secretary of State is about to respond.
§ Mr. JenkinI cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that. As soon as my hon. Friend realised that the assurance that he had given would not be delivered, he answered a question from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), stating the position perfectly accurately. My hon. Friend's reply has been on the record for many weeks. It is less than fair to my hon. Friend to chide him with having misled the House when he gave his answer in perfectly good faith.
§ Dr. Cunninghamrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. No point of order can possibly arise for me on that matter.
§ Dr. Cunninghamrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, the hon. Gentleman may try it out.
§ Dr. CunninghamFurther to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the House was given an assurance on this matter. We have raised the matter several times since. The Secretary of State has the power to ensure that an assurance is carried 152 through. He is now choosing not to exercise that power. The House deserves more of an explanation about that decision than it has had. The Secretary of State is effectively telling the House that he is withdrawing the assurance given by his hon. Friend.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot rule on such matters. Ministers and every other hon. Member must take responsibility for what they say.
§ Later——
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not propose to go back over what has already been said about the private notice question. Mr. Tam Dalyell.
§ Mr. DalyellThis is a new point of order, involving parliamentary procedures. If an assurance is given by a Minister in good faith——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is doing precisely what I asked him not to do. There is no way —the hon. Member knows this—in which I can answer for what the Secretary of State has said. That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for him.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If an assurance is given to an hon. Member, is it not a matter at least of parliamentary courtesy that the withdrawal of the assurance should be given to that hon. Member and other hon. Members? The truth is that my hon. Friends and I, and, more importantly, a number of interest groups outside such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, did not know that the assurance had been withdrawn. Is it not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, that when assurances solemnly given in the House are for some reason withdrawn, those to whom the assurances were given should at least be told?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is nothing particularly novel in this. It is not a matter for the Chair. All right hon. and hon. Members must take responsibility for what they say.