New Forest

HC Deb 26 November 1998 vol 321 cc428-36

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

10 pm

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

I approach this debate with some reluctance, given that whatever I may say will upset one or other of the lobbies in my constituency. There is nothing in it for me. I also approach it with a measure of humility in that I am a newcomer to the affairs of the forest, but I spent a considerable amount of time this summer consulting people who are intimate with it and its problems, and that intimacy is the product not only of their own lifetimes, but of generations.

The New Forest is the most important natural heritage area in western Europe. It is vital that we preserve it. It is, to some extent, a credit to the House that it still exists and that we have preserved it over the centuries. There are, however, considerable problems.

The forest is sandwiched between the expanding port of Southampton, seeking to expand into Dibden bay, and the expanding conurbation of Bournemouth, with its plans for a much expanded airport. It is bisected by the A31 which is, to all intents and purposes, an extension of the M27-M3 motorway network, with growing volumes of traffic audible over much of the forest, particularly on the approaches to Ringwood. In addition, we have the problem of housing and the demand that that makes on the infrastructure.

Those problems are of a different order from the problems for which the legislation framed by the House was designed to solve. Those Acts attend largely to the conservation of forestry and to the rights of commoners as against the Crown.

Notwithstanding that, the regime that persists in the New Forest—by that I mean the perambulation of Crown lands and attached commons—is fundamentally sound. It provides a balance of interests. It provides for the Forestry Commission to manage the forest but to be accountable to the public through the House. We can challenge the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it is amenable to public pressure, as the current debate on the Minister's mandate has clearly shown. There are proper checks and balances. What is more, the regime affords the verderers enormous powers to thwart undesirable development. Those powers would not be available under much modern legislation.

Therefore, I do not believe that the problems within the perambulation of Crown lands are primarily organisational. There is, undoubtedly, an economic problem, which largely hinges on the survival of the 400 or so practising commoners. It is vital that commoning survives because it is the grazing of the commoners' stock that gives the forest its unique character. It will be interesting to see what funds may be unlocked in the future to solve many of the problems faced by the commoners. But whatever happens, I urge the Minister to ensure that the commoners are always thoroughly consulted, not just because they have an interest to protect but because they have much wisdom, stretching back over generations.

I move beyond the perambulation of Crown lands and attached commons to the problems of the wider New Forest heritage area. It is here that the pressures of the modern world are much more intrusive. It is a vital area for the protection of the New Forest itself, because it provides a halo around the forest, insulating it from much development pressure. It is under threat. The New Forest Acts do not apply here. The writ of the verderers does not run here. It is difficult with any certainty to point to it even on the map because the boundary is subject to revision by the local planning process.

The Minister must address at least two problems with respect to the heritage area. First, he needs to review and fix the boundary and, in that regard, I would draw to his attention the interesting proposals from the Ramblers Association. Secondly, he needs to review the planning environment within that heritage area. I suggest that he amend the general permitted development order.

Whatever the Minister does must be done with some sensitivity—certainly with respect to business interests. We need jobs in Lymington and New Milton. I draw to his attention the problems faced by Lymington Precision Engineers—a successful company that is seeking to expand and provide vital jobs but which is unable to do so because of the constraints placed on the use of all the available land. Equally, there are problems faced by hauliers, who were recently banned from using forest roads. One visited me recently to say that his costs had gone up by £60,000 a year as a result, and that he was now at a competitive disadvantage compared with everyone else in the county.

It is quite proper that the county council should exercise its powers because of the special status and character of the New Forest. Equally, I believe that compensation ought to be available and I hope that some new international status may be able to unlock funds for the New Forest.

In summary, the New Forest is a unique environment, and therefore it would be inappropriate to roll it up in a solution together with the south downs. Most importantly, I urge the Minister to eschew the powers that he has under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to impose a standard national park on the New Forest. A national park, under the 1949 Act, would provide disproportionate influence to local government as against the other interests in the forest.

The Minister has a credible track record in local government and extensive experience of it. Nevertheless, local government priorities with respect to housing, tourism and traffic management are not necessarily the priorities of conservation. In that regard, I draw to the Minister's attention a letter that I received today from a constituent, who happens to be the chairman of the New Forest committee. He said: Government might impose a standard solution for administrative convenience and ignore the special characteristics of the Forest e.g. that 50 per cent. of the Heritage Area is Crown land or that commoning would not be a special purpose for the designation … The Forestry Commission and the Verderers would be underrepresented on a standard National Park Authority… Existing responsibilities are discharged effectively and display none of the confusion which existed in some National Park areas pre-designation… Why strip them away and add to bureaucracy? The letter stated that a standard solution would not address potential overlapping responsibilities. For example, the National Park Authority, Forest Enterprise, as recreational managers of the land, and the verderers would have overlapping responsibilities, and consequent muddles would have to be sorted out after the event.

I have quoted selectively from the chairman's letter. He advocates tailor-made legislation for a special national park. Before I would sign up to any such proposal, I would like to see the exact details. However, as I have quoted selectively, I will let the Minister have a copy of the entire text.

10.9 pm

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

With typical generosity, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has allowed me to intervene in the debate, which he was fortunate enough to secure in the ballot. He has touched on three possible options for the management of the New Forest in the future. These can be summarised as: specialist legislation combined with the activities of voluntary bodies, voluntarily co-ordinated; specialist legislation combined with statutory bodies and statutory powers; and designation as a national park under the 1949 Act. I contend that either a statutory body or designation under the 1949 Act would overlap with and undermine the powers of the verderers to protect the institution of commoning in the forest, without which the forest would not be as it is today.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the establishment of a national park authority under the Environment Act 1995 would allow for delegated powers to be given to the local authority and for the commoners and verderers to continue much as at present?

Dr. Lewis

I am concerned that there are very different ideas as to what statutory powers would entail. I asked the outgoing chairman of the New Forest committee what would be the difference between a statutory body and one, such as the present committee, that voluntarily coordinates the various interest groups. His response was that the bodies that were voluntarily involved in the New Forest committee would have to belong to it in future.

I asked what was the purpose of doing that if we were not to have a regime in which the majority of bodies that were forced to belong to the statutory body might outvote the minority, thus undermining the authority of the verderers. The outgoing chairman said that that would happen only in the last resort. I said that that sounded like the concept of subsidiarity and he said that, knowing my views on that concept in the European context, he had thought that the word would never pass my lips. I replied that I did not trust it in Europe and I do not trust it in the New Forest.

On 15 July, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu initiated a debate in the other place on the future of the New Forest. Four days earlier, The Southern Daily Echo, a newspaper that is generally reliable—apart from an occasional rush of blood to the headline—quoted him as stating that his own preference was for improved administration based on existing Acts of Parliament relating to the New Forest, with a co-ordinating role for the New Forest Committee—but not statutory powers. I was therefore rather disappointed that, when the debate took place, he gave a slightly different interpretation. He rightly said: There is very little support for national park status in the forest but he went on to say, in relation to special legislation, that Clauses would be required to establish a statutory authority to co-ordinate management over the whole heritage area". I am worried about a statutory authority for the reasons that I have given. I was impressed by the remarks of the Labour peer, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, a former chairman of the Forestry Commission, who said: I very soon discovered that what I needed"— in the New Forest— was not simply a good forest manager but also a diplomat who could live with all the conflicting interests. Without a great deal more evidence, I would be reluctant to believe that a change involving legislation would achieve any better solution than the present regime."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 332–35.] When the Minister came to visit us in the New Forest, I formed the distinct impression that the likelihood of any fresh legislation in the Government's timetable was remote. I fear that we will be faced, not with statutory powers for the New Forest committee or a similar body, but either with designation as a national park under existing legislation or a continuation of past practice whereby the forest has been defended, protected and safeguarded by individual laws and not by the erection of overarching bodies. What has worked for many hundreds of years is the best solution for the future.

We face the prospect of the Dibden bay port development, which would erect massive container stacks and put massive burdens on the infrastructure along the edge of the forest. The problems which the Minister faces in dealing with the issues raised in this debate are as nothing compared to the problems which the forest will face if that development goes ahead without arrangements being made for the traffic into and out of any Dibden bay container port to go in and out of the port of Southampton, and not be inflicted upon the waterside or forest area.

10.15 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale)

I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on securing this debate on the important subject of the future status of the New Forest. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond and I pay tribute to him and other hon. Members who have continued to raise the subject in the House. If the hon. Gentleman will pardon me, I shall deal first with a point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about Dibden bay.

I assure the hon. Member for New Forest, East that I am aware that Associated British Ports in the Southampton area is working on a port expansion on the western bank of Southampton water at the bay. That is to enable the port to attract new, larger, deep-sea container ships, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Proposals for that area are likely to be controversial, not least because of the nature conservation implications and the designation of the Dibden bay foreshore as part of a special protection area for birds. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the site lies in the New Forest district and is close to the New Forest heritage area. Although ABP has not so far submitted applications for the necessary consents, I know that the company has been in discussions with environmental bodies, the relevant local authorities and my officials about the procedures that would be required. Those procedures are complex and various consents are required by the relevant legislation.

My understanding is that a harbour revision order would be needed to allow the construction of a new terminal and ABP is also likely to require planning permission for some aspects of the works. Unless objections to the harbour revision order are resolved by negotiation, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will call a public local inquiry, during which time the objectors and any other interested parties may make representations. The final decision would then rest with my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for the Department that I represent. In view of that, it would be improper for me to express any views on the merits or otherwise of the proposals at this stage. However, I thank the hon. Member for New Forest, East for drawing the House's attention to the issue.

As is to be expected, there is much interest in the New Forest area about the future status of the forest and the decision that the Government must take about the best way forward, but interest is not confined to the locality or even to the surrounding counties and cities. The New Forest has a special place in the nationally valued landscapes of England and there is, rightly, interest and concern throughout the United Kingdom.

As the hon. Member for New Forest, West knows, the issue has a long history. The recent debate on administrative mechanisms occupies but the blink of an eye compared with the long history of the New Forest itself. However, the debate has taken place during a time of unprecedented change in so many of the aspects of human activity that have an impact on the forest, including, for instance, development proposals on a scale and of kinds not previously thought of; economic forces operating at an international level; personal mobility brought about largely through the use of the private car; and new agricultural and forestry techniques which have had an impact across the countryside. Hand in hand with those forces for change has gone an increasing realisation of the importance of conserving and enhancing our most important national areas of landscape beauty.

Back in the 1940s, when the areas which would end up as the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty were being surveyed, the New Forest was left off the list. That decision was undoubtedly profoundly influenced by the fact of Forestry Commission management of the Crown lands, as the hon. Member for New Forest, West has said, and by the special arrangements for the management of the forest under the New Forest Acts, involving the powers of the verderers in regulating commoning.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the position was considered again. The national parks review panel was asked by the Countryside Commission, on behalf of the then Government, to look again at the national parks in England and Wales, 40 years after the passing of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. In considering possible new national parks, the review panel considered that the New Forest was worthy of national park status, but suggested tailor-made legislation to take into account the powers and responsibilities of the Forestry Commission and the verderers.

The previous Administration accepted that something needed to be done, and in 1992 declared their intention of establishing a new statutory body based on the New Forest committee. Somewhere along the way their resolve faltered rather badly and they changed their mind. Instead, in 1994 they announced that there was no need for any new statutory management body, but that they planned to apply national park planning protection policies within the boundary of the New Forest heritage area. I feel obliged to advise the hon. Member for New Forest, West that even that limited gesture has not worked properly. The previous Government wanted to define the heritage area's boundary through the local plan process, and that has taken so long that it still has not been finalised.

To date, because there is no confirmed boundary, it has not been possible to amend the general permitted development order to give full effect to national park planning policies. The Government have therefore asked the Countryside Commission to reconsider the position in the New Forest, and they have firmly re-stated the need for a statutory authority to take over from the voluntary New Forest committee.

Before going any further, I would like to pay tribute to the partners in the New Forest committee who have come together voluntarily. They include the local authorities, the Forestry Commission, English Nature, the Countryside Commission and the verderers. The work the New Forest committee has done so far has been invaluable in furthering understanding of the New Forest and in taking forward sympathetic management.

To its credit, the committee has co-operated in drawing up a management strategy for the forest and it has pulled in vital funding from Europe in a successful LIFE fund bid. As the hon. Member for New Forest, West rightly said, we should pay tribute to the commoners. I was greatly impressed with them on my recent visit to the New Forest, and, as I said then, it would be strange if they were not there. If they had not existed for so long, it would be necessary for the Government, or for local government, to invent them.

However, the New Forest committee is only a voluntary co-ordinating body without statutory powers and responsibilities or a real spending budget. The committee itself, composed of all the bodies that I have mentioned with a stake in the forest, is campaigning for a statutory designation for the forest and for a new statutory authority to be set up to take forward the work which the committee has started. The New Forest committee recognises that further work needs to be done to define exactly the tasks and responsibilities that a new tailor-made authority would have. I know that the committee is holding a seminar on 28 November for stakeholders in the New Forest, to allow people to have their say on what a new statutory authority would do. I look forward to hearing the results and to seeing some specific proposals.

The Countryside Commission, in its advice to the Government, suggests that a statutory authority should prepare a statutory management plan, should be able to enter into management agreements and make payments towards the conservation of the forest, and should have a statutory right to be heard on strategic activities affecting the forest. The details of how such a statutory authority would work are not entirely clear.

If the Government decided to follow the course that the Countryside Commission regards as its first choice in its advice—that is, a tailor-made authority—all the interests in the New Forest would need to take part in further serious discussions to agree just how they want the arrangements to work. Careful thought would have to be given to how the powers of the new authority would relate to those of existing bodies, in particular the Forestry Commission and the verderers. However, I must stress that the Government have not yet made up their mind on the most effective method for resolving the concerns about the management of the New Forest.

Nevertheless, we have been listening carefully to all the arguments. For that reason, I visited the New Forest on 13 October as the guest of the New Forest committee. Not only did that allow me to find out at first hand about some of the important issues in the forest, but it gave me an opportunity to talk to many people with a variety of views about the best way forward. Indeed, following encouragement by hon. Members, including the two hon. Gentlemen who represent the New Forest, I am hoping to revisit the forest soon, to see some of the areas that I was unable to see during my short visit. I have held separate meetings with a wide range of interested parties, including both hon. Gentlemen, representatives of the verderers, the Ramblers Association and the Council for the National Parks. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has also met with representatives of the New Forest committee and held discussions with a range of other interested parties.

Yesterday, I was able to reply for the Government in a debate on possible national park status for the south downs called by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). Possible solutions for the future management of the south downs are also dealt with in the Countryside Commission's advice to the Government on protected areas and so are ideas for the better protection and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty, of which there are 37 in England.

Many of the matters that we have to consider in the Countryside Commission's advice are interrelated and we are looking at them as a whole. Decisions about the New Forest cannot sensibly be taken in isolation from the other issues dealt with in that advice. The Government want to make the right decisions on each of those matters, which is why we are taking some time to reach conclusions. We will do so as soon as possible.

I can tell the House today that we are studying carefully the full range of options for the New Forest, which include the option of a national park designated under the 1949 Act, with a freestanding national park authority, with the revised responsibilities and powers provided for under the Environment Act 1995. That option was not available when the national parks review panel reported in 1991 or when the previous Government said in 1992 that they were going to pursue a tailor-made solution. However, we have not yet made up our minds.

We are fully aware of the special factors operating in the New Forest, especially the responsibilities of the Forestry Commission and the verderers. After all, almost half of the area is managed on behalf of Ministers by the Forestry Commission. A national park authority in the New Forest would have to work closely with the Forestry Commission and the verderers. It would also need to have an appropriate relationship with the planning arrangements of the local authorities in the area.

We are also aware that national park status would bring a number of benefits. Besides a 75 per cent. funding contribution from central Government, it would bring a statutory boundary, a recognised high planning status and well-understood powers and responsibilities. The 1995 Act provides for national park authorities to have duties both to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. In doing so, they have to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities. Those are all duties that are highly relevant to the requirements of the New Forest.

Whichever management solution is adopted for the New Forest, the question of defining a boundary will need to be resolved. There will be a mechanism to do that, whichever route we choose. I am also aware that a number of voices are in favour of a designation that goes wider than the heritage area. Those issues need to be considered in detail.

The heritage area already covers about twice the area managed by the Forestry Commission. Within the Crown lands, the Forestry Commission has a highly regarded track record, reflecting the importance that the Commission attaches to its duty of care in the forest. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has responsibility for fisheries and the countryside, visited the New Forest in the summer to launch the consultation on a revision of the mandate under which the Forestry Commission—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.