HC Deb 03 November 1999 vol 337 cc229-51

11 am

Caroline Flint (Don Valley)

I am privileged to be able to initiate this important Adjournment debate. First, however, I should like to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Treasury Bench.

In this Session, we have had more debates, early-day motions and parliamentary questions on the subject of wildlife protection than I would even dare to mention now. Nevertheless, I make no apology for returning to the subject again, after making a speech on it in another Adjournment debate, in July, right before the summer recess.

There is enormous interest in the subject because action on it is so urgently needed. Since July, when we last debated the destruction of our wildlife sites, more than 100 sites of special scientific interest have been destroyed. Government statistics show that more than 2,000 sites have been destroyed in the past six years. When a habitat goes, the wildlife living in it declines also.

With such rapid destruction and degradation of our precious wildlife resource, there has been steady growth in public and political support for tough and comprehensive new laws. In August, in a poll conducted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 65 per cent. of people said that they would like the Government to change the law, to give greater legal protection to wildlife. Additionally, 35 environmental and conservation groups—representing more than 6 million people—are now united in their desire for urgent environmental legislation. Furthermore, an unprecedented 351 hon. Members, from across the political spectrum, have signed early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), showing their support for the passage of such laws.

With such clamour for wildlife protection, the Government's document, "SSSIs: the Government's framework for action", which was published in August, was most welcome. I am pleased that it was a Labour Government who, within a short time of being elected, consulted on the issue and produced such a document. Finally, we have a Government who have acknowledged that something needs to be done on the issue.

With such support, and the Government's document, there is now a very real chance of seeing wildlife legislation in this month's Queen's Speech. Many hon. Members, and millions of ordinary members of the public, will be watching and waiting for that to happen. However, they will be watching not only for legislation, but for tough comprehensive legislation.

Let us be clear about it: the opportunity to legislate on wildlife does not come along every day, and we have an opportunity to get it right. If we do not get the legislation right on this occasion, by the time we get another chance to try, in perhaps five or 10 years, we shall have lost many, if not all, of the sites that we are seeking to protect. If the legislation is not comprehensive, sites such as Thorne and Hatfield moors in my constituency will—to use rather unparliamentary language—have had it.

I welcome the framework document, but it is neither sufficiently tough nor sufficiently comprehensive. It contains, for example, no mention of measures to protect species outside SSSIs or at sea. It does not contain a legal presumption against development affecting SSSIs; nor does it mention an issue that is at the forefront of my constituents' minds—lowland raised peat bogs being cut up by an American multinational, bagged up and sold cheaply to gardeners to sprinkle in their pots. The word peat is not mentioned once in the document.

As I told the House in July, Thorne and Hatfield moors are part of the United Kingdom's remaining 6 per cent. of peat bogs—94 per cent. of which have been lost. Thorne and Hatfield moors are one of the United Kingdom's most vulnerable habitats. The moors comprise England's largest raised peat bog, and are home to 3,000 insects and 800 flowering plants. They are also vital to birds. I have a postcard from Helen Kirk—from the Thorne and Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum—showing a European nightjar, which is a summer visitor to Britain. The moors are internationally important to the survival of that species.

Such a location should be guarded as a national treasure, yet it is being plundered for its peat by a multinational organisation. Thorne and Hatfield moors are SSSIs. However, their old mineral permissions—granted in 1951, when much peat extraction was still done by hand—could not have anticipated the wholesale destruction that industrialised peat extraction would wreak.

Companies such as Fisons and Levington's, and now Scotts, have turned large parts of Hatfield moors into nothing more than a lunar landscape. The site is unrecognisable as an area that was once, 4,000 years ago, an integral part of a vast wetland stretching from the Humber estuary. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment described it as an intolerable situation. Yet, sadly, the situation would remain the same under any legislation based on the framework for action, as that document gives no indication of how the Government propose to move forward on the issue. Friends of the Earth estimates that there are still mineral permissions on more than 400 sites. We cannot ignore the issue.

The Government must seriously examine peat extraction, and conclude that it is not sustainable. Peat extraction is not economically significant to South Yorkshire. I have campaigned hard with my colleagues in Doncaster on regeneration, to create growth and jobs. I have also not made friends with some of the environmental groups, because I want Finningly air base to be transformed into a regional airport. However, that development will be on a developed-land site.

I am also working hard to discover how we can make the most of South Yorkshire's tourism opportunities. If we have enough vision, the number of jobs in that sector could be increased by opening the area to a major tourist attraction that visitors not only from Britain, but from around the world would like to visit.

In South Yorkshire, we are also working hard to embrace the information technologies and environmental technologies of the future. Our strength and opportunities for growth lie in those sectors, because of the nature of our area. Yorkshire has sound economic alternatives to peat extraction. Moreover, gardeners have sound horticultural alternatives to peat use.

Britain's gardeners will need persuading on those alternatives, and it is time for some of our current crop of celebrity gardeners to take a stand on the issue for the better. Geoff Hamilton—who was long the voice of gardening on the BBC—was totally opposed to using peat in gardens. We have to ensure that celebrity gardeners take their responsibility seriously. They have to accept that they have some responsibility for gardening's growing popularity—which, in recent years, has led to a fourfold increase in peat use. It does not help that gardening centres sell bags of peat for considerably less than they sell alternative materials.

I shall give an example of contradictions in the current SSSI arrangements, and explain the Natura 2000 proposals. Natura 2000 is a new status for areas of European conservation significance awarded under the habitats or birds directives, and could be part of the future of Thorne and Hatfield moors. However, in its infinite wisdom, English Nature—which, in 1997, proposed removing SSSI status from large parts of Thorne and Hatfield moors—has blundered again.

In 1997, English Nature's rationale for removing the moors' SSSI status was that parts of them had been worked for peat extraction; hence, the vegetation had been stripped, hence—in English Nature's logic—the moors were no longer either special or significant. I am pleased to tell the House that, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, English Nature bowed to public pressure demanding that Thorne and Hatfield moors be treated as an integral, whole and interdependent ecosystem that needed restoration and protection in law, not further destruction.

We hear now that, rather than submitting Thorne and Hatfield moors for Natura 2000 status, English Nature has redrawn the boundary to exclude the worked parts of Hatfield moors. Therefore, the provision to review the planning licences on the Natura 2000 site will not include the area currently being ravaged by Scotts. Consequently, we have a chicken and egg scenario, in which an entire area is covered by SSSI designation, but continued peat extraction is undermining the opportunity to take advantage of other environmental protection legislation to protect the entire moorland as one entity.

Once again, English Nature is playing politics with conservation boundaries. The action is driven not by science, but by a weak-willed desire to reconcile opposites. In so doing, English Nature has once again left a huge hole in the protective cloak that could have shrouded those precious wetlands.

The point of the Natura 2000 project was to confer millennial status. It demanded a look forward to the needs of wetlands 50 years ahead, not the nightmare creations of 50 years ago. I am afraid and disappointed that, by leaving out large sections of Hatfield moors, it is giving up on the moors. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that.

I seek reassurances that the worked areas should be included in the review of planning licences. Not including them will make a significant statement about how the areas are viewed.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Does she agree that, although the protection of SSSIs is a necessary precondition for the long-term improvement of the preservation of wildlife in this country, it is not the only thing that needs to be done? Does she agree that in any future wildlife legislation the importance of local nature reserves needs to be recognised? I should like to tell her about two important local reserves in my constituency, the Summerseat nature reserve and the Chesham woods area, both of which are managed by the Lancashire wildlife—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. That intervention was far too long.

Caroline Flint

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As a constituency Member, my concern is about peat lands, but I am fully aware that others have constituency concerns relating to areas that are missing in the framework document. Local nature reserves, which involve local people and local communities, are an important part of sustainability and ensuring a future for valuable sites as we enter the next millennium.

It will take more than Alan, Charlie and Tommy to do a "Ground Force" makeover on Hatfield moor if it endures another five years of destruction. Until recently, the accepted wisdom was that were the Government to modify old minerals permissions, they would have to compensate the extractors on a profits forgone basis. That may be why the framework document did not address the issue.

However, there are two obvious problems with that approach. First, compensation payments would require an enormous commitment from the taxpayer, possibly millions of pounds per site. Secondly, paying such compensation would send out the wrong message about the public interest in the conservation of such sites. Why should the British taxpayer compensate an American multinational for not destroying one of our best wildlife habitats at Thorne and Hatfield moors? We would not compensate them not to demolish St. Paul's cathedral, so why compensate them for not destroying a peat bog?

In June this year, Friends of the Earth obtained legal advice stating that the Government could pay compensation that recognises only costs involved, not profits lost. That was based on the premise that any such action would manifestly be acting in the public interest. What consideration has been given to that legal opinion, which represents a good way to protect a precious site that is being destroyed relentlessly in the name of a quick buck?

I should also like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government are predisposed against peat extraction. It is not like coal, which served our industry well since the industrial revolution, or aggregates, which are needed for roads and buildings. We can live without peat for horticultural use. There is no partnership to be established, no common objectives, no business development that will not ruin the unique raised mires of Thorne and Hatfield moors.

One of the many letters that I have had from constituents on the issue was from Mark Paine, a local health care professional. He said: For those of us that live around here and are privileged to know the Moors, the sight of our peat being taken away and sold as 'compost' to unwitting gardeners bamboozled by marketing spin cuts very deep indeed. Thorne and Hatfield Moors are places whose very existence in scientific terms truly contributes to the health of our environment, and therefore our ability to sustain healthy lives of our own. Peat wetlands are the UK equivalent of tropical rainforests: precious, under siege, irreplaceable. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take a hard look at Thorne and Hatfield moors and to listen to the concerns of my colleagues this morning about other aspects of the framework document. Please do not ignore the plight of that beleaguered SSSI site.

11.15 am
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing a further debate on SSSIs. I hope that these debates—as she said, we have had several in the past six months—will act as a spur to the Government and will not be seen as a substitute for Government action. Protecting SSSIs adequately becomes ever more vital as each day passes. Every day, an SSSI is destroyed or damaged.

Last week, English Nature published its annual report, which showed that one third of all sites of special scientific interest are suffering continuing damage and neglect. Last year, 8,300 acres of SSSI land were actively damaged. Rob Cooke, the manager of English Nature's SSSI project, says: What has emerged is that 28 per cent. of the natural features of our SSSIs are in poor condition and either getting worse or not getting any better. He continued: Indications are that about a third of England's SSSI area of just over two and a half million acres comes into that category". That is the equivalent of 750,000 acres.

The report picks out Whernside in North Yorkshire, where more than half of a 9,500 acre site of bog and heathland has been devastated by overgrazing. English Nature thinks that it could be restored with the right management, but there is no legislation to ensure that. One site—Horse Field in Gilling, North Yorkshire—has been destroyed.

To prevent any further sites being totally destroyed, we need legislation in the next Queen's Speech. Baroness Young, the chairperson of English Nature, agrees. She has said: Changes of legislation are urgently needed to ensure that these irreplaceable sites are properly managed for their wildlife and natural features. She went on: Most of these SSSIs are suffering from neglect, but without the powers to ensure that these sites are managed for wildlife, English Nature is trying to work with one hand tied behind its back. It is frustrating because many of these sites could be improved by positive management, funded through English Nature's wildlife enhancement scheme. When we cannot achieve this management through partnership"— this is the important point— we need to have additional powers to ensure that damage and neglect of these sites can be tackled. Landowners also recognise that. In response to the Government's consultation, they have said that although deliberate damage was rare, where it occurred there should be appropriate means of dealing with it. Species are suffering—not just the familiar, often mentioned ones such as the dormouse and the water vole, but others such as the black redstart, one of Britain's rarest birds. The recent loss of sites in London along the Thames to development has destroyed the breeding grounds of birds, despite their being recognised in the planning process as important wildlife areas. Sadly, some of the new developments have been stimulated by the building of the millennium dome. Perhaps that is not quite the right signal for the new millennium.

English Nature is not the only organisation to back further wildlife legislation. The Wildlife and Countryside Link—which brings together 22 environmental groups—is calling for legislation. As we have heard in previous debates, nearly 350 Members of Parliament have called for legislation and signed an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). It seems that everybody is urging the forces of conservatism forward. Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) jumps up, we are talking about the forces of conservatism with a small "c".

Before the election, Labour promised greater protection for wildlife. That pledge is still in the Government's annual report, on page 79. Next to it are the words "on course". A consultation paper was issued in September 1998. Those words are of little help to sites such as Offham down or Rainham marsh, which have been damaged since May 1997, despite Labour's pledge. They are also of little help to the 11 wildflower meadows in Devon which The Daily Telegraph reported last month have been largely destroyed. For them, Labour's pledge of "greater protection for wildlife" is very much off course.

When the Government publish their next annual report, the words "on course" next to greater protection for wildlife will not be good enough; we have to see the word "done" instead. To deliver that pre-election pledge, the Government will have to legislate, and legislate well.

I wish to highlight a few issues surrounding the framework for action document. Liberal Democrats join others in welcoming what is in the paper. In legislation, such measures would go a long way towards delivering the Government's pledge, but not all the way. There are some significant omissions, some of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Don Valley. Given the difficulty in obtaining parliamentary time for such a Bill, we must make sure that we get it right first time. We cannot afford to be less than comprehensive, and then have to wait 20 years for another legislative slot.

There must be reform of the common agricultural policy, with a greater focus on positive environmental management and organic production. That must be better financial support for the management of SSSIs. This is particularly important given the state of agriculture, often described as being in crisis and often debated in this House. We need also to ensure not only that we give the powers to the new conservation agencies to protect wildlife, but that they use those powers. Government guidance and support must be strong to ensure that that happens.

We need to make sure that legislation protects not just SSSIs but other valuable wildlife sites as well. The London Wildlife Trust has told me that many rare orchids, butterflies and birds could thrive in churchyards and cemeteries across the capital if only they were given the chance. The same could apply to Wilderness island and Roundshaw downs in my constituency.

Mr. Chaytor

Does not it follow that, in any future legislation, the powers, responsibilities and budgets of the county wildlife trusts need to be enhanced so that they can encourage biodiversity in the urban settings that the hon. Gentleman is describing?

Mr. Brake

That is the case, and resources are important.

As the hon. Member for Don Valley has said, we need to protect species in our seas and coastal areas. For whales, dolphins and porpoises around the UK the situation is far from satisfactory, and those animals are threatened by ever-faster boats and jet skis. They are not adequately protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and I understand that the position will be no better under the proposed legislation. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has raised the matter with the Government, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure hon. Members.

I hope that I and other hon. Members will have demonstrated that the case for legislation is clear and becomes more pressing as each day passes and another SSSI is damaged or destroyed. The Government will have the support of the whole House if they announce such a measure in the Queen's Speech this autumn. I urge them to do so, and to ensure that legislation is robust and comprehensive enough to stand the test of time.

11.23 am
Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this important debate on sites of special scientific interest. None of us should apologise for the frequency with which we bring these matters to the House.

For many SSSIs, it is already five minutes to midnight and, for others, sadly, the bells have tolled—they have gone. In years to come, we must not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley asking, "Where have all the peat bogs gone? Gone to plant pots every one". That is the risk we face.

SSSIs are, without doubt, the very best examples of our natural heritage. The importance of their plants, animals or geological and physiographical features has led to those areas receiving the SSSI designation from English Nature. The 4,000 or so such sites cover 1 million hectares in England—4,000 precious and valued square miles.

Historically, a good deal of my constituency has been economically dependent on mineral extraction—including coal, clay, sand, roadstone and gravel. That era is steadily drawing to a close, and we are now restoring the tranches of derelict land in a variety of ways, prominent among which is the rapidly developing national forest—a remarkably successful project.

Former mining areas, such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, have been environmentally scarred for generations. Our landscape and wildlife have not been seen traditionally as our strengths. We particularly value the relatively few SSSIs that we have, and we are especially sensitive about any damage to or loss of such sites.

As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) suggested, it has been estimated by English Nature that, nationally, 28 per cent. of SSSI aspects— those features of interest for which a site is nationally important—are in an unfavourable condition. There is either no sign of recovery, or they are declining even further. That should give us all great concern. Tighter legislation is essential to ensure that all SSSIs are managed so as to maintain to a high standard their particular features of interest.

We recognise that changing the legislative framework is not sufficient on its own to obtain the necessary improvements. We need a new policy direction, refined regulations and, above all, adequate resources. To obtain better management of SSSIs requires us to work in partnership with their owners and managers.

It is crucial to have the right mix of regulation and incentive to ensure that the major present benefits obtained by partnership working with land managers and owners are maintained. While many SSSIs are positively managed with the active help, goodwill and co-operation of their owners and occupiers, I regret to say that a substantial number are not.

It is time for the Government to legislate to deal with those cases. The present legal framework is unable to deal with SSSI damage arising from certain circumstances—for instance, third parties can badly damage SSSIs, or the sites can simply be neglected, with a consequent loss or decline of many species and habitats.

A major threat to SSSIs often arises when the owner or occupier activates an ancient planning permission which the modern planning framework would never have sanctioned. Owners and occupiers can, after giving notice, carry out damaging activities, preventable only if English Nature produces a management agreement with financial compensation for lost profits.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley pointed to the dramatic weaknesses in that approach, and it is a costly diversion of resources from active nature conservation. In addition, particular difficulties occur on approximately 500 wetland SSSIs which depend on satisfactory management of the water tables on adjoining land. Many such sites are suffering from water pollution or abstraction problems. It is clearly essential to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food implements water level management plans on land adjoining SSSIs which will maintain the particularly valued feature of the sites.

There is no current requirement for the owners or occupiers of SSSIs to carry out that management which is necessary to maintain the key points of interest of the sites in question—a problem often of benign neglect. A positive management order—analogous to the order served upon the owners of listed buildings—has been suggested by some as a solution to the problem. Such an order would require owners to carry out the work themselves, or enable English Nature to do so and to recover the cost from the owner.

English Nature has publicly stated its belief that such orders would not be workable for SSSIs, since it would be hard to carry out practical management activities—many of which would be ongoing commitments—without the active co-operation of the owner or occupier concerned.

Will the Minister comment on the potential for a different type of positive management order, whereby English Nature could specify, through a site management statement, the work necessary to maintain the scientific interest of the SSSI? If the owner's agreement cannot be obtained, even with appropriate assistance from organisations such as the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, English Nature's council should be empowered to serve a positive management order requiring that the work be completed.

An appeal against the terms of such an order could be made to the Secretary of State by the owner. If the order was confirmed, the owner or occupier would have the choice of completing the works within an agreed time scale, with financial support from English Nature, or agreeing to voluntary sale of the land to English Nature or an approved conservation body. If the owner refused both those alternatives, compulsory purchase proceedings would be initiated, with an appeal process through the planning inquiry system and confirmation by the Secretary of State.

The attractions of that approach are that the same process of appeal could be used to resolve refusals to allow operations likely to damage the scientific interest of the SSSI and that such a system could eventually replace the present order under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

There is a pressing need to reform the common agricultural policy so that payments are focused to deliver positive benefits for SSSIs and to discourage the intensive agricultural practices that have the most damaging effect on wildlife. Production subsidies should be redirected to protecting and managing special sites and the countryside, converting to organic farming or creating jobs in rural areas; direct subsidies to farmers should be conditional on sustainable farming, with protections for hedgerows, rivers and streams; and payments to beef farmers should be made under discretionary powers from the European Union to support traditional, low intensity herds, so as to maintain conservation grasslands.

I make a plea from the heart for much tougher planning guidance so that far higher hurdles must be surmounted before any developments on SSSIs are sanctioned. We should also consider revocation of old mineral extraction permissions that could damage SSSIs.

Those of us with constituencies that have suffered a great deal of despoliation are especially alert to threats to our SSSIs. When I reviewed the condition assessments and management prospects for 16 sites in my area, I found that of the 53 features of interest a bare 30 per cent. were in a favourable condition, compared with 56 per cent. nationally; 26 per cent. were in an unfavourable condition, but showing signs of recovery; and the remaining 44 per cent. were in an unsatisfactory condition, compared with 28 per cent. nationally. It was that high proportion of local sites suffering from benign neglect that prompted me to contribute to this debate.

A typical example concerns the SSSIs in Grace Dieu and High Sharpley: very attractive, important and valued areas just outside the urban fringe of Coalville. Parts of the areas have some public access and parts are closed by their owners to "protect the SSSIs"; yet an assessment of the sites shows that two thirds of their features are in an unfavourable condition that is not improving. Clearly, restriction of public access has not led to adequate protection for those important and sensitive sites. More has to be done.

Like every Labour candidate, especially those contesting rural or part-rural seats, I campaigned vigorously on environmental issues in the long run-up to the 1997 general election. Labour's policies, enabling the countryside to become ecologically richer, more varied and more accessible were, and are, especially popular. Those policies include our commitment to strengthening protection for SSSIs and other valuable habitats.

Like every Labour Member, I welcomed the announcement earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that he would deliver on that commitment by amending the 1981 Act, and I was encouraged by the Government's public consultation paper, "SSSIs—Better Protection and Management". There is strong cross-party support for better wildlife protection. Many hon. Members are signatories to early-day motion 11.

It is clear that the statutory conservation agencies need new powers and resources to tackle the worsening problems facing almost a third of SSSIs. There is an urgent need to act, and it would be popular, so what better time than two weeks from today, what better setting than the other place and what better means than the Queen's Speech? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the necessary powers and resources are made available very soon to prevent yet more deterioration of our national natural assets.

Oscar Wilde said that

  • "each man kills the thing he loves,
  • By each let this be heard,
  • Some do it with a bitter look,
  • Some with a flattering word,
  • The coward does it with a kiss,
  • The brave man with a sword!"
Is not our nation at risk of allowing some of the things that we most love—SSSIs—to be killed by a method not mentioned by Wilde: benign neglect by their owners or occupiers? Is not it about time that we were brave enough to step in and prevent that?

11.35 am
Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this timely debate and I welcome many of her comments.

The subject of new Government action to protect our best wildlife sites has been debated several times this Session in both Houses, and an unprecedented number of hon. Members of all parties have given their support to early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) last November. I wish that they were all here today for what is perhaps our last chance to debate this issue before the Queen's Speech.

We are nearing the end of this Session and all of us here today are optimistic that the next Session will see the introduction of new and far-reaching legislation to protect our wildlife. If so, the task will then be to ensure that it is as comprehensive as possible, because there is unlikely to be another major opportunity in the foreseeable future. Some, indeed many, matters may be dealt with by other means than primary legislation—by regulations and other policy measures to benefit the condition of wildlife—but stronger legislation is essential. We cannot allow the present rate of damage and destruction of sites and loss of species to continue.

There was widespread welcome last August when the Government published their response to the consultation on sites of special scientific interest, known as the framework for action. It includes many vital proposals, such as nationally important status for all SSSIs; a duty on all public bodies to secure positive management of sites that they own or occupy; powers of entry to land for agencies such as English Nature for the purposes of surveying and monitoring and to determine whether an offence has been committed; court power to order restoration following damage; court power to impose unlimited fines; and the extension of local authority powers to refuse development on designated sites.

The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—especial thanks are due to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment—has worked hard with a wide spectrum of interested groups to try to ensure that we get things right in the new legislation.

I am especially delighted that water companies have been asked to include in their business plans from next year measures to deal with the damaging effects of effluents and water abstraction, especially because the demand for water is likely to increase with the projected growth in the number of households; because my constituency is in an area of important rivers and wetland sites, including the Nene and Ouse washes; and because there is evidence that the three counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire have less wildlife per hectare than almost anywhere else in the country.

I was very glad to read in the framework that the Government recognise the need to provide adequate funding to underpin other wildlife protection measures. We know that many of the problems affecting wildlife habitats today, and SSSIs in particular, are not due to direct destruction—wilful vandalism—by development, as happened in the past. Most public bodies, landowners and farmers do not set out deliberately to damage the sites that they own or manage. The damage is more often a result of neglect, which may in turn be a result of special agricultural practices, and is often related to inadequate or inappropriate funding mechanisms.

Landowners are, and most regard themselves as, the rightful stewards of the countryside, and they need support for that role, such as financial incentives—carrots, not just sticks. There should be much more support for what are called agri-environment initiatives, including subsidies such as that for countryside stewardship, which is very popular with farmers although there is not enough money to meet the demand. I say that with the Minister listening. At present, only 3 per cent. of CAP money is spent on such schemes. The Wildlife and Countryside Link, with which I have been proud to work in recent months, reckons that figure should be 30 per cent., which would provide scope for major environmental improvements.

It should be rewarding for farmers to spend their time conserving our wildlife in the interests of us all. In any case, we cannot achieve conservation without the active involvement, support and engagement of farmers. We need copper-bottomed legislation, but we need the right incentives and funding, too.

The otherwise excellent framework document has a serious omission—as serious as that of mineral extractions highlighted at the beginning of the debate. I am especially concerned that, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, no proposals have yet been made to protect marine mammals, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises, from harassment. The seas around the United Kingdom are home to more than 20 different species of cetaceans, as those animals are collectively known.

Research conducted by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, of which we have heard today, has shown that cetaceans are threatened by accidental capture in fishing nets, chemical pollution, noise pollution and other disturbance by vessels of their habitat. Some of that, ironically, may be due to the great interest in and affection for those animals felt by many of us humans. They are known to be highly intelligent, they have often appeared to reciprocate our interest and they do not pose any threat to us. In consequence, there has been a great interest in boat-based whale and dolphin watching in recent years, and I am convinced that that requires some form of regulation with a statutory underpinning, if we are not to end up damaging or destroying the subjects of our admiration through our neglect and thoughtlessness.

Less forgivably, increasing evidence is emerging of deliberate harassment of cetaceans, especially dolphins, in coastal waters. The Sunday Times has highlighted the campaign against the use of jet skis to chase dolphins. The riders of the jet skis may mean to chase the dolphins, but not mean to hurt them. Many people think that dolphins can swim fast enough or dive deep enough to escape the vessels chasing them, but jet skis can travel at speeds of up to 70 mph whereas a dolphin's top speed is about 35 mph and it cannot keep that up for long. Also, dolphins are of course mammals and therefore have to come up to the surface to breathe every few minutes. They are especially vulnerable when they have young calves with them.

Several measures are urgently needed to provide effective protection for cetaceans in UK waters. First, powers of enforcement should be extended. At present, powers are held only by the police, but most of the offences against marine species are—not surprisingly—committed at sea where there are no police. It therefore seems common sense to give similar powers to other agencies which can enforce the provisions of existing and any new wildlife legislation. Secondly, sanctions should be increased. We need effective deterrents—sticks as well as carrots—including powers to bring prosecutions, powers of arrest and penalties for offenders.

Thirdly, the concept of recklessness should be more widely introduced into wildlife law, as in the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 which was introduced by the previous Administration. As I have said, most people do not wish or intend to harm dolphins and whales, whether they go on trips to watch them or even if they chase them on jet skis. Perhaps most people, if they understood the serious risk of harmful consequences of such actions, would stop them.

Under UK law, a person is reckless if he or she commits an act which to an ordinary prudent individual would appear to involve an obvious and serious risk, whether it is because they are thoughtless, or, having recognised the risk, they carry on regardless. I believe that where a nature conservation agency has notified that an action is likely to harm a protected species, failure to act on that information should give rise to an offence of recklessness. Therefore, what we must do here in Parliament is to amend the existing legal protection in order to make it an offence intentionally or recklessly to disturb protected species of animals, including all cetaceans. An alternative approach would be to provide more specifically to make it an offence to harass any cetacean, combining that again with the concept of recklessness.

The Government plan a marine review, and I welcome that, but the need to protect the wonderful creatures that we are so fortunate to have in the seas around our islands is urgent and I believe that we should use the opportunity provided by a new wildlife Bill—which I desperately hope to see included in the Queen's Speech—to address that urgent need.

11.46 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on introducing this debate. Unfortunately, we should point out that almost all Opposition Members have failed to turn up, let alone contribute this morning. The SSSIs are important to every constituency, and I would have thought that a better attendance from Opposition Members would have ensured a good debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I wish to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this is an Adjournment debate and the only people who must be present are the occupant of the Chair, the Minister and the hon. Lady who initiated the debate. It is not necessary for any other hon. Member to be present.

Mr. Hoyle

I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is desirable for hon. Members to consider SSSIs and the future of wildlife in this country. The SSSIs are one of the most important factors in the protection of the countryside and wildlife, but, in the past 18 years, we have seen developers encroaching on them. That will always continue, because the greed for a little bit more will always exist. The feeling is that development on an extra small piece of land will not make any difference, but protection is needed against such encroachment.

A new challenge for the new millennium should be to provide solid, reliable protection for SSSIs and wildlife for the future. If such protection needs a new name, let it have a new name. We should seriously consider how we write such protection in stone, so that it cannot be nibbled away at the edges. It should also be easier for SSSIs to be listed, because we have already heard of how small pieces of land, whether in cities, towns or rural areas, may not fit into the category of SSSIs. The definition should not be so strict or regulated, and any piece of land should be included as long as it is worthy of protection. We should make it easier for people to obtain designations for land, and the protection that listing as SSSI gives should be afforded to all our constituencies, no matter how large or small the piece of land concerned. The main point is that a site should be worthy.

In addition, we must recognise that wildlife in the countryside needs protection. The best way to provide that is through a national rangers agency. The question of resources is always important, but those rangers could look after SSSIs and country parks. By linking up with the national parks, they could offer true protection.

I am lucky in having part of the West Pennine moors in my constituency. That beautiful area is owned by North West Water, which itself is now part of United Utilities. There is nothing wrong with the arrangement: the company spends money on rangers and on ensuring that there is protection for wildlife.

More than a million people a year want to visit the part of the moor that is in my constituency. I do not want to tell those people that they cannot go there, as I think everyone ought to be able to share that beautiful countryside. However, what will happen if a French or American company snaps up United Utilities? We will then have to rely for that area's protection on an overseas company that does not understand the requirements of the countryside.

That is why I believe that the area would benefit from being declared an SSSI. We failed to achieve that in the past, but we could lose the protection afforded by the present owners overnight. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider new ways to protect for future generations the countryside and the rural wildlife habitat that we love.

It is easy to look backwards, but we should look to the future and to the provision of further protection for the countryside. Extra funding will be needed. Farmers throughout the country are having a really tough time. However, given that no alternative funding for wildlife protection is available outside the assisted areas, farmers in those areas could be hired as part-time rangers. That alternative income would mean that they would not have to rely entirely on farming, as they would be employed to protect our countryside, wildlife habitats and SSSIs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how such a scheme might be implemented, by his and other Departments.

I am sure that in every constituency there is at least one application for a licence for commercial exploitation—for the extraction of minerals or of peat, for example—to which the first response is always to say no. I recognise that roads and houses have to be built, but no new licences should be granted unless a genuine need exists, and unless existing licences are taken into account.

A licence application has been submitted for a huge sand extraction facility at the village of Euxton in my constituency. However, the sand from a similar facility not far away is being stored because no one wants to buy it. The real value lies, not with the minerals extracted from such sites, but with the resulting hole in the ground, which can be filled with household or industrial waste.

Licence applications for mineral extractions should be refused if similar facilities exist within a 25-mile radius. Companies should be told that they cannot attempt to get a hole in the ground through that means. Existing licences should have to be shared, and the resources involved should have to be exhausted before new licences are granted. That would be a clear indication of the Government's determination to protect the countryside, and it would reassure the villagers of Euxton that those who want to make a quick, cheap pound out of a hole in the ground will not succeed.

I know that the Government will not fail the people of this country, or SSSIs, or wildlife. Unlike the previous Conservative Government, the Labour Government will be able to go into the next general election with their head held high.

11.55 am
Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this morning's debate. I apologise that I was not here for its start, but I could not change a commitment of long standing. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute a few comments.

The events of a couple of years ago at Offham down, at Lewes near my constituency, first made me aware of the vulnerability of sites of special scientific interest. The farmer there decided to plough up an SSSI on his land, to take advantage of the common agricultural policy's financial subsidy scheme. Who could blame him? However, local people decided that his action was not right, and turned out in force to replace the soil as soon as the farmer's plough turned it. Eventually, action was taken to restore that site.

That brought home to me just how vulnerable SSSIs are. I know that the Government intend to introduce legislation to protect them—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, have told me so. It is merely a matter of when such legislation will be brought in.

About a year ago, I introduced my Wildlife Bill into the House. Like most other private Members' Bills, it did not get very far, but it received a heartening level of support among hon. Members. For example, 349 hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 11, supporting my Bill and the wildlife charter proposed by a number of relevant organisations.

Moreover, the provisions that I have suggested and about which we have heard this morning also have support across the country. Earlier this year, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I delivered to Downing street a quarter of a million signatures collected from people who wanted to urge the Government and Parliament to introduce stronger wildlife protection legislation.

We have heard this morning about some of the omissions from the Government's framework for action document. I welcome that document, which contains many of the elements that I included in my Bill. However, the Government have not made a commitment on the matter of marine protection, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) mentioned. There should be a greater emphasis on local wildlife sites, and more attention needs to be paid to the vulnerable land around the SSSIs.

Many habitats will disappear if action is not taken now. At present, 28 per cent. of SSSIs are in a state of neglect, and many of the species familiar in our countryside will not survive for future generations to enjoy. Given the present system of agricultural subsidies, we need to offer financial incentives for the good management of the sites. We need carrots as well as sticks.

Other hon. Members may not agree, but I do not consider that there is a contradiction between campaigning for wider access to the countryside and for environmental protection. I have previously mentioned the beautifully named Drencher bottom, Well bottom and Big bottom on the south downs. They are not areas of special scientific interest, but they are of interest to anyone concerned with wildlife. Those areas have suffered intense neglect which was discovered, I fear, only when some local ramblers trespassed, as they should not have done. I urge the Minister to be sympathetic to the calls made to him this morning. I hope that the Queen's Speech will include the required legislation.

12 noon

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing the debate, and I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to his new role. He will have realised that many of us are veterans of these Wednesday morning discussions of sites of special scientific interest, of which there have been many during the past few months. He may have to clear his diary on Wednesday mornings for many months to come as they are a regular feature. I welcome the Minister not least because the sight of him at the Dispatch Box after what he will agree has been one of the more tortuous journeys up the greasy pole gives hope to us all. I am delighted to see him make it.

Like many hon. Members, I hope that we are moving towards legislation. Last time we debated SSSIs, in July, the Minister for the Environment had been on the "Today" programme campaigning for legislative time. I, like others, understand that he has been successful in that, and I certainly hope that he has. The delay in taking steps to protect SSSIs and other areas of great wildlife value has been damaging.

Other hon. Members have given figures this morning, and the Minister will know that about 300 SSSIs are being damaged every year. Half of them are in unfavourable condition, and many suffer from neglect. This century, 134 species are known to have become extinct, and the rate of extinction is about three species every two years. SSSIs should obviously be used to protect our most endangered species, and the importance of early legislation is clear.

The hon. Member for Don Valley said that she hoped for early action, drawing a contrast with the previous Government. I should gently remind her that the previous attempt to deal with the problems was the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which was introduced during the second full Session of the Conservative Government, who saw the matter as an urgent one.

Caroline Flint

That Act, which was enacted by the Conservatives, has done nothing to stop peat extraction on the site to which I have referred and on which damage continues. The very problem that I am seeking to address is the failure of previous legislation to control peat extraction, and ultimately to put an end to it.

Mr. Green

We all accept that the 1981 Act, which updated previous legislation from the 1940s, needs itself to be updated. But the Government's framework document says that the new proposals would not wholly replace the relevant provisions of the 1981 Act. There is a tendency to say that that Act did no good at all, but that is not so.

I hope that the Government will end the damaging delay of the past two years or so. A feeling has got about that the Government always want to be green tomorrow, but not quite today. I hope that we have finally reached the stage when they will fulfil their promises.

Having said that, the Opposition agree on the ends of any new legislation affecting improvement to SSSIs. I have several questions for the Minister, and some concerns about the scope and practicalities of any Bill. First, on the scope of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) has mentioned access, which is an area of legitimate concern. The Minister will be aware of the dangers of including access provisions in the legislation. They would make a Bill more controversial, which would be likely to delay its passage, and that would be regrettable. Any proposal to extend access must not pose a threat to wildlife; most walkers and ramblers behave responsibly, but the Minister will acknowledge that it takes only one irresponsible person to damage a habitat, possibly irreversibly. I hope that such concerns will be uppermost in his mind as he prepares the Bill.

The Wildlife Trusts have made a number of good points on access, saying that a distinction must be made between access on foot for quiet enjoyment and access for other recreational pursuits that are more disruptive to wildlife". The trusts add: Agencies should have the power to close (permanently or temporarily) areas or close or divert rights of way, if…access is having a significant affect on the wildlife or habitat. The trusts also make the good point that there should be wide-ranging consultation before access to other areas of open country are agreed. Those are sensible proposals, and it would be interesting to hear how the Minister's thinking is developing on that important aspect of any legislation.

Other bodies have raised concerns about whether access on open land will be linear only or more wide ranging. What practical measures will be taken on the control of dogs? That is a matter of great concern both to those who own farm animals and to those concerned about such issues as ground-nesting birds, because decisions on the control of dogs have the potential for directly damaging SSSIs, which would undermine the many good intentions of the Government's framework for action.

My second area of concern is the balance between partnership and enforcement. I welcome the framework's words about the Government's preference for voluntary agreements where possible. However, enforcement powers will clearly and necessarily be taken, and it would be useful to hear more details about those powers or the principles that will underlie them. When would they apply? What powers of entry on to land does the Minister envisage? How should they be enforced? The Minister will accept that the long-term management of SSSIs and other land benefits from a positive relationship between regulatory bodies and landowners. That is the best way in which to have land managed sensitively in the long term.

The right of appeal mentioned in the Government's proposals also raises some questions. The appeal would be to the Secretary of State, but when a dispute arises between a public body that reports to the Secretary of State and a private individual, the individual may not feel that justice has been served. Have the Government considered any alternative way in which to resolve disputes?

My next area of concern is funding. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) mentioned that matter, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said that the nature conservation agencies do not currently have enough funds to deliver the proposals that the Government have made. The RSPB estimates that £20 million is required for this in England alone but adds that that sum is insignificant when compared to the agriculture subsidies which have often led to the demise of many sites in the first place. Can the Minister tell us whether the resource implications have been thought through?

A significant role in the protection of wildlife—specifically SSSIs—is played by existing agri-environment schemes such as the countryside stewardship scheme. It would be interesting to know whether any expansion was envisaged for those schemes, which have proved so useful.

The next subject of anxiety lies outside the SSSIs—I refer especially to the land that adjoins them. That land should not be developed unsympathetically. The Minister will know of examples of planning developments near a protected SSSI that render it much less useful. I refer the Minister to our previous debate this morning about development in the south-east, and to yesterday's debate about greenfield sites. Many Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), welcome more development on green fields in the south-east of England because they believe that the new houses are likely to be occupied by Labour voters. I hope that the Minister will deprecate the environmental vandalism that some of his hon. Friends seem to advocate, which would adversely affect SSSIs. The argument about green fields in the south-east and in the rest of the country will continue. It has a direct bearing on this debate.

The framework for action may not provide sufficient protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty and locally designated protection zones, which were mentioned earlier. The World Wide Fund for Nature claimed that the framework did not constitute a way forward either by providing a legal basis for the biodiversity action plan or by helping the marine environment, which the hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned.

Let us consider the Natura 2000 sites. The Government have been told that they have not done well enough and their list has been sent back. The World Wide Fund for Nature believes that there should be up to 1,000 special areas of conservation under the Natura 2000 programme. Why have the Government proposed so few sites, which would be a great addition to the web of support that we can provide for wildlife and general species protection?

I am worried that the framework ignores the role of the common agricultural policy, which other hon. Members have mentioned. Any discussion must take place against the background of the current CAP's failure to pass many sensible environmental tests. The way in which land is farmed is probably the most important influence on the future environmental health of the land and the species that live on it. Agricultural practices are supremely important. The Berlin negotiations on the future of the CAP failed in many ways: they did not help the consumer or the farmer. They also failed the environment.

The CAP must move—albeit gradually—towards a different sort of subsidy. Subsidising production alone is an out-of-date concept. It distorts the market for food and is out of date because it fails to protect the environment. I suspect that we shall have to continue to subsidise those who look after the land for the foreseeable future, but the largely urban public would be much happier to pay taxes to subsidise farmers to buy environmental goods rather than simply to subsidise production. That point did not come across in Berlin, and I hope that the Government will address it in future CAP negotiations.

The Opposition will welcome sensible proposals; a wide consensus will support sensible and practical moves to protect wildlife. As long as the Government stick to sensible and practical policies, we shall not try to obstruct or delay legislation. I hope that legislation based on the framework will hold to those principles.

12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for initiating a good debate, to which Members on both sides of the House made thoughtful and positive contributions. People of all political persuasions are concerned about SSSIs; the extent of the support for the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) shows the strength of feeling in the House.

I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points that were made in the debate. As is often the case in such debates, I must hastily edit my contribution. Therefore, I am unlikely to reach all the points that were raised. I shall respond in writing when necessary.

The Government have a good story to tell about SSSIs and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for the opportunity to relate it. I shall deal briefly with the points that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made. The hon. Gentleman asked about the scope of the Bill. This is not the place to go into detail or to discuss the right to roam. However, any threats to SSSIs do not tend to come from ramblers.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the balance between partnership and enforcement. I agree that that is a delicate matter and that it is preferable, when possible, to have a positive relationship with the owners of the site. However, any policy must include enforcement powers if it is to be taken seriously. We shall consider that carefully.

The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. It always warms my heart to hear an Opposition Member demanding that more public money be spent. The Government have already allocated an extra £6.14 million to English Nature. If we decide to grant more money in due course, we look forward to the Opposition's support. The development of greenfield sites is much debated. It has some relevance to SSSIs, but we cannot consider that this morning.

The debate has focused on the protection of special sites of scientific interest. I understand that emphasis. We need to pay particular attention to the conservation of those important sites that constitute some of our most precious areas for wildlife, harbouring rare or endangered species and providing the habitats where they can flourish. The Government have given priority to drawing up proposals that we believe will provide for better protection and management of SSSIs. They are the 5,000 or so sites in England and Wales that constitute the best areas for nature conservation and have been designated by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales as containing nationally important species and habitats.

Many SSSIs are well managed and in good condition, and I pay tribute to those owners and managers who have taken account of the environmental significance of their land, and enjoy a constructive relationship with the conservation agencies. However, we have to recognise that too many special sites are wantonly damaged, and, in many cases, they are not in good health.

English Nature already aims to increase the proportion of sites that are being positively managed for conservation, and to reduce the proportion that are in an unfavourable condition. As I said earlier, we have already provided additional resources to English Nature in the current financial year to assist that work, and we expect long-term benefits. However, we recognise that more needs to be done to encourage that process and provide the best framework in which it can operate. For those reasons, my Department published a consultation paper on sites of special scientific interest last September. It contains significant proposals to help deliver real improvements in England and Wales in the immediate future. Many hon. Members referred to it today. We followed that in August with the statement, to which hon. Members have also referred, that sets the framework for legislative and other action by Government.

On legislation, our proposals have covered a range of options. The sites are diverse, covering a huge range of habitats and special features, and they are subject to a variety of pressures. More than half the sites are in good shape. The problems that we face in perhaps a quarter of those sites are also diverse. We have consistently emphasised that better protection and management must be secured by changing our approach in several areas, including policy, administration, law and finance. However, the framework for action is clear in spelling out the legislative changes that must be made.

Mr. Brake

Obviously, I do not expect the Minister to reveal what is in the Queen's Speech, but does he expect that, in next year's annual report, the word "done" will appear against commitment 115 which relates to greater protection for wildlife?

Mr. Mullin

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the priority that the Government attach to their programme is a matter for finer minds than mine. They are wrestling with the problem even as I speak. However, the Government take the issues seriously, as I hope to demonstrate if I get the time to do so.

We have proposed new powers for the agencies, the most significant of which will allow them, for the first time, to refuse consent for damaging operations. There would be a right of appeal against refusal, but no expectation that the agency would be obliged to offer compensation for activities for which consent is refused. I believe that that answers some of the points raised by my hon. Friends.

We shall also provide the agencies with new powers to combat neglect and to address management issues, so as to secure the positive management that delivers conservation benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) asked about positive management orders on SSSIs, and our new powers to combat neglect anticipate the procedures that he mentioned, including powers for conservation agencies to draw up objectives for positive management on a site and to make an order requiring action to be carried out, subject to appeal to my Department.

We shall introduce increased penalties for damage to SSSIs, and increased powers to require restoration. We shall also introduce additional powers to deal with third party damage, where greater powers and better enforcement are necessary.

We shall provide the agencies with additional powers of entry to land, and more flexible powers to purchase SSSI land compulsorily, although we envisage that both those provisions would be needed to be used only exceptionally. We shall emphasise the responsibilities of public bodies towards special sites and we shall also propose amending the financial guidelines on management agreements issued under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to move further away from compensating managers for not damaging sites and towards paying for positive management. That deals with another point that has been raised.

We are absolutely clear that further legislation is needed to underpin partnerships and to provide better means of addressing problems. We have proposed significant new powers for the conservation agencies. However, deliberate damage is rare: what we need to address is neglect and unsympathetic management, which is a bigger problem. Legislation alone will not solve all the problems, and we will be looking for a range of other options to deliver our objectives. The National Assembly for Wales will, in many cases, be responsible for deciding how to proceed in Wales.

The majority of sites remain in agricultural use, so that our overall policies for agriculture, including the development and implementation of agri-environment schemes, remain of fundamental importance. The overall outcome of recent negotiations on common agricultural policy reform, to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred, represents a small step—I shall not make too much of this point—in the right direction. It has potential benefits for the environment generally, and for sites of special scientific interest. The Government have consulted widely on the implementation of optional elements of CAP reform in the United Kingdom, including attaching environmental conditions to subsidy payments, and modulating payments to provide additional savings for a limited number of environmental and structural measures.

A significant number of SSSIs are also in wetland habitats, and are often listed as Ramsar sites of international importance, or they may be affected by issues concerning the quality and availability of water resources. We are fully aware of the public concern over the effects of over-abstraction of water from wetlands. We have asked water companies to include environmental and quality improvement programmes costing around £8 billion in their business plans for the years 2000–05, including measures to deal with the adverse effects of effluent or over-abstraction on 102 SSSIs.

The debate today has also referred to several other matters, including, for example, planning and development. We confirmed in the framework document that we would clarify planning policy guidance to reflect the national importance of sites of special scientific interest, with a strong presumption against development that would significantly affect the sites. The test has already been introduced, in relation to trunk roads, through the transport White Paper. We propose issuing for consultation a revision of planning policy guidance note 9 on nature conservation and planning next spring.

In the short time left to me, I shall deal with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley about Thorne and Hatfield. She graphically expressed her concern about several sites, but especially about Thorne and Hatfield moors in her constituency. Let me emphasise that we acknowledge the international importance of the best examples of our peatland resources. They will be included in the Natura 2000 series, through which we deliver our obligations under the European Union's nature conservation directives, or they will be listed as Ramsar sites—wetlands of international significance.

The habitats regulations will also require a review of all extant permissions and consents—including planning permissions that were granted prior to their inclusion in the list of candidate special areas of conservation, or their classification as a special area of protection for birds, under the birds directive. Where the review, which will be carried out by the local planning authority, concludes that the integrity of the site is likely to be adversely affected, the consent will have to be modified or revoked, unless Ministers decide that an imperative reason outweighs the conservation interest.

Caroline Flint

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mullin

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because I have a lot more to say about the points in which she is interested. I shall do my best to say as much about them as possible, although I may have to write to her about some matters.

We drew attention to those obligations and associated procedures in our statement of 12 May 1998. Where permission is revoked or modified, there is an entitlement to compensation, and the Government have indicated that they would consider reimbursing the local authority where compensation costs were high. We have sought advice from English Nature on the effect of existing permissions on a number of international sites and are considering that carefully.

Part of Thorne moors is already a candidate special area of conservation and English Nature is giving further consideration to whether it should be listed as a Ramsar wetland. I am also pleased to confirm that, in the last few days, English Nature began consulting owners and occupiers about the classification of parts of Thorne and Hatfield moors as a special protection area for birds. We shall seek to reach an early decision, once consultations are completed and we receive its report. Classification of the site as a special protection area for birds will inevitably lead to a review of the permission under the habitats regulations.

In addition, the Government are urgently considering ways of expediting reviews on candidate special areas of conservation in the light of the continuing delays in the process, to which I have already referred, for drawing up a final list of sites for the Atlantic biogeographical region, of which the United Kingdom forms a part. I cannot say more about that today, but I hope to be able to do so very soon.

I now come to the subject of peat. Wider issues—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. I am afraid that the Minister will have to write to his hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on the remaining points. His time is up. We now come to the next debate.