HL Deb 30 April 1980 vol 408 cc1251-5

2.55 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proposed changes in the administration of MAFF capital grant schemes call into question the Government's commitment to conservation, since they could lead to a reversal of the progress made in improving the design and siting of buildings, securing concern for wildlife and improving the conservation of the landscape.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, the purpose of the changes which are proposed for the capital grant schemes is to make them simpler and less costly to administer. They do not alter the Government's commitment to conservation.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but does he not accept that the Strutt Report recommended that MAFF should take much wider responsibilities for protecting wildlife and promoting landscape conservation? Does he accept that these proposals in their present form only imply the need to be concerned for conservation and designated areas such as the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty?

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I think the best assurance that I can repeat is the assurance given by my honourable friend in another place on 10th March. The noble Baroness will find it at column 437 of the Commons' Official Report.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, if I may intervene again, does the noble Lord accept that the real point of contact for discussing conservation is the point when plans are submitted and when investment programmes are being made? If the need for prior approval is being abolished, have we not lost that point of contact with the farmer from the point of view of conservation of wildlife and better landscape schemes?

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I think perhaps the noble Baroness is speaking a little prematurely, because consultations are at present in progress, the results of which will be published before long. As regards the point she makes that there is a cut-off from the former procedure, the Strutt Report made a particular point that a start should be made in national park areas. This we intend to pursue.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, although the proposals as regards conservation will not do in their present form, it is only a consultation document at this stage and there is therefore ample time and opportunity to get the proposals right? May I ask whether he will go a little further than drawing our attention to what his honourable friend said last month in the other place and give us the assurance now in respect of these particular proposals that, when his right honourable friend draws them up (after having established such economies as may be found in his department; which is the proper thing to do), he will ensure that under the new proposals it is easy and possible for the Minister to discharge his obligations under Section 11 of the Countryside Act, and also that under the proposals when amended it will be possible to move forward and implement the proposals of the Strutt Report—proposals which were agreed in principle by his right honourable friend and welcomed by all bodies concerned with conservation and the countryside?

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, this is a technical matter. I would here draw my noble friend's attention to what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said when the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme 1980 was being discussed in your Lordships' House on 28th February.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that farmers have enough difficulty at the moment without a further set of regulations? They have to live, work and earn their living in the countryside, which is more than many of the people concerned with the present proposals have to do.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said. The object of this review is that there should be a single streamlined capital grant scheme with simpler procedures entailing significantly less use of staff.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that both farmers and those interested in the wildlife and amenity aspects of the countryside are united in agreeing that what the noble Lord has described as streamlined and simplified procedures will damage farming, amenity and wildlife interests? Will he give the House an assurance that as this is a consultative document—and I am glad that he has stressed that—the Government will consult with voluntary organisations concerned with wildlife and amenity aspects in the countryside before coming to any decisions on the proposed changes?

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, I will gladly confirm that the consultation document of the Rayner project went to 70 bodies, organisations and individuals in the first instance, and to anyone who applied for it. So substantial consultation is in progress at the moment. I would not agree with the noble Lord's suggestion that it will remove the benefits of conservation to proceed with the scheme as intended at the moment. There are safeguards written into the recommendations of the Strutt Report which of course my noble friend confirmed in another place on 10th March.

The Earl of SWINTON

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is very often the case that farmers and others who live in the countryside show a great deal more concern for wildlife and improving the conservation of the landscape than those who come into the countryside masquerading under the name of conservationists? I am particularly thinking of the case of the Yorkshire Dales national park, where the buildings that the farmers have put up over the years, the little barns in which to keep the hay, are one of the most attractive reasons why the area is one of such outstanding natural beauty.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, the Minister intends to discharge all his statutory responsibilities in regard to those particular sensitive areas referred to—the national parks, the SSSIs and the areas of outstanding natural beauty. The House will agree that, given those assurances, the consultation process must proceed.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for the assurances that he has given us, would he not agree that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was saying just now, in this particular case it was the National Farmers' Union who were the first and the quickest to point out the mistakes that are being made in this current consultation document?

Lord SANDYS

Yes, my Lords. There have been a number of comments made by the National Farmers' Union. Their earlier comments on the Strutt Report are welcome. It is too early at this stage in the consultation process to say anything more.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that he made use during his earlier reply of the letters SSSI. Can the noble Lord tell us what organisation or animal they represent?

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. It is a site of special scientific interest.