Halvergate Marshes

HL Deb 03 July 1984 vol 454 cc155-61

3.42 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question from the Member for Copeland. The Question was as follows:

"To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of the 92 acres of Halvergate Marshes which is Grade 1 listed landscape in the ownership of Mr. David Wright".

The Answer to that Question is as follows:

"Four of the five farmers who gave notice some months ago of their intention to plough parts of Halvergate Marshes have now agreed not to proceed this year. The fifth, Mr. David Wright, declined to enter into a holding agreement and the strategy committee of the Broads Authority decided last week not to offer him a full management agreement; nor have they sought a direction under Article 4 of the General Development Order.

"While I much regret that Mr. David Wright has decided to start drainage operations on his land, I do not consider that the Broads Authority's decision in this case seriously jeopardises the protection of the Halvergate landscape as a whole".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement which has been made in the other place. I have a number of questions which I must ask the Minister. First, may I ask him whether he is referring to the 92 acres which were under discussion in this House on 13th June? If so, it will come as a surprise to those of us who were present at that debate to find that the 92 acres are still under discussion.

Given this second opportunity, does not the Minister think that some action should now be taken to rescue Grade 1 land which is of very great conservation importance? There are a number of ways in which it could be saved. There could be an Article 4(1) direction under the general development order. There could be an enforcement notice under Section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act. There are several other ways in which this land could be protected, even if Mr. Wright does not wish to cooperate. Will not the Government take this matter seriously and take action now to save this land?

The other question which I must ask the Minister is this. In the debate on 13th June the point was made that the Opposition were willing to give some of their parliamentary time to discuss amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, in order to strengthen it. Has any progress been made? Has any action been taken by the Government? We on these Benches cannot help feeling that the whole question is not being taken very seriously.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, while we welcome the fact that there has been a Private Notice Question and that an Answer has been given, we on these Benches certainly deplore the actual Answer. The idea that this action is not going to jeopardise the Halvergate Marshes as a whole seems to me not to hold water in any way. It is a serious encroachment, an encroachment which is irreversible. Although this may be only a small encroachment at this time, every encroachment that is made in this way causes irredeemable damage.

Is it not time for the Government to take seriously the question of amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Is it not true that all the arguments which we on these Benches, and those on this side of the House, put day after day when the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was going through Parliament, about how the negotiations, which the Government put forward as being the right way to approach these matters, would not work, have now been proven to be right? The negotiations do not, in fact, work. All I can do at this stage is to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment upon the way he approached the problem, at least at the very beginning, by bringing into effect a planning decision. But the Government must grasp this nettle and must stop any more of our priceless heritage going down the drain.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for their initial response to the Statement. Perhaps I fell into my usual trap of speaking too fast when I have countryside matters to impart to your Lordships, because I do not think that the noble Baroness understood the tenor of what I said when I repeated the Statement. I can confirm most certainly that the 92 acres were those referred to in both the noble Baroness's question and my answer to our debate on 13th June. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is exactly the same as I gave then. I have no doubt that he has read, and cogitated on, my words, and I see no reason to change them.

At that time, as I remember it, the noble Baroness asked me whether I did not regard this situation as having a domino effect. I do not, because I see this as being a totally isolated piece of land. Nor can I accept that the history of the Halvergate Marshes points up a failure of the 1981 Act. It has always been recognised that local planning authorities would have difficult decisions to take. They have to balance the conservation interests against other considerations. This is what local planning authorities are there for. As to the Article 4 direction, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the Statement said that the Broads Authority have not sought a direction under Article 4. I am afraid that I can go no further than that in answer to the noble Baroness.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, is it not true that the Broads Authority gave my right honourable friend and my noble friend conflicting advice? First, the 92 acres are, in effect a panhandle. Is my noble friend aware that I was advised by a very senior officer of the Broads Authority that this is not an area which they regard as being of great importance? That was the advice which was then given to my noble friend, and my noble friend repeated that advice to the House in our debate on 13th June. The very next morning the senior official of the Broads Authority offered a £258 per acre management agreement for not doing something to the land for one year. I would drive oxen round my land, clad in woad, for £258 per acre. It is an absolute rip-off price. It is a case of a man saying, "This is my price; take it or leave it", so putting at risk his brother who had been offered £160 per acre and other farmers who had settled for between £80 and £100 an acre. Surely this is a fault of the system. I know that there is nothing more irritating than being reminded, "I told you so", but equally there is nothing more satisfactory than saying, "I told you so". This matter was pointed out by myself and other noble Lords during our wildlife and countryside debates.

We have tried to get the system changed, but the Government are in a terrible cleft stick. They have either to submit to blackmail, and pay up, or they have to let something go. For the sake of the vast majority of farmers and landowners who really care about the countryside, we must amend this system.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I think that I am grateful to my noble friend. On Wednesday, 13th June I reported to the House the facts as they then were. On the following Friday it became apparent that there had been a change of mind and that officers at the Broads Authority were pursuing the possibility of a management agreement with Mr. Wright at a substantially higher figure. When the Broads Authority met on the Monday they decided that it would be inappropriate to offer Mr. David Wright an agreement on more expensive terms than those which had been offered and accepted for most of the remaining area. This matter was entirely within the province of the Broads Authority. I should make the general point that my right honourable friend has no locus stands in the matter of the Broads Authority; it is totally a local authority concern.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's reply so far as it went; but he has still not answered my main question. What action have the Government taken to co-operate with the Opposition in bringing forward an amendment to the Act which will help to close the loopholes in it and which will prevent this kind of thing happening in the future?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if I did not understand the full purport of her second question. The answer is that, as she will know, discussions are in progress between her honourable friend and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, with, as I understand it, the honourable Member of Copeland involved. Discussions will have to come to a head some time this week on the subject of a Bill to amend Section 28 of the Countryside and Wildlife Act proposed by Mr. Peter Hardy.

The cleft stick which was applicable to the arguments of both my noble friends and the noble Baroness is not quite as cleft as they would have us believe. The fact is that all these matters have to be dealt with by agreement. The Conservative Party has never stood for pre-emption in matters such as these, and I hope it never will.

Lord Bruce-Gardyne

My Lords, is it not nevertheless somewhat preoccupying if, as I understand my noble friend to have said, Her Majesty's Ministers have no standing in this matter? Apparently, if the Broads Authority had not, fortunately, had belated second thoughts, this worthy gentleman would have received his £58 per acre over and above which, as I understand it, he could have received before that a grant for draining out from the Ministry of Agriculture. Then, if there were no long-term arrangements for conservation, at the end of the year for which this gentleman had been paid his £258 per acre he could have received another grant from the Ministry of Agriculture for doing the same work all over again. Surely this reinforces the point made by my noble friend Lord Onslow that we must look again at these procedures, before the Treasury is ruined by them.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I said in reply to the Unstarred Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Onslow nearly three weeks ago that there was nothing absolutely fixed about the compensation arrangements and that the Government would need to look at them again. I said that it was always understood at the time when they were written that the Government would do so. As far as the other part of my noble friend's question is concerned, the Countryside Commission is paying 25 per cent. of the Broads Authority's costs of management agreements, and the commission itself does have control of the money it advances.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, noble Lords opposite have posed the question very ably indeed, but they have not suggested the answer. Surely the answer to this is that paying people to do nothing is quite ridiculous. I am not arguing about whether or not it is right that the environmental lobby should require these marshes to be left alone; but if that is the case, and if it is decided that that is the case, then surely the Crown should take over the land and then let it with proper conditions attached. Is not that the solution?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the argument is surely about whether one is paying people to do nothing or paying people to stop doing something. Over and above that, it would not be appropriate for the Crown to take over the land.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in 1981, when speaking at the National Park authorities' conference on the site of Halvergate, his right honourable friend Mr. Michael Heseltine announced an agreement, which he considered to be entirely satisfactory, of paying compensation at the rate of £65,000 a year to secure the whole of Halvergate Marshes for all time? He was totally confident that this justified the Act which has just passed into law.

Does not the latest development highlight against the background I have just mentioned the total inadequacy of the Act in this respect in having no fall-back powers? Is it not further accentuated by the fact that the Countryside Commission has made a strong recommendation that the Broads Authority should be elevated to the status of a national park under special conditions? Is it not an essential part of the national parks to conserve, and will the noble Lord bear that point in mind?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is quite right. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment made the announcement to which the noble Lord referred. On the other hand, circumstances change, and in the light of today's events, it seems that that particular statement was not pertinent. As to the general changes to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, this matter is being discussed at the moment—and I am grateful for your Lordships' views to further those discussions.

Lord Maude of Stratford-Upon-Avon

My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that since it appears that almost any product that is likely to be grown or raised on new agricultural land is already being produced in embarrassing and costly surplus, it would seem that the preference should rather be for environmental conservation than providing new agricultural land?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, there is no doubt in my mind, as I have said before in this House, that the problem is that marginal land is, through economic forces, becoming less marginal. Having gone that far with me, the decision then has to be made as to how to make this land less marginal. It may be that the right way ahead is through the economics of food growing—and I say "may be" and not that it definitely is—or it may be through conservation grants such as those we are discussing this afternoon.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a result of my previous constituency interests I know the area in question extremely well and have tramped over Halvergate Marshes? Is he aware also that to say that it is an isolated piece of land is really far from the truth, in the sense that it is part of a very special SSSI? Would he not agree that once one eats into one part, then that is the thin end of the wedge? He called it a cleft stick but it is the thin end of the wedge.

Is the noble Lord also aware that not only did the then Secretary of State in 1981 make the statement he did but that as recently as April this year in another place the Minister (Mr. William Waldegrave) said: I can assure the hon. Member that Halvergate is safe for a year".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/4/84; col. 954.] He went on to say that the Government were in the process of discussing a long-term solution, but he stated that the marshes were "safe for a year". Is it good enough for the Government now to say that they are proposing perhaps to consider future legislation by not to take action over the events which are now occurring? Does the noble Lord not agree that the Minister has power if he cares to use it? There is a Section 29 order; he can exercise an Article 4 discretion; there is compulsory purchase. There are a variety of methods by which he can take action if he cares to do so. Will the noble Lord say why the Minister himself, his Secretary of State, is not sufficiently concerned about this infringement upon an absolute Government commitment as to take action?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has put rather more heat into that question than it actually deserves. I accept straightaway that the land of the Halvergate Marshes is Grade 1 land, and was so designated some years ago. Since then the situation has changed. "Why?", I am immediately asked. It is because this land is on the edge of a Grade 1 area. It has been ploughed on two sides and has a railway on a third. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, says that he knows the area. He may well be able to confirm (I have been unable to establish this in the brief time available this morning) that on the fourth side there is a river. To me that means that, although it was so disignated, it can no longer reasonably be expected to remain in that position.

When the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, talks about SSSIs, he is in fact quite wrong because the land in question is not covered by an SSSI. This is a purely countryside matter. It is on countryside matters, on the countryside aspect of the whole thing, that my right honourable friend and the Broads Authority have considered this question.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, do I understand from what the Minister has just said that if there is a chipping away of this protected area that does not matter? Surely that argument could be applied to the Green Belt. It could be applied to the commitments made by Ministers right across the country on every subject, that, because it happens to be on the edge, which it is, it really does not matter and it is not worth the Minister taking the action which he is entitled to do. Is that his argument?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, no. My argument is that if you have what is a unique piece of land it should be judged on its merits, and the merits are as I have just described them to the House.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, may I assist my noble friend a little on this issue? As your Lordships may be aware, I have taken a considerable interest in this particular problem over the last four or five years. The land concerned is as a pan-handle; it sticks out as a triangle. One of the officers of the Broads Authority told me quite categorically that they did not regard it as part of the Grade 1 quality landscape. They included it in their map only because the two Wright brothers at one time farmed it as a partnership, and they therefore wanted to use it as a lever in respect of the very much more important piece of land than that which is now covered. Surely, therefore, we should be accurate when we start trying to embarrass my noble friend, and not use emotive words and every single cliché that can be found in the book.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, this time I am quite definitely and uncategorically grateful to my noble friend.

Lord Craigton

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this ridiculous system of paying people not to destroy the precious land of Britain cannot long endure? There is one complete answer to this. If this was an ancient monument, it would be illegal to "muck about" with it. It should be illegal. These precious pieces of land should be treated like ancient monuments, and then we should not have any of this expensive nonsense.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords. I think that what my noble friend Lord Craigton is advocating is that there should be automatic planning controls in a situation such as this. I know this is one of the ideas that is floating around, but at the moment I do not think it is something which I should like to pursue.

Baroness White

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has sympathy from all quarters of the House in trying to defend what is becoming increasingly indefensible?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I do not believe—although the House obviously does—that this is something which is indefensible. Apart from that, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.