Nature Conservancy Council

HL Deb 17 February 1988 vol 493 cc654-66

2.59 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House takes note of the 13th report (1986–87) of the Nature Conservancy Council.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the 1973 Act, which established the Nature Conservancy Council requires a report to be presented to Parliament each year. The 13th such report describes the affairs of a vigorous and active organisation under the leadership of Mr. William Wilkinson as chairman and Mr. Dick Steele as director general.

I am pleased that this debate has attracted such a long list of speakers, each of whom will speak with authority within his chosen area. I see my task as setting the scene with general remarks on the main activities of the council in the reporting year 1986–87, coupled with some personal views on present and future priorities and demands on Nature Conservancy Council resources.

The Nature Conservancy Council is a property-owning body with responsibility first for national nature reserves. By 31st March 1987, 224 national nature reserves had been declared, comprising some 160,000 hectares and varying in size from small two-hectare sites to the vast 26,000 hectares of the Cairngorms NNR. There is a continuing programme of additions; 10 new national nature reserves were declared during the year. The chairman's introduction also mentions 760 further sites which have been identified as of NNR quality but are as yet unprotected.

As far as ownership goes, at present one-quarter of the total area under NNR is owned by the Nature Conservancy Council and a further one-eighth is leased by the council. The remainder of course operates under private ownership through agreements with the owners. Private ownership can bring management problems. Private ownership depends on individual lives or personal circumstances and on the risk of conflicting interests. Such a conflict of interests on the beautiful Strath Dionard in Sutherland is pinpointed within the report on page 15. A solution is needed.

For the balance of existing national nature reserves which are still in private hands and for future acquisitions, in my view it is not imperative that the Nature Conservancy Council be the ultimate proprietor. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 35, there is provision for acceptable alternative forms of ownership and already four NNRs are held by approved bodies. Given the right guarantees, ownership by bodies such as a county council, the National Trust or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds clearly can provide the necessary safeguards. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the main priority must be for continued growth in the network of national nature reserves, with the aim of taking in all the very best examples of biological communities and habitats in Great Britain so that these areas will be protected and managed with nature conservation as the primary objective.

Distinct from the national nature reserves but overlapping is the national network of sites of special scientific interest or SSSIs for short. These sites have been selected by reason of the high scientific value of their flora, their fauna or their geology or physiography. The 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act imposed on the Nature Conservancy Council the obligation to renotify more than 4,000 sites which had previously been declared under the 1949 Act. After a laborious start and thanks to extra resources provided in 1985–86, the task was 80 per cent. complete by the end of March 1987. Then 2,852 sites had been renotified and 1,104 new sites had been added. In particular, in the reorganised earth sciences division there had been continued progress on the geological conservation review which was substantially completed and the number of geological or physiographical SSSIs had more than doubled from something approaching 400 to something approaching 800.

The anticipated total number of SSSIs will be 4,729, covering 1½ million hectares, about 8 per cent. of the British land surface. On page 8 of his report the chairman estimates that for about one-third of these SSSIs the scientific value can be preserved only with positive management. I suspect that the proportion should be higher.

At the end of the reporting year 670 management agreements were in force covering some 24,000 hectares but a further 1,000 were under negotiation. The ultimate cost of maintaining the system is projected at £15 million to £20 million per annum. The chairman claims that this sum represents good value for money and I support him, provided that the management achieves its intended objectives.

In many cases effective management depends on the perpetuation, restoration or replacement of former land uses. For instance, the steady deterioration of the heathlands of southern England is attributable to the lack of grazing and the cessation of other traditional practices which served to remove rank growth and to prevent encroachment by bracken and seedling trees. In order to preserve the special qualities of the heathlands, including the rare snakes and lizards, management must produce similar effects. It is unfortunate that on too many heaths of southern England, especially in Dorset, owners have proved unwilling to accept management agreements. Unless this dilemma is resolved, the scientific value of the remaining heaths will be lost.

In other cases the precise requirements of the key species of plants or animals in an SSSI can only be elucidated by careful scientific research. Some fascinating biological studies have come out of NCC sponsored research. One of the most intriguing and subtle life cycles is that of the large blue butterfly, which noble Lords will see illustrated in the centre spread colour pages. I am tempted to go into the biology of this butterfly but perhaps this is not quite the right place. Appendix 10, however, to which I would draw the attention of noble Lords, shows that some £2.3 million has been allocated to contract research projects of that nature in the reporting year 1986–87 by the Nature Conservancy Council and the joint sponsors. I regard this sum, which is under 8 per cent. of the total expenditure, as a minimum sufficient to provide the scientific backing for effective management.

In the field of science the Nature Conservancy Council requires a strong chief scientist's team to plan research topics and to evaluate results. But the facilities for research can be found elsewhere. I welcome the variety of large and small projects put out for research and I am pleased to see such a diversity of contractors. The Nature Conservancy Council should draw on the national fund of expertise in our universities, our research council establishments and elsewhere.

On a gloomier note, during the year two SSSIs awaiting notification were destroyed and 46 declared SSSIs suffered some lasting damage, as reported on page 93. Legal sanctions exist to protect SSSIs and it is therefore of great concern to read on page 12 of the report that half of all instances of lasting damage were the result of operations which had received planning permission, were carried out by statutory undertakers or other public bodies or were the acts of third parties such as motorcycle scramblers, over whom there is no control. Against such damage there is no redress under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In my view there is an evident and urgent need to strengthen the law in regard to the protection of SSSIs.

Moving on to broad issues of habitat protection, there continue to be problems raised in the dialogue between the Nature Conservancy Council and forestry. The Nature Conservancy Council's document, Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Britain, which was published in the summer of 1986, concluded that in the case of long-established native woodlands there is now: Promise of a much closer and more mutually supportive relationship between forestry and nature conservation interests". But, The issue of new afforestation has yet to be similarly resolved". The extent of new afforestation in Caithness and Sutherland is highlighted by Mr. Wilkinson as: the most important conservation issue of the last 30 years", and I suspect it will be an issue which will draw our attention this afternoon. The Nature Conservancy Council's position has been elaborated in its paper, Birds, Bogs and Forestry, which was published last autumn. A detailed scientific report on the peatlands is expected soon.

In February 1987 the Forestry Commission agreed to extend SSSI-type consultation procedures to all grant applications within Caithness and Sutherland. More recently, in January 1988, the Secretary of State for Scotland has given consent to some applications waiting in the pipeline, in several instances with specific restrictions for reasons of nature conservation. He has further proposed that as much as 350,000 hectares of unafforested peatlands should be protected by SSSI status.

It has been established by scientific research in conifer plantations that adverse effects on surface waters occur at various stages in the cycle from the establishment of the seedling to harvesting. Sensitive habitats can only be protected where whole catchments are conserved as units. In my view the approach of the Secretary of State will succeed only if all parties accept that an SSSI of necessity includes an adequate protection zone surrounding the core area of high importance.

I now move to the coastal environment. It is gratifying that the year 1986–87 at last saw the designation of Britain's first marine nature reserve in the waters around Lundy. The pursuit of agreement on the location of marine nature reserves has been a hard road and I congratulate the Nature Conservancy Council on its perseverance. The report looks forward to further designations.

Existing voluntary marine nature reserves as at St. Abb's Head, which is mentioned on page 47 of the report, provide a model for management, but the transition to statutory designation is not necessarily going to be any easier. A less frequented site might prove less contentious; for example, the sea around St. Kilda offers spectacularly exposed, clear waters with representatives of rocky coastal communities in profusion. The recent history of St. Kilda supports the premise of little damage by human activity. A marine nature reserve here would complement a site already declared a world heritage area, as is reported on page 67. A compilation of all sites of conservation value is essential for sound planning of coastal nature protection. I am glad that the report emphasises that the marine nature conservation review is making progress.

I presume that the outcome will be proposals for the nautical equivalent of SSSIs, but I am not clear how these will be protected under the existing maritime law. The timescale is 10 years but that is 10 years too long. We have already seen established in Scotland by the initiative of the Crown Commissioners marine consultation areas. I believe that this initiative deserves to be put on a statutory footing.

The Nature Conservancy Council also has an important role in species protection. As required by the 1981 Act, the Nature Conservancy Council has performed the first quinquennial review of Schedules 5 and 8 of the 1981 Act. The recommendations are reported.

Among the whales and porpoises entanglement in fishing gear is recognised as a threat both generally and in specific instances. There are now grounds for serious concern over stocks of small cetaceans in the southern North Sea. I therefore welcome this open statement of the threat. I hope that it points to a determination by the NCC to confront the problem.

It is also recommended in the review that the international killing and injury of lizards, slowworms, grass snakes and adders should be an offence. As the explanatory statement makes clear, the adder must be included. If any one snake is unprotected all others remain at risk.

The licensing system by which trade is regulated in the commoner reptiles and the common amphibians unfortunately has not been employed to provide conservation management information, as was intended when we discussed this issue during the Bill that led to the 1981 Act and as is required in order to comply with the Berne Convention.

The starkest crisis in species protection is among bats. Since 1978, as research funded by the Nature Conservancy Council has shown, some 6 million breeding bats have been exterminated in the decade in which protection was extended to all bats. The national population of small bats has been reduced by some 62 per cent. The causes are complex but one factor stands out. The loss of natural roost sites has made bats heavily dependent on buildings. The weakness of the law in preventing bats from being killed either inadvertently or intentionally is emphasised on pages 59 to 60.

I look to the Nature Conservancy Council to maintain a high level of emphasis on bat protection in discharge of the statutory duty to advise and disseminate knowledge on nature conservation. We do not lack warning signs on the threat through habitat loss and environmental deterioration. The impending privatisation of the water authorities has provided an opportunity to look again at the legal framework for protection of the aquatic environment. The intended privatisation of electricity must give a similar chance to discuss air quality control. Measures to reduce surplus agricultural production must be devised to include positive conservation benefits.

The Nature Conservancy Council has the statutory duty to advise the Secretary of State or any other Minister on policies affecting nature conservation in Britain taking into account: actual or possible ecological changes", as stated in Clause 1(5) of the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973.

Chapter 5 of the report gives instances of the Nature Conservancy Council acting in this role. In this House on 13th January my noble friend the Minister said (at col. 1311 of the Official Report): Environmental policy must evolve on the basis of sound science, informed debate, foresight and a proper balance between development and conservation".

The Nature Conservancy Council has a key part to play in this process. I hope that my noble friend can assure the House that there are no constraints on the Nature Conservancy Council in addressing any ministry, government agency or any other statutory body and that, in accordance with the precautionary principle which the Minister has also said that the Government accept, due weight is given to the long-term protection on a basis of sustainability of the British natural environment heritage. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the 13th report (1986–87) of the Nature Conservancy Council.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

3.18 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)

My Lords, first I welcome the opportunity afforded to us by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in introducing this important debate this afternoon. As noble Lords would expect, my noble friend Lord Caithness will wind up at the end and deal with the general and main issues that arise in the debate. We also look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Granville, later today. My purpose in speaking at this stage in the debate is because of the importance of the Nature Conservancy Council's operations in Scotland and because of my responsibilities at the Scottish Office for agriculture and forestry and in particular for the Highlands and Islands.

As your Lordships are aware, we had a most useful debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on 27th January when we discussed matters relating to land use in Scotland. Everyone who took part in that debate was aware of Scotland's natural heritage; those of us who have lived and worked in Scotland all our lives are aware in particular of its great richness and diversity.

The importance of Scotland in the overall picture of conservation in Great Britain is reflected in the fact that 45 per cent. of the total area of notified SSSIs lie there. Also some two-thirds of the total area of national nature reserves lie north of the Border. This inheritance is subject to increasing pressures for change. There are legitimate demands for the needs of housing, industry, forestry or simply space for recreation and it is impossible to stand still. The Government's aim is to seek a balance acceptable to all among these various requirements and particularly acceptable to those who live in the Scottish countryside.

The Nature Conservancy Council has a very important part to play in helping to create this balance. The needs of conservation must he met in ways that are compatible with wider land use interests. This can only be achieved through a conscious partnership between all those with legitimate interests in the land and a willingness to work together towards common goals. It cannot be achieved overnight. It is a long hard road and I do not shrink from saying that there have been setbacks. But I also believe that progress has been made. It is of vital importance that co-operation develops between the NCC in Scotland and farmers and crofters, underpinned by the voluntary approach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This means that there has to be clear understanding of local sensitivities by all concerned.

Of course feelings run high sometimes, not least when the NCC last year notified a substantial new SSSI in the Rhinns of Islay. But there arc many examples of co-operation with the farming, forestry and wildlife advisory groups commonly called FWAGS working closely with the NCC. I do not believe farmers get enough credit for the enthusiasm for conserving the countryside which they have shown. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said only last week: They are the best carers of the countryside we have". I draw your Lordships' attention to the NCC's recent book entitled The Nature of the Land which illustrates well the range and beauty of our national nature reserves and their importance to Scotland's heritage.

A sensible balance between conservation and other land uses will stand us in good stead to develop the policies and to exploit opportunities presented by the need to reduce farm surpluses. I note with pleasure in the 13th report, which we are discussing, the importance attached to the environmentally sensitive areas which have been designated, and that they are described as of long-term significance. I too believe that. In addition to the two Scottish areas which have already been designated in Breadalbane and Loch Lomondside, extensive consultations are now taking place on the details of three new areas which are to be established, and these will be introduced as soon as possible. The NCC has also put forward some interesting arguments for maximising the benefits of set-aside for conservation, and the agricultural departments are examining them very closely.

I turn now to the forestry industry. It is an industry which is of particular importance to Scotland with nearly 90 per cent of new afforestation currently taking place there. As your Lordships will know, a Bill has been introduced to bring in a farm woodland scheme later this year, with a proper emphasis on broadleaves. This will add a new and welcome dimension to forestry. We shall strive to ensure that its operation will not become too much of an administrative burden and that we should see more planting under this scheme down the hill.

The Forestry Commission has a statutory duty to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and conservation. It has added to its environmental expertise in recent years and I myself have seen the work of the wildlife and conservation officers supported by an in-house research branch and the employment of Dr. Morton Boyd, who is a former NCC director in Scotland, as an independent conservation consultant.

I hope that the work within the Forestry Commission in this area will get the publicity it deserves in future. I believe that today's foresters are now realising the importance of providing for the needs of conservation. The Forestry Commission has signed a declaration of intent with the NCC to protect wildlife on 344 SSSIs on commission land. But that all must take place against a background of understanding between foresters and conservationists who must acknowledge the legitimate needs and aspirations of each other.

The issue of balance is at the heart of the debate which has been taking place over recent months about the future of afforestation in the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland, described in the report as the most important conservation issue of the last 30 years. It give me great satisfaction that the chairman of the NCC welcomed the Government Statement last month which pointed the way forward to a balanced solution in those counties. We agree that much of the two counties' areas are of national and international importance for conservation, and we believe that a very substantial area of peatland should he safeguarded as sites of special scientific interest. We envisage the area to be safeguarded in this way to be of the order of 180,000 hectares, or, in terms more familiar to your Lordships, ½ million acres. It would represent an additional 135,000 hectares of peatlands safeguarded for conservation. This is in addition to the 45,000 hectares already designated.

It may be helpful to your Lordships if 1 attempt to clear up a misunderstanding which has emerged about the implication of the Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State concerning the future scale of forestry development in the area. I emphasise that that could amount in future to a further 40,000 hectares or about 100,000 acres—a far cry from the 500,000 acres reported in some quarters.

I emphasise to the House that the Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland says that there would be protection for the most important bog systems and bird habitats, especially on the wet flows. I hope that that gives comfort to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. Many noble Lords may have seen recently an Anglia Television"Survival" special programme on the flow country in which Dr. David Bellamy gave a vivid account of his perception of what the flow country holds for conservationists. I have no comment to make on the content of the programme. I take some exception to the postscript to the programme which suggested that the Government Statement on 25th January did not significantly affect the matters covered in the programme. I do not believe that anyone who has read my right honourable friend's Statement could believe that to be the case.

My right honourable friend's remarks, which I have just referred to, made clear the Government's view that the areas of prime conservation significance should indeed he protected from further afforestation. I congratulate the working party set up by the Highland Regional Council which is preparing a land use strategy for the area concerned and thank the members for their work. They have undertaken exhaustive consultations and I think it is important that we should have the benefits of their findings before we determine our final approach to the problem. I understand that the report should be ready in April. I also think that we shall have a definition from the working party of what the flow country actually is.

I was very pleased, when I visited the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Crofters Commission and the Highland Regional Council on 25th January in Inverness, that they also gave a warm welcome to the Statement. But with my special responsibility for the Highlands and Islands I urge your Lordships to realise the sensitive nature of the problem.

It is important to realise that Caithness and Sutherland's area is 28,000 hectares larger than Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire put together, but with a quarter of the population of Milton Keynes. Those who live in that area all the year round appreciate only too well the importance of getting a satisfactory outcome for the local economy in this debate. The expression "Fragile—handle with care" must be attributed to this matter, just as it is to posting a valuable parcel.

The ecology of the area is fragile but so is the economy of the area, and that is acknowledged by the Government's welcome for the HIDB special development progamme for North-West Sutherland. Everyone must work with the grain in this matter. We must proceed by discussion and negotiation rather than by confrontation or conflict. Surely quiet, calm deliberation which will disentangle every knot is the right approach. That is the right approach in Caithness and Sutherland and I suggest that it is perhaps the right approach throughout the country.

3.25 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, this is an important occasion not only because this is the 13th report of the Nature Conservancy Council but also because it is the first report to be debated in this way in your Lordships' House. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for drawing the matter to our attention. We also look forward to the contributions of many well-informed Members of your Lordships' House, and we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Granville.

The occasion is also important in that perhaps this time and these few years signify the most important changes that are likely to take place in our countryside for many years. We have, for the first time for many years, real pressure for the reduction of agricultural output and the reduction of agricultural land. That pressure, coming from our own economic thinking as well as that of the European Community, gives rise to new conservation opportunities of which the Nature Conservancy Council is well aware and which it highlights in a number of places in its report. Those conservation opportunities deserve the most detailed attention from your Lordships.

In his opening speech the noble Earl made reference to a number of particular aspects of the Nature Conservancy Council's work. He did so with admirable clarity. I shall not cover that ground again except where it seems necessary to ask the Government questions about their intentions as regards the work of the council.

The noble Earl first referred to the national nature reserves. He gave vivid examples of the value of those reserves and in particular the value of the 55 reserves which are actually owned by the Nature Conservancy Council. As many noble Lords will know, there has been a great deal of talk about privatisation of some of those national nature reserves. I think that it is appropriate to ask the Government their intentions in this respect. If, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is suggesting, there is particular value in ownership of national nature reserves by the NCC, are the Government prepared to resist any pressure that there may be towards privatisation of the reserves?

The noble Earl devoted a considerable part of his speech—and justifiably so—to the sites of special scientific interest. Indeed the council must be congratulated on the rate of renotification that they have achieved, with 80 per cent. of sites renotified and 50 per cent. of new sites now notified. They are working towards a total 6,000 sites covering 8 per cent. of the land mass of the country, which is a very substantial amount of conservation.

However, at the same time the report gives evidence of difficulties in the notification process—both legal difficulties arising from the need for very great precision in notification to owners and occupiers and also procedural difficulties. I wonder whether in replying to the debate the Minister will be able to give any assurance to the House that the department is making progress in its review of the difficulties in the notification procedure and that matters will be made easier.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, also referred to the damage being caused to a number of SSSIs. Two have been lost altogether, 46 have suffered lasting damage and 228 have suffered some damage. The report draws attention to the fact that much of that damage takes place despite planning permission and is caused by statutory undertakings and by public bodies, as well as by third parties who are not the owners or occupiers and therefore cannot be pursued by the council. I ask what steps the Government are proposing to take to prevent further damage? While I am on this point I also ask them what proposals they have to increase the use of nature conservation orders under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

It is not just a question of damage to SSSIs; it is also a question of neglect. The report raises the issue of whether there should be a requirement for powers for remedial work to be carried out where owners and occupiers neglect the sites. It does not make very good sense to have sanctions against those who plough up a site of scientific importance when just as much damage can be caused over a period of years by those who neglect a site rather than inflicting positive damage.

I turn next to landscape conservation orders. In this area the report refers to major weaknesses in the draft orders which have now been published for consultation. I think that there is widespread concern among those interested in conservation about the weaknesses in those orders, which apply only to parts of national parks and not to all of national parks, and still less to areas outside national parks to which many people feel that they should apply. Of course there is a fundamental difficulty of funds for landscape conservation orders, and the quite extraordinary exclusion from the draft orders of forestry operations—a matter to which I shall return in a minute. I must ask the Government what their future intentions are with regard to landscape conservation orders. I hope that they will be able to give an assurance that they will be tightened up and made more effective.

All those issues give rise to the question of land ownership and purchase by the council. It is evident from many parts of the report that land which is owned by the council is more effectively protected than land which is leased or even controlled under NRAs.

There ought to be scope for some halfway house which would provide a high degree of protection. I wonder whether the Government will be able to give any consideration to the question, for example, of matching grant with suitable protective conditions on private purchases of land which is worthy of conservation.

Finally, before I come to the forestry issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, referred, I want to say something briefly about international obligations. The report goes into some detail about seeking to abide by this country's international obligations and that is worthy of congratulation. But the Government are falling behind in the way in which they are giving decisions on some of the outstanding orders which have been sought by the council. The application on the Wash area is more than four years overdue, and the applications on the Stour and the Orwell and the Mersey areas are substantially overdue. The result is that less than 20 per cent. of the sites which have been identified have been protected under our international obligations. I hope that the Government will be able to give us some indication that this will be speeded up.

Now I come to the contentious issue of forestry which has been given a great deal of public airing in recent weeks and months. The atmosphere hotted up when we found not only the Observer colour magazine devoting considerable space to it, but even today's Private Eye referring to it on a number of occasions.

We must first remind ourselves that we are talking about the Nature Conservancy Council report and not about the general issue of forestry and we must restrict our comments to that report. As the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, reminded us, the Nature Conservancy Council is consulted only about those forestry areas which are sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves. He reminded us that some 300 of the SSSIs are on Forestry Commission land. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, reminded us that it is not just the sites which are afforested but also all the surrounding areas which are critical to the ecology of the terrain. You cannot isolate a pool area in the flow country which is surrounded by forestry and expect it to survive in its original condition. I should remind the Government also that in Scotland the Countryside Commission for Scotland is consulted only on national scenic areas, and that is quite a severe restriction.

Both the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, have referred to the flow country where there are a number of sites of special scientific interest which merit a special section in the commission's report and also in its chairman's introduction to that report. First, it is important to have the numbers clear. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has assured us that there will be 180,000 hectares of land in the flow country protected by SSSIs. As he reminds us, that is an increase of 135,000 hectares over the existing provisions. However we are talking of an area of 400,000 hectares of peat land and an area where 80,000 hectares have already been afforested and 67,000 of those hectares are already on peat land.

The conclusion which the Nature Conservancy Council draws from that is that: Sufficient planting has now taken place and operations should now cease". That does not square with the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that 40,000 hectares are to be authorised or have been authorised— I am not sure which—for additional afforestation over the next 20 years. That runs directly counter to the views of the Nature Conservancy Council. The Government must make some more positive response than they have made so far to that contradiction because, as Bruce Sanderson said in the Scotsman, the afforestation of the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland is, one of the great acts of vandalism of the late 20th century". Anyone who has read the pile of reports produced on this subject or who has studied the scientific evidence made available about the bird population of those areas and the degree to which the natural habitat has been destroyed by forestry will realise that something very bad has already occurred and that every effort must be made to ensure that such damage does not continue. We must tackle what is a very serious problem, principally and most evidently in Caithness and Sutherland but also in other parts of Scotland and to some extent in this country.

What is the solution? I suggest that the answer must lie in a combination of the stick and the carrot. The first thing that must be done—and I say this firmly as Labour Party policy—is that the absurd and grotesque, though accidental, tax reliefs for private forestry which have grown up must be abolished. It is absurd that taxpayers should spend £30 million a year—the figure was £10 million a year in 1980, so it is more like £30 million now—on private investment in forestry. It should be remembered that 90 per cent. of the afforestation in the flow country of Scotland is undertaken by private forestry.

It is not acceptable that this Government which abolished investment subsidies for industry many years ago should retain them for forestry. The idea is absurd that investors should have a choice between Schedules B and D—Schedule D being more suitable for rich investors who have no interest or locus in forestry and Schedule B more suitable for those who want to achieve disposal without tax disadvantage. It is not acceptable that that choice should continue. Indeed matters are worse because, through the careful use of trusts, some people manage to have the best of both worlds. They start with Schedule B and land up on Schedule D.

There are also concessions on capital gains tax, inheritance tax and VAT, which I shall not go into at the moment. The result of all those concessions is, as my noble friend Lady White said in June 1986, that most forestry is a tax investment and not a tree investment. That is not acceptable and the Labour Party is committed to the abolition of those concessions.

However, it is not just a matter of tax relief. We shall withdraw Schedule D and outlaw the switched schedule schemes that are possible. We shall make sure that Schedule D is retained for replanting rather than in order to make windfall profits. Yet that is not the only reason for our dissatisfaction with the situation in which we find ourselves. The fact of the matter is that, through a combination of the environmental damage caused by afforestation and the cost to the taxpayer of the tax concessions which make it possible, we find ourselves in a situation in which every economic and environmental interest of this country works for something different.

The European Economic Community is encouraging us to take 500,000 hectares of land out of farming use over the next five years. The Ministry of Agriculture does not for one moment think that that is achievable. I think that it does not really want to believe that it is achievable. While that is happening any token compliance with the European Community objectives by the Government is on the whole for upland farming and marginal livestock rearing rather than for arable farming. All our perceptions of the situation indicate that a stronger effort must be made to convert arable land to forestry in so far as we need forestry; in other words, in the phrase of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, "to bring forestry down the There is the possibility of EC subsidies for that purpose.

There is the evident necessity to deal with agricultural surpluses in this country as well as in the whole of Europe; there is the environmental damage of forestry policies as they are already being carried out; and there is the cost to the taxpayers of forestry policies as they are implemented. We hope to have from the Government today an indication that all those problems together expose the need for a radical change of heart in respect of their forestry policy.

The NCC is important not only for those who are professionally involved with the countryside. A very large number of people visit nature reserves. Indeed, nearly all the population of this country pay visits to the countryside. On behalf of the people, the Nature Conservancy Council deserves the thanks of us all for its efforts to date as indicated in this report; and it deserves the greatest support from the Government for its objectives.