Hedgerows

HL Deb 28 April 1999 vol 600 cc354-89

6.4 p.m.

Lord Hardy of Wath rose to call attention to the current arrangements for the protection of hedgerows; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate an issue which is interesting to many Members of your Lordships' House and to not a few million people concerned about our natural inheritance and landscape. It will give my noble friend Lady Farrington the opportunity to explain the Government's position and to indicate the improvement which must be made to the flawed 1996 hedgerow regulations. It would be useful to have an indication of the Government's thinking on the matter.

My interest in conservation and hedgerows extends over a long period. I served as chairman of the Natural Environment Sub-Committee and the Environment Committee of the Council of Europe. I was frequently rapporteur—on one occasion before the Co uncil of Europe Convention on Wildlife and Habitat. I welcome the fact that the Government swiftly acceded to that convention. I was delighted when they sought to pat their obligations into practice by the introduction of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Bill. It was a measure of considerable importance, but it offered no advantage to hedgerows.

Therefore, in 1982, with the invaluable assistance of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and with support from parties across the Commons, I presented the Hedgerows Bill. The Government blocked it and used as their reason their belief that the destruction of hedgerows had virtually ended. That was not so.

At about the same time I realised that enclosure awards in South Yorkshire, where I live, usually provided protection for hedgerows in former common land. The South Yorkshire enclosure awards spelt out that the fields formed from the common land should be perpetually surrounded by fences, in most cases fences protected by oak palings. I could see no reason doubt that that legal perpetual obligation continued to apply.

I was advised by Mr. Colin Seymour, who lived in West Yorkshire and whom I shall mention again, that the same conditions applied there. I found enclosure awards in East Anglia covering thousands of acres. All of them had the requirement that hedgerows or other field boundaries—walls or dykes—had to be maintained forever as an obligation and condition of the possession of the land. I may be accused of making a revolutionary proposal if I say that if the individual who possesses the land breaches the conditions on which that possession is based it might not be a bad idea to suggest that he should lose possession. However, perhaps your Lordships would not go quite so far as that.

When I realised that such protective arrangements were relatively comprehensive, I wrote to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for confirmation that the law still existed. I suggested that substantial sums of taxpayers' money might have been spent on grants to encourage grubbing out of hedgerows. I suggested too that the Ministry had taken no steps to ensure that grant was not paid where the hedgerow was required to be perpetually maintained. The response was that if that had happened the Ministry would have to recover the grants that had been paid. I do not think any such grants were recovered.

However, one continued to press for progress. The Government made it clear in the following years that they did not want another Bill, but in 1987 I received some encouragement. At that time I was serving on the Council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It was celebrating its centenary. The celebration commenced at King's Cross Station, where the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as Prime Minister, was the guest speaker. It was an important occasion for the RSPB, a very large body with more members than all the political parties in England put together.

I was not an enthusiastic fan of the then Prime Minister. I was delighted, however, that she made a splendid speech calling specifically and clearly for the protection of hedgerows and urging us to act as guardians and trustees of our natural heritage. It was a slight disappointment to me that I could not join in the rest of the celebrations. I was on my way to the House of Commons to present the 1987 Hedgerows Bill, which met the wishes passed to me of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association. I amended the 1982 Bill to meet their requirement that they should have the right to demolish part of a hedgerow for reasons of access. That seemed to me entirely reasonable.

The Bill was supported across the Floor of the House, but on the Friday when we hoped to secure Second Reading it was blocked. I do not blame the Government Whips who blocked it; they were doing their job having been ordered to do so by the Government and by No.10, Downing Street. The noble Baroness said, in some rather acrimonious correspondence, that the Government had other things to think of as well as conservation. Some of us have been thinking of conservation since then, as we did before.

I suggested that the national conservation bodies should seek to pursue the matter by bringing a test case to protect the enclosure hedgerows, but they were very slow to do so. However, our Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, a splendid regional trust, maintained a keen interest and protected hedgerows in some areas under threat. In some instances it was successful in stopping destruction.

Mr. Colin Seymour, who by then had moved to Flamborough, raised the proposed destruction of an enclosure hedgerow by Flamborough Parish Council. With the support of our trust and my own express support, the matter proceeded to court in 1996. The court accepted that the case was good. I advised the Government, who were then preparing the hedgerow regulations in fulfilment of a clear 1992 manifesto promise, that it would be wise for them to ensure that nothing in the regulations would embarrass or imperil the decisions that might accrue from the Flamborough judgment or indeed any other.

But the Government went ahead and inserted into the regulations the words, "important hedgerow". The enclosure awards covering virtually the whole of lowland England did not differentiate between one kind of field boundary and another, and the law did not say that the perpetual obligation was only for those hedgerows that someone might think important. It said that that protection was absolute and perpetual. The phrase "important hedgerow" requires subjective judgments from all kinds of people who may be in permanent disagreement.

The regulations placed local authorities in an impossible position. If someone wishes to pull down a hedgerow the local authority in effect has four weeks to carry out a very detailed ecological assessment. It needs to count the plants in the hedgerow. I do not suppose it occurred to Ministers of the day, or even to some civil servants, who should know better, that during the winter months many of the plants which might grow in the hedgerow and which the local authority is supposed to count cannot be seen. In any case, in the winter months—although perhaps less so in the more salubrious south—snow is frequently encountered. Even with global warming, snow can last for quite a few days, especially if it drifts along hedgerows in hilly areas. It is not possible for a local government officer to count plants in a hedgerow which might have a couple of feet of snow upon it.

More foolish, and what annoyed me most, was the attempt by the Ministry to say which plants were native English species. Someone must have delved deep into pre-history to ascertain how long plants had been growing in this country. Some plants that we regard as an essential part of the English scene were not approved in the Government's regulations, which were badly flawed. Since it is now two years since the Government took office, I hope that it will not be long before we have the improvements that are so greatly needed. Those improvements should in no way weaken the protection by which so much of British land is possessed.

I had taken the view that protection under the enclosure awards applied to the 4,000 Acts of enclosure enacted before 1840. I understand that the splendid recent work of the House of Commons Environment Select Committee on field boundaries has established that the protection may have come much more recently than 1840. For example, many measures, such as the turnpike measures, passed after that time require large areas of hedgerows to be perpetually maintained. Unfortunately, turnpikes have served their social purpose. The obligations placed upon those responsible for them have passed to the local authorities, some of which appear to have been unaware of the responsibilities devolved upon them.

It is a very complex area, but the value of our landscape and the importance of our habitat are issues to which conservationists will be giving much greater attention at as the years pass. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that there are two cases before the courts which may well extend the protective cloak of law provided by the Flamborough judgment. That judgment was a masterly piece of historic and legal work. I remember feeling somewhat restive because the judge seemed to be taking a long time. However, when the judgment appeared it was obvious that it had been reached on the basis of a very skilled, highly professional and masterly study of the historic position. That has given the conservation bodies in Britain a great deal of hope and a very substantial opportunity to pursue protection.

I hope that in many cases that will not be necessary, but I should like my noble friend to confirm that the parish councils and all other local authorities have obligations in this matter. Parish councils may be very small. They may not have much money and they may not have many responsibilities, but they have an obligation to look after the local interest, and if there is a measure in their area which protects the landscape it is reasonable to suggest that they have an obligation to have regard for that particular matter. It could be seen as a duty.

The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust has recently raised another matter. If a hedgerow lies between fields owned by two different people, one may protect the hedge. If the hedge is by the side of a road, the local highways authority is responsible for one side of the hedge and can ensure that the hedge is protected. That is an obligation of which local authorities need to be reminded because sometimes they have neglected to ensure that they act properly in that regard.

It is a great deal more complicated than the approach which I adopted in 1982 because the Hedgerows Bill which I proposed, at a time of vast and rapid destruction, was extremely simple. I proposed that the Government should protect and that Parliament should enact the protection of hedgerows forming the boundary of farm and parish and those beside highways, footpaths and bridle ways. That is a much smaller degree of protection than the Government may now like but it would have taken us a considerable way forward and it is a pity that it was not enacted.

hope that we can have not merely good sense but also the imaginative approach now required. I urge the Government to adopt the reassuring approach adopted in the last manifesto. I beg to move for Papers.

6.21 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, some 26 years ago, I made my maiden speech on fencing and hedgerows while my noble friend Lord Ferrers was sitting on the Front Bench as Under-Secretary of State for Agriculture. Shortly after that, a fencing grant was introduced which also gave grants for removing hedgerows, to which the noble Lord has just referred.

I admit, with no sense of guilt whatever, to removing quite a few hedgerows, but I admit also, with a certain amount of embarrassment, I am sorry to say, that I have won two awards for my remaining hedges.

I make that introduction to point out the difficult decision as regards what should and should not be an important hedgerow; who is to make that judgment; and on what grounds it should be made. I must tell your Lordships that I am fed up to the back teeth with being told how to manage my farm by those who have no practical experience of having to make a living from farming. Indeed, it is my view that those who like to order my—our—affairs, be they various quangos or voluntary green organisations, consist of members who have little experience of having to farm for a profit in order to support a family; or, if they do have that experience, they are privileged in that they have inherited the farm free of mortgage or with no rent to pay, which inevitably means that they look on farming in a totally different light from those, such as myself, who have had to make those payments.

I raised objection to the hedgerows legislation in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and again in a classically humorous yet very serious debate on the laying of the order, in which I had to divert the wrath of my noble friend Lord Ferrers on to my noble and green friend Lord Marlesford. In company with others, he criticised my noble friend Lord Ferrers for bringing forward regulations which were pathetic and weak. I, of course, criticised my noble friend because his regulations were too severe.

The problem is that it is extremely difficult to try to legislate on what is or is not an important hedgerow. I am glad to say that that difficulty is illustrated by the fact that the Government, although promising to bring forward a revised order in the autumn of 1997, have not yet done that. I congratulate the Government on that. It is, indeed, strange for the Government to think before they act.

Your Lordships will no doubt say that I am an arch farmer—I am—driven by greed and thoughtlessness. In mitigation, I say that it is only when one becomes deeply involved in the day-to-day practical work of running a farm, which I have done for 50 years, rather than viewing it from the comfort of some quango boardroom et al that one realises that nature forces itself upon one. As the right reverend Prelate is in his place, perhaps I may be so bold to say that "Nature" is God. One must reconcile one's efforts to her ways. But that certainly does not mean submission—God never meant that—to her, or, more importantly, to stupid legislation. I am sure that the noble Baroness will make sure that it is not stupid.

Perhaps I may say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, about the ruling. As I understand it, the legal case in relation to the enclosure matter to which he referred was a very narrow ruling on an entirely geographical matter. Therefore, it is not nationwide.

I suppose that today, if I am going to be hung for a lamb, I may as well be hung for a sheep. Perhaps it is the other way round, but as a sheep is worth nothing, it must be for a lamb! Whatever happens, the farmer's view really must be paramount. If it is not, no regulation will work. Non-co-operation is the worst scenario, for there are many more ways of destroying a hedgerow than using a bulldozer. Keeping stock is one of them.

6.26 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, on introducing this subject in your Lordships' House today. I first got to know him when we were both on the Council of Europe together. That is now an admirable body celebrating its 50th year. The work which he did then was extremely valuable. I congratulate him on that and on what he has been doing ever since in this field.

There is obviously a need for farm boundaries and for boundaries in the countryside, for obvious reasons, the most obvious being the keeping in or out of various livestock, although that is less and less important these days as there is less and less livestock mixed farming in the countryside.

However, it is important that there should be appropriate boundaries. Barbed wire will not always do. It is not always the most appropriate option. It is not at all sightly, but that is not necessarily the main point. There is a need to resist soil loss by wind blow, and with climate change that may become much more important than it is at present.

There is a need for boundaries to provide homes for wildlife, and with the growing loss of wildlife, particularly of birds, in the countryside that becomes more and more important. There is also a need for boundaries which do not provide hazards to either wildlife or human beings. I draw attention to the Unstarred Question which is being asked this evening by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about the fate of the capercaillie. To a certain extent, that is governed by the fact that enormous losses are caused because that stupid bird flies into deer fences and injures or kills itself. We therefore have a need to produce not only field boundaries but appropriate field boundaries.

We have at last stopped paying people to grub out hedges; we now even pay them to plant them. There is one major point I should like to make. Although I do not go a very great deal of the way with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, as noble Lords can imagine, nevertheless I join with him on this matter, as I think he will with me. I refer to the fact that we must be aware of the need to subsidise the continuing care of field boundaries. Money is not just needed to plant them; it is needed in order to look after them.

I know people who are members of the Family Farms Association or the Small Farms Alliance who would very much like to plant more hedges and to look after them. They do not complain at the amount of subsidy they receive for planting hedges, but say they cannot afford to look after them.

We all know that looking after a hedge by staking and binding it, or by cutting and laying it, is heavily labour-costed. The same is true of dry-stone walls in appropriate areas. Help must be given. In the present appalling state of farm finances—here, I entirely sympathise with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley—we cannot expect the very people who would willingly look after farm boundaries to plant more unless they know that they will not incur great losses by so doing. That is not the case at present.

In certain areas it is much easier. I have the honour to be on the governing body, as vice president, of National Parks, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary. That organisation manages to maintain the skills needed for the preservation of field boundaries and is to be congratulated on so doing. The Government need to consider this whole matter. They need to provide money to enable those farmers who really want to do their duty in this particular area—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, as to what their duty is—to do it without serious monetary loss at a time when farming is going through a very difficult period.

6.32 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, first, perhaps I may declare an interest in so far as I have been involved with agriculture all my life. Like my noble friend Lord Stanley, I have also pulled up hedges and, like him, I do not regret having done so because that was in the nature of the farming enterprise.

Secondly, and possibly more importantly, perhaps I may apologise to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for the fact that I was not in my place for the earlier part of his speech. I am afraid to say that I was stuck in traffic and could not get here.

The subject of hedgerows is always a deeply sensitive matter because people have wildly differing views. Sometimes it does not do any harm to remember that in the days before enclosures there were not many hedges. Then we had the enclosures, and we had lots of hedges. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley stated, they are the habitat for wildlife.

As agriculture has increased and changed its methods, as has every other industry during the past 50 years, it has been necessary to make fields larger. Similarly, people now want to go to great big supermarkets and those have squeezed out the village shops. That is a great sorrow. In the same way, so I believe large farms have, up to a point, tended to make small fields a thing of the past. At any rate, small fields have become uneconomical. Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable to make them more economical. Curiously, many people do not realise that, despite all the row about pulling up hedges, more hedges are planted each year than are pulled up. Folk do not always get the credit for that.

There is a great move to try to regulate everything, which I believe is a great mistake. Many people say that they are conservationists. This debate is almost the conservationist versus the agriculturist argument; but it should not be so. The majority of farmers and agriculturists are also great conservationists. It is they who have the responsibility of trying to look after the land, which means looking after the hedges and everything else that goes on the land.

However, there has been a great move to try to have some form of regulation for hedges. The great conservation bodies are great pressure groups, and pressure was put on the previous government, as I have no doubt that it is being put on this Government.

I had the privilege of serving in the Department of the Environment when the subject of hedgerows came up. Perhaps I can let your Lordships into a little secret. When you are a Minister in a department, some issues are at the top of the list of things you are keen on and some are at the bottom. The implementing of hedgerow regulations was at the bottom of my list of priorities. I was not at all enamoured with the idea and I tried to persuade my colleagues of that; but, as they say in the current jargon, "You lose some and you win some". I did not find that I won very many.

At any rate, it was determined that there should be regulations. These blessed regulations had to come through my patch. I was disturbed about that. I thought that they were deeply bureaucratic and almost unintelligible. I said to those with whom I had the privilege of working that I thought it embarrassing to put on the statute book something that you could not understand. I said that if I, as a Minister with the privilege of civil servants to draft regulations, could not understand them, I wondered how others would do so. I am not. I hope, being at all condemnatory of the officials who did wonderful work. However, it is a complicated subject. The trouble with any regulations is that as soon as you try to make them easier, you are taken down further paths and they become more complicated.

Eventually, some 15 pages of regulations were produced on how one should or should not pull out hedgerows. Suddenly, the election was called. "Hurray, hurrah" some of us said because all business was guillotined. If certain Bills were not passed by the time of the election, they were dropped—and the regulations were to be dropped. I had the greatest sympathy for other Ministers in my department who were keen on this issue, but I thought, "Thank goodness. These regulations will now fall". However, much to my horror, they appeared like a big whale, leaping out of the water. The day before Parliament was dissolved I was told that I had to take the regulations through your Lordships' House. They were my last piece of business ever from the Front Bench in your Lordships' House. I was disturbed at that prospect.

However, the regulations were passed. Your Lordships charmingly approved them and we are now lumbered with those 15 pages of regulations. The upshot of all this, as I hope that your Lordships will understand, is not that I intend to be disloyal to my colleagues or to the officials who worked wonderfully on this issue, but, to return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, these regulations are very complicated. If the noble Baroness can do anything within her department to stop people making regulations, she should do it; it does not matter what they are about. For goodness sake, let us not have any more. They make life too complicated.

I believe I have one more minute left.

Noble Lords

No!

Earl Ferrers

I have some time left, at any rate. When the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was being debated some time ago, we were in opposition. One lunchtime I happened to sit next to the chairman of de Havilland, Canada. He made a pertinent remark. He said, "Ministers can say, 'Don't worry, we will leave it all to the officials or to the business to run when it is nationalised'. It won't make any difference. " He then said, "They can say that and they can mean it, but it will be the civil servants who will badger the thing to death". That was said about nationalisation. If you ask people to produce regulations, it is not the civil servants' fault. But the fact is that if you have got to make regulations, you must make them fair for any conceivable circumstance—and that will he difficult. My plea to the noble Baroness is please not to let any more horrible regulations come out of her department and, if they do. to try to make them more simple.

6.40 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford

My Lords, I want to express my warm welcome to this debate and my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for initiating it. I should also like to thank the Government for being willing to review the 1997 regulations. I believe that those regulations have achieved a good deal. They have saved considerable lengths of historically and ecologically important hedgerows; but they are too complicated and, I believe that in some respects they are not strong enough. The criteria by which a hedge is judged to be important are complex and narrowly drawn. warmly approve of the attempt to define what is important, and I think one has to acknowledge that the authorities have tried to operate these regulations in a responsible and conscientious way.

I want to speak particularly of Herefordshire. which I know best. The success of the unitary authority in Herefordshire has been quite encouraging. Fifty-five per cent of hedges proposed for removal have been protected-3.6 kilometres out of 5.3 kilometres, for which application was made—but the planning authority itself greatly regrets the lack of a landscape criterion. Again and again important hedges have been lost. They are important in landscape terms because the critical need to retain a rich and diverse beautiful network of small fields in certain special areas has not been supported in any sense by the regulations. In particular. the requirements of a specific number of woody species to define the length of a hedge is very complicated and too demanding and, as has already been said, in winter you cannot tell which is which.

I suggest that it could at least be simplified by, say, five woody species in 100 metres or less of hedge, with no reference to the associated features, which complicate the present arrangements. So I would add my voice to the many asking for a landscape value criterion which would complement the proper emphasis on ecology and history in the existing regulations.

I want to draw particular attention to one aspect of hedgerow destruction which receives very little publicity. It is not well understood, I believe, and in fact is encouraged by the present agricultural support system for hill farmers. Of course the origin of the problem, if one wants to call it a problem, of hedgerow destruction was, and still is, in arable country. The demands of farmers for larger acreages on which ever larger machinery can operate has been part of the desire for greater efficiency. In many ways that is entirely laudable and necessary, although the price in terms of the transformation of the landscape is one which needs to be carefully weighed. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others who have said that farming is an important industry and it has to be taken seriously; but it is a case of balance between the needs of the farmer and the needs of the community which values the landscape and may be prepared to pay for it.

I am acutely aware of a particular problem in rural Herefordshire and Shropshire, in the hill country of the Welsh Marches. Here it is not a question of farmers applying to remove hedges, but of the progressive and relentless degradation of hedges by grazing patterns, which are themselves the direct result of the policy of subsidies designed to give those hill farmers a precarious living. It is precarious, but it is some kind of living. For 35 years I have known and loved the walk up Black Hill, the Cat's Back, a protruding spine of the Black Mountains, from which point you can look west into the remote and beautiful Olchon Valley or east towards the lush pastures of the Wye Valley. Westwards, this view has hardly changed in hundreds of years. Eastwards, for the first mile or so there are still the small steep fields; and then the further you go the larger the fields become, many of them at this time of year hideous with oil seed rape.

Eastwards a lot of hedges have been removed, but not as many as in other parts of England. However, it is the Olchon Valley itself, and many similar upland landscapes, which are under a new threat. This is the structure of agricultural support. The system of paying farmers for production units, that is headage payments on each ewe, coupled with the low cost of purchasing those production units, at the moment increases the number of sheep grazing the land. The headage payment is £8.88 per ewe for "specially qualified ewes". A further upland subsidy of £4.09 is claimable. Ewes of this type are very cheap to buy, and quota, which confers the entitlement to both payments, can be bought or leased. This encourages the farmer to acquire more sheep and to bid high for "keep" in upland areas, far above their real values as grazing land.

A farmer can buy a ewe for £8 and be paid nearly £13 per year for keeping it, and so he keeps too many. By contrast, the countryside stewardship scheme requires farmers to observe strict stocking limits, refrain from using fertiliser and maintain hedges. These restrictions preclude revenue from letting grazing, but the CSS pays only £35 an acre on species-rich meadows, and nothing at all on rye grass and clover leys. So there is no incentive for these farmers to enter into a stewardship agreement when they can reap subsidies for extensive sheep grazing, either themselves or by the price they can charge for the grass keep.

It is a sad fact that government policy is exacerbating the decline of upland hedgerows. The present legislation has to be welcomed, but I would suggest two further measures which I hope may stem from this review. First, I believe we should decouple the land management and the hedgerow management components of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, so that farmers who are currently discouraged from using the scheme because it imposes such demands on them in terms of land management could still subscribe to the hedgerow management measures.

Secondly, and more importantly, we should institute area payments heavily weighted in favour of environmental criteria. This is the single best change to protect our landscape and, incidentally, the family farm. Headage payments on production units are illogical in a world where red meat is over-supplied. They simply encourage high numbers, poor husbandry and landscape dereliction. This is a nonsensical way to spend public money, helping to destroy what we want to protect and producing what we do not want or need.

The over-production, of course, does depress prices and further distorts the market, and so, while I would urge an imaginative and wide-ranging review of the present legislation, I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to give your Lordships some indication that the Government recognise this particular unwelcome and undesirable aspect of our farm support system. I hope she will be able to give a firm indication that funds can be redirected in a more environmentally beneficial direction. It would be very warmly welcomed by those who care about both our upland hedges and our family farms.

6.47 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the more I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, the more I thought that his opening comment was not quite accurate. He said he had always been interested in the conservation of hedgerows. I thought it was more the preservation of hedgerows that interested him. I would not have been at all surprised, had the noble Lord been alive when the enclosure Acts were put before Parliament, that he would have been the first to vote against them because they would have altered the countryside as he knew it then.

Like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I am against regulations and I was sad that the government I supported introduced the regulations when they did. Regulations should be introduced only when they are absolutely necessary, and I do not believe them to be necessary for hedgerows. What saddens me more is that it is absolutely instinctive for any Labour Party to ratchet up and increase regulation and put a further burden on individuals. If we are going to continue to have these regulations, I make a plea to the noble Baroness that they should be transparent, equitable and objective. It should be vital that every farmer should be able to understand clearly, whether he farms in the uplands or the lowlands, what the purport of the regulations is and to implement them to the best of his ability without additional costs.

I thoroughly support the protection of hedgerows and their conservation, but it is not only the protection of hedgerows that I support. It is equally important to preserve the dry-stone walls of Oxfordshire, where I have spent so much of my life, and the slate walls of Caithness, in the right circumstances. Again, it comes back to balance, and there must be balance in the regulations between the environmental and aesthetic aspects and the needs of the farmer to continue to farm into the next millennium.

It is quite clear that this Labour Government are no great friend of the countryside. This Labour Government will reduce the support given to farmers and, given that, the farmers must have the flexibility to be able to continue to farm profitably on the land. We cannot put the countryside into a glass case and preserve it as it is now. That has never worked in the past and will never work in the future. The countryside is a place where people live and work; they struggle for an existence. Many farmers are having a really tough time at the moment and the more regulations one imposes on them that they cannot sustain, the more the countryside will deteriorate. Farmers will be reluctant to pursue their traditional role as custodians of the countryside.

It is management of the countryside that is important. It is only through good management that one will be able to preserve the things that we like to see so much. And I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, if I were still a land agent and read his speech, I regret that I would be tempted to go to my clients—my farmers, tenant farmers and landowners—and say, "Look, this is only going to get worse for you. My advice is to get on and reshape your farm as quickly as possible before they make it harder for you to take out hedgerows with any flexibility". I am sad to say that. I would not like to give that advice; but if I were to go back to my old job as a land agent, that is the advice I would have to give, because it seems to me that matters are going to get worse.

Let me move on quickly to a topic that has not yet been raised. I refer to the question of genetic engineering and farming. Sir Robert May, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, gave advice to a Select Committee in another place. Sadly, that advice has riot yet been printed and I shall therefore have to rely on press reports. I do not like relying on press reports; I have never found them accurate in the past but it is the best I can do today.

The press report claims that, Sir Robert did, however, also warn the committee that commercial genetically modified crops could ruin wildlife unless there was tight regulation…they could intensify the dramatic postwar decline in songbirds, insects, wild flowers and hedgerows". Here we have a new aspect of farming to hit us hard in the next millenium that could destroy the very thing we are debating tonight. Could the noble Baroness update me as to exactly what the position is on this? If the farmer next door to my noble friend Lord Stanley plants genetically engineered crops and destroys the hedgerows that he wishes to maintain, who is at fault? Where is the liability on that? Will the regulations have anything to say on that matter?

Finally, I wish to reiterate just one matter. Will the noble Baroness please concentrate on the management of the countryside, not on further regulation?

6.52 p.m.

Lord Grantchester

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hardy for raising this debate tonight. I declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire who can claim to have laid and planted probably more than double the length of hedges than he has removed.

It is little more than a year since the 1997 hedgerow regulations came into force. That is hardly long enough to draw too many hard conclusions about the effects of this measure. While removals and plantings around town or road developments may occur at any time, farm operations would tend to be concentrated during spring or autumn cultivations. Statistically, this would be a small sample on which to base conclusions.

The 1997 regulations require a person wanting to remove a hedgerow to seek prior approval from the local planning authority, which decides whether it is important in terms of its wildlife, historical or landscape value and whether it should be protected. At the time: these regulations became law, it was considered that only 20 per cent of hedgerows were likely to be deemed important. From the information provided by the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) in its excellent booklet, Hedging Your Bets, experience since seems to bear out that figure. On page 7, the CPRE claims that only 20 per cent of hedgerows are being protected, ranging from around 10 per cent in the North East and West, to around 39 per cent in East Anglia and 33 per cent in the South West. The booklet goes on to claim that that is woefully inadequate. I am not so convinced. Perhaps the Minister tonight can indicate whether the Government are still content with that 20 per cent figure, or whether they would like to see that figure increased.

It must not be forgotten that hedgerows are natural boundary fences. It would not be unexpected that they would change following changes in the area they enclose. Losses arise from many causes, including development, roads and neglect. It would be helpful if a review could indicate how important each of those regions is, and portray the differing regional trends in hedgerow loss and standards of management. That could prove instructive in developing the criteria for assessing the importance of a hedgerow; for example, hedgerows which qualify for protection by all other criteria are excluded if they border gardens or are in an urban area. Furthermore, it is important that the implications of any change in the criteria are fully assessed before any changes are made.

The amount of hedgerows at any one time will also depend on the rate of new plantings. It is my understanding that in the last recorded period, 1990–93, new plantings exceeded removal. More diverse species can often be used in new plantings; blackthorn, the bane of many a hedge to a livestock farmer, can be reduced. In conducting its survey, it would have proved instructive if the CPRE had recorded details of new plantings to provide a picture regarding the development of our hedgerow landscape.

The CPRE questionnaire dealt only with the hedgerow protection regulations and was directed at local authorities. It would prove extremely beneficial in this debate to have the input of the advice of information agencies such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group. Any review must also take into account how hedgerows have benefited under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, environmentally sensitive areas and Tir Cymen, with its successor Tir Gofal.

The FWAG, which I understand is the only organisation to implement biodiversity on farms, operates on the principle of "no net loss of hedges". In other words, where hedges have to be removed, new ones should always be planted to at least the length that was removed. In the last available FWAG advisory statistics for England for the year April 1997 to March 1998, of approximately 4,500 advisory visits, 69 per cent included advice on hedge management, 55 per cent on field margins and 37 per cent included direct advice on hedge planting.

The rural landscape must not be simply frozen in protection legislation, but its development enhanced by positive schemes. Hedgerow legislation needs to be administered via a regional and local framework. If administered in the planning department of local authorities, local knowledge and expertise must be drawn upon to assess hedgerows and allow greater liaison with other departments and environmental agencies.

Local authority biodiversity plans and farmers' habitat action plans have the potential to sustain the environmental value of hedgerows in a more meaningful way and to work alongside protection. Management options could be more widely promoted in renovating boundary hedges, including stone walls and ditches. Additional resources will be needed for this purpose, but should not be found at the expense of other activities supported by the agri-environmental schemes. A real increase in the funds available for agri-environmental schemes is needed. Those schemes are already over-subscribed. Funds should be sought through urgent reforms to the common agricultural policy (CAP) by changing this into a rural development policy.

As a side issue, I should like to stress that "cross-compliance" is not the way forward. It will bring an added costly level of bureaucracy that, once enacted, will become entrenched and will prop up unwanted production support. Funds must be targeted on what they seek to achieve.

The conclusion to be drawn from the CPRE booklet, Hedging Your Bets, is that experience of the hedgerow regulations 1997 has shown the difficulties of establishing a simple regulatory regime that properly reflects the changing needs of land management while safeguarding the environmental values associated with boundaries. Time, further analysis and consideration of alternative initiatives is needed before the extension of protection to hedgerows and, indeed, other field, road or urban boundaries is embarked upon.

7 p.m.

Lord Middleton

My Lords, any discussion about hedgerows has to take into account the fact that their agricultural functions differ widely within the UK. Their functions in the livestock farms west of the Pennines, in the South West and in Wales are largely different from those in the arable East of England where their chief function was to mark the boundaries of fields and holdings fixed during the enclosures. In the drained fen lands of south Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, there never were any hedges. To grow them on that land would have been a gross misuse of that very fertile soil.

The environmental importance of hedgerows is a different matter. It gives rise to public concern and a call for orders and regulations, hence the hedgerow regulations 1997. As a farmer, I understand the functions—and sometimes lack of any function—of hedges. I understand why many miles of hedgerows were grubbed up in the post-war years. At the same time, I am on the side of the conservationists in wishing to preserve hedges which are environmentally important and which enhance the landscape.

As has been said, on purely practical grounds hedgerows can prevent erosion; but, more importantly, if insects and grubs are not kept under control by other insects and by birds which depend upon the hedgerows, disaster threatens. However, it goes deeper than that: there is a love of our countryside that animates all of us, from town and country alike. None of us wants to see a landscape like that of Oklahoma.

What do you see now if you drive around England and Wales? You do see farms, especially in East Anglia and the East Midlands and, I am sorry to say, in some parts of the North of England where I come from, where hedges have been removed, yet the greater part of rural England and Wales is, to all appearances, untouched.

Hedge removal in some areas was overdone, giving farmers a bad name. But although I do not have up-to-date removal statistics, I guess from what I see that the pattern of the countryside has stabilised. I know of many farms where new hedges have been planted and it is evident that farmers are now well aware of their responsibility for the appearance and ecology of the land that they occupy.

The hedgerow regulations 1997 now provide a regulatory floor to protect important hedgerows. As we have heard, they may need tidying up. But do we need more regulation to govern the activities of the harassed farmers of the millennium? As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, reminded us, planners are already faced with the most difficult task in assessing which hedges are important in terms of historical, landscape and wildlife value. The first involves laborious research and the second and third, as the noble Lord reminded us, require difficult subjective judgments before permission for removal can be granted.

I believe that the carrot is a more effective instrument than the stick of tighter regulations. One form of incentive of which I am not in favour is "cross-compliance", whereby grants and subsidies to farmers are dependent upon certain prescribed activities; for example, the maintenance of hedges. While I was serving on Sub-Committee D, I heard many witnesses to our inquiries recommending cross-compliance, yet I never heard a satisfactory answer to the question: "Well, what happens when a grant or subsidy is phased out as the common agricultural policy undergoes reform?"

Had this debate been held before March of this year, I would have said that the environmental payments recommended by the Commission in Agenda 2000 should be used to provide incentives for such things as hedgerow management. However, these Agenda 2000 proposals were considerably watered down as a result of the Berlin meeting of the Heads of State on 26th March. Nevertheless, it will now be mandatory for member states to run environmental programmes—these may inclucle cross-compliance requirements—but, as I understand it, there is a discretion for member states to make environmental payments decoupled from farm support payments.

While funding will be considerably less than generous, it is still available for separate agri-envi ronmental measures. It is in this area that I believe Her Majesty's Government should be delving in order to produce incentives rather than going further down the regulatory road. It will need great ingenuity to find the money to do it.

7.4 p.m.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, hedgerow protection was first introduced only two years ago. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has frankly told us that even that was a bit of a fluke. However, I am one of those who believe that some legislation was necessary following that introduced regarding trees. After all, in the past half century the total length of hedgerows has diminished by newly half, and at a pretty constant rate.

We have to accept that the greater part of the destruction had to happen. No one could reasonably suggest that the field patterns of pre-mechanical farming, whose intricacies were fortuitously photographed by the Luftwaffe over southern England in 1940, could have remained unchanged if British agriculture was to flourish. The governments of the day provided grants for the grubbing up of hedgerows. Urban development, airfield construction and highway improvement also played their part. But it was also excessive and, in many cases, particularly in the cornliands of eastern England, ruthlessly executed to maximise farm incomes without any regard for ecological considerations.

It has to be said that during this period members of the public were altogether unconcerned about hedgerow destruction, just as they had been about the destruction of ancient buildings before the 1960s. Until the 1980s it was not a political issue. Most land managers now share the general disquiet about what has happened. Many are prepared to help to rectify the loss, assisted by Countryside Stewardship and other schemes. During the three years from 1990–93 a greater mileage of new hedgerows was planted than was destroyed. It was probably of an even higher proportion in subsequent years. We hear from the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord. Grantchester, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord. Ferrers, how they have been planting new hedges in great lengths. I see also that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is in his place. He has shown me long distances of new hedges planted on his estate in Suffolk.

However, it is the continuing destruction that exercises us today. It continues despite the new regulations which anyway only affect about a fifth of the total remaining hedgerows. The main thrust of the Government's review of last year is that clearer criteria should be set for the importance of hedgerows in respect of landscape and wildlife and that notification of hedgerow removal should be lengthened. It is expected that the Government will shortly issue changes to the regulations which should substantially increase the proportion of preservable hedgerows. At a later stage, the Government may introduce primary legislation to grant local authorities the right to determine whether a particular hedgerow is of importance. I believe that such measures can be desirable so long as they simplify rather than complicate.

The urgency of the need to stiffen the regulations is powerfully emphasised by the new report published by the CPRE, referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Grantchester. The report demonstrates effectively wide regional variations in terms of the proportion of protectable hedgerows and in terms of the particularities of the landscape.

The CPRE report also raises the further question of hedgerow maintenance, pointing out that neglect rather than wanton destruction is now the main threat. It suggests that incentives should be given for hedge repair. That seems eminently sensible However, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, who is to be commended for providing us with today's debate, has put forward the idea that the provisions of the ancient enclosure Acts should be invoked requiring farmers to keep their hedges in good condition. As many old hedgerows are in such a state that they would have to be completely relaid, I presume that the cost would be enormous. Bearing in mind the extensive planting of new hedges, which is such an encouraging feature of the countryside today, enforcement of this ancient legislation would, in my opinion, be most uncalled for and unfortunate. I hope that the court cases will not lead to a general. move to enforce it.

The fact is that most of the hedgerows of today exist because they enhance the look of the countryside. demarcate boundaries, and act as sanctuaries for wildlife. Only a minority provide an economic benefit. and most livestock is now controlled by electric fencing. Consequently, most hedgerows, no longer cropped or ditched, have expanded from close cropped barriers which a horse could easily jump into wide bushes along lines of trees.

It can be argued that in some ways the appearance of the landscape has actually been improved compared with a century ago when hedges were small and treeless except for pollarded stumps and when there were far fewer mature trees. William Cobbett, during his travels in eastern England, painted a not very attractive picture of some of the agricultural countryside in that respect. It is fascinating to walk in Dedham Vale to the precise points where Constable painted his canvases and to observe how hedge-trees have altered the scene. From the side of the valley the scene appears largely wooded, although in fact it is pastoral. Old straggly hedgerows can thus enhance the landscape, even if they sometimes provide a diminished habitat for natural life.

There are several pleasant ironies in the changes in public attitude towards hedgerows. When first introduced, the hedges and ditches with which farmers bounded their fields were always hated by the peasantry who thereby lost their common pastures and were restricted to farm labour. But today these symbols of human exploitation are regarded as the adornments of the landscape and the sanctuaries of natural life. Likewise, in our own lifetime, when hedgerows generally have ceased to be beneficial to farmers, they have often been preserved for the purposes of hunting and shooting—sports which are despised by many people today.

But one central fact remains above all others. Hedgerows are merely the boundaries of fields. Fields exist because of agriculture. If agriculture declines, fields will themselves deteriorate into areas of rough ground, ultimately growing into woods. When this happens, the hedge will no longer be a hedge. An awful warning of what might happen is apparent to anyone who has travelled through New England. There are endless square miles of grim secondary woodland growth. If one walks beneath it, one can discern the desolate stone walls of former fields. Let us ensure that old England never goes the same way.

7.12 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, this is a most interesting subject and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for his choice of topic for debate today.

Having been born in Australia, I came to Britain in 1955 for six months. Considering myself a visitor, I travelled widely throughout the United Kingdom from Land's End to John o' Groats. This old world was to me a completely new world. I marvelled at sights that local people took for granted; thatched roofs, dry-stone walling, village market places, ancient monuments and castles, and, not least, the glorious specimens of broadleaved deciduous trees and the old, old hedgerows.

For 10 years I had my home in Cornwall, a county where the lanes are often so narrow they have special passing places for vehicles. Our house was on a working farm in a beautiful area which was a designated site of special scientific interest. All the fields around were bounded by hedgerows and it was a joy to look out from our raised position on to this marvellous patchwork. The farmer described his methods as traditional; we would now say they were organic. He loved wildlife, birds and butterflies and taught my children, who were young at the time, how to spot and identify the different creatures, many of which either lived in the hedgerows or sheltered under them.

County councils, as the traffic authority, are responsible for maintaining the hedgerows along the roadside. Safety is one of the most important factors and so these hedgerows are trimmed but not destroyed. It is the hedgerows within the fields that are at risk, and those who aim, by destruction of the ancient hedgerows, to convert English fields into American-style prairies are very shortsighted. I have seen the devastating effect in Australia where severe soil erosion has been the result of over-ambitious clearing of the land.

In Oxfordshire last week the hedgerows were alight with hawthorn blossoms. The very sight of them lifted my spirits. I strongly support the retention of hedgerows of native species in rural situations. However, an entirely different situation exists where—usually in urban areas—unsuitable "foreign" boundary hedges are planted. I think it is very important for the Government and the public to appreciate the difference and I hope that in the DETR review of the 1997 hedgerow regulations, maintaining this distinction will not be overlooked.

I know that Members of Parliament are increasingly encountering such cases in their constituencies, and Hedgeline is having a major meeting in the Grand Committee Room tomorrow. Hedgeline is an organisation which advises and helps those who suffer loss of light, damage to buildings through subsidence, and loss of the proper use of their gardens for plant growing and recreation due to dense, evergreen conifers planted on, or close to, garden boundaries. The culprits in these unneighbourly situations are not British native trees but Lawson cypress introduced from Canada or Leyland cypress, a relatively new hybrid with an amazing speed of growth. These trees rapidly reach up to 100 feet in height. Planted along boundaries between gardens, they have been a great cause of at least annoyance and even major nuisance between neighbours. It is interesting that if a person wishes to erect a garden wall between houses planning permission is required for anything higher than two metres. Yet a densely planted row of trees can grow without control and destroy a neighbour's amenity and sometimes cause great loss of light.

One district council not far from London, in an area beset by many of these problems already, has, in granting full planning permission for a new building, included conditions that a landscaping scheme must be agreed with the council. The type of hedge to be planted must be of a species agreed in writing with the council and, thereafter maintained at a height between 2 and 4 metres to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority". The same planning consent also covers the point that, no other new hedge shall be planted within five metres of that boundary without approval in writing of the District Planning Authority". I commend this considerate and far-sighted approach. It seems clear to me that the council has been aware of the Birmingham case of Michael Jones on the Bournville Estate in Birmingham where neighbours fell out over hedge heights about 20 years ago. The court decision confirmed that Mr. Jones could trim the intervening hedge and he did so. The neighbour then planted a further parallel hedge inside the first hedge. The Bournville Village estate was established by George Cadbury as the prototype of an urban village almost 100 years ago. The trust which manages the properties confirmed to me yesterday that on 15th April it served a writ requiring the owners to maintain the inner hedge.

Hedgeline wrote to English Nature to explain its aims and to seek common ground. In the reply, headed "Problem Hedgerows", English Nature set out its three interests: first, the appropriate management of hedgerows of native species on SSSIs; secondly, its role as part of the steering group of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for Ancient and Species Rich Hedgerows and. thirdly, its involvement in the group chaired by the DE 1['R reviewing the 1997 hedgerow regulations. Its final paragraph states, we have no involvement in disputes over unsuitable boundary hedgerows". My contribution to this debate today is to make clear that Hedgeline is supportive of the aims of English Nature, and also to ensure that those involved in the review of the 1997 regulations should be fully aware of the different situation in urban areas and to draw attention to the wording in Regulation 3(3) of the present regulations which reads, These Regulations do not apply to any hedgerow within the curtilage of, or marking a boundary of the curtilage of, a dwelling house". This is an important point and should not be changed. Urban and rural hedges each require appropriate controls but the present clear distinction between the two should continue. I hope that the Minister is able to reassure me that, whatever other changes are proposed to the 1997 regulations on hedgerows, this unambiguous paragraph will remain.

7.20 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn

My Lords, we owe a continuing debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for keeping before the House both the significance of our hedgerows and what is happening to them. Most people simply take hedgerows and, indeed, other field boundaries for granted. They see them as a God-given part of the landscape. They admire them and are inspired by their variety and colour, but perhaps rarely think about who maintains them and at what cost. They are simply there; we expect them to remain; but in reality. in some areas at least, they are slowly but surely disappearing. Indeed, I heard of a farmer in the West Midlands who last year lodged an application to remove nine kilometres of hedgerow from his land—virtually every hedgerow on his farm—and withdrew that application only after a local outcry. But he could well resubmit that application.

As we have heard, the picture differs from area to area, as the CPRE's recent report, Hedging our Bets, reveals. I take no pleasure that under current criteria in the north-west of England the protection is less than 10 per cent.

One of the main causes for this decline in maintenance and loss of our field boundaries is quite simply, but sadly, neglect. That is not: very surprising since they are now less justified in agronomic terms and the cost of maintaining them, as we have heard, often brings little benefit to the farmers and landowners at a time when much of agriculture, in spite of increased government subsidy, is in a very real and serious depression. It is clear that there is a strong case for public support to recognise the benefits we all gain from the hedgerows and without which the decline will continue.

I must declare an interest—and with it my real concern—as a member of the former Countryside Commission for England and now of the new Countryside Agency. The Government are to be commended for, soon after their election, establishing the review group on how the existing regulations might be strengthened to provide more effective protection. The Countryside Commission was represented on that group and pressed strongly, as one might expect, for landscape considerations to be taken more adequately into account. As a result, as your Lordships may know, the commission commissioned land use consultants to identify locally distinctive hedgerows, which is an important part of the necessary detailed work. This work is now complete, I understand, and the agency hopes to receive its draft report next month.

In view of what is happening in the countryside to this valuable asset, I can do no more than to urge Her Majesty's Government to consider most carefully the appropriate way to allow further and appropriate protection. The matter is serious if all types of traditional field boundaries are to be protected before it is too late. I hope that consideration will be extended to include those dykes and ditches, banks and walls, which are the equivalent of hedgerows in some distinctive parts of our country. It would be a real shame if, having protected the hedgerows, other distinctive features of the landscape and important wildlife habitats were lost.

For reasons which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, eloquently suggested, this matter cannot be allowed to drag on. There is every evidence from recent history to suggest that if something is in the offing, people will take serious and dilatory action beforehand. I know of a case in Warwickshire where between the passing of the 1995 Act and the regulations coming into force a kilometre of 18th-century hedgerow was removed to create a 283-hectare field.

However, that said, we must be realistic. The result of such protective legislation will cost money to farmers and landowners who, although many are hard-pressed at the present time, are the stewards of our countryside, both to the Creator and to ourselves. There is, therefore. a further need to examine the potential for providing greater funding for such field boundaries currently under agro-environmental schemes. I would go further—in the light of the debate, I think I have support—and ask the Government to consider the potential for introducing a simple, stand-alone, agro-environmental scheme, the purpose of which would focus solely on field boundary protection, maintenance and development. I hope that the Minister will be able to give cause for hope that the Government will not delay but will continue with thegood work they have begun in this area.

7.24 p.m.

Lord Rotherwick

My Lords, as a land manager of historic parkland, an ancient forest with nature reserves, SSSI and farmland, I wish to indulge the House with some of my views on hedgerows—views that I have formed as a hands-on farmer over many years. I wonder how many noble Lords speaking today have planted, cut or laid hedges.

When the enclosure Act came into being and fields were enclosed with stone walls and hedges, there was quite an outcry. Today the opposite tends to be true. As a land manager I look for the practical purposes of having hedgerows as well as the value to the landscape. One should not focus on just one item in our landscape but look at the landscape as a whole, including woodlands, copses, trees, hedges and grassy banks.

The purpose of a hedge is to be a boundary, a palisade and a shelter for stock. More recently, we believe it is also an important reservoir of wildlife and can often be beneficial to our crops. For it to be of any use as a stop barrier, the composition of a hedge should not include such things as elder, but thorn and the like, which is hardy and strong, and enables laying. Advisory groups such as FWAG, RSPB and ADAS give invaluable advice on this conservation.

A farm is a commercial enterprise producing high quality foodstuffs that are sold in a very competitive world market. We have to bear that in mind when we consider what we want from hedges on our farms. I have a medium-sized farm. I believe that in an ideal world a field should be big enough to allow one or two combines to harvest it in a day—it should be, say, 20 to 40 hectares—but certainly bigger than in the days when ploughs were drawn by horses. Fields should be of a sensible size so that our high-tech equipment can travel in straight lines and reduce spray overlaps, thus ensuring that excesses of pesticides and fertilisers are minimised. Too many hedges on a farm lead to too much costly work and, consequently, poor quality hedging. Surely it must be correct to have one large field with a well-nurtured hedge on a good, wide, grassy boundary than several small fields with poor hedges, poor habitat for wildlife and more detrimental areas of spray overlaps.

There is much misunderstanding about the conservation of the landscape. For instance, from a wildlife point of view, trees in hedgerows are not necessarily a good thing. The natural predator of an English partridge is the goshawk, and goshawks live in trees. Thus, any wise partridge will never go near a tree in a hedgerow for fear of its natural predator. Over the past 25 years, grey partridges have declined by 78 per cent. It would be too simplistic to say that this decline would be halted or reversed by strengthening the hedgerow regulations. In fact, the number of hedgerows increased during part of that time. Sportsmen tend to prefer the more easily managed French variety. Most importantly, there has been a large rise in the grey partridge's natural predators. Another example is that of the barn owl, which flourishes on grassy banks where its prey lives.

I am a land manager who has planted, renovated and laid hedges as well as removing some hedges. At the end of the day, my aim is to enhance the landscape of our countryside in a beneficial way and to ensure that our landscape is not a decaying museum piece but a working, evolving landscape. I believe that land managers who live on their property and, most importantly, operate profitably, best do this. Subsidies given for conservation do not necessarily make land managers begin conservation work, but they do enable them to do considerably more than they would have done in the first place. Cross-compliance is not the way forward.

If the public wish further to enhance the landscape, then surely the public must bear some of the finance. I therefore question whether any more bureaucratic and expensive protection is necessary. Land managers require more advice, training and incentive and better farm profitability. I am sure that the Government will tell us when they intend to come forward with their conclusions on the 1997 hedgerow consultations.

I should like to go over one or two points that were made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, suggested that local authorities are responsible for the inside of hedges next to highways. I believe that the land beneath these hedges belongs to the farmer. I suggest that the hedges are the responsibility of the fanner. However, if that is not the case, one must surely ask whether those local authorities will help to finance the maintenance and laying of those hedges. I rather suspect that they will not.

Finally, on a more interesting point, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to hideous oilseed rape. I have to agree with him because it is not really a conservative colour. It reminds me too much of the Liberal Democrats. It looks like they are canvassing around the countryside. However, I should like to point out that oilseed rape is an important crop. It produces oils not only for animal consumption but for human consumption. Most importantly, it produces extremely high quality oils used in cars which replace those unfriendly oils that are produced from minerals. It can also be used most advantageously for producing diesel.

7.31. p.m.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for bringing this subject to the attention of the House.

I took over a bankrupt estate at the beginning of the1970s Had it not been for the grants available at that time, the turn-around of that estate into a viable farming operation would have been nigh on impossible and I could not have fulfilled the call for "more food from our own resources". I admit that with those grants of between 40 and 60 per cent, whether they were in the form of the earlier farm capital grant or the later farm and horticultural grant scheme of the European Union era, huge changes were made to the farm; not only in terms of providing drainage to nearly all the land, but also with regard to the realignment of hedges and the scrubbing of hedges to create the needed efficiencies of modern farming methods. Farmers were paid to remove hedges and increase production.

Where some farmers can be blamed is for the neglect of thousands of miles of hedges, or of stone walls, or of fencing generally. It is true that much grassland has been lost to cereal production, but farmers, whether tenants or landlords, should be caring guardians and trustees of that land for future generations. Farming is going through an extraordinarily difficult time, but hedges have been degenerating since the Second World War. It is interesting to note that one hectare of land is equivalent to six kilometres of hedge.

Not all, but many, hedgerows are being lost through neglect and poor management. Neglect is considered to be one of the primary causes of hedgerow destruction, with more than 110,000 kilometres of hedge apparently lost through neglect between 1984 and 1993 and 61 per cent of that neglect taking place since 1990. However, I agree that losses arise from the development of dwellings and industry, and from quarrying and road building too. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, the rate of new planting in the latest recorded period, 1990–1993, exceeds removal.

It is true, too, that more diverse species can be used in new planting. This will help to reverse the decline of tree sparrows, grey partridge, turtle doves and red bunting, to name but a few birds that specifically use hedgerows. Those hedgerow birds have had the highest percentage rate of decline, ranging from minus 64 per cent to a staggering minus 87 per cent loss between 1971 and 1996. Those figures come from the British Trust for Ornithology and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

The work carried out by the Council for the Protection of Rural England to review the impact and effectiveness of the hedgerow legislation has shown some interesting trends. The snapshot created by its work shows the relationship between hedgerow legislation, which uses a centrally determined definition of importance, and the great diversity of hedgerows across the country. It presents the first regional view of how the hedgerow regulations are being implemented across England, illustrating significant differences in the regional distribution of hedgerow removal. The information gathered highlights the lack of effective protection afforded to local hedgerows by the hedgerow regulations and reinforces the need for a wholesale revision of their operation to ensure that decisions regarding hedgerow removal are sensitive to local character and distinctiveness.

So what are needed are clearer environmental objectives, supported by sensible advice, information and incentives, with farmers and managers being involved in habitat action plans and Agenda 21 local biodiversity plans.

National parks provide an example of inadequate protection. I declare an interest as a vice-president of National Parks. Hedgerows and stone walls must be seen in a broader context, taking in the landscape, of which they are, and should be, an integral part. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mention the 25th anniversary of the national parks. In fact, it is the 50th anniversary.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

Sorry!.

Viscount Addison

It is okay! My grandfather was involved, so I thought I would give it a mention.

The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, in which again I declare an interest as a vice-president, supports groups, which are spread all over the country, which teach and train people in the art of conservation. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, will be pleased that I have been on a hedge-laying course with BTCV and have been tremendously encouraged by its ability to make things happen and to give skills back to ordinary people who might otherwise never have the chance to do something practical to help to conserve our hedgerows and dry stone walls.

The National Grid has done a great deal to support the hedgerow cause through the BTCV. Its programme, the National Grid for Wildlife, is one of training and volunteer support by BTCV to care for the UK's hedgerows and create new ones. Just as the National Grid's transmission lines and cables cross the landscape to connect towns and cities with a constant flow of electricity, hedgerows form wildlife corridors connecting isolated habitats and allowing safe passage of wildlife between them.

I, too, was surprised to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford mention the hideous yellow of oilseed rape. Does the right reverend Prelate realise that yellow is this year's fashion statement?

In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, I press the Government to support programmes that protect the environment and maintain threatened wildlife habitats.

7.37 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dourer

My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest. First, I am one of the species of nanniers, in the form of a councillor, disliked by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Secondly, I am one of those who currently is spreading glorious gold over the countryside. I am glad that it is this year's fashionable colour.

We are mostly agreed that hedges are extremely important for the many reasons noble Lords have so eloquently explained. How can it be that we have such a clear understanding of what makes hedgerows important while we have criteria that are very complicated and dwell so extensively on the historical aspect alone? Birds certainly do not choose to live in a hedge because it is 300 rather than 150 years old, although I accept that the number of woody species will vary according to age. Certainly, stoats, weasels, and voles do not live under a hedge because it is a parish boundary.

Noble Lords agree that the regulations are over complicated. Any reform must make them less complicated so that we develop a much less narrow view of what constitutes an "important" hedgerow. The regulations reflect a centralist view of what is important. The current criteria therefore exclude so many sorts of hedgerow that they end up protecting only 20 per cent. They are most ill-equipped to take any local considerations into account.

My noble friend Lord Beaumont and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, mentioned national parks. I find it extraordinary that neither areas of outstanding natural beauty nor national parks can do anything to protect the hedgerows in their landscapes. For example, in my area, Somerset, there are the distinctive local hedgerows of Exmoor. But they are single species hedgerows—beech—so they fall outside protection. We have a local planning system that should deliver preservation and take into account both national. planning policy guidance and local views. It is quite a well-developed system. Good local authorities have developed methods of consulting parish councils, appropriate agencies and organisations, and indeed applicants. That should be of some comfort to those who are worried that we try to over-regulate farmers. In my area, quite a number of parish, district and county councillors are farmers.

I was interested to read the account of the debate that took place when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, moved the regulations in this House in March 1997. The noble Earl said, at col.1170 of the Official Report of 20th March 1997: The countryside cannot be fossilised. It changes; indeed, it always will". Of course he was right. But in terms of wildlife and landscape, public opinion is that matters have changed dramatically for the worse over past decades. To retain what is by common agreement extremely important, we need (the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, stole my words) to apply both stick and carrot. Our reference so far has been mainly to application of the stick, in the form of regulations, but the idea of the carrot was mentioned by several speakers. Most of the work of preserving, managing and replanting hedgerows falls on farmers. They are the ones who are being asked to sacrifice time and efficiency; and that costs money.

Many of the reasons given by noble Lords for trying to retain more hedgerows are of no direct benefit to the farmer, and will sometimes prove a disbenefit. The benefits to wildlife and landscape are, equally, benefits to the local pub owner, the child, the pensioner, indeed anyone who lives in or visits a particular locality. So we should be willing to see that agri-environment measures recognise the "public good" element of a farmer's work. I am extremely disappointed that reform of the CAP is unlikely to recognise the wider role of the farmer as manager of the countryside and not simply as food producer. We must encourage the Government to address this matter wherever they can. The recent increase, for example, in the organic aid scheme is a positive step. And the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford had some good ideas on how to progress hedge conserving measures.

Several noble Lords mentioned the question of hedges as habitat and the phenomenal fall in the numbers of many farmland bird species. That fall has been much less marked where traditional patterns of agriculture have led to well-maintained hedgerows. The sterling work of the British Trust for Ornithology and of the RSPB has made sure that the effect on the bird population is widely known. But the effect on other dependants on the hedgerows is less well known. I refer, for example, to mammals and wild flowers. The margins around a hedgerow are often the only place to find wild flowers in an intensively agricultural area. Those of your Lordships who spent last weekend in the countryside might have seen pink campion, cow parsley, cowslips and bluebells, but those are now mostly to be found underneath hedgerows and not all over the fields. They are the kinds of flowers that make the English countryside memorable, distinctive and special.

However, they are not regarded as especially important. The revised regulations must be complementary to the biodiversity action plan and the habitats directive.

Several noble Lords mentioned the question of soil erosion. A couple of years ago we were asked, as councillors in Somerset, to approve a sum of money for filter fences to prevent soil being washed on to the highway, thereby blocking drains and causing flooding to local houses. We visited the area and found that all the hedges had been removed or neglected. In addition, the pattern of ploughing had changed, so that where the earth had previously been retained by ploughing across the slope, and by hedges across the bottom of fields, those natural methods were no more. Instead, the council tax payer was expected to fund filter fences, which, being long strips of unsightly plastic which do not last for very long, are a far less effective and desirable method of soil retention than is a hedge. We are therefore looking closely at the economic arguments for the replacement of hedges.

One of the worst aspects of the 1997 regulations is the lack of emphasis given to the importance that hedgerows have in defining the character of a region. It is sometimes easy to tell where you are merely from the boundary system. I have mentioned the beech hedges of Exmoor, and noble Lords will be able to produce other examples. The hedges on high banks in Devon are fundamental to local distinctiveness. They are as much a part of the value of the landscape as the building materials that are used in the houses. Local authorities must produce local plans and policies that reflect local distinctiveness, and their residents may wish them to do so. But they may still not decide that a hedge is important simply because of its value as a landscape feature. The present national criteria do not empower local authorities to resist the breaking up of a traditional landscape of small fields; and many hedgerows do not fall into the important criteria as defined by the hedgerow regulations.

What a strange set of criteria they are. If a hedge marks the boundary of a pre-1600 estate or manor, it is important; if it marks the boundary of a mid-18th century estate, possibly not. If it includes at least seven woody species, it is important; if it includes only five, possibly not—and so on. I support the view that the criteria should be simplified. Defining nationally what is important locally is not conducive to creating regulations that are coherent, easy to understand and easy to regulate.

Because the previous government wished to remove any meaningful power from local authorities, they denied them the right to decide, preferring instead for Ministers to impose a set of regulations which, by common agreement in this debate, left much to be desired. If we compare them with what happens in the built environment, the Countryside Commission, now the Countryside Agency, promotes village design statements which enable local residents, in consultation with their local authority, to draw up a plan of exactly what they want to happen in their locality. That is a good way of ascertaining local views, and it could be widened to include local landscape.

Perhaps I may now turn to the subject of deterrence for those who fail to abide by the regulations. Again, the complicated nature of the regulations makes it extremely difficult for a local authority to bring a case. I commend Herefordshire County Council which was the first to discover a blatant act of destruction when a farmer, under cover of darkness, grubbed out half a mile of medieval hedge. He was heavily fined. and replacement costs for the hedgerow made the fine even greater. That might be termed a success. But the extremely detailed and painstaking work required by legal and conservation officers of that authority bear out the fact that local authorities may not always be able to consider pursuing a prosecution. The regulations must be made less complex so that flouting them becomes easier to discourage. Incidentally, hedgerows are the poor relation to trees. If you destroy a hedgerow, you pay a maximum fine of £5,000, as opposed to £20,000 for a tree. I therefore call on the Government to simplify the regulations and bring them into line with other planning procedures so that local people can be consulted and local authorities can make decisions that are in line with the wishes of local residents.

7.48 p.m.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, no one, apart perhaps from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, disputes that the existing legislation for ancient hedgerows is better than no legislation at all. Taken in conjunction with the amount of new planting that is going on, it may well be encouraging an approach that will benefit our countryside greatly over time. However, there seems little doubt that it could be improved. The NFU has stated: criteria that identify important hedgerows should be transparent, equitable and objective". The problems that have been drawn to my attention by, for example, the Countryside Restoration Trust, the RSPB, the CLA, the NFU and the CPRE, suggest that further work is needed before "transparent, equitable and objective" legislation is introduced.

Anyone who wishes to remove a hedge must notify the local authority. The local authority has six weeks in which to refuse permission. It has six weeks in which to examine the hedge, check its history and call for evidence of its importance. In particular, if the six weeks begin in the autumn just when furry mammals retire to sleep away the winter, perhaps when foliage is dying and many farmers and landowners give their hedges a short back and sides, it can be difficult to establish what a particular hedge shelters in the normal course of events.

I understand that the main study is usually a species count that is carried out on hedge lengths of 30 metres. If the hedge is less than 30 metres in length, the whole hedge is examined; if it is between 30 metres and 100 metres in length, the central 30 metres, which may include gaps such as gateways, are examined; if the hedge is between 100 metres and 200 metres in length, and is divided into two equal parts, the count is based on the central 30 metres in each part, the results being added together and divided by two; or, if it is over 200 metres in length, the hedge is divided into three equal parts and the central 30 metres of each part are counted and averaged. It is no wonder that there is deep confusion about the present application of the regulations.

It is possible for these counts to be made so that particular lengths are not examined. It is also possible to apply for permission to remove more than is intended, thereby weakening the result. Will the Minister consider extending the regulations so that the full length of hedgerow is involved in the count? Will she also consider amending the timetable so that applications to remove hedges must be made before, say, 1st April in any year, with the local authority having until 1st September to decide?

Historical data can save a hedge, but if that information is not already on file it must be adduced from sightings in the hedgerow at the time of the species count. Here, all the drawbacks of the suitability of the season and shortage of inspection time also apply.

No account is taken of the visual impact of the hedge, although I understand that for other purposes it is possible to commission a formal landscape assessment. Will the Minister consider changing the legislation to incorporate these assessments at least in areas of outstanding natural beauty?

I refer next to survey work carried out by Dr. Joe Crocker for an article in the Central Scientific Laboratory Science Review which implies that, at least in Herefordshire, the state of health of the bird population in cider orchards is more dependent on hedgerows than on pesticides and their application—the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, referred to this—and that the more overgrown the hedge, the greater the number of birds that it can sustain. Will the Minister take a close look at this research, perhaps with a view to restricting the frequency of hedge cutting?

Having said that, it is hardly fair to expect farmers to bear the continual cost of managing hedgerows and maintaining field boundaries—mention has also been made of dry stone walls—if they have no right at the same time to remove them when necessary. This becomes particularly important in those areas of the country where the Government propose to assert the right to roam or to institute new green open spaces. Will the Minister give earnest consideration to incorporating in the right to roam and the green spaces legislation a clause that requires the relevant authorities to pay the costs of maintaining boundaries in those designated areas? Such boundaries were devised originally to keep stock in and/or people out. On heath and moorland, it was mainly the latter.

Many noble Lords have spoken today about wanting to look after hedgerows. However, as my noble friend Lord Stanley and other noble Lords have pointed out, it comes down to cost and profit. Noble Lords have debated farming in this House on many occasions and are aware that farmers are going through a tremendously difficult time. To impose upon them extra burdens and regulations, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, seeks to do, may be the very straw that breaks their back. If we want the kind of countryside of which the noble Lord speaks, the farming community must make a profit and compete in the global market, not just with other farmers in the UK. In earlier debates in this House we have considered animal welfare and "gold-plated" measures, the responsibility for which is placed on fanners by the Government. If we are not careful, the very things that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, wants to do may well prove to be too much. That burden will make many of our farmers uncompetitive and therefore they will go to the wall.

My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to the general public's chocolate-box perception of the countryside. That perception of our countryside exists only because farmers farm the land. If that were not so, that perception would not exist. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn quite rightly pointed out that there could be more and better effective protection of our countryside if it included dykes, ditches, hedges and banks. I am sure all noble Lords in this House would agree with that. However, in the end, it comes back to money. In the past week in this House we had a very important debate on trade sanctions between the EU and the US. I was disappointed that the Government and the European Union had failed to come to grips with CAP reforms. I believe that we have missed a great opportunity and that this will pose difficulties for us in the future. Other noble Lords have pointed out that those who farm the countryside are stewards, but that they need to trade commercially in the world market.

Finally, I turn to another aspect of hedgerow protection that concerns me. My noble friend Lady Gardner has already touched on one aspect of this. Most hedgerows disappear through neglect, but a portion are dug up by property developers, demolished at the edge of rural land by keen gardeners or are destroyed by the former public utilities digging holes in the roads. No sooner have they finished than they return and dig up the road again. There is also the debilitating effect of the installation of cable television. All of those activities place a great strain on urban hedgerows. My noble friend Lady Gardner referred to leylandii Will the Minister give consideration to the scope for regulations that bind the operations of some of the bodies to which I have referred in order to conserve one of the prime factors in the make-up of our green and pleasant land?

In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for giving us this opportunity to debate a subject that is so beneficial. We all want to see greater protection of hedgerows, but the money must come from somewhere.

7.58 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath for initiating this debate and drawing attention to the current arrangements for the protection of hedgerows. We have benefited from his longstanding interest and experience in the subject both here and in the Council of Europe. The noble Lord and others who have spoken today have expressed concern that the current arrangements may not be adequate to protect these defining features of our country's landscape which also serve as a habitat for animals and plants and provide important evidence as to the historic development of the landscape.

As noble Lords have said, there are two main strands to the current arrangements. First, there are statutory controls on hedgerow removal in England and Wales under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, presented the regulations to your Lordships' House for approval, admitting—the appropriate term, I think, having heard his views—that they were the last piece of business transacted under the previous administration. The noble Earl need not feel ashamed. Many noble Lords who have spoken are glad that he carried out that action.

Secondly, we encourage the planting, management and restoration of hedgerows through financial incentives which are available throughout the United Kingdom.

I must make clear at the outset that the Government are committed to providing strong and effective protection for hedgerows. To that end, we have taken positive steps to strengthen both the statutory framework and the management incentive schemes.

As regards the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, announced in May 1997 that the system of protection in the regulations which were about to come into force would be subject to immediate review. The Government believed that early attention should be paid to those regulations because of concerns that the criteria, which local authorities must use to determine whether a hedgerow is important and therefore worthy of protection, were too complicated—a point raised in the debate—and did not protect enough hedgerows. At that time it was estimated that the regulations would catch only about one in five hedgerows. The period allowed for local authorities to respond was also raised. I shall refer to the issue of timing later.

The review was carried out by a group which included the statutory agencies, local authorities and the main farming and conservation bodies. Its report, published in July last year, demonstrated a thorough investigation of the complex issues and careful analysis of possible options. Key recommendations included simpler criteria representing the landscape and the historic and wildlife importance of hedgerows. The review also proposed an increase in time allowed for response to a hedgerow removal notice from six to eight weeks.

Before final decisions were taken on the group's proposals, however, it was recommended that research should be commissioned into the new criteria. In particular that would provide an estimate of the percentage of hedgerows the regulations would be likely to protect. We are currently studying the results of that research and expect to publish revised draft regulations for statutory consultation after the evaluation has been completed. Our deliberations will be informed by the report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on The Protection of Field Boundaries, and the Government's response to it.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, when is that expected?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I shall come to that in a moment. We hope by the summer. The law alone cannot provide full protection. For example, much hedgerow loss is due to hedges becoming derelict. It is difficult to legislate to prevent that. Incentive schemes, advice and information have a key role to play in encouraging active management of hedgerows. That is why, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, the Government have increased provision for agri-environment schemes in England. The sums available for the major schemes will be increased by £40 million over the next three years,

New funding of £12.4 million (including running costs) will also be made available during the same period for Tir Gofal in Wales. That will be of enormous importance.

My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath referred to the importance of hedgerows and their management. We agree that there is a problem with the over-management of hedgerows and neglect. We believe that the issue is addressed in part through free initial on-farm consultation advice and incentive schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the importance of the agricultural voice and the needs of the farming industry. Organisations such as ADAS, the farming wildlife advisory group and the countryside and agricultural information advisory service give advice on sympathetic management of field boundaries; and MAFF is also funding research into the attitudes of farmers and contractors to see how best we can deal with the issue of inappropriate management of the resource.

The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and others raised the issue of cross-compliance, We agree that cross-compliance may be useful where environmental problems are directly related to agricultural activity, such as over-grazing. But our experience to date has been that such provisions can be costly and difficult to administer on a significant scale. Any further use of cross-compliance would need to take account of that earlier experience. We are considering all the options, including cross-compliance, in the light of the overall CAP agreement and the responses to the Minister of Agriculture's consultation exercise on Agenda 2000. Interested parties will have an opportunity to contribute their views on that process.

The possibility of new primary legislation on hedgerows was raised by my noble friend Lord Hardy and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. We have not ruled out new primary legislation to secure stronger protection for important hedgerows in England and Wales. We shall reflect on the review group's suggestions that further consideration be given to altering Section 97 of the Environment Act 1995. My noble friend Lord Grantchester and other noble Lords referred to the CPRE report, Hedging Your Bets. We have read with interest the results of the CPRE survey of local authorities on the operation of the current hedgerows regulations. It is important that we continue to work with the CPRE and other bodies which share our concern in this area.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to experience of the existing regulations. We believe that the hedgerows regulations need revising to provide stronger protection. Therefore we have riot gathered data on how they are working in practice at present. The review group has worked with the Local Government Association on this issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthome Domer, referred to the protection of hedgerows. Section 97 of the Environment Act contains the powers enabling Ministers to introduce regulations to protect important hedgerows in England and Wales. In particular, it confers on Ministers the responsibility for prescribing criteria which define what makes hedgerows important. Any approach which allows local authorities to determine which hedgerows in their area are important and worthy of protection would require amendment of the primary legislation. However, the noble Baroness's points are extremely valid and we shall consider them in detail.

The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, referred to the valuable work undertaken by the national parks. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke of the diversity of stone walls arid hedgerows in our national parks. The point was well made. The Government will consider the need for legislative protection of all field boundaries in the light of forthcoming research, including up-to-date information on the state of field boundaries, when we receive the Countryside Survey 2000.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop or Hereford and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke in detail and with great knowledge about landscape value criterion and its importance. The review group spent same time grappling with that issue and found it difficult to identify a specific criterion to cover it but put forward some proposals such as a separate list of locally distinctive hedgerows. However, that tends to militate against the simple system which many speakers today stressed they would prefer.

The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke of regulatory burdens on farmers. We shall seek to keep them to the necessary minimum, proportionate to the need to take account: of research and consultation with other interests.

My noble friend Lord Hardy, and the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Middleton, spoke of the enclosure Acts. The Flamborough case suggested that obligations arising under the old enclosure Acts and awards may still be enforceable. It is extremely important for me to make the point that the obligations contained in the enclosure Acts and awards are enforceable as between private persons and are civil disputes. Neither the Government nor local authorities have a power to intervene or enforce on these matters. However, should there be further detailed information, I shall write to noble Lords.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and my noble friend Lord Grantchester spoke of the effect of the CAP subsidy on the environment. We are committed to pressing for radical reform of the subsidy system. We argued for a progressive reduction in production subsidy and in compensation paid to farmers and a switch towards paying for environmental goods. The reform measures agreed in Birmingham did not go as far as we would wish. We are currently consulting widely on how to implement the reforms and will take careful account of noble Lords' views, in particular those of the right reverend Prelate. We are working on a draft code of good agricultural practice for conservation. It would include advice and guidance on the protection of the environment in hedgerows.

In response to the issue of finance, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, among others, for England the additional £40 million for the agri-environment fund is an important part of the Government's approach. It is the Government's clear objective to increase targeted payments for environmental projects.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the overall impression of the countryside. The Countryside Survey 2000 will provide the information we need to be aware of any changes, removal, planting, construction, replacement and dereliction. That is important. She also raised the issue of leylandii and other high hedges. We know that many people are affected by the problems which they can cause and feel strongly about the issue. We are sympathetic to those who suffer and are considering whether there is anything we should do to address the matter. We have not yet concluded whether any form of legislative action is to be taken.

As regards urban hedges and the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, the review group supported inclusion within the scope of the regulations garden hedges which adjoin countryside land uses. That would extend protection to potentially important hedgerows which mark historic boundaries between villages and open countryside. They are currently excluded under paragraph 3(3).

I was asked about genetically modified crops and the evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation is to address the concerns raised by English Nature and other bodies that the widespread introduction of some types of genetically modified crops could bring changes to the agricultural environment which could be damaging to farm life. The process will include an assessment of the impact of GM crops on field margins, including hedgerows. If there is evidence of harm the Government can act accordingly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about local discretion over which hedges are important and the penalties. The maximum £5,000 penalty refers only to cases brought before magistrates. For those heard in higher courts the fine is unlimited.

Progress is being made on hedgerow diversity action plans. The steering group set up to take forward the UK biodiversity action plan for ancient and/or species rich hedgerows met for a third time on 22nd April. All actions set out in the plan are being addressed. We will use on-going data to continue.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, with his introduction of the capercaillie, managed to worry me considerably by making me believe that I would have to answer two debates. However, his point was important because there is a connection. The deer fences to protect the woodland, which are being demanded by some environmentalists, are creating the problem for the capercaillie. I was reminded of previous Questions asked in your Lordships' House on red squirrels and the kind of trees they like.

The debate has shown the strength of feeling that the subject of hedgerow protection arouses as well as the complexity of the issues involved. Noble Lords from a strong farming and agricultural background, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the need for those involved in agriculture to act quickly and the possible destruction of things which are of value in order to prevent future problems. My limited experience of those whose lives and work centre around agriculture is that they are too committed to the environment to behave as vandals on this issue.

I conclude by saying that I shall write to all noble Lords who asked detailed questions to which I have been unable to reply in the time available. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, I do not understand the changing language in agriculture. Whatever happened to mutton? I picked up his point about animals and, yes, sheep and lambs end up in butchers. But where has mutton gone? Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

8.20 p.m.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I shall read her substantial speech with interest tomorrow. I am sure that other noble Lords will also do so, and will recognise that she covered a substantial number of points very thoroughly.

I shall not take long; indeed, I do not have long. But a number of points need to be made. First, I was particularly grateful to both right reverend Prelates. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford gave me great encouragement when I learnt of the efficiency of his local authority. I very much agreed with his comment about the need to support agriculture on an acreage rather than a headage basis. I first made a speech calling for that in the House of Commons 15 years ago. I hope, too, that my noble friend the Minister will pay particular attention to the approach made by her fellow Lancastrian, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn.

I should like to make one or two points in my own defence in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. He seemed to think that anyone with an interest in natural history and the countryside would be a townie who ought not to interfere in agriculture, but I should like to interfere in agriculture on behalf of many of the small farmers whom I represented for a very long time in the other place and who did not like the fact that a very tiny proportion of farmers received a huge proportion of the very substantial sums that agriculture received from the public purse. They cannot be subsidised as heavily as they have been and be completely exempt from the consideration of the rest of the community.

The noble Lord seemed to be objecting to my point that people who own land were given the land on certain conditions, broke the conditions, may have been given subsidy by the taxpayer to act illegally in breaking those conditions, and then perhaps expect to receive grants to put right the wrong-doing for which they were subsidised. That is completely illogical.

I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, could not give way because of pressure of time, but he asked me a question, in effect. He seemed to suggest that I would have voted against the Enclosure Acts in the 18th and 19th centuries, if I had had the choice. No one with any knowledge of history could have objected to the enclosure Acts, because they were designed to ensure that food production massively increased in order to feed the burgeoning population in the industrial areas. The difference between that and hedgerow removal is that in the past 25 years we have been grubbing out hedgerows not to produce food to feed people, but to build surpluses at great cost. We have been destroying the natural history of Britain for no useful purpose.

I also accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the hedgerow regulations were ridiculously complicated. I hope that the call for simplicity, which has been echoed throughout the debate, will receive proper attention from the Government.

I was particularly grateful for comments from my noble friend Lord Grantchester and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which reminded me of a grave omission from my speech. I should have declared an interest, being president of the Sheffield, South Yorkshire and Peak District branch of the CPRE, an honour that I accepted last year. I should have referred to it. although, apart from planting hedges in what was once upon a time my constituency, I have not been involved in its tremendous work on hedgerows, which has been proceeding for some time.

As regards my own credentials, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, may like to note that I come from the same community as the late Lord Williams of Barnburgh. He was a far better Minister of Agriculture than any of the distinguished Ministers of Agriculture produced from the other side. As a young man, I received enormous assistance from him, to the point that many of my constituents felt that I spent rather a disproportionate time seeking to assist and be on good terms with the farmers in the constituency that I was proud to represent.

I may have lived in and represented a metropolitan area, but it was rich in fields, woods and natural features. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the inspiration that this provides. It is essential that that inspiration be available for future generations. I hope that the present Government will earn the regard not only of the present generation, but of many more as a result of their commitment to the green priorities which seem to be clear within the manifesto. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.