| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have much sympathy with this amendment. The clause as drafted is a typical example of the Government over-gilding their legislation. As a young, novice farmer I well remember the introduction of hormone weedkillers. They were introduced to kill extremely common, pernicious weeds which grew then in all cereal crops. Those weeds were also hosts to many insects which were the main food for a variety of wild animals. The English partridge, in particular, comes to mind. Effectively, within five years of the introduction of hormone weedkillers, it disappeared in this country.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 15
We cannot foretell the future, but what is sure is that none of the weeds killed by those hormone weedkillers would ever have appeared on a list of "principal importance" as put forward in this clause. They were just extremely common, pernicious weeds. The fact is that technology moved on and we found a way of ridding our fields of a particularly difficult problem in relation to agricultural production, a side effect of which was that a bird that had previously been common across most of the countryside effectively disappeared. The use of the word "principal" is, in my view, completely superfluous. The noble Baroness is right to table the amendment and I believe the Government need to consider the position very carefully.
Baroness Byford: I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I am not sure that I fully support the principle of the amendment. If the word "principal" is removed, there is then the question of what is or is not included and so lists will be never ending. I realise that the Government have a problem here.
Will the research work mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, at Monks Wood and at other centres be included in the contribution that is made before the Secretary of State makes a decision? If the Secretary of State does not like the recommendations that come from those two places, will they be totally ignored?
Another question concerns these wonderful centres that the Government are no longer willing to fund. My honourable friend Peter Ainsworth and another colleague visited Monks Wood recently and were shown the valuable work that is undertaken there. When Natural England is set up as an independent body, will it be possible for it to give money to Monks Wood and the other centres that Defra is proposing to close?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 41 replaces and reflects what is in subsections (2) to (5) of Section 75 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish, review and revise lists of living organisms and types of habitat in England that in her opinion are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. The amendment seeks to extend those lists to include all living organisms and habitats that are of importance to the conservation of biodiversity. If we are to conserve and protect our biodiversity effectively, it is vital that we direct action to the habitats and species that need help most. The Government are committed to having regard to all biodiversity as outlined in Clause 40 of the Bill, and we will continue to take that commitment seriously. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, recognised, we also need to be able to target total action, including the issues of the food chain for endangered species, specifically on those species and
27 Feb 2006 : Column 16
habitats that are a particular priority for conservation of biodiversity. We are also committed to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010.
We must target action. For that reason we published a list of species and habitats that are of principal importance under Section 74 of the CROW Act and focused attention on those species and habitats as a result. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recognise, that has contributed to the successes of many species and habitats such as those for the bittern, the field cricket, otters and cereal field Martians—sorry, cereal field margins, and the English partridge. I apologise; I do not think we are protecting Martians at the moment. We continue to take action to benefit those widespread species and habitats for which targeted action is not sufficient. A new planning policy statement on biodiversity and geological conservation, a new policy on ancient and native woodland and a substantial increase in investment in water and wetland management for wildlife are part of the third annual stock take of progress. We will continue to build on that.
I do not wish to enter the debate on the future of CEH, which has been brought up before. I should like to write to noble Lords on that matter at this stage. The priority species and habitats are those identified as of principal importance in the list whose publication is required by the Bill. The amendment would still require lists of important living organisms and habitats to be published, so I am not quite clear what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve with her amendment. We prefer to specify that they comprise those organisms and habitats that are of principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity, but take fully into account the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and both noble Baronesses, that, with regard to some species, that may include the whole food chain, because it is obviously impossible to protect a particular creature if you are going to kill off all its natural food. The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice she is given about this. I hope I have covered all the points. On the CEH, I shall to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has given a very good explanation of the reasons for government action to try to improve biodiversity. What we are arguing about here is the use of a particular word in a particular clause in a particular way. The truth is that we really do not know, in intimate detail, enough about what makes biodiversity work. There are a whole host of relationships wrapped up in it, which could be argued to be competitive or symbiotic. The truth is that it is a combination of such relationships. The use here of the word "principal" implies that one can be selective within that. Of course there are things that can be done to improve biodiversity; essentially, this is a programme of restoring areas of uncultivated bits of ground, which have not been interfered with.
The difficulty with this whole area is the interference introduced by man. We are not doing specific things with specific species; we are providing opportunities for nature to take over again, in a limited way, in
27 Feb 2006 : Column 17
particular areas. This may take the form of field margins, or what I would call "bug strips" across the middle of very large fields. These are areas where we are permitting nature to take over again. What happens in those areas will be nothing to do with the Secretary of State or indeed any official of Defra. It will be a matter of good fortune as nature claws its way back into the countryside. You can do that without this sort of wording. That is the problem I have with the clause.
Earl Peel: I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. However, I think the idea that nature itself is simply going to come good, without man's interference, is perhaps a little optimistic. I speak in my capacity as president of the Game Conservancy Trust, which has probably done more than any other organisation to restore habitats, not just for game birds, but for a whole range of other species. Indeed, the beetle banks and conservation headlands derive from the work of the Game Conservancy Trust. I acknowledge that nature plays a big part, but it is the interface between man and nature, and prescribed management systems, that have led to the success we are having at the moment with the restoration of wild flowers, weeds and insects generating the sort of biodiversity response we want. I am simply saying that it is not down to nature alone: it is the interface between man and nature.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I agree with almost everything that every noble Lord has said in this short debate. I think we are into a question of semantics, in the context of focusing attention on a particular area, and whether we have the right wording to achieve the end.
Viscount Eccles: Will the Minister say in writing—which I think she suggested that she would do—whether there is a methodology for measuring biodiversity used by Defra, if so what it is, and whether we can have a look at it? As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, biodiversity operates at many different levels—at a national level, in a piece of ground of 1.5 hectares or even in a garden. Without some methodology for measuring what is happening, I am not sure that we shall get very far with biodiversity.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank Members of the Committee who have spoken. This has been an illuminating debate, as was the Minister's reply. I thank especially the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his contribution. The Minister referred to habitats most under threat and to those that need targeted action. However, that is not mentioned in the clause, which includes the words, "principal importance". Although the Minister says that this is a question of semantics, in the light of the threat to the CEH it is extremely important to get the emphasis right in the clause. If the Government are narrowing down the area of work, the Committee will want to
27 Feb 2006 : Column 18
concentrate on that. I await with great interest the Minister's letter about the CEH. I hope that it will reach us before Report.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |