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 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.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 February 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c15-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:14:28 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302830
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302830
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302830