Saving our Green and Pleasant Land and Sea

Saving our Green and Pleasant Land and Sea

(and the livelihoods of those who work there)

(Martin is concerned about the neglect of rural and coastal communities by the Labour Government)

- Environment, Rural Affairs, Farming and Fishing.

On This Page

Environment

Conservatives are natural Conservationists - we believe in conserving the best of what Britain has - and that includes our great British countryside and seas and the habitats they provide. We have a broad view of the environment - one that includes not just the need to reduce greenhouse gases and combat global warming - but also one that believes in protecting the beauty of the landscape both from Labour's plans to concrete over it and from the Lib Dems who want to put thousands wind farms all over it (we support offshore wind farms though!).

I have a passionate interest in environmental matters. As a former Geography teacher I tried to help young people think through the environmental and other impacts of new developments - it didn't take much doing - most young people are natural environmentalists who care passionately about the countryside and the environment.

The Needs of Britain's Rural Communities

Rural Areas: According to figures from the Institute for Grocery Distribution, village shops are closing at a rate of around 2,000 a year, village post offices - often the lifeline of elderly people and mums with children but no transport - have also been closing at an alarming rate - (140 closed between 2004 and 2005); Rural transport links continue to diminish - at a time when most people in rural areas need to travel to find work; Village schools - often the hub of village life are closing as local houses are brought up for holiday homes. There is a housing crisis that is reaching alarming proportions as young couples are unable to afford housing in the communities they grew up in, rural homelessness is growing at 3 times the rate of urban homelessness; farming is in crisis - many of the next generation see no future in farming - and who can blame them? Just what has been the response of the Labour government to this?

- Labour created DEFRA (Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs) as a super scale ministry under the leadership of Margaret Becket. Since then an independent report by Newcastle University's centre for Rural Economy concluded that "Policies for rural areas are in more of a mess than before."

- The report also noted that the creation of Defra had led to rural affairs slipping down the agenda - with a marginalisation of rural affairs in Whitehall.

- Rural incomes continue to lag well behind the national average

- The Labour Government has set up unelected Regional Development Authorities (despite the only referendum that took place on regional government - in the North East - rejecting it!). Regional Development Authorities are drawing up regional plans that cover a huge range of issues including housing, economy and transport. The plans drawn up by these unelected regional bodies are designating small communities - including most rural areas - as 'unsustainable' because they don't have enough population or services. Rural communities should NOT be starved of government funding and investment just because unelected bureaucrats decide that only 'urban' areas are 'sustainable'.

- Labour's Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has just suggested that road tax should be replaced by 'road pricing' - under which users of rural roads would have to pay 2p per mile just to drive on the roads. Does Mr Darling want to add even more to the cost of living in rural areas - where wages are lower than in urban areas and it already costs more to do a week's shopping, whether they drive several miles to the nearest supermarket or use their village shop (if they've still got one!).

The Needs of Britain's Coastal Communities

Britain's coastal communities are similarly struggling not just because more and more Britain's are choosing to take their holiday's abroad- although this is certainly an issue; the fishing industry has collapsed under pressure of boats from other EU countries fishing in British waters and the fishing quotas the EU imposed to preserve stocks; and while the holiday trade does provide work - many people are only employed for six months of the year; coastal towns, like rural areas suffer from house prices being pushed up often beyond the reach of local people by those from more affluent areas buying holiday homes; At the same time the higher than average percentage of elderly people can put strains on local services; At the same time coastal areas face their own unique set of environmental problems - like coastal erosion and sea defence - all of which have to be paid for; Local unemployment is often high - and many unemployed people actually move to the seaside in the hope of getting seasonal work - but imported unemployment doesn't make the situation of coastal towns any easier; Urban regeneration and employment creation are pressing needs in many coastal towns as once splendid and imposing hotels have decayed, often ending up converted into shabby bed sits for those on benefits; But there are also the less visible problems - social problems such as drug addiction and prostitution. I saw something of these hidden problems in the first school that I taught at - a rough low ability secondary modern school in Southend on Sea.

And just what has been the response of the Labour government to this?

- Government funding for regeneration is strongly and disproportionately biased towards urban inner city areas in large inland cities.

- Urgent flood defence schemes have been cut back

Coastal Erosion and Flood Defence - Labour spending cuts put homes at risk

These are some of the most pressing issues facing many coastal areas - and are likely to become even more pressing with even small rises in sea levels. Although central government provides some of the funding for these areas, much has to be funded by local councils. This places an unfair burden on local authorities with large stretches of shoreline. I well recall the feeling of unfairness that this situation created in the area of North Norfolk that I grew up in - where people living 10 or even 15 miles inland ended up paying over the odds because sea defence had to be paid for by the district council. Leaders of local councils have called for an urgent increase in the £75 million Defra spends on sea defence saying that funding for sea defence repairs is "woefully inadequate".

This situation is being made worse by Defra cuts. In 2006 the treasury headed by chancellor Gordon Brown, ordered Defra to cut its spending by 7% - between £200 and £300 million - (due to Defra incompetence in the incredibly bureaucratic way that they introduced the single farm payments scheme led it to overspend its budget). Urgent flood defence schemes, such as those at Felixstowe in Suffolk, where the sea wall was been breached for 50 yards in May 2006 - are now NOT going to be funded, despite the wall at Felixstowe being essential to protect houses that flooded by the 1953 floods when hundreds died in east Anglia. Suffolk Coastal District Council asked Defra for help towards a £5 million scheme to protect houses and businesses in the area worth £400 million - and got absolutely nothing. Similarly, Scarborough borough council has identified £35 million that needs to be spent over the next 5 years to prevent historic parts of the town falling into the sea. Scarborough borough council recently told the Daily Telegraph (July 10th 2006) "We hope we don't have another catastrophe before something is done."

Never before have Britain's rural and coastal communities been under such threat.

So, why is there a government bias against Britain's rural and coastal communities?

Is the Labour Government indifferent to their very pressing needs - or just incompetent?

There seems to be a working assumption that coastal towns and rural areas are quite 'nice' places to live in - and so don't need much help - which is clearly untrue - when rural homelessness is rising at 3 times the rate of urban areas; when Britain's traditional fishing and farming industries have all but collapsed.

Fishing

EU Over Fishing Creates Environmental and Economic Crisis in British Inshore Waters

There is no shortage of fish out in the North Atlantic - the areas around Iceland are absolutely brimming with cod. So why is the British fishing industry in danger of total collapse? Why have stocks of some types of fish been over fished to the point of near extinction in the North Sea and English Channel. I believe that the answer to both of those questions lies fairly and squarely with the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy. This has given boats from across the EU - including some factory ships access to British waters. Common sense should have said that with the number of countries in the EU - not all of their boats could fish in British waters without there being an environmental catastrophe - and that is exactly what happened. Then to make matters worse - instead of reforming the Common Fisheries Policy - the EU imposed quotas on British fishermen - limiting the amount they could catch - and even worse the type of fish they could catch - and believe it or not told British fishermen - that of they caught too much or the wrong sort of fish - they had to throw them back 'dead' into the sea!The answer to over fishing in British inshore waters - is to withdraw from that part of the Common Fisheries Agreement that allows other EU countries to fish our waters. At the 2005 general election the Conservatives were the ONLY one of the 3 mainstream political party committed to do this. David Cameron only very reluctantly stepped back from this - after receiving legal advice - that Britain couldn't do this without renegotiating the terms of Britain's EU membership - sounds to me like another good reasons to do so!

Hastings Fishermen Prosecuted Due to Defra Incompetence

As if EU fishing quotas weren't causing enough difficulty for British fishermen - Defra has added to their problems! British industry struggles to cope with the mountain of EU regulations and red tape that come from Brussels. But the Labour government repeatedly makes these EU regulations even more difficult for British businesses by 'gold plating' them - adding even more regulations - to 'explain' the original EU regulations! Not only does this massively add to the burdens imposed on small businesses by the EU - when it involves Defra, regulations are created by people who clearly know little or nothing about farming and fishing.

In October 2003 - Hastings fishermen Paul Joy and Graeme Bossom went fishing - and caught a whole load of cod - which as everyone who knows anything about fishing knows arrive in inshore waters in the autumn. Cod were so plentiful that local boats couldn't out down their nets without catching cod. Under EU rules, small fishing boats are only required to keep their catches within a yearly quota. But a Defra fisheries inspector insisted that under the Defra 'interpretation' of the EU regulations the EU quota had to be broken up into 12 'equal' monthly shares. So when Paul and Graeme landed a ton and half of cod - to their astonishment he accused them of breaking EU rules by landing more than one twelfth of their annual quota! They were then fined £14,000 - a large chunk of their annual income. In June 2006 the appeal court upheld their conviction on the technicality - that Defra was allowed to make up its own system for enforcing EU regulations - even though such a system is not applied by other EU countries - so French boats catching the same amount of cod in the same waters at the same time - would not be breaking EU regulations - provided they landed their catch at a French port.

The appeal court's decision highlights the problem - Defra have the right to make up their own interpretation of EU fishing regulations - even if it is totally incompetent (doesn't anyone in Defra know that cod are seasonal?!!!).

British fishermen could be forgiven for wondering if 'DEFRA' stood for the 'Department for the Elimination of Fishing and Rural Affairs'!

The problem is Defra policy - and the person responsible for that? step forward Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State of Defra from it's beginning in 2001 to 2006 when she was 'promoted' to Foreign Secretary... Now Margaret Beckett is one of the 'nicest' Labour ministers, she doesn't 'plot' for the 'Blair faction' or the 'Brown faction' and she retains the common touch, even taking her holidays caravaning - nothing personal against her at all - but this is utter incompetence.

Farming

The EU's Single Farm Payment should have been relatively simple to administer. However, the Labour Government devised such a complicated way of doing it - that payments are payments are massively behind schedule. Farmers who rely on these payments just to keep their businesses afloat have been placed in a wholly unacceptable situation by government incompetence. In fact, the delay in issuing the Single Farm Payments is now so great that the UK government is facing an EU fine for it incompetence - imagine that the EU, hardly the model of virtue when it comes to bureaucracy and incompetence - having to fine the UK government for sinking to even greater depths of bureaucratic incompetence than itself!

And just to make matters worse - if that were possible (!) - in August 2006 - the Rural Payments Agency set up by the government to handle the payments - admitted that - yes it had accidentally 'overpaid' farmers by "20 million in June and July - and....really sorry - hope you haven't already spent the money but please could we have the money back...! sounds rather a familiar story doesn't it...in fact, remarkably like labour's child tax credit fiasco - when it 'accidentally' overpaid thousands of families - then demanded the money back - resulting in some low income families having to live off Salvation Army food parcels...

The Foot and Mouth Crisis - five years on - the Labour Government's policies for rural areas are now in more of a mess than before foot and mouth struck (Newcastle University Report)

Defra, - the department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was set up after the crisis caused by the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak, which is now widely recognised as having been badly mishandled by the government and resulted in an estimated £8 billion cost to rural areas and 6.5 million animals slaughtered - the vast majority of them uninfected. However, an independent report by Professor Neil Ward of Newcastle University's Centre for Rural Economy (Foot and Mouth: Five years On) highlighted how the creation of Defra - as a 'sprawling super scale ministry covering not only agriculture and rural affairs, but also the whole range of environmental issues such as global warming and climate change has not helped rural areas, but in fact led to a reverse of what was planned, as:

- Economic growth in the areas worst hit by foot and mouth are now falling further behind the rest of Britain.

- On top of this, the report highlights what a huge and costly mistake it was for the government to effectively close down the countryside - with Tony Blair's appeals for people to stay out of the countryside during the foot and mouth crisis. A mistake which widened the crisis to hit other rural businesses such as tourism - which are now one of the most important parts of the rural economy. However, despite this the government has still not learnt lessons from their mishandling of the crisis.

- The report concludes that now, five years later : "Policies for rural areas are in more of a mess than before foot and mouth struck."

Nature Conservation

I strongly support nature conservation - Britain has a unique diversity of wildlife, plants and scenic landscape. Whilst we need to recognise that nature itself is never static - and that the landscape and the habitats that it provides - especially on our coasts and rivers is constantly changing, once species of birds, animals or plants are lost - they can never be replaced.

The present government has decided to set up English Nature - a new conservation body to advise it on Conservation and public access to the countryside. They are to be commended for this. Unfortunately, before English Nature is even set up - Gordon Brown and his team at the treasury have imposed a £12 million cut in its budget (yet another consequence of Labour ministers at Defra overspending on their overly complicated and bureaucratic Single Farm Payments scheme). Sir Martin Doughty, English Nature's chairman has told David Milliband, the Labour cabinet minister responsible Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that "the scale of these cuts risks the wheels coming off the organisation even before it reaches the launch pad."

Energy and the Environment

Nuclear

The Labour government have made it clear that they intend to build a whole new set of nuclear power stations. I believe this is fundamentally wrong for a number of basic reasons:

1. Terrorism is an unfortunate reality today and nuclear power stations are extremely vulnerable to attack by terrorists. They are almost impossible to adequately defend as they are invariably located on the coast. The possibility of such attacks is not mere speculation. Security services in the Netherlands managed to prevent a planned attack on a Dutch nuclear power station in 2004. In the event of a serious incident at a nuclear power station an area 30 km (18.5 miles) would need to be evacuated immediately e.g. such an incident at either of the present nuclear power stations at Heysham would require the evacuation of Morecambe, Lancaster and an area to the south including all of Blackpool and the edge of Preston and the area to the north including Kirby Lonsdale, Barrow in Furness and the lake district south of Kendal. Without in any sense wishing to sound an alarmist - whilst our security services do manage to intercept most terrorist plots in the UK - they are the first to admit that it is only a question of time before another terrorist plot succeeds in the UK. If the government builds more nuclear power stations the chances of terrorists eventually managing to attack a nuclear power station with devastating results for both the local area and the country at large, are very high indeed.

2. Radiation leakages and the accidental discharge into the sea of radioactive material continue to happen at British nuclear power stations. In 2006 ministers admitted that there had been 57 safety related incidents at nuclear installations since 1997. Nuclear safety is still a major question - areas of British farmland are still contaminated from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, while a large area of the Ukraine is likely to be unusable for hundreds of years. The possibility of such consequences happening in Britain are unthinkable - both in terms of the human and environmental catastrophe and the economic cost.

3. Disposal of radioactive waste. We still do not have a safe long term way of disposing of nuclear waste. The Government's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has suggested that the most feasible scheme is to bury it in storage chambers 1 km underground. The only areas geologically suitable for such underground vaults are those with sedimentary rocks - which basically limits it to Eastern and Southern England - which also happen to be the most heavily populated areas of the UK. The Committee estimated that at least one such storage chamber - costing £10 billion would be necessary just to cope with current levels of nuclear waste, while a new generation of nuclear power stations would require four more. i.e. even if this is a safe and acceptable way to store waste (which i is still open to question), Labour's plan to rely on nuclear power stations will cost £50 billion pounds on top of the enormous cost of building - then 20-30 years later decommissioning each nuclear power station. However, as the committee estimated that it would take 39 years to build each underground vault - building more nuclear stations simply is not a viable option for our energy needs in the foreseeable future.

4. Cost. It is easy to make nuclear energy look 'cheap' if you only look at operating cost. However, once the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations at the end of their 20-30 year life is added in - nuclear becomes one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation. And that is even without adding in the cost of disposing of nuclear waste - which even by the current unsatisfactory methods - is estimated at £56 billion - far too much for anyone but the government to pay for. So if we include this - nuclear power is THE most expensive form of electricity generation.

5. It is a fallacy to claim that nuclear power is 'carbon neutral' (actually it isn't because it significantly increase the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere - and we don't know the long term impact of that yet!). But the whole point of being 'carbon neutral' is that permanently damage the planet - but producing increasing amounts of radioactive waste - however it is stored - is doing precisely that - damaging the planet.

6. Employment: Building more capacity in environmentally friendly 'green' forms of energy can create local employment. Whilst, on the other hand there will be no significant change in employment in areas that have existing nuclear power stations for at least a generation - as the decommissioning of nuclear power stations at the end of their lives requires at least as many employees as operating them - as can be seen with the decommissioning of the Sizewell A nuclear power station in Suffolk.

Renewable Energy

It is important to recognise that whatever form of energy we opt for - it will have an impact on and change the environment. However, whilst some forms of energy generation create waste products that permanently damage the planet, others simply change the local environment. This last form is preferable because, aside from all other arguments - the environment itself is constantly changing. If we adopt tidal energy - some salt marshes may be turned into fresh water marshes, bird species that previously lived there will go elsewhere - but new species that were not previously there will move in to those newly created that are more suitable for them.

We don't need to fear environmental 'change' - its environmental 'damage' - such as the loss of rare species of birds, animals or plants that we need to be most concerned about.

Tidal Power

Britain has some of the best conditions in the whole world to generate electricity by tidal power. From the Middle Ages small tide mills were common along the shorelines of Western Europe. But the technology can also be used to produce electricity on a scale comparable to the equivalent of several nuclear power stations. France has had a large tidal power station on the river Rance estuary on it's Atlantic coast since the 1960s.

Studies have been undertaking concerning a tidal barrage across the Severn Estuary for several years. Such a barrage could generate 8,640 Megawatts of electricity (compare that with Totness - the UK's largest nuclear power station which only generates 1,250 Megawatts). This means that a single Severn tidal barrage could generate the equivalent of the UK's seven largest nuclear power stations.

A further Tidal barrage in the Mersey could generate an additional 700 Megawatts. There are a number of other areas around the UK coast with high tidal ranges that have significant potential for the the development of tidal power. The World Energy Centre's Survey of Energy Resources estimated that tidal power could produce 15% of the UK's current electricity supply.

Tidal power has enormous advantages:

- Once installed it has an extremely long life - unlike conventional and nuclear power stations which have life spans of around 20-30 years - tidal power stations are estimated to last 100-125 years - and there is no reason why they should not last longer with relatively simple maintenance. The French Tidal power station on the river Rance is still going strong after 40 years.

- Once a tidal power station has been built tidal power is cheap and consistently reliable - which is the prime need of industry. In fact, when compared to the total costs of other forms of electricity generation (i.e. waste disposal, cost of construction compared to the life span of the power station) - it is one of the cheapest form available.

- There are no waste products - beyond a small amount of dredging o silt from behind the tidal barrage. It is genuinely 'carbon neutral'.

- The Severn Tidal Power Group (STPG) originally estimated the cost of a Severn Barrage at £10-12 billion but later reduced this by several billion pounds on basis of new cost saving engineering techniques. By comparison Sizewell B, Britain's last nuclear power station had cost £3 billion to build when it started generation in 1995. But a Severn barrage could generate the equivalent of seven Sizewell B's - which even at 1995 prices would by comparison cost £21 billion.

- A Severn Tidal Barrage - and tidal barrages elsewhere in the UK - would also provide valuable flood protection - protecting inland areas from tidal surges - something that is likely to become necessary in the next few decades anyway as sea levels rise.

Biofuels - An Alternative Vehicle Fuel?

I support the development of biofuels as an alternative vehicle fuel. In Brazil sugar came has been used extremely successfully to produce alcohol for many of its vehicles. Here in the UK research has shown that maize can be gown as a biofuel, while many, though not all diesel cars can already run on biodiesel. I believe it simply needs a bit of kick starting to get car manufacturers and fuel retailers to wake up to this possibility. Such kick starting could come by a local council converting initially some, then the majority of its fleet of vehicles to run on biofuels.

If this happens the growing of biofuels could provide a much needed boost to British agriculture.

Wind Power - Yes but not at the expense of our natural landscape!

Wind power is great - as an island we have some of the windiest places in the world and don't we know it! - BUT (and it's a big 'BUT') - no way can we allow some of the most beautiful areas of Britain's scenery to be ruined by by the sight of huge wind farms. The best place for wind farms is offshore - and funnily enough that's also where it's most windy! Yet the present Labour government is committed to extending the use of land based wind farms. Not only do these create an ugly blot on some of areas of most outstanding natural beauty in the British Isles - they also create environmental problems such as being a danger to wild birds - which is why groups such as the R.S.P.B. object to them. Conservatives say that true conservation includes looking after and conserving the beauty of our landscape - that's why we back offshore wind farms instead.