I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the disturbance of bats and newts for specified purposes;
and for connected purposes.

I should at the outset declare an interest, as I have been a member of the World Wildlife Fund, now called the World Wide Fund For Nature, longer than I have been a member of the Conservative party.

Shocking!

It is not shocking at all.

I am very fond of bats and newts and it still thrills me when I see them. As a child, I used to catch newts when doing what is now known as "pond dipping". Like Ken Livingstone, I like newts and, on that basis, I would name this Bill the "Livingstone Mayoralty Memorial Newt Bill".

Although there may be some amusement here, this is a very serious issue. What links great crested newts and bats is that they are both European protected species—EPS—and that gives strict protection under the European habitats directive.

I shall illustrate but two of many recent cases that explain the problem. First, last summer Mr. and Mrs. Histed, who live near Chippenham in Wiltshire, were flooded out of their house by 3 ft of water when a ditch blocked. Repairs to the house cost a quarter of a million pounds and, not unreasonably, they wished to unblock the ditch. However, they were refused permission by the Environment Agency, which ordered a "newt search", forcing this pensioner couple to remain in a caravan.

Secondly, on the edge of my constituency, the Earl Shilton bypass was delayed three months after it was believed that great crested newts might be on site. The council spent £1.2 million erecting special newt fencing and traps, but it never found a single great crested newt.

That is hardly surprising, as anyone who knows anything about the life cycle of great crested newts will know that they can move 1,000 yd or more from their breeding sites. One might think that this newt must therefore be rare but, according to the Government, there are 66,000 great crested newt breeding ponds in England alone, and the Secretary of State for the Environment said in a letter to me that

"great crested newts are widespread in lowland England and in some areas are present in good numbers".

Furthermore, the decline in these newts results from changed farming practices, which have caused ponds on farmland to be filled in. May I suggest that creating new ponds would be cheaper and more effective than expecting the Leicestershire council tax payer to fork out £1.2 million for nothing?

Bats—which are so beautiful flying at dusk—are also an EPS under the habitats directive. They are wild creatures whose natural habitat is roosting in caves or rotten trees. They existed long before man built houses and churches. Bats in the belfry may be a longstanding joke—of sorts!—but it is no joke in many churches.

I should like to draw particular attention to St Nicholas church in the hamlet of Stanford on Avon, 100 yd outside my constituency in the constituency of my hon. Friend Mr. Boswell. The 14th century church is filled with the most marvellous monuments in alabaster and marble. There is an organ case from the chapel royal in Whitehall palace that was sold after the execution of King Charles I. Simon Jenkins gives the church four stars in his book, "England's Thousand Best Churches", but if the mediaeval stained glass had been in situ rather than being restored, he might easily have given it five stars. The church is part of our national heritage, and deserves to be preserved. I was there on Sunday, sitting next to a 16th-century tomb of a knight and his wife. The tomb was restored at great cost, which was partly met by taxpayers through English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Bat droppings are stuck all over the intricate tracery and writing on the tomb and can also be found all over the walls and often on the altar. That is very unpleasant and is a hygiene risk during communion.

Much worse is the damage being caused to another fine marble monument, which has been under a bat roost. The urine, which contains ammonia, has stained and scarred the marble and the monument itself is sometimes completely covered in piles of droppings; I am talking about not one or two, but bucketloads of droppings. I have a photograph that I am happy to show any concerned Member.

The church's tiny congregation is unable to take any action because of the habitats directive. Natural England has not been helpful. It has suggested ludicrous gazebos over the monuments; I wonder how that approach would work with wall paintings similarly at risk in other churches. Helpfully, Natural England charged the church warden £525 for its useless advice. The taxpayer funds the restoration of churches through one Government body, but another Government body insists that they cannot be preserved from damage by bats. Even worse is the fact that the diocesan advisory committee for Coventry and Leicester wrote that the parochial church council

"should seriously consider declaring the church redundant" because of the infestation. I shall be writing to the bishop.

Bats, of course, will live elsewhere. According to the Bat Conservation Trust,

"The Pipistrelle bat has probably declined as a result of modern agricultural practices"— no mention is made of boring sermons in church. One can assist bats by putting up bat boxes and by leaving rotten trees to stand, and we should do such things.

My problem with both the EPS issues that I have mentioned is that the entire approach is disproportionate. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tells me that it advocates a proportionate response regarding great crested newts, but I note that last year Taylor Woodrow was fined £2,000 for damaging a newt site in Essex.

If anybody doubts the ridiculous bureaucracy surrounding this issue, they should look at the way in which Natural England thinks one should deal with great crested newts. It recommends completing a "method statement" on an Excel-format spreadsheet template. There is not much common sense in that.

Furthermore, the Government's Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has made disturbing or handling the animals arrestable offences—someone could get a six-month jail sentence for pond dipping. Why is there not a proportionate response? The House might know that there was a derogation under the original legislation in 1994. Members might wonder what the European Court of Justice does, and now I can tell them: it judges these matters, and it overturned the proportionate approach and the derogation. It transpires, I regret to say, that this ridiculous situation is all down to the wicked European Union. [Interruption.] It is true.

Mankind can and should be able to live in harmony with the animal kingdom, including bats and newts. We should have a balanced approach so that, without harming newts or bats, people can get on with their lives. Our natural heritage, which I wish to see enhanced, can co-exist happily with our national heritage in churches in Norfolk, Stanford on Avon and elsewhere. It is ridiculous that some very intelligent, highly paid civil servant in Brussels, or indeed in Whitehall, should be laying down such detailed and foolish laws. In this case, the law really is an ass.

It's batty!

Indeed.

My Bill would ensure that Ministers insisted on the reform of the European habitats directive and set up a more pragmatic, balanced approach, conserving our natural heritage of great crested newts and bats without the adverse consequences that I have illustrated.

Hon. Members may know act IV, scene i of "Macbeth":

"Fillet of a fenny snake

In the cauldron boil and bake;

Eye of newt, and toe of frog,

Wool of bat, and tongue of dog".

The issue is not about putting bats and newts in cauldrons, but there is toil and trouble. Let us have some common sense instead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Robathan, Sir Patrick Cormack, Christopher Fraser, Mr. Tim Boswell and Robert Key.