| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the recommendation of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). He is right; the amendment will be valuable and widely welcomed for dolphins at least. However, I am not sure about the basking shark, although its name belies its rather mild habits.
8.45 pm
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made a fair point--the amendment mentions only two species--but I am assured that the reason for that is that primary legislation would otherwise be required. I am a little surprised at the explanation I have been given, because I thought that that is what we are debating. However, there should be the capacity to extend provision further, and I shall take the point away to see whether we can find the means to achieve that.
Amendment made: No. 219, in page 93, line 21, at end insert--
'. In section 9 of that Act (protection of certain wild animals)--
(a) in subsection (4) after "intentionally" there is inserted "or recklessly", and
(b) after that subsection there is inserted--
"(4A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally or recklessly disturbs any wild animal included in Schedule 5 as--
(a) a dolphin or whale (cetacea), or
(b) a basking shark (cetorhinus maximus),
he shall be guilty of an offence."
. In section 16(3) of that Act (power to grant licences) for "and (4)" there is substituted ", (4) and (4A)".".'.--[Mr. Meacher.]
Mr. Green: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 93, line 21, at end insert--
'4A. For section 14(2) of that Act (introduction of new species) there is substituted--
"(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person plants, releases or otherwise causes to grow in the wild any plant which is included in Part II of Schedule 9 he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person--
(a) sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale, any living wild plant included in Part II of Schedule 9, or any part of such a wild plant; or
(b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells or intends to sell, any of those things,
he shall be guilty of an offence.".'.
This is the time at which we must discuss the giant hogweed, which represents an important issue that we have not yet properly addressed. I hope to deal with it and
other similarly invasive plants. The simple purpose of the amendment is to ban the sale of non-native invasive plant species, which are listed in schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We often discuss animals--we did so in our previous debate--and for some reason there is a feeling that plants are less important and less emotionally involving. I disagree with both propositions. Indeed, at the last meeting of the World Conservation Union there was consensus that the biggest threat facing biodiversity this century will come not from habitat destruction, but from non-native invasive species. These alien species come in all shapes and sizes, but have one thing in common--they threaten our wildlife and, in particular, our wild plants.In a sense, the amendment would not be an add-on to Government policy because, as signatories of the Rio convention, they are legally obliged to
- prevent the introduction of, control and eradicate alien species . . .
The 1981 Act is good in many ways, but I am afraid that it has proved unenforceable in this area. A law governs the prevention of release of non-native invasive species into the countryside, but to date there have been no successful prosecutions for illegal release of listed schedule 9 plants. Yet the relatively few species that are supposedly controlled, including the Japanese knotweed--the Minister, I think, said in Committee that it was a problem for him--and the giant hogweed are still causing havoc.
A number of other species are causing problems, many of which are associated with aquatic habitats. An unfortunate side effect of the recent massive growth in the trendiness of gardening--in particular, gardening promoted by Charlie Dimmock--is that aquatic gardening is much more popular than ever before. At least three species of non-native aquatic plants--New Zealand pigmyweed, parrot's feather and floating pennywort--cause significant environmental damage. They are widely sold to garden pond enthusiasts, but unfortunately, the plants grow so rapidly that purchasers soon have too much of them and they often end up being dumped in the wild, where they swamp native plants.
New Zealand pigmyweed is pushing one of our rarest plants to the brink of extinction. Starfruit is highly threatened; it was once relatively common. It is now found in just nine locations in the UK. On at least five of those sites, the growth of New Zealand pigmyweed threatens its survival.
The only efficient way to prevent the release of those non-native invasive plants is by imposing a ban on the sale of schedule 9 plants. In that way, well meaning gardeners will be able to choose alternative plants that are less likely to cause problems if they end up in the wild.
It is worth emphasising that the ban would apply only to schedule 9 species and therefore to a relatively small number of plants. It is already accepted that those plants cause problems, yet the law is powerless to prevent their spread. The Government have pledged to review the list of plants in schedule 9. Only subsequent to full consultation will new plants be added and, therefore, be subject to a ban. The ban would not work on its own, but it would be an important first step.
Many bodies back the idea. Non-governmental organisations such as Plantlife want it. Experts including the Institute for Aquatic Plant Management want it. The gardening industry appears to want it. A consultant to the Garden Centre Association Ltd. has been quoted on television as saying that a ban would make it easier for everyone, including garden centres. Even the Government's own advisers want it: this year, the Joint Nature Conservation Council advised the Minister that a ban was necessary to prevent further damage to our native species.
It is a real case where prevention is much better than cure. Imposing a ban on the sale of those invasive plants would not only save the Government millions of pounds, which they could spend to control problem species, but even more important, it would prevent threatened species from being pushed to the brink of extinction. It is a simple, common-sense amendment that would modernise the legislation and safeguard our plants from an increasing and insidious threat. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): I make a very late contribution to the proceedings on the Bill; I make my maiden speech on it. I should declare an interest. I have been a member of the all-party group on conservation since the 1970s. I am now its vice-chairman. I am glad to see its secretary, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), in the Chamber.
I am, perhaps slightly more surprisingly, the parliamentary vice-president for my party in the London Wildlife Trust. Given the nature of my constituency, the provenance and pedigree are not automatically obvious, but I once had to make the keynote address at an international conference on the royal parks, which are significantly in my constituency. It was on the strength of that that I earned my place as parliamentary vice-president.
As the other two parliamentary vice-presidents are, for the Labour party, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and, for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who obviously have Front-Bench roles too, I have an enviable independence as a Back Bencher in that regard.
I shall make the briefest of speeches in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). I was the Whip on the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is the only other Member in these debates who served on that Committee. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the Bill's lack of efficacy with regard to the subjects that we are discussing. I am sorry about that.
Plantlife, which is located in my constituency, brought the New Zealand pigmyweed, the parrot's feather and the floating pennywort into my life via its briefing in advance of Second Reading. Having played no part in the proceedings on the Bill until now, I am delighted that my hon. Friend should have tabled an amendment at this late stage, which enables those of us who have taken an interest in the New Zealand pigmyweed, the parrot's feather and the floating pennywort to have the opportunity to express our support.
Mr. David Heath: I wonder whether it might be helpful to Members to make the point that the New Zealand pigmyweed and the Australian swamp stonecrop are the same plant: crassula helmsii.
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His constituency is more rural than mine, and it is approaching a quarter of a century since I was last in Australia and more than 40 years since I was last in New Zealand; so I am not surprised that the confusion has been introduced to my mind.
As I was saying, the basic point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is eminently sensible. If plants such as this run riot, they have a stifling effect on certain natural habitats. They are hazardous invasive species.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |