House of Commons
Friday 11 July 2003
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Sir Michael Lord in the Chair]
MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 3 (Deputy Speaker), Sir Michael Lord, The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table.
Orders of the Day
Ragwort Control Bill
Order read for consideration, as amended.
9.34 am
Norman Baker (Lewes): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is about Wednesday's transport statement. As you will know, Mr. Speaker has always taken the view that the House must be informed of important statements before the media and the outside world. It has become clear to me from discussions with members of the media that information that was made available to Members only after the Secretary of State's statement, in line with normal practice, had been available to journalists some time before by means of an embargoed statement.
I raise with you as a matter of principle the question of whether the provision of material on an embargoed basis to members of the media some hours in advance of a statement being made, so they have information that they can use—no doubt they can write their stories without having access to the views of Members, other than Ministers—is a practice that is consistent with Mr. Speaker's view that Members should be informed before the media. I should be grateful for any advice that you can give on this matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Mr. Speaker's views on these matters are well known, and the hon. Gentleman's points will no doubt be noted.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 4, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 1, line 7, after 'appropriate', insert—
'including the National Farmers Union, the Local Government Association, the Bridleways Association, the Pony Club, Riding for the Disabled, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Trust, and the Country Landowners Association.'.
No. 7, in page 1, line 9, after 'code', insert—
'at any time, but must revise it not later than five years after it has been laid before Parliament'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'(7) The requirement in subsection (1) shall apply from 31st March 2004.'.
Sir Paul Beresford: The Government's attitude to private Members' Bills varies. In some instances, they say no and scupper a Bill. In other instances, they say yes because they have written the Bill, or they say, "Perhaps," because they quite like the Bill but they do not want to do too much to it. Sometimes, as on this occasion, they scupper the Bill by putting in the word "may". My amendment would change "may" to "shall".
My thinking is to a large degree informed by background in agriculture, albeit not in this country. The accent keeps creeping out no matter what I do. I think my country benefited from immigration, although I accept that one or two of the Maoris might not agree with me. But with immigration came bits and pieces of debris from this country. We did not get foxes in New Zealand, but we got many other pests. We got gorse—that was one of the classics—and we also got ragwort. I am therefore somewhat familiar with ragwort and with the struggle to deal with it in New Zealand. When I came to the United Kingdom I was astonished to find that exactly the same problem existed here.
When I came to this country I was disappointed to find that there was a much less positive attitude towards dealing with ragwort than existed in the antipodes, where it was recognised as being especially damaging to cattle and horses. It was not so damaging to sheep, although I understand that there is evidence in this country that it can be damaging to them.
In New Zealand, ragwort was less important when we were predominantly farming sheep. However, as the wool price dropped—likewise the meat price—there was a swing away from sheep, with changes in style and changes in pumping water. The result was huge cattle stations. One of the areas where I worked and where I went shooting had been predominantly engaged in sheep farming, but moved across to cattle. There had been very few sheep to the acre, but the number of cattle per acre was enormous. Whereas the sheep cropped the grass quite low and tight—effectively they prevented ragwort by eating it—ragwort was extremely damaging to cattle.
Until fairly recently, the care of horses was vital. Horses in Australia and New Zealand were used on farms. They were not used for pleasure to the same degree as in the United Kingdom. Their use in farming is not so widespread since the advent of motorbikes and helicopters.
In dealing with noxious weeds in a country that is predominantly agricultural, there is a real determination to succeed. Given the measures set out in the Bill, it is clear that that determination does not yet exist in the UK. As I have said, I am always suspicious when the Government say "may". Even when they say that they will—I have in mind a Bill that recently passed through the House, with support from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Given the hon. Gentleman's antipodean experience, he may be familiar with a paper produced by D. A. McLaren, entitled "Biological Ragwort Control in Victoria". The process of control is there described, and particularly biological control, which I would like to mention later if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In his paper, D. A. McLaren says specifically that landowners who do not control ragwort "may" be served with a land management notice. The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw parallels with the antipodes, but as I understand the published data, a "may" is associated with the Australian regulations.
Sir Paul Beresford: There are two problems with that. First, Victoria is not the same as New South Wales or
other areas of Australia where farming is extensive. Secondly, the relationship between Australians and New Zealanders is traditionally a difficult one. My daughter, who has just returned from New Zealand, stuck a big postcard on my wall which says, "I support two teams—the New Zealand All Blacks and anybody playing Australia." However, in the parts of Australia where farming is important—in Victoria, dentistry seems to be more important than farming—the hon. Gentleman would see that there is a firmer policy.To return to my main argument, "may" suggests that the Government do not really care.
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous about his neighbours in Australia. There are 825,000 hectares of Victoria where ragwort grows, so the problem is serious.
Sir Paul Beresford: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek. The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is in fact very good, and I utterly denounce the rumour that the Australians think that the word "aperitif" means a set of dentures.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): Does my hon. Friend agree that the House may benefit from a prolonged visit of several months to the antipodes by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who could then report on his experience?
Sir Paul Beresford: That is probably a very good idea. If the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) went during our winter and their summer, I would be more than happy to accompany him as a translator, as the phraseology there is rather different from the phraseology here. We could even make use of the practice commonly called pairing, which was used in the past and will be used again very soon, I suspect.
To return to ragwort control, a key part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—that measure was introduced before the election under the aegis of the Home Office and deals with commercial interests and is vital to the police—has been sat on. It looks as if its provisions will not be enforced, so questions need to be asked—and that is leaving aside the use of wishy-washy words like "may".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman very carefully, and trust that he will now come on to the amendments before the House.
Sir Paul Beresford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your timing was perfect, as I was just about to deal with the use of the word "may".
In my area, the Mole Valley and, in fact, all the way down the A3, we have difficulties with ragwort. The prospect of the Bill being enforced is extremely positive, as landowners can then be pushed to deal with the problem of ragwort. Such enforcement is needed, and I was intrigued to learn how it would be done. However, when I picked up the Bill, I saw the word "may", which should be changed to "shall". My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and I felt that we
needed to go a bit further, so we tabled amendment No. 4, which specifies that the measure shall apply from 31 March 2004.There has been a huge effort to try to get individuals to try to deal with the problem. I have worked closely with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for a long time, but there has been no action from the Government. I urge the Government either to change "may" to "shall" or to explain clearly the timetable for the Bill and how long it will be before its provisions are enforced. I wish them to say, in no uncertain terms, that they really mean action.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |