| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman admits that, as a country landowner, he did not know what ragwort was, and he gets his list wrong. He claims to represent the party that claims to represent the countryside. Clearly, he has proven beyond any doubt that that is a complete fallacy.
Mr. Wilshire: I set out at the beginning of my speech to be conciliatory and generous and to suggest that any criticism of the Government was a criticism of all Governments. If the hon. Gentleman wants to start along that track, however, I shall rapidly remind him of the iniquities of this Labour Government in its jackboot attitudes to democracy. If that is what he wants, let him say so, and we will have a good kick-about. On the specific points that he makes, I pointed out that I discovered what ragwort was 10 years ago. I may be a slow learner, but 10 years later, I understand the issue. Unlike the Labour party, which will not ever bother to listen and learn, I do so. He also spoke about my representing a party, but this is a private Members' Bill morning. That is why I am not down on the Front Bench. I am speaking in my own capacity, and, for better or worse, there are not many animals on the grass around the runways of Heathrow or in the gravel pits or reservoirs in the area that I represent. In fact, it is very difficult to find any green space left in my constituency.
Mr. Miller: Plenty of ragwort.
Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that in a moment, but I point out that, for practical purposes, I am an urban MP rather than a rural one. I shall put that to one side for a moment, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, I shall willingly listen and have another go at him.
The particular list that I proposed was an attempt generally to detail some agricultural and animal organisations. However, I included one of the organisations very deliberately, as I wished to comment on it—the Local Government Association. An important aspect of the ragwort problem is the amount that one finds, certainly in my constituency, in the middle and on the verges of dual carriageways. That
should be a matter for local councils, but I am not certain who owns the land: is it the Queen or the local council? I do not know, but if we are to deal with verges and dual carriageways, the Local Government Association is likely to be the body that is most able to come up with a satisfactory way of placing an obligation on those councils that do not understand the problem and are not willing to do anything about it. I apologise for leaving some organisations out of the list—I am fully aware that some very deserving ones should be there—but that was my reason for including the Local Government Association.
Norman Baker (Lewes): It is sometimes not so much the case that councillors do not understand, although that may be so in one or two councils, but that they do not have the necessary money to deal with the problem, which will come way down the list of priorities in comparison with social services or transport matters. If we are to get councils to tackle it, we must ensure that they have a ring-fenced pot of money for the purpose.
Mr. Wilshire: I would enjoy a debate about the Government's failure to fund Spelthorne council and Surrey county council properly, but I suspect that even on a Friday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not want me to go down that route. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have to engage in the debate on priorities. All of us—whether Members, Governments or parties—are fond of saying, "This is a good idea: we must do it", then forgetting to fund it properly.
Mr. Greenway: I want to make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the Local Government Association is being consulted. Secondly, because ragwort is a controlled weed under the Weeds Act 1959, local authorities already have an obligation on local authorities to clear it from their land. The code is merely intended to give them some help as to how they should do it and to provide that if they do not, they will find themselves in trouble.
Mr. Wilshire: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. That is why I flagged up the fact that some matters—that is one of them—should be discussed on Third Reading rather than in the context of the amendment. If he will forgive me, I shall leave it until then.
Amendment No. 7, which stands in my name, would make it obligatory for the Minister to revise the code after five years. I have learned to distrust Governments of all sorts; if they say that they will or should revise a provision in future, history teaches that they sometimes never get round to it. Time moves on, science moves on, and the problem of ragwort will probably move on. There should be a cut-off point beyond which it is not acceptable for a Government to drag their feet. If the Minister, or any Minister, says, "We are on the side of this attempt to control ragwort", they should be willing to accept the amendment. If the Government say, "No, we are not prepared to accept that we have to revise this
every five years", that suggests to me that they have no intention of doing so and that that possibility could disappear.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Given the Government's success with public service agreement targets over the past few months, is there an opportunity for a target for ragwort-pulling in England and Wales?
Mr. Wilshire: We have had numerous opportunities for ranging far and wide in the debate. I would love to have a debate about the Government's targets stupidity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I guess that you would rise from your seat to tell me that it is not a matter for today. I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be such a target: we could then mock the Government when they fail to meet it.
10.15 am
Amendment No. 4, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, would impose a time limit beyond which the code of conduct cannot be left unpresented to Parliament. That seems completely innocuous in view of the remarks of the Minister and the Bill's promoter. The code of practice is almost ready to be published in draft for us to comment on. If the Government are going to do it before 31 April 2004, why not stipulate it in the Bill? This Minister is a kind and generous man—he is smiling, as I thought he would, but perhaps he should worry about that remark coming from me—and I readily accept that he will do as he says. He has given us his word; I do not quarrel with that. However, he works for a Prime Minister who regularly botches reshuffles, and it is possible that he might be moved between now and the deadline that my hon. Friend suggests. The Minister could do us the favour of underscoring his sincerity by ensuring that any successor cannot wriggle in the way that he has promised not to. I am sure that he will recognise that I am trying to help him to go down in the annals of history as the person who actually put integrity before party politics.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman's kindness in trying to help me is transparent and greatly appreciated. I can tell him that the work has already been done, not by the Department alone, but jointly with the British Horse Society. It is not a question of giving undertakings to do the work—it is virtually complete.
Mr. Wilshire: Yes, I know that. When the Minister said initially that the work had been done, I wondered whether it was on ragwort or the next reshuffle, but he made it clear that it was the former. I entirely accept what he says. I know what is going on and what is going to happen. Given that, what is so objectionable about simply setting a date? That would help the Minister if, as he fights the battle to do it now, somebody else—his boss or Downing street—says, "No, there are other things to do; we want to put it off." If he accepts the amendment, it will be impossible for it to be put off, so it might help him to deliver what he has promised that he is trying hard to deliver.
All the amendments have merit, and none would weaken the Bill in any way or hold up the implementation of what we all want. On that basis, I sincerely commend them to the House.
Norman Baker: I am relatively new to the Bill, which was previously dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). That has advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps one advantage is that I am able to look at the matter objectively and afresh, whereas other hon. Members have been ensconced in it for some time.
Although I agreed almost entirely with the Minister—he is a very reasonable chap—I disagree with him profoundly about one point: namely, his defence of the word "may" rather than the preferable word in the amendment, which is "shall". If the word "may" survives, it is possible that nothing at all will happen. The Bill could be passed and become law, then, in theory, nothing might happen. The Minister said that he is doing the work, that it is nearly completed, and that we will have the code of practice—in other words, that everything that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and others want will happen. We can all agree that that is good news. Nevertheless, the wording of the Bill is such that there is no requirement on the Government to do anything when it becomes law: that cannot be right.
Why are the Government resisting the word "shall"? That is an important point not only in relation to this Bill and this amendment, but more widely, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) suggested. I would love to know how many pieces of legislation exist that, having had Members of Parliament agonise over their wording, have been duly passed into law, yet nothing subsequently happens: they sit there on the shelf with whole sections of good intentions gathering dust. I suspect that there are more such Bills or parts of Bills than we would like to think. That also brings me to question our use of time in this House.
As a matter of principle, notwithstanding the Government's preference for permissive legislation, we should insert requirements such as the word "must" or "shall" where it is clear that that is the will of the House. Not doing that leaves open the possibility that nothing will happen in specific circumstances. The Minister said in his defence of "may" that circumstances may change and that that was the reason for permissive legislation. Although that argument may be appropriate for some occasions, it is not for the Bill because we are considering a code of practice. The Bill requires the Minister to undertake now to act in the future. Once he has fulfilled the undertaking, the requirement is discharged. The idea that the requirement will present difficulties in future does not hold up logically.
I fear that I share the cynical view of Governments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. They are always busy, full of good intentions and have something other to do than act when they have discretion to do nothing. That is the reality of government. If Governments have the opportunity to do something that is not a requirement, they might not follow through.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |