Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 359)
TUESDAY 13 JULY 2004
MR CRAWFORD
ALLAN, MS
STEPHANIE PENDRY,
MS CAROL
HATTON AND
MR STUART
CHAPMAN
Q340 Mrs Clark: Yes.
Ms Pendry: They did manage to
be able to get a sanction so that they would be able to carry
out surveillance under this, so I think the fact that this precedent
has now been set and that at least two police forces have been
able to do this, I am hoping, will—
Q341 Mrs Clark: Which are they?
Ms Pendry: I cannot tell you for
sure. I am pretty sure it was somewhere in the north, like West
Yorkshire, but I am not entirely sure. I can come back to you
on that.
Q342 Mrs Clark: It would be useful
to know who they are.
Ms Hatton: One of the things we
talked about was the precedent that has been set by this case
and, perhaps, the need for a lower threshold for surveillance
to be able to be undertaken—it would be a shame if that
was just a one-off. What we really need to do, I think, is formalise
the situation where surveillance could take place for wildlife
crimes as well. Whether that is by amending the guidance, or whatever,
we certainly need to see that something more formal happens rather
than just having a one-off case-study.
Q343 Mrs Clark: And we could, indeed,
consider this in our report. For both of you: you have actually
done a joint report The International Wildlife Trade and Organised
Crime, which was published in 2002. In this report you have
stated that 50% of persons prosecuted for wildlife crimes over
a one-year period actually had previous convictions for serious
offences including drugs and firearms. Just slightly diverging,
during the process of this inquiry we have found from other people
we have interviewed that people who are likely to commit wildlife
crime, when investigated, are found to have done lots of other
really serious crime as well. So you are not the first body of
witnesses coming through to tell us this. However, despite this
link to serious crime, which seems to me not to have been flagged
up in the media or, indeed, on the floor of the House of Commons,
it seems that few police forces are actually attaching sufficient
priority, or indeed financial resources, to wildlife crime and
that, actually, until chief constables receive not only a signal
but, I would say, an instruction from government that taking this
seriously and tackling wildlife crime is a top priority—because
it can be a lead in, if you like, to some of the targets that
the Government is telling chief constables that they have to be
hitting—nothing is going to change. Is there, in your view,
a need for a fresh commitment from Government to tackling wildlife
crime? I say "a fresh commitment" but I am not aware
there has been even an initial commitment. Would you agree with
that?
Mr Chapman: I think, firstly,
one needs to look at the intent, and it has come up with a number
of questions relating to plant crime and zoo cases as well, which
is why do criminals get involved in the first place? The reason
is that there are, of course, high rewards linked to trading in
some of the world's most endangered species and there is low risk
of detection. There are also, generally, low penalties, whether
it is custodial sentences or fines. So that is the attraction;
that attracts the serious criminal. In some cases, gram-for-gram,
some wildlife products are worth more than narcotics—they
are high-value products. I have here with me today an example
of something that was seized on the streets of London. I can pass
it round as evidence.
Q344 Mrs Clark: Can we touch it?
Mr Chapman: You can. It is a shatoosh
shawl, made from the wool of the endangered Tibetan antelope.
The price tag on that shawl, as you will see, is somewhere in
the region of £2,700. This is one of 135 shawls that were
seized in London a few years ago. The street value was in the
region of £350,000, yet when the company was prosecuted they
were given a fine of £1,500. Now, if we just ignore for a
second the ecological impact of this trade or the conservation
impact in terms of protecting an endangered species, the maths
just do not add up. How can somebody be, clearly, labelling something
with a street value of £350,000 and get a £1,500 fine?
That is why criminals are interested in trading in endangered
species, because of the high financial returns. To come to the
second part of your question, which is what is the UK Government
doing about it, well, in November of last year, as you will be
aware, there was an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. Unfortunately,
that amendment—which was held up as a victory at the time
because it increased the custodial sentence from two to five years—has
sat on the statute books and has yet to be used. The reason it
cannot be used is that the Control of Trade in Endangered Species
regulation, the COTES regulation, has not been amended by Defra.
So the powers that you talk about, the powers of arrest which
would come with this and the powers to collect evidence in terms
of DNA evidence and in order to search premises, are lying there
unused. It was a hollow victory, in a way. Our overriding message
to you is can you, as this Committee, take the message to Defra
that the Government did a great thing by getting this amendment
through but until we can get that COTES regulation turned into
enforcement action there is no way that we can use those powers
to prevent further cases like this happening again.
Mrs Clark: That is a really, really powerful
message. I do not think any of us expected this. I am not going
to ask you how you came across this but I think you can guarantee
that we will take this very seriously on board.
Chairman: We did raise this very matter
with Defra officials last week, so you can rest assured that we
are on the case.
Q345 Mrs Clark: This is for Mr Allan
and Ms Pendry, specifically. In the evidence that you have submitted
to us you actually say that the current law does not provide for
what you describe as an effective deterrent, and that wildlife
crime, as we have stated earlier on (in fact, just now) is really
not taken seriously. In fact, you are calling for the issues of
seriousness and, indeed, tolerance to be examined and attitudes,
both public and judicial also, towards such offences to be reshaped
accordingly. It is very difficult to reshape attitudes. We have
the media, we have the tabloids, etc, etc, and it seems to me
they do most of the reshaping or the shaping. How do we go about
it? How can we go about it legally through the courts and the
legal system? I do not know the answer.
Ms Pendry: Just to come to your
first point about our comment on the legislation as it stands,
I think in terms of the statutes that we have in the UK we have
some quite strong legislation, but the trouble is it is not being
implemented.
Q346 Mrs Clark: Or known about?
Ms Pendry: Or known about.
Q347 Mrs Clark: It is not publicised,
is it?
Ms Pendry: It is not publicised,
and when it is implemented and when people are taken to court,
as we have seen, the fine or punishment they get—
Q348 Mrs Clark: Paltry.
Ms Pendry:—does not seem
to correspond with the crime they have committed. So that has
a spiralling effect whereby magistrates will look at previous
court cases when they are trying their own cases and take from
that a certain yardstick, I suppose, in terms of what levels they
should be fining or the levels they should be prosecuting and
punishing at. I think that has an on-going effect, and hopefully
one of the things that will be improved by having the new COTES
regulations coming in is the fact that the judiciary will be able
to look at the fact that this has gone from two to five years,
and the possibility to imprison somebody to five years is obviously
a much more serious offence than to imprison someone for two.
We are hoping that will have a knock-on effect, and once prosecutions
start to go through to the courts and they are using new COTES,
which as we know has yet to come in, then there will be case history
there whereby we are hoping people will get higher fines and penalties.
Q349 Mrs Clark: Do you think that
penalties should be financial or would you like to see an increase
in custodial? That is on the one hand. On the second hand, can
you talk about the magistrates, please, because during the course
of this inquiry, on the wider range of issues of enforcement we
have been looking at, there have been quite a few serious questions
raised over magistrates and their conduct, their behaviour and,
even indeed, their knowledge of their powers. Do you think they
actually understand this? Do they know what their powers are?
Is there a uniform sense of awareness? If there is not, how do
you bring it about?
Ms Pendry: With regard to your
last point about magistrates, they have a difficult job; they
have to be responsible and have knowledge of a very wide range
of legislation, not just, obviously, talking about stuff to do
with wildlife crime and wildlife trade issues.
Q350 Mrs Clark: Are we instructing
them well enough?
Ms Pendry: We have certainly taken
steps, both ourselves and WWF, in trying to improve the access
to information that magistrates have in terms of drawing up guidelines
that they now have both on environmental crime and, also, for
wildlife and conservation offences. One of the problems that magistrates
face is that they very rarely see these types of cases coming
before them so they do not build up their own personal case history;
it is very rare for them to see these cases. So that is one problem,
and it stems back to how many cases are coming to court and why
are not more cases coming to court. That leads us on to the question
of resources, yet again, with enforcement agencies; if they do
not have the resources to carry out the investigations, cases
will not be presented to the CPS, the CPS do not have the knowledge
to put the case together and they will not go ahead to the magistrates.
Q351 Mrs Clark: This question is
for Mr Chapman and Ms Hatton. Obviously, concern has been expressed,
and I think you have done this yourself, that marine/fishing law
is too complex/convoluted/difficult/inconsistent, and actually
provides for wastage with duplication and inefficiency. You have
suggested, quite clearly, that there is a need for an over-arching
Act and also a proper, clear, policy framework. What have you
done about this in terms of the Government? Who have you spoken
to, how far have you got and what can we do?
Ms Hatton: Absolutely; all of
the above. You are absolutely right. In terms of the marine environment,
we have a myriad of layers of national legislation, European legislation
and international legislation. This very complicated web is impossible
for people to penetrate, both people who want to get consents
and permissions and people who want to protect the marine environment.
Added to that, you have a situation where the protection of our
nationally important sites is all done voluntarily at the moment.
So if you have a number of stakeholders involved in trying to
protect areas, whether they are fishery, industry, whatever, if
that voluntary cooperation breaks down, you very often do not
have any protection for the site. In terms of what we need to
do about it, we have been very clear, as you say, in asking for
a UK Marine Act—and we have written one[40].
Q352 Mrs Clark: Could we see that?
Ms Hatton: Yes. It is here. It
has not been published yet; it is just being finalised at the
moment.
Q353 Mrs Clark: Perhaps we could
see it when it is finalised.
Ms Hatton: Absolutely. It should
be finalised very soon. It is an over-arching marine Act, and
it puts marine spatial planning right at the heart of the legislation.
That gives you the framework within which all the other uses of
the sea, including inshore or offshore fisheries, pollution, shipping,
nationally important sites, species, renewable energies, sit within
that framework. It is a new piece of thinking. We very much hope
it will do for the sea what the Wildlife and Countryside Act did
for the land, which means it probably will not be perfect but
at least it will be a start. We are working very closely with
Defra and we are just about to meet them to discuss this and to
push it forward. But we would say that, whilst Defra have recognised
that we do need some marine legislation, we have not seen anything
from them yet. So obviously, one of the messages we would give
to you is please could you put some pressure on Defra to move
ahead with this, because it is a priority as far as we are concerned.
Q354 Mrs Clark: I am really delighted
that you have said that. As a member of this Committee, hearing
your earlier remarks about the reference to marine protection
in the CroW Bill, because that is my baby; that was my amendment,
and I pushed it forward and I did it in conjunction with the Whale
and Dolphin Society. It is great for me that you have recognised
that today, and I will remember this. That is marvellous. You
pointed to a need—and I am so glad that you have said that,
and I am really pleased about that document—to improve powers
regulating the marine environment. In fact, you have made the
point that there have not been any prosecutions for offences against
marine wildlife since the Wildlife and Countryside Act came into
force in 1981, and we know that CroW came into force three years
ago. So despite my wonderful amendment, where are the prosecutions?
Is this a matter of failing, inadequate legislation—I think
we would agree that it was—or is it an inability or unwillingness
to take action by those charged to do so? We are back to Defra
again. Are they regarding what is in the sea as less attractive,
if you like, and therefore less worthy of protection than what
runs along and the lawns and grasses? I feel that is the case.
Ms Hatton: Unfortunately, I cannot
answer for Defra. All we can do is continue to pressurise them
to bring this forward, but I think it does go back to the point
that Sue Doughty made earlier on about the marine species side
of things. Is it simply out of sight, out of mind? It is very
much the case, is it not, that we do not see these crimes being
committed anything like as often as we would witness crimes in
the countryside?
Q355 Mrs Clark: Also, it is cold,
wet and unappealing.
Ms Hatton: Absolutely. People
see crimes against birds, they go and report it to the RSPB, the
RSPB work very closely with the Police Wildlife Liaison Officers.
It is all very clear, it is all set up, and it works. Where do
you go if you witness somebody harassing a harbour porpoise? It
is not clear, is it? Nobody knows where to go. I think it is primarily
a problem of awareness on the marine side. Let us get some legislation.
Q356 Chairman: In order for us to
help, it would be helpful if we could see a copy of your draft
Bill before we actually draw our conclusions and recommendations.
Ms Hatton: I will probably crash
your computer by sending it by email. I could send you a hard
copy.
Q357 Chairman: Do send it to the
clerk, whose computer is probably more robust than mine! Back
on dry land, do you think there is a need to reduce the number
of agencies and enforcement bodies that are involved in tackling
wildlife crime? There is a huge number of organisations involved
in all of this, and sometimes they seem to step on each other's
toes and fall over each other's tails. Is there a case for revamping
the entire regime and cutting down on the number of organisations
involved in this?
Mr Allan: I do not have the answer
to that. It is a very good point, a very important point. I think
it would take more than me to answer the question. There is a
need for a review on that point exactly, on the issue of co-ordination
and communication between the relevant agencies responsible for
wildlife crime enforcement in this country. You have the PAW partnership,
which is a very good vehicle to bring people together, but the
finer detail of how things work is not really dealt with by PAW.
I would suggest, in response to your question, that a review be
undertaken, perhaps under the auspices of PAW, to really get to
grips with the detail of the problems of co-ordination and communication
and to work out ways in which the agencies can co-ordinate and
communicate more effectively in the future to try and overcome
some of the problems. Maybe it should look at this more radical
idea that you are suggesting.
Q358 Chairman: Is PAW the organisation
to do that? It is, of course, the creature of the abundance of
other organisations, so it may be part of the problem rather than
the solution.
Mr Allan: Maybe it should be more
independent then perhaps. I do feel that there should be some
objective review of what is going on, that pulls together recommendations
on the way to improve things, be that reducing the number and
pulling people together under one roof or be that trying to work
out ways to improve the situation. I think a review should be
done, basically.
Q359 Chairman: Has anyone anything
to add to that?
Mr Chapman: I would add that if
we take, for example, the police and Customs forces, even though
if we were to look at the national coverage it is extensive, in
terms of the actual expertise in terms of wildlife crime, it is
very poor. I think out of the police forces in England and Wales,
52 police forces, there are only seven full-time police wildlife
crime officers. Not every force has one. In some cases it is voluntary;
there are two or three voluntary officers. So even though the
coverage looks great, the reality is that many of these forces
are under-resourced. The next step on from having the legislation
amended and being able to use it is then to have the capacity
to enforce it. I think that is the next target for the UK Government,
to ensure that, having got the great legislation, they then have
the resources to enforce it. That applies to Customs officers
too.
40 Draft submitted to the Committee. Not published
or currently in the public domain. Back
|
