Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 7 October 2004