Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill |
|
Mr. Goodwill: First, I will establish my Sheffield credentials. As a candidate in the 1998 South Yorkshire European by-election, I had much experience of the rural parts of South Yorkshire in particular—we could not find too many Conservative voters in the urban parts. Happily, 12 months later, I was elected to represent the entire region, including Sheffield, in the European Parliament. I am pleased
I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about his amendments. I am concerned that we may be unwittingly criminalising people who are acting responsibly. There is a fragile balance—certainly on the North Yorkshire moors—and were it not for the activities of moorland gamekeepers, that balance would quickly mean that the moors would revert to bracken and scrubland. All the degradation of the environment that we have heard about from my hon. Friend would take place. It is only through burning and the control of predators that we can maintain the red grouse population on the moors. That bird cannot be reared artificially. It is only by maintaining the environment so that that bird can thrive that there is an income for the North Yorkshire moors and other moorland areas that means that those rural communities can be sustainable. The vast majority of gamekeepers behave responsibly and use products legally. The reasonable use of these pesticides should be allowed to continue. In North Yorkshire in particular, we have had some very mild winters. We have a large rat population and the use of poison to control those rats, which can eat eggs, is important. Of course, the number of ways of controlling foxes has been somewhat diminished in recent months. Pesticide legislation is complex and the supply is already well controlled. As a farmer, I have a pesticide store. I am licensed in the use of pesticides and, like the vast majority of farmers and gamekeepers, we adhere to the legislation. It is already an offence under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to set poison with the intention of killing a wild bird. Many of the problems, particularly when they occur in relation to red kites, are with raptors eating carrion that has been poisoned. The Bill would not have any effect on carrion that had been legally poisoned and then became the food of raptors. As has been said, many farmers and gamekeepers store unused stocks of pesticides. The advice from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to use up stocks of pesticides for the use that they are intended and not to dispose of those chemicals. Therefore, it is likely that there will be a number of chemicals in stores throughout the country. That can lead to problems because of product withdrawal. Products are often withdrawn not for reasons of safety but for economic reasons—the manager deciding that it is no longer economically viable to produce the products. Even more complex for the person on the ground is the problem of generic products. We may well find that a number of products available contain the same active ingredients. When one of those products is withdrawn, it is difficult for the person to realise that the one in his store is the one that is withdrawn. The fact that the product number on the packaging is obsolete means that he has a product that
I endorse the comments that my hon. Friend made about the amendments. It would make the clause much more practicable and workable. The vast majority of people in the countryside want to achieve the same aims as do the Government. Using the amendments would help people to see a reasonable side to the Government by making the proposals workable on the ground. Ms Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): I start by promising hon. Members that I will not make any references to Sheffield except warmly to welcome the glowing testimony to the city that has been given and to object to the comments made by the hon. Member for Sherwood, who claimed Robin Hood for Nottinghamshire. I state once again that Robin Hood was a Yorkshireman. He was born in the village of Loxley in my constituency. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was absolutely right about Cambridge. I lived there for four years—in Romsey, Newnham and Cherry Hinton. It does indeed take 15 minutes to go from one street to another in such a beautiful city. I support clause 43. It closes a loophole in the law. At this point, I should declare my membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Woodland Trust, the National Trust and the Ramblers Association. I support the clause because, clearly, the use of pesticides to poison wildlife is a danger not only to birds of prey but to people and, particularly, to children, who are much less aware than adults are of the dangers represented by poisoned baits. The pesticides also pose a danger to working dogs and pets. So the problem is relevant to us all, not only those who are interested in wildlife. The pesticides can be absorbed through the skin. The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that the debate is specifically about the amendments. She is more than welcome to express her support for the clause when we come to the debate on clause 43 stand part, but, at this stage, I advise her to move on to talk about the amendments and to bear in mind that there is a possibility of a subsequent debate on clause stand part. Ms Smith: I apologise, Mr. Forth. I was intending to move on to the amendment. The pesticides are a danger and can be absorbed through the skin. The amendment would, indeed, weaken the clause in that it would negate the prosecution of many of the people who use the poisons. Although such prosecution would not solve the problem entirely, it would be a significant step in the right direction. It would not eradicate the problem of poisoning, but it would reduce it. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the fact that individual bits of behaviour are increasingly being made illegal by the Government. I find these individual bits of behaviour abhorrent. The
12.30 pmOne hundred and six red kites were found illegally poisoned between 1989 and 2004. As far as the RSPB is concerned, that is only the tip of the iceberg and the true number is much higher. I hope that hon. Members will refuse to support the amendment, because those with a legitimate need to own such pesticides have a defence under subsection (3). We must move on the issues, and restrict the number of pesticides and poisons that can be used for such destructive purposes. Mrs. Moon: I rise briefly to speak to the amendments, and declare my interest in that I, too, am a member of the RSPB, and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, as well as my local wildfowl trust. I was concerned to hear the vision expressed by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire of inspectors trawling through the garden sheds of Great Britain looking for unwanted pesticides. I hope that the Minister will tackle the issue of publicity in his response, and ensure that people are fully aware of the implications for the holding of pesticides that the amendment would have. We must not wrongfully prosecute people. I accept that that is a desirable, and I hope that the Government will take its responsibility to do so seriously. Members of the Committee will be aware that a number of organisations are working on the Bill, and like us, they are trawling through it line by line. I hope that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Country Land and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance, the Game Conservancy Trust, the Moorland Association, the National Farmers Union and the National Gamekeepers Association will also ensure that all their members are aware that the Bill makes it illegal to hold certain pesticides without good reason. I am sorry if we are putting a burden on local government again, but it is putting provisions in place to help with the legal disposal of the pesticides. Sadly, I am sure that we are all guilty of hoarding all sorts of products in our garages and garden sheds that, for the sake of our families and the wider community, it would be better if we did not. Mr. Atkinson: Apologies for my late appearance in the debate, Mr. Forth, but as the Countryside Alliance was mentioned, and as I am listed as a consultant to that organisation in the Register of Members’ Interests, I thought that I would respond to the hon. Lady. The Countryside Alliance and the other organisations that were mentioned are utterly opposed to the poisoning of birds in any way. Any respectable gamekeeper knows perfectly well what the law is. We have had an interesting debate today about grouse
Mrs. Moon: I was not suggesting that gamekeepers were responsible. What I was saying was that such organisations, along with those that have lobbied us, have a responsibility to the Government to ensure that people are fully aware of the implications of the legislation, so that people are not found with pesticides that they should not have once the legislation is enacted. I was not attempting to indicate in any way that there was a hidden agenda or that gamekeepers were party to mass poisoning of wildlife. Mr. Atkinson: I am sorry, but I did not mean to imply that. I had moved on and was saying that a lot of the general publicity about the poisoning of birds seems to cast suspicion on moorland gamekeepers. I was trying to refute that, as the evidence does not support it. The job of moorland gamekeeper is a high-profile one—it is visible, as there are always visitors and walkers on the moors—and those who do it operate in a fairly public arena. The majority of birds that fall victim to poisoning are attracted by bait that is put out to catch a hen harrier. Sadly, there have been two recent cases in my constituency in the roughly same area, one of which involved a red kite. Those who engage in such activities do so for nefarious reasons. They are irresponsible people, not responsible gamekeepers. I support the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has tabled. We should change the burden of proof with great reluctance and only after great consideration. Curiously, the burden of proof has been reversed in much wildlife legislation in the past. There are circumstances in which we should reverse the burden of proof, but it should be manifestly obvious that a benefit would be derived from doing so. In common with my hon. Friends, I do not think that the clause will achieve such a benefit, as it is confused in its intent. The clause confuses people who keep bits of redundant poison in garden sheds with people who deliberately poison birds of prey. Gardeners have all sorts of things in their sheds, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, some of which the Bill will outlaw. Some of us do not necessarily know what ingredients the products that we own contain, but we should perhaps look carefully on some rusting tins to find out. That is not the problem, however. People do not burgle garden sheds to get poison in order to poison birds of prey. Individuals who, for various reasons, poison wild birds are perfectly capable of obtaining illegal poisons. Column Number: 171 The vast majority of poisons on the list are already banned. Carbofuran and alphachloralose are the main examples, and they have been banned for some time. It is easy for someone who is prepared to poison birds of prey to keep a stock hidden where no one can find it. The legislation will not stop such appalling individuals. If we are to reverse the balance of proof, will we be certain of catching the bird poisoners with the clause? I doubt it. Jim Knight: This has been a useful debate. I accept what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. He takes a close interest in such issues, and it is important to state that we share the same motivation, as do all members of the Committee. The clause seeks to create a new offence of being in possession of a pesticide containing a prescribed substance that is harmful to wildlife. There is a genuine need to take such a step, because although it is already an offence under section 5(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to use or set poisons to kill or injure wild birds, securing successful prosecutions by linking known poisoning cases to individuals has proved difficult. Meanwhile, wild birds, particularly raptors, continue to be illegally poisoned at a rate of 30 to 50 a year. I shall give an example of the problem that we seek to resolve. My example is of a gamekeeper, although I do not seek to pass comment on gamekeepers as a whole, the vast majority of whom are highly responsible. A gamekeeper may lay poisoned bait with pesticide containing a prescribed ingredient in woodland near his pheasant pen. It may never be found, but it may be eaten by a buzzard. The buzzard is collected and found to have been killed by pesticide ingredient X. A search of the gamekeeper’s premises reveals a can of that pesticide, which he can provide no reason for having. A legitimate reason would perhaps be for the control of insects on fruit, but there are no fruit trees in the vicinity even though it is an approved pesticide and it is certainly not unlawful for him to possess it. Although there is a link between the gamekeeper and the dead buzzard, and the gamekeeper has a motive for killing the buzzard to protect the valuable pheasants, the evidence remains circumstantial. The gamekeeper can argue that anyone could have bought the pesticide that caused the death of the buzzard. He does not have to provide a plausible reason why someone else might have done it or suggest another individual. With the new offence in clause 43, the gamekeeper will still be in the same position with regard to the offence of poisoning the buzzard, but the new offence of possessing a pesticide containing a listed ingredient without having a legitimate use for it—it is important to stress that—will be easier to prove. It will also be possible for the court to seize the pesticide concerned, thus preventing further abuse. Mr. Atkinson: The problem is, as the Minister says, that there will always be products that anyone can legally possess that could be used to poison wildlife. If
Jim Knight: I accept that to some extent we will be playing catch-up and the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes may occur. However it is incumbent on us to do what we can to frustrate this activity, which we all agree is reprehensible. An alternative would be to ban all pesticides unless the person has a legitimate use for them, but although clear, that would be disproportionate. We have to target things a little more carefully and ensure that everything we do is backed by proper evidence. Amendment No. 144 introduces an additional element to the offence of possessing a pesticide containing a prescribed ingredient and requires that the person concerned must have intended to commit an offence under one of the listed wildlife protection Acts. It is important that there should be no doubt that possession of listed pesticides without legitimate use is an absolute offence. The offence must therefore remain one of strict liability, regardless of intent, if it is to work. This will make it easier for the general public, farmers, gamekeepers and others who are likely to be in possession of such substances to understand the law, and for the law to be enforced. It is also important that all species of wild animals and wild birds are protected from pesticide abuse. It is therefore inappropriate to limit the application of this offence to particular species. Amendment No. 63 introduces a retrospective defence to the offence of being in possession of a prescribed pesticide without having a legitimate use for it. Clause 43 is aimed at protecting vulnerable wild animals and birds from pesticide abuse. It is not the Government’s intention to lay innocent members of the public open to prosecution. It is for this reason that the defence recognises the circumstances in which the pesticide ingredients listed on an order will be legitimately held in a person’s possession. However, once a person has no legitimate use for a prescribed pesticide, its retention cannot be justified and it should be safely disposed of. Garden sheds have been mentioned. We should understand that only those pesticides containing active ingredients listed under the order will be covered by the clause. There will not be a witch hunt of amateur gardeners for what they might inadvertently have in their garden shed. If they have a legitimate use for the ingredient that becomes prescribed, even if the product has been withdrawn, it will still be legitimate for them to have it in their possession. 12.45 pmMy hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend asked about publicity. The Secretary of State will have an obligation to publicise when making an order prescribing the pesticides to which the offence will apply. Clause 43(8) states: Column Number: 173
Those people who might have a pesticide for which there is no legitimate purpose will be given notice by the Secretary of State that they should dispose of it or they will be committing an offence. If amendment No. 63 were accepted, as long as someone claimed that they had a legitimate use for the substance once upon a time, they could claim the defence in perpetuity. The previous legitimate use would in practice be impossible to prove, and I argue that the amendment would render the offence unenforceable. Sufficient safeguards have been introduced to ensure that the innocent will not be open to vexatious prosecutions. The list of prescribed pesticides will be subject to the prior consultation that I set out, and the Secretary of State is required to draw the list of pesticides prescribed by order to the attention of those members of the public who are likely to be affected. Mr. Atkinson: This is a technical point. Let us suppose that someone keeps in their garden shed a chemical that is prescribed but has a use on potato crops. The person then decides not to grow potatoes for two or three years. Would keeping the chemical there be a legitimate use on the basis that they might grow a further crop of potatoes in future? Jim Knight: I would have thought that if the person can demonstrate that it is likely that they will cultivate potatoes and will require the pesticide, that will be a legitimate defence. The court will have to judge every circumstance on the basis of what we are saying and, as ever in law, we are talking about what is reasonable. If someone could reasonably show that they had a history of growing potatoes on their allotment and they were likely to grow potatoes in future, it would be reasonable and legitimate to keep that pesticide. Amendment No. 64 would have the undesired effect of giving those who use a pesticide to cause harm to wild animals and birds an additional six months to replace it with an alternative product that does not contain an ingredient listed in the order. Perhaps that is not the intent of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. There will be plenty of time for those who do not have the intentions described to dispose of products for which they do not have a legitimate use. A process would have to be gone through to add ingredients or products to the list by order in this House. There would be adequate consultation and adequate publicity would be attached to it, so I do not consider it necessary to allow an extra six months for people to find an alternative product. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Paice: We all share the same objective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham pointed out, when we look at the list of incidents in 2003, we see that there is no justification for them. Most of the species that were poisoned in those incidents pose no threat to any form of shooting interest, be it on lowland, grouse
I do think, however, that the Minister may not quite have taken on board the import of what is proposed. I am sorry that he did not address the fact that we are reversing the burden of proof in the legislation. The message is, “You will be guilty unless you can prove that you have a good reason for keeping the pesticide.” His response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham about someone who says, “I used it to grow potatoes and might do so again,” seemed to be completely at odds with his earlier rebuttal of my amendment No. 63, when he said that he could not accept it because it would be an open-ended excuse for someone who said that they used to use it. The two do not sit together. The Minister needs to examine his stance. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to say that they have a product in the shed. I have used the phrase “garden shed”, which has been picked up and used repeatedly by other hon. Members, but I am talking about any facility, whether it is the garden shed, farm building or even the dog kennel, which is where some people keep pesticides out of harm’s way because the dog stops anyone intruding. I understand the Minister’s point that it is difficult to prove intent, but wherever pesticides are held, it is perfectly reasonable for people to say that they have kept them to grow potatoes in the garden, or to grow a crop if they are farmers, but that they do not use them any more, although they might do so again. His response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham suggested that he agreed with me, so his reason for rejecting my amendment No. 63 is odd. As for amendment No. 144, I have already referred to the burden of proof. I accept that intent is difficult to prove, but I want to draw from the Minister what the clause is trying to achieve. That is why, with all due respect, his more generalised remarks about the clause suggest that he has not fully taken on the board the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham and I were trying to make, which is that if people have malign intent and want to continue to set poison for birds, they will find a poison to do it with, even given the list in the schedule. I do not know what will be included in the schedule, but as I said, there are several poisons that it is reasonable for most people who live in the country to have. There are, for example, poisons for use against moles and rats. We have not even embarked on products for humans. I do not know how many paracetamol tablets it would take to kill a bird of prey. Perhaps we should not speculate about that, but I am sure that a certain dose would kill it. I am concerned that people who want to find a way round the legislation will do so, and that we will have legislated to no overall gain. I am sorry that the Minister chose to use a hypothetical gamekeeper as his example, because although he readily accepted that most gamekeepers are good, worthy and sound citizens, the mere fact that he used a gamekeeper as an example simply serves to underline the belief that gamekeepers are the problem. Column Number: 175 Jim Knight: I do not want to repeat myself, but although I know that not all gamekeepers use poison, I know that other gamekeepers do. I heard of a particularly horrific incident in the west country this weekend, which may well implicate people who raise pigeons. We all accept that there is a problem and that we must do something about it, but I do accept that gamekeepers are not the only ones who use poison. Mr. Paice: I am grateful for that. I, too, am aware of suspicions that people who raise pigeons are also involved. I was astonished that the Minister read out that amendment No. 64 would simply provide people with another six months to find an alternative poison. That was a contemptuous response to an important point, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend about publicity; people must be given time to learn what is on the schedule and what is being banned, and to dispose of it. That is all that I am seeking. If six months is not right, I am happy to discuss what is, but simply to dismiss the amendment on the grounds that it is intended to buy time for people to find something else is outwith the spirit of the Committee’s debate so far, and I regret that very much. The purpose of the amendment is purely to provide the opportunity for people to learn what is happening. There are many other issues in this section of the Bill that my hon. Friends and I wish to debate, so I shall not press the amendment to a vote, particularly as there are probably others of equal, if not more, importance. However, this has been an opportunity not just to discuss the amendment but to rehearse the purpose of the clause and my humble reservations and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham as to whether the Government will achieve the objective that we all seek to achieve. In order to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 29 June 2005 |