Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing clause 46 and for responding in advance to my new clause. He will be aware that the new clause was tabled at the behest of the RSPB, as were some of the other amendments that we have debated today. No doubt it will take note of what he has said.
Column Number: 208
In some ways, the Minister made the case for the new clause by referring to the 1981 Act and the changes introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The fact is that some of the provisions in the 2000 Act are inconsistent in their applicationthey do not necessarily apply to all the more serious offences. The word reckless is variable in value, and, as the Minister said, he has already carried out a consultation. I hesitate to bring in Scottish issues, because one of the benefits of devolution, if we believe in it, is that we do not all have to do the same thing. If we all had to have the same legislation, one would have to question why we had devolution. Nevertheless, the principle stands.
The RSPBs argument is that the Bill needs to go a little further, which is why the new clause is drafted as it is. The RSPB is concerned about people who use the argument that they did not intend to kill something when it is clear that they were not giving the issue sufficient thought or were reckless. It gives an example of a fish farmer who shot a grey heron but claimed that he thought that it was a wood pigeonSpecsavers could help him, I am sureand other examples.
Clearly, that is an issue, but I understand the Ministers concern at extending the provision too widely. I am grateful that he is sympathetic to the overall objective and I assume from that and from his comments about the result of the consultation that he will table appropriate amendments at a later stage in the passage of the Bill. The measure would need to apply to animals; the fact that the new clause did not was an oversight by me and the RSPB. I hope that the Minister will table amendments on Report. I do not know when we will reach Report. Quite often, the Government do not table amendments until Bills go to the other place. There is no question of my being proprietorial, but when an issue has been raised in this House, it is nice for the Government to resolve it in this House, rather than waiting until the Bill goes to the other place.
I am grateful for the Ministers general comments. I did not move the new clause, so I cannot withdraw it, but I am happy to support the clause generally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sale etc. of invasive non-native species
Mr. Breed: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in clause 49, page 18, line 31, leave out from is to end of line 32 and insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 1Sale etc. of invasive non-native species (supplementary provisions)
Column Number: 209
New clause 2Restoration order where offence under section 14 is committed
Column Number: 210
New clause 3Control of invasive non-native species
Column Number: 211
Mr. Breed: The clause relates to invasive non-native species. One of the joys of considering the Bill is that it has been quite an educational exercise. I for one have learned an awful lot about all sorts of things. We move on now to plants and birds, but mainly plants. I have to say that I am to gardening what Frank Spencer is to DIY. I tend to kill off most things in my gardenperhaps I ought to be set on non-native invasive species.
We must recognise that there are real concerns in this regard. This is an important clause, and one that could usefully be expanded, in the light of many of the concerns that have been expressed. I hesitate to make a pun and say that there is a growing problem, but there is. There is now greater access to remote areas of the planet. People can travel to all sorts of exotic places and bring back all sorts of things that they see and think would look nice next to the water feature in their garden. Indeed, there is now greater importation of foods and plant material generally. Of course, sometimes what is imported, or at least what is intended to be imported, is perfectly satisfactory, but other things can piggyback on itplants, animals, spiders and the like. We therefore have to be careful.
I previously had responsibilities in respect of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I say to the Minister that we still do not have the controls on our borders that we should have. The potential for non-native invasive species and other problems that can be imported needs to be more thoroughly considered. Anyone who has been to Australia, New Zealand or California will know how seriously those places take such things, and the penalties that can be exacted from someone if they accidentally take in something that the authorities in those places do not want to destroy their orange groves or their agricultural production. We need to take non-native invasive species seriously, and amendment No. 104 and new clauses 1 and 2 expand on that idea. They may look a little wordywe worked quite hard with other people on thembut they are relatively simple.
New clause 1 contains another list of non-native species, some of which will be familiar, especially to those of us who live in the south-west. I do not know whether it grows throughout the country, but Japanese knotweed is a major problem in our part of the world. Some other species are not so well known, but I am assured that they could cause real problems for us in the country.
New clause 2 would add new provisions for use when an offence has been committed, and provide for a restoration order. Proposed new section 21A(1) says that
If people have been convicted, they should be responsible for restoration. Much of that work has fallen on local authorities, or sometimes even on other landowners, and those who caused the problems have
Subsection (4) of the proposed new section states:
When damage has been extended over significantly large areas, it sometimes becomes unnecessary to discharge an order, and we must recognise the practicality of such action. None the less, there should be real penalties with which people may be expected to be charged if they are convicted of such offences.
New clause 3 covers the control of invasive non-native species. It sets out a framework whereby problems can be examined when they are discovered, to ensure that prompt and appropriate action is taken. Part of the problem is that we do not do anything until the situation has become so bad that it is almost impossible to act appropriately. We have tried to put down a framework under the new clauses so that the Secretary of State can identity an appropriate body to deal with a certain problem, produce action plans and specify time scales so that the species can be eradicated or controlled in some way, to provide protection to threatened flora or faunaor, indeed, to social and economic well-being. People know that some non-native invasive species have had a massive economic effect on landowners or farmers.
The new clause would provide a power to enter land with a constable. Notwithstanding the powers granted to inspectors, to which we have referred earlier, we tried to draft proportionate and reasonable definitions of the circumstances in which someone could enter areas of land. Under proposed new subsection (8),
although that may not always be necessary.
Under proposed new subsection (9), if someone enters
and not just wander off again. He must make proper attempts to ensure that the land is secure. If there are any problems while he is there and any damage is done, proper compensation should be secured.
These are reasonable powers; if we are giving people powers to enter land, perhaps accompanied by a constable, they should be proportionate and reasonable. That is why new clauses 1, 2 and 3 and amendment No. 104 enhance the proposal. If it is not exactly what the Minister and his Department would propose, perhaps they can take those as a template, look at clause 49 on invasive non-native species and the Bill as a whole, take a wider purview and perhaps table additional clauses that reflect the amendments. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Column Number: 213
Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing a discussion on this very important subject. He is right to say that we have recognised the significant threat posed by invasive non-native species. I am pleased that it was him who introduced the amendments, given that some of my hon. Friends regard members of his party as non-native invasive species in their constituencies, which we are all focused on the need to eradicate.
We acknowledge our obligations under the convention on biological diversity to prevent the introduction of, to control, and as far as possible to eradicate, as appropriate, species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species, and under the Bern convention to develop national strategies and action plans. We have undertaken a recent consultation on the outcome of a review of non-native species policy across Great Britain, and proposals for legislation in England and Wales.
We consulted on a proposal similar to new clause 2 in our review of part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981that a person convicted of an offence under section 14 might be required by order to carry out at their own expense restoration of any damage caused. Responses to the consultation generally supported the proposal, while emphasising the difficulties of quantifying damage and administering orders.
Similarly, the proposals in new clause 3 constitute a means of focusing on and driving action in relation to the control of invasive non-native species, but go further than those included in the Governments review of part 1 of the Act, which suggested a power for the Secretary of State to take or require action to control, contain or eradicate species listed in schedule 9 and for associated powers of access. Responses to that were mixed; many favoured the idea but were concerned about the implications, including resource needs, and supported a power rather than a duty. It was also questioned whether action should be based on a sound and transparent risk assessment process.
In response to the consultation and the work we have done, my fellow Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), announced in March the intention of establishing a programme board to oversee the implementation of non-native species policy across Government. The Department has allocated funds for the purpose and I expect the board to meet for the first time in the late summer. I hope that that is a sign to the hon. Gentleman that the Government want to take action.
I will consider the proposed amendments in the following context: I welcome the idea of using a sub-set of species in schedule 14 on which action should be focused, with appropriate powers for the Secretary of State to ensure that action is taken. Not all non-native species are invasive, and action is not always necessary or feasible; it must be appropriately targeted. Sometimes a tight geographical focus is necessary for control purposes. However, I am concerned about the approach proposed in the amendments; a comprehensive package of legislation and policy is the appropriate way forward. As I said, we consulted on
The development of policy on non-native species depends for its effectiveness on securing full stakeholder engagement and support. In other contexts, we have been criticised for rushing to legislate before stakeholders have drawn breath. We heard that criticism articulated in respect of some of things to do with wildlife crime. I do not think that we should take action in this Bill, but we should ensure that we come forward with suggestions on how to act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard that as a commitment to make progress, albeit at a later date, rather than simply an attempt to shelve this important subject.
Mr. Breed: I am glad that we have provoked some additional debate and consideration of this increasingly important subject. As I said, because so many people are able to go to so many different placesin fact, the more exotic, the betterwe are under threat from things that we do not even know about now. Our weak border controls might land us in another Japanese knotweed situation before we know it.
I am pleased that the Government are taking the problem seriously. I take it as a commitment, albeit one to make progress. They need to be committed. It may require separate legislation, and obviously they have considered it by putting it in the Bill. I recognise that each Bill cannot contain everything all the time, although I would have thought that the matter might have commanded a slightly higher priority in this legislation. However, I am content with what the Minister said.
I am sure that we shall return to the problem, although I hope that we do not because species such as Japanese knotweed are dangerously invasive, and potentially economically damaging. If we are still at the progress stage and are bombarded with a serious problem, people are going to ask why. I hope that the progress is speedy and that the commitment is firm. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Enforcement powers in connection with wildlife
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in schedule 5, page 54, line 24, at end insert
Column Number: 215
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 116, in schedule 5, page 54, line 32, at end insert
No. 117, in schedule 5, page 54, line 34, after inspector, insert
No. 118, in schedule 5, page 55, line 41, after inspector, insert
|©Parliamentary copyright 2005||Prepared 30 June 2005|