| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we find the matter that my noble friend Lord Peel has brought up interesting. It certainly appears that all public bodies will have the duty to have regard to the United Nations environmental programme, but it would be extremely useful to have that clarified either by the Minister or, if necessary, in the Bill if it requires further emphasis.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Clause 40 places a duty on Ministers of the Crown, government departments and the National Assembly for Wales to have regard to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This replaces and reflects the provision on Ministers, government departments and the National Assembly under Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
This subsection of Clause 40 has been mentioned in earlier Committee discussions on whether Natural England's general purpose should make reference to the convention, as the noble Earl said. As previously stated, it is not appropriate to extend this duty beyond government, as the convention is an international treaty which relates to the actions of governments on biodiversity. As part of our commitment to the convention, the Government will invariably look to Natural England to deliver many of the convention's
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1330
obligations in England, as it will have the expertise and relevant statutory functions to do so. Indeed, as I have outlined before, Clause 41(2) makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consult Natural England before publishing any list of species of principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity.
I am unable to comment on the point with regard to the CCW and Wales, and know the importance of not going on the hoof about the relationship between the National Assembly and Welsh bodies. I will seek to get the appropriate answer for that. However, we as the Government are signatories to the convention, and it is most appropriate that the responsibility to have regard to the convention rests with government and Ministers. I hope that the noble Earl is satisfied and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, but I am far from satisfied. It seems totally illogical that the treaty should rest with the Government and not percolate down to the main agency that advises them on nature conservation issues.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear that the Government would seek to use all those bodies that have responsibility in this field—those that the policy and commitment would be through. The question is whether or not, in the Bill, those bodies as opposed to the Government should be the signatory to the convention.
Earl Peel: My Lords, we are slightly dealing in semantics here. If the Government wanted Natural England, and the Assembly for Wales wanted CCW, to play their part in this, there should be an obligation on them in the Bill to carry out a duty under the convention. I do not agree with the argument that the noble Baroness has put forward. I am certainly not going to divide the House at this late hour, but I have every intention of coming back to the matter at the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Biodiversity lists and action (England)]:
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 120:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Biodiversity lists and action (Wales)]:
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 121:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 122:
"CODES OF PRACTICE
(1) The Secretary of State may—
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1331
(a) issue a code of practice in connection with any of the provisions of section 44 or Schedule 2 to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c. 48) as applied by section 44(4), and
(b) revise or replace such a code.
(2) An inspector must have regard to any relevant provision of a code when discharging any function under any provision mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
(3) But an inspector's failure to have regard to any provision of a code does not make him liable to criminal or civil proceedings.
(4) A code—
(a) is admissible in evidence in any proceedings, and
(b) must be taken into account by a court in any case in which it appears to the court to be relevant."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as Amendment No. 122 and Amendment No. 130 are similar, I will speak to them together.
During the recent debate in Committee I promised the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that I would consider suitable wording in relation to authorising inspectors having regard to relevant codes of practice when carrying out their duties. I am therefore pleased that Amendments Nos. 122 and 130 not only provide the mechanism by which the Secretary of State can issue codes of practice relevant to the duties of inspectors, but also place an obligation on inspectors to have regard to any provision of such codes when discharging their functions. My department intends to issue codes of practice to inspectors exercising their powers in relation to the possession of proscribed pesticides and to wildlife inspectors exercising their powers as set out in Schedule 5. The pesticides code will be extended to encompass inspections carried out under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 by wildlife inspectors. At present such inspections are not subject to a code of practice. It is appropriate that inspectors must have regard to such codes.
I believe that these amendments adopt a common-sense approach. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for having raised the issues in Committee. I hope that the amendments find the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 122, Amendment No. 123:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government's Amendment No. 122 allows for the issue of codes of practice covering enforcement powers. We are grateful. Our amendment would simply extend the remit of those codes to the investigative powers to be given to the authorised persons working for the levy boards.
Over the years we have had considerable opportunity to criticise the way in which the Government have created offences and provided for swingeing penalties—something the noble Lord and I discuss on a regular basis. I acknowledge with gratitude the Minister's amendment to Schedule 10, which restricts the way in which a Clause 85 order may penalise a defaulter. None the less, we feel that any power of entry into someone else's domain should be
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1332
subject to a recognisable and enforceable code of practice. Such a code has the benefit of conformity to a standard in the way in which things are done. It has the added advantage that the punishments awarded by the courts may be more equable, although we still have a difficulty with the tariffs as laid down in the Bill.
Damaging an SSSI may lead to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, but failing to comply with a levy board's registration requirement could lead to a fine equalling the statutory maximum. The House may be interested to know that this compares with the promise made a couple of weekends ago by the Prime Minister to institute a system of £1,000 fines for those guilty of assaulting NHS staff. I thank the Minister for his amendment and beg to move mine.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I rise to talk briefly to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 123. My understanding is that the intention is that a similar code of practice should apply in relation to the power of entry available to levy boards under Schedule 10, which will now be restricted to business premises only. Indeed, I think she has discussed her amendment with my honourable friend. If such a code is felt to be desirable, then our feeling is that it would be more appropriate to deal with it in Schedule 10, headed "Ancillary provisions relating to boards", rather than raising it within the scope of the government new clause that fits with Part 3, "Wildlife etc", and the subheading, "Pesticides harmful to wildlife".
Our view is that there are rather different relationships between levy board staff and their levy payers. The board has wide incidental powers which should be sufficient in dealing with such investigative matters. We are now restricting entry so that authorised levy board officers cannot enter dwellings. In my view, such a specific mention of a code within Schedule 10 is not required. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness either to withdraw her amendment tonight or to raise it again when we come to debate levy boards in Part 8—on Monday, I hope—in the context of my proposed changes to Schedule 10.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |