House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Jul 1991

Hansard

House of Commons

Friday 5 July 1991

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PETITIONS

Cats (Protection)

9.35 am

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown) : I beg leave to present a petition that has been signed by more than 311,000 people, and which is submitted by the Cats Protection League. The petition urges the Government that

The minimum age for the possession and use of air weapons and crossbows be raised to seventeen.

The sale of air weapons, crossbows and ammunition by mail order be prohibited.

The penalty on conviction for misuse of air weapons and crossbows to include confiscation of said weapons and any ammunition. In essence, the petition is about protecting people, especially children, and family pets such as cats and dogs.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Column 546

Horses (Export)

9.36 am

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Vivien Mary Fisher, of Straw House farm, Ripon, North Yorkshire. She represents 250,000 people, whose petition was delivered to No. 10 Downing street by the noble Lord Oaksey, myself and Desert Orchid--a very great horse--last Saturday. The petition concerns the vital need to maintain minimum values for the export of horses, or a suitable equivalent protection, after 1992. People of all sections of our community, of all parties, of all sexes, and of all ages, are anxious and determined about the matter. The petition is vital.

The petition is addressed

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

sheweth that due to European Community law this country may lose existing legislation known as Minimum Values in the Animal Health Act 1981 which gives power to protect equines of low value from live transportation to other countries for ultimate slaughter.

We believe that that travel is likely to be seriously inhumane, and the ultimate slaughter also seriously inhumane and upsetting to the animals and to the people of this land.

Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House will urge the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and food to seek and use every means available to prevent a recurrence in the trafficking of low valued equines to other countries and moreover to continue to make such effort until a satisfactory conclusion has been arrived at in accordance with the opinion of equine welfare organisations. And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Column 547

Townmead School, West Drayton

9.38 am

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the parents, pupils and staff of Townmead school, West Drayton, in the county of Middlesex. The petition states

The Townmead School has decided, following a ballot of the parents and children attending the School, to apply for Grant Maintained Status as Heathrow City Technology College, and that some 98 per cent. of those voting supported this proposition, and that the School has the support for this application from leading industrialists in West Drayton and the area around Heathrow Airport, who recognise the vital importance of the School providing a pool of well educated young people, able to play their part in sustaining the competitive status of industry and commerce locally.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will request the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reach a decision on their application before the School breaks up for the summer holidays on the 23rd July 1991, bearing in mind that the statutory period for consultation for this application expired on the 26th May 1991, and that the statutory period for consultation on a proposal by the Hillingdon Education Committee to close the School expired on the 30th June 1991. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Column 548

Orders of the Day

Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3

Short title, interpretation and extent

Lords amendment : No. 1, in page 2, line 26, at end insert ("( ) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day it is passed.")

9.40 am

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Davies : Both amendments were added by the Government during the Bill's passage through another place. They are technical, inasmuch as they do not interfere with the Bill's main purpose but relate to the date of implementation of the measures that it contains. They neither weaken the Bill nor strengthen it, so it may seem odd that I should propose their adoption.

It was not considered necessary so to amend the Bill when it passed through this House, when Ministers suggested a large number of amendments to make the Bill acceptable to the Government. I accepted them in good faith, and the Bill proceeded without delay with all-party and Government support. In all my discussions with Ministers and officials at the Department of the Environment, there was never any suggestion that the amendments now before the House would be necessary. Neither has the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds--the Bill's principal architect--considered that such amendments are necessary.

It is, however, a fact of political life that no private Member's Bill can reach the statute book without the Government's support or acquiescence-- and as the Government want the amendments, I am willing to accept them. I do so not because I believe that they will improve the Bill, but because that is what I must do if it is to be enacted. The Bill was introduced by my friend, the late Member of Parliament for Neath, Donald Coleman, last autumn. If enacted, it will strengthen the protection afforded to wildlife, especially predatory birds, against destruction by the use of illegal poisons--especially pesticides. Acceptance of the amendments will speed the Bill's progress to the statute book, and I have no doubt that, when it receives Royal Assent, it will provide a small but lasting legislative memorial to a former Member of Parliament who was widely respected in all parts of the House.

Amendment No. 1 concerns the date of implementation, and would effectively provide a two-month delay before the Act's provisions come into force. When it was moved in another place by Baroness Blatch, Minister of State, Department of the Environment, it prompted a debate on the merits of an amnesty--a delay in the

Column 549

implementation of the Act, during which persons in possession of pesticides or poisons used in the past illicitly to poison wildlife could surrender them for safe disposal.

That proposal was firmly rejected by the Minister in another place, who said :

"On Second Reading, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised the question of an amnesty period for those who have stocks of unwanted pesticides so as to allow those pesticides to be withdrawn. We do not think that an amnesty is necessary."

I draw the attention of the House to that last sentence in particular. The Minister continued :

"However, the two-month period following Royal Assent would enable landowners to reassess their position and that of their employees before the owners themselves become liable for their employees' actions."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 1991 ; Vol. 529, c. 188.]

9.45 am

On 21 May, the Minister of State, Department of the Environment said that an amnesty was not necessary, yet on 23 May, the Ministry of Agriculture published the strangely titled document, "Proposals for an approval and consent for the storage and supply of certain pesticides for safe disposal", suggesting precisely that which had been rejected only two days earlier by the Department of the Environment. In that document, MAFF proposed a period for the disposal of

"currently unapproved pesticides from farms to commercial stores prior to safe disposal".

If such a provision was not thought to be necessary on 21 May, according to the Department of the Environment, why was the reverse thought to be true on 23 May, according to the Ministry? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will answer that point when he replies. The Minister of State's statement that

"the two-month period following Royal Assent would enable landowners to reassess their position"

sounds sinister. Does the Department have evidence that landowners have hitherto been guilty of the practices that the Bill will make illegal? If so, those landowners have been causing their employees to commit offences. Can the Department produce evidence that that has occurred? If the Department is aware of such malpractices--which are already offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981--what action has it taken, and what prosecutions have been brought? Is it intended that the amnesty that the Ministry suggests will operate to coincide with the two-month delay in the Act's implementation on which the Department is insisting? Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, will the Ministry and the Department get their act together and ensure that the amnesty is publicised? It will only work if it is properly publicised.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster) : I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by the word "amnesty". My understanding is that--in common with the practice adopted for much other legislation--Royal Assent will be followed by a period of two months before the Act comes into force. That is standard practice in many other instances. The hon. Gentleman's use of the word "amnesty" suggests that he expects that actions that are already offences under legislation will be included in his so-called amnesty. I cannot believe that that is what he requires.

Mr. Davies : Certainly not, and I apologise if I have confused the hon. Gentleman. My intention is to

Column 550

encourage the Minister to clarify what appears to be an area of confusion between the Ministry and the Department.

In another place, Lord Falkland suggested a two-month amnesty during which those in possession of pesticides--the ownership of which is not in itself illegal--would be encouraged to surrender them for proper disposal. There is no suggestion that ownership of such products per se should be made illegal.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) rose --

Mr. Davies : I am quite happy to give way. We have plenty of time this morning. I understand exactly what is happening, and I am prepared to play along for a reasonable length of time. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) acknowledges the point that I am making-- [Interruption.] I am delighted to have that assurance from the Minister--that he is anxious to get the measure on the statute book. Perhaps he will use the good offices of the Government Whip sitting beside him and nodding sagely, to ensure that we make progress.

Sir Charles Morrison (Devizes) : I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at when he talks of an amnesty. As he has just said, it is permitted to keep certain substances for certain legal purposes. I therefore cannot see why it should be necessary to have a two- month amnesty--the law is the law. Why should such an amnesty in itself encourage people who possess these substances to hand them in?

Mr. Davies : I am delighted to explain the point to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters. I must first correct him on a minor point. Many of the pesticides that are most commonly misused are not available for any legal purpose. They are not approved under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for any legal purpose. I have acknowledged that their ownership is not illegal, but their use is. Handing them in was the course of action recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture. The hon. Gentleman's question should more properly be addressed to the Ministry, therefore. Meanwhile, I draw his attention to the circular issued on 23 May 1991 by the Ministry of Agriculture, in which he will note the suggestion that a period be allowed for handing in pesticides for safe storage and destruction.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : Is it not at least a possibility that a local police officer may suspect a gamekeeper of indulging in the use of these poisons? By being given this period, the gamekeeper will have the opportunity to show the local constabulary that he is disposing of the pesticides so that he will not be committing an ofence after the two months have elapsed ; otherwise, the local police might suspect the gamekeeper of committing an offence--if the Act came into force earlier. A breathing space rather than an amnesty might serve a useful purpose in the rural community.

Mr. Davies : I am glad that my hon. Friend made that telling point. He also alluded to the publicity attendant on the passage of the Bill and to the action that I hope the Ministry will take. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture cannot get their act together. The Department has said that it supports the measure but that there is no need for an amnesty ; at the same time, the

Column 551

Ministry, which is responsible for the control and storage of these pesticides, claims that an amnesty is needed. So I suggest that the Minister gets his act together.

If there is to be a two month delay, let us use it for the amnesty suggested by the Ministry of Agriculture. Then, with the publiclity that I hope the Ministry will generate, we can at least start to reduce stocks of substances that are being illegally used if not illegally held.

Mr. Harry Greenway : The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on something important by talking about the publicity. The Bill will need publicity to work properly. The people who use these materials are not illiterate but they often do not watch television, listen to the radio or read newspapers, so it is difficult to get across to them the information that they need to avoid getting into trouble. Naturally, I do not wish to be insulting to anyone.

Mr. Davies : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to be insulting, but I disagree with him, because using these pesticides requires some knowledge of their effect and of how to use them to ensure the maximum impact. I am also confident that those who use them for illegal purposes are fully aware that they are doing it against the law. The purpose of the Bill is to extend responsibility. If a gamekeeper is under illegal instructions to use pesticides, once this measure is enacted, not only that gamekeeper but his employer will be responsible in law if it can be shown that the latter knowingly caused or permitted the gamekeeper, on his behalf, to use these poisons. No element of confusion or ignorance can creep in here.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made a valid point about the publicity surrounding the amnesty. It would allow a gamekeeper who feels threatened or pressurised by his employer to keep down the number of predators or of what are regarded as unwelcome visitors to the moor or the pheasant hatchery to tell his employer that there is an amnesty and to suggest that they take the opportunity it provides to get rid of the pesticides. However much legislation we pass, as long as there are stocks of these highly toxic pesticides the potential for their illegal use remains. I hope that there is general agreement among hon. Members who have spoken thus far this morning--I also hope that the hon. Member for Upminster, who raised a point of definition, is satisfied with my explanation--that an amnesty will work only if it is properly publicised. Getting the message through to the sort of people likely to have quantities of old pesticides in store is bound to be difficult. Will the Government plan a campaign of publicity and advertising to alert hill farmers and gamekeepers to the amnesty ? In his discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture--presumably the two Departments hold discussions--has the Minister decided which chemicals and pesticides will be the subject of such a campaign ?

Once the amnesty is over, assuming that there is one, will the Government make it an offence to be in possession of chemicals whose use is no longer legal and which were the subject of the amnesty ? I am sure that Conservative Members fully understand that some pesticides cannot be

Column 552

legally used. To own them is not illegal, but if there is evidence that they are being misused, there is surely every good reason to make their ownership illegal.

Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford) : By making that request, the hon. Gentleman has cleared up a confusion in my mind concerning what he says about an amnesty. As I understand it, an amnesty is relevant simply to the possession of something that is illegal--for example, the possession of cannabis or firearms. One cannot have an amnesty for things that it is perfectly legal to possess. An amnesty would be relevant only if the point that he made--the possession of substances, the use of which would be illegal--were itself brought into effect.

10 am

Mr. Davies : I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I do not claim credit for the amnesty. That point was made in the other place by Lord Falkland. That was the precise form of words used by the Minister in the other place--he referred to it as an amnesty. The Ministry of Agriculture, has proposed taking that idea forward. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to call it something else, I shall not take issue with him.

As for the illegal holding of poisons and pesticides, will the Minister have a word with his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Office with a view to bringing the law on the use of strychnine, which currently is legal in Northern Ireland, into line with the law in Great Britain, and ensure that the use of strychnine for the above-ground poisoning of wildlife is made illegal in Northern Ireland ?

Amendment No. 2 makes it explicit that the legislation shall not be retrospective. Why are the Government suggesting that the amendment is necessary ? The Bill already makes it implicit that the proposed measures shall not be retrospective. It is common to all legislation that it shall not be retrospective. How many other private Member's Bills have been amended in this way ? Will a similar provision be included in all future Government legislation, making it clear that the proposed provisions are not retrospective ? I hope that the Minister will clarify that point when he replies.

I have been privileged to take this measure through the House of Commons. I am grateful for the support that I have received from my hon. Friends and for the somewhat less than wholehearted support of certain Conservative Members. However, their support has been forthcoming. Moreover, I have received every courtesy and assistance from Government Ministers and their staff hitherto. I hope that what has been established thus far will be continued this morning. I look forward to the rapid progress of this measure.

Sir Charles Morrison : As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) knows, despite his final two sentences' I support the Bill. It is a helpful step forward. I join him in what he said about the late Donald Coleman, but the hon. Gentleman has been a little modest in relation to the part that he has played in helping the Bill through the House, on which he is to be congratulated.

Before the hon. Gentleman began his speech I had questioned why the amendments were necessary. By about halfway through his speech I thought that I understood why amendment No. 1 was necessary, but by the time he ended his speech I was in a greater muddle than I was at the beginning. I think that I understand all that he says

Column 553

about the ownership of illegal substances and their use and his attempt to draw a distinction between them, but I am still in a bit of a muddle about them.

As for amendment No. 2, it is very important that there should be no possibility of retrospection in the application of the Bill when it becomes an Act, but that must be true--the Minister will correct me in due course if I am wrong--of any legislation that passes through the House. While I have been a Member of Parliament we have occasionally been presented with Bills that imply a degree of retrospection. On such occasions a high proportion of hon. Members have expressed either regret or fury or total opposition to such a prospect. I do not, therefore, understand why amendment No. 2 is necessary.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair to gamekeepers. The unfortunate reality is that from time to time over the years illegal substances have been used not only by misguided or unwise gamekeepers--who, I am sure, have been told in the vast majority of cases what the law is and who perfectly well understand what the law is--but by other people in certain parts of the country in an attempt to control pests of one sort or another, including perhaps foxes, and to protect lambs and other animals. There is no excuse for anyone to act in breach of the law. The Bill will ensure that there are many fewer breaches of the law. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman should implicitly have picked on one particular group who are responsible--as is recognised by an increasing number of people--for more effective conservation than any other group of people in the land, although I have respect for many other groups.

Mr. Arbuthnot : I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for being pedantic over one point. He referred to illegal substances being used. It is essential to draw a distinction between legal substances--it is the use of those substances that is illegal--and illegal substances themselves, a distinction which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) recognised and drew, because he suggested that the possession of some substances should be illegal rather than merely the use of them. That would be to extend the law seriously. Therefore I ask my hon. Friend to say that it is the use of some substances that is illegal rather than the possession of them.

Sir Charles Morrison : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I concur with what he says. He has clarified in precise terms exactly what the position is.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that--

Mr. Ron Davies : I think that Hansard will record that I referred to gamekeepers in response to an intervention. I recognise that there are a number of groups of people who misuse products in the way that has been discussed this morning. I was not in any sense singling out gamekeepers for special attention. I was merely using them as one example.

Sir Charles Morrison : I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification of that point, which I am sure is helpful and will come as a relief to gamekeepers.

I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman about the need for co-ordination between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Until the hon. Gentleman drew attention to it, I was not aware that apparently the two Departments do not act as one. Over matters as important as this, it is

Column 554

paramount that they should co-ordinate their activities--and, for that matter, as the hon. Gentleman said, so should the Northern Ireland Office. It is a pity that we do not have a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister here today. If we did, the activities of the two Departments could be co-ordinated at this moment on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps, however, I do the two Departments an injustice. In reality they may be co-ordinated, but it seems that until now the two Departments have not acted as one. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to put my worries to rest.

Nevertheless, with or without the amendments, I hope that the Bill quickly becomes an Act.

Mr. Hardy : I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). Not for the first time, I join him in supporting conservation measures. I accept that the desirable end of conservation to my mind may not always be the same as his, but I recognise his long commitment. Like him, I do not wish to make a long speech because I support the attitude that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) took to the amendments.

It is appropriate to refer to Donald Coleman. It seems a long time since Donald and I left the Tea Room to watch last year's draw for private Member's Bills. It seems as long since we discussed what Bill he would choose to introduce. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly for taking over the Bill on behalf of our late and highly esteemed friend.

The Bill attracted Donald not merely because of the wide contribution that it would make, but because one species that needs the additional protection that the Bill confers is the red kite of Wales. There could be no more fitting memorial to Donald, who gave long service to the Principality, than that the red kite should survive in Wales. I hope that when people see the red kite flying in the central mountainous region they will recall that Donald Coleman may have made a significant contribution to its survival. The Bill goes rather wider than that and it is probably appropriate for reference to be made to an amnesty. I hope that the House will not dwell at length on that. It might have been better to refer to breathing space rather than to an amnesty, with all the overtones that that has.

I echo the point that the hon. Member for Devizes made about the gamekeeper being an important instrument in the cause of conservation. For proof of that, we do not need to go back to the days of Richard Jefferies, who wrote about the gamekeeper in the late Victorian period, because in the 1970s and 1980s Barry Hines wrote about a gamekeeper whose life was set in or close to my constituency.

I recognise that the gamekeeper can play a significant part. I sometimes wonder and worry a little about the new breed of gamekeeper who may not live and work full time in the countryside and who sees his job as taking quick forays into the countryside to kill off vermin or creatures that may threaten the modern syndicate of shooters. I prefer the traditional gamekeeper, who lived in the area that he served, who knew virtually every square inch of the ground and who could certainly make a significant contribution. The Bill will at least allow the responsible gamekeeper the opportunity to say to the irresponsible employer who may want bigger and bigger bags that he cannot act as ruthlessly as perhaps a small minority of shooting people may require.

Column 555

I hope that the Bill will mean not only the cessation of the use of poisons--far too much poison is used in rural England--but will consign the pole trap to the museum. It may take longer than two months, as the Bill propses--I recall that the gin trap was used to catch badgers in South Yorkshire more than 10 years after it was made unlawful by the House. One hopes that such a long period will not elapse with the pole trap and that those that are not destroyed will be presented to countryside museums.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the gin trap. We all agree that it was a particularly unpleasant trap. Will he comment on the fen trap, which is used by warreners and people who want to control vermin? I assume that he would not want to ban that trap because if it is used properly, it is a humane trap.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. We seem to be wandering wide of the Lords amendments.

Mr. Hardy : It may be the only time that I shall get this opportunity, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

10.15 am

It was a coincidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), another south Wales colleague and friend, was drawn in the same ballot as Donald Coleman. I am glad that he is here because he was another friend of Donald. My hon. Friend took Donald's place on the Council of Europe, where Donald made such a considerable contribution.

I trust that the House will accept the Lords amendments, not because we enthuse about them, but because if we do not do so, the Bill will not reach the statute book. It is important that the measure should succeed.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare) : Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome any Bill that protects wildlife and the countryside. It has the support of the House ; it would not have got this far without it.

The gamekeeper who is interested in and understands his job will be the best possible agent for conservation. He will certainly never misuse the powerful weapons that are now available in the form of toxic chemicals and would use them only responsibly and legally. The Bill is a pretty modest measure. Its effect is to bring a wider section of the community into the net. In other words, employers, landowners or farmers will be prosecuted if one of their employees carries out an illegal act. However, that illegal act is already enshrined in the original legislation.

I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will sharpen employment procedures where they might be lax and that employers will double-check with their staff. However, I suggest that those who are hell-bent on breaking the law are likely, in the secrecy and privacy of the coutryside, to continue to do so. I therefore cannot forecast a substantial change in the protection of certain species.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I share the sentiments that my hon. Friend expressed in his last statement. Those who break the law are a small minority of landowners and those who own sporting rights. The Bill, although it has a limited use, is likely to affect those who are determined to

Next Section

Home Page