|
Column Number: 3
Standing Committee F
Thursday 15 May 2003
[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]
Clause 1
Amendment of Weeds Act 1959
to provide for the control of ragwort
9.25 am
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 2.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 2, in
clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 8 to 18 and insert—
' ''1A Code of practice: ragwort
(1) The Minister may make a code of practice for the purpose of providing guidance on how to prevent the spread of ragwort (senecio jacobaea L.).
(2) Before making the code the Minister must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
(3) The Minister must lay a copy of the code before Parliament.
(4) The Minister may revise the code; and subsections (2) and (3) apply to the revised code.
(5) The code is to be admissible in evidence.
(6) If the code appears to a court to be relevant to any question arising in proceedings it is to be taken into account in determining that question.''.'.
No. 5, in
clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out 'Equine Welfare'.
No. 7, in
the title, line 1, leave out from the beginning to 'amend'.
No. 8, in
the title, line 2, after '1959' insert 'in relation to ragwort'.
Mr. Greenway: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I thank colleagues who are present and those who have given their apologies for being unable to attend because of Standing Committee and other duties in other parts of the House, and the Minister, for their support, help and co-operation in progressing the Bill. I always think that, when colleagues introduce private Members' Bills and get to Committee, they can sniff the finishing line in the distance. I believe that we have every prospect of getting the Bill on the statute book, subject to the smooth passage of today's proceedings.
I wish to explain the amendments to clause 1. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill offered three different alternatives, options or approaches to strengthening the law on the control of ragwort, and it is right that we remind ourselves that the need is urgent. This year, 1,000 or more horses or ponies will die from ingesting ragwort, which is a poison that, over time, destroys the horse's vital organs, resulting in certain death. I have received overwhelming support for action to tackle the problem, even since the debate on Second Reading.
Column Number: 4
I place on record my thanks to the British Horse Society for its support. I also thank the specialist press. I shall not name all the publications, but there are several that are attractive to horse owners, and they have shown great interest in the Bill. That has prompted many people the length and breadth of Britain to write to me with their stories about what ragwort has done to their horse or pony.
On Second Reading, I promised the Minister that I would work with him to settle on just one of the alternatives, and that I would seek to amend the Bill accordingly in Committee. The various amendments reflect what we agreed, as well as my objectives and the concerns of horse owners.
At the same time, the amendments reflect the reality—I stress that word—of what we can practically hope to achieve in the current climate of concern among all parties in the House not to impose additional or unreasonable burdens on local authorities, which are not funded or resourced to deal with the problem. I know that that is a concern for the Minister and his ministerial colleagues in other Departments, and it is equally clear that the overwhelming view of the Conservative party as the official Opposition is not to impose unreasonable and unnecessary burdens. Therefore, I want not to make a partisan point, but to recognise the practical realities that we face in trying, particularly through the private Member's Bill route, to introduce such a measure.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I do not wish to introduce a party political note to this morning's debate. Nevertheless, is it not disappointing that no one from the other opposition party, the Liberal Democrats, has found time to turn up today?
Mr. Greenway: I am a little disappointed and surprised, because the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) has shown a great interest in the issue and willingly agreed to serve on the Committee, but I would say in his favour that he strongly supports the Bill. I am sure that no disrespect is intended by his not being here.
The decision to proceed on the basis of introducing a statutory code of practice, which is made clear in the amendments, reflects my concern and that of the Minister to ensure that what we agree will help, not hinder, the efforts of local authorities and other public landowners to control ragwort more effectively.
9.30 am
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone): The hon. Gentleman made the point about avoiding putting the burden on local authorities and he has now moved on to talk about the code of practice, which is a sensible approach. Is he thinking that that code will be issued down the line via such agencies as the National Farmers Union and others?
Mr. Greenway: I see no reason why not, although the code of practice is initially intended to be targeted, essentially, on highway authorities, local authorities and other public landowners such as Railtrack, which is co-operating extensively in the consultation on the code. I shall come to the code's effect and the teeth of
Column Number: 5
the Bill in a moment. There is, however, no reason why the code of practice should not be seen as the basic blueprint for what all extensive landowners should do to control ragwort.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has intervened at a good point. The Weeds Act 1959 already gives the Secretary of State the power to require public authorities and landowners to take appropriate action to stop the spread of ragwort to neighbouring land. However, I think I am right in saying that no one has ever tried until now to give those authorities and landowners advice or guidance on what they should do to avoid or pre-empt the prospect of action under the Weeds Act or, to be less dramatic about it, on what sensible and practical measures they can take to stop the spread of ragwort and protect our precious and much-valued horse population. That advice applies to all landowners, although it is fair to say that we are here trying to help the bigger public authorities and highway authorities to deal with the problem.
The code of practice will do that, in one important respect. Amendment No. 2, which would replace my original wording for the code of practice option, is stronger than what I originally proposed. It makes it clear that the code would be admissible in evidence in any proceedings under the Weeds Act for failure to respond properly to any direction made under that Act, thereby underlining the real point of the code. It also maps out the action that landowners should routinely take to control ragwort.
A Weeds Act prosecution would be more easily justified and more likely to succeed if it were clear, and could be shown, that landowners had ignored or breached the code. To make it abundantly clear to any court that the code has real teeth, new section 1A(6), which would be introduced by amendment No. 2, emphasises the fact that if the code's guidance is relevant to any Weeds Act enforcement proceedings, that guidance shall be taken into account in determining liability. In all fairness, I do not think that we could have given the code stronger teeth than that.
I know that some would have liked the Bill to do more, and I understand their concern that the proposals should make a difference, but, given the delicate balance that must be struck to secure the passage of any private Member's Bill, I believe that the legislation, which I hope the Committee will accept, represents significant progress in the fight against this pernicious weed. At the other extreme, it contains safeguards, especially the requirement to consult and the opportunity for Parliament to express a view on the proposed code. That is clear from amendment No. 2.
As a veteran of Standing Committee word games, I have crossed swords with the Minister on other occasions, particularly in Committees considering home affairs Bills, over many years' service in the House. He knows what I mean. I am as conscious as anyone that the Bill is permissive. It would give him an opportunity, as he ''may'' rather than ''shall'' introduce a code of practice. However, I believe that
Column Number: 6
it must be permissive, because we cannot pre-empt the outcome of genuine consultation.
I am sure that the Minister will say that he intends to introduce the code, but what he does must depend on the outcome of the consultation. I would be the first to accept that. I pay tribute to him and his officials for the work that is already being done, with the support of the British Horse Society, to reach agreement on a suitable code. Those consultations are already well advanced. Therefore, the Bill is not a wish; it would simply provide the mechanism to bring to fruition work that has already begun. More importantly, I trust the Minister's desire to do something positive that will make a difference and help to improve a worsening situation, as I know he recognises. The Bill also makes it clear that the code of practice option has the flexibility of amendment in the light of experience.
If I have one small regret in moving the amendment, it is the necessity to leave out the reference to ''equine welfare''. It is legally unnecessary to include the phrase in the Bill's title, and therefore in the title of the Act when, as I hope, it is enacted, but I included the phrase in the original Bill to show what it was about. The dry-as-dust title Ragwort Control Bill would give no one the slightest idea, but if it was called the Equine Welfare Bill, people would immediately have recognised its positive benefit.
Equally, we wanted to show the thousands of horse owners in Britain that their anxieties about this problem were being taken seriously. When they reflect on it, they might give me some credit and at least recognise that the hon. Member for Ryedale was trying to do something about equine welfare. I admit that in all frankness. I represent a constituency with a lot of horses, many of which the hon. Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) like to see running on the race tracks of Britain, such as the Knavesmire at York, as we happily did on Tuesday.
I hope that I have explained the purpose of the amendments. It will be clear to all members of the Committee that we have reached a sensible compromise, so I look forward to receiving their support for passing the amendments and considering the Bill on Report.
|
