HC Deb 09 December 1976 vol 922 cc809-16

12.38 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn)

I beg to move, That the Noxious Weeds (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November 1976 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. This order updates the various enactments relating to the control of noxious weeds in Northern Ireland, to take account of changes which have occurred since the original enactment of 1909. It also updates the penalties.

Thistle, dock and ragwort have been listed as noxious weeds since 1909, and heavy infestations cause considerable financial loss. The use of modern herbicides and good grazing management provide effective control, but the seeds of these weeds can be windborne. Such weeds on the lands of one neglectful occupier can result in the spread of the infestation over a wide area of adjoining land.

However, a matter which is causing even greater concern in Northern Ireland is the spread of wild oats. It was first detected in Northern Ireland in 1966, when a number of light infestations were observed in barley crops in four of the six counties. Subsequent small-scale surveys and reports by field staff indicated that the number of infestations and their intensity was increasing rapidly, and in 1971 wild oat was scheduled as a noxious weed.

By 1975, a detailed survey showed that 25 per cent. of the barley crops throughout the Province were infested, although most of the infestations were classified as "light"—or, in other words there were fewer than 500 wild oat plants per acre. Individual plants are capable of producing about 50 viable seeds per year, so that a light infestation can rapidly become a heavy infestation if immediate steps are not taken to destroy the weed when it is observed. Where there is a serious infestation it may become necessary to prohibit the growing of cereals on the land for a number of years. The order provides the power to do so.

Right hon. and hon. Members will realise the scale of the problem when I tell them that 80 per cent. of the total cereals used in animal feed in Northern Ireland have to be imported. Any increase in domestic production is therefore in the national interest, but the wild oat, left unchecked, could become a limiting factor in the economic expansion of the domestic cereal area. An intensive publicity and advisory campaign has been under way in Northern Ireland since the wild oat problem first came to notice.

At the moment infestations are, in the main, being contained, but this is not enough; they need to be drastically reduced. Therefore, the order provides authorised officers—by which I mean officers of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland who have been specifically authorised in writing—with the means and the powers to detect outbreaks and to order or carry out the destruction of noxious weeds. The order also provides powers to prevent the importation of noxious weeds and substantially increases the penalties for offences under the order by raising the maximum penalty for a first offence from £20 to £100 and for subsequent offences from £50 to £200.

I should mention that Section 2(2) of the Noxious Weeds Act (Northern Ireland) 1929 conferred power on members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to enforce the legislation. This power has not been exercised since the mid-1960s, nor is it likely to be exercised in view of the pressures on the police in Northern Ireland, and it has accordingly been omitted.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

Northern Ireland has an excellent record for animal and plant health, and this order should help to maintain that record.

I would like to clear up one point. I understand that the order will not involve any increase in staff or expenditure in the public sector. On the other hand, the Minister spoke of officers and a publicity campaign. Do I understand that these will not involve any additional expenditure in the public sector?

As for the point about the release of the Royal Ulster Constabulary from duties in connection with this legislation, we welcome it because the police have far more noxious weeds to contend with at this time.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

I welcome this consolidation measure, and I think that most farmers in Northern Ireland will also do so. The need to suppress weeds, both human and vegetable, in Northern Ireland has long been recognised and is widely supported by the farming community. In fact, I think that the farming community of Northern Ireland, like farmers everywhere else, recognise that one year's seeding means seven years' weeding. Even with the new herbicides that we have the weeds are still a problem, and prevention is always better than cure.

There is one small matter about which I should like to ask, if the Minister can answer me at short notice. In the original Act reference was made to a weed caled the oxeye daisy, which seems no longer to exist. When I was a small boy there seemed to be many of these daisies growing in the fields, but I have not seen any growing for years. They seem to have disappeared from the scene. Although they were rather large, they made excellent daisy chains for children.

On a more serious note, does the prohibition of the import of weeds mentioned in Article 4 include weed seeds? The horrifying figures given by the Minister of the prevalence of wild oats must arise from that source and no other. Not many years ago the wild oat was practically unknown in Northern Ireland. Now it is rapidly becoming a major cause for concern throughout the grain-growing areas.

There is no mention of police officers in the explanatory document, although they are mentioned in the explanatory note at the end of the order. Why is there no mention of police officers in the explanatory document? I regret that members of the RUC are no longer travelling around the countryside, talking to people, visiting their homes and finding out who lives where and who is doing what. In that way the relationship between the police and the community at large was improved.

One of the greatest problems in Northern Ireland—and in most civilised countries in the Western world—is that the police are no longer moving about among the general population as much as they once did. Policemen have virtually disappeared from the country roads. Had the police still been around in the country areas they would have had more contact and been building up a much better relationship with the people, and some of the problems from which we suffer might have been alleviated or avoided altogether.

Officials of the Department of Agriculture over the years have built up an excellent relationship with the farming community. They are almost universally welcomed in the countryside. If we make law enforcement officers out of officers of an advisory service which has always been accepted as such, we shall impair the excellent relationship which has been of such greatet benefit to the agricultural community. The police should enforce the law in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, and so help maintain the good relations, which were practically family-like, between Department of Agriculture officials and the policemen concerned.

12.47 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I am suspicious about the police no longer being the authority in this matter. Is it because the police cannot go into certain areas of Northern Ireland that the Department is taking the easy way out and changing the law so that the person responsible shall be an authorised officer of the Department of Agriculture?

Too often have people been told of changes only to find when they scraped beneath the surface that the changes were caused by the law and order situation. If the police are unable to go into all areas—as we know they are—it would be far better to let the people know that. If the police are unable to go into all areas, will an authorised officer of the Department of Agriculture be able to do so? Who will be the enforcement officers? Will they be authorised servants of a Government Department, or will the police have their proper rôle?

The order makes a substantial change of which we are not in favour. We do not echo the words of the official Opposition spokesman who welcomed the order. We do not welcome it. An important principle is involved. This is an easy way of covering over something that is of great importance.

We do not minimise the importance of the order. The facts given by the hon. Gentleman are staggering. I do not think that we realise how serious the problem is. We believe that steps must be taken to deal with it. We believe in the principle of the order, but we do not like that part of it which changes the law in the Acts now to be repealed. We would like an explanation of the matter and of why the change should take place.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry said about the relationship between officials of the Department of Agriculture and the farming community. Anything that would bring about an erosion of that relationship, that would set the agricultural officers at variance with the farmers, would not be helpful to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a very good agricultural record. Agriculture is our main industry. Its farmers need all the support and praise that they can get, whether it comes through Common Market subsidy or not. But we take the view that a dangerous precedent is set by the order. This is an important and substantial change that the Government are proposing.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. Dunn

I assure the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that what he has suggested might be the case is not the intention of the order. Taking into account all the technical factors involved and the experience required to be able to recognise and advise on these noxious weeds, together with the necessary specialised knowledge of herbicides, it would be an unfair burden to put on the police. But there is nothing to stop the police from continuing to make their contacts in the areas they have regularly visited. Indeed, it might relieve them of the burdensome task of trying to identify noxious weeds. No doubt that has caused them problems from time to time.

In the sense used by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North, the relationship between the advisory service and the farmers can continue. The attack upon the noxious weed will be on the basis of advice in the first instance. It is only when someone refuses to take action to remove the noxious weed and thereby causes the hazard to which I alluded in opening the debate that further action will be taken, and it will be within the control of the Department of Agriculture. There will be no precipitate action against anyone who would be involved through ignorance or who perhaps had some difficulty. The Department will show understanding.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the question of whether other, parallel matters involved in agriculture—other pest regulations—are still subject to be dealt with by the police or whether the order is part of a general policy which is part way through the whole field? The control of weeds is not the only case of its kind where, in default of the following of advice, proceedings have to be taken and summonses have to be issued.

Summonses have to be issued. It is certainly my impression and, as far as I am able to judge, that of my hon. Friends that in areas cognate to this the police are still responsible for enforcement. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman should deal with the matter tonight, but our minds would be relieved if he would indicate that he and his Department are willing to take a broader look at the rôle of the police both in this matter and in agriculture generally. If the Minister would say that tonight, we could follow up this matter on a broader basis subsequently.

Mr. Dunn

I can give the right hon. Member the assurance he seeks, and I shall write to him about the complex question he has raised. I assure him that this is not an attempt by the Department to thwart the useful work carried out in support of the Department of Agriculture by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

The House will recall that in many instances animal health regulations are enforced by authorised officers of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. Enforcement powers have for a long time been vested in departmental officers. It is not a new departure. The only departure in this case is that, for the first time, the powers of the police have changed. I thought I gave an explanation when I indicated that the time of the constabulary ought not to be spent in an area which would cause it grave difficulty because of the specialised knowledge that its members would have to master in relation to the control and use of herbicides.

Mr. Wm. Ross

The Minister has cleared up a point which has been troubling many people in Northern Ireland. When next summer rolls round, will he send an official down the corridor to the Minister responsible for roads to see about the cutting of weeds alongside the roads in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Dunn

Wherever a noxious weed may grow, if it is brought to the notice of the Department we will take action. I shall go no further on that point—or on the long walk that it has been suggested I should take.

The hon. Member for Londonderry asked whether Article 4 of the order would prohibit the importation of seeds. It will restrict the importation or removal into Northern Ireland, or the selling or the offering or exposing for sale or the purchasing, of plants or parts of plants which are noxious weeds. The answer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is that the publicity campaign is already undertaken by the advisory service and will be contained within the normal cost of that service.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Why is it not possible for the expert to identify the weed and for the police to retain their rôle as enforcement officers?

Mr. Dunn

That would impose an unfair burden on the police. I also have responsibility for the administration of the police, and from time to time the calls upon this service are more than it can undertake. There are more serious sectors for them to deal with than prosecutions in relation to noxious weeds. I do not wish to be discourteous to anyone, but if I had to choose priorities for the police I would not put first their responsibility for prosecutions over noxious weeds.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Noxious Weeds (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November 1976 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.