§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI beg to move amendment No. 231, in page 23, line 2, at end insert
'(5) The Council shall produce an annual report, to be presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State, detailing loss and damage to Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves, major habitat changes, the losses of recognised type of habitat and the causes for these changes and losses.'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may take Government amendment No. 71.
§ Mr. BennettThis important amendment returns to the subject of sites of special scientific interest. It is important to have a monitoring process, so that we have clear information. I notice that the Government have tabled a later amendment, but it does not go anything like as far as our amendment. I therefore hope that at this stage of the night the Government will accept this small amendment.
§ Mr. MonroLaw enforcement is a matter for the police, and there is no reason to depart from that principle in this instance. The NCC is willing to co-operate with the law enforcement agencies, and the Bill provides that the council may advise and assist such agencies under clauses 15 and 24.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettThe Minister is answering the wrong amendment.
§ Mr. MonroWell, it is good stuff that I am giving the hon. Gentleman, anyhow.
948 In response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), my right hon. Friend promised an amendment to place a duty on the NCC to include in its annual report details of sites to which orders under section 29 had been applied. Government amendment No. 71 fulfils that undertaking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is grateful.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI must support my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in his contention about the amendment. Indeed, it is one that I had noted to vote upon had we reached it at a reasonable hour, although clearly that is not now possible. Nevertheless, it goes to the heart of our approach, which is now the agreed approach on both sides, namely, that everything that is done in connection with the Bill must be based upon publication of all the information and knowledge, so that discussions may take place and public opinion can make itself felt.
For that process to work, in our view the least that should happen is that the council should produce an annual report to Parliament detailing loss and damage to sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves.
Having regard to the startling evidence presented to us in Committee by Birmingham university, with which we shall be dealing on the next sitting day when we deal with the adequacy or otherwise of our proposals for moorlands and moorland protection, one would have felt that this continuous monitoring process was essential. I cannot for the life of me see why any Minister should resist the proposal that an annual report should be presented to Parliament.
I hope that the Minister will think again about this and perhaps move to meet us on it elsewhere.
§ Mr. MonroI should say first to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that I had indeed picked up the wrong piece of paper. That will save reading it on the next amendment. I apologise for that. My remarks about Government amendment No. 71 stand, and I shall move that amendment at the appropriate time.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment, which would impose a duty on the council to inform the Secretary of State of loss and damage to SSSIs and national nature reserves, would be costly and difficult to fulfil. Frequent inspections of all areas would be required and would be exceptionally labour-intensive, at a time when manpower is at a premium.
The NCC publishes an annual report giving all the relevant information that it has, but I am reluctant to impose an onerous new duty. However, I shall discuss the matter with the NCC to see what it could manange to publish which would be helpful to hon. Members and to all those interested in the impact on SSSIs, and to see how best we may give to the public the information that the hon. Gentleman wishes.
§ Mr. DalyellWith that undertaking, I hope that something will be forthcoming, because it is a matter of some significance. It raises the whole question of the implementation and effectiveness of what we are discussing. I see that the Minister is nodding, so I hope that something will be done about it.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettThe final answer that we had from the Minister was much more helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI beg to move amendment No. 265, in page 23, line 2, at end insert—
'(5) The Council may appoint such wildlife investigation and enforcement officers as they deem expedient for the purpose of investigating offences committed against the provisions of this Part and of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and of any orders or regulations made under these enactments.'.I am in some difficulty, because I now know that the Minister will not be very sympathetic; however, I ask him to think again about it. We have introduced a number of new provisions in the Bill, but they will not be very effective unless they can be enforced. The Minister was beginning to say that the responsibility for enforcement lay with the police and with Customs. The truth is that neither of those authorities really has the expertise properly to enforce or investigate offences under this legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) tabled new clause 3, which, unfortunately, was not selected. It suggested that the police ought to seek to support somebody in each area who would be trained and have the expertise. It is important that, in one way or another, the whole question of enforcement should be examined.
The Bill goes a little further, because it gives the NCC the duty to provide advice for the enforcement, but we need rather more than that. Many of the people who will commit offences of the sort covered by the Bill are experts in their own area and they will not be easy to catch.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the RSPCA have tried to fill the gap, but I do not think that it is an area in which we ought to rely on those bodies to carry out the investigation, the monitoring of the offences and the enforcement. We need somebody in the NCC who will do the investigation and the enforcement. If it is left to the police, without the expertise of the NCC, a great deal of the work will go by default.
We know from the Committee proceedings that there are not many prosecutions under the existing legislation. Under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 there are about 150 a year, and nearly half of those are done by the RSPB or the RSPCA. The more complicated ones are done by the voluntary bodies.
This is a simple amendment. It asks for the enforcement to be built into the Bill. Although the beginning of the Minister's brief did not sound very hopeful, I hope that later on in the brief, or in his reconsideration of the matter, he will find it possible to give a positive response to the amendment.
§ Mr. HardyI support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I again draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there will have to be an improvement in the quality and level of enforcement, and that we cannot expect the police automatically to have expertise within their own force. They need a contact point with the Nature Conservancy Council, but the NCC equally needs a contact point with the police forces.
I drew the Committee's attention to the arrangements in other countries. In Canada, for example, every police force has an officer who is appointed to take over the responsibility in this field. It would reassure the voluntary 950 bodies, which have borne an enormous and costly responsibility in this matter without an adequate public involvement, if there were some evidence that we were taking our legislation seriously. We shall not be taking it seriously until police forces and the NCC are advised to adopt structures that allow mutual co-operation.
I am sorry that my new clause was not selected, because it would have given me an opportunity to suggest that the Home Office should advise each chief constable in England and Wales—there is less of a problem in Scotland—to appoint an officer with responsibility for contacts with voluntary bodies and the NCC. The Bill is a first-class opportunity for that desperately needed innovation.
§ Mr. MonroMuch closer co-operation on conservation matters has developed between Departments in the past few years. We have had to work together on the Bill, and that will be translated into work with the police, the NCC and other bodies. I understand that some police forces are contemplating appointing liaison officers, and lecturers at the Tulliallan college deal with this type of legislation on their courses.
The police are becoming far more involved in, and understanding of, the problems that they have a duty to assist in policing. It is not easy. Much legislation on conservation has to be taken on trust. We cannot legislate for everything or have police present all the time. But I know that when the police are aware of breaches of the law on such matters as poaching and sheep worrying they do their level best to deal with the problem. I am sure that they will take note of what we have said during the Bill's proceedings, namely, that co-operation between all bodies is vital if we are to have the high standards of enforcement that we are determined to achieve.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.