SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT (Hansard, 5 July 1991)

§ 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 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 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 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 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.

§ 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 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 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.
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 556 break the law. However, it will certainly sharpen the interest that landowners take in the activities of their gamekeepers. In the extreme cases that we have seen, mostly in the wilder parts of the country, it is unlikely that the Bill will make a significant difference.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the House again that this is not Second Reading. We are dealing with the Lords amendments and the debate must be restricted to them.

§ Mr. Wiggin
How right you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to remind us of that as I was just about to refer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who moved the amendments and then spent a persuasive half hour telling us why they were wholly unacceptable. I am sure that when you come to decide on the difficult issue of the voice and the vote being the same, you will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

§ Mr. Ron Davies
I cannot let that comment go unchallenged. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read the record, it will be clear to him that I accept the Lords amendments. I pressed the Minister for clarification of their consequences and implications, but I made it clear that I supported the amendments.

§ Mr. Wiggin
I am not going to spend next week reading Hansard. I heard clearly what the hon. Gentleman said, as I am sure you did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issue is whether the amendments are sensible and acceptable. I agreed with most of what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said. The provisions of the amendments were not in the Bill in the first instance, they are not required and they are entirely pedantic. If the legislation is good and if it has the approval of the House and of another place—it has that approval—there is no reason to delay putting the Bill into effect.
I believe, and have done for many years, that the principle of retrospective legislation is bad and leads to muddle. The public expect laws to have a starting date that they understand. They do not expect to be accused of doing something illegal which was at one time legal but was made illegal retrospectively. I entirely agree with the principle behind the amendments, but I do not understand why it is necessary to write it into the Bill. If prosecutions were contemplated or pending on activities that took place before Royal Assent was given, I should have thought that it was a perfectly good defence to say that what one did was legal at the time. I am not keen on the amendments, but we shall see how the debate proceeds.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
The Bill is very welcome. I, like other hon. Members, am grateful to the late Donald Coleman for having introduced it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) is a sponsor of the Bill and he knew Donald Coleman very well. They always encouraged each other's efforts in the interests of Wales and of the Welsh rural community. This is an all-party Bill, as it is sponsored by hon. Members from Plaid Cymru, the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, and that also makes it commendable.
The amendments are of marginal importance. If we are to accept the first amendment—and I shall not oppose it —I endorse the call from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that, in addition to using the space provided by that amendment to publicise the Bill, we use the space 557 to publicise the proposed pesticides amnesty. That is logical. If the rural and farming community is to be targeted for information about changes in the legislation, let us use the time provided by the amendment wisely. That the delay is a two-month delay is of marginal importance, but if there is to be such a delay, I hope that it will not mean that more offences will be committed in that time.
On the second amendment, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made a valid—

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
The hon. Gentleman wonders whether more offences will be committed during those two months. If the acts are already illegal and if gamekeepers are already breaking the law and rightly liable to punishment if they take the course mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the only difference would be that during the two months, even if the landowner or the employer knew that such acts were being committed, he could not be prosecuted under this Bill. I shall have something to say in a moment about whether he could be prosecuted anyway.

§ Mr. Hughes
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a matter of extending the remit of the legislation to cover those who are aware of what is happening as opposed to those who are the activists or the direct cause of the activity. That is why I said that the amendments provide a marginal extension. Nevertheless, one hopes that people will not take advantage of the delay in the new, tougher legislation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that retrospective legislation is a bad principle. I say that as a legislator and as a lawyer. The second amendment is merely a matter of clarification. When interpreted, the law does not have retrospective intention, so the amendments are merely for the avoidance of doubt. It is extremely doubtful, therefore, whether they are necessary.

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
As a lawyer and a legislator, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bad principle to introduce otiose words into legislation?

§ Mr. Hughes
If one were to judge which was the worse principle, I think that it would probably be retrospective legislation, but otiose wording in legislation is something we could well do without. For people who are not legislators or lawyers, one of the problems of legislation is that it contains far too many words that they cannot understand, and far too many cross-references that they cannot find without days and days of research.
Therefore, I should prefer the second amendment not to be accepted but if it is, it should be nothing but a confirmation. I hope that all of us who sound so pietistic remember our views on retrospective legislation on other occasions. We are all under pressure—I do not say this in a party political way—to give in, especially when Government decide legislate retrospectively.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said. It is precisely the concern about species such as the red kite which has motivated such legislation. One of the best weeks that I have ever spent was in west Wales, a part of the country which I know well, having been brought up in south Wales. I spent two days in the hills of west Wales doing nothing but observing the red kite. The rarity and beauty of such species add enormously to the richness of Britain. We are wonderfully endowed with a variety of species, many of which are scarce. There a re very few red kites—I believe that there are about 50 or 100 pairs, but certainly not many more. I understand that all 558 of them are now in west Wales. We must ensure that we do all that we can to protect endangered species, whether they be birds or otherwise. The Bill is a step in that direction.

§ Mr. Wiggin
The kite became extinct in Wales; the current birds were imported from Spain and were introduced deliberately into the countryside.

§ Mr. Hughes
I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I believe that the red kites in Wales are the only red kites in the United Kingdom. There are only between 50 and 100 pairs, or that was certainly the case when I last checked. Other species may have been introduced into Britain which are not natives of this country and some of which we may not be too happy to have, but as stewards we have a duty to protect the more rare and beautiful ones, as they are here.
I wish the legislation well. The amendments are marginal, and no doubt we can dispose of them and move on to what may be more controversial business.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
I must declare an interest as a landowner, a sportsman and the chairman of the British Field Sports Society. I have a keen interest in the proceedings of this Bill and of others that have a bearing on any sports followed today. I endorse what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said about the activities of those who break the law and slaughter protected species unlawfully. That is extremely damaging to sporting interests and, clearly, nothing does us more harm in the public's eyes than to be seen behaving in such a way. We all tend to be tainted with the same brush, so I welcome the Bill, now promoted by the hon. Member for Caerphilly following the death of Donald Coleman, and I hope that it will be successful.
I hope that the Bill will not only pass through the House, but that it will, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly hopes, curtail the activities of those who break the law. I put my reservations about that when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Wiggin).
I was puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly because, while the meaning of words is in the ear of the listener, I did not have the same impression as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare about what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not think that he said that the amendments were unnecessary, but he was slightly muddled. He said that he did not especially welcome the amendments and that they had nothing to do with him, but he went on to make an impassioned and rather good defence of them, especially Lords amendment No. 1 which deals with the two-month amnesty. I am not sure what he really feels about that.

§ Mr. Ron Davies
I will make it clear. I do not expect that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will spend all next week reading today's Hansard—nor will his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). However, if he can find two minutes to read what I said, he will see that I said that this was a matter of political reality. Although I am paraphrasing now, I said that no private Member's legislation would reach the statute book without the support or the acquiescence of the Government. They insisted on the amendments. It is not possible for me to stop the amendments and, because I want the Bill on the statute book, I must accept them.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
That is exactly what I heard the hon. Gentleman say, so I do not need to refer to Hansard. He also extolled at length the virtues of and need for such an amnesty. We welcomed the fact that people would destroy the pesticides in their possession that could be used for unlawful purposes—even though holding them is not an unlawful act. I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman wants the amendment or whether he supports it only because it has been thrust upon him.

§ Mr. Ron Davies
I pointed out the inconsistency of approach between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When the amendment was discussed, the spokesman for the Department of the Environment in the Lords said that an amnesty for unauthorised pesticides was unnecessary. Two days later the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced a consultative document proposing the very thing that the Department of the Environment had said was unnecessary. I did not make an impassioned plea, but I said that if we were to have the amendment and an amnesty, then for goodness' sake the two Departments should get their act together and ensure that their opinions coincided.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
I heard the hon. Gentleman rightly say that the two Ministers in the respective Departments did not seem to have quite the same view on the need for the amendment at that stage. No doubt they have reconciled their differences, which is why we are discussing the matter today. I still do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered my question because I am no clearer about how he feels, as opposed to how my hon. Friends on the Front Bench feel—but never mind. As he rightly says, the provision will go into the Bill because that is probably the only way in which the Bill can be taken through successfully.
I welcome the amnesty. It will help because people will, I hope, dispose of any such substances to ensure that their keepers do not misuse them. When a law imposes a substantial new duty of care, people should have time to appreciate what is happening and to adjust accordingly. That is especially so for this Bill as it concerns substances that they are perfectly entitled to hold. Sometimes we imagine that the whole nation is listening breathlessly to every word that we say in the House and that every law that we pass is imprinted on their memory, but that is not the case. I am sure that it will be some time before the news about the activities that have been made unlawful in the Bill filters through to some of my fellow landowners in the Outer Hebrides. Where such duties are imposed, it is right for there to be a period during which the information can be disseminated and people can be made aware of their new duties.
Lords amendment No. 2 deals with retrospective legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I are lawyers. I deplore retrospective legislation. No reputable legislator should consider it. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, especially those who are Treasury Ministers, will take those words to heart. I note that there is a clause in the Finance Bill with which I do not agree as it is retrospective in its effect on building societies. I use that example to illustrate the fact that retrospective legislation can be introduced. It has been introduced on numerous 560 occasions by the Labour party when in government, and, I am sorry to say, sometimes by my own Ministers. No lawyer likes retrospective legislation. No one should find that their lawful acts become unlawful. Another example that springs to mind is the legislation about war criminals, on which we disagreed with the other place. We insisted that activities that were not punishable under English law should now be punishable under English law 50 years later. A more substantial retrospective change would be hard to find. I said at the time, and I say again, that such legislation is deplorable. It is important that when there is any doubt, it is made clear in the legislation that what we are doing is not retrospective.

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
Although I entirely agree in principle with what my hon. Friend has said, the effect of what he has said is that the burden of these illegal acts will, for the next two months, fall on the gamekeepers and the little men, rather than on the people who order them to do those acts. We must also consider that.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
Yes, but that has always been the case. That liability is not new. It has existed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. For the next two months the liability for these actions will lie with those who do them, irrespective of whether they have been ordered to do them, or whether their employer condones the action. I take my hon. Friend's point that the sooner we can make the law effective against landowners who order their keepers to commit an unlawful act, the better. However, landowners who have been faintly aware that their keepers are up to mischief, but have not pursued them with the vigour that we should like to see should not be retrospectively put at risk. It is the principle, rather than any particular instance of how the Act might be brought into effect, that we should consider when we are legislating.
No one likes otiose legislation or otiose words in legislation. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. I am not clear whether the Act could be retrospective without those words. I must confess that I have not looked in sufficient detail at the 1981 Act to see whether that might be the case. We are not introducing new legislation, but amending existing legislation. I do not know whether, if the Bill is passed as an amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, what is now made unlawful under that Act would have been unlawful prior to the date of the Bill being implemented. If there is any risk of that, I am sure that we are right to take this action.
I question the amendment and the Bill in one way. Perhaps the hon. Member for Caerphilly, a fellow lawyer, or the Minister can enlighten me. I should have thought that anyone who ordered his gamekeeper to commit an unlawful act would be guilty of conspiracy to undertake that act. If I am right, the law could be used against them in any event and I am not sure that the Bill will add anything to the powers that already exist with regard to landowners who order their keepers to act in that way. The entire Bill may be otiose. Perhaps someone will enlighten me. If I am right, the law of conspiracy would carry substantially greater penalties than the Bill. Those with the task of enforcing the law should carefully consider whether to proceed under the law of conspiracy or under the Bill when they have evidence that someone has behaved in that fashion.
I welcome measures for the preservation of all species of wildlife. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) 561 and I sometimes disagree about the balance of that preservation but not about its purpose or end, which is to preserve all these species. I do not believe, however, that the Bill will have a substantial effect on the safety of the red kite in Wales. Lord McIntosh said that 52 breeding sites are defended by Gurkhas, so anyone who went near those sites would take his life in his hands. The protection given by the Gurkhas is much more effective than any protection that we will provide under the Bill.

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
I wish to answer my hon. Friend's conspiracy point. If a gamekeeper does something illegal, not because he is ordered to do so but because he is permitted to do so by his boss, it will be a little difficult to convict the landowner of conspiracy merely because he knew that something was happening and permitted it.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that that is correct. There will be occasions when the Bill adds strength to the position of the law enforcer. My comments on which of the two ways forward is more appropriate would, therefore, still apply, but only where the landowner had ordered his gamekeeper to do something illegal. I am sure that every hon. Member deplores such activities. I can think of nothing more despicable than a person ordering someone else to do something unlawful, when that person has no power to refuse because refusal would lead to dismissal, thus putting him in danger of being imprisoned if caught.
I welcome the Bill in so far as it goes. It will help curtail the activities of such people. In that spirit, I am sure that we will be successful in passing the Bill.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo)
It may be true that the public do not read Hansard as avidly as some of us may assume, but those who read today's Hansard will be impressed by the fact that the House has been debating these two amendments for more than an hour—longer than the total time given to Second Reading and the Committee stage.
I am glad to have joined the proceedings at this stage. I am new to the Bill. I am here because my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) cannot attend. The fact that I am new to the Bill does not mean that I am less enthusiastic than my hon. Friend. The House is aware that the Government support the Bill wholeheartedly.
As others said, it is sad that the original promotor of the Bill, Donald Coleman, was not able to take it forward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on the way in which he picked up the Bill and on his helpful and constructive approach during earlier stages. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), I felt that the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment a little grudgingly. In the end, he said that he supported it, but he showed a less gracious approach than we enjoyed earlier in the proceedings.
The speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly contrasted with the eloquent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). We have in the House a diminishing number of what we could call the gamekeeper-employing classes, but I felt that my hon. Friend was the authentic voice of that group—

§ Sir Charles Morrison
I am not one of them.

§ Mr. Yeo
My hon. Friend says that he is not one of them. Nevertheless, I thought that the tone was there.
562 The Government share the concern that has been expressed by everyone who has taken part in the debate about the illegal killing of wild birds and animals. The Bill makes it an offence for a person to cause or permit another to contravene the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which prohibit the use of certain means of killing or taking wild birds or animals. People who manage or oversee land would become responsible for ensuring that they or their employees do not use unlawful means to kill wildlife.
10.45 am
The two amendments are minor and technical. They would bring the Bill more closely into line with similar provisions in other legislation on the creation of new offences. The first amendment would ensure that the Bill does not come into force until two months after the day it is enacted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) pointed out, this is a normal measure. There is nothing sinister about it. Where a new offence has been created, it is customary to allow that delay. As my hon. Friend said, it has merit for landowners all over Britain, even those in distant parts of the country, such as the Outer Hebrides—not that my hon. Friend or I wish to suggest that they are more disposed to break the law than those closer to the Palace of Westminster. The amendment allows for a period in which publicity can be given to and information can be disseminated about the existence of this new offence. It is right, therefore, that the Bill should follow the customary practice in legislation that creates new offences.
When the Bill was considered in another place, it was suggested that there should be an amnesty period to enable people to withdraw unwanted stocks of pesticides. The hon. Member for Caerphilly made that point. The Bill does not change the law relating to the holding and storing of pesticides. It was made clear in another place that we do not consider that there is any need in the Bill for an amnesty. There are ways and means of disposing of unwanted pesticides. Anyone who wishes to find out how to dispose of these substances safely should contact the waste disposal department of the relevant local authority. The two-month period after enactment of the Bill would enable landowners to reassess their position and that of their employees before the landowners become liable for their employees' actions.
There has been some confusion—certainly in the mind of the hon. Member for Caerphilly and possibly in the minds of other hon. Members—about the proposals of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Rather elaborately, the hon. Member for Caerphilly tried to construct an image of disagreement and of lack of communication between my Department and MAFF. I assure him that there is no difference between us.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to proposals for an industry-run scheme to enable farmers to dispose of unapproved and unwanted pesticides. He suggested that the advice given by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place did not square with those proposals. There is not really a problem. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who seems to have left his place temporarily, understood the position more clearly. The Ministry has issued for consultation a draft approval and consent under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, which are intended to assist in the safe disposal of pesticides. They would enable, subject to strict 563 conditions, the transfer of currently unapproved pesticides from farms to commercial stores and their storage in those stores before safe disposal. They would allow that to take place within the law.
The sale and use of such pesticides are not being legalised; nor is their on-farm storage. I stress that it is already illegal to store unapproved pesticides. The MAFF proposals do not represent an amnesty of any kind for farmers who possess stocks of such substances. The proposal simply assists with the operation of an industry-run scheme. It is essentially a practical arrangement. There should be no linkage between the two-month gap that we propose—between the date of Royal Assent and the date when the Bill's provisions become effective—and the proposed period when farmers will be able to transfer unapproved pesticides. Those periods may overlap, but there is no direct relationship between the two.

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
Is there an end date for the period during which farmers can get rid of unapproved pesticides? Surely after that, if they have them, they will have to do something with them, and getting rid of them would seem to be the most sensible and beneficial course.

§ Mr. Yeo
My hon. Friend is right. The Ministry is allowing the two-month period during which farmers can dispose of unapproved pesticides and I suspect that farmers who fail to take advantage of that special opportunity will be more likely to encounter prosecution, especially given that it is already an offence—and it will remain an offence—even to hold unapproved pesticides.

§ Mr. Ron Davies
Let me help the Minister. The proposed consent will expire on 31 December. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) asked whether it was time-limited and I confirm that it is.

§ Mr. Yeo
The hon. Gentleman is right: the consent is time-limited.
The Bill strengthens the 1981 Act by bringing it into line with equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland and with other legislation controlling, among other things, the sale, storage and use of pesticides. It will therefore make a useful addition to the existing stringent controls over the killing of wildlife, especially birds of prey.
Fears were expressed in the other place that there might be an increase in the number of illegal poisoning incidents in the period before the Act became operative. I emphasise that the 1981 Act already makes it an offence to use illegal methods to kill wildlife, and there are heavy penalties for those convicted of breaking the Act's stringent provisions. The Bill does not change the law in that respect and no one should doubt that appropriate action will be taken to deal with people who are prepared to use cruel or indiscriminate methods to kill birds and animals that do no harm.
My Department is participating in a major long-term publicity campaign with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food against the illegal poisoning of wildlife and we are supporting the campaign with a range of publicity to encourage people to use pesticides properly, to control predators by legal methods and to report illegal poisoning methods. Anyone suspecting pesticide poisoning of wildlife or, for that matter, domestic pets, should immediately contact the police or the local office of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
564 The Ministry has an established system for investigating deaths of wildlife which may be due to pesticide poisoning. That system includes field inquiries to assess the circumstances and collect any bait and carcases. A post-mortem is carried out to rule out other causes of death such as injury or disease and a chemical analysis identifies the type and quantity of pesticide present. Where the circumstances point to illegal poisoning, evidence is prepared for a possible prosecution. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will encourage his constituents to be vigilant and to watch out for cases where there may have been illegal poisoning of wildlife.
We shall continue to work with our colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and with other Departments in reviewing any pesticides widely implicated in poisoning incidents to see whether tighter controls over those substances are needed.
It is opportune that the publicity campaign is running in parallel with the passage of the Bill, because it helps to reinforce the message that we are not prepared to tolerate these illegal practices. We know that farmers and other land managers need to control predators, but they must use proper lawful means that do not threaten wildlife, especially protected species. The general public can also help by using garden and other pesticides carefully and safely.
In the report issued in April by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Nature Conservancy Council, it was reported that hundreds of birds, including many specially protected species, have been poisoned, shot, trapped and killed illegally throughout the United Kingdom in the past 10 years. The report showed that illegal persecution had caused the deaths of 40 golden eagles, 65 peregrine falcons, 57 hen harriers, 24 red kites and 367 buzzards between 1979 and 1989. Many more deaths probably went unrecorded. The Government's response to the 25 recommendations made in that report will be published shortly.
Lords amendment No. 2 would prevent the provisions of the Bill, when enacted, from operating retrospectively. That seems to cause hon. Members a certain amount of concern. The position is simply that anything done before the Bill's enactment would not be an offence, and only those actions taking place after the Bill is enacted would be caught by the provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes pointed out, the House and the Government are, rightly, extremely reluctant to contemplate retrospective legislation of any sort. Wherever possible, we set our faces firmly against it and the amendment merely confirms the position. Legislation that seeks to create new offences generally contains such an exception. It is neither reasonable nor equitable that a person should be put at risk of subsequent prosecution as a result of actions that were not in breach of the law at the time when they were carried out. We see no good reason why the Bill should not include such a provision. I assure hon. Members that the amendment does not represent any weakening of our support for the principles of the Bill, but we do not think it right that those who in the past may not have taken positive steps to ensure that illegal methods of killing wildlife were not used by others under their control should now unwittingly be made liable for such offences themselves.
We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to take great care of our wildlife to preserve its abundance and 565 diversity. In the 1981 Act, we have one of the best systems in the world to ensure that comprehensive and effective procedures are in place for protecting the species and their habitats, but unfortunately there are those who, by thoughtless or ill-considered actions, undermine those procedures by acting outside the law and ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the British people to preserve our natural heritage.
The Bill has identified a chink in our armour which it is right that we should close. It will help to bring home to people who use or permit the use of illegal methods to kill wildlife the fact that we are prepared to do everything possible to meet our objectives for the protection of our natural heritage, especially endangered species. We must stamp out illegal practices which cause so much unnecessary suffering to our wildlife and the death of species that do no harm. The Government fully support the amendments.