§ Mr. MeacherI beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 92, line 43, leave out from "In" to "after" in line 44 and insert—
'section 1(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (offence of intentional disturbance of wild birds)'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 219.
§ Mr. MeacherThe Bill includes new provisions developed from recommendations by the partnership for action against wildlife crime. They will provide new protection from reckless disturbance for protected species. I refer specifically to new protection from reckless disturbance for birds listed in schedule 1 and animals listed in schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, while they are in their nest or place of shelter or protection.
However, some protected marine species do not have readily identifiable places of shelter, and for those species it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to apply the current provisions of the Bill. Concerns were expressed in 1040 Committee that some of those species, namely the cetacean family, such as dolphins, whales and porpoises, and the basking shark are vulnerable to disturbance.
In Committee, hon. Members drew my attention to the disturbance of these species, especially the bottlenose dolphin, by fast, personal, motorised leisure craft, such as motor boats and wet bikes or jet skis. I agreed that the issue of disturbance by motorised leisure craft should be addressed, and that I would table a suitable amendment on Report.
Some concern has been expressed about the potential effect of the amendment on commercial fisheries. As I pointed out, the concerns about disturbance to these species relate to motorised leisure craft. The 1981 Act provides a defence if the disturbance is an incidental result of a lawful activity and could not reasonably have been avoided. Responsible commercial fisheries will no doubt want to rely on that defence.
I believe that the amendments are necessary. They will address the perceived loophole in the Bill with respect to these marine species and the practical issue of reckless disturbance by motorised leisure craft, without having an unfair impact on commercial fisheries. I commend them to the House.
§ Mr. GreenI want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about new subsection 4A in amendment No. 219. It seems on the face of it that it protects the species that he mentioned—dolphins or whales and basking sharks. I wondered whether that was indeed the case, and whether a provision is needed to extend the list of species in the future. Is there any provision, perhaps by regulation, for Ministers to do that? It would be a shame to introduce these welcome extensions of protection and then find at some stage in the future that they were not entirely adequate to deal with other species that may need to be included in schedule 5 of the 1981 Act.
§ Mr. Simon ThomasI welcome the Government amendments. They will be welcomed along the west and north coasts of Wales, where we have a particular problem with jet skis. There is anecdotal evidence from wildlife wardens of jet skis buzzing bottlenose dolphins. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that people are doing that for fun and to provoke a reaction in these sensitive and intelligent mammals. We must draw a line under such practices, much of which is due to ignorance. The insertion of this new subsection in the Bill will help to underline the need for people to learn a little more about these animals.
The Cardigan bay has the only resident population of bottlenose dolphins in England and Wales, although they visit the coast of other areas of the country. The bay has also been designated a special area of conservation, the official title of which is Penllyn ar Sarnau—I look forward to the note from the Official Report asking how to spell that. Penllyn ar Sarnau covers a huge area from the Llyn peninsular in north Wales down to the north of my constituency. A range of management devices are now being used, and the amendment will be an extremely useful addition to the management of that area.
I was grateful for the remarks about commercial fisheries, and the reassurance that the amendments should not affect them. Small shellfish fishing takes place from the coast in Ceredigion. I am sure that those fishermen will be grateful that they will not be included for any unintentional actions that they may undertake.
1041 We also have a growing tourism industry. People come to observe these mammals, especially the dolphins. The boats that go out to observe the dolphins do so peacefully and should not come under the new subsection.
I welcome the new provisions. They are an essential part of extending wildlife protection to the extremely intelligent, sensitive mammals that are a great addition to the biodiversity of the west Wales coast.
§ Mr. MeacherI am grateful for the recommendation of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). He is right; the amendment will be valuable and widely welcomed for dolphins at least. However, I am not sure about the basking shark, although its name belies its rather mild habits.
8.45 pm
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made a fair point—the amendment mentions only two species—but I am assured that the reason for that is that primary legislation would otherwise be required. I am a little surprised at the explanation I have been given, because I thought that that is what we are debating. However, there should be the capacity to extend provision further, and I shall take the point away to see whether we can find the means to achieve that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 219, in page 93, line 21, at end insert—
'. In section 9 of that Act (protection of certain wild animals)—
- (a) in subsection (4) after "intentionally" there is inserted "or recklessly", and
- (b) after that subsection there is inserted—
(4A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally or recklessly disturbs any wild animal included in Schedule 5 as—
- (a) a dolphin or whale (cetacea), or
- (b) a basking shark (cetorhinus maximus), he shall be guilty of an offence."
.In section 16(3) of that Act (power to grant licences) for "and (4)" there is substituted ", (4) and (4A)".".'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
§ Mr. GreenI beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 93, line 21, at end insert—
'4A. For section 14(2) of that Act (introduction of new species) there is substituted—
"(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person plants, releases or otherwise causes to grow in the wild any plant which is included in Part II of Schedule 9 he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person—
he shall be guilty of an offence.".'.
- (a) sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale, any living wild plant included in Part II of Schedule 9, or any part of such a wild plant; or
- (b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells or intends to sell, any of those things,
This is the time at which we must discuss the giant hogweed, which represents an important issue that we have not yet properly addressed. I hope to deal with it and 1042 other similarly invasive plants. The simple purpose of the amendment is to ban the sale of non-native invasive plant species, which are listed in schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We often discuss animals—we did so in our previous debate—and for some reason there is a feeling that plants are less important and less emotionally involving. I disagree with both propositions. Indeed, at the last meeting of the World Conservation Union there was consensus that the biggest threat facing biodiversity this century will come not from habitat destruction, but from non-native invasive species. These alien species come in all shapes and sizes, but have one thing in common—they threaten our wildlife and, in particular, our wild plants.
In a sense, the amendment would not be an add-on to Government policy because, as signatories of the Rio convention, they are legally obliged to
prevent the introduction of, control and eradicate alien species …Ministers should be aware that they are under a legal obligation backed by an international treaty to achieve the ends set out in the amendment.The 1981 Act is good in many ways, but I am afraid that it has proved unenforceable in this area. A law governs the prevention of release of non-native invasive species into the countryside, but to date there have been no successful prosecutions for illegal release of listed schedule 9 plants. Yet the relatively few species that are supposedly controlled, including the Japanese knotweed—the Minister, I think, said in Committee that it was a problem for him—and the giant hogweed are still causing havoc.
A number of other species are causing problems, many of which are associated with aquatic habitats. An unfortunate side effect of the recent massive growth in the trendiness of gardening—in particular, gardening promoted by Charlie Dimmock—is that aquatic gardening is much more popular than ever before. At least three species of non-native aquatic plants—New Zealand pigmyweed, parrot's feather and floating pennywort—cause significant environmental damage. They are widely sold to garden pond enthusiasts, but unfortunately, the plants grow so rapidly that purchasers soon have too much of them and they often end up being dumped in the wild, where they swamp native plants.
New Zealand pigmyweed is pushing one of our rarest plants to the brink of extinction. Starfruit is highly threatened; it was once relatively common. It is now found in just nine locations in the UK. On at least five of those sites, the growth of New Zealand pigmyweed threatens its survival.
The only efficient way to prevent the release of those non-native invasive plants is by imposing a ban on the sale of schedule 9 plants. In that way, well meaning gardeners will be able to choose alternative plants that are less likely to cause problems if they end up in the wild.
It is worth emphasising that the ban would apply only to schedule 9 species and therefore to a relatively small number of plants. It is already accepted that those plants cause problems, yet the law is powerless to prevent their spread. The Government have pledged to review the list of plants in schedule 9. Only subsequent to full consultation will new plants be added and, therefore, be subject to a ban. The ban would not work on its own, but it would be an important first step.
1043 Many bodies back the idea. Non-governmental organisations such as Plantlife want it. Experts including the Institute for Aquatic Plant Management want it. The gardening industry appears to want it. A consultant to the Garden Centre Association Ltd. has been quoted on television as saying that a ban would make it easier for everyone, including garden centres. Even the Government's own advisers want it: this year, the Joint Nature Conservation Council advised the Minister that a ban was necessary to prevent further damage to our native species.
It is a real case where prevention is much better than cure. Imposing a ban on the sale of those invasive plants would not only save the Government millions of pounds, which they could spend to control problem species, but even more important, it would prevent threatened species from being pushed to the brink of extinction. It is a simple, common-sense amendment that would modernise the legislation and safeguard our plants from an increasing and insidious threat. I commend it to the House.
§ Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)I make a very late contribution to the proceedings on the Bill; I make my maiden speech on it. I should declare an interest. I have been a member of the all-party group on conservation since the 1970s. I am now its vice-chairman. I am glad to see its secretary, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), in the Chamber.
I am, perhaps slightly more surprisingly, the parliamentary vice-president for my party in the London Wildlife Trust. Given the nature of my constituency, the provenance and pedigree are not automatically obvious, but I once had to make the keynote address at an international conference on the royal parks, which are significantly in my constituency. It was on the strength of that that I earned my place as parliamentary vice-president.
As the other two parliamentary vice-presidents are, for the Labour party, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and, for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who obviously have Front-Bench roles too, I have an enviable independence as a Back Bencher in that regard.
I shall make the briefest of speeches in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). I was the Whip on the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is the only other Member in these debates who served on that Committee. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the Bill's lack of efficacy with regard to the subjects that we are discussing. I am sorry about that.
Plantlife, which is located in my constituency, brought the New Zealand pigmyweed, the parrot's feather and the floating pennywort into my life via its briefing in advance of Second Reading. Having played no part in the proceedings on the Bill until now, I am delighted that my hon. Friend should have tabled an amendment at this late stage, which enables those of us who have taken an interest in the New Zealand pigmyweed, the parrot's feather and the floating pennywort to have the opportunity to express our support.
§ Mr. David HeathI wonder whether it might be helpful to Members to make the point that the New Zealand pigmyweed and the Australian swamp stonecrop are the same plant: crassula helmsii.
§ Mr. BrookeI am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His constituency is more rural than mine, and it is approaching a quarter of a century since I was last in Australia and more than 40 years since I was last in New Zealand; so I am not surprised that the confusion has been introduced to my mind.
As I was saying, the basic point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is eminently sensible. If plants such as this run riot, they have a stifling effect on certain natural habitats. They are hazardous invasive species.
§ Mr. MeacherOne nice consequence of the moving of amendment No. 97 at this late stage was hearing the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) make a passionate case for the need to deal with New Zealand pigmyweed—or whatever its Australian name may be—and floating pennywort. However, this is a serious issue, and both the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made a relevant case that needs to be addressed.
The amendment seeks to tackle the important issue of the effect of invasive non-native plant species on native fauna and flora. A number of recent articles have highlighted the problem that can be caused by such species, such as Japanese knotweed. It was not I but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who admitted that he was concerned because there was a considerable problem in his neighbour's garden, which might affect him as well. We are talking about non-native invasive species with the ability to oust native species, to damage crops, and to be a public nuisance all round.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment, but there are arguments against it. They are the same as those that were advanced in the case of a similar amendment tabled in Committee. I think that it was amendment No. 361. We need to deal with the issue in a co-ordinated way, taking account of the many varied factors arising from the introduction and spread of non-native species, animals as well as plants. I repeat—the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned this—that early next year we will undertake a full review of policy on non-native species that can present an ecological threat to the United Kingdom's indigenous wildlife, taking account of the work already done by the JNCC.
As I have said, this is a serious issue, but it is also complex. As former Ministers and current Opposition Front Benchers will be well aware, Government must consider such matters in a structured way, taking account of the implications of any policy changes for various parties. I should add—although it may be a less important point—that the amendment would introduce differences in the treatment of the sale of plants and animals under schedule 9, which is difficult to justify.
§ Mr. BrookeI intervene because I have a sense that the Minister is bringing his speech to a conclusion. I take his point about the review that he expects to take place early next year; but given that 19 years have passed between the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Bill, and given the amount of literature that we have received from wildlife organisations during those 19 years 1045 stressing the need for an update, will he tell us something about the possible legislative consequences of the review, and about the possible timetable?
§ Mr. MeacherThat is a fair question, although I am tempted to say that during 16 or 17 years of the 19 that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, his own Government—
§ Mr. BrookeI was not making a political point.
§ Mr. MeacherI am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not. His point is that countryside Bills, or Bills dealing with wildlife, are relatively infrequent.
I obviously need to look at how far the matter can be dealt with through secondary legislation. If it requires primary legislation, for the reasons that I have given I do not see how I can advance the issue in the course of proceedings on this Bill, which are due to move to another place, or in the course of the year.
9 pm
I do not think that a gap of some 20 years between Bills such as this is inevitable. For example, a general Bill on the environment might well be able to deal with the matter, even though it would not be directly concerned with the countryside.
I do not say that in order to kick the matter into the long grass, which I think was the fear of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I intend to deal with it, but I cannot do so before next year's proper and balanced review is complete.
§ Mr. GreenI cannot say that I am heartened by the Minister's response, which closely resembles his response to a similar amendment in Committee.
I take his point that animals and plants are both included in schedule 9, but I urge him not to let the best be the enemy of the good in this matter. If complications arise owing to the existence of separate regimes for plants and animals, then so be it. The problem is clearly defined, and the Bill could deal with it, so this seems to be the optimal time to make it do so.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and, I suspect, the Minister, I think that it may well be another couple of decades before a Bill such as this comes along again, regardless of what happens to party politics in the meantime. I hope that the Minister is right and that a proposal such as this can be added to another, more general Bill.
The Minister's argument about the review was not desperately convincing in Committee, and time has not improved it. The review will be based on the recommendations of the Joint Nature Conservancy Council, and will be conducted by the same people who conducted the previous review.
That review recommended the ban, so it seems overwhelmingly likely that the next one will too. All that will have happened in the intervening period is that a Bill that could have introduced the ban will have been passed, and we will have neglected to take the opportunity to do so. That does not seem an especially sensible way to proceed.
1046 The Minister said that he did not intend to kick the matter into the long grass. If he fails to seize the opportunity presented by the Bill, he will be kicking it into the giant hogweed.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.