Clause 43 - Possession of pesticides harmful to wildlife
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
12:00 pm
James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition condemn anybody who uses poison to kill birds of any species. I wholly support the Government’s objective in tabling the next few clauses. As an aside—this will come up again later—I am slightly concerned that the Government did not consult on the provisions before including them to ensure that they got them right. There was some discussion, but it was not a consultation. The reason why I am concerned, as I am about clause 46 and the protection of nests, is that I am not sure that the proposals will address the problem that I readily accept exists.
It is already an offence to set poison for a bird and has been for 24 years. It is also already an offence to possess a large number of pesticides that have been banned in preceding years. In particular, carbofuran has been most commonly used for poisoning birds of prey. Although the problem is not restricted to birds of prey, their protection is the principal objective of the clause. In 2003, which is the latest year for which I could obtain figures, carbofuran was used in 35 of the 58 incidents across the UK. It is already an offence to possess it, so the clause is not necessary to deal with the pesticide.
If we narrow the focus to England and Wales, which is what the Bill applies to, we see that carbofuran was used in three of the eight cases in England and two of the seven in Wales. On top of that, two other pesticides—mevinphos and alphachloralose—have also been withdrawn from the market, so it is also an offence to possess them. They account for another five of the 15 cases in England and Wales. If we take out the pesticides that have already been banned, we can narrow down the problem considerably.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says in its report on bird crime in 2003, from which I have obtained all these statistics:
“We are concerned that withdrawing pesticides that are most frequently abused one at a time has not solved the problem. Instead alternative products have been found.”
It means by that that it supports this proposal which would, effectively, ban any pesticide that an individual has no good reason for possessing. However, I believe that the phrase
“Instead, alternative products have been found”
demonstrates the big loophole in the legislation, in that those who want to poison raptors or other birds of prey will continue to find means of doing so. A large number of toxic pesticides will still be available, and people will have no difficulty in convincing courts that they are legally entitled to have them. For example, phostoxin is used for rabbits; warfarin and other anticoagulants and all sorts of other chemicals are used against rats and mice; and strychnine is used against moles. That is without even considering traditional agricultural pesticides such as insecticides. One that is commonly referred to is temic. I am not aware that there has ever been a case of the poisoning of a rat or a bird of prey with temic, but I readily accept that that is possible, because it is a noxious pesticide. However, temic is legal, and is approved for use on potatoes. Therein, again, lies for me the problem with this approach. Anybody who has some temic, even if his intention is malign, has only to say that he got it for his mate because he grows potatoes in his allotment and that he therefore has a justification for possessing it. It is not that I do not support the objective, but I have a fundamental problem believing that the legislation will make a jot of difference. It is legislating on the “something must be done” principle rather than because it will make any difference.
There is already a mass of legislation that deals with this sort of thing. The RSPB document refers to the fact that people have been prosecuted for the illegal storage and use of pesticides—beyond the issue of poisoning of birds, there is the matter of illegal storage. People are already being prosecuted for other offences under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985. Having spent three years as shadow spokesman on police and crime, and having sat in this and other Committee Rooms dealing with criminal legislation, I am averse to the idea that we need more laws and to ban this and that. It is a bit like antisocial behaviour: we keep making more individual bits of behaviour illegal, without addressing the fundamental issue.
I do not want to digress, and I know that you will not allow me to do so, Mr. Forth, but that is the problem that I want to turn to now, and I hope that you will let me make a couple of points on the issue that clause 43 seeks to address. It will be mirrored when we come to clause 46 and the matter of nests.
I am the first to accept that there is a problem with the public image of gamekeepers, either because of Lady Chatterley’s Mellors—perhaps that is an unfortunate word for some of us who have been in this House for a few years—