Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

72: Clause 16, page 16, leave out lines 5 and 6

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 73, with which Amendment 72 is grouped.

As I thought to construct a speech on this issue, I found myself in the most extraordinary philosophical and political position. All my political life, I have seen the lines of conflict over issues drawn in the following way. Going back to Finance Bills in the 1970s, for instance, I recall that the Labour Government were always accused of drawing up excessive invasive powers—in particular for tax authorities to appropriate property—and the Conservative side was always expressing the rights of the landowner and the liberal proposition that the state should be kept at bay. In fact, on one famous occasion, I remember a Conservative member of the committee telling me, “If this amendment to the Finance Bill is carried, there will be the knock on the citizen’s door and it will be the knock of the French revolutionary of 1789 saying, ‘Ouvrez, au nom de la République!’”, such were the terrors that were being visited upon the British in 1976. I had the temerity—I was a PPS at the time—to suggest that the historical analogy did not quite hold up, not least because the French Republic was not declared until 1793, and therefore he was four years premature in suggesting that the revolutionary was asking for entry in the name of “la République”—after all, Louis XVI did not meet his death until 1793.

However, with this issue here, the position is exactly reversed. The current Government are producing a power of entry that we regard as being quite exceptionable and needing some mighty justification. I do not know whether this proposal in the Bill has emerged from a Conservative Party that has gone soft on supporting landholding interests or from the malign influence of those in the Liberal wing of the coalition, who have decided that they should have regard to the landed interest. However, we are agin this proposal, and I shall go on to explain, as clearly as I can, why. It seems quite unnecessary to give an authorised person,

“to determine whether to offer to enter into a species agreement with a person”,

this excessive right to demand entry. Surely powers of entry must be handled delicately. As a liberal-minded socialist, I would say that powers of entry should always be handled delicately, because the citizen in a democratic state has rights. There needs to be a balance between the interests or rights of the property owner and the rights of environmental authorities wanting to eradicate invasive non-native species.

Of course, we are all with the Bill in its attempt to tackle what we all recognise is a very severe problem, but the authorised person would be seeking to obtain an agreement. It does not seem right, therefore, to allow a power of entry at an early stage in the process before the property owner might even be aware of the need to enter into a species agreement. The persons concerned have not got anywhere near the negotiation stage; as far as one can see, they have not even necessarily identified that there is a problem at all, but there could be this knock on the door from the authority.

In England and Wales, the entry on to private property by any person is a trespass, unless consent is given or the entry is otherwise authorised by statute or by common law. It is also the case, of course, that this concept is enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for private home and family life. In this respect, Article 8 can only be interfered with if it is prescribed by law as a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society. It is particularly difficult to describe species control agreements as a pressing social need for action. After all, if the concept anticipates an agreement as the achievement of the policy, what is the pressing need for forthright rights of entry? Moreover, the Home Office’s powers of entry gateway, which regulates powers of entry, sets out tests which must be satisfied, including “Necessity”, “Proportionality” and “Safeguards”. Such powers should be used only when necessary and not routinely, but these powers in the Bill are routine—they come in at first base, as it were, and condition the nature of action.

Will the Minister justify how allowing a power of entry on to someone’s land merely to decide whether to enter into an agreement fulfils the requirements set out in the European Convention on Human Rights? The property holder is going to be asked to enter into an agreement. Of course I recognise the problem that may arise if agreements cannot be achieved and if the threat to the wider society is significant—none of us is going to underestimate the damage which some invasive species can do. We all know that it would be absolutely pointless if one householder dealt with Japanese knotweed alone. The capacity of one householder to deal with Japanese knotweed alone beggars the mind, but if he did succeed in dealing with Japanese knotweed alone it seems absurd to suggest that agreement would not be necessary. Next door would have to be involved; otherwise, one would not have a solution and one would be more likely to have a situation in which the problem was extended.

It may be thought that I am being excessive in challenging the Government on these issues and recalling other occasions when these issues have been raised, when the boot has been on the other foot and I watched Labour Ministers wrestle with arguments from landowners and Conservatives. The crucial issue is that the Law Commission review addressed this issue and highlighted the fact that concerns were raised regarding potential overuse of powers of entry. It concluded that there should be a formal safeguard against potential overuse of powers of entry. Of course, we subscribe to the objectives of the Bill with regard to tackling the problems caused by invasive species, but we believe that we are entirely justified in probing the limits of the power of entry as regards when and how it will be used. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, I resist Amendment 72, as circumstances may arise in which Natural England has reason to believe that a non-native invasive species is present on someone’s land but the owner denies access to verify this. However, without that verification, one cannot proceed to issue a control order. If there is no voluntary agreement, the landowner can avoid the imposition of a control order. Typically, Natural England will approach the landowner and give him at least 48 hours to respond. The reason for having this tight benchmark is that sometimes one can determine whether a non-native invasive species is present even when one is off-site. However, that cannot always be done, as sometimes the species is tiny and is therefore difficult to pick up in, for example, an aerial photograph.

The expectation is that arrangements will be voluntary and collaborative with rare exceptions—for example, in emergencies. The Committee will know about Asian hornets. We have almost the equivalent of an alert system around the country, watching out for the arrival of Asian hornets. I am advised that, if they are found, eradication needs to take place very rapidly, possibly within 48 to 72 hours, or they will pose a threat to native bees, with all the consequences that flow from that. Therefore, on occasion, it is absolutely necessary to move fast. It would be problematic to provide a landowner with a mechanism to resist even entering discussions about a voluntary agreement and therefore to avoid triggering the process that would eventually lead to a control order. I fully recognise the issues that have been raised. However, given the purpose of this legislation and the implications of allowing a rapidly increasing invasive species to get out of control, I ask the Committee to recognise that this power is necessary and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73, which is also in this group, is slightly different. It would require an environmental authority to ensure that, whenever it exercised a power of entry, it must leave the premises as effectively secured as they were on entry rather than, as stated in the Bill, to do so when the premises are unoccupied or the owner is temporarily absent. We want very much to ensure that unoccupied premises or premises where the owner is absent are left effectively secured. As regards Amendment 73, we take the point that there might be grounds for a more general application of the provision. One of the things we are concerned about is the need to think through the language that is used, as we do not want to encourage people to “booby-trap” premises, as it were, with expensive systems that would then have to be replaced. Therefore, I am sympathetic to the intent of Amendment 73 but, given the importance of being able to control invasive species, we need to retain the powers in the Bill, which would be negated by Amendment 72.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her sensitive approach to Amendment 73. We will look again at the wording of that amendment to see whether we can persuade her to change her mind on that matter. It seems a pretty obvious thing to require that, if an authority moves in for the very good reasons that it would have in those circumstances, it should leave the place in the same order that it found it. Otherwise, it seems that we are giving extraordinary powers to those who carry out this action.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

74: Clause 16, page 18, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) the standards of animal welfare required when carrying out species control agreements and orders.”

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I move on to slightly gentler territory this time but of great import nevertheless. We all recognise that, in seeking to do the right thing by wider society, we have real problems about how the actions are to be carried out by the authority. That is why Amendment 74 seeks to insert the words:

“the standards of animal welfare required when carrying out species control agreements and orders”.

I am sure the whole Committee will endorse the view that we must ensure that we abide by the highest level of protection for animal welfare. Concerns have been raised by a number of bodies, including the National Farmers’ Union, Animal Aid and the National Anti Snaring Campaign, which have all cited the threat to animal welfare. We must be alert also to the fact that these control orders might prevent farmers and growers being able to react to market opportunities by growing new varieties of crops. That is why those concerned with the countryside argue for an appropriate system of checks and balances to protect their interests. I am not sure that the Bill meets that test at present. The Government have failed to include anything in this schedule to protect animal rights, despite the fact that we know that representations have been made by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Woodland Trust and the Law Commission that the legislation should indeed provide for the inclusion of animal welfare provisions. I fail to see why these representations, made while the Bill was being drawn up, have not registered effectively with Ministers.

Perhaps that is to do with the fact that Ministers are fresh from the horrors of the badger cull and the problems they had over that issue; there are also the problems we have all had over dangerous dogs legislation in recent years. However, the Government were quick to denounce the presence of beavers from sightings in Devon and to suggest their ability to carry a disease when, from what I can see, the Government have produced no proof or scientific evidence to back up these contentions. What assessments do the Government make when deciding whether an animal is considered dangerous or harmful? Is the fact that it is just strange and new sufficient for forthright action to eliminate it?

Reports show us that there is a case that animals such as beavers might have an effect that is as positive as it is negative. I know that we all have to come to terms with the development of new species when they arrive. I am told that beavers would cause a great deal of trouble wherever floods were likely to occur, but I had thought that beavers were rather good at building dams and that most of the demands being made from the Somerset Levels and elsewhere during the past year were to say, “We want more defences”. Why can we not get the helpful beaver to chip in with his little bit? At the least, I am not quite sure why he is condemned outright before he has had the chance. It seems that the Government are obsessed with controlling anything that they think to be a threat, without properly assessing whether it is a threat or not—and certainly without even beginning to think that there might be benefits.

The Government do not have the best track record in following the advice of scientists, especially when it comes to the natural environment. Their failure over the badger culls, where they have been heavily criticised across a whole spectrum of informed opinion, is a clear example. We must make sure that species control operations are conducted and introduced on the back of a clause that enshrines the need to look at the preservation of animal welfare. I am hopeful that the Minister, while she might think it rare, will see this as a constructive amendment from the Official Opposition and look kindly upon it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend. There was a good example in Australia, which I could perhaps relay to the Committee. My brother, who lives in housing association accommodation, was invaded by a possum. It was in his roof for about three years before he was able to persuade the housing association to do something about it. Of course, the possum is a protected species but eventually along came Paul, the “Possum Whisperer”, whose job it was to persuade the possum to leave the premises without endangering the species. He did that without any harm to the premises or to the possum, but the end of the story was that the possum re-emerged slightly later, next door but one. The neighbour knocked on my brother’s door and said, “Hey, I’ve got this possum—any advice about how to get rid of it?”. My brother said, “Well, Paul the Possum Whisperer is the person that you need to go to”. So there was a job creator as well as a very skilled person, who could act in a humane way to protect the animal. It may be that the Government could indulge in some job creation activity here by creating skills such as sheep whisperers and beaver whisperers to get these animals off the premises without any harm. This is a very good amendment, which we should support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those concluding remarks. Of course, we accept the outcome of her investigation of the situation. I think that that is a safer path, for her, than quoting the European Union control orders, which might be a little inflammatory in some parts of the House, though not on my side. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

75: Clause 16, page 18, line 21, at end insert “and the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons”

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, this amendment and the others grouped with it seek to add to the list of those who have a crucial part to play. None of us has anything but great respect for the work of the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, which has done a tremendous job in reviewing invasive non-native species and highlighting what needs to be done and how we can improve the situation. It would surely be hugely beneficial to have it involved in the process of issuing, revising or replacing the codes of practice for invasive non-native species. That committee is on record as being very supportive of the implementation of the Law Commission’s proposals and some time ago highlighted the need for this to be a priority for the Government. We think that there is a clear role for that committee, particularly against the background of there being more limited resources to hand for the Government in carrying out this crucial evaluative work.

Our remaining amendments involve the local authorities and local nature partnerships. The simple fact of the matter is that most local authorities do not have the capacity or the ability to assess biosecurity risks and to take a proactive or intelligence-led approach to reducing them. Two-thirds of our local authorities no longer employ any ecologists, according to the Association of Local Government Ecologists. The evidence suggests that ecological capacity within local government is stretched very thin indeed, but it has a very wide policy agenda. We are here debating this Bill because that agenda is extending, and we are trying to respond to those difficulties. There is clearly an ecological skills gap within the planning system and a clearer understanding of the specialist ecological competence is required, especially in understanding exactly what the discharge of statutory obligations involves. Having that clearer understanding would enable local government to allocate better its resources against the risks associated with the fact that it no longer has the level of technical expertise that it once had. When dealing with biosecurity issues such as diseases, pathogens and invasive non-native species, 75% of local government ecologists indicate that only “basic” or “capable” levels of competence are required at that stage. There is a worry about the ability of local authorities to play their part effectively, and that is why we would like a reference to local authorities in the Bill in addition to the crucial role of the Environmental Audit Committee.

It may be thought that I am putting enormous stress on a committee of the other place, but so much competence for dealing with these areas has been swept away that inevitably we have recourse to those obvious locales where expertise exists and can be called upon. The Environmental Audit Committee report has been of the greatest significance in the development of policy. I am seeking to strengthen the role of those who have some capacity to assist the Government, with their limited resources, in carrying out the necessary functions under the Bill. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the comments that I wish to make may have some relevance to the codes of practice that will accompany the Bill. Amendment 71, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which has already been debated, could have been a cue in its own right for a wide-ranging and interesting debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposed the definition of a species. A species is commonly defined as the largest extent of a group of organisms that is capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. That is similar to the definition that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was advocating, which also mentioned the exchange of genes. However, his definition did not include the fertility of the offspring as one of its conditions. Moreover, we know that bacteria of widely differing species can exchange genes via plasmids, which are small DNA molecules that can be separated physically from the chromosomal DNA. One might wish to exclude bacteria from the definition.

These are abstruse matters and I do not wish to pursue them further. Instead, I propose that in place of “invasive non-native species”, the legislation should be talking simply of “pests”. I assert that it is inappropriate to talk only of non-native species. The objection might be raised that the word “pest” is too vague to serve the purposes of this legislation. What is a pest in one context might be a harmless organism in another context. However, this is one of the realities that ought to be taken into account. I will mention the well known example of the English rabbit. When transferred to Australia, it became a major pest that threatened the viability of Australian agriculture. Rabbits destroyed the grazing land and by eating native plants and grasses exposed the top-soil and left it vulnerable to erosion. One way of overcoming an infestation is to alter the ecology by introducing a predator of the pest, or by some other means. In Australia in the 1950s, the ecology of the rabbits was altered radically by the introduction of a malign myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis in rabbits.

The point I wish to make is that we need to consider pests within their ecological contexts, and ecology can be severely disturbed by inadvertent human interventions. Often the effect of a human intervention is to diminish the diversity of the ecology by eliminating some of its organisms, which may allow others to propagate without restraint. Thus an organism that has hitherto been regarded as harmless may become a pest as a consequence of such disruption. This is an ever present hazard in intensive modern agriculture. The matter of whether an organism is native or non-native is beside the point.

An ancient example will serve as an illustration. It is provided by a variety of grasshopper that was originally confined to the Middle East, which has latterly invaded the entire African continent. This is the locust, of which the pestilential effects emerged when the advent of agriculture upset an ecological balance. The Book of Joel in the Old Testament provides a graphic description of a locust plague in the Middle East.

The point that I wish to make is that we should approach the problem of ecological imbalance not by programmes of localised pest control but in a holistic manner that takes a far wider ambit. Instead of relying on local pest control officers to deal with outbreaks of invasive species, we should be relying on our public sector research establishments to monitor our natural—and our unnatural—environments so as to guard against pestilential outbreaks and to suggest the necessary countermeasures. This reinforces a point that has already been made by my noble friend Lord Davies, and I hope that his comments might be taken into account at a later stage when we come to review the Government’s deliberations.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, those of us who were privileged to participate in the Defra visit the other day—an opportunity that many of your Lordships took up—will have been very impressed to see the care and control and the deliberate and constant testing and assessment that Defra uses before enabling any biological controls to be used for some of these invasive species. Obviously, that is one direction that is under examination for Japanese knotweed, that much-hated plant, but it sits outside the scope of this legislation, which focuses very much on new invasive species that are not ordinarily resident and where there is a potential for eradication to succeed. The Bill has a narrower target, but other pieces of legislation sit alongside it that tackle, for example, invasive non-native species that are a threat to plant and animal health. So the Bill sits within a much broader context.

The amendments focus on the need for wider consultation on the code of practice. It has always been the Government’s intent to engage a great deal with expertise, with stakeholders and with others on the code of practice, which will be a substantial and complex document that will certainly need a great deal of thought and care. We continue to think about how we should carry out that engagement, and we would like to take a little more time to consider those issues, including the option of undertaking a full public consultation on the code. I can commit that I will have a response on the issue before Report, but I assure your Lordships that it is our intent to have that kind of intensive engagement, including with a number of parties that have been named today. We would like to take this away and think a little more on it, as the code of practice will be complex. However, it is indeed the Government’s wish to be able to tap into that expertise and thinking in order to make the code as effective as possible.

On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her thoughtful and constructive response, and I certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.