Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 282:"Page 16, line 22, at beginning insert ““Having obtained a search warrant from a court,””" The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 282 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 288. Clause 43 makes it crystal clear that pesticides declared by the Secretary of State to be harmful to wildlife will not necessarily be illegal in any other context. Hence an inspector entering premises in search of those pesticides will, in effect, be saying, ““I believe these prescribed substances are within these premises and I believe they are being used against wildlife””. Under the terms of Clause 43 it will not be legal for an inspector to enter premises in search of these prescribed substances unless he believes they are being used illegally. There is a world of difference between an inspector entering, say, a farm and demanding to search a barn because he is seeking illegal pesticides, for instance, alfa chlorose—and a barn would be quite a good place to find some if any were present in the area—and that same inspector entering the farm and demanding access to all the land and buildings because he believes that certain pesticides are present and are or have been used against wildlife. In effect the burden of proof will not be possession, it will be usage. The purpose of the search is necessarily linked to the usage charge. We believe that in those circumstances possession of a search warrant is a minimum requirement. In another place my honourable friend James Paice raised the question of a six month delay in implementation to deal with publicity. How do the Government propose to publicise the changes that this clause will make to the keeping of particular pesticides, not just by gamekeepers but also by members of the general public? As this Bill stands, under Amendment No. 288 the Secretary of State may list pesticides which are harmful to wildlife, and that no one may have in their possession until he can prove that he has it in connection with one or more specified purposes. Any person authorised by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is to be classed as an inspector and will have the right to enter any premises, which means the same as all premises, to seek out listed pesticides. We have seen many Defra Bills, but I cannot recall one where the definition of ““premises”” did not exclude private dwellings. In fact, Schedule 5 to this very Bill—on page 58, which deals with group 1 offences, and on page 59, which deals with group 2 offences—contains the words:"““Nothing in this section confers power to enter a dwelling””," and,"““paragraph (c) does not confer any power to enter a dwelling””." This exclusion should extend on the face of the Bill to the definition of premises for the purposes of Clause 44. At the sixth sitting in Committee in another place, the Minister, Jim Knight, said:"““If it is a door to a dwelling, they must have a warrant from a justice of the peace, but if it is a gate to premises, such as to land or to a shed, they can go in and inspect””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 28/6/05; col. 187.]" As the Minister stated that in Committee, I am surprised that the Bill as it stands does not clarify the situation for private dwellings. When opening the debate on Clause 48 in another place, my honourable friend Jim Paice said:"““I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition condemn anybody who uses poison to kill birds of any species . . . It is already an offence to set poison for a bird and has been for 24 years””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 28/6/05; col. 162.]" The Minister will not be surprised when I express our concerns that Clause 43 as it stands reverses the burden of proof. In this instance, a person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession a pesticide containing an ingredient that is prescribed for the purposes of this section. The onus is clearly on the individual to prove that he had just cause to have this particular pesticide and to justify its intended use. We are grateful to the Minister for the other government amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 283 to 285. They are a welcome response to some of the concerns expressed in another place and by outside organisations. However, we still feel that, at the very least, a search warrant should be sought before entering premises is undertaken. I beg to move.